Evaluation of Ecosystem Services in Mining Basins: An Application in the Piedmont Region (Italy)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
As already noted in the review of the first edition of this article, the assumptions made in presenting the results of the expansion of the three quarries by 10%, 20% and 30% in both numerical values, Tables 3-5, and Figures 5-7 and 8-9 are not well structures and clear for the reader.
The revised version shows some minor improvements as compared with the first submission, however the article still needs some essential improvement in the results presentation and analysis before its publication to the Sustainability Journal.
On the same time the methodology presented can provide a useful tool in the Strategic Environmental Assessment of Regional mine planning, therefore the article may be returned to the authors for improvements.
Moreover, extensive editing of English language and style is required.
Specific comments on the manuscript are found in the pdf file attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
As already noted in the review of the first edition of this article, the assumptions made in presenting the results of the expansion of the three quarries by 10%, 20% and 30% in both numerical values, Tables 3-5, and Figures 5-7 and 8-9 are not well structures and clear for the reader.
Based on this comment, we clarified these differences in the Results Section (lines 338-350). We would underline that this is of course a simplification of the expansion of quarries, but it was useful to understand the capability of the tool in supporting the ex-ante evaluation of planning processes. Moreover, we better structured the tables to simplify their readability.
The revised version shows some minor improvements as compared with the first submission, however the article still needs some essential improvement in the results presentation and analysis before its publication to the Sustainability Journal.
Based on the previous answer and the simplification that we used for simulating the expansion of the quarries, we think that the results are extended enough to understand the pros of the tool. It is not the aim of the paper to deeply describe the effects of the expansions on ES, even if we also illustrated these results. Conversely, our main scope is to test the tool, verifying the pros and cons, and how can be applied by decision-makers in Strategic Environmental Assessment.
On the same time the methodology presented can provide a useful tool in the Strategic Environmental Assessment of Regional mine planning, therefore the article may be returned to the authors for improvements.
We are glad that the Reviewer shares with the authors the potentialities of this tool within the Strategic Environmental Assessment of Regional mine planning.
Moreover, extensive editing of English language and style is required.
The authors have improved the English language and style thanks to the support of a mother tongue expert.
Specific comments on the manuscript are found in the pdf file attached.
We have improved the paper by considering all the comments given in the pdf file.
For what concerns the use of acronyms, for example “CS” - Carbon Sequestration, this is a stylistic choice that is assumed by the authors, also based on other reviewers' comments
Reviewer 2 Report
I have no more comments on the contents of this resubmission, except for the section Conclusions which could be improved by moving the main contents into the Discussion, and the left to be rephrased and summarised.
Author Response
I have no more comments on the contents of this resubmission, except for the section Conclusions which could be improved by moving the main contents into the Discussion, and the left to be rephrased and summarised.
We have better related the sections Discussion and Conclusions following the suggestions of the Reviewer.
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
It is not clear to me what the main point of the paper is. The paper seeks to demonstrate how to predict the impact of mining on different ecosystem services under different scenarios. The problem is, the paper essentially uses other tools for the prediction (Simulsoil/QGIS). Thus there is no apparent novelty here. Then the scenarios developed are just increases in the quarry footprint without any basis provided for how one assumes the quarries will expand in this particular manner. If there was some novel way to predict quarry footprint increase, that could augment the lack of novelty in the ecosystem services prediction. While the literature review is long (in fact too long), it doesn't argue for any novelty in the present work. Finally, the level of English language needs to be improved.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of the article Evaluation of ecosystem services in mining basins: an application in Piedmont Region (Italy) , by Vanessa Assumma , Marta Bottero , Caterina Caprioli * , Giulia Datola , Giulio Mondini
Summary
The article under review presents the application of Ecosystems Services evaluation in three quarries, i.e. aggregates, ornamental, industrial for the Regional Plan of Mining Activities of Piedmont Region (Northern Italy). The existing state of the Ecosystems in the three areas is compared with the respective Bioplysical values when alternative planning scenarios entailing the expansion of the surface foot print of the quarries examined by 10%, 20% and 30% are applied. This evaluation is conducted through GIS and the Simulsoil software, measuring the differences produced and their respective economic impacts. The simulation results could support the formulation of planning strategies, estimating the Cost-Benefit-Analysis of competitive land-use values. The study also indicates that ES could be integrated into the Strategic Assessment of the Environmental Impacts of a Mining Plan and the Environmental Impact study of a Mining Project allowing protection of the environmental system.
General Comments
- This article presents the Ecosystem Services Evaluation as a tool that could be usefully integrated in Regional Planning of Mining activities. The case studies presented are three quarries in Piedmont Region in Norther Italy, and the evaluation is conducted through GIS and the Simulsoil software.
- This article, along with the cited research papers, consist a useful source of information for researchers and planning authorities regarding the evaluation of Ecosystems in mining areas as a tool for Planning and Strategic Environmental Impacts Assessment. However, prior to its publication the article has to be significantly modified by the authors regarding the presentation of the results, the consistency of the data presented and the use of technical terminology and English in general and reviewed again.
A number of specific comments are summarized below.
Based on the performed review, it is proposed that the article is revised by the authors and send again to the Sustainability Journal for review
- Specific Comments
- Number of pages to be corrected
- Line, 32-33: Impacts on the landscape to be included
- Line 147, management of protected areas management,
- Line 167, a limited number few kind of research studies,
- Line 169, losses and gains of eight ecosystems
- Line 186, provide supporting evidence on how 100euros/ton of CO2 sequestered is calculated
- Line 188, Anthropic- Anthropogenic>
- Line 260, three mining compartments departments?
- Line 267, related compartment, department?, Line 276….
- Tables 3,4,5 to appear in the text before Figures 5,6,7
- Not clear for the reader what Figures 5,6,7 present, legend with the colors required
- Figures 5,6,7 and Tables 3-5, footnote explaining To, T1, T2, T3
- Figures 5,6.7 In the legends to include the names of the quarries, since in the text of section 3 the analysis is made giving the names of the quarries
- Not clear why B.A.U scenaria differ in 10%, 20%, 50% expansion of the quarries given in Figures 5,6, 7?. Previously in the Article, L. 310, it is noted that, In this research, the three scenarios created in QGIS 3.10.12 compared to the state of the art of the territory (business as usual scenario – BAU), which in Simulsoil, is represented by the LCP with a level of resolution of 5 meters.
- 348-349, the article notes, “Instead, the quarries of in Rivalta di Torino and Vidracco record very similar values of these ES both before and after the simulation. The only exception is for the Timber Production”. However, this conclusion is not supported for the date presented in Table 3, where significant differences are observed for both quarries in the values of CS = Carbon Sequestration, for CPR = Crop Production in Rivalta di Torino.
- Table 3, to be corrected17,8
- Not clear why the Biophysical and Economic values given for To for the three quarries, Table 3, 4, 5 differ for 10%, 20%, and 50% expansion, since these values correspond to BAU. Previously in the Article, L. 310, it is noted that, In this research, the three scenarios created in QGIS 3.10.12 compared to the state of the art of the territory (business as usual scenario – BAU), whichi n Simulsoil, is represented by the LCP with a level of resolution of 5 meters.
- 437, In the article it is noted that “However, the most negative consequences for Vidracco have been recorded as very evident at 20% expansion and they are less evident at 50%”. However, this conclusion Is valid SDR = Sediment Retention and not for the other biophysical values
- 454-l. 502, Conclusions, to be rewritten in a more structured manner
- The text needs to be carefully edited regarding the use o English
