Evaluation and Analysis of the Gross Ecosystem Product towards the Sustainable Development Goals: A Case Study of Fujian Province, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presented manuscript is interesting and is congruent with the aims and scope of the Sustainability. Meanwhile, there are some drawbacks. 1. The purpose of the study and research object should be clearly stated in the Introduction section.

2. The authors did not define the research hypothesis in the paper. Please define it clearly. The hypothesis should be also discussed in the end of the article whether it has been proven or not. 

3. The literature review leading to hypotheses development is insufficient. Normally, it is appropriate to provide subheading towards the development of each of the hypotheses. The authors should consider a subheading for each of the hypotheses with sufficient literature explaining the gap in the literature justifying the need for such hypotheses to be developed and tested. That is, the authors must provide adequate bases for developing objectives.

4. The article does not contain a proper explanation of research methods and procedures.

 

 

5. Despite the use of fine statistical instruments or tools for analysing the data, the authors still need to justify why these statistical tools were used. Thus, they need to clearly show how each hypotheses was tested and the findings provided. They need to clearly state which hypothesis was rejected and accepted and why.

 

6. The authors is also advised to discuss the future research directions with respect to the research results obtained.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

    Thank you for this interesting research. This study aims to identify the coupling relationship between GEP and GDP and propose policy recommendations for regional sustainable development. Hereby are some comments that may help you improve on it:

1.     Materials and Methods

In 2.3 Accounting Methods, it is suggested to add the extant literatures and the research gaps that used this method.

2.     Results

In 3.1. Changes in GEP, the authors mentioned “The trend of change in the value of cultural services was similar 208 that in GEP, with an upward trend year by year from 2000 to 2019, growing from 47.237 209 billion yuan in 2000 to a peak of 1161.59 billion yuan in 2019”. I suggested the authors could add the reason why the peak was reached in 2019.

3.     Discussion

(1)  Regarding 4.2. Recommendations for Sustainable Development, I suggest this article could reinforce the discussion and implications behind the data analysis.

(2)  Please add the following three literatures and strengthen the insights and contributions of this paper: (a) Wu et al. (2022). A critical review of Gross ecosystem product accounting in China: Status quo, problems and future directions. (b) Zhao et al. (2023). Evaluation of the Gross Ecosystem Product and Analysis of the Transformation Path of “Two Mountains” in Hulunbuir City, China. (c)Wang et al. (2022). Measuring Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) in Guangxi, China, from 2005 to 2020.

 I hope that these notes are helpful in reviewing your article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract: Authors should add the original value of this study for scholars and policymakers.

Literature review: It is recommended to add recent studies (see. Springer Nature Journals papers & Sustainability Journal & Inter. Journal Envir MDPI).

Hypothesis/ Assumptions : Can more impouveded and add.

Results : Figure 3, sould be joined in the appendix section.

Contribution fo this research paper must improuved.

Conclusion: well written

References: all new articles cited in the body of the paper must be add in this section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is ready to be published in the current form.