Mapping Cultural Ecosystem Services Enables Better Informed Nature Protection and Landscape Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript describes an analysis that links various types of information to assess cultural ecosystem services in two regions in Slovakia. The analysis appears to be sound.
This is fairly well written but it needs another edit. Some of the sentences are lengthy and run on, and some words made me pause to think about what was meant by the sentence. For example, in line 27, I would put a period after [1]. Then delete the “and”, capitalize the “T” on They, and a word is missing. Perhaps this is “They are combined IN the following classes: (1) … (3) supporting ES cover pollination and nutrient cycling WITH (4) cultural ES providing the…” Another example line 36, the word indicates may be what is meant rather than the word “records”.
The main issue I have with this manuscript is that research publications traditionally have a clear purpose or goal with objectives and/or hypothesis statement. It is not clear what the authors set out to prove. Lines 70-81 provides a description of the analyses that is conducted in this manuscript, but it is written as a description for an analysis. Furthermore, one of the points of the work seems to be that the coarse information available for national assessments is not detailed enough for cultural ecosystem services. Or to say that another way, detailed information is needed to properly assess for cultural ecosystem services at a national level. If this is the point the authors are trying to prove, then this analyses needs work to prove that. The title of this manuscript seems to indicate that landscape management is better informed with mapping of cultural ecosystem services. That seems like a reasonable result for any type of service, that more information is needed for landscape scale management as opposed to a national level assessment. However, it is unclear in this study as written as to how national-level assessments relate to the study. Are the authors trying to prove that cultural ecosystem services should not be assessed through national assessments because the national assessment is too coarse? Please be clear as to what the purpose of the research is, and what the results are.
Some other minor items: Lines 107-108. Terms such as “sadly” and calamity are not the kind of terms used in research papers. Saying a personal statement such as (line 107) ‘we have witnessed massive forest destruction’ without data or evidence or a citation is too subjective a statement. In fact, Lines 106-109 seem contradictory, starting with industry being timber, milk, and tourism, and then mining and dumpsites are mentioned. Please rewrite those four lines (L106-109) so that they are based on evidence. Widespread mortality from bark beetles can be described in that term. Perhaps the timber harvest is salvaging mortality or cutting trees before they die?
Lines 124-127 about QGIS: citing software like QGIS (which is licensed) needs additional information, such as website and version. Please improve the citation as appropriate.
Line 140: see the website for GRASS GIS software for the proper way to cite its use. https://grass.osgeo.org/download/
Please cite GRASS when using the software in your work. Here are some choices depending on the version used --- I am including an excerpt from that website, look closely.
GRASS Development Team, 2019. Geographic Resources Analysis Support System (GRASS) Software, Version 7.8. Open Source Geospatial Foundation. https://grass.osgeo.org GRASS Development Team, 2019. Geographic Resources Analysis Support System (GRASS) Programmer's Manual. Open Source Geospatial Foundation. Electronic document: https://grass.osgeo.org/programming7/ For more options, see also: GRASS GIS Citation Repository
Line 202-203: the term excessive timber harvesting. Again perhaps the harvesting is salvaging the bark beetle damage? Using words such as excessive calls for additional information to define excessive. A way to write this is something like “Other forested areas with widespread mortality, bark beetle damage, and notable timber harvesting are unfavorable for tourism in the near term. Although these can eventually return to a healthy state and again provide CES, …”
Line 253: the term forest disaster areas needs to be more objectively defined.
Author Response
Review Report Form 1 – authors’ response
Dear reviewer,
Many thanks for your detailed review and valuable comments. We have studied all your comments and tried to incorporate them into the text. We hope that manuscript is now more clear and sound. All contextual changes are marked in yellow. Besides that, whole manuscript was revised once more by native speaker.
This manuscript describes an analysis that links various types of information to assess cultural ecosystem services in two regions in Slovakia. The analysis appears to be sound.
This is fairly well written but it needs another edit. Some of the sentences are lengthy and run on, and some words made me pause to think about what was meant by the sentence. For example, in line 27, I would put a period after [1]. Then delete the “and”, capitalize the “T” on They, and a word is missing. Perhaps this is “They are combined IN the following classes: (1) … (3) supporting ES cover pollination and nutrient cycling WITH (4) cultural ES providing the…” Another example line 36, the word indicates may be what is meant rather than the word “records”.
The whole text was subject to language editing and proofreading, complex sentences were simplified.
The main issue I have with this manuscript is that research publications traditionally have a clear purpose or goal with objectives and/or hypothesis statement. It is not clear what the authors set out to prove.
Lines 70-81 have been reworded, now they reflect the goals of the study.
Lines 70-81 provides a description of the analyses that is conducted in this manuscript, but it is written as a description for an analysis.
See previous comment.
Furthermore, one of the points of the work seems to be that the coarse information available for national assessments is not detailed enough for cultural ecosystem services. Or to say that another way, detailed information is needed to properly assess for cultural ecosystem services at a national level. If this is the point the authors are trying to prove, then this analyses needs work to prove that.
Yes, this issue was one of our findings. To be clearer, we added a more explanation – to the methods (l. 116-121) and to the discussion section (l. 307-325). Furthermore, the more detailed results of our study are obvious from the comparisons of maps (figures 2-4)
The title of this manuscript seems to indicate that landscape management is better informed with mapping of cultural ecosystem services. That seems like a reasonable result for any type of service, that more information is needed for landscape scale management as opposed to a national level assessment.
The title of the manuscript does not highlight the comparison of spatial levels but generally, the usefulness of cultural ES for landscape management. To better support this assertion, the discussion was extended (l. 326-348).
However, it is unclear in this study as written as to how national-level assessments relate to the study. Are the authors trying to prove that cultural ecosystem services should not be assessed through national assessments because the national assessment is too coarse? Please be clear as to what the purpose of the research is, and what the results are.
As mentioned above, we tried better explain this issue (reworded goals + extended discussion).
Some other minor items:
Lines 107-108. Terms such as “sadly” and calamity are not the kind of terms used in research papers. Saying a personal statement such as (line 107) ‘we have witnessed massive forest destruction’ without data or evidence or a citation is too subjective a statement. In fact, Lines 106-109 seem contradictory, starting with industry being timber, milk, and tourism, and then mining and dumpsites are mentioned. Please rewrite those four lines (L106-109) so that they are based on evidence.
Whole paragraph was rewritten.
Widespread mortality from bark beetles can be described in that term. Perhaps the timber harvest is salvaging mortality or cutting trees before they die?
This is true only partly – there is also an excessive tree-cut in areas not affected by bark beetles. Nevertheless, the text was rewritten.
Lines 124-127 about QGIS: citing software like QGIS (which is licensed) needs additional information, such as website and version. Please improve the citation as appropriate.
Line 140: see the website for GRASS GIS software for the proper way to cite its use. https://grass.osgeo.org/download/
Please cite GRASS when using the software in your work. Here are some choices depending on the version used --- I am including an excerpt from that website, look closely.
GRASS Development Team, 2019. Geographic Resources Analysis Support System (GRASS) Software, Version 7.8. Open Source Geospatial Foundation. https://grass.osgeo.org GRASS Development Team, 2019. Geographic Resources Analysis Support System (GRASS) Programmer's Manual. Open Source Geospatial Foundation. Electronic document: https://grass.osgeo.org/programming7/ For more options, see also: GRASS GIS Citation Repository
Thanks, the references were refined.
Line 202-203: the term excessive timber harvesting. Again perhaps the harvesting is salvaging the bark beetle damage? Using words such as excessive calls for additional information to define excessive. A way to write this is something like “Other forested areas with widespread mortality, bark beetle damage, and notable timber harvesting are unfavorable for tourism in the near term. Although these can eventually return to a healthy state and again provide CES, …”
Thanks, this text was rewritten.
Line 253: the term forest disaster areas needs to be more objectively defined.
This text was rewritten.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of Sustainability-710504 “Mapping Cultural Ecosystem Services Enables Better Informed Nature Protection and Landscape Management”
This manuscript presents a spatial analysis of the cultural ecosystem services in two important regions of the Slovak Republic and compares findings with a national ecosystem assessment. Although the findings fall in line with expectations, the analysis is novel for a region that has been relatively unstudied. The assessment follows established methods in mapping and classification of ecosystem services and the manuscript is clearly organized and written. Overall, I have few suggestions to further improve the manuscript.
General Comments
Section 2.2 requires further details to convey the quality and robustness of the data. Although it is not uncommon to rely upon experts or stakeholders in studies of this form (when other data sources may not be available), further details on the process would benefit the reader. How were stakeholder interviews conducted, how were stakeholders selected for this project, how was the quality and completeness of the data provided vetted? Put another way, if a reader of this article tried to replicate this study in the same region, are we confident they would come to similar results. To address this, please consider expanding sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 with more complete details. Details on the existing national assessment of ecosystem services in Slovakia should be further expanded in order to (a) provide readers with a clear understanding of the currently available assessment, and (b) a more clear point of reference for your comparison. To increase the impact of the manuscript and broaden the interest and discussion, are you able to discuss any specific policies/proposals for the Slovak Republic that would relate to your findings and the improvement/degradation of ecosystem services?
Other Comments
At several junctures the manuscript uses phrases like “This is our oldest national park” (Page 3 line 100) or “Sadly, we have witnessed…” (Page 3 Line 107). The use of “our” and “we” is fine, but perhaps better replaced with “the nation’s” and “the ecosystem”.
Author Response
Review Report Form 2 – authors’ response
Dear reviewer,
Many thanks for your review and valuable comments. We have studied all your comments and tried to incorporate them into the text. We hope that manuscript is now more clear and sound. All contextual changes are marked in yellow. Besides that, whole manuscript was revised once more by native speaker.
This manuscript presents a spatial analysis of the cultural ecosystem services in two important regions of the Slovak Republic and compares findings with a national ecosystem assessment. Although the findings fall in line with expectations, the analysis is novel for a region that has been relatively unstudied. The assessment follows established methods in mapping and classification of ecosystem services and the manuscript is clearly organized and written. Overall, I have few suggestions to further improve the manuscript.
General Comments
Section 2.2 requires further details to convey the quality and robustness of the data. Although it is not uncommon to rely upon experts or stakeholders in studies of this form (when other data sources may not be available), further details on the process would benefit the reader. How were stakeholder interviews conducted, how were stakeholders selected for this project, how was the quality and completeness of the data provided vetted?
Description of stakeholder involvement into the research was added as a sub-section 2.2.1. (l. 127-137).
Put another way, if a reader of this article tried to replicate this study in the same region, are we confident they would come to similar results. To address this, please consider expanding sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 with more complete details.
Methodology section was extended; sub-sections were elaborated in more detail.
Methodology section was extended; sub-sections were elaborated in more detail.
Description of stakeholder involvement into the research was added as a sub-section 2.2.1. (l. 127-137).
Details on the existing national assessment of ecosystem services in Slovakia should be further expanded in order to (a) provide readers with a clear understanding of the currently available assessment, and (b) a more clear point of reference for your comparison.
National assessment served as a background for our research and comparative level for the results. Explanation of the methods and results would be out of scope and extent of our manuscript. Nevertheless, we added a more explanation about national assessment and comparison of results – to the methods section (l. 116-121) and to the discussion section (l. 307-325).
To increase the impact of the manuscript and broaden the interest and discussion, are you able to discuss any specific policies/proposals for the Slovak Republic that would relate to your findings and the improvement/degradation of ecosystem services?
The discussion of usefulness of our results (and cultural ES as a concept) for landscape management was more elaborated (lines 326-348). However, the emphasis is not at national level, but at the regional one.
Other Comments
At several junctures the manuscript uses phrases like “This is our oldest national park” (Page 3 line 100) or “Sadly, we have witnessed…” (Page 3 Line 107). The use of “our” and “we” is fine, but perhaps better replaced with “the nation’s” and “the ecosystem”.
The whole text was subject to language editing and proofreading.
Reviewer 3 Report
The subject is very interesting and relevant.
Materials and methods should be more detailed, namely the stakeholders interviews that are mentioned in 2.2 but do not appears in the results.
It should be presented the land use map that is mentioned in several parts of the text as it is an important material for CES classification.
It should be more explained the CES matrix with the presentation of the classification matrix by land use class - 2.2.2. In table 1 - historical landscapes structures appears booth as positive and negative elements???.
All the maps should be improved to have better reading namely: Fig 1 - it is not well visible the localization of the Microregion Terchovská dolina – consider to choose other colour. Fig 2, 3 and 4 - consider to invert the colour scale, it gives the impression that the best areas are the red ones.
Te text should be overall revised.
Author Response
Review Report Form 3 – authors’ response
Dear reviewer,
Many thanks for your review and valuable comments. We have studied all your comments and tried to incorporate them into the text. We hope that manuscript is now more clear and sound. All contextual changes are marked in yellow. Besides that, whole manuscript was revised once more by native speaker.
The subject is very interesting and relevant.
Materials and methods should be more detailed, namely the stakeholders interviews that are mentioned in 2.2 but do not appears in the results.
Methodology section was extended; sub-sections were elaborated in more detail.
Description of stakeholder involvement into the research was added as a sub-section 2.2.1. (l. 127-137).
It should be presented the land use map that is mentioned in several parts of the text as it is an important material for CES classification.
It should be more explained the CES matrix with the presentation of the classification matrix by land use class - 2.2.2.
Methodology was extended also in more detail about land-use maps and CES matrix (sub-section 2.2.2). Nevertheless, all LU classes and CES matrix are not presented because of excessive extent.
In table 1 - historical landscapes structures appears booth as positive and negative elements???.
Thanks for comment – it was a mistake.
All the maps should be improved to have better reading namely:
Fig 1 - it is not well visible the localization of the Microregion Terchovská dolina – consider to choose other colour.
Fig 2, 3 and 4 - consider to invert the colour scale, it gives the impression that the best areas are the red ones.
Fig 2: Graphical presentation of study areas was changed to be more clear. Fig 2-4: The legend was adjusted for better understanding.
The text should be overall revised.
The whole text was subject to language editing and proofreading.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I thank the authors for their responding to reviewers comments. The manuscript is much improved.
However, two of the items listed previously still need additional work. One is the readability/English usage. The text is largely improved but there are still words that are not only incorrect but which also was confusing so that I either had to stop and ponder the meaning or in places I am still not certain what is meant.
Some examples: line 26. First the term global. The sentence stands alone without the word global. Does global mean globally understood? A concept relevant at a global scale only? Secondly, does the concept prioritize the benefits or is the concept that benefits are valued such that humans can prioritize the benefits? Please provide clarity in the text.
Line 20, in abstract: the term established. The term indicated may be more appropriate here. In addition, the word “most” might better be the word “more”.
Line 48: delete work Therefore.
Line 56: not sure what unbalanced means. Please provide clarity in text.
Line 96: Location instead of localization
Line 110: Destroyed area—is the area destroyed, or are the trees destroyed on the area? Provide clarity.
Line 116-117: “we chose the same 3 ecosystem services…for the assessment” Does this mean the same items were chose for this local landscape assessment that were used in the national assessment? Be clear. Looking at the figures, such as figure 2, I wonder if the national assessment included permanent fixtures but did not include say forest health, where dead trees on the landscape may be viewed as eventually evolving to down wood with seedlings coming up in their place?
Line 129: the word them. Does them mean ‘these values’? if so please clarify.
Line 131: a colon should be used instead of semi-colon. Fix these occurrences through the manuscript.
Line 134: “and then map them.” Please clarify, did the respondents point to a map so that they mapped these features? This is a bit different than description in line 153-154.
Line 150: probably a colon, not semi-colon.
L143-151, and L160-175: please clarify the 0-5 rating and how it relates to the 1-3 impact rating. Also how was the land cover element rated (L148), by whom, and what was the approach to ensure the results were not biased?
I am not listing out everything, please go through one more time carefully.
An issue that is about content, L329-336: although this study is a comparison to national assessments, this paragraph indicates that even at local and regional levels CES were not considered. Is the purpose of the manuscript about national assessments, or about needing to do better with CES at all levels? Either way, please ensure text is consistent with the purpose.
L356-360, the conclusion seems to focus on ways to manage for economic benefits whereas the title focuses on nature protection and landscape management. Please ensure text is consistent with purpose and title.
Lastly, it is still unclear what is meant by Line 318, “this is because the national assessment uses less detailed data." Is it less detailed data, or are you considering relatively short term issues like large areas of damaged trees whereas the national assessment focused more on permanent structures and features in landscape? (I do not know if the national assessment focused only on more permanent features, it just looks odd to see large blocks of land with nothing on it in the national assessment. --see figures) I wonder if it is more than just the scale of the analysis. Whereas in this manuscript the implication is that it is the scale only.
Please clarify main point about the study conclusions in the text, and ensure readability.
Author Response
Many thanks to the reviewer for valuable comments!
We tried to fix all language-related comments and mistakes; the whole manuscript was also once more checked and hope this improved the correctness and soundness of the text.
To the content-related questions and comments:
- Looking at the figures, such as figure 2, I wonder if the national assessment included permanent fixtures but did not include say forest health, where dead trees on the landscape may be viewed as eventually evolving to down wood with seedlings coming up in their place?
The issue of differences between national and regional level-data was explained more clearly.
- L143-151, and L160-175: please clarify the 0-5 rating and how it relates to the 1-3 impact rating. Also how was the land cover element rated (L148), by whom, and what was the approach to ensure the results were not biased?
We added a brief explanation of this procedure.
- An issue that is about content, L329-336: although this study is a comparison to national assessments, this paragraph indicates that even at local and regional levels CES were not considered. Is the purpose of the manuscript about national assessments, or about needing to do better with CES at all levels? Either way, please ensure text is consistent with the purpose.
The aims of the study and also this part of discussion was modified.
- L356-360, the conclusion seems to focus on ways to manage for economic benefits whereas the title focuses on nature protection and landscape management. Please ensure text is consistent with purpose and title.
Related part of discussion was modified.
- Lastly, it is still unclear what is meant by Line 318, “this is because the national assessment uses less detailed data." Is it less detailed data, or are you considering relatively short term issues like large areas of damaged trees whereas the national assessment focused more on permanent structures and features in landscape? (I do not know if the national assessment focused only on more permanent features, it just looks odd to see large blocks of land with nothing on it in the national assessment. --see figures) I wonder if it is more than just the scale of the analysis. Whereas in this manuscript the implication is that it is the scale only.
The issue of differences between national and regional level-data was explained more clearly.
Once more thanks! We hope that the new version of the manuscript will be good enough to be published.
Authors
