Spatial-Temporal Evolution and Relationship between Urbanization Level and Ecosystem Service from a Dual-Scale Perspective: A Case Study of the Pearl River Delta Urban Agglomeration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is an informative paper. Just need some good English revision.
-The abstract needs a total revision. The first sentence of the abstract is vague. Also, the "Since the 21st century", I assume means "Since the beginning of the 21st century"
-The values of Table 1 need proper elaborations. The table is just referred to, without any analysis.
-Please also take note of adjusting equation numbers, and also check for deleted space before [ or ( for instance change Xie[28] to Xie [28].
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Just need some good English revision.
Response 1: The paper has been revised again with better English expression.
Point 2: The abstract needs a total revision. The first sentence of the abstract is vague. Also, the ‘Since the 21st century’, I assume means ‘Since the beginning of the 21st century’.
Response 2: The abstract has been totally revised. The content is as follows.
“Abstract: Since the beginning of the 21st century, urbanization has brought about dramatic changes in population, livelihood and economy, while having a significant impact on the distribution of ecosystem service. As research on the relationship between urbanization and ecosystem service has gradually specified, we decided to explore it at different scales. In this paper, we quantified and mapped the spatial-temporal evolution and relationship between urbanization and ecosystem service value in the Pearl River Delta urban agglomeration from 2000-2019 based on a dual-scale perspective of county and 3km*3km raster. Our results show that the overall trend of urbanization level and ecosystem service value was increasing. Urbanization and ecosystem service value at the county scale showed a negative spatial correlation, while it was not significant at the raster scale. The "high-high" agglomeration was more concentrated, while the other three "low-low", "low-high" and "high-low" agglomerations were more dispersed. Our findings suggest it is crucial to identify the key factors of small urban areas in order to grasp the development mechanism in the urbanization process and maintain the balance of the ecosystem. ”
Point 3: The values of Table 1 need proper elaborations. The table is just referred to, without any analysis.
Response 3: The related analysis has been added in the paper. The content is as follows.
“It shows that ecosystem service value coefficient per unit area is on the rise during the period of 2000-2015 and then decrease. Water body contributes more than any other land use types, followed by wetland and woodland, with over 300 thousand, 100 thousand and 50 thousand yuan, respectively.”
Point 4: Please also take note of adjusting equation numbers, and also check for deleted space before [ or ( for instance change Xie[28] to Xie [28].
Response 4: The formatting of equation numbers has been all corrected, but I'm not sure if it will be changed by MS Word on other computers.
Point 5: English language and style: Moderate English changes required.
Response 5: The paper has been revised again with better English expression.
Reviewer 2 Report
An interesting method of analysis but which, as the authors say, is not relevant enough in terms of urban planning, being a complex system that has different approaches and typologies. The studied area is quite large and the changes are obvious where there are major changes so I consider that the analysis method can be used partially with fairly generic results. Perhaps in a future study the analysis will focus on a smaller area and try to obtain more accurate results.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The studied area is quite large and the changes are obvious where there are major changes so I consider that the analysis method can be used partially with fairly generic results. Perhaps in a future study the analysis will focus on a smaller area and try to obtain more accurate results.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your advice! In the future, smaller urban areas will be focused on to explore the relationship between its urbanization and ecology and then constructing its sustainable developmental mechanism. The content is as follows.
“As the factors influencing urban agglomerations are too complex, covering population, economic and living conditions as well as ecology, smaller urban areas will be focused on for specific exploration. How to identify the key factors of smaller urban areas, reveal their development mechanisms and maintain a balanced ecosystem therefore proves to be necessary in the urbanization process.”
Point 2: English language and style: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.
Response 2: The paper has been revised again with better English expression.
Point 3: Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? Can be improved.
Response 3: In this paper, the theoretical background has been re-analyzed. Some redundant parts have been removed and contents closely related to the topic of this paper have been revised.
Point 4: For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? Can be improved.
Response 4: The authors have reorganized the results, findings and arguments in this paper. Thank you for your suggestions and comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
The research is innovative and challenging.
The ecosystem service value coefficient per unit area of different land types is indicated in table 1. The contribution of water area seems to be much larger than the other area types. Wetlands would have been expected to contribute most to the ecological values. In r 590 - r 595 it is advised to set up as many eco-friendly land types in the edge of Fosham City as possible. I expect that this then would include, with priority, also water areas.
The research identifies a strong correlation between comprehensive urbanization level and ecosystem service value (r 422 - r 433). It is not a surprise that the ecosystem service value reduces with increase in comprehensive population and economy urbanization levels. It would be interesting to have an explanation added for the fact that the ecosystem service value in the contrary increases with an increase in life urbanization?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: In r 590 - r 595 it is advised to set up as many eco-friendly land types in the edge of Foshan City as possible. I expect that this then would include, with priority, also water areas.
Response 1: It is a nice suggestion and has been added to the paper. The content is as follows.
“for instance set up as many eco-friendly ones like water body and wetland in the edge of Foshan City as possible.”
Point 2: The research identifies a strong correlation between comprehensive urbanization level and ecosystem service value (r 422 - r 433). It is not a surprise that the ecosystem service value reduces with increase in comprehensive population and economy urbanization levels. It would be interesting to have an explanation added for the fact that the ecosystem service value in the contrary increases with an increase in life urbanization?
Response 2: It is reasonable to assume that the value of ecosystem services increases with increasing life urbanization. Life urbanization includes three indicators: energy consumption, education, and health care. On the one hand, reduced energy consumption leads to increased energy efficiency and prevents uncontrolled emissions of pollutants. On the other hand, people's awareness of environment protection and advanced technology brought by high education level promote the protection of ecological environment. As for healthcare, I am still thinking about how it affects ecosystem services. In fact, how specific factors affect the ecosystem requires more complex models to derive an accurate mechanism. The contents are as follows.
“The high level of life urbanization driven by increased energy efficiency, environmental awareness and advanced technology promotes environmental protection, which will greatly improve the value of ecosystems. However, how specific factors affect ecosystems requires more complex models to derive, such as system dynamics, neural networks, etc.”
Point 3: English language and style: I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style.
Response 3: The paper has been revised again with better English expression.
Point 4: Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? Can be improved.
Response 4: In this paper, the theoretical background has been revised. Some redundant content has been removed and parts closely related to the topic of this paper have been retained and added.
Point 5: Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? Can be improved.
Response 5: The authors have reorganized the language of some of the arguments and findings in this paper. Thank you for your suggestions and comments.
Point 6: Is the article adequately referenced? Can be improved.
Response 6: This article has a certain reference value in terms of innovation, but it still needs the criticism and correction of scholars in terms of scientificity. It would be honored if we had the opportunity to receive your specific advice and guidance.
