All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The reviewers have no further comments on the manuscript that has clearly improved after major revisions. It is now suitable for publication in PeerJ.
The manuscript has clearly improved after amjor revisions. I have no further comments to make.
The manuscript has clearly improved after amjor revisions. I have no further comments to make.
The manuscript has clearly improved after amjor revisions. I have no further comments to make.
The manuscript has clearly improved after amjor revisions. I have no further comments to make.
Reviewer 1 remarks that many details on data collection and analysis are not enough clear: e.g., how the ES data was derived, what thresholds were chosen and how the potential threats have been evaluated.
Furthermore, there are several inconsistencies in the use of terms that should be taken into consideration in the revised submission.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
The manuscript is generally well-written and there are only few typos (see general comments). There are however several ambiguities concerning the names of the ecosystem services (ES): different terms are used in text, tables and figures. This needs to be corrected.
The text is less than average embedded in recent international literature on ES. Several key papers on ES hotspots are missing. Suggestions are made below. Some more background is needed for instance on what is an ES hotspot, how it is defined here, and what makes a hotspot different from an “ES area”.
The article is structured according to a basic scientific structure. Some raw data is shared, although it is hard to figure out what is being shown.
Self-contained: more details are need on the input data (ES maps), otherwise results are not reproducible.
The manuscript presents original primary research, despite being strongly based on results of an earlier study (Davids et al. 2016)
The findings are very case-specific, the study does not strongly relate to what has been discussed earlier within the ES field on hotspots, and the incorporation of threat in hotspots.
The analysis is a rather basic spatial overlay analysis. The assumptions on how each of the land uses poses a threat on each specific service need to be fed with more background, literature and basically a more thorough approach.
Methods are not replicable in their current form. Unclear what hotspots are, how ES maps were created, what indicators were used. Also unclear how threat and ES are linked, i.e. how potential impacts are delineated. More detail in comments below.
Given that methodology is better explained, the kind of results are robust, albeit simple in the form they are currently presented. A sensitivity analysis would be recommendable, with changing thresholds of what constitutes a “hotspot”.
Conclusions are incomplete and have little focus on the actual results.
This manuscript analyses spatial overlaps between spatial plans, their associated threats to ecosystem services (ES) and ES for the Greater Durban Area. The study builds on earlier ES assessment results and spatial development plans. In principle this is a solid synthesis of different data types through establishing a spatial link by potential threats. However, it is unclear how the ES data was derived, what thresholds were chosen and how the potential threats have been evaluated. There is no sensitivity analysis of the results, which hence are merely reporting percentages of spatial overlap. Furthermore, there are several inconsistencies in the use of terms. The study builds often on older references and does not adequately deal with recent developments within the field of ES, for instance on spatial priority setting through hotspots.
I will detail these points below.
Abstract: sustainable development/SDG are mentioned prominently here and in the introduction, but do not appear in the rest of the text. Please reconsider the framing, or add some analyses.
Please mention the five ES (called functions in the text) in the abstract
35-38 Please structure these examples according to standard classes (provisioning, regulating, cultural ES, or material, regulating, non-material nature’s contributions). Please refer to more recent literature, e.g. Diaz et al. 2018
39-40 the not on extinction rates is a side-line and not relevant here, please delete and focus the introduction on the relevant aspects that you aim to study (ES, threats)
62 Groot et al. 2017 – could not find this reference in the list (name would be “de Groot” I suppose)
65 beneficiaries: reference needed for each of these statements instead of a collection of references at the end of the sentence). Here appropriate is e.g. Baro et al. 2016
66 administrative boundaries: also here a reference is needed
71-81 This paragraph is rather vague and too general. It is not clear how it contributes to developing the storyline.
105 Please define what priority areas or hotspots are, how they have been defined and delineated. Please also refer to relevant literature. E.g. Schröter and Remme 2016 (a review on ES hotspots), Schröter et al. 2017, Egoh et al. 2008
107-110 The authors distinguish different ES according to who beneficiaries (or to which type of infrastructure is protected). This is very unusual. I would argue that the five “functions” are actually the ES, and then this analysis could as well be based on just these five. Much more detail is needed on how these maps were derived, what indicators were used, and what thresholds were used to define what is a hotspot.
116 typo assess
131 EMA needs to be explained
150 D’MOSS is introduced for the second time
192 hotspot richness needs to be defined.
194 How were areas defined here? Are these any areas where there is more than zero of the specific ES provided?
How were ES measured and standardised?
210 More detail is needed on the proposed land use changes.
246-250 Much more detail is needed on how compatibility was assessed. This was probably done through expert judgement. Still, each LU change can affect each ES differently, and a critical reader would want to see a bit more background on how these assumptions were made.
250-251 Terms like “environment”, “amenity” are to unspecific and need to be explained.
259 addition of nutrients is not a decline in an ES (retention)
266-268 Names of ES are inconsistent with Table 1 and Figure 1. This is just one example. Please use consistent terms throughout.
268 “analysed groupings”: it is unclear what was done here, reproducibility not given.
270-271 “maximum values” unclear what has been done here. Please explain this thoroughly.
279 point file is jargon, please avoid. Also here it is not clear what analyses have been done. A point has no spatial dimension, so what was assessed in relation to the ES maps?
370 typo Rockström
383 “is expected to increase” this has not been analysed here, so it seems irrelevant for the discussion.
396 Reference is inappropriate here.
397 Water is not “produced”, but rather flowing through the system.
401-403 This is only stating the obvious, could hence be deleted.
405-414 This is too general, rather specific impacts of specific threats on specific ES should be discussed (as this also would address the uncertainty in the delineation of threats to hotspots).
422 potential inaccessibility: is there any proof for this, maybe a spatial analysis?
427-439 Invasive species have not been assessed, analysed in any way as far as I could follow, so it is unclear why this is mentioned here. Suggest to delete.
456 Please mentioned that “potential” threats are meant, as there has been no assessment of the actual impact of the threat, nor provided reasonable backup by literature.
Table 1: suggest to merge 13 to five ES, and explain at least shortly methods and indicators used here.
Figure 1: phosphorous is also a nutrient, so it is not clear why this is separate here. Also, the names are not consistent with the text and the table.
Figure 2 typo hectares
Table 2: 60% and 47% (bottom row) of what?
Table 3 abbreviation EIA needs explanation
References suggested
Díaz, S., U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, B. Martín-López, R.T. Watson, Z. Molnár, R. Hill, K.M.A. Chan, I.A. Baste, K.A. Brauman, S. Polasky, A. Church, M. Lonsdale, A. Larigauderie, P.W. Leadley, A.P.E. van Oudenhoven, F. van der Plaat, M. Schröter, S. Lavorel, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, E. Bukvareva, K. Davies, S. Demissew, G. Erpul, P. Failler, C.A. Guerra, C.L. Hewitt, H. Keune, S. Lindley, Y. Shirayama, 2018. Assessing nature's contributions to people. Science 359, 270-272.
Baró, F., I. Palomo, G. Zulian, P. Vizcaino, D. Haase, E. Gómez-Baggethun, 2016. Mapping ecosystem service capacity, flow and demand for landscape and urban planning: A case study in the Barcelona metropolitan region. Land Use Policy 57, 405-417.
Schröter, M., R.P. Remme, 2016. Spatial prioritisation for conserving ecosystem services: comparing hotspots with heuristic optimisation. Landsc. Ecol. 31, 431-450.
Schröter, M., R. Kraemer, S. Ceauşu, G.M. Rusch, 2017. Incorporating threat in hotspots and coldspots of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ambio 46, 756-768
Egoh, B., B. Reyers, M. Rouget, D.M. Richardson, D.C. Le Maitre, A.S. van Jaarsveld, 2008. Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 127, 135-140.
no comment
no comment
no comment
This is a very good paper, suitable for publication in this journal. Indeed we need more like this for other large South African cities - well done.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.