Calculation of Ecological Compensation Standards for Arable Land Based on the Value Flow of Support Services

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a good contribution to the body of knowledge. Nevertheless it needs to be improved further.

 

Introduction-Consider adding more references at international level.

L74-78-More studies at international level should be mentioned.

The previous studies at international level may be presented in detail.

 

2.1. Study Area-A map of the study áreas and its regions should be presented.

2.2 Methodology-Well presented-

L245-What provinces?

Results-Well presented and scientifically sound.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you~

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

About the submission with the title "How to compensate arable land based on the value flow of support services" I have the following comments:

 

From the title is a little hard to understand the main aims of the paper. I suggest to find another more appropriate.

 

The abstract is, also, confuse. For example, what the authors intend to say with "This paper focuses on the ecological protection of arable land behind China's food production, circulation and consumption, and builds a bridge between the socio-eco-nomic system and the ecological value system, taking the three staple foods as an example"?

 

I suggest that the authors rewrite the abstract with a clear specification of main motivations, objectives, methodologies and main insights.

 

The literature review should be extended and updated.

 

The methodoloy proposed in the subsection 2.2.1 needs to be justified by the literature and benchmarked with other approaches. The same happens with some statements, such as "This study only considers the three main staple foods of rice, wheat and corn.". This needs a scientific support and justification.

 

I am not convinced with the model proposed in the subsection 2.2.1. Please present a robust explanation and justification. The authors used these equations for any calculation?

 

The same happens in the subsection 2.2.2. Where are the scientific justifications for the approaches proposed and the benchmarking? In addition, I was serious difficulties to understand the values in table 1. Can you explain what are the unities of these values and how they were obtained?

 

How the authors obtained the figures and tables presented in section 3? What are the unities of these values? Are they similar or not with the findings of other researches?

 

The conclusions section needs to highlight the pratical implication of the study, policy recommendations and suggestions for future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you~

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest the authors insert the explanations presented in their responses to my report in the paper.