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.
After reviewing your revised manuscript and the reviewers' comments, I have decided to accept your article for publication in PeerJ.
'no comment'
'no comment'
'no comment'
The revised paper of Spatial analysis, local people’s perception and economic valuation of wetland ecosystem services in the Usumacinta floodplain, Southern Mexico is good and meets the PeerJ criteria.
Thus, I strongly recommend that PeerJ should publish this paper.
Based on the reviewer's comments, I recommend that you make appropriate changes to your manuscript before it is accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in an appropriate rebuttal letter, and please ensure that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the rebuttal letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript (where appropriate). Direction on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# 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 paper is very well-structured, well written, comprehensive,well balance, uses appropriate and current applications of combination data.
The research paper was conducted rigorously and to a high technical standard. Proper presentation of data for analysis is appreciable.Specific comments are as follows.
1. On line 190-193. The authors suggest that “the more similar the study and policy are, the more accurate the value transfer will be”. This is a commonly held belief (Rosenberger and Phipps, 2007). The stylized fact may be best supported through Johnston and Rosenberger (2010), Kaul et al. (2013) and Rosenberger (2015).
Rosenberger, R.S. and Phipps, T.T. 2007. Correspondence and convergence in benefit transfer accuracy: Meta-analytic review of the literature. In S. Narvud and R. Ready (eds.), Environmental value transfer: Issues and methods. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer. Pp.23-43.
Johnston, R. J. and R. S. Rosenberger. 2010. Methods, Trends and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer. Journal of Economic Surveys 24:479-510.
Kaul, S., Boyle, K. J., Kuminoff, N. V., Parmeter, C. F. & Pope, J. C. (2013), ‘What can we learn from benefit transfer errors? Evidence from 20 years of research on convergent validity’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 66(1), 90–104.
Rosenberger, R.S. 2015. Benefit transfer validity and reliability. In Johnstone, R.J., Rolfe, J., Rosenberger, R.S. and Brouwer, R. (eds), Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values: A Guide for Researchers and Practitioners. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London, Springer, pp. 307-326.
2. On line 199, authors may need to mention why you choose Meta-dataset of Ghermandi et al. 2010 and Van der Ploeg et al 2010. Is meta-dataset appropriate to estimate monetary value of Usumacinta floodplain?.
- In meta-dataset of Ghermandi et al. (2010), most primary studies are from developed countries, yet this dataset are applied to estimate wetland in developing countries. I am wondering why authors do not use another dataset (e.g. Camacho-Valdez et al. (2013), Chaikumbung et al. (2016), Chaikumbung (2016). These dataset may suit to estimate the value of Usumacinta floodplain due to greater the similarity of a study and policy site. However, I do not require that authors change to use dataset, only think carefully about this.
Camacho-Valdez, V., A. Ruiz-Luna, A. Ghermandi, and P. A. L. D. Nunes. 2013. Valuation of ecosystem services provided by coastal wetlands in northwest Mexico. Ocean & Coastal Management 78:1-11.
Chaikumbung, M., H. Doucouliagos, and H. Scarborough. 2016. The economic value of wetlands in developing countries: A meta-regression analysis. Ecological Economics 124:164-174.
Chaikumbung, M. 2016. The ecosystem service value of coastal wetlands in developing countries: A meta-regression analysis. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research 14:8519-8543
3. On line 207-212, it would be more helpful for readers if the authors please clearly state the tools and procedure to estimate the money value of wetland ecosystem service within the Usumacinta floodplain.
- In Appendix A, I find that authors don’t use meta-transfer function to estimate wetland value, yet, using unit value transfer is derived from calculating average value of each ecosystem services from the dataset. Again, I also note that I don’t need that you change to the method, only think whether estimated value is reliable.
For example, why the value of riverine ecosystem services for flood control and storm buffering is so high. This value was calculated from wetland valuation studies from France, USA, Laos, Mozambique, Namibia and Botswana which the value ranges from $0.67 to $434,958.
In my opinion, if data are spread out over a wider range of values, using medium value would be more suitable. In this case, if using medium value, the value of riverine ecosystem services for flood control and storm buffering is about 5,159.26 US$/ha/year.
4. In Materials & Methods Section of Local perception of ecosystem services, information about sample selection and a number of respondents should be provided.
Findings are easy to understand. However, the figures in Table 2 are need to be double checked.
- In the last column, authors should present the figure in average value, not total value.
- Nevertheless, I believe that money value of ecosystem services in this table should be re-estimated by using medium value.
Discussion and conclusion is nicely written. Nevertheless, you may need to add a future research statement. What are the gaps or limitations with the current data; i.e., a call for directed research?
Dear editor,
Now I have concluded revisions for the paper: #39851, entitled "Spatial analysis, local people’s perception and economic valuation of wetland ecosystem services: A case study in the Usumacinta floodplain, Southern Mexico".
In this paper authors considers an integral approach in order to identify specific areas to protect ecosystem services and guarantee the access of communities to natural resources
The authors have done a good job assembling some interesting data, however assembly of data and basic overlap analysis is not sufficient for a significant contribution to the literature. Even though, the topic and the region locally it is very important social and ecologically, authors face the socioecological issues in a very superficial way, as a consequence the approach presented by the authors in lack of novelty.
In general the paper is an informative and interesting work. I understand the local relevance of a research like presented here, however in my opinion the manuscript, such it is here presented, is lacking of relevant ecosystem services and social information.
Since I am not a native English speaker, my opinion about this issue it is not relevant. However, I see a manuscript well structured and easy to follow.
There is not theory or hypothesis that underpins the analysis. The data could be used to answer some novel questions but that has not been done.
In general it not clear how authors deal with the use of different scales of analysis. For example, using maps of bird richness distribution (as a proxy of biodiversity)
I considered that if the main goal of the manuscript is showed an integral study or integral approach about ecosystem services issues and the way local people perceive it, authors should consider increased the number local communities in the surveyed. Authors failed the opportunity to have a deeper analysis about these relevant topics. This matters because had only a portion of the total human communities could have a bias perceptions for local people in the region about the value of ecosystem services. Nonetheless, the material presented in this paper retains value. I´m absolutely sure that, if re-framed, resulting information will be remarkable for understanding one of the most cultural and ecological complex region in Mexico.
This is an interesting piece a work that explores an integral approach in order to identify specific areas to protect ecosystem services and guarantee the access of communities to natural resources in Southern Mexico. Along the paper authors tries to make a substantial general point on this important topic. However, author’s methodological approach is unclear and biased. The authors propose to examine these issues using an integral approach which along the the ms it is not clear how authors deal with the use of different scales (e.g birds distribution maps) . Overall, the manuscript is well written and easy to follow.
This article reports on interviews with local people associated with one of the most socio-ecological complex region in Southern Mexico. However, methodologically fails to include a well representative sample of the people´s living in the region, and it is not clear how authors manage people information. According to Whyte 1985, who defined perception as "the direct experience of environment... and the indirect information received (by and individual) from other individuals, science, and mass media".
- It is not clear in the manuscript how authors managed the influence of their own-presence in the region on environmental and ecosystem services discourse of local people.
- What are cultural and social aspects (subject at frameworks in decisions-marking) that shape what the group perceives and understands.
- People in the region have an incredible range of perceptions on environmental conditions and hazards, which highlighted the variation among people in this regards, however is not reflected in the manuscript.
- Ecosystem services perceptions. This article reports on contrasting interviews with seven social different criteria. The task for researchers is to demonstrate both the range of discursive meaning and the social perceptions that reinforce this meaning. However, it not clear, because it not in the ms. how authors deal with. The data collection this paper entails would necessarily be too brief to capture these deeper levels of meaning. The paper would make a very novel contribution to the field by comparing how local people, who nonetheless share similar ideas of ecosystem services, sort themselves out on this issue.
- Finally, the relative weight of people's concern for ecosystem services issues as a strategy for implementing conservation actions. This is a personal interest of mine, as I work through ideas that conservation fails precisely because so much attention has been paid to economic values (including legislation) and relatively little to public local opinion. As the authors note, public opinion has been reduced to financial matters, as if money were all it took to win over hearts and minds.
Others
It is important to have a deeper literature review. The authors endeavored to maintain a comprehensive approach to the problem but it is hard to see it.
There are many studies in around the world about ecosystem services in particular, and perceptions discourses en general (Indeed, Wilshusen, West, Sundberg, Peet, Watts, among others share in their close attention to conservation discourses).
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.