A Comprehensive Approach to Identifying the Supply and Demand of Urban Park Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Megalopolis Area of Shanghai, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper clearly defines the primary research objectives, focusing on the identification and analysis of the supply and demand of cultural ecosystem services in urban parks. It emphasizes the significance of these services for urban populations and the challenges that arise in balancing their availability with the growing demand, especially in a rapidly urbanizing metropolis like Shanghai. The author effectively highlights the relevance of this study, outlining the importance of addressing the discrepancies between CES supply and demand to improve urban park planning and management.

Introduction. The authors should consider incorporating more recent literature, as some references are over 20 years old. This gives the impression that the review might lack the latest insights and advancements in the field. If possible, add recent research next to the used one.

Methodology.

Some websites (databases) like https://lhsr.sh.gov.cn/ ; https://www.tianditu.gov.cn/ only have the Chinese version, making it difficult to verify the data and replicate similar research if the authors do not understand the Chinese language to navigate the site. I suggest that, if possible, a cloud-based system be used to make all the data utilized accessible.

Line 222-227, It appears that the text mentions "three representative variables" to describe the aesthetic value (AV) of urban parks, but only two variables are actually described: 1) Openness and 2) Naturalness. The third variable seems to be missing, and it would be helpful to clarify or include it to complete the list.

Results.

Is it possible to incorporate some statistical tests, such as t-tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA), to confirm the significance of differences in supply and demand? This would help analyze the results statistically and provide stronger evidence for the observed patterns.

Discussion. 

I strongly suggest to the authors to include comparative analysis with similar studies or theories, and how they align or differ from their research, as discussion should be. It would also be valuable to explore the implications and practical applications of the findings, particularly how they could impact practice, policy, or future research, making the section useful for decision-makers or professionals in the field.

Conclusion.

 

I suggest that the conclusion section be presented in bullet points, as this format would make it easier for readers to grasp the key findings quickly. Bullet points can help highlight the main results more effectively, improving the overall structure and readability of the section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript examines the supply and demand relationship of cultural ecosystem services  in urban parks in Shanghai.  The results offer valuable insights into the challenges of achieving spatial equity in park planning, providing key policy suggestions for optimizing urban green space allocation. However, there are several significant issues that need to be addressed. Therefore, major revisions are necessary before this manuscript can be considered for publication in  Land.

1. In the abstract section, the authors mention that the research framework consists of three main steps; however, the alignment between these three steps and the results is not very good. 

2. In the abstract section, it is necessary to add a description of the significance of the research at the end. Readers would like to know if your research framework is applicable to other regions. 

3. The format of the references should follow the journal's guidelines. 

4. In the theoretical section, lines 177-180, why are there four steps here instead of the three steps mentioned in the introduction? 

5. Please carefully check the formatting and numbering of the equations in the paper; there are multiple instances of Equation 1. 

6. In line 288, what is the basis for setting the 80% and 20% thresholds? 

7. The resolution of Figures 4-6 is too low, making it difficult to clearly see the details.

8. The discussion section usually includes a comparison with the results of similar studies, but unfortunately, I did not see any comparisons in your manuscript. 

9. In section 5.1, I recommend adding more specific policy suggestions. You can refer to the article (10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e03222) for guidance.

10 In lines 100-101, a reference is needed to support this statement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No additional comments. Thanks for the clarification and improvement. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

The revision seems properly addressed my recommendations. I have no further suggestions, and the paper can be considered for publishing.

With best regards

The reviewer