PONE-D-21-04584

Estimating societal benefits from Nordic catchments: an integrative approach using a final ecosystem services framework

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Immerzeel,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I think the submitted manuscript provides important strategy for assessing the ecosystem services. Both the reviewers have appreciated the study however suggested minor revisions. Moreover, I have also reviewed independently and agree with the reviewers comments. I, therefore, request the authors to revise the maunscript accordingly.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 30 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Lalit Kumar Sharma, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. Thank you for stating in the text of your manuscript that you obtained "signed informed consent for body donation for scientific investigation" from the patients before death. Please also add this information to your ethics statement in the online submission form.

1. Please provide the full name of the institution where cadavers were obtained.

1. We note that Figures 1, 3, 4 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

4a, You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 3, 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

4b, If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

I think the submitted manuscript provides important strategy for assessing the ecosystem services. Both the reviewers have appreciated the study however I am also with an opinion that the authors must explain the basis of FES over the others. Moreover, I have also reviewed independently and agree with the reviewers comments. I, therefore, request the authors to revise the maunscript accordingly.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. Summary of the research and your overall impression

The study presents a supply assessment and monetary quantification of ten ecosystem services in six catchments across four Nordic countries. The authors draw on publicly available statistical data on agricultural production and farm income, and land cover/use data and other spatial datasets. The authors apply published recommendations on how to conduct ecosystem services assessments, and provide an overview of how they meet these criteria. The authors conduct a sensitivity analysis for the ecosystem services more susceptible to suffer from data uncertainty. The authors also provide a scenario-building exercise to explore how conflicts between different stakeholders could emerge as a consequence of changes in land management.

I consider that this study provides an interesting assessment of the benefits provided to society by ecosystems depending on a range of biophysical and demographic factors, and should be interesting for, not only academic researchers, but likely also for decision makers and other stakeholders. The language is correct and clear, and the arguments flow nicely. Worth stressing is the well documented data sources provided in the supplementary materials, along with the data underlying the analysis.

Even though I consider the study is rather robust and deserves being considered for publication in the journal, below I provide some comments I hope will help the authors further increase the quality of the study.

2. Discussion of specific areas for improvement

1. Line 43: It is mentioned that ‘a complete overview of the net value of all relevant ecosystem services is useful’, but it seems that the authors don’t follow up too concretely on explaining ‘useful’ for what in the following sentence. Is there a way to be more concrete on this?

2. In the first paragraph of introduction (line 36-40) it is mentioned the historical land management focus on maximisation of production of material goods, and then use the TEV indicator to make comparable the ecosystem services assessed in the study. Even though the two doesn’t amount to the same, to me it looks slightly contradictory. Perhaps the authors could elaborate a bit on other type of values that could be used to assess the supply of benefits from ecosystems beyond monetary values? It might be appropriate providing such brief discussion point in subsection 4.3 on limitations.

3. Line 73: It is good to see that you developed the framework out of your interest for those overseen ecosystem services, but perhaps the authors could also point to some further reasons the audience why should appreciate your framework?

4. Line 84: ‘variation’ in what?

5. Lines 88-91: Is there a conflict between the first two hypotheses? What about places with both dominant primary sectors’ land uses and high population density (e.g. Odense, Orrevassdraget and Sävjaån)? I acknowledge that you touch upon this point in the discussion (lines 449-467), but perhaps worth to mention in the last part of introduction where you put forward your hypotheses that one doesn’t necessarily contradicts the other, if that is the case.

6. Lines 205-208: Since forest seems to a key land cover for the supply of ecosystem services in the study sites (most obviously for forestry, but also for game, foraging and recreation), I wonder why it was not included forest cover in the multiple linear regressions models. Perhaps it is because it is included in the SDI? If so, I assume then that water is also included there, but then is not clear why you also used fraction of water in the landscape as a separate variable. Perhaps it is interesting to explain just a bit more this point.

7. In relation to the previous comment, it might be interesting discussing briefly the criteria underpinning the selection of explanatory variables there.

8. I highly appreciate the very detailed methods’ section. However, I still can’t fully understand how you computed the monetary value of recreational based on travel costs. Since you refer to work not yet published for explanation (lines 181-182), perhaps a brief description of what travel costs include in your understanding might help the reader get an idea about the appropriateness of using such indicator for valuation of recreational services.

9. Line 301: ‘brackets’ could be substituted by ‘parentheses’.

10. Also in table 4, I wonder why the study sites are not given the full name as in the text and other figures. Space reasons?

11. Line 335: I think ‘...of dominant stakeholder’ should either be ‘the dominant stakeholder’ or ‘dominant stakeholders’.

12. Line 344: The reader might have forgotten by now which ones were ‘the northernmost sites’, i.e. Simojoki and Vildelälven I assume? Perhaps worth spelling their name here.

13. Line 356: From figure 5d is difficult to see why ‘visitors, landowners and global society would all benefit’. For landowners we see a little gain, but for visitors and global society? Is there anything missing there? Or I might have just missed something.

14. Line 410: It is the first the ‘Water Framework Directive’ is mentioned in the study. Is there a way the reader could get an idea what such framework is about, and why it is worth mentioning it here?

15. Line 416: I think something is missing in ’...emphasizing value is created in the interaction.’

Reviewer #2: I found this paper and its analysis to be clearly written and mostly well explained. The paper uses the FES ecosystem assessment method to explore spatial and other context differences in ecosystem supply and demand. My concerns with the manuscript as currently written are as follows:

The FES method is contrasted with the CICES and IPBESS approaches early on in the paper but I think the reader needs more explanation of the choice made to use FES. The FES approach is specifically designed to allow the monetary valuation of ecosystem services and as such does not have the coverage that other approaches claim to have. A number of ecosystem services are difficult if not impossible to value in monetary terms e.g. many culturally significant services such as heritage landscapes and other assets. These services arise in both high and low income economies I support the use of FES and also agree that monetised values carry weight in policymaking circles (especially finance ministries which control budgets). However, it is important to recognise its limitations, which the authors hint at in the latter sections of the paper. It would be clearer if these issues were dealt with at the start of the paper.

I don't agree that the key word in the FES approach is "direct" for me it is the word "final". The process by which individual welfare is changed need not literally be direct, particularly in non-use categories. Although the strength of the FES is that double counting can be avoided.

The paper combines the FES approach with the concept of TEV, but again it is important to clarify that TEV does not equal Total system value (TSV) ( see Turner et al 2003 in Ecological Economics for a discussion). In the paper the TEV is referenced by TEEB 2009 but it was first set out in Pearce and Turner 1991 Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment, Johns Hopkins Press Baltimore. I am highlighting the TEV and TSV distinction because the authors make mention of the term "societal optimum" on the first page of the paper. TEV is only a societal optimum in a restricted sense, because of the ESs that do impact on wellbeing but are not meaningfully expressed in monetary terms.

The authors use a range of monetary values based on different valuation methods, market price , travel cost and cost-based estimates and then introduce a sensitivity test. It was not clear to me how this resulted in the 50% increases and reductions in the chosen values. Why 50% ?. the text hints at a comparison with estimates in the published literature, as well as doubts/uncertaintity over the values chosen. Which was it, or was it both?. My concern with this part of the paper was highlighted by the remarks about the social cost of carbon. The reference given for this was Tol's paper. But this is a meta analysis of a number of estimates for SCC, so reducing it by 50% does not seem reasonable to me.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Estimating societal benefits from Nordic catchments: an integrative approach using a final ecosystem services framework

PONE-D-21-04584R1

Dear Dr. Immerzeel,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Lalit Kumar Sharma, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: