Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I have completed my review of the manuscript and I appreciate the opportunity to evaluate this work. After careful consideration, I am recommending that the manuscript needs major revisions to be accepted for publication.

1. Structural Issues: The manuscript does not adhere to the conventional structure of methods, results and discussion and needs restructuring in some sections. Especially the social media semantic analysis in chapter 4.3 is very poorly structured and mixes methodology, results and a bit of discussion and interpretations that are not supported by the results. Furthermore, the manuscript lacks substantial sections of the discussion and comparison to similar works by other researchers in chapter 4.
2. Use of References: The manuscript sparsely uses references. A lot more literature references are needed to back up the work. Besides, the manuscript overlooks key publications from other regions and research groups (e.g. the SEEA EA is essential; Hein et al.; Burkhard et al.; Costanza et al.; very new but relevant: Bronzes et al. (2025): A comparison of valuation methods for cultural ecosystem services in support of ecosystem accounting. In: One Ecosystem. 10, e108556.; etc.). Additionally, some references are incompletely cited (e.g. [43] and [44]), which affects the scholarly rigor.
3. Focus on GEP: The manuscript claims to focus primarily on the valuation of a Gross Ecosystem Product. However, a large part also deals with the semantic analysis (which I assume addresses a very different readership). These two parts are not well connected; one could even make two separate manuscripts out of them or at least argue why both very different methodological approaches are presented in the same manuscript and how the results back up the conclusion that is presented on the management suggestions.
   Unfortunately, the manuscript is not properly embedded in the ecosystem services concept und the use of terminology is inconsistent (e.g. mix of ecosystem services and ecological services, supply instead of provision, no linkage to any common classification system). Besides, you include 6 regulating and 2 cultural services and exclude provisioning services without giving any reason for this. Instead of using the narrative that it is valuable to assess ecosystem services bundles or discussing whether the selected indicators were useful, you argue that the results are overly dependent on "tourism and health preservation" (l. 474), I have trouble understanding this and the following reasoning with the education center as "environmental education" was a ES that you didn't assess. 

I also attach the commented pdf version for some specific comments to the text.
I hope these comments provide clarity regarding my recommendation and assist in the improvement of the figures and the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is mostly understandable, but terminology is imprecisely used.
Please be careful with consistent use of terms. You may consider refering to one classification system and name the assessed ecosystem services accordingly.
There is not a single reference to SEEA EA, the integrated and comprehensive statistical framework for ecosystem accounting developed by the UN. In my opinion, this is a fundamental source that needs to be mentioned in a manuscript on ecosystem accounting.

Author Response

I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.

Comments 1. Structural Issues: The manuscript does not adhere to the conventional structure of methods, results and discussion and needs restructuring in some sections. Especially the social media semantic analysis in chapter 4.3 is very poorly structured and mixes methodology, results and a bit of discussion and interpretations that are not supported by the results. Furthermore, the manuscript lacks substantial sections of the discussion and comparison to similar works by other researchers in chapter 4.

Response 1：

We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments. In response, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript’s structure and incorporated additional comparative analyses. The main adjustments are as follows:

(1) The analysis of GEP accounting results originally presented in Section 3 (Results) has been reorganized and moved to Section 4.2 (GEP Accounting Results Analysis) within the Discussion chapter.

(2) The methodological and result components of Section 4.3 (Cultural Service Value Enhancement Strategies Based on Social Media) have been separately integrated into Section 2.2.4 (Processing of Social Media Data) and Section 3.3 (Social Media Semantic Analysis Results), respectively.

(3) In Section 4.1 (Comparison of GEP Unit Values with Previous Studies), we added an analysis of the composition of wetland park ecosystem service values. Considering that the index systems used in different studies vary substantially, a direct comparison of individual indicators is challenging. Therefore, we only compared the proportions of regulating and cultural services to ensure the rationality and interpretability of the accounting results.

Comments 2. Use of References: The manuscript sparsely uses references. A lot more literature references are needed to back up the work. Besides, the manuscript overlooks key publications from other regions and research groups (e.g. the SEEA EA is essential; Hein et al.; Burkhard et al.; Costanza et al.; very new but relevant: Bronzes et al. (2025): A comparison of valuation methods for cultural ecosystem services in support of ecosystem accounting. In: One Ecosystem. 10, e108556.; etc.). Additionally, some references are incompletely cited (e.g. [43] and [44]), which affects the scholarly rigor.

Response 2：

We sincerely appreciate your insightful suggestion. We fully agree that the SEEA EA framework is of great significance, and that the works of Hein et al., Burkhard et al., and Costanza et al. represent important contributions in this research field. In response, we have revised and enriched the Introduction section to include these key studies and frameworks:
“the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) [8], The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) [9], Natural Capital Accounting [10][11], Ecosystem Service Value (ESV) [12], and the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting: Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) [13].”
These additions highlight the relevance of foundational and regional research efforts, ensuring a more comprehensive theoretical background and literature coverage.

Comments 3. Focus on GEP: The manuscript claims to focus primarily on the valuation of a Gross Ecosystem Product. However, a large part also deals with the semantic analysis (which I assume addresses a very different readership). These two parts are not well connected; one could even make two separate manuscripts out of them or at least argue why both very different methodological approaches are presented in the same manuscript and how the results back up the conclusion that is presented on the management suggestions. Unfortunately, the manuscript is not properly embedded in the ecosystem services concept und the use of terminology is inconsistent (e.g. mix of ecosystem services and ecological services, supply instead of provision, no linkage to any common classification system). Besides, you include 6 regulating and 2 cultural services and exclude provisioning services without giving any reason for this. Instead of using the narrative that it is valuable to assess ecosystem services bundles or discussing whether the selected indicators were useful, you argue that the results are overly dependent on "tourism and health preservation" (l. 474), I have trouble understanding this and the following reasoning with the education center as "environmental education" was a ES that you didn't assess.

Response 3：

We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments. The main focus of this study is indeed the valuation of GEP. Considering that existing data sources for tourism and health care service valuation mainly rely on questionnaire surveys—which are time-consuming, costly, and limited in spatial and temporal representativeness—this study employs emerging social media data as an alternative data source for assessing tourism and health care services.
After completing the valuation, we further reused the social media data to propose management-oriented recommendations. By analyzing high-frequency words and semantic networks, we identified the key issues currently faced by visitors to the park and accordingly proposed targeted solutions. The GEP accounting in this paper is primarily based on the Technical Specification for Gross Ecosystem Product Accounting (DB11/T 2059-2022). Considering that the flora and fauna resources of Wild Duck Lake National Wetland Park lack direct market value, that a large portion of the area consists of undeveloped water bodies, and that no centralized drinking water source exists within two kilometers of the park boundary, the material supply function is of limited relevance to GEP. Therefore, the provisioning service was not included in the accounting process, and a supplementary explanation has been added in Section 2.2.2 (Accounting Indicator System).

The reviewer also noted that the results appeared to overemphasize “tourism and health protection” (Line 474). We acknowledge that this expression was inaccurate—the intended meaning was that the tourism and health care service indicator accounted for a relatively high proportion among the two cultural service indicators. This has been corrected in Section 4.4 (Management Implications and Strategies).

In addition, the reference to “the education center” was originally intended as a management recommendation derived from the GEP accounting results. To avoid semantic ambiguity, we have also revised this statement in Section 4.4 (Management Implications and Strategies).

Comments 4. We sincerely appreciate your detailed comments provided in the annotated PDF. Based on your valuable suggestions, we have made corresponding revisions throughout the manuscript. The consolidated responses are now organized and presented by chapter.

Response 4：We sincerely appreciate your careful reading and constructive comments. Based on your suggestions, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript, including detailed modifications to the Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions sections, as summarized below:

Abstract

We have revised the Abstract according to your advice. The previously mentioned proportions of regulating and cultural services were mistakenly included in the “climate regulation” and “water purification” sections, which has now been corrected.
In addition, the third and fourth findings have been rephrased to provide a more balanced expression—emphasizing that visitors both appreciate the park’s natural landscapes and identify deficiencies in its services and facilities.

Introduction

(1) The Introduction has been structurally refined and substantially revised as follows:

Added two foundational references in the opening background statement.

(2) Supplemented representative references on initiatives from China, the European Union, the United States, and the United Nations after the sentence “It is highly consistent with the sustainable development widely advocated by the international community.”

(3) Clarified that there is no positive correlation between GDP and ecological well-being, and used this discussion to better introduce the importance of GEP.

(4) Regarding the comment on the lack of legal references, the two cited documents were government policy papers in China that are rarely cited academically; to avoid confusion, we revised this part to describe the development status of GEP in China and added relevant references.

(5) Following your advice on the literature review, we revised key terminologies, adjusted the sequence of methodological discussions, and reorganized the structure to better clarify the research questions.

Materials and Methods

(1) The location map of Wild Duck Lake National Wetland Park has been updated: the upper left now shows the park’s position within Beijing, the lower left shows the Beijing–Wild Duck Lake location, and the right panel presents the park’s boundary and satellite imagery (Google Maps, 2023), with corresponding notes added to the figure caption.

(2) The research framework diagram has been refined by adding numerical labels to guide the reader, unifying frame colors to black for visual consistency, and separating regulating and cultural services in Section 3. The term “ecological product inventory” has been replaced by “developing an assessment indicator system for GEP accounting” to reflect equivalent meaning with improved precision.

(3) In the Accounting Indicator System, theoretical content has been moved to the Introduction. The citation “Specifications for Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Services (GB/T 38582-2020)” was a data source reference and has been removed.

(4) The slash (“/”) in the water purification section represents the use of a unit equivalent value method due to limited physical data; this limitation has been further clarified in the Discussion.

(5) Dataset names have been added to improve reproducibility of the study.

Results

(1) In the Regulating Services section, the total value is now presented first, followed by individual indicators and proportional descriptions.

(2) Methodological descriptions previously embedded in the Cultural Services section have been moved to Section 2 (Materials and Methods).

(3) The term “ecological barrier” refers to a geomorphological or structural barrier that prevents natural disasters or hazard diffusion; this terminology aligns with official Chinese literature such as National Ecological Function Zoning.

(4) Ambiguous statements referring to “low values” have been clarified as “low proportions.”

(5) The figure Comparison of GEP Structure of Wild Duck Lake National Wetland Park has been adjusted for improved color contrast and text placement.

Discussion

(1) Exclusion of provisioning services: The case study does not involve provisioning services for two reasons:

1) The park’s functions are mainly conservation and eco-tourism, with no measurable provisioning outputs (e.g., fisheries, raw material extraction).

2) To ensure comparability across wetland parks—retaining provisioning services for other cases while excluding them for Wild Duck Lake would bias cross-case analysis.

(2) The term “problem” in Ecological Value Enhancement Strategies Based on Valuation Results was semantically unclear. It has been revised to reflect the actual issue of disproportionate value contributions—lower in regulating services and relatively higher in tourism and recreation under cultural services.

(3) The phrase “a first-class wetland science and education center” has been revised to “a premier wetland science education center” to clarify that this recommendation aims to broaden cultural services beyond tourism and health care.

(3) The structure of Cultural Service Value Enhancement Strategies Based on Social Media has been reorganized:

Methodology → Section 2.2.4 (Processing of Social Media Data)

High-frequency and semantic network analysis → Section 3.3 (Social Media Semantic Analysis Results)

Result interpretation → Section 4.3 (Social Media Analysis)

Management suggestions → Section 4.4 (Management Implications and Strategies)

(4) Regarding content, the previous statement “deep impression” has been corrected to: “Among the core words identified in the social semantic network, ‘wild duck,’ ‘wetland,’ and ‘park’ appeared most frequently. The three core words forming the name ‘Wild Duck Lake National Wetland Park’ indicate that visitors’ perceptions are guided by this socially constructed image.”

(5) The remark “winter scenery being less spectacular” was derived from on-site observation and visitor feedback expressing negative evaluations of winter landscapes; this reasoning has been added to the revised text.

Conclusions

The phrase “two primary indicators” contained a semantic inaccuracy and has been corrected. The expression “high monetary value” was inappropriate in context and has been deleted.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review report Manuscript ID water-3957121 Type Article Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) Accounting and Sustainable Management Pathways for Wild Duck Lake National Wetland Park, Beijing, China   Dear authors, Overall Assessment:

The study addressed existing gaps in applying the GEP accounting framework to wetlands and the lack of quantitative methods for valuing cultural services. It takes Beijing's Wild Duck Lake National Wetland Park as a case study. However, there are key areas that require clarification and stronger conceptual alignment to enhance the manuscript’s overall coherence and contribution.

1. Authors shoud present clair research question in the introduction section ( It will be analysed adn discussed according the findings of this study)
2. Structural your section: It be made at the nd of your Introduction section.
3. Decompose the introduction to :   * Introduction section ( the overall backround related studies)   *  The Literature review : Is mainly necessary to build your theoritical farmework and to present your Theoritical hypotheses. ( Thoses, will be discussed in the Discussion section to offer your originality vlaue and recommendations)
4.  Long paragraphs to avoid.
5. Moderated english language are really required.
6. Materials and Methods : Pelase, explain all thoses point-s carefully:  * 
7. Methodology used: Authors take consideration for just 05 indicators  (this study explored five key research components: defining ecosystem types, compiling an GEP inventory, conducting physical and monetary value accounting, and exploring value enhancement strategies), But there are more indicators to be integred? *
8. Figure 2. Technical framework of the study ( Verify the ZISE) * Questionnaire survey (Travel cost method) : explain this method used to colleact your data ? *
9. Physical Quantity (1) : Provide the related references (cited reference) * Value Quantity  CNY/（m3·a）: is it correct??  ( Table 2) *
10. Construction projects (SL72-2013): Did you add in reference? *
11. Table 4. Soil microbial respiration model: Explain this model? * Social Media Data and the Wild Duck Lake National Wetland Park Conceptual Master Plan : Explan the method to colleact the data using thes sources? *
12. Table 11. Land use types and area of Wild Duck Lake National Wetland Park in 2023 : ( Marsh Land 247.50 ha Vs.  Lake Water Surface 87.12 ha ) what are your main interpetation? * 
13. "wild duck," "reed," and "wetland" : highlight the richness of biological resources in wetland ecosystems and their unique landscape char- acteristics: what is the main issue-s to be addressed?   Authors invited to revise all theses points to improve the manuscript quatilty.G-luck.    

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderated english language revision required.

Author Response

I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.

Comments 1. Authors shoud present clair research question in the introduction section (It will be analysed adn discussed according the findings of this study).

Response 1：We appreciate your valuable comment. In response, we have clarified the research questions in lines 93–94, based on the literature review presented in lines 73–92.

Comments 2. Structural your section: It be made at the nd of your Introduction section.

Response 2：We appreciate your valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have restructured the introduction. In the final paragraph of the introduction (lines 93–106), we begin with the research questions and link them with the study area and methodology, thereby highlighting the significance of our research.

Comments 3. Decompose the introduction to :

* Introduction section ( the overall backround related studies)

*The Literature review : Is mainly necessary to build your theoritical farmework and to present your Theoritical hypotheses. ( Thoses, will be discussed in the Discussion section to offer your originality vlaue and recommendations)

Response 3：We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestion. We have carefully optimized the structure of the introduction. The relevant background and research review are presented in the first two paragraphs (lines 40–58), the introduction of GEP is included in the third paragraph (lines 59–72), and the literature review is provided in the fourth paragraph (lines 73–92). Following your advice, we have structured the concluding paragraph of the introduction accordingly.

Comments 4. Long paragraphs to avoid.

Response 4：We sincerely appreciate your suggestion. We have revised the paragraphs that contained mixed content to ensure clarity and readability within each paragraph.

Comments 5. Moderated english language are really required.

Response 5：We sincerely appreciate your suggestion. In the manuscript, inconsistent terminology and suboptimal English expressions have been carefully revised.

Comments 6. Methodology used: Authors take consideration for just 05 indicators  (this study explored five key research components: defining ecosystem types, compiling an GEP inventory, conducting physical and monetary value accounting, and exploring value enhancement strategies), But there are more indicators to be integred? *

Response 6：We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestion. The research framework of this study consists of five main components, and the previously unmentioned minor elements have now been supplemented in the figure. The study is designed to calculate the GEP of Wild Duck Lake National Wetland Park and, based on the GEP results, provide recommendations for its development. The main research questions focus on: (1) the consistency of GEP accounting methods, and (2) addressing issues related to questionnaire-based data in cultural service assessment. Accordingly, these five key elements constitute the primary technical roadmap of this study.

Comments 7. Figure 2. Technical framework of the study (Verify the ZISE) * Questionnaire survey (Travel cost method) : explain this method used to colleact your data ? *

Response 7：We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestion. The travel cost method (TCM) is the valuation approach used for the tourism and health care service indicator, and it has been mentioned in the Introduction. Parameters for TCM are typically obtained through questionnaires, which are time-consuming, costly, and limited in spatial and temporal representativeness. To address these limitations, we employed social media data, using keyword searches to obtain information that would otherwise come from questionnaires. Detailed methodology is provided in Section 2.2.4 (Processing of Social Media Data), and further explanations are included in Section 2.2.3 (Calculation Method and Data Description).

In addition, we noticed the term “ZISE” in your note related to Figure 2. However, this abbreviation does not appear in our manuscript, and we are not certain about its specific meaning. We would be very grateful if you could kindly clarify or provide further explanation regarding this point, so that we can make the corresponding revision accurately.

Comments 8. Physical Quantity (1) : Provide the related references (cited reference) * Value Quantity  CNY/（m3·a）: is it correct??  ( Table 2) *

Response 8：We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestion. The data used in this study have been properly cited, and specific dataset names have been added to facilitate reproducibility of the results. The unit “CNY/(m³·a)” was incorrectly typeset without the superscript “3” due to an oversight, and this has now been corrected throughout the manuscript.

Comments 9. Construction projects (SL72-2013): Did you add in reference? *

Response 9： We sincerely appreciate your suggestion. In China, such documents are normative standards issued by relevant authorities. When using them, it is generally sufficient to describe the content without citing them as academic references.

Comments 10. Table 4. Soil microbial respiration model: Explain this model? * Social Media Data and the Wild Duck Lake National Wetland Park Conceptual Master Plan : Explan the method to colleact the data using thes sources? *

Response 10：We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestion. An explanation of the soil microbial respiration model has been added to the footnote of Table 4. The collection and processing of social media data are described in Section 2.2.4 (Processing of Social Media Data). Additionally, relevant parameters in the Wild Duck Lake National Wetland Park Conceptual Master Plan have been adjusted to 2023 values using the local consumer price index.

Comments 11. Table 11. Land use types and area of Wild Duck Lake National Wetland Park in 2023 : ( Marsh Land 247.50 ha Vs.  Lake Water Surface 87.12 ha ) what are your main interpetation?

Response 11：We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestion. In response, we have added a supplementary analysis of the land use structure of Wild Duck Lake National Wetland Park in Section 3.1 (Analysis of Land Use Status, lines 351–353).

Comments 12. "wild duck," "reed," and "wetland" : highlight the richness of biological resources in wetland ecosystems and their unique landscape characteristics: what is the main issue-s to be addressed?

Response 12：We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have addressed this point in detail. Supplementary analysis has been added in Section 4.3 (Social Media Analysis, lines 513–518), which allowed us to identify the sources of tourism and health care services as well as landscape appreciation services in Wild Duck Lake National Wetland Park.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 
thank you so much for taking the time to go through my comments and thoroughly address them in the manuscript as well as in the response letter. 
In my opinion, the manuscript improved significantly compared to the first version. 
There are only some minor issues left that I would like to highlight and suggest to be adapted: 

• Thank you for adjusting the use of the term "biophysical" for the respective assessments. Additionally, I strongly recommend consistently using the term "economic" valuation for the monetary assessments that you are presenting (e.g. l. 244 replace "value accounting" by "economic accounting", also in Fig. 2 Step 4 and Table 1 last column "economic evaluation method", Table 2 bottom part, etc.), because biophysical assessments also provide "values" just with a different, non-monetary unit. 
• Figure 1 the map is still hard to read for me and the arrows 
• Figure 6, the y-axis caption reads "GEP per Unit Area (10⁴ yuan/km²)". I suggest to modify to CNY to be consistent with the text.
• l. 736 modify "wild duck" to "duck" (potentially for the semantic analysis, it also makes senses to indicate some chinese characters for specific terms in brackets. For example, if the wetland's name differs from the animal. Or you might consider adding them to the supplementary material). 
• l. 854 still uses the term "indicators" for ecosystem services (and l. 862 "auxiliary indicators"), which is very confusing, please rephrase.

Author Response

I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.

Comment 1: Thank you for adjusting the use of the term "biophysical" for the respective assessments. Additionally, I strongly recommend consistently using the term "economic" valuation for the monetary assessments that you are presenting (e.g. l. 244 replace "value accounting" by "economic accounting", also in Fig. 2 Step 4 and Table 1 last column "economic evaluation method", Table 2 bottom part, etc.), because biophysical assessments also provide "values" just with a different, non-monetary unit. 

Response 1: Thank you for this important comment. Following your suggestion, we have systematically replaced terms such as “value quantity” with “economic valuation” and ensured consistent use of “economic valuation” throughout the manuscript.

Comment 2: Figure 1 the map is still hard to read for me and the arrows

Response 2: We appreciate your reminder. We have optimized the image by thickening the administrative division boundaries and marking the starting and ending points of the arrows to enhance its visual clarity and readability. 

Comment 3: Figure 6, the y-axis caption reads "GEP per Unit Area (10⁴ yuan/km²)". I suggest to modify to CNY to be consistent with the text.

Response 3: We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments. The y-axis caption has been revised to “GEP per Unit Area (10⁴ CNY/km²)” to maintain consistency with the monetary unit used in the main text.

Comment 4: l. 736 modify "wild duck" to "duck" (potentially for the semantic analysis, it also makes senses to indicate some chinese characters for specific terms in brackets. For example, if the wetland's name differs from the animal. Or you might consider adding them to the supplementary material). 

Response 4: We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments. This content refers to the high-frequency word analysis in the semantic network section, where “wild duck”  and “duck”  appear as two distinct terms. To address your previous concern that the high frequency of “wild duck” might simply result from its presence in the park’s name, we specifically clarified that the term used in the analysis does not refer to the park’s name. The corresponding revisions have been incorporated into the main text.

Comment 5: l. 854 still uses the term "indicators" for ecosystem services (and l. 862 "auxiliary indicators"), which is very confusing, please rephrase.

Response 5: We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments. These sentences have been revised to avoid referring to ecosystem services as “indicators.” We have revised the wording throughout the manuscript in accordance with the column headers in Table 1. Specifically, we replaced the previous uses of “indicators” for ecosystem services with more accurate terms, and standardized the expressions to “evaluation categories” and “evaluation indicators.”

Thank you again for your valuable comments, which have further improved the clarity and scientific rigor of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Second evaluation report

Dear author

Manuscript ID water-3957121 Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) Accounting and Sustainable Management Pathways for Wild Duck Lake National Wetland Park, Beijing, China Thank you for your responses. We appreciate all changes done Regards.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive feedback on our revisions. We are grateful for your recognition of the improvements made to the manuscript. Thank you again for your time and constructive comments.