Cultural Ecosystem Services in Land Use/Land Cover Change: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsBrief Summary
The paper offers a systematic review of academic literature about cultural ecosystem services from the perspective of Land Use/Land Cover Change (LUCC), employing bibliometric analysis methods, highlighting how the academic interest in this field of knowledge and research has grown. However, although this interest has increased, it is still limited compared to the interest in regulating, supplying and supporting ecosystem services. In addition, the paper aims to fill the gap in research on the value of cultural ecosystem services within land use system with the ambition of providing effective strategies for land management and utilization, particularly referring to China.
The results are clearly presented and discussed by the Authors. The cited references are relevant and recent and the statements and conclusions are coherent.
All the figures are appropriate although in the file I revised they are in low quality and therefore not very readable. It is recommended to include a high quality version in the final draft.
Author Response
Comments: The paper offers a systematic review of academic literature about cultural ecosystem services from the perspective of Land Use/Land Cover Change (LUCC), employing bibliometric analysis methods, highlighting how the academic interest in this field of knowledge and research has grown. However, although this interest has increased, it is still limited compared to the interest in regulating, supplying and supporting ecosystem services. In addition, the paper aims to fill the gap in research on the value of cultural ecosystem services within land use system with the ambition of providing effective strategies for land management and utilization, particularly referring to China. The results are clearly presented and discussed by the Authors. The cited references are relevant and recent and the statements and conclusions are coherent. All the figures are appropriate although in the file I revised they are in low quality and therefore not very readable. It is recommended to include a high quality version in the final draft.
Response: Thank you for your positive response and suggestions. As you mentioned, we have revised the figures in the manuscript to improve readability. Additionally, based on the comments from other reviewers, we have made further revisions to the content. Please review the re-submitted zipped folder. Thanks again!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study provides a good overview of Cultural Ecosystem Services in LUCC. This is a very important job, but also a very necessary job. The author gives a detailed overview of Cultural Ecosystem Services in LUCC, and also brings some prospects for the future. Specific suggestions are as follows:
(1) Please further highlight your research innovation in the abstract and introduction;
(2) A large number of literature was collected in this study, and the comprehensiveness and scientific nature of the articles collected need to be further explained. Due to the wide range of cultural services and LUCC, the accuracy of the result analysis is related;
(3) Do you search for "ecosystem services" or "ecosystem service", which is different in the search results.
(4) Two databases are used in the research. What are the differences between them and the future research directions? More differentiation is needed.
(5) Future research results need to be more international and forward-looking, and many important international trends are missing at present;
(6) At present, the full text of the map is very vague;
(7) The full text language needs to be further polished;
(8) There are many problems with document format and reference.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThis study provides a good overview of Cultural Ecosystem Services in LUCC. This is a very important job, but also a very necessary job. The author gives a detailed overview of Cultural Ecosystem Services in LUCC, and also brings some prospects for the future. Specific suggestions are as follows:
(1) Please further highlight your research innovation in the abstract and introduction;
(2) A large number of literature was collected in this study, and the comprehensiveness and scientific nature of the articles collected need to be further explained. Due to the wide range of cultural services and LUCC, the accuracy of the result analysis is related;
(3) Do you search for "ecosystem services" or "ecosystem service", which is different in the search results.
(4) Two databases are used in the research. What are the differences between them and the future research directions? More differentiation is needed.
(5) Future research results need to be more international and forward-looking, and many important international trends are missing at present;
(6) At present, the full text of the map is very vague;
(7) The full text language needs to be further polished;
(8) There are many problems with document format and reference.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript and for providing your valuable comments. We have accepted all of your suggestions and made the corresponding revisions. In the re-subnnitted zipped folder, there is a document named “Manuscript-Highlighted”, where the modifications have been marked in red highlight. Please review this document. Thank you!
Comments 1: Please further highlight your research innovation in the abstract and introduction.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified the abstract and introduction, which are highlighted in red in the manuscript. Please check the document named "Manuscript-Highlighted".
Comments 2: A large number of literature was collected in this study, and the comprehensiveness and scientific nature of the articles collected need to be further explained. Due to the wide range of cultural services and LUCC, the accuracy of the result analysis is related.
Response 2: We agree with it. This review indeed lacks sufficient explanation regarding the comprehensiveness and scientific nature of the articles collected. Consequently, we have revised the materials and methods part, specifically at line 161-182. Additionally, the result has also been modified to include relevant explanations.
Comments 3: Do you search for "ecosystem services" or "ecosystem service", which is different in the search results.
Response 3: The keyword for this literature search is “ecosystem services”. Thank you for your comment; we have made more rigorous explanations in the revision of the manuscript, specifically at line 167-170 and line 240.
Comments 4: Two databases are used in the research. What are the differences between them and the future research directions? More differentiation is needed.
Response 4: Thanks for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. CNKI and WOS were selected as the search databases. CNKI focuses on Chinese academic literature, while WOS includes English-language literature from a global perspective. They are internationally recognized academic databases that ensure comprehensiveness, authority, and timeliness in the literature review. We added differentiation at line 163-166.
Comments 5: Future research results need to be more international and forward-looking, and many important international trends are missing at present.
Response 5: Agree. Future research results really need to be modified, so we made revisions in conclusion part. Please refer to line 556-632.
Comments 6: At present, the full text of the map is very vague.
Response 6: Thanks for pointing this out. We have revised the figures in this review. Please check the document named "Manuscript-Highlighted".
Comments 7: There are many problems with document format and reference.
Response 7: Thanks for your comments. Regarding the document format and reference of this review, we have made careful revisions and additions. Please check the file named "Manuscript-Highlighted".
Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point : The full text language needs to be further polished.
Response : Regarding the quality of English language you mentioned, we have accepted your suggestion and selected language editing services from MDPI Author Services. The editing certificate (PDF) is included in the re-submitted folder.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors
The paper provides a comprehensive literature review on cultural ecosystem services (CESs) within the context of Land Use/Land Cover Change (LUCC). It employs bibliometric analysis to evaluate academic works from CNKI and Web of Science databases. The main contribution of the paper lies in summarizing the current state of research on CESs, highlighting both abundant and underexplored areas, particularly focusing on recreation, ecotourism, and cultural heritage. This review is significant for promoting sustainable land resource management.
General Concept Comments
The manuscript is generally well-structured and relevant to the field, contributing to understanding CESs within LUCC. However, it lacks a critical discussion on how current methodologies might evolve to address identified research gaps.
The topic is timely, as cultural ecosystem services are becoming increasingly important in environmental planning, yet the manuscript's identification of knowledge gaps could be more precise.
Article-Specific Comments
There is no explicit hypothesis in this review, but the overarching goal is to explore the current landscape of CESs in LUCC. It would benefit from a clearer articulation of the specific questions it aims to answer.
The bibliometric analysis provides a good overview, but more detail on the criteria for literature selection and categorization of CESs would improve methodological transparency.
The review could benefit from including an assessment of methodological limitations across the studies reviewed, especially concerning the varying contexts and evaluation techniques used in CES studies.
Review Article Comments
The review includes an adequate discussion of CESs categories such as recreation and aesthetics but has minimal discussion on categories like spiritual and religious values, which limits the scope of the review.
The paper identifies the need for a comprehensive evaluation of CESs within land use systems. However, it could more explicitly discuss potential new methodologies to address current limitations, such as those related to quantifying non-monetary values.
The references are mostly recent and relevant, but there is a noticeable lack of discussion on innovative valuation methods from the last two years. Consider adding more recent works to reflect ongoing advancements in CES valuation.
There is a reliance on established frameworks (e.g., Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), which is suitable, but integrating newer frameworks could enhance the paper’s contribution.
Specific Comments
Line 70-72: The statement about stakeholder perspectives providing guidance for resource use could benefit from an example illustrating how this has been effectively implemented in land management.
Figure 2: The clustering of keywords is informative, but it lacks an interpretation of why certain clusters are prominent in different research periods. Adding insights into these trends would improve understanding.
Table/Figures: Figures are appropriate, but Figure 4 could be improved by providing more visual contrast between categories for ease of interpretation.
Line 10-12: Consider clarifying how the study of CESs in the land use system contributes to resolving contradictions between land resources and sustainable development. This could make the motivation more explicit.
Line 14-17: Specify the bibliometric analysis methods used. For example, mention whether co-citation, keyword clustering, or author network analysis techniques were employed.
Line 18-20: When mentioning that most studies focus on recreation, ecotourism, aesthetics, and cultural heritage, provide a quantitative summary or percentage to give a clearer picture of the distribution of these studies.
Line 21-23: State explicitly what future research should focus on regarding the cultural ecosystem services domain of LUCC. Currently, the suggestion is vague and could be made more actionable.
Line 33-35: The term "intangible benefits" might not be clear to all readers. Consider adding a brief explanation or example of what intangible benefits include.
Line 35-36: Reference to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment should include a citation to make it easier for readers to locate the original source.
Line 57-59: The number of articles retrieved from CNKI and WOS databases should include a brief discussion on why there is such a discrepancy, e.g., differences in publication focus or accessibility.
Line 69-71: The concept of "multifunctional bundled services" could use a brief explanation or example to make it clearer to readers unfamiliar with the terminology.
Line 75-77: When discussing stakeholder views, specify which groups of stakeholders are being referred to, such as local communities, government bodies, or conservation NGOs, to add context.
Line 85-87: The feedback regulatory relationship between LUCC and ecosystem services is complex. Consider providing a diagram or conceptual model to visually represent this relationship.
Line 109-111: The terms "synonymous replacement terms" should be explained or an example provided to clarify how these terms were used to ensure comprehensive literature retrieval.
Figure 1: Add a brief caption summarizing each step of the systematic literature review to provide a clear guide to the figure.
Line 137-139: Consider adding a citation for Costanza et al.'s classification of ecosystem functions into 17 categories to substantiate the statement.
Line 147-148: When discussing classifications such as TEEB and CICES, mention their specific advantages or typical use cases to provide a clearer distinction between the classification systems.
Line 157-158: The keyword clustering analysis is described but not interpreted. Add a brief discussion about what the clusters reveal about the trends in CES research.
Figure 2: Provide a specific explanation of why the terms "social media" and "value assessment" are prominent and how they relate to CES research.
Line 198-200: The discussion on the evolution of keywords lacks detail on how this evolution reflects changes in research focus. Add a brief analysis of why certain keywords gained importance over time.
Line 220-223: Mention why the number of publications increased significantly in recent years, possibly linking this trend to global policy changes or technological advancements.
Line 236-238: The trends observed in CNKI should be compared directly to those from WOS to highlight key similarities or differences in research focus.
Line 248-250: Provide an example of the types of natural environments studied for recreation and ecotourism to give context to the research focus.
Figure 4: The visual contrast between categories could be improved, as previously mentioned. Additionally, provide specific examples of the types of CESs that are represented in the figure to add clarity.
Line 270-273: The lack of CES research on unused land and farmland could be expanded to suggest why these areas are less studied and what potential they might have for future research.
Figure 5: Mention why certain LUCC types, such as grassland and water, are more frequently studied, perhaps linking to their ecological or cultural importance.
Line 311-313: The keyword analysis during the first period should be tied to specific external factors, such as major environmental conferences or global awareness initiatives, to provide context for the trends.
Line 329-331: The discussion on conclusions could be expanded to specify how CESs can contribute to both ecological and economic benefits, providing a more balanced view.
The manuscript is presented clearly and is relevant to the field. It identifies several gaps in the literature, but some sections would benefit from more explicit examples of how these gaps affect land management practices.
The references are generally recent, with no excessive self-citations noted. However, the addition of more recent methodological studies on cultural ecosystem service valuation would be beneficial.
The experimental design, while adequate for a review, could benefit from explicitly defining how studies were chosen and categorized.
Figures effectively present data, but improvements in clarity and explanation would help readers unfamiliar with the field interpret them better.
The conclusions are consistent with the evidence presented, but they could be strengthened by discussing potential practical implications for policymakers.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English in the manuscript is generally good, but there are occasional instances of complex sentence structures that could be simplified to enhance readability. Consider revising some of the longer sentences for clarity and ensuring consistency in terminology throughout.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and provide valuable comments. We adopted all the suggestions. We carefully analyzed your comments on this manuscript and made revisions accordingly. Please find the detailed responses below and the corrections highlighted in the re-submitted folder (named “Manuscript-Highlighted”).
Comments 1: (General Concept Comments) The manuscript is generally well-structured and relevant to the field, contributing to understanding CESs within LUCC. However, it lacks a critical discussion on how current methodologies might evolve to address identified research gaps. The topic is timely, as cultural ecosystem services are becoming increasingly important in environmental planning, yet the manuscript’s identification of knowledge gaps could be more precise.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments, which we have fully accepted. Detailed revisions have been made throughout the manuscript, especially the identification of knowledge gaps. Please check the file named "Manuscript-Highlighted" in re-submitted folder.
Comments 2: (Article-Specific Comments) There is no explicit hypothesis in this review, but the overarching goal is to explore the current landscape of CESs in LUCC. It would benefit from a clearer articulation of the specific questions it aims to answer. The bibliometric analysis provides a good overview, but more detail on the criteria for literature selection and categorization of CESs would improve methodological transparency. The review could benefit from including an assessment of methodological limitations across the studies reviewed, especially concerning the varying contexts and evaluation techniques used in CES studies.
Response 2: We agree with your comments and have made revisions and clarifications regarding the purpose of this review, an overview of the bibliometric analysis, and the literature selection process. Please review the highlighted sections in the re-submitted file named “Manuscript-Highlighted”.
Comments 3: (Review Article Comments) The review includes an adequate discussion of CESs categories such as recreation and aesthetics but has minimal discussion on categories like spiritual and religious values, which limits the scope of the review. The paper identifies the need for a comprehensive evaluation of CESs within land use systems. However, it could more explicitly discuss potential new methodologies to address current limitations, such as those related to quantifying non-monetary values. The references are mostly recent and relevant, but there is a noticeable lack of discussion on innovative valuation methods from the last two years. Consider adding more recent works to reflect ongoing advancements in CES valuation. There is a reliance on established frameworks (e.g., Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), which is suitable, but integrating newer frameworks could enhance the paper’s contribution.
Response 3: Thank you for your comments. We agree with you. The review indeed had deficiencies in the assessment methods and prospects of CESs. Consequently, we have made the necessary revisions. Please check the file named "Manuscript-Highlighted" in re-submitted folder.
Comments 4: (Specific Comments) Line 70-72: The statement about stakeholder perspectives providing guidance for resource use could benefit from an example illustrating how this has been effectively implemented in land management.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made revisions. Please refer to line 87-93 and line 96-100 of the revised manuscript for details.
Comments 5: Figure 2: The clustering of keywords is informative, but it lacks an interpretation of why certain clusters are prominent in different research periods. Adding insights into these trends would improve understanding.
Response 5: Thanks for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made revisions.
“Cultural ecosystem services” showed a strong correlation with “social media”. Social media data has the advantages of easy accessibility, long time spans, and large volumes. Additionally, through further text extraction and analysis of social media information, it is possible to obtain more specific perceptions and feelings of users about particular activity venues. Therefore, social media data provides valuable new sources and methods for evaluating urban park scene perceptions [26]. “Ecosystem services” was closely related to “value assessment”. Ecosystem services serve as the bridge connecting ecosystem structure, processes, and human well-being. Valuing them provides a reliable basis for assessing changes in ecosystem quality and formulating payment policies for ecosystem services, which promotes ecosystem conservation and ecological civilization construction [10]. The term “ecological products” had the highest co-occurrence frequency with “value accounting” and “GEP accounting”. This indicated that people recognize that ecological products are not merely natural resources themselves but also valuable goods and services. Through value accounting and GEP accounting, these intangible values can be quantified, making them more intuitively recognizable and understandable to the public, thereby better promoting ecological conservation and rational utilization.
Comments 6: Table/Figures: Figures are appropriate, but Figure 4 could be improved by providing more visual contrast between categories for ease of interpretation.
Response 6: Agree. We have, accordingly, modified Figure 4. Please check the file named "Manuscript-Highlighted".
Comments 7: Line 10-12: Consider clarifying how the study of CESs in the land use system contributes to resolving contradictions between land resources and sustainable development. This could make the motivation more explicit.
Response 7: Thanks for pointing this out, we agree with it. So we have made the modifications highlighted in red:
Abstract: The land use system, which is endowed with the most crucial and fundamental natural resources for human survival and development, plays a pivotal role within the entire ecosystem. In recent years, cultural ecosystem services(CESs) have also gradually garnered widespread attention. The study of cultural ecosystem services in the land use system plays a significant role in the rational utilization of land resources and the resolution of contradictions between land resources and sustainable development. This review, framed in Land Use/Land Cover Change (LUCC), applies keyword clustering and keyword evolution analysis to comprehensively review and synthesize academic literature in cultural ecosystem services. The analysis is organized into two dimensions: the overall study of cultural ecosystem services in LUCC and the study of specific categories of cultural ecosystem services. Relevant papers from CNKI and WOS academic databases are included. The results show that the number of papers retrieved from WOS was significantly higher than the number retrieved from CNKI, while both databases exhibited a clear upward trend in the number of papers. It is worth noting that in the literature retrieval results for different types of land research, the majority of the papers focused on water, accounting for 51% and 44% of the totals in WOS and CNKI, respectively. Among these papers, research centered on recreation and ecotourism was the richest. Through this review, it was further revealed that research on cultural ecosystem services was initiated and has gradually developed into a relatively complete knowledge system. However, research on cultural ecosystem services in LUCC still require further exploration, particularly in terms of assessment methods. This review thus highlights the need for future research to focus more on cultural ecosystem services in the land use system and to delve deeper into evaluating their values. By employing more scientific and rational approaches, land resources can be effectively managed and utilized to address challenges related to land resources and sustainable development.
Comments 8: Line 14-17: Specify the bibliometric analysis methods used. For example, mention whether co-citation, keyword clustering, or author network analysis techniques were employed.
Response 8: Thanks for pointing this out, we empolyed keyword clustering and keyword evolution analysis. So we made revisions in the abstrcat. Please check the file named "Manuscript-Highlighted".
Comments 9: Line 18-20: When mentioning that most studies focus on recreation, ecotourism, aesthetics, and cultural heritage, provide a quantitative summary or percentage to give a clearer picture of the distribution of these studies.
Response 9: Thanks for pointing this out, we modified in the abstract. Please check the file named "Manuscript-Highlighted".
Comments 10: Line 21-23: State explicitly what future research should focus on regarding the cultural ecosystem services domain of LUCC. Currently, the suggestion is vague and could be made more actionable.
Response 10: Agree. We made the modifications highlighted in red. Please check the file named "Manuscript-Highlighted".
Comments 11: Line 33-35: The term “intangible benefits” might not be clear to all readers. Consider adding a brief explanation or example of what intangible benefits include.
Response 11: Agree. The intangible benefits indeed require some further explanation. Therefore, we added content in line 41-44 of the revised manuscript. Please review it.
Comments 12: Line 35-36: Reference to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment should include a citation to make it easier for readers to locate the original source.
Response 12: Agree. We added a citation in line 41.
Comments 13: Line 57-59: The number of articles retrieved from CNKI and WOS databases should include a brief discussion on why there is such a discrepancy, e.g., differences in publication focus or accessibility.
Response 13: Thanks for pointing this out, we modified in the materials and methods. So please review the document named “Manuscript-Highlight”.
Comments 14: Line 69-71: The concept of “multifunctional bundled services” could use a brief explanation or example to make it clearer to readers unfamiliar with the terminology.
Response 14: Agree. The multifunctional bundled services indeed require some further explanation. Therefore, we added content in line 81-84 of the revised manuscript. Please review the document named “Manuscript-Highlight”.
Comments 15: Line 75-77: When discussing stakeholder views, specify which groups of stakeholders are being referred to, such as local communities, government bodies, or conservation NGOs, to add context.
Response 15: Agree. We made revisions in line 103-123. Please check it out.
Comments 16: Line 85-87: The feedback regulatory relationship between LUCC and ecosystem services is complex. Consider providing a diagram or conceptual model to visually represent this relationship.
Response 16: We agree with this comment. So we modified Figure 1A to present the relationship. Please review the document named “Manuscript-Highlight”.
Comments 17: Line 109-111: The terms "synonymous replacement terms" should be explained or an example provided to clarify how these terms were used to ensure comprehensive literature retrieval.
Response 17: Agree. We made an addition in the Materials and Methods for clarification. Refer to the attachment as well. Thanks.
Comments 18: Figure 1: Add a brief caption summarizing each step of the systematic literature review to provide a clear guide to the figure.
Response 18: Thanks for pointing this out. We added Figure 1B to provide a clear guide to the Figure 1A. So please check the document named “Manuscript-Highlight”.
Comments 19: Line 137-139: Consider adding a citation for Costanza et al.'s classification of ecosystem functions into 17 categories to substantiate the statement.
Response 19: Agree. We made revisions in line 208-210.
Comments 20: Line 147-148: When discussing classifications such as TEEB and CICES, mention their specific advantages or typical use cases to provide a clearer distinction between the classification systems.
Response 20: Agree. We made revisions in line 216-227 and line 229-235.
Comments 21: Line 157-158: The keyword clustering analysis is described but not interpreted. Add a brief discussion about what the clusters reveal about the trends in CES research.
Response 21: Regarding the keyword clustering involved in this part, we have made additions. Please refer to lines 252-267 in the file named “Manuscript-Highlighted”.
Comments 22: Figure 2: Provide a specific explanation of why the terms “social media” and “value assessment” are prominent and how they relate to CES research.
Response 22: Agree. We made revisions in line 252-267.
Comments 23: Line 198-200: The discussion on the evolution of keywords lacks detail on how this evolution reflects changes in research focus. Add a brief analysis of why certain keywords gained importance over time.
Response 23: Agree. We made revisions in line 303-314. Please check it out.
Comments 24: Line 220-223: Mention why the number of publications increased significantly in recent years, possibly linking this trend to global policy changes or technological advancements.
Response 24: Agree. We made revisions in line 338-352.
Comments 25: Line 236-238: The trends observed in CNKI should be compared directly to those from WOS to highlight key similarities or differences in research focus.
Response 25: Agree. We made revisions in line 354-366.
Comments 26: Line 248-250: Provide an example of the types of natural environments studied for recreation and ecotourism to give context to the research focus.
Response 26: Agree. We made revisions in line 374-387.
Comments 27: Figure 4: The visual contrast between categories could be improved, as previously mentioned. Additionally, provide specific examples of the types of CESs that are represented in the figure to add clarity.
Response 27: Thanks for pointing this out. We modified Figure 4. Please check the document named “Manuscript-Highlight”.
Comments 28: Line 270-273: The lack of CES research on unused land and farmland could be expanded to suggest why these areas are less studied and what potential they might have for future research.
Response 28: Agree. We made revisions in line 422-434.
Comments 29: Figure 5: Mention why certain LUCC types, such as grassland and water, are more frequently studied, perhaps linking to their ecological or cultural importance.
Response 29: Thanks for pointing this out. According to Figure 5, we made the corresponding addition. Please refer to line 413-421.
Comments 30: Line 311-313: The keyword analysis during the first period should be tied to specific external factors, such as major environmental conferences or global awareness initiatives, to provide context for the trends.
Response 30: Thanks for pointing this out. We made revisions, please refer to line 467-482 and line 484-493.
Comments 31: Line 329-331: The discussion on conclusions could be expanded to specify how CESs can contribute to both ecological and economic benefits, providing a more balanced view.
Response 31: Thank you for your comments, which we have accepted. Consequently, extensive revisions have been made to the discussion section of the manuscript. Please check the document named “Manuscript-Highlight”.
Comments 32: The manuscript is presented clearly and is relevant to the field. It identifies several gaps in the literature, but some sections would benefit from more explicit examples of how these gaps affect land management practices. The references are generally recent, with no excessive self-citations noted. However, the addition of more recent methodological studies on cultural ecosystem service valuation would be beneficial. The experimental design, while adequate for a review, could benefit from explicitly defining how studies were chosen and categorized. Figures effectively present data, but improvements in clarity and explanation would help readers unfamiliar with the field interpret them better. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence presented, but they could be strengthened by discussing potential practical implications for policymakers.
Response 32: Thank you for your comments. Regarding the problems and suggestions you mentioned, we have highlighted them in red in the revised manuscript. Please review it.
Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point : The quality of English in the manuscript is generally good, but there are occasional instances of complex sentence structures that could be simplified to enhance readability. Consider revising some of the longer sentences for clarity and ensuring consistency in terminology throughout.
Response : Regarding the quality of English language you mentioned, we have accepted your suggestion and selected language editing services from MDPI Author Services （english-87125）. The editing certificate (PDF) is included in the re-submitted folder.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript titled "Cultural Ecosystem Services in LUCC: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research" presents a robust and timely review of cultural ecosystem services (CESs) within Land Use and Land Cover Change (LUCC). The study synthesizes trends, identifies knowledge gaps, and proposes actionable recommendations for advancing research and informing policy. Through the use of bibliometric analysis and keyword clustering, the manuscript effectively captures the evolution of CES research and highlights underexplored areas such as spiritual values and educational benefits. The revisions address previous comments comprehensively, enhancing the clarity, depth, and applicability of the review.
Areas for Minor Refinement
CES Categories:
While spiritual and religious values, as well as educational value, are discussed, further elaboration on challenges and emerging methods in these domains would strengthen the paper.
Recent Frameworks and Innovations:
Although the paper integrates newer frameworks, incorporating the most cutting-edge valuation methods or models (e.g., AI-based analysis) could be a future enhancement.
Implications for Policymakers:
The conclusions provide general recommendations but could benefit from more specific examples or case studies demonstrating practical impacts on land use policy.
Author Response
Comments 1: While spiritual and religious values, as well as educational value, are discussed, further elaboration on challenges and emerging methods in these domains would strengthen the paper.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments. We agree with you. Therefore, we have made revisions. We uploaded the revised file named “Manuscript-highlighted”. Please refer to line 622-631.
Comments 2: Although the paper integrates newer frameworks, incorporating the most cutting-edge valuation methods or models (e.g., AI-based analysis) could be a future enhancement.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made revisions. Please refer to line 595-605 of the revised manuscript named "Manuscript-highlighted" for details.
Comments 3: The conclusions provide general recommendations but could benefit from more specific examples or case studies demonstrating practical impacts on land use policy.
Response 3: Thanks for your comment. We agree with you. So we made modifications. Please refer to line 648-664 of the revised manuscript named "Manuscript-highlighted".
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
