Mapping Green Infrastructure Based on Multifunctional Ecosystem Services: A Sustainable Planning Framework for Utah’s Wasatch Front

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Revision 

Mapping green infrastructure: A sustainable planning approach to analyzing and evaluating ecosystem services in Utah’s Wasatch Front

Overall: The paper improved a lot from the last review, however there are still some issues that need to be addressed in order to be publishable.

Abstract: The abstract improved from the last review. The objective is explained and now the readers can understand the goal of this research. However, you should specify which stakeholders are you referring in your study: are they citizens? Urban planners? Business owners?

Introduction: The introduction also improved but needs changes. The ecosystem services approach is presented, as well as the knowledge gap and how this research intends to address this knowledge gap. However, for some reason you decided to separate the paragraphs about green infrastructure and multi-criteria decision analysis in two subsections. This is confusing, especially when you present the objective of your paper before these two sections, and then in the last section you present AGAIN other objective related with the MCA approach you presented. The way you did it is confusing. I would recommend not separate the text, and present the objective of the paper ONLY once, at the end of the introduction section and then the organization of the paper (Please see the notes in the manuscript). Also, some sentences are a little confusing, due to some English grammatical mistakes. I would advise you to carefully review the text and rewrite them.

Methodology: This section needs improvements. Although it has improved from the last review, there are some improvements to be made. As I mentioned before, the authors use a method for this research, but never use any reference and never explain why this method is the best choice fort his research. Also, the first part of this section is confusing and does not connect with the rest of the text and the study area section seems out of place. I would advise you to start the methods section with the study area description, then present in a simple manner the methods you use and describe the TAC, and then leave the detail information about each phase as you have.

NOTE: only after I read the methods section, I was able to understand the objective of your research. You started by conducting an ecosystem services assessment using your classification “0, 0,5 and 1” (according to a group of stakeholders), and with these results you mapped a green infrastructure. Am I right? It seems simple to understand, but somehow, in the introduction the explanation is confusing.

Results: The results seem ok. Everything is well explained and make sense. Nothing to add Discussion: This section improved and the authors incorporate the suggestions in the previous

review.
Conclusions: The conclusions are ok.
References: There are some references where the DOI is missing. Please correct this.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Pls refer to word document for color coordination.

Responses to Reviewer 1:

Abstract

• “The aim of this research was to apply a multi-criteria evaluation…”: change “was” to “is”

Reply: Thank you

1. Introduction

• “Nearly two-thirds of the world’s population is expected live in cities by 2050”: change “expected” to “to expected”

Reply: I made “is expected to live”.

• “Ecosystem services include supporting services (e.g. soil formation and nutrient cycling), provisioning services (e.g. food, fresh water, fuel, fiber, and other goods), regulating ser-vices (e.g. climate, water, and disease regulation as well as pollination), and cultural ser-vices (e.g. educational, aesthetic, and cultural heritage values as well as recreation and tourism[9].”: As I mentioned before, Although this is 100% correct, this is one of many classifications that existin the literature. For example, according to CICES, thare are only provisioning, regulating and cultural services. I think you should mention that, or, at least the source of your classification. (no source for my classification beyond standard knowledge – pls suggest if I have missed something – see below first pls.)

Reply: Yes. As other reviewer brought up same thing, I addressed in Materials and Methods p. 7:

The ecosystem services included 36 total ‘benefits’, organized specifically to each typology and their landscape classifications, and were developed by the TAC from the critical review in Step 1. It is important to note that this list of 36 ecosystem services was specifically designed to integrate diverse stakeholders into the evaluation and assessment process by purposefully using language commonly found within the reviewed documents (Appendix A) and inclusive of the ecosystem service concepts found within the regional planning goals (Table 1). These 36 ecosystem services are not standard ES classification per the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), and other applied ES frameworks, though similar. As noted within the literature, ES classification should ultimately improve stakeholder communication and knowledge. This study’s development of its 36 ecosystem services were deliberate in its simplicity and clarity and captured both direct and indirect ecosystem services among and between varied landscape types. This was a unique approach and a significant contribution of this paper.

And Discussion, p. 20

Though not referenced directly, the basic ES frameworks of the MEA and CICES were foundational to this study’s MCE. For instance, though the terms ‘provisioning, regulating, and supporting services’ are not explicitly stated within the MCE’s matrix, these are documented within the weighting criteria of Appendix D. Overall, this study’s MCE within the GI framework does effectively synthesize qualitative and quantitative information on ecosystem services.

Additional ES classification clarification, Discussion p. 17:

Ecosystem service mapping is a rapidly evolving field and this study exhibits limitations in its ES assessment. As a working map and weighting approach, further data can be integrated or even developed to fit within the GI framework. For example, this study does not consider ecosystem service supply-demand in its mapping nor utilize modeling to formulate GI impacts. This study’s ranking included the terms ‘direct’ and ‘indirect benefits’. ES demand, as a mapping and sustainable planning approach, does consider the provisioning, regulating and supply components of ES. However, the demand for ES is embedded in the complex socio-ecological system relationship with other components [91] and quantification is difficult to agree upon.

• “The goal of this paper was to develop and test a framework or methodology which integrates qualitative and quantitative ecosystem service information to create a hierarchical green infrastructure-based spatial map.”: yes – this is the paper’s goal – see below. What exactly is the objective of this paper?? Here you present the objective, but later, you present a different objective...which of them is exactly? Confusing”

Reply: I understand GOAL and OBJECTIVES are in fact two distinct concepts in academic journal writing. I have used this exact same approach many many times. Pls suggest specific edits. Goals are supported by objectives IMO. Goals cannot be met without Objectives and are NOT mutually exclusive in my understanding.

• “This study’s research questions, thus, are: (1) How can the concepts of green infrastructure and multifunctional ecosystem services support the conceptualization of a decision-making framework among diverse stakeholders? …This paper closes with a discussion of applications, lessons learned, as well as main con-clusions.“: These two paragraphs should come at the end.

Reply: Yes, the Structure is at end of this section and the ‘research questions’ paragraph was modified and moved as well. Thank you.

• Remove subsections.

Reply: I was told to add them. EDITOR RESPONSE

• “The aim of this paper was to implement a MCE in order operationalize GI’s multifunctional ES analysis, assessment, and mapping…”: Please rewrite the objective of the paper....you cannot have two different objectives. Also, add the paragraph about the organization of the paper here...at the end of the introduction section.

Reply: as prior.

OK – you see ‘aim’ as same as ‘objective’ – ok, I get that now…. How about I change this paragraph to:

OK – I DID THIS:

The research included:

1. Collect, analyse, and review data to synthesize a set of interrelated sustainable landscape planning goals based on ecosystem services;
2. Provide a framework to evaluate multifunctional landscapes using MCE which evaluates multiple ecosystem services based on a range of stakeholder values;

And in both ABSTRACT and INTRO

The objective of this paper is to …

2. Materials and Methods

• “The methodological framework for this study is presented in Figure 1. In Step 1, the regional landscape planning goals were reviewed and synthesized from various sources. Five interrelated regional landscape categories or typologies were also designated. These were approved by a technical advisory committee (TAC) made up of various stakeholders. In Step 2, the five landscape typologies were further classified and assigned specific, …”: Which sources? Which stakeholders?? Citizens? Urban planers? Policymakers? Business owners??? Please specify. I find this paragraph extremely confusing and unnecessary. The methods section is very well developed, but these two paragraphs are confusing. I would recommend to remove them or rewrite them into something more simple.

Reply: Yes, I recall that from last time and thought we addressed. I have currently:

In ABSTRACT:

Local government stakeholder-derived weighting and GIS classification were operated to map both urban and natural landscapes of the Salt Lake City Region of Utah.

Wait – we did address it. This paragraph is the OUTLINE for the section. Later in section where I detail each Step we have:

various stakeholders including Federal, State, municipal, and local agencies as well as community groups and NGO’s (Appendix A).

THUS – I think this edit works for your above paragraph:

The methodological framework for this study is presented in Figure 1. In Step 1, the regional landscape planning goals were reviewed and synthesized from multiple sources. Five interrelated regional landscape categories or typologies were also designated. These were approved by a technical advisory committee (TAC) made up of various local-government stakeholders.

• “In Steps 3 and 4, TAC members reviewed the matrix, ensured ecosystem services criteria were appropriate, and modified the ranking if necessary, leading to the GI mapping. Ultimately, a large group of diverse experts within the TAC was integrated into the process and the study’s framework continuously.”: ..How did you come up with this method and why did you choose it?? Is it the best for the work you are trying to do? You should present some sources of similar methods used in similar researches and explain why this is the best option. This section lacks a lot of references.

Reply: Again, this is outline paragraph, details you seek in following sections/Steps – Paragraphs. I understand your comments and intent of the comments – however, this ‘committee’, etc. for the study was actually determined by those people/agencies who turned up from the hundreds of invitations to participate - so there was no literature to follow and such IMO. I have addressed this comment in the Discussion.

I don't think this is the best option – we identified ‘primary’ participants but after dozens of emails/messages some just didn't want to participate so this is the best methodology for the TAC. However, I do feel we got adequate input at all critical stages and scientific input to facilitate an accurate ES Matrix (See Appendix D, e.g.)

• “Study Area”: Also, this section should come first, and then the explanation of the method should come second. It seems that you start explaining the method, then interrupt the explanation to present the study area, and then continue to explain the method again. Confusing.I would advise you to start the methods section with the study area description, then present in a simple manner the methods you use and describe the TAC, and then leave the detail information about each phase as you have.

Reply: Agreed and completed.

• “Green infrastructure provides an interconnected landscape framework a to classifying and mapping landscapes and is critical first phase to maintaining”: Remove “a”.

Reply: Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I am reviewing the manuscript again after a first withdrawn submission. I have to arise again the same major concerns, that were not solved:

• the manuscript lacks proper terminology and approach in the field of Ecosystems services. "economic health", "economic support" and the generic "ecosystem services" mentioned in the matrix (table 2) do not represent ecosystem services. The author should referar to a standard ecosystem services classification (and nomenclature), e.g. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, CICES, etc. The proposed classification is not coherent and uncorrect and this flaw prevents any further consideration of applicability.
• it is not clear to me which are the definitions of the 5 landscape typologies. for example, what are working land green infrastructures? and regional community ones?. Why the author mentioned Ecological green infrastrucutres? This implies that some green infrastructures are not ecological. GI are made by natural and seminatural components, how they can be not ecological?

Author Response

Pls refer to PDF

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled "Mapping Green Infrastructure Based on Multifunctional Eco-system Services: A Sustainable Planning Framework for Utah’s Wasatch Front" presents an in-depth assessment of different ES mapping in a specific catchment, using MCA to design a Green İnfrastruxture. Overall, this field of research is extremely relevant for sustainable urban planning and this work is well-designed, with a sound methodological approach and a robust argumentation of results. The logical sentencing is fluid and the comprehension of the method is easy.

To what concern the method, İ have some minor issues here and there about the matrix for ES estimation... there are some landscapes that sound odd in the list, and some ES that sounds strange as well.

To what concern the discussion, please consider that the operation of weighting the layers can be done with significantly different criteria... literature, PCA, unveıghted normalized overlay... besides (and that's the main limitations of this study) your Gİ does not consıder the demand of ES. For this reason,  an integration in the manuscrıpt is needed which explain why you didn't consider the demand or, on the other hand, if you assumed that your expert panel scored the ES considering their spatial demand...

Please clarify some vague sentences here and there, according to the detailed comments that you will find in the attached pdf.

Good luck!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Pls refer to word document for color coordination.

Responses to Reviewer 3:

To what concern the method, İ have some minor issues here and there about the matrix for ES estimation... there are some landscapes that sound odd in the list, and some ES that sounds strange as well.

To what concern the discussion, please consider that the operation of weighting the layers can be done with significantly different criteria... literature, PCA, unveıghted normalized overlay... besides (and that's the main limitations of this study) your Gİ does not consıder the demand of ES. For this reason, an integration in the manuscrıpt is needed which explain why you didn't consider the demand or, on the other hand, if you assumed that your expert panel scored the ES considering their spatial demand...

Please clarify some vague sentences here and there, according to the detailed comments that you will find in the attached pdf

1.Introduction

• “Urban landscapes are social-ecological systems”: look at the work of UREX on socio-ecological and technological systems... in the light of a more resilient approach SETS seems to overcome the SES approach...

Reply: Yes – SETS are an evolution of the SES but in regional spatial planning and natural resources landscape management, SETS are not yet fully integrated as much as SES, both serving to distinguish and clarify Ecol from SocioCul. In this paper, I feel the use of this term is appropriate - and it was applied within and during the study. I shall add a bit to the Discussion as SETS are trending.  Though I start off this paper with ‘urban landscapes’, the case study includes urban and rural landscapes. I think this is acceptable as it is sustainability planning - for the future.

Conclusion – Page 18

However, complex socio-ecological systems and landscapes are unpredictable and problematic to manage due to multiple interaction factors [88, 89]. A recent term, social-ecological-technical systems (SETS) better addresses change and adaptive management (90), particularly as technology plays an ever-increasing role in ecosystem functionality and resilience in urbanizing landscapes [93].

• “cultural services (e.g. educational, aesthetic, and cul-tural heritage values as well as recreation and tourism[9]”: Control spacing.

Reply: Thank you for this. I got both.

• “Conventional land suitability analyses commonly applied in spatial planning do not fully represent the diversity of ES-related functions and benefits”: probably you should clarify what "conventional" means...

Reply: Agreed – I will replace with ‘established’ and qualify:

Established land suitability analyses commonly applied in spatial planning (e.g. hierarchical, ordinal) do not fully represent the diversity of ES-related functions and benefits [19] and has limited capacity to quantify the multifaceted relationship between social and ecological systems [20].

• “Else-where, in Berlin, Germany, only informal planning strategies could be agreed upon due to unclear and disagreed upon ecosystem service outcomes among a diverse stakeholder group [33]“: please clarify.

Reply: Elsewhere, in Berlin, Germany, concrete decisions and management actions did not result from the ES assessment used. Here, only informal planning strategies could be agreed upon due to unclear and disagreed upon ecosystem service outcomes among a diverse stakeholder group [33].

• “Green infrastructure as a framework for multifunctional ecosystem service analysis”: is that a sub-paragraph of introduction? if so, please format the title acoordingly (see the guidelines of the journal)

Reply: Yes – I see it in proper format on my word document – c

• “However, multifunctionality even within the GI framework is still difficult to quantify consistently and operationalize within spatial planning and policy [57, 58]”: unclear, please clarify

Reply: However, literature demonstrates that consistently quantifying multifunctionality even within the GI framework is difficult [57] as is operationalizing multifunctional ES within spatial planning [58].

• “The aim of this paper was to implement a MCE in order operationalize GI’s multi-functional ES analysis, assessment, and mapping. This methodology was applied to a case study area and served to classify multifunctional landscape features using mul-ti-criteria analyses in a GIS environment. The research objectives included: ”: i think this final part is repetitive with the previous chapter, maybe you can include the MCA in the introduction without the need to create a sub paragraph

Reply: Per other reviewer I have re-organized the paragraphs in and around this. Pls refer to paper and all concerns have been resolved to reduce repetition and increase proper clarity/terminology.

2. Materials and Methods

• “In Step 2, the five landscape typologies were further classified and assigned specific, spatially delineated areas through GIS data”: which 5 landscape typologies?

Reply: In Step 2, the landscape typologies from Step 1 were further classified and assigned specific, spatially delineated areas through GIS data.

• “Figure 1. – The framework of the study procedure.”: noe feedback between lineas phases??? in my experience, sometimes gis processing and es modelling (GIS visualization) should be used to "steer" the MCA... or to inform the stakeholders....

Reply: yes, this is true and presented/clarified in the paper’s methodology of course but this graphic seems to work well as is. Cyclical graphic is not needed IMO as inherent in every step. Not sure how you wish this to be visualized exactly, sorry.

• “Furthermore, the region has experienced overcrowding of homeless shelters [78)] in-creased wait times for emergency services [79], and a greater number of major depression cases [80].”: you mean psycological depression?

Reply: Yes – and a greater number of major psychological depression cases [80].

• “Table 1. The 5 regional landscape typologies and their regional planning goal”: please fromat the table with the proper style...

Reply: I thought this was - EDITOR REVIEW PLEASE

• “Step 1 was followed by the development of a multi-criteria analysis approach to quantify the relationship between specific landscape typologies areas - their more detailed landscape classification - and those benefits provided or ecosystem services”: ???.

Reply: Step 2 developed a multi-criteria analysis approach to quantify the relationship between specific landscape typologies areas. This included a more detailed landscape classification specifically correlated to their ecosystem service benefits.

• “This multicriteria evaluation (MCE) was organized within a matrix format shown in Table 2”: you introduced more than one time this classification but at this point nobody knows this classification and the criteria to enstabilish the 5 classes...

Reply: I really don't think I CAN tell more in this paragraph -the paper’s outline and steps – this is the crux of the paper and involves WAY too much information to introduce here without a never-ending quest for MORE clarification. I have tried – that was the last paper’s approach !!  I think this works as an outline of the paper’s structure. We can remove this whole paragraph but I feel this structure utilizes generic and prior-defined terms effectively. The next paragraphs supply the info you request but for simplicity in this very complex paper, I feel this works well for this section.

• “The landscape classification included 41 unique spatial typologies and was correlated to the information and description within the 28 GIS datasets and their geospatial poly-gons provided by the TAC (Appendix C).”:

Reply: I am sorry I don't know exactly what you required – particularly in context of comment/response above. What word should ‘features’ replace exactly?

I added:

This is operationalized and clarified later in this paper. This process provided a meaningful generalized classification to the regional landscape typologies and was not a detailed description or inventory.

• “This provided a meaningful generalized classification to the regional landscape typologies and was not a detailed description or inventory.”: please be care that having 28 lyers does not means to have a "classification of the regional typologies".

Reply: Yes, thank you. In this context, this resulted as the best and appropriate number per work done. This concern is further alluded to in discussion.

• “the agricultural easements of the working landscapes, as well as the many features within the hydrological landscapes”: ??? unclear. please clarify.

Reply: the italic represents the NAME given to the GIS spatial layer (regional landscape typology – Table 2) and hydrological landscapes - 1 of the 5 landscape typology (Table 1).

Prior paragraph clearly describes this and sets the stage for this terminology. I have modified:

The landscape classification included 41 unique spatial typologies and was correlated to the information and description within the 28 GIS datasets and their geospatial polygons provided by the TAC (Appendix C). This is operationalized and clarified later in this paper. This process provided a meaningful generalized classification to the regional landscape typologies and was not a detailed description or inventory. The classification of the GIS data provided the basis to operationalize the matrix in Step 3. Importantly, this spatial data was able to express different compositions of the same component, such as wetlands found within conservation easements and wildlife habitat(Table 2 – vertical axis) of the ecological landscape typology (Table 1), the agricultural easements of the working landscape typology (Table 1 and Table 2 – horizontal axis), as well as the many features within the hydrological landscape typology (i.e. aquifer research areas, conservation easements, drinking water protection zones). This overlap allowed for the influence of ecosystem services to be more comprehensively documented.

• “The ecosystem service totals (vertical axis) provided additive values of the overall ecosystem services in the region as distinguished by the landscape typologies identified.”: don't repeat "ecosystem service".

Reply: Corrected, thanks.

• Table 2. Landscape typologies and ecosystem service criteria and ranking.: Ecosystems?; you should pay attention to mix existent land uses with conservation/valorization or protection zones...

Reply: this is the term commonplace within this dialogue – ES – and I tried to qualify it within this context – Appendix D is the place where the specific ES terms are explicitly stated but I feel for this paper, for sustainable planning, this is appropriate and adequate. All your concerns are accounted for – within the Appendices. I have added:

Discussion

Though not referenced directly, the basic ES frameworks of the MEA and CICES were foundational to this study’s MCE. For instance, though the terms ‘provisioning, regulating, and supporting services’ are not explicitly stated within the MCE’s matrix, these are documented within the weighting criteria of Appendix D. Overall, this study’s MCE within the GI framework does effectively synthesize qualitative and quantitative information on ecosystem services.

• “After values were assigned, the data was processed through the GIS tool ‘Union’.”: assigned here what does means? did you add a new field in the attribute table of each layer and assigned the value of the matrix to each feauture?

Reply: This is stated in prior sentence. However, I modified this sentence:

The GIS polygon data was then processed through the GIS tool ‘Union’.

“…create a single aggregate value for each new polygon created through the ‘Union’ tool with a maximum value of 46.7%.”: Why %？

Reply: This is the ordinal maximum value – this was not based on 100 or 10 but what it came to be straight from addition of those values. The next step normalized it to 100%.

46.7% was just how it worked out as the maximum. I chose % vs other as this is clearer to comprehend than non-normalized or % totals IMO for this stakeholder group for the study.

I also added:

In this study, the higher the % value of a given polygon, the higher number of ecosystem services that were attached to it.

• “The Union tool in GIS combined different data layers and is considered a type of multi-criteria weighted overlay analysis”: ??? normally... this multicriteria operations are processed with other tools and by raster layers (to have a unique discrete cell - pixel)... see the weighted overlay tool for example...

Reply: Yes, we did raster as part of this process (Appendix D). I didn't want to complicate this already complex paper by expressing such mid- or pre-steps and other terms /processes mostly commonplace and understood as a prerequisite.

I added:

The Union tool in GIS combined different data layers and is considered a type of multi-criteria weighted overlay analysis in this application.

• “In this study, the higher the value of a given polygon, the higher number of ecosystem services that were attached to it.”: were provided....

Reply: Interesting term to consider. I am ok with this term used currently (as shown above) and no other reviewer brought this to my attention. I feel this can remain. I will change if you insist.

3. Results

• “This is simply an aggregate total of the weighted ecosystem service ranking, no other statistical analyses were completed or required to meet the goals of this study”: what do you mean with that? please taka a look of these works. https://0-www-tandfonline-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/09640568.2019.1598341; https://0-www-sciencedirect-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S1470160X21004234

Reply: I did review article and not sure how to reference and apply it to my study – pls offer further clarity if desired on specific action.

This sentence is simply intended to be a clarifier – people may think other simple statistics need to be done but, as this only 1 of many results, and all results must be taken and synthesized together, I didn't want people to get caught up in “Why didn't you do a full statistical analysis with mean, SD, box/whisper plot, etc.” as that had no relevance to the intended outcome of this study not readily surmised with the existing results.

• “It must be noted that these maps are not scientific implementation tools but generalized”: .. these sounds a bit general and vague... the better is that you create a section with the limits of this study and you describe carefully some sentence that you put here and there.

Reply: Yes, I did that in prior submission but was told to put this sentence here. This clarification/limitation is stated here and in the conclusion now. I feel it is required here as pointed out by other reviewer as it provides, right there, limits to usability and helps reinforce the goal of this paper and method/approach used. In discussion I state how other information can be augmented to these maps to then be proper scientific implementation tools. Perhaps the sentence is removed completely?

I have removed generalized:

It must be noted that these maps are not scientific implementation tools but regional GI spatial information generated through this study’s ecosystem service MCE identification.

• “Figure 4. Recreational Green Infrastructure Map.”: can you explain this edge?

Reply: edge? I am sorry, I do not see it within the Key or Legend. This map is explained as are all other 4 maps.

4. Discussion

• “The goal of this case study was to identify the green infrastructure landscapes which provided a set of integrated ecosystem services.”: İ thing Gİ is enough... Gİ "landscapes" can be redundant and uncorrect.

Reply: I have revised:

The goal of this case study was to identify the green infrastructure of the region which provided a set of integrated ecosystem services.

• “This signifies that, as a region, these landscapes are the management practices of the many varied stakeholders encom-passing the many wildlife habitats.”: maybe "are"...

Reply: Yes, thank you – corrected. (and)

• “This case study successfully illustrated a framework for linking landscapes to ecosystem services.”: please limit to write "illustrated" without succesfully... this issue of selecting, scoring, processing and designing Gİ is highly arbitrary... thus we don't have for now a "succesful" way...

Reply: ‘successfully’ removed.

• “this approach of gener-alized ES indicators was very successful in engaging discussion: Change “successful” to “useful”.

Reply: completed.

• “This study demon-strated a multi-criteria analysis to map green infrastructure regions based on comprehen-sive ecosystem services according to combined ecological”: this study demonstrates... developed... created... presented... all these sentences are sparsely written here and there in this final section... please be more systematic and group all these sentences in a unique chapter of innovations and policy implications

Reply: I will do so as exhibited in revised paper for this section.

5. Conclusions

as already written... please declare the limits and, among them, please consider that in your Gİ design you didn't considered the demand of ES...

Reply: I was educated that study limitations go into discussion, not conclusions. I have elaborated the study’s limitations per your comments within the discussion – if you want this area of dialogue moved to conclusion please let me know.

I have added:

Ecosystem service mapping is a rapidly evolving field and this study exhibits limitations in its ES assessment. As a working map and weighting approach, further data can be integrated or even developed to fit within the GI framework. For example, this study does not consider ecosystem service demand in its mapping nor utilize modeling to formulate GI impacts. Both spatial and value indices can be further developed u

The scientific evidence for the MCE ES values of Table 2 is not fully explained in this paper due to space limitations but fully supported within Appendix D. These valuations are, to the best degree possible, synthesized from various scientists (e.g. hydrologist-ecologist-recreationist all valuing the same landscape classification such as ‘wetland pond’) and not modelled or quantified collectively. This is a future endeavor which can be completed by the various stakeholders regionally or on a parcel basis. Additionally, different value scales can be explored to refine the value matrix.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

No other relevant comments. All the previously mentioned points are addressed by this new version of the manuscript. 

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 paper entitled "Mapping green infrastructure: A sustainable planning approach to analyzing and evaluating ecosystem services in Utah’s Wasatch Front" presents an assessment of the ecosystem service provision capacity in Utah's catchment while using different "networks" of analysis. The topic is of high interest for the current scientific debate since one of the most recurrent problems in bridging the gap between theory and application of ES in practice relies on the capacity to find operational methodologies to produce composite spatial indicators and interpreting the results. Overall, this work seems well designed, with a sound and clear introduction a robust methodology, a good discussion (with some "out-of-track" considerations) and the conclusion. The English is overall good with some specific sentencing problems here and there that can be corrected with the support of an external reader.

But to my view the main problem concern the methodology: here i see that the author is not able to manage properly this "weighting" process which is extremely complicated but, at the same time, is the core of the assessment. By the weight matrix depend the ES mapping result, thus the quantity and quality of variables influence the result. The main problem in that part is that what the author list as the network is somehow composed of land-use characters mixed with some planning measures. And these two things represent a different sides of the problem (the sensitivity of the system and its transformative capacity). On the other hand, the Ecosystem Services listed in columns are not ecosystem services... sometimes these are duplicate and, besides, sometimes are a copy of the network characteristics.

Secondly, when these big matrices are implemented in GIS there are a lot of auto-spatial correlation problems which are not solved by traditional overall and classification... thus generating problems in the final GI composition (but this is a pretty technical problem).

So what i guess is that maybe this layer composition should be reduced to a few, logically connected and pertinent, layers, avoiding a big confusion in the matrix. Otherwise, please declare that this work is based on expert judgment... but the risk is that you are going to describe poorly scientifically grounded research.

Please take a look at my detailed comments and try to correct them.

Good luck!

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled “Mapping green infrastructure: A sustainable planning approach to analyzing and evaluating ecosystem services in  Utah’s Wasatch Front” proposes a methodology to  classify and map the landscapes, in order to maintaining their ability to perform different functions and enhance the system  of multi-functional ecosystem services.

In particular, the paper is very interesting, proposes an innovative methodology and is well scientifically supported. The work applies landscape planning approaches, linking different scientific disciplines, and encourage the development of sustainability indicators. In addition to the methodological contribution, the paper increases the awareness on the importance of participatory processes, involving different stakeholders, as measure to enforce the relationship between natural and social systems and instances. 

The paper is well structured; the writing is generally correct and quite fluent; the English language is grammatically correct. Some concepts should be expressed more clearly.

I invite you to make the recommended corrections according to the specific comments below.

Abstract summarizes main objectives and findings. I’d like to suggest to avoid acronyms (UN).

Introduction provides a broad contextualization of the work. I’d like to suggest to better develop the transition between the ecosystems services issue and the green infrastructures one.

The methodology is robust and supported by an appropriate bibliography.

Results are clear, and the Discussions section is very well argued.

Conclusions are properly structured.

Specific comments:

Line 12: I suggest avoiding the “UN” acronym.

Line 13: “This research’s multi-criteria analysis” is missing “aims to…”?

Line 16: I suggest to change “…multi-criterion” with “…multi-criteria”.

Line 21: I suggest to add “sustainable LANDSCAPE planning and management”

Lines 38-40: I suggest integrating the different types of ecosystem services with more extensive examples

Lines 41 – 45: The concept is unclear.

Lines 48-52: The concept is unclear.

 Lines 70-71: I suggest adding the literature references.

Line 75: It is necessary to specify the figure reference.

Lines 78-81: I suggest adding some examples.

Lines 89-90: The concept is unclear. In which way the Multifunctionality provides the ecosystem services framework for valuation?

Lines 105-106: Are you sure? Specify in what aspect.

Lines 116: I suggest adding “GIS environment”.

Line 124: I suggest concluding the paragraph with the aim of the work.

Line 138: I suggest changing “flowchart” with “framework”.

Line 143: I suggest explaining the acronym “NGO”.

Lines 215-221: The concept is unclear, please try to increase the information.

Lines 273-275: The concept is unclear, please try to increase the information.

Line 323: I suggest removing (JNBC)

Lines 337-342: I suggest to review the results presented in the 2.5 paragraph.

Lines 343-362: The work process is unclear. I suggest to better explain what is reported in the Appendix 2.

Line 508: I suggest integrating a further map regarding the overlapping GI networks.

Lines 674-676: The concept is unclear.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript proposes an approach to operationalize the ecosystem services (ES) provided by green and blue infrastrucutres into planning decision. A region in Utah, where many of the problems related to human-nature relations are present, was selected as suitable case study. Overall, the topic is interesting. A wide literature body on ES and green infrastructures is available, but their traslation to decision making is still a challenge.

However, the work has some major issues that should be solved.

• the author included "econiomic health", "economic support", as well as a generic "ecosystem services" into the matrix (table 2 and related discussion). These terms are not ES and should be excluded in an ES analysis. The author should use a clear ES classification (e.g. Millennium ecosystem assessment, CICES, etc)
• The demand for ES should be also considered in planning issues. Please, discuss this aspect.
• pag. 9. line 303: what the author means with "landslide areas habitat"? this was not included in table 2.
• please, use a decimal metric system for area units. (Km2 or hectares instead of acres)
• the term "Hydrological green infrastructures" has no meaning. The author should refear to "blue infrastructures"
• Water-related services should be mapped and evaluated at basin scale (e.g. Gaglio et al 2020 Ecosystem Services, 45, 101158) and not at admistrative ones. This prevent to understand ecological processes occuring at larger scale.
• pag. 15, lines495-497: "...maps can help agencies and organizations refine and achieve long term visions". How? Why spatial analyses are needed and how should be implemented in practice?

Reviewer 4 Report

Revision (Round 1)

Mapping green infrastructure: A sustainable planning approach to analyzing and evaluating ecosystem services in Utah’s Wasatch Front

Overall: The theme of the paper is very current, and the methodology used seems to be very interesting. However, there are some issues with the way the paper is written as well as the way some sections are presented. The paper is disorganized and lacks depth in some sections, such as the discussion one for example. There are also some typos, and some sentences are confusing and difficult to read and to understand. In order to be publishable, this paper needs serious improvements.

Abstract: The abstract should be improved. Although the reader gets the main idea of the topic of the paper, I find it a bit confusing to be honest. What is exactly the aim of the research? Is it to identify the ecosystem-producing landscapes in the Salt Lake City Region of Utah using the green infrastructure? What is the methodology? And the findings? I think you need to clarify these things in this section.

Introduction: The introduction needs some changes. The first half of this section seems ok. The authors do a great literature revision, but the text seems not fluid, and needs improvements. In the second half, the authors give an emphasis on the methods they will use, and, in my opinion, this should go to the methods section. The objectives should also be rewritten. Please see the notes in the manuscript document.

Methodology: This section needs serious improvements. The description of the methods is not 100% clear and, in some cases, is very confusing. In addition, the authors use a method for this research, but never use any reference and never explain why this method is the best choice fort his research. Even if this is a new method, the author fails to explain exactly why they use this or that, instead of other things (example: in the matrix, why the classification of 1, 0,5 or 0, instead of 1, 2 and 3?) This section lacks scientific support.  

Results: The results seem ok. Everything is well explained and make sense. Nothing to add

Discussion: This section needs improvements. Although the results are ok, there is no discussion of the results here. In fact, in some parts of the text, it seems that the authors are presenting the results all over again. The main goal of this section is (apart from presenting the results of the study) to discuss them and compare them with previous studies and other authors, so we can understand the similarities and differences you found. How are we supposed to understand if this methodology works if we have nothing to compare with? What are the strengths and the weaknesses of your methodology? What do your results mean? Was the main objective reached? There is so much that is missing here. Please rewrite this section.

Conclusions: The conclusions are ok but could be improved. You should add next steps or even what could be done different to improve your results.

References: There are some references where the DOI is missing. Please correct this.

Note: Please see more comments in the attached PDF file