Review of Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services and Realization Approaches in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The article has undergone several improvements. I appreciate that the authors tried to deal with every comment.

The manuscript is now labeled as a Review, the structure of which it fulfills. Thematically, it belongs in this journal.

Unfortunately, I still see a problem with the depth of analysis. The manuscript covers a very broad topic (but they are related) and, as a result, goes into relatively little depth in the individual subsections. It only describes the situation based on a few literature sources and does not end with derivation, overview, recommendation, or identification of main/alternative methods.

 

What should be the main contribution of the submitted review?

There is a simple description of the situation without giving any context, i.e., whether it is the only approach, the prevailing approach, and whether it has any advantages or limitations for use in a national environment. Whether there is a trend or a change in the approach to ES evaluation.

What is the specificity of forest ES?

It is desirable that, at least in the Conclusion chapter, there is some conclusion about what the above situation implies.

However, the statements need to be actually stated in the text and not as rows 546-547 "Factors such as the accuracy of remote sensing images and the standardization and granularity of forest stand surveys influence the modeling outcomes."  One can agree with this statement, but nowhere in the paper is this topic analyzed/documented or any relevant study cited. In this context, it should be deleted.

Chapter 2.2 contains variously detailed descriptions of the four models and, unfortunately, ends there. Where are their evaluation, inter-comparison, and recommendations (for the reader)?

Why is subchapter 2.4 dedicated to the "Forest Carbon Valuation" service? The others forest ES are not described in this detail. If it is well justified, it is OK, but now this way, it gives an unsystematic impression.

I strongly recommend renaming Chapter 3. The title doesn't make much sense. Both topics (bibliography and description of trends) are certainly yes.

If the review is from the listed publication data, then the analysis of sources (bibliography) should be included much earlier in the text so that the source/input set of information and what it implies is described.

r. 347 - too general statement

r. 355-364 - if this is the result of your review, it should be highlighted in the Conclusion as new/derived information.

r. 409 - unexplained abbreviation PES; quite a big jump from the example of selected forest services to one possible approach to paying for ES. Is the described approach intended for all groups of ES (regulatory, production, cultural, ...).

formal comments

 r.111 -  chapter 1.1 should be 2.1

Poor quality of figures. Maybe only in the pdf sent, but most of the text in the figures cannot be read. We need to supply higher-resolution images.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

1. The article has undergone several improvements. I appreciate that the authors tried to deal with every comment. The manuscript is now labeled as a Review, the structure of which it fulfills. Thematically, it belongs in this journal. Unfortunately, I still see a problem with the depth of analysis. The manuscript covers a very broad topic (but they are related) and, as a result, goes into relatively little depth in the individual subsections. It only describes the situation based on a few literature sources and does not end with derivation, overview, recommendation, or identification of main/alternative methods.

Response: Thank you very much for your great effort and your further review of this article. When we revise the manuscript, we also realize the depth of the thesis writing, which is not easy to grasp, because these aspects are more related to the combination of theory and application which covers a lot of ecological issues in China. We think the main purpose of this review is to let readers understand the current problems and countermeasures of China 's forest ecosystem service value assessment and value realization, so there are many descriptions of the current situation. Following your advices, we really have a great improvement for our manuscript and made a very large revision for the manuscript structure. In particular, in the part of bibliometrics, I added more in-depth analysis.

 

1. What should be the main contribution of the submitted review?

Response: This review focuses on the valuation methodologies and research advancements in forest ecosystem services in China, as well as the pathways for realizing their value. We think the main contribution of this review is to give the reader an whole picture of what has been done in China based on ecosystem service valuation in the context of ecological civilization, such as carbon neutralilty and ecological restoration, especially in the policy-oriented context where FES valuation is used in practice. Much attention has been paid to the method, case studies of FES, but the problems in practice in China have not been seriously summarized.

2. There is a simple description of the situation without giving any context, i.e., whether it is the only approach, the prevailing approach, and whether it has any advantages or limitations for use in a national environment. Whether there is a trend or a change in the approach to ES evaluation.

Response: Thank you for your comments, for the valuation of FES, the relevant research methods in China are summarized. For the guideline, the research methods in the guidelines are also diversified. Therefore, in the research methods section, the FES assessment methods is further discussed, especially if there are any advantages or limitations in using them when conducting research at different scales. For the trends of FES, we further added the VOSviewer results based on Web of Science (WOS). Also, in the descpritions of differnent approaches, we have a further improvement for some change in the methods.

3. What is the specificity of forest ES?

Response: In China, carbon neutrality has drawn a lot of interest in China, where it is also connected to sustainable development policies and carbon trading. As the largest carbon sink, forests are already employed in many locations as a means of value realization, particularly in mountainous regions with substantial forest cover. So our study focused on forests.

4. It is desirable that, at least in the Conclusion chapter, there is some conclusion about what the above situation implies.

Response: Thank you for your comments. In the revised manuscript, we totally rewrite the conclusion as follows:

In this study, we have examined the current advancements on FES methodologies and their ecosystem service value realization pathways in China. We have analyzed the primary models and methods employed in the country for FES assessment, including the InVEST model, ARIES model, emergy analysis, and value transfer approach. Further, bibliometric analysis of FES in China exhibited the research trends that socio-economic related studies have gained more and more importance for value realization. We identified several challenges and offering suggestions. Also, the importance of forest carbon valuation and the uncertainties and challenge of FES valuation were presented. Although recent years have seen the diversification of ecological product value realization pathways, while due to various restrictions, many domestic forest ecological product value realization paths still remain at the pilot and exploration stage. Consequently, there is a limited pool of experiences to learn from, promote, and replicate, leading to under-realized ecological product value. As a result, in order to promote the ecological product value realization for China's forest ecological product, it still needs to be improved from the mechanism design perspective. To improve the effectiveness of policy management, future research should prioritize interdisciplinary, multi-method integration, and fine assessment of FES values at small and medium scales to improve the effectiveness of policy management. By doing so, we can better understand the complex relationships between ecosystems and economic and social systems, and identify effective strategies for promoting FES value in China.

In conclusion, our study highlights the importance of FES value assessment in promoting sustainable forest management and ecosystem services in China. By addressing the challenges associated with FES value assessment and identifying effective value realization pathways, we can promote the sustainable use and management of forest ecosystems, and improve the well-being of both human societies and ecosystems.

5. However, the statements need to be actually stated in the text and not as rows 546-547 "Factors such as the accuracy of remote sensing images and the standardization and granularity of forest stand surveys influence the modeling outcomes." One can agree with this statement, but nowhere in the paper is this topic analyzed/documented or any relevant study cited. In this context, it should be deleted.

Response: Thank you for your advice and careful reading. For the value realization aspect, the methodology is an important aspect that leads to uncertainty in the valuation. Based on your suggestion, I have delted this specific content in conclusion and added the general description of the content.

6. Chapter 2.2 contains variously detailed descriptions of the four models and, unfortunately, ends there. Where are their evaluation, inter-comparison, and recommendations (for the reader)?

Response: Based on your suggestion, we have added a explanation on the comparison and exposition between the different models. As there are great diffencnes for these models, we think it is no need to add a table to compare these models. The explanations are as follows: The application scenarios to which different methods or models apply vary widely, the objects to be evaluated vary, and the processes and steps of evaluation also vary widely. For the FES valuation, the corresponding methods need to be selected based on the characteristics of the study area, the reliability of data sources, etc.

7. Why is subchapter 2.4 dedicated to the "Forest Carbon Valuation" service? The others forest ES are not described in this detail. If it is well justified, it is OK, but now this way, it gives an unsystematic impression.

Response: In the description of carbon services, I added a paragraph specifically pointing out the importance of carbon in China, and since this section is rather unique, we reorganized the structure of the manuscript and changed the title of this section to Research trends and key issues of FES valuation in China. Also, in this part, Bibliometric analysis of FES and Uncertainties and challenge of FES valuation were included.

8. I strongly recommend renaming Chapter 3. The title doesn't make much sense. Both topics (bibliography and description of trends) are certainly yes.

Response: Based on the bibliometric approach, it is possible to see new disciplinary growth points that are currently emerging in the study of forest ecosystem services, especially the relationship of value studies associated with socio-ecomonic aspects.

To have a better reading, we reorganized the structure of the manuscript and moved this part to “Research trends and key issues of FES valuation in China”. See the revised manuscript in 3.1 section. 

9. If the review is from the listed publication data, then the analysis of sources (bibliography) should be included much earlier in the text so that the source/input set of information and what it implies is described.

Response: Thank you for your advice. The analysis of sources (bibliography) is only for FES assessment. We first put it to the earlier parts, but found it is not the mainbody of the manuscript. So we restructured the manuscript and renamed the third part as Research trends and key issues of FES valuation in China. Then we put it in 3.1

10. 347 - too general statement

Response: We changed this sentence to “Currently, remote sensing technology has been widely applied in assessing ecosystem services, particularly demonstrating significant advantages in obtaining spatial distribution and temporal change information. ”

 

11. 355-364 - if this is the result of your review, it should be highlighted in the Conclusion as new/derived information.

Response: Thank you for you notice. The paragraph are not all the direct results of our review. We moved it to the end of the current Section 3: Research trends and key issues of FES valuation in China. The part belong to the 3.3 Uncertainties and challenge of FES valuation. Also the references were listed.

12. 409 - unexplained abbreviation PES; quite a big jump from the example of selected forest services to one possible approach to paying for ES. Is the described approach intended for all groups of ES (regulatory, production, cultural, ...).

 

Response: Thank you for youcomments. We explained the PES as follows: In general, payment for ecosystem services (PES) has gradually become an important measure to promote the supply of ecosystem services and is still considered one of the most effective ways to improve ecosystems and realize the value of ecosystem services. PES is a market-based mechanism that involves compensating FES providers for maintaining or enhancing the provision such as clean water, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity conservation. It can incentivize landowners or resource managers to adopt sustainable land-use practices and contribute to the conservation of forest resources.

13. 111 -  chapter 1.1 should be 2.1

Response: Thank you for your careful comments. We corrected this mistakes.

14. Poor quality of figures. Maybe only in the pdf sent, but most of the text in the figures cannot be read. We need to supply higher-resolution images.

Response: We actually provided the high-resolution images and maybe the resolution decreased during the submission duo the file conversion.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors reviewed the valuation and  realization approaches of forest ecosystem services (FES) in China. It is a very interesting topic and worth studying. Also, FES in China is little known in the previous literature. The figures drawn by authors look very nice and clear.

Major concerns:

1.       One of the drawbacks is that methodology part is too general and oversimplified. In the line 320-321, the authors just briefly mentioned what kind of database they are using, how many literature they include in the review and keywords, not a single word about the exclusion criteria of the literature review. The time span of review is also missing in the main text. Besides, the methodology section shows up quite late in the manuscript.

2.       Another drawback is that there is no data backing up the arguments made by authors. Some texts are quite insightful, but I have no idea where this conclusion or opinion comes from. For example, in the line 19-20, author mentioned “ with the InVEST model being extensively employed. ” In line 358-359, authors mentioned “research methods are mainly market value methods”. Also, in line 361, “there are few case studies on non-use values. There is no figure backing up above arguments and this happens a lot through the article. For each argument, authors were just citing other scholars’ papers and simply giving conclusions.

3.       The authors introduced many technical terms in the manuscript, but rarely give explanation, such as “selection value”, “exit compensation”, “InVEST model.

4.       English needs extensive editing. There are many typos and grammar mistakes throughout the article

5.       When authors introduced some policy contexts, they should at least put some explanation in the footnote, such as “clear water and green mountains”, “mountains of gold and silver”, “Beautiful China”, and “Dual carbon”. Maybe these terms are quite common for authors, but for readers who are familiar with Chinese policies, they have no idea what’s this about.

6.       Authors should be very careful about what kind of reference they are using, and I believe some of them are not correct.

Minor issues:

1.       Forest ecosystem service is short for FES, and authors could introduce this acronym at very first beginning so that they do not have to repeat the full name again.

2.       Repetition. Authors have already introduced four types of FES in line 53-55, but line 123-126 mentioned that again.

3.       Line 54, when first mentioning MA approach, authors should tell us what stands for MA.

4.       Line 78, I believe citation [16] is not the right one for those policy documents (i.e., “clear waters and green mountains”).

5.       Line 81-83, authors mentioned “recent data indicates China’s forest ecological construction effort”, but they are referring to one citation [18] back in 1999.

6.       Line 127-130, “there are nine assessment index systems for soil conservation, forest nutrient fixation….” I think you mean “ there are nine assessment index systems, including soil conservation, forest nutrient fixation….”

7.       Line 146-147, Meta analysis is not a transfer method, and it is a research process used to systematically synthesise or merge the findings of single, independent studies. I think here you mean meta-analysis value transfer approach.

8.       Figure 2 reveals economic value of ecosystem service per unit area but not mentioning in what year.

9.       Line 159, grammar mistake, “the value represents the potential ability…”

10.   Line 163-164, what weight factor table? this term have never been mentioned before.

11.   Line 180, typo, “for instance,,” two commas after instance

12.   Line 188, grammar mistake, “ the model calculates uses…” two verbs in one sentence

13.   Line 190, data input is non-countable.

14.   Line 194, “the first two models” should be followed with hyphen, then model names.

15.   Line 195, missing comma between “information” and “which”.

16.   Line 200, missing comma after “scenario”.

17.   Line 207, grammar mistake, “it’s still limits to…”

18.   Line 213,  when first mentioning “SoLVES”, authors should tell us what stands for “SoLVES”.

19.   Line 215, no citation for “SoLVES” model.

20.   Line 218, no citation for “ARIES” model.

21.   Line 232, “fisheries” is not ecosystem service.

22.   Line 240, not sure what do you mean “regional limitations”

23.   Line 244-245, grammar mistake, “market value theoretical perspectives”

24.   Line 247, substitute “between” with “among”

25.   Line 271, substitute “cause much high attention”  with “attract lots of attention”

26.   Line 278, comma should be added in between “China” and “while”

27.   Line 279, plurals “statistical approaches”

28.   Line 281, please rephrase the sentence, “Uncertainties exist…” sounds more right.

29.   Line 283, tenses are different between “vary” and “generated”. The seventh forest inventory is in which year?

30.   Line 308, should be “for validating….”

31.   Line 343, grammar mistake “with integration, dynamism, spatial explicit, and participatory”

32.   Line 352, “time and resolution of remote sensing”, you mean “temporal and spatial resolution of remote sensing”? Please clarify.

33.   Line 386-388, there is no citation for this “guidance on the …”

34.   Line 409, when first mentioning “PES”, authors should tell us what stands for “PES”.

35.   Line 430, no citation for “dual carbon”

36.   Line 467-468, what are “positive and negative lists”? Please clarify.

37.   Line 460, what do you mean “they will be rewarded for the excess” you mean “they will be compensated?”

38.   Line 475, typo, should be “labelling”

39.   Line 482, “China should step up efforts to promote forest certification”, please clarify “step up efforts”

40.   Line 487, should be “forest products”

41.   Line 488, should be “ entitled to create…”

42.   Line 494, what is “characteristic economic forestry industry” please clarify

43.   Line 512-513, repetition, “ecological tourism and forest recreation” and “ecotourism with forest recreation”

44.   Line 515, what is “extensive development mode”?

45.   Line 547, no subject, “although recent years have seen…”

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

The authors reviewed the valuation and realization approaches of forest ecosystem services (FES) in China. It is a very interesting topic and worth studying. Also, FES in China is little known in the previous literature. The figures drawn by authors look very nice and clear.

Response: Thank you for your comments.

Major concerns:

1. One of the drawbacks is that methodology part is too general and oversimplified. In the line 320-321, the authors just briefly mentioned what kind of database they are using, how many literature they include in the review and keywords, not a single word about the exclusion criteria of the literature review. The time span of review is also missing in the main text. Besides, the methodology section shows up quite late in the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for your advice. As we responded to Reviewer 1, we first put it to the earlier parts, but found it is not the mainbody of the manuscript. So we restructured the manuscript and renamed the third part as Research trends and key issues of FES valuation in China. Then we put it in 3.1. As this part is only the analysis of bibliography for FES assessment.

In addition, we add the analysis of web of science. Detailed information and content specific to database searches is added. Details are given in the 3.1 section.

In this study, the research progresses of FES were visually represented by the widely used bibliometric analysis software VOSviewer (van Eck and Waltman, 2010). We used the keywords "forest ecosystem service", "valuation", and "China" to search for literature in the main databases of Web of Science (WOS) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from 2014 to 2023. We read the article titles, and some abstracts to make sure that the retrieved literature are all closely related to the research topic. Finally, we obtained a total of 1350 publications from the CNKI database and 876 papers from the WOS database. To determine the state of the science and the future research direction, the distribution of key words of the literatures were examined.

2. Another drawback is that there is no data backing up the arguments made by authors. Some texts are quite insightful, but I have no idea where this conclusion or opinion comes from. For example, in the line 19-20, author mentioned “ with the InVEST model being extensively employed. ” In line 358-359, authors mentioned “research methods are mainly market value methods”. Also, in line 361, “there are few case studies on non-use values. There is no figure backing up above arguments and this happens a lot through the article. For each argument, authors were just citing other scholars’ papers and simply giving conclusions.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The author acknowledges that some of the conclusions may be based on common sense and therefore did not provide a detailed analysis. However, during the revision process, we carefully examined the relevant content and provided references to support our arguments.

 

3. The authors introduced many technical terms in the manuscript, but rarely give explanation, such as “selection value”, “exit compensation”, “InVEST model.

Response: Thank you for your reminder. This study further explains the relevant technical terms.

4. English needs extensive editing. There are many typos and grammar mistakes throughout the article.

Response: The English of the paper has been polished by a native speaker and underwent significant revisions, including the correction of grammar errors.

5. When authors introduced some policy contexts, they should at least put some explanation in the footnote, such as “clear water and green mountains”, “mountains of gold and silver”, “Beautiful China”, and “Dual carbon”. Maybe these terms are quite common for authors, but for readers who are familiar with Chinese policies, they have no idea what’s this about.

Response: Thank you for your notice. The Chinese policy context is further elaborated. Also, some terms are deleted. The main revision is as follows: In China, the protection and construction of forest ecosystems has further advanced the concept of "lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets". Amid China's high-quality development context, the ecological civilization construction, the coordinated management of mountains, waters, forests, farmland, lakes and grassland, and the assessment of FES has become increasingly important

6. Authors should be very careful about what kind of reference they are using, and I believe some of

Response: The authors further checked the relevant references and eliminated some references that were not directly relevant.

Minor issues:

1. Forest ecosystem service is short for FES, and authors could introduce this acronym at very first beginning so that they do not have to repeat the full name again.

Thank you for the suggestion. We utilized FES as the abbreviation of forest ecosystem service in the whole text.

2. Repetition. Authors have already introduced four types of FES in line 53-55, but line 123-126 mentioned that again.

We deleted the repeated sentences.

3. Line 54, when first mentioning MA approach, authors should tell us what stands for MA.

We added the full name for MA.

4. Line 78, I believe citation [16] is not the right one for those policy documents (i.e., “clear waters and green mountains”).

We checked the reference and corrected this mistake.

5. Line 81-83, authors mentioned “recent data indicates China’s forest ecological construction effort”, but they are referring to one citation [18] back in 1999.

We checked the reference and corrected this mistake.

6. Line 127-130, “there are nine assessment index systems for soil conservation, forest nutrient fixation….” I think you mean “ there are nine assessment index systems, including soil conservation, forest nutrient fixation….”

We corrected this mistake.

7. Line 146-147, Meta analysis is not a transfer method, and it is a research process used to systematically synthesise or merge the findings of single, independent studies. I think here you mean meta-analysis value transfer approach.

We corrected it to meta-analysis value transfer approach.

8. Figure 2 reveals economic value of ecosystem service per unit area but not mentioning in what year.

Thank you for your notice. We revised this sentence as Consequently, the land use table can be converted into a table of ecosystem service values in the study area for that year in the calculation

9. Line 159, grammar mistake, “the value represents the potential ability…”

Thank you for your notice. We corrected this mistake.

10. Line 163-164, what weight factor table? this term have never been mentioned before.

Thank you for your notice. We corrected this mistake.

11. Line 180, typo, “for instance,,” two commas after instance

We corrected this mistake.

12. Line 188, grammar mistake, “ the model calculates uses…” two verbs in one sentence

We corrected this mistake.

13. Line 190, data input is non-countable.

We corrected this mistake.

14. Line 194, “the first two models” should be followed with hyphen, then model names.

We added the hyphen.

15. Line 195, missing comma between “information” and “which”.

We corrected this mistake.

16. Line 200, missing comma after “scenario”.

We revised it as “The scenario generator tool can be used to construct different land use and climate change scenarios, such as trend, development, and conservation”.

17. Line 207, grammar mistake, “it’s still limits to…”

We corrected this mistake.

18. Line 213,when first mentioning “SoLVES”, authors should tell us what stands for “SoLVES”.

Thank you for your notice. We corrected this mistake.

19. Line 215, no citation for “SoLVES” model.

Thank you for your notice. We corrected this mistake.

20. Line 218, no citation for “ARIES” model.

We added the reference.

21. Line 232, “fisheries” is not ecosystem service.

We deleted the word.

22. Line 240, not sure what do you mean “regional limitations”

Other ecological models, such as GUMBO model, MIMES model, have application value, but are limited within certain region [46].

23. Line 244-245, grammar mistake, “market value theoretical perspectives”

We deleted market value.

24. Line 247, substitute “between” with “among”

We corrected this mistake.

25. Line 271, substitute “cause much high attention”with “attract lots of attention”

We revise this sentence.

26. Line 278, comma should be added in between “China” and “while”

We corrected this mistake.

27. Line 279, plurals “statistical approaches”

We corrected this mistake.

28. Line 281, please rephrase the sentence, “Uncertainties exist…” sounds more right.

We revised this as you suggest.

29. Line 283, tenses are different between “vary” and “generated”. The seventh forest inventory is in which year?

Thank you for your notice. The revised sentence is as follows: The forest carbon sinks in China still exist uncertainties, and the estimation methods used and the parameter values chosen for the estimation of forest carbon sequestration varied greatly and generated different results [60]. According to the seventh forest inventory report of China in 2009, the area of planted forests in China reached 0.69 billion ha, ranking first in the world, and maintaining a high and continuous growth rate.

30. Line 308, should be “for validating….”

We corrected this mistake.

31. Line 343, grammar mistake “with integration, dynamism, spatial explicit, and participatory”

Thank you for your notice. We corrected this sentences to "The future development trend of FES valuation will involve the integration, dynamism, spatial explicitness, and participation of model applications."

32. Line 352, “time and resolution of remote sensing”, you mean “temporal and spatial resolution of remote sensing”? Please clarify.

We revised it as temporal and spatial resolution of remote sensing.

33. Line 386-388, there is no citation for this “guidance on the …”

Thank you for your notice. This is from central government news, so we add a the website as the reference. http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2021/content_5609079.htm

34. Line 409, when first mentioning “PES”, authors should tell us what stands for “PES”.

We added the full name of PES.

35. Line 430, no citation for “dual carbon”

Thank you for your notice. We explain this term and added the citation. In the context of the "dual carbon" strategy which is used to describe China's goal of achieving both carbon peak and carbon neutrality for climate change mitigation efforts, forestry carbon sinks are the potential for realizing the value of forest ecological benefits.

36. Line 467-468, what are “positive and negative lists”? Please clarify.

Thank you for your notice. The positive and negative lists and dynamic compensation mechanisms are policy tools used by the Chinese government to promote sustainable forest management practices. The positive list includes forests that are designated for protection, such as natural forests, water source protection forests, and biodiversity conservation forests. The negative list includes forests that are designated for commercial timber production but are prohibited from being harvested, such as forests located on steep slopes, in ecologically vulnerable areas, or in protected areas.

So we added some explanations for this term.

37. Line 460, what do you mean “they will be rewarded for the excess” you mean “they will be compensated?”

Thank you for your notice. We corrected this mistake.

38. Line 475, typo, should be “labelling”

Thank you for your notice. We corrected this mistake.

39. Line 482, “China should step up efforts to promote forest certification”, please clarify “step up efforts”

Thank you for your notice. We corrected this sentence to “China should increase its efforts to promote forest certification”.

40. Line 487, should be “forest products”

Thank you for your notice. We corrected this mistake.

41. Line 488, should be “ entitled to create…”

Thank you for your notice. We corrected this mistake.

42. Line 494, what is “characteristic economic forestry industry” please clarify

Thank you for your notice. We changed it to specialty economic forestry industry. one example of a specialty economic forestry industry is the production of high-value timber species, such as teak or mahogany, for export markets. Another example could be the cultivation of medicinal plants or non-timber forest products (NTFPs) for use in traditional medicine or other industries.

43. Line 512-513, repetition, “ecological tourism and forest recreation” and “ecotourism with forest recreation”

Thank you for your notice. We corrected this mistake.

44. Line 515, what is “extensive development mode”?

Thank you for your notice. extensive development mode is the contrary to intensive development mode.

45. Line 547, no subject, “although recent years have seen…”

Thank you for your notice. We corrected this sentence as “Despite the diversification of ecological product value realization pathways in recent years, many domestic forest ecological product value realization pathways are still in the pilot and investigation stages due to various restrictions”.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The paper reviews the approaches of ecosystem services valuation in China. There are no doubts that such papers must be supported. However, the manuscript suffers of some shortcomings

1. Literature review is quite comprehensive, but way too country-specific. However, there are a lot of important applied research on the same topic beyond the Chinese borders.

2. Figures are of a too bad quality. Would you please convert it to vector. However, there are no tables that could be beneficial, as the manuscript is a review.

3. Conclusion is very superficial and short. Please extend it.

4. What is "Value realization" in keywords?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

The paper reviews the approaches of ecosystem services valuation in China. There are no doubts that such papers must be supported. However, the manuscript suffers of some shortcomings

1. Literature review is quite comprehensive, but way too country-specific. However, there are a lot of important applied research on the same topic beyond the Chinese borders.

Response: Thank you for your advice. It is true that some studies are beyond the Chinese borders. So we added the analysis about the studies. So we added the analysis about the bibliometric trends of web of science and made a change for the figure of Bibliometric analysis. We made a revision as followings:

In this study, the research progresses of FES were visually represented by the widely used bibliometric analysis software VOSviewer (van Eck and Waltman, 2010). We used the keywords "forest ecosystem service", "valuation", and "China" to search for literature in the main databases of Web of Science (WOS) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from 2014 to 2023. We read the article titles, and some abstracts to make sure that the retrieved literature are all closely related to the research topic. Finally, we obtained a total of 1350 publications from the CNKI database and 876 papers from the WOS database. To determine the state of the science and the future research direction, the distribution of key words of the literatures were examined. The bibliometric mapping's keyword co-occurrence network was shown in Figure 5.

2. Figures are of a too bad quality. Would you please convert it to vector. However, there are no tables that could be beneficial, as the manuscript is a review.

Response: We actually provided the high-resolution images and maybe the resolution decreased during the submission duo the file conversion.

3. Conclusion is very superficial and short. Please extend it.

Response: We rewrote the conclusion and extended it as follows:

In this study, we have examined the current advancements on FES methodologies and their ecosystem service value realization pathways in China. We have analyzed the primary models and methods employed in the country for FES assessment, including the InVEST model, ARIES model, emergy analysis, and value transfer approach. Further, bibliometric analysis of FES in China exhibited the research trends that socio-economic related studies have gained more and more importance for value realization. We identified several challenges and offering suggestions. Also, the importance of forest carbon valuation and the uncertainties and challenge of FES valuation were presented. Although recent years have seen the diversification of ecological product value realization pathways, while due to various restrictions, many domestic forest ecological product value realization paths still remain at the pilot and exploration stage. Consequently, there is a limited pool of experiences to learn from, promote, and replicate, leading to under-realized ecological product value. As a result, in order to promote the ecological product value realization for China's forest ecological product, it still needs to be improved from the mechanism design perspective. To improve the effectiveness of policy management, future research should prioritize interdisciplinary, multi-method integration, and fine assessment of FES values at small and medium scales to improve the effectiveness of policy management. By doing so, we can better understand the complex relationships between ecosystems and economic and social systems, and identify effective strategies for promoting FES value in China.

In conclusion, our study highlights the importance of FES value assessment in promoting sustainable forest management and ecosystem services in China. By addressing the challenges associated with FES value assessment and identifying effective value realization pathways, we can promote the sustainable use and management of forest ecosystems, and improve the well-being of both human societies and ecosystems.

4. What is "Value realization" in keywords?

Response: We changed the keywords as “Value realization of ecosystem service”

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

The manuscript is fine and interesting. I want to congratulate the authors for the effort to collect and interpret the data. However, there are some issues that need to be clarify, to benefit the Review.

Firstly, could you please explain why did you select the China Knowledge Network database, and not a worldwide database (such as scopus, web of science) where you could apply restrictions about the origin of the examined publications? Is it considered to constitute bias;

Could you please provide some details about the number of publications you examined. You refer that “1350 pieces of literature were found using the keywords "forest ecosystem service”, please explain how many of them you eventually examined and what exclusion criteria you applied.

For Figures 4, 5, 6 are cited that they “Drawn by authors”. For what I understand this Figures have been developed through various data visualization tools. Could you please provide some further details.

In particular, I regard that Figure 5 has been structured with Vosviewer visualizing bibliometric programme. However, it is strange that no mention is made in the text about it. Please clarify if this Figure has been constructed by you, or it has been retrieved from another publication source.

Moreover, the network presented in Figure 5, from what I know, can be constructed based on citation retrieved from the scopus and web of science database. Please provide some details about its construction and how you develop it base on China Knowledge Network database.

Please check the numbering of headings and sub-headings. No uniform numbering is followed in the text.

The conclusion section should be improved further.

Please articulate the novelty and the significance of the manuscript in the abstract and conclusion sections.

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

 

1. The manuscript is fine and interesting. I want to congratulate the authors for the effort to collect and interpret the data. However, there are some issues that need to be clarify, to benefit the Review.

Response: Thank you for your comments.

2. Firstly, could you please explain why did you select the China Knowledge Network database, and not a worldwide database (such as scopus, web of science) where you could apply restrictions about the origin of the examined publications? Is it considered to constitute bias;

Response: Thank you for your comments. This figure was drawn by Vosviewer indeed and by ourselves. As we thought in the beginning, we mainly discuss the progress of FES in China, so the mainbody of literature is from China. So we did not choose the web of science or scopus. As another reviewer also mentioned that maybe some studies are beyond China border. So we added the analysis about the bibliometric trends of web of science and made a change for the figure of Bibliometric analysis.

3. Could you please provide some details about the number of publications you examined. You refer that “1350 pieces of literature were found using the keywords "forest ecosystem service”, please explain how many of them you eventually examined and what exclusion criteria you applied.

Response: Thank you for your advice. It is true that some studies are beyond the Chinese borders. So we added the analysis about the studies as follows: We read the article titles, and some abstracts to make sure that the retrieved literature are all closely related to the research topic. Finally, we obtained a total of 1350 publications from the CNKI database and 876 papers from the WOS database. To determine the state of the science and the future research direction, the distribution of key words of the literatures were examined. The bibliometric mapping's keyword co-occurrence network was shown in Figure 5.

4. For Figures 4, 5, 6 are cited that they “Drawn by authors”. For what I understand this Figures have been developed through various data visualization tools. Could you please provide some further details.

Response: Thank you for your advice. Except the bibliometric mapping used by the VOSviewer tool. All the other figures were drawn in Powerpoint. So we only added the VOSviewer.

5. In particular, I regard that Figure 5 has been structured with Vosviewer visualizing bibliometric programme. However, it is strange that no mention is made in the text about it. Please clarify if this Figure has been constructed by you, or it has been retrieved from another publication source. Moreover, the network presented in Figure 5, from what I know, can be constructed based on citation retrieved from the scopus and web of science database. Please provide some details about its construction and how you develop it base on China Knowledge Network database.

Response: Thank you for you notice, the method was added as follows:

In this study, the research progresses of FES were visually represented by the widely used bibliometric analysis software VOSviewer (van Eck and Waltman, 2010). We used the keywords "forest ecosystem service", "valuation", and "China" to search for literature in the main databases of Web of Science (WOS) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from 2014 to 2023. We read the article titles, and some abstracts to make sure that the retrieved literature are all closely related to the research topic. Finally, we obtained a total of 1350 publications from the CNKI database and 876 papers from the WOS database.

6. Please check the numbering of headings and sub-headings. No uniform numbering is followed in the text.

Response: Thank you for your notice. As another reviewer mentioned, the former 1.1 should be 2.1. So we corrected the numbering of headings and sub-headings.

7. The conclusion section should be improved further.

Response: We rewrote the conclusion and extended it. See the revised conclusion in Response to reviewer 2.

8. Please articulate the novelty and the significance of the manuscript in the abstract and conclusion sections.

Response: Thank you for your advice. We further improved the abstract and the conclusion section for the novelty and the significance. The revised conclusion is shown above and the abstract is as follows:

Forests are essential for the provision of water, financial resources, food, and carbon, and offer  immense ecosystem service values. Accurate, quantitative, and objective evaluation of forest ecosystem service (FES) values can help uncovering methods for realizing ecological product value, which in turn supports forest conservation and ecological benefit enhancement. In China, FES valuation methods are diverse and tailored to specific objectives, encompassing matter quantity assessment, value quantity assessment, energy value analysis, and landscape ecological modeling methods. The "Forest Ecosystem Service Function Assessment Specification" guideline plays a crucial role in fostering standardized valuation. Carbon-related ecosystem services have been increasingly studied in China; however, valuation challenges remain, including data accuracy, double counting of ecosystem services, methodological limitations, and incomplete assessment of non-use values. Regarding value realization, the development of payment for ecosystem services (PES), ecological product benefit trading (EPBT), ecological premiums, and ecological industries has seen gradual progresses in recent years. However, realization approaches still depend on government support, and the establishment of market-oriented strategies requires further reinforcement. Enhancing FES valuation necessitates the integration of interdisciplinary and multi-method approaches, as well as the creation of an accounting and assessment mechanism. Realization approaches must not only be continuously expanded but also consistently innovated over time. It is essential to consider the impact of market development on FES valuation, establish robust realization approaches, reinforce promotional and guarantee mechanisms, and increase the efficacy of policy management.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I thank the authors for their very accurate responses and manuscript editing. In some places, they have made extensive modifications to the text.

I have one last small comment on the manuscript.

For the answers to Q1 and Q3 (What should be the main contribution of the submitted review; What is the specificity of forest ES?) in the accompanying file to appear in the manuscript itself. (to clearly illustrate the context of the submitted manuscript).

I suggest
the answer to Q1 - in the Introduction or Conclusion,
the answer to Q3 -  in chap. Introduction somewhere after the paragraph about FES (r. 50)

Author Response

Reviewer 1： Comment: I thank the authors for their very accurate responses and manuscript editing. In some places, they have made extensive modifications to the text. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and great effort for improving our manuscript quality. Question：I have one last small comment on the manuscript. For the answers to Q1 and Q3 (What should be the main contribution of the submitted review; What is the specificity of forest ES?) in the accompanying file to appear in the manuscript itself. (to clearly illustrate the context of the submitted manuscript). I suggest: the answer to Q1 - in the Introduction or Conclusion, the answer to Q3 - in chap. Introduction somewhere after the paragraph about FES (r. 50) Response: Thank you for your comments. Sorry for the little responses for the Q1 and Q3 in the last revision. This is very important to show the aims of the manuscript. In China, the realization approach of FES attracted more and more attention as there are many policies were issued. As the valuation is the basis for realization approach, so it is necessary to review this field for a better understanding. As the valuation is not the endpoint, realization approach is more practical. Thus, we revise our manuscript based on your comments. For Q1(What should be the main contribution of the submitted review?), we add some sentences in the last paragraph of Introduction part according to your advices as follows: China has made notable progress in FES assessment, which is of great significance for comprehensively understanding and objectively evaluating the status and role of forests. Despite the progress made, there remain several key issues in accurately assessing FES during practical application. Moreover, FES valuation serves as the foundation for corresponding realization approach and related policies, such as enhancing ecological benefit compensation mechanism, and promoting forest resource conservation [18, 19]. Therefore, it is imperative to review FES assessment for a better understanding of value realization. Also, building on the FES valuation review, the value realization approaches in China could be further organized and explored. Thus, in this study, we provide an overview of FES valuation methods and trends in China, with a further focus on exploring value realization approaches. Our findings have the potential to offer valuable insights for promoting regional sustainable development in other regions of the world. Furthermore, our study may objectively reflect the contribution of China's forests to the global carbon cycle and mitigate global climate change, and accelerate the internationalization process of forest carbon cycle research. For Q3 (What is the specificity of forest ES?), we added some explanations in the Introduction after FES in the second paragraph as follows: FES is defined as the goods, services, and benefits that forest ecosystems contribute to human economy and society through ecological structures, processes, and functions, including carbon storage, biodiversity conservation, timber and non-timber forest products, water regulation, soil conservation, recreation and tourism, and cultural and spiritual values. In China, the specificity of FESs lies in the critical role that forests play in not only sustaining human well-being but also achieving ecological restoration and carbon neutrality goals.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors should restructure the paper a bit better by putting the data and methodology section right after the introduction section. For example, section 3.1 should be move to the front so that readers can have a clear idea about what you are studying, what are your keywords, and which databases you conducted analyses in, etc. 

Another limitation of the study is that this paper is focused on two things about FES, which are valuation and realization. However, for the keywords of this study, the authors only list "FES", "valuation", and "China", not a single word about realization (see line 259-260). Therefore, I am concerned about the contents in section 4 and wonder if those arguments about "realization" are robust enough since they are not following the proper literature review approach. The proper way of doing literature review is to identify keywords, select literature related to your keywords, and conduct analyses on those papers. With the very first step missing, I am not sure the results are still scientifically sound and reliable.

Author Response

Reviewer 2：

The authors should restructure the paper a bit better by putting the data and methodology section right after the introduction section. For example, section 3.1 should be move to the front so that readers can have a clear idea about what you are studying, what are your keywords, and which databases you conducted analyses in, etc. 

Another limitation of the study is that this paper is focused on two things about FES, which are valuation and realization. However, for the keywords of this study, the authors only list "FES", "valuation", and "China", not a single word about realization (see line 259-260). Therefore, I am concerned about the contents in section 4 and wonder if those arguments about "realization" are robust enough since they are not following the proper literature review approach. The proper way of doing literature review is to identify keywords, select literature related to your keywords, and conduct analyses on those papers. With the very first step missing, I am not sure the results are still scientifically sound and reliable.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. Your comments are very instructive and careful.

During the last revision, we added the analysis of the Web of Science (WOS) to show the trends for FES valuation assessment. In this manuscript, we mainly focused on the review of FES valuation assessment, while not include the value realization of the FES in China. This is mainly the reason that the value realization approaches in China is not very immature. In some regions, the realization is only tentative. However, the FES assessment is always the key scientific basis for the value realization. So we did not use the VOSviewer to analyze the research progress of value realization for two reasons. Firstly, most of the research are about the policy discussion for government, and local practice experience with little scientific case studies. Secondly, the published articles are not very abundant and academic, such as news reports, local journals. But the government and practitioners gradually know the importance of FES value assessment. So our manuscript actually have two a little different parts, first is the FES assessment theoretical and scientific studies in China, while the second is the potential applications in China which was explored from the value realization. I apologize for the lack of clarity in the manuscript. But we think FES are very closely related to e realization approaches in China. We think our manuscript will provide the reader a very whole picture about how the FES assessment progress in China and how the potential applications in China. Also, we revised the title of the article to “Review of valuation of forest ecosystem services and the realization approaches in China”.

Also, we agree your advice and put the section 3.1 before for the normal structure after our author discussion. We also pointed out this VOSviewer analysis is for the FES assessment and during the analysis, we found that the PES, valuation and realization are becoming more and more important. Also the order of all the references was modified accordingly. Please see the Section 2 in the revised manuscript.

Further, to clearly show the main content of this manuscript, we further revised the last paragraph of Introduction part as follows:

China has made notable progress in FES assessment, which is of great significance for comprehensively understanding and objectively evaluating the status and role of forests. Despite the progress made, there remain several key issues in accurately assessing FES during practical application. Moreover, FES valuation serves as the foundation for corresponding realization approach and related policies, such as enhancing ecological benefit compensation mechanism, and promoting forest resource conservation [18, 19]. Therefore, it is imperative to review FES assessment for a better understanding of value realization. Also, building on the FES valuation review, the value realization approaches in China could be further organized and explored. Thus, in this study, we provide an overview of FES valuation methods and trends in China, with a further focus on exploring value realization approaches. Our findings have the potential to offer valuable insights for promoting regional sustainable development in other regions of the world. Furthermore, our study may objectively reflect the contribution of China's forests to the global carbon cycle and mitigate global climate change, and accelerate the internationalization process of forest carbon cycle research.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors did a good job to revise the paper. Good luck.

Author Response

Reviewer 3：

 

The authors did a good job to revise the paper. Good luck.

 

Response: Thank you for your great efforts for giving us so good comments.

 

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Authors have answered my questions and incorporated the most of the suggestions.

Author Response

Reviewer 4：

 

Authors have answered my questions and incorporated the most of the suggestions.

 

Response: Thank you for your great efforts for giving us so good comments.

 

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors reviewed various methods of assessing forest ecosystem services in China. The manuscript is well structured. The topic of the study falls into the scope of the journal. However, the main findings are not intuitively clear for readers.

Major concerns:

 The abstract should be shortened and the contribution of the manuscript should be strengthened.

In conclusion part, the authors mentioned they compared main models and methods of valuing forest ecosystem services in China. A summarized table of the comparison and problems of these methods should be given.

After looking through the manuscript, the authors did not clearly depict the current situation and characteristics of forest ecosystem services in China. In my opinion, this depiction is very essential, since this is the foundation of selecting methods and models.

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted manuscript is very unclear. What is the article supposed to say?

It is not a scientific article - it is not a description of any research. The review article is only according to the "label" but not according to the content. It is a description of something that does not have an obvious goal and logic. It contains few sources for a quality review and does not provide a good overview of the topic. There is no clear and logical connection between chapters 2 and 3.

1. What is the goal of this manuscript? It must be clearly stated. It must be added.

For what purpose was the manuscript created, and what will be communicated at the end? What is the prevailing direction of ES assessment? The information on which services are already "solved" today? Dominant approaches to study? Ways of implementing the ES concept in landscape planning?

2. The overview is based on 73 sources. However, no logic for the selection of sources, and the concept of the article is unknown/unindicated. Was a literature search conducted through indexed databases at the beginning? If so, with what keyword combinations?

I recommend splitting and reworking the article. Focus on either Valuation or Realization Approaches and prepare an overview in the appropriate depth and scope.

 

- It is necessary to use professional and correct terms.

What ecosystem services are we talking about here? It is necessary to clearly define the functions and services according to one of the valid classifications and indicate which one is used (MEA, CICES - which version?, TEEB).

 

- For all images, it must be clearly stated whether they are original or adapted and adequately cited, e.g. Fig. 3

 

- r. 152 – units should be indicated in SI. What is "a-1"?

 

- The statement in the Conclusion chapter must be supported in the own text.

r. 508-509 – Although one could agree with that statement, it does not follow the text above (it is not substantiated or proven). Such a claim must be substantiated by analysing relevant works or citing from a relevant source.

- Chapter 2.2 is incomplete and misleading. The larger part of the subchapter describes several modules from the InVEST model, which is taken as a level I. model (cf. Kareiva R et al. (eds). Natural capital.).

Missing information about more advanced models for individual functions/services, e.g. YASSO or RothC for soil carbon sequestration in forest stands; about forestry growth simulators (Silva, Sibyla, Efiscen...) and the quantification of their outputs; about models based on remote sensing data and advanced statistical apparatus (PLSR, Deep learning)!

 

- What is the logic of the order of chap. 2.2 and 2.3? First, the condition is assessed, and only then is modelling followed by an assessment. Isn't it better to switch the order of the chapters?

 

- The title of the article emphasizes ES in forests.

Then it is necessary to clearly state which ES forests provide, which ES are unique for the forests, in which ES are forests dominant.

Describe in adequate depth the methods and approaches used in studying ES in forests. e.g. Eddy Covariance to study the production of forests, LIDAR to describe the structure...

 

- Chapter 3 is thematically different. It deals with realization approaches.

The quality (detail) of the review is the same as chap. 2.