A Global Meta-Analysis for Estimating Local Ecosystem Service Value Functions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting approach in the assessment and valuation of ecosystem services in the face of increasing human activities and demands. Although my understanding of the methodological framework used herein was rather limited, I found the paper well written and clearly explained.

As a marine scientist though, I think the authors would benefit from Townsend et al. 2018 (The challenge of implementing the marine ecosystem service concept. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, 359) in strengthening their discussion on pages 15-16 (lines 597-611) about the limitations of such approaches when assessing scarcely-studied and poorly understood "biomes"such as the open sea, which this work appears to have considerable underestimate for these very reasons.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Article:      A global meta-analysis for estimating local ecosystem service value functions

Reference: environments-1285398

Journal:      Environments (ISSN 2076-3298)

Dear Reviewer,

Please find attached the revised submission and response to reviewers of the paper environments-1285398, to be considered for publication in Environments. The paper has been improved, based on the constructive comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. Our detailed response to the reviewers comments is provided below.

Point 1: This is an interesting approach in the assessment and valuation of ecosystem services in the face of increasing human activities and demands. Although my understanding of the methodological framework used herein was rather limited, I found the paper well written and clearly explained.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for providing critical and constructive feedback on our paper.

Point 2: As a marine scientist though, I think the authors would benefit from Townsend et al. 2018 (The challenge of implementing the marine ecosystem service concept. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, 359) in strengthening their discussion on pages 15-16 (lines 597-611) about the limitations of such approaches when assessing scarcely-studied and poorly understood "biomes" such as the open sea, which this work appears to have considerable underestimate for these very reasons.

Response 2: Marine ecosystem services valuation is, indeed, a challenging area of research. This information was added- on page 17 (lines 662-667).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presented for review concerns the issue of how to evaluate the local ecosystem service. It is a very fashionable thing in recent years. Ecosystem services are also frequently researched and described in various articles. In this case, the authors focus on local ecosystem services. The manuscript contains a lot of information, it is even overloaded with it and the reader may get lost in this thicket of information. It is not clearly stated what the authors of the manuscript are researching. It is difficult to find this information from the thicket of texts. Authors should simplify their text so that the reader can navigate through it more easily. Charts and graphics would be helpful. In general, however, I think that the text is interesting and extends the scientific knowledge about estimating local ecosystem service value functions. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Article:      A global meta-analysis for estimating local ecosystem service value functions

Reference: environments-1285398

Journal:      Environments (ISSN 2076-3298)

Dear Reviewer,

Please find attached the revised submission and response to reviewers of the paper environments-1285398, to be considered for publication in Environments. The paper has been improved, based on the constructive comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. Our detailed response to the reviewers comments is provided below.

Point 1: The manuscript contains a lot of information; it is even overloaded with it and the reader may get lost in this thicket of information. It is not clearly stated what the authors of the manuscript are researching. It is difficult to find this information from the thicket of texts.

Response 1: The paper has been thoroughly reviewed and edited, and texts have been re-ordered to improve readability. Also, the overview of the paper (at the end of the Introduction) has been corrected and updated.

The main objective of this research is described on Page 3 (lines 104-115).

Point 2: Authors should simplify their text so that the reader can navigate through it more easily. Charts and graphics would be helpful.

Response 2: The text has been corrected in several places and simplified where possible. Also, the naming of variables has been made consistent throughout the text.

Given this is, mainly, a statistical analysis there is little room for charts and graphics. In fact, we used a structure and presentation that is similar to several of the other mentioned meta-analyses.

Point 3: In general, however, I think that the text is interesting and extends the scientific knowledge about estimating local ecosystem service value functions.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for providing critical and constructive feedback on our paper. We have picked-up on all recommendations and, in particular expanded sections and included relevant additional information.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx