|In the revised version of the manuscript, the authors have addressed most of the issues raised in the initial review and have improved the overall quality of the manuscript. The additional descriptions in the methods section (particularly 2.2, 2.4 & 2.5) have clarified most of the aspects that where not clear in the initial version, although some aspects could still be improved. The same holds for the results section. Therefore, I have a couple of points that I think should still be addressed before the publication of the manuscript:|
Section 2.4.: the description of agent competition for cells is still not entirely clear to me: You state that “agents did not optimise their land uses according to benefit values, and these values were not used to ensure full supply of each service. Instead benefit values responded in defined ways to changes in demand and supply levels, stimulating production, but not guaranteeing a given production level.“ (p.6., l. 1-5). However, in the baseline case where there are no differences in behavioral parameters, agents are fully rational profit maximizers – and although I understand that the behavioral thresholds of abandonment and competition define why agents may persist with a land use, although it is not the one with the highest benefit, I would rather understand this as a constrained optimization, where the thresholds define some boundary conditions. If this is not the case, you should state more clearly how “benefit values responded in defined ways to changes in demand and supply levels” – i.e. what these defined ways are.
The parameter description in section 2.6. is much better than in the previous version. However, what I am missing is a general overview on the behavioral parameters and their meaning: you mention that AFTs differ in their behavior in section 2.2 (pointing to section 2.6). Then you mention the competition and abandonment threshold first in section 2.4. (without stating that these are the behavioral traits of the AFTs), and finally you describe how behavioral paramaters are varied in different sets in section 2.6. – without referring to what parameters are included in these sets, which only becomes apparent in the appendix. Without consulting the appendix, the reader has no clear idea about the behavioral parameters. Adding a short table to the main text with an overview on the parameters and a short definition would drastically improve the understanding – especially as the behavioral differentiation of the AFTs is such a central part of the manuscript.
Some ambiguities still exist in the paragraph on behavioral parameter variation (section 3.2, p. 10, l.7-27):
You state that “In two scenarios (RCP2.6-SSP4 and RCP4.5-SSP3), behavioural parameterisations determinded whether food was over- or under-supplied by the 2020s” (p.10, l. 13-15) – but you don’t state which behavioral parameter set led to which outcome.
I very much appreciate the further simulations and in detail investigation on the effects of the behavioral parameters and you state how the distribution of behavioral parameters changes - “higher values of competition thresholds, lower values of abandonment thresholds and lower variation between agents demonstrating a disproportionate persistence of agents who are relatively unlikely to respond to benefit values” (p. 10, l. 25-26) – but you don’t state the reasons for the shift towards these values. Couldn’t there be also cases where mostly agent’s that are always responding to benefit values persist?
In general, I still think that more of the analysis and explanation of the behavioral parameter variation should be placed in the main text, as it is a core part of the model and highlights the "added value" of the model, compared to other large scale land-use models.
Figure 2: The figure is much better now but consider adding a grid to improve the readability (similar to Figure B2).
Figure C1: You use fractal dimension as a measure – this is not a standard measure, so please shortly state, what it means.
Figure C2: I acknowledge that you chose the color sets of paramset2/4 and 3/5 to be similar, but colors are very difficult to distinguish in the plots – consider adjusting these.
All other points raised in the initial review and all the minor technical corrections have been satisfyingly addressed.