Landscape Pattern Theoretical Optimization of Urban Green Space Based on Ecosystem Service Supply and Demand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The corresponding research focuses on mapping ecosystem services in two different spatial scales-administrative and more detailed scale of one meter grids. The ecosystem service of PM2.5 purification service was evaluated based on a budget analysis. The study proposes suggestions for optimization of the urban green space pattern. 1. Aside from all procedures for assessment of demand and supply for PM2.5 purification services, I would suggest the authors to introduce an objective function if they want to perform any types of optmization. The objective function, as a wholistic index for the study area, can be a number of regions that satisfies the demand within the 5th ring road of Beijing. The number of regions that satisfies the demand of PM2.5 purification can be changed depending on the spatial scale of inspection windows. 2. I think the two different 'optimization' options of the urban green space pattern, that the study proposed, is not actually an actual optimization, so that the authors need to change the names to more of a 'measures' or an 'options' to achieve the optimal performance for the whole study region in terms of efficient ecosystem service provision. 3. In spite of the works that the authors have done, I can hardly see any practical importance of the work. It is important and meaningful to evaluate the green infrastructures and ecosystem services they provide in different spatial scales and spatial distributions, yet the study fails to provide a appropriate optimization procedure for spatial planning of green infrastructures in urban areas as the title of the study suggests.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments on our manuscript entitled “Landscape pattern optimisation of urban green space based on ecosystem service evaluation” (ID: ijgi-1115715). Those comments are very valuable and helpful for us to improve the paper. And it also gives us a lot of important guidelines to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and made the final correction in the paper. Revised portion are clearly highlighted by using the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the comments are showed as flowing:

Response to Comment:

The corresponding research focuses on mapping ecosystem services in two different spatial scales-administrative and more detailed scale of one meter grids. The ecosystem service of PM2.5 purification service was evaluated based on a budget analysis. The study proposes suggestions for optimization of the urban green space pattern.

1.Comment: Aside from all procedures for assessment of demand and supply for PM2.5 purification services, I would suggest the authors to introduce an objective function if they want to perform any types of optmization. The objective function, as a wholistic index for the study area, can be a number of regions that satisfies the demand within the 5th ring road of Beijing. The number of regions that satisfies the demand of PM2.5 purification can be changed depending on the spatial scale of inspection windows.

1.Reply: We appreciate for your suggestion gratefully. The purpose of our study is mainly to build an easy-to–use evaluation method of ecosystem services supply and demand at the administrative unit scale and 1-m grid scale, to provide urban green space optimisation scheme for the administrative units with unbalanced ecosystem services supply and demand based on the two sales evaluation.

The regions with unbalanced ecosystem services supply and demand at administrative unit scale can be generated, and the results are used to further analysis. The research at 1-m grid scale is mainly to identify the partially smaller regions with severe shortage ecosystem services based on the administrative unite scale results for further urban green space optimisation.

However, due to the limitation of data acquisition conditions and research time, there are some uncertainties and limitations in our work. The reviewer's advice is useful for identifying areas where supply and demand of ecosystem services are in balance, and we will definitely refer to it when we expand our research.

2.Comment: I think the two different 'optimization' options of the urban green space pattern, that the study proposed, is not actually an actual optimization, so that the authors need to change the names to more of a 'measures' or an 'options' to achieve the optimal performance for the whole study region in terms of efficient ecosystem service provision.

2.Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. It is really true that our results can only provide a theoretical optimisation suggestion of urban green space for the regions with unbalanced ecosystem services supply and demand.

Now the title has been changed to " Landscape pattern theoretical optimisation of urban green space based on ecosystem service supply and demand".

3.Comment: In spite of the works that the authors have done, I can hardly see any practical importance of the work. It is important and meaningful to evaluate the green infrastructures and ecosystem services they provide in different spatial scales and spatial distributions, yet the study fails to provide a appropriate optimization procedure for spatial planning of green infrastructures in urban areas as the title of the study suggests.

3.Reply: Thank you so much for this suggestion. We want to build an easy-to–use evaluation method of ecosystem services supply and demand at two scales, provide a potential optimisation scheme of urban green space with the analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand. Actually, we can only provide urban green space theoretical optimisation suggestions and location. The Innovation of our study mainly include:

(1) First, this study analyzed the ecosystem services (ES) supply and demand at multiple scales and at a finer scale than existing studies.

(2) Second, the research results of ES were applied to the UGS optimisation, which makes up for the lack of consideration of population distribution and ES demand in the process of UGS construction.

(3) Third, the UGS ES supply and demand were quantified at the same units in order to be comparable.

In the Abstract and Discussion part of the original manuscript, we did not express our study work clearly. Now we have rewritten it. The rewritten part are on page1 and page17-18.

Please see the attachment  for detailed revision

Tank you for your insightful remarks again!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper takes important problem of urban green areas spatial distribution and evaluation of their ecosystem services. Paper structure and source materials are appropriate, but some chapters needs correction. The proposed methodology and use of detailed different data, e.g. satellite, GIS and monitoring, can be used in others urban areas to evaluation of urban vegetations. You present many detailed results but in my opinion the their  description is not enough.  I propose in the Results section to include influence urban green areas types and structure on the obtained results. At present this section is difficult to read. Below I mention some problems with your article.

General comments:

1. Title: In my opinion the title is bad chosen, the ‘Landscape pattern optimisation of urban green space based on ecosystem service evaluation’ is too narrow, in article is much more topics and materials.
2. Abstract section: I propose re-writing this text with only information about your investigation, research aims, methods and results.
3. Introduction section needs correction, I propose to add one paragraph with description of urban green areas typology, structure and function. You should correct this text and show reasons of your investigation and aims of this study.
4. Study area: I propose to add one paragraph with more detailed description of land use and spatial management (e.g. environmental protection) in the city. And add some information about vegetation and especially urban green areas, e.g. forms, typology etc. You may use the Fig. 2 in description.
5. Results: In my opinion in this section you can relate obtained results with urban green area types or structures. In whole article is not enough information about vegetation, especially green area types and their differentiation.
6. Discussion: In my opinion you can moved this paragraphs to the Introduction section. In this subchapter you have to present your results and to compare with subject literature. At the moment you haven’t any discussion.

Detailed comments are provided in the text (enclosed pdf).

To discussion:

1. Usage of terms: ‘urban green spaces’ in many sciences common use the term: ‘urban green areas’. The term; ‘space’ is abused and inappropriate.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments on our manuscript entitled “Landscape pattern optimisation of urban green space based on ecosystem service evaluation” (ID: ijgi-1115715). Those comments are very valuable and helpful for us to improve the paper. And it also gives us a lot of important guidelines to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and made the final correction in the paper. Revised portion are clearly highlighted by using the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the comments are showed as flowing:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

This paper takes important problem of urban green areas spatial distribution and evaluation of their ecosystem services. Paper structure and source materials are appropriate, but some chapters needs correction.

The proposed methodology and use of detailed different data, e.g. satellite, GIS and monitoring, can be used in others urban areas to evaluation of urban vegetations. You present many detailed results but in my opinion the their description is not enough.  I propose in the Results section to include influence urban green areas types and structure on the obtained results. At present this section is difficult to read. Below I mention some problems with your article.

General comments:

1.Comment: Title: In my opinion the title is bad chosen, the ‘Landscape pattern optimisation of urban green space based on ecosystem service evaluation’ is too narrow, in article is much more topics and materials.

1.Reply: Thanks for your valuable suggestion. The purpose of this study is to propose different UGS optimisation suggestions based on the ES supply and demand evaluation at two scales. However, we did not reflect the supply and demand in the title. Now the title has changed to " Landscape pattern theoretical optimisation of urban green space based on ecosystem service supply and demand".

2.Comment: Abstract section: I propose re-writing this text with only information about your investigation, research aims, methods and results.

2.Reply: We have re-written this part according to your suggestion. The rewritten Abstract section is as follows:

“Abstract: Assessing the supply and demand of urban green space (UGS) ecosystem services (ES) can provide relevant insights for urban planning. This study presents an analysis method for the spatial distribution of UGS ES supply and demand on administrative unit and 1-m grid scales, and directly compare the matches of ES supply and demand in spatially explicit maps at two scales. Based on the analysis results at administrative unit scale, the administrative unit with unbalanced UGS ES supply and demand were divided into three types: (Ⅰ) Lack of green space; (Ⅱ) Unreasonable green space structure; (Ⅲ) Comprehensive, and put forward different optimisation schemes; According to the analysis results at 1-m scale, the regions with unbalanced ES supply and demand of an administrative unit were divided into: (1) severe ES shortage area; (2) moderate ES shortage area; (3) mild ES shortage area, and the severe ES shortage area was taken as the UGS optimisation area. We take the UGS within the 5th ring road of Beijing as an example, and based on the evaluation of the UGS carbon sequestration services and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter < 2.5 µm (PM_2.5) purification services supply and demand, propose suggestions for optimisation of the UGS pattern. This study provides an easy-to-use evaluation method for the spatial distribution of UGS ES supply and demand, and propose different optimisation suggestions for the unbalance area, to play a role in UGS construction activities and the green space structure optimisation. “

3.Comment: Introduction section needs correction, I propose to add one paragraph with description of urban green areas typology, structure and function. You should correct this text and show reasons of your investigation and aims of this study.

3.Reply: We have made correction according to your comments. We deleted the second paragraph of the original Instruction, which is irrelevant to the topic, and added the description of UGS and the purpose of this study. The add paragraph is in the second paragraph of Introduction of the revised article.

4.Comment: Study area: I propose to add one paragraph with more detailed description of land use and spatial management (e.g. environmental protection) in the city. And add some information about vegetation and especially urban green areas, e.g. forms, typology etc. You may use the Fig. 2 in description.

4.Reply: We have increased expression to describe land use and space management of study area in more detail. The results of the changes are on page 3, lines 2-7. The information about UGS is added at the section: 2.2.1 GF-2 imagery and land use classification by using Fig. 2, and the additions are on page 4, lines 3-4.

5.Comment: Results: In my opinion in this section you can relate obtained results with urban green area types or structures. In whole article is not enough information about vegetation, especially green area types and their differentiation.

5.Reply: We gratefully appreciate for your valuable suggestion. In the original manuscript, we neglected the analysis on the ES supply capacity of different UGS types. Now we add it into the Results part (4.1. Evaluation results of the UGS ES in study area, page 10, lines18-27) according to the Reviewer’s t opinions, and add the table3.

6.Comment: Discussion: In my opinion you can moved this paragraphs to the Introduction section. In this subchapter you have to present your results and to compare with subject literature. At the moment you haven’t any discussion.

6.Reply: We have re-written this part according to your suggestion. In the revised article, we split the discussion into two parts: 5.1. Innovation of UGS optimisation based on ES evaluation and 5.2 Limitations and future directions.

The study results are compared with the existing studies, the innovation and limitations of this research are analysed, and the future work is prospected. The rewritten Discussion section is on Page17.

Comment: Detailed comments are provided in the text (enclosed pdf).

7.Comment: To discussion:

Usage of terms: ‘urban green spaces’ in many sciences common use the term: ‘urban green areas’. The term; ‘space’ is abused and inappropriate.

7.Reply: We totally understand the Reviewer’s concern. There are indeed many different terms for urban green space, but the urban green space has also been widely used, such as references 4, 5, 31, 34, 35, 39, 48 in this paper.

 

Special thanks again to you for your valuable comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the authors for this interesting and stimulating research, which I read with great pleasure. The study presents a multiscale analysis method for the spatial distribution of ecosystem services supply and demand in relation to Urban Green Area, and provides several suggestions for optimising these on the basis of the assessment results.
From the beginning, the article is very ambitious in achieving its aims and, as a matter of fact, the results support the methodology very well.
In order to allow the widest dissemination of the scientific article and a better readability, I suggest some changes and improvements especially regarding the structure of the article and bibliographic references:

• In the abstract and in the introduction it should be made clear that the methodology used follows an interscalar approach going to analyze various scales of study as specified in the section on methodology;
• In the introduction the statement "...Protection and utilization of natural resources have often been ignored during the urban development and construction...." is very important and needs more references. To support the statement "...however, the majority of the research focuses only on the application of the ES concept in policy formulation of urban planning..." I suggest three articles in which the performance of spatial transformations is assessed through the ecosystem services approach: 

  Salata, S., Ronchi, S., Arcidiacono, A., & Ghirardelli, F. (2017). Mapping Habitat Quality in the Lombardy Region, Italy. One Ecosystem, 2, e11402. https://doi.org/10.3897/ oneeco.2.e11402.
  2. Sallustio, L., De Toni, A., Strollo, A., Di Febbraro, M., Gissi, E., Casella, L., et al. (2017). Assessing habitat quality in relation to the spatial distribution of protected areas in Italy. Journal of Environmental Management, 201, 129-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/ J.JENVMAN.2017.06.031.
  3. Scorza, F., Pilogallo, A., Saganeiti, L., Murgante, B., & Pontrandolfi, P. (2020). Comparing the territorial performances of renewable energy sources' plants with an integrated ecosystem services loss assessment: A case study from the Basilicata region (Italy). Sustainable Cities and Society, 56, 102082.

• I understand the need to divide the various datasets and methodologies but there are too many subsections that from my point of view weigh down the reading. I suggest to remodel if possible. In addition, in paragraph 2.2 it is important, from my point of view, to bring out that most of the dataset was built by the authors so I would call it "Data source and processing".
• The map in Figure 3 is not very readable. Since you are representing the points of interest divided by categories, it would be better to support the map with a table in which you enter the number of POIs for each identified class..
  I also suggest to improve the resolution of the map.
• Paragraph 3: Since the methodology is full of intermediate steps and various analyses I would propose to the authors to build a conceptual scheme to be included in this paragraph that could be a guideline for the readers. 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments on our manuscript entitled “Landscape pattern optimisation of urban green space based on ecosystem service evaluation” (ID: ijgi-1115715). Those comments are very valuable and helpful for us to improve the paper. And it also gives us a lot of important guidelines to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and made the final correction in the paper. Revised portion are clearly highlighted by using the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the comments are showed as flowing:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

I would like to thank the authors for this interesting and stimulating research, which I read with great pleasure. The study presents a multiscale analysis method for the spatial distribution of ecosystem services supply and demand in relation to Urban Green Area, and provides several suggestions for optimising these on the basis of the assessment results.
From the beginning, the article is very ambitious in achieving its aims and, as a matter of fact, the results support the methodology very well.
In order to allow the widest dissemination of the scientific article and a better readability, I suggest some changes and improvements especially regarding the structure of the article and bibliographic references:

1.Comment: In the abstract and in the introduction it should be made clear that the methodology used follows an interscalar approach going to analyze various scales of study as specified in the section on methodology;

1.Reply: Thank you so much for your valuable suggestion. We have rewritten Abstract section and increased expression in the Introduction, in order to make the multi-scale analysis methodology of our study clearer. The rewritten Abstract section is on page1, lines 14-19. The additions of Introduction are on page 4, lines 1-4.

2.Comment: In the introduction the statement "...Protection and utilization of natural resources have often been ignored during the urban development and construction...." is very important and needs more references. To support the statement "...however, the majority of the research focuses only on the application of the ES concept in policy formulation of urban planning..." I suggest three articles in which the performance of spatial transformations is assessed through the ecosystem services approach: 

(1).Salata, S., Ronchi, S., Arcidiacono, A., & Ghirardelli, F. (2017). Mapping Habitat Quality in the Lombardy Region, Italy. One Ecosystem, 2, e11402. https://doi.org/10.3897/ oneeco.2.e11402.

(2). Sallustio, L., De Toni, A., Strollo, A., Di Febbraro, M., Gissi, E., Casella, L., et al. (2017). Assessing habitat quality in relation to the spatial distribution of protected areas in Italy. Journal of Environmental Management, 201, 129-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/ J.JENVMAN.2017.06.031.

(3). Scorza, F., Pilogallo, A., Saganeiti, L., Murgante, B., & Pontrandolfi, P. (2020). Comparing the territorial performances of renewable energy sources' plants with an integrated ecosystem services loss assessment: A case study from the Basilicata region (Italy). Sustainable Cities and Society, 56, 102082.

2.Reply: We gratefully appreciate for these articles you provided us and have read it carefully. But we deleted the second paragraph of the original Instruction, which is irrelevant to the topic, and added the description of UGS and the purpose of this study. The new added paragraph is in the second paragraph of Introduction of the revised article.

3.Comment: I understand the need to divide the various datasets and methodologies but there are too many subsections that from my point of view weigh down the reading. I suggest to remodel if possible. In addition, in paragraph 2.2 it is important, from my point of view, to bring out that most of the dataset was built by the authors so I would call it "Data source and processing".

3.Reply: We gratefully appreciate for your valuable suggestion. We have changed the title of paragraph 2.2 to “Data source and processing”. In addition, for the convenience of reading, we have remodel the data section and combined the basic data of spatialization of population into a paragraph according to your suggestions (See 2.2.2 Basic data of population spatialisation, page4.).

4.Comment: The map in Figure 3 is not very readable. Since you are representing the points of interest divided by categories, it would be better to support the map with a table in which you enter the number of POIs for each identified class.

4.Reply: Thanks for your suggestion. As the above reply, we have remodeled the data section, and decided that Figure 3 does not make much sense, so we chose to remove it.

5.Comment: I also suggest to improve the resolution of the map.

5.Reply: Thank you so much for your attention on the details. We have replaced all the figure in the article with high resolution ones.

6.Comment: Paragraph 3: Since the methodology is full of intermediate steps and various analyses I would propose to the authors to build a conceptual scheme to be included in this paragraph that could be a guideline for the readers. 

6.Reply: We gratefully appreciate for your valuable suggestion. We have built the conceptual scheme of methodology as shown in Figure 4, page6.

Special thanks again to you for your valuable comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper proposes an articulate spatial evaluation for UGS ES supply and demand including multi-scale analysis and spatially explicit maps. Results are linked with planning issues and policies implication are presented (see tab. 2)

The research structure and the quality of the discussion are valuable. Data sources are well identified and described.

Concerning classification, the study reefers to the MEA and probably a comparison with CICES classification could better position the results in a more up-to-date reference. From my point of view this is not crucial but it can represents an improvement for the research. 

Concerning point 3.1.2 you didn't provide information about the radius of kernel density and other hypothesis through which you applied the kernel estimation. Kernel is quite weak in determining quantitative estimation of cumulative effect according to a spatial distribution. It is very effective in representing such phenomena on a map. Please deepen this part of the work providing a stronger discussion.

FIGURE 6 the legend is missing in all pictures

Point 3.3 budgeting ES is based on the assumption that the balance between demand and supply has to be reached in the same territorial unit. But people living in an under-supplied unit may benefit of the UGS of the closest neighbourhood (?). Please argue your position about.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments on our manuscript entitled “Landscape pattern optimisation of urban green space based on ecosystem service evaluation” (ID: ijgi-1115715). Those comments are very valuable and helpful for us to improve the paper. And it also gives us a lot of important guidelines to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and made the final correction in the paper. Revised portion are clearly highlighted by using the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the comments are showed as flowing:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

The paper proposes an articulate spatial evaluation for UGS ES supply and demand including multi-scale analysis and spatially explicit maps. Results are linked with planning issues and policies implication are presented (see tab. 2)

The research structure and the quality of the discussion are valuable. Data sources are well identified and described.

1.Comment: Concerning classification, the study reefers to the MEA and probably a comparison with CICES classification could better position the results in a more up-to-date reference. From my point of view this is not crucial but it can represent an improvement for the research.

1.Reply: Thank you so much for your authoritative suggestion. We have referred to the latest CICES classification of ecosystem services (V5.1) and replaced the relevant sections of the article, the modified part is on page 6, lines.

2.Comment: Concerning point 3.1.2 you didn't provide information about the radius of kernel density and other hypothesis through which you applied the kernel estimation. Kernel is quite weak in determining quantitative estimation of cumulative effect according to a spatial distribution. It is very effective in representing such phenomena on a map. Please deepen this part of the work providing a stronger discussion.

2.Reply: Thank you so much for your careful check. As for kernel density radius, we finally determined 500m after conducting experiments every 100m in the range of 0-1Km, which can ensure that ES can be distributed recursively with distance in space. We missed this expression in the original manuscript, and now we have added relevant expressions on page 7, lines 35-37.

3.Comment: FIGURE 6 the legend is missing in all pictures

3.Reply: Thank you so much for your careful check. We have checked all the picture and corrected all of them for minor errors. We also replaced all the figure in the article with high resolution ones.

4.Comment: Point 3.3 budgeting ES is based on the assumption that the balance between demand and supply has to be reached in the same territorial unit. But people living in an under-supplied unit may benefit of the UGS of the closest neighbourhood (?). Please argue your position about. 

4.Reply: We gratefully appreciate for your comment. The budget  just is an index that measure the difference between ES supply and demand in the same territorial unit. There is no assumption that the balance between demand and supply has to be reached. If the>0, that indicates the UGS ecosystem services supply cannot meet human demand, while  indicates that the UGS ecosystem services supply can meet human demand. The calculation result of  is the basis for us to judge whether the ES supply and demand of a regional is balanced or not.

Special thanks again to you for your valuable comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am not sure all the comments were properly answered by the authors. However, the authors limited their scope with the changed the title, which is fine for me. I think the paper can draw attention for urban planners especially focusing on GI.

Author Response

Dear  Reviewer:

         Thank you for your comments on our manuscrip (ID: ijgi-1115715). Those comments are very valuable and helpful for us to improve the paper. And it also gives us a lot of important guidelines to our researches. We have studied the  comments of all reviewers   carefully and made correction in the paper before. (Please see the attachment.)

           We have made a second revision to the article. Thank you for your recognition and insightful remarks again!

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion this article can be publish in the International Journal of Geo-Information  after minor revision. I suggest language correction of this article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments on our manuscrip (ID: ijgi-1115715). Those comments are very valuable and helpful for us to improve the paper. 

We have made a second revision to the article (Please see the attachment.). Thank you for your recognition and insightful remarks again!