Assessment of Cultural Ecosystem Service Values in Mountainous Urban Parks Based on Sex Differences
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents an interesting and well-structured study of cultural ecosystem services (CESs) in urban parks. The SolVES model combined with visitor-employed photography (VEP) provides a novel approach to understanding how different sexes interact with urban green areas. The study is methodologically robust, and the findings have significant implications for landscape planning. Overall, this is a strong paper with valuable insights.
Some minor methodological clarifications would make it more accessible to a wider audience. Below are specific suggestions:
Line 48-51. The original sentence is somewhat complex. Consider rewording it for clarity:
“Research on park CESs is essential for improving residents' physical and mental well-being, enhancing urban aesthetics, and promoting a balanced human-nature relationship.”
Line 154. The number 6.6254 should be rounded to two decimal places for consistency. Ensure that all numerical values throughout the manuscript follow this rule.
Figure 1. This figure should also be provided as a supplementary file, as it is too small to be readable for a wider audience. The colors for the tower and monument are very similar, making it difficult for some readers to distinguish between them in the legend. Consider using more contrasting colors.
Line 180-182. The “2bulu” app should be better explained. Include details such as: What type of data does it collect? Whether the data publicly available? How precise and reliable the collected data is?
Line 204. You mention that parameters (temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions) were controlled. How were these parameters controlled? Provide a clearer explanation. Was research conducted in a specific part of the day?
Line 241. Add more information about SolVES 4.0.
Line 245. Explain why you specifically chose to use these two SolVES submodels instead of others.
Line 254. Provide more details about the CAD map used. Does it represent the entire landscaping of the park or just its boundaries?
Line 256. Add a brief explanation of PostgreSQL (e.g., what it is and why it was used in the study).
Line 258. Clarify whether the data is publicly available. If so, is there a database or repository where it can be accessed?
Line 287. The correct phrase should be:
“…were Chongqing residents…”
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript would benefit from English proofreading to simplify overly complex and repetitive sentences and improve clarity and readability.
Author Response
Assessment of cultural ecosystem service values in mountainous urban parks based on sex differences: a case study of Eling Park in Chongqing
First Round of Revision Explanation and Revised Draft
Dear Reviewers and Editors,
Thank you very much for your careful reading and valuable comments! Your review has been very helpful to our research, and we have benefited greatly from your insights during the process of thinking and revising. These insights have helped us to take a deeper look at our own research and identify and revise areas of data variable control and other shortcomings.
In the revised manuscript, we have made the necessary changes according to your review comments and highlighted them in red. Below is a brief explanation of the review comments and the modifications made,. If you have any further suggestions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to let us know, and we would be most grateful.
Once again, thank you for your selfless assistance and hard work.
Sincerely,
We will number the comments made by the four reviewers and provide explanations and revisions accordingly.
Rviewer 1:
Opinion 1:
Line 48-51. The original sentence is somewhat complex. Consider rewording it for clarity:
"Research on park CESs is essential for improving residents' physical and mental well-being, enhancing urban aesthetics, and promoting a balanced human-nature relationship."
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments. Please see Line 35-37.
Opinion 2:
Line 154. The number 6.6254 should be rounded to two decimal places for consistency. Ensure that all numerical values throughout the manuscript follow this rule.
Response: Thanks for this reminder. We rounded 6.6254 to two decimal places, resulting in 6.63. Please see Line 158.
Opinion 3：
Figure 1. This figure should also be provided as a supplementary file, as it is too small to be readable for a wider audience. The colors for the tower and monument are very similar, making it difficult for some readers to distinguish between them in the legend. Consider using more contrasting colors.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have adjusted the font size in Figure 1 to enhance readability. Meanwhile, the color of the monument icon has been altered to ensure distinction.
Opinion 4：
Line 180-182. The "2bulu" app should be better explained. Include details such as: What type of data does it collect? Whether the data publicly available? How precise and reliable the collected data is?
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. "2bulu" can generate KML files containing walking paths, photo point locations, as well as walking time, walking speed, and altitude data, which can be publicly shared as research data (in the appendix). The accuracy and reliability of its data primarily depend on the mobile phone's positioning system.
Accordingly, we have revised Line 189-191 to: "'2bulu' generates publicly accessible KML files with walking paths, photo points, walking time, speed, and poster height, relying on mobile phone positioning for data accuracy and reliability."
Opinion 5：
Line 204. You mention that parameters (temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions) were controlled. How were these parameters controlled? Provide a clearer explanation. Was research conducted in a specific part of the day?
Response: Thank you for raising these important questions. The final experiment was conducted on sunny afternoons from October to November 2023, during the autumn season at Eling Park, to maintain consistent temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions as much as possible. Based on reviewers' comments, experimental facts, and length control, we revised Line 197-206 of the original text to:
"We posted volunteer recruitment information on university social media platforms. Eligible volunteers underwent pre-experiment training, covering CES concepts, '2bulu' usage, designated routes, and timing/weather requirements. To ensure the absolute influence of sex factors, we selected college students aged 18-22 with similar educational backgrounds. Volunteers conducted the experiment on sunny afternoons during rest days in October and November 2023 to maintain environmental consistency, relaxed conditions, and photo clarity. They visited Eling Park under specified conditions, captured at least 50 photos meeting at least one CES indicator, categorized them, and submitted the photos to the research team (Fig. 2). We set the number of male and female participants equally at 45 each."
In Line 232-235, we continue to emphasize controlling environmental variables：
"The formal survey was conducted on sunny days between 1:00 PM and 5:00 PM from 10 October to 8 November 2023. During this period, the landscape of Eling Park remained almost unchanged, with stable temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions and no significant noise interference."
Opinion 6：
Line 241. Add more information about SolVES 4.0.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The SolVES (Social Values for Ecosystem Services) model was jointly developed by the Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center (RMGSC) of the United States Geological Survey and Colorado State University. It is primarily used to assess the social values of ecosystem services, quantifying the social values of ecosystem service functions such as aesthetics, biodiversity, recreation, and cultural activities. The evaluation results are derived from public attitudes and preferences, expressed as non-monetary value indices, and have high application value. The SolVES model is widely applied in the social value assessment of ecological environments such as landscapes and parks.SolVES 4.0 is a commonly used research model for assessing cultural ecosystem services. We have refined the various components of SolVES 4.0.
Please see section 2.3.1, Line 244-248.
、
Opinion 7：
Line 245. Explain why you specifically chose to use these two SolVES submodels instead of others.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. The Value Transfer Mapping Model in SolVES 4.0 requires pre-existing SolVES 4.0 models, and it can only be used for experimental analysis if the new experimental data is proven to be applicable to the old, established models. Since we have not conducted similar experiments in other parks, we do not meet the conditions for using the Value Transfer Mapping Model. Additionally, our goal is to establish new CES indicators, so pre-existing models are unnecessary. In summary, we did not use the Value Transfer Mapping Model. On the other hand, the Ecosystem Services Social-Values Model and the Value Mapping Model do not require pre-existing models. After establishing the cultural ecosystem service (CES) indicators and environmental factor indicators, we can import point files containing photo location information and CES classification data into the model to conduct relevant research. These modules enable us to explore the distribution and frequency of CES indicators, as well as the relationship between CES distribution and environmental factors, aligning with our experimental needs. Therefore, we selected these two modules for our study.Based on the reviewers' comments, we have added an explanation for why the Value Transfer Mapping Model is not applicable.
Please see section 2.3.1, Line 244-248.
Opinion 8：
Line 254. Provide more details about the CAD map used. Does it represent the entire landscaping of the park or just its boundaries?
Response: Thank you for your question. The detailed information of the CAD map is presented in a colored version in Figure 1, which includes both the boundaries and a portion of the detailed information.
Opinion 9：
Line 256. Add a brief explanation of PostgreSQL (e.g., what it is and why it was used in the study).
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. PostgreSQL is a database that is utilized in the SolVES 4.0 manual. According to the official manual, we used this database for data import and storage. Based on this, we have revised the original text：
Please see Line 259-261: "Using PostgreSQL for data storage, the MaxEnt model for maximum value analysis, and QGIS as the mapping software, the pixel size in SolVES 4.0 was set to 0.1 m for the 64,557 m² area of Eling Park, with a search radius parameter of 10 m."
Opinion 10：
Line 258. Clarify whether the data is publicly available. If so, is there a database or repository where it can be accessed?
Response: Thank you for your question. It can be publicly available. We have uploaded the data to the OPENICPSR database. The website link is:
https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/221741/version/V1/view
The data identifier is openicpsr-221741, and the content includes data tables, KML trajectory files, point files, and other related data.
Opinion 11：
Line 287. The correct phrase should be: "…were Chongqing residents…"
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the manuscript accordingly as per their suggestions. Please see Line 292.
Rviewer 2:
Opinion 1：
Introduction - The introduction effectively presents the research gap and contextualizes the study within the broader literature. However, the discussion on previous studies related to CES valuation methods could have been more critically analyzed. The paper mainly references studies that align with its hypothesis without addressing potential contradictions in existing literature.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have revised the description of CES valuation and provided further elaboration on the integration of the VEP method and the SolVES model in Line 48-68.
"CES evaluation methods mainly involve monetization and non-monetization assessments . Monetization is often limited to values like recreation, ecotourism, and cultural values , while non-monetization is widely used for its broader applicability across categoriesConsequently, scholarly interest in non-monetary valuation methods has grown significantly due to their ability to optimize environmental resource allocation. Current research on park CESs employs various non-monetary methods, each with unique strengths and limitations in capturing user perceptions and preferences. Traditional methods like questionnaires and field surveyseffectively gather detailed insights but are labor-intensive and hard to scale . Social media analysis offers abundant user-generated content but often lacks socio-demographic data, limiting group-specific analysis. Participatory mapping provides precise spatial data but requires extensive participant training. The SolVES model effectively reveals CES spatial distribution but relies on photographic data with detailed background information .VEP produces numerous object-linked photos but is costly and quality-demanding. Integrating SolVES with VEP optimizes CES spatial data utilization."
Opinion 2：
Also, the rationale for selecting Eling Park as the study site could be better justified with more comparative references.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. Compared to other mountain parks in Chongqing, such as Pipashan Park (which is too small), Zou Rong Park (with fewer landscape elements), and Binjiang Park (lacking mountain characteristics), our study site has a moderate size, rich landscape features, distinct mountain characteristics, and clearly defined main walking paths, making it suitable for our experimental requirements. We have added this description in Line 148-153：
"Compared to other mountainous parks in Chongqing, such as Pipashan Park (too small in area), Zou Rong Park (limited landscape elements), and Binjiang Park (lacking mountainous features), Eling Park stands out with its moderate size, rich landscape elements, distinct mountainous characteristics, and well-defined main trails, making it an ideal site for our experimental needs."
Opinion 3：
Methodology - While using college students (aged 18-22) ensures consistency, the study lacks diversity in the sample population. This limits generalizability. Further, the impact of environmental conditions (e.g., weather, time of visit) on CES perceptions could have been explored further. Finally, potential biases introduced by self-reported CES categorizations should be acknowledged in greater detail.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We acknowledge the limitation of insufficient sample size during our experiment. In addation, since our study focuses on exploring the impact of sex on the perception of cultural ecosystem services (CES), we made every effort to ensure consistency in other influencing factors. Based on the experimental conditions, we adjusted the control of environmental factors and ensured that the experiments were conducted on sunny afternoons between October and November to maintain consistency in environmental conditions as much as possible. We also recognize that our classification of CES may be incomplete or non-representative. Accordingly, we have revised the descriptions of the experimental background and reflections in the manuscript.：
Line 197-206："We posted volunteer recruitment information on university social media platforms. Eligible volunteers underwent pre-experiment training, covering CES concepts, "2bulu" usage, designated routes, and timing/weather requirements. To ensure the absolute influence of sex factors, we selected college students aged 18-22 with similar educational backgrounds. Volunteers conducted the experiment on sunny afternoons during rest days in October and November 2023 to maintain environmental consistency, relaxed conditions, and photo clarity. They visited Eling Park under specified conditions, captured at least 50 photos meeting at least one CES value, categorized them, and submitted the photos to the research team (Fig. 2). We set the number of male and female participants equally at 45 each."
In Line 232-236, we continue to emphasize controlling environmental variables：
"The formal survey was conducted on sunny days between 1:00 PM and 5:00 PM from 10 October to 8 November 2023. During this period, the landscape of Eling Park remained almost unchanged, with stable temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions and no significant noise interference."
In addition, in Line 619-625, we reflect on the research limitations:
"However, in the process of the volunteer experiment, there were some problems, such as a small sample size (90) and insufficient consideration of the group effect, among others. In the discussion of the factors affecting CESs, we did not account for the impact of whether they went alone or whether they went to the park for the first time on their perception. Although the age group and educational background of the population were controlled, subjectivity among volunteers can introduce bias, a common challenge in CES research. "
Opinion 4：
Results - The paper could have further examined why specific landscape elements correspond to certain CESs from a psychological or sociocultural perspective.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. In Section 4.1.3 (Line 527-545), we have revised the explanation regarding why specific landscape elements correspond to certain CES：
"Analysis of the relationship between landscape features and CESs indicated that both males and females recognised recreation, aesthetic, and social relations values in Eling Park (Figs. 8 and 9). In the male subgroup, inspiration was associated with landscape elements, such as fort-like ridges and cliffs, which may be linked to their need for physical activity, their spatial awareness, and the visual impact of these features. Consistent with the findings of Swapan et al, the males frequently perceived recreation. Additionally, males typically visit parks for physical exercise, challenging activities, and social interactions[54], leading to the association between social relations and squares and platforms. CA analysis revealed that air-raid shelters and ponds were less associated with other CESs for males, likely owing to their infrequent appearance. Females generally prefer aesthetic and artistic enjoyment, comfort, security, and micro landscape features, as evidenced by the relationship between recreation and shrubs and trees. Science and ecological education value was associated with flowers and lawns, indicating that these elements can stimulate enthusiasm for ecological education in female. Inspiration was often associated with artistic tree roots exposed on the surface, animals, and slopes and steps, confirming that females focus more on detailed aesthetic value than men. Garden facilities are linked to cultural heritage value, reflecting their role in prompting thoughts on cultural heritage. ."
Opinion 5：
Further, the limited focus on social demographics other than sex (e.g., educational background, cultural upbringing) might oversimplify CES perception variations.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. Indeed, during this field study, we encountered various environmental and demographic variables. To ensure the accuracy of our results, we controlled for educational background as a constant by focusing on a specific group of college students aged 18-22. In future research, we plan to expand the sample size and investigate the differences in CES perception among individuals with diverse cultural backgrounds. In section 4.3., we also pointed out the research limitations.
Opinion 6：
Finally, no explicit discussion on how park management could practically implement findings.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised Section 4.4 regarding how park management can implement specific measures, making the proposed actions more concrete. Please see section 4.4, Line 674-699.
Opinion 7：
Discussion - Certain claims, such as "males are more likely to seek recreational CESs due to their preference for physical activity," rely on generalizations rather than empirical evidence from the study. The discussion should acknowledge alternative explanations and potential confounding factors. The interpretation of results occasionally relies on sex stereotypes rather than directly observed behavior.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We acknowledge the issues of insufficient causality and stereotypes in our discussion regarding males seeking recreational CES and their preference for sports. Therefore, we have revised the relevant descriptions in section 4.1.2 (Line 506-525)：
"4.1.2 Sex differences in CESs value orientation
Both the male and female subgroups clearly perceived the aesthetic, recreation, cultural heritage, and social relations values of the park. This aligns with Eling Park’s primary functions of providing natural and cultural landscapes, as well as serving as a public space for leisure, fitness, and community interaction. This conclusion differs from that of previous studies, such as those by Kicic et al. [25] on park forests and Dou et al.[51] on the National Wetland Park, likely owing to differences in environmental characteristics and the surveyed population. For the male subgroup, the most highly perceived CESs were recreation and aesthetic values, whereas the least perceived were cultural diversity and spiritual and religious values, consistent with the findings of Zhou et al.[52] and Swapan et al.[33]. Males typically engage in activities such as sports, running, and family gatherings in community parks, which offer relaxation and social opportunities. In contrast, males might be less attuned to cultural diversity and spiritual and religious values, which involve deeper cultural and spiritual experiences that may not be as immediately engaging as recreation and aesthetics. For the female subgroup, the most highly perceived value was aesthetics while the least perceived was future value. Females often have a keener sense of beauty and seek relaxation and joy through aesthetic experiences during leisure, rendering them more likely to prefer spaces that offer high aesthetic value over spaces that offer abstract future value during visits to parks[53]. ."
Opinion 8：
Practical recommendations for park planners and policymakers could be expanded.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the specific measures for landscape planning in section 4.4. (Please refer to the response to the Opinion 6.)
Opinion 9：
Conclusion and Implications - The study calls for sex-sensitive landscape planning but does not provide actionable steps for implementation. The study should offer specific recommendations, such as modifications to park design, policy guideLine, or further research directions. It should also discuss how CES assessments can be integrated into broader urban sustainability frameworks.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. In the conclusion (section 4.4), we have revised the specific measures for landscape planning and integrated their evaluation into a broader framework for urban sustainable development:
Please see line 674-699:
"4.4. Implications for landscape design and management
4.4.1 Enhancing CES-oriented landscape elements
Mountainous terrains should be leveraged to improve inspiration, aesthetic, and cultural heritage values. Viewing platforms with seating should be integrated along cliff trails to enhance scenic appreciation, while historical features, such as air-raid shelters and fortress-like ridges, should be preserved and equipped with interpretive signage to strengthen cultural heritage value.
4.4.2 Balancing CES supply and demand
Spatial analysis of CES values should guide targeted interventions. Males, who prioritize recreation, would benefit from the addition of climbing walls and fitness zones along steep paths. Females, who value social interaction and cultural heritage, require more shaded seating, garden spaces, and semi-private pavilions near key social hubs like lotus ponds and overlooks.
4.4.3 Establishing sex-sensitive development zones
By mapping CES perception hotspots, planners can designate areas that cater to specific needs. High-traffic areas should integrate features that promote both social engagement and recreation, ensuring an inclusive environment. Meditation zones and cultural festivals can enhance spiritual and religious values, particularly in spaces where such CESs are currently underrepresented.
4.4.4 Incorporating CES values into Sustainable Development Goal
Embed CES into SDG frameworks by linking health-centric landscapes (Goal 3), equitable greenway networks (Goal 11), and community co-design workshops to ensure inclusive access. Strengthening connectivity between Eling Park and other green spaces through ecological corridors will enhance CES accessibility. Promote community participation by regularly assessing resident needs and dynamically adjusting landscape configurations to align CES supply with urban sustainability goals."
Opinion 10：
Limitations and Future Research - The authors acknowledge several methodological limitations, including sample representativeness and potential biases in CES self-reporting. However, the study does not adequately address how future research can mitigate these limitations. Discussion of how CES perceptions might change over time due to urbanization or climate change is missing.
Response:
1.About insufficient sample size.
We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' valuable comments regarding the issue of sample representativeness. Prior to initiating this study, we referenced studies by Fengyun Sun et al. and Kaili Zhang et al., who employed the Visitor-Employed Photography (VEP) method to investigate cultural ecosystem services (CES) perceptions in outdoor green spaces, using sample sizes of 32 and 90 participants (45 elderly and 45 young), respectively. Based on these precedents, we adopted a sample size of 90 participantsfor our research.
- Sun F , Xiang J , Tao Y ,et al.Mapping the social values for ecosystem services in urban green spaces: Integrating a visitor-employed photography method into SolVES[J].Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 38, 105-113, (2019).
[2] Zhang K, Tang X, Zhao Y, Huang B, Huang L, Liu M, Luo E, Li Y, Jiang T, Zhang L, Wang Y, Wan J. Differing perceptions of the youth and the elderly regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban parks: an exploration of the tour experience. Sci. Total Environ. 821, 153388 (2022).
In future research, we plan to expand the sample size and place greater emphasis on sample diversity, encompassing individuals of different ages, educational backgrounds, and physical conditions. For instance, recent studies have shown that socio-demographic characteristics (such as age, income, and education level) significantly influence the perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES). We will employ stratified or quota sampling methods to ensure that the sample more comprehensively reflects the perceived differences in CES values of mountain parks among various groups. Additionally, we will incorporate a multi-site research design to capture the perceptual differences among populations in different geographical and social contexts. These improvements will help reduce sample bias and enhance the generalizability and reliability of the research findings.
2.Potential Bias in CES Self-Reporting by Participants
We are deeply grateful for the reviewers' attention to the potential bias in CES self-reporting. To mitigate this bias, we plan to adopt a mixed-methods research approach in future studies, combining laboratory simulations with outdoor field research (Zwierzchowska, I., 2018). The laboratory environment allows for better control of variables and reduces external interference, while field research can more authentically reflect participants' perceptions in natural settings.
[3] Zwierzchowska, I., Hof, A., Iojă, I.-C., Mueller, C., Poniży, L., Breuste, J., & Mizgajski, A. Multi-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services of parks in Central European cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 30, 84–97 (2018).
3.The Impact of Urbanization or Climate Change on CES Perception
We greatly appreciate the reviewers' important reminder regarding the effects of urbanization and climate change. Indeed, urbanization and climate change can significantly influence people's perceptions of CES. For example, recent studies indicate that extreme weather events (such as high temperatures and droughts) caused by climate change can markedly alter residents' demand for and perception of green spaces (Manley, K., 2024). In mountainous environments like Chongqing, the climatic characteristics of hot summers and cold winters may further exacerbate this impact. Therefore, future research could explore the variations in residents' perceptions of mountain park CES across different seasons and the potential long-term effects of climate change on people's preferences. For instance, summer heat may increase the demand for shade and cooling services, while winter cold may make people more concerned about sunlight and wind protection services.
[4] Manley, K., & Egoh, B. N. Climate and biodiversity change constrain the flow of cultural ecosystem services to people: A case study modeling birding across Africa under future climate scenarios. Science of The Total Environment, 919, 170872 (2024).
Based on the reviewers' comments and our responses, we have revised the manuscript accordingly：
Line 661-673：In future research, we will increase the sample size and focus on diversity, including people of different ages, education levels, and health conditions. We will use stratified or quota sampling to better understand how different groups perceive the value of cultural ecosystem services (CES) in mountain parks. To reduce bias in CES self-reports, we will combine lab experiments with field studies to more accurately measure participants' perceptions . Additionally, urbanization and climate change can significantly affect how people perceive CES. Extreme weather, like heatwaves or droughts, may change how residents value green spaces . In Chongqing’s mountainous area, hot summers and cold winters could make these effects stronger. Future studies will examine how seasonal changes and long-term climate shifts influence people’s preferences, such as the need for shade in summer or sunlight in winter. These improvements will make the findings more reliable and provide useful insights for better park planning.
Rviewer 3:
Opinion 1：
General recommendations:
The article is complex and covers both the extensive methodological part and the study of a particular problem and territory, so it is difficult to include in detail in one article everything related to both the methodology and the specific problem and territory. Therefore, if possible, I would recommend reviewing the article and focusing it on a methodology and its approbating, since the methodology considered is the main contribution and value of the article. If the article will focus more on methodology, then all chapters of the article should be reviewed, including the Abstract. In this case, the Introduction and Conclusion sections would also focus directly on methodology. In the introduction - what methodology has been used so far for such studies and what exactly specific and challenging are studies based related to perception of different sexs (whether there are any specific criteria, conditions, etc.). It would also help to make the Introduction part more compact and focused on a specific issue – methodology. The Conclusions, on the other hand, should place greater emphasis on the possibilities and limitations of using the methodology. Also, parts of the results and discussion should be reviewed and focused on what results can be obtained by specific methods. If the article is more focused on the methodology, then perhaps the amount of methods included in the article could also be reduced, since at the moment the description of each method is a bit lacking in detail, which could affect the repeatability of the study. Better and larger images could be added, allowing the textual and visual information contained in them to be read.
BUT if the article is kept in its current content and format, then the reviewer's recommendations for improving some of the sections of the article are added below.
Some more general recommendations are related to terminology and quality of figures used in the article. Please use common terminology for the whole article to keep clear if this term is the same in different places of the article. For example – cultural ecosystem services values / cultural ecosystem services categories. In the Title – did you mean ecosystem service or services? If second, please make correction.
Figures (Images) significantly complement the textual part of the article, however, their quality does not allow to fully perceive the information displayed in them (too small texts, maps).
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We acknowledge that there are shortcomings in the structure and research focus of the article. Taking into account the feedback from multiple reviewers, we have revised the content of the introduction, discussion, and conclusion sections.We have enhanced the description of our methodology, particularly highlighting the innovative aspects related to the VEP and SolVES models. Our approach is tailored to the research objectives of the paper, which focus on gender-based differences in young people's perceptions of various landscape elements. In the introduction, we discussed the advantages and disadvantages of existing methods such as questionnaire surveys and field research, ultimately opting to combine SolVES with VEP and employing chi-square tests for data analysis. The first step of our research involved using VEP to collect photos and CES value point data, thereby obtaining raw data. The second step utilized SolVES for spatial data analysis to derive the spatial distribution of CESs. The third step identified 16 landscape elements from the photos and conducted chi-square tests with the CESs tabular data to explore the correlations between CESs and landscape elements.
However, our current experimental data, processes, and paper structure do not sufficiently support a shift in focus towards methodology. Therefore, in response to the reviewer's comments, we may explore methodological aspects more deeply in future research. Thank you.
We have addressed the issue of inconsistent terminology in the text, with corresponding responses provided in the latter sections of our reply. Regarding specific terminology issues, we noticed that the reviewer has raised detailed questions later in the suggestions, so related issues have also been moved to the subsequent sections. The same applies to the quality of images.
Once again, we thank the reviewer for the comprehensive suggestions on the manuscript, which have been immensely beneficial to us.
Opinion 2：
Abstract
Abstract exceeds the number of words specified in the requirements for the article (not more than 200), it should be revised and made into compact ones. I would suggest adding a more convincing argument to the abstract - why it is important to study the perception of different sexs in relation to cultural ecosystem services.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the word count and content of the abstract, incorporating the importance of studying different sexes' perceptions of cultural ecosystem services (Line 11-28).
"Urban parks are vital for providing cultural ecosystem services (CESs) to residents. However, few studies have explored sex-based differences in CES demand, particularly within mountainous urban parks. This study aimed to elucidate sex-based differences in the perceptions and preferences for CESs and landscape elements, and explore their relationship in mountainous urban parks. Using value-labelled photographs from equal number of male and female volunteers’ visits to Eling Park in Chongqing, China, the SolVES model was employed to investigate the relationship between sex-specific perceptions of CESs and landscape elements. The results showed that males preferred slopes and steps, garden facilities, and recreation facilities, whereas females preferred overlooks that offer multiple CES values, including science and ecological education, aesthetic, and cultural heritage values. Females perceived social relational value at the lotus pond and Kansheng Tower, whereas males perceived inspirational value at Kansheng Tower, the entrance, and the cliffside path. Males linked inspirational value to fort-like ridges and cliffs. Females associated inspirational value with slopes and steps. Based on the findings, the study recommends enhancing CES specific to mountainous landscapes and incorporating sex-sensitive design elements. Ultimately, these efforts aim to position parks as key components of urban sustainable development, promoting overall resident well-being."
Opinion 3：
Introduction
The term "Cultural ecosystem services values" is included in the title – but nowhere in the text (also in other sections) is there an explanation of what is meant by this. Are they the same as indicators mentioned in section 2.2.27? Please clarify this.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have mentioned the definition of this term in the introduction (Line 35-37):
"CESs encompass the non-material benefits humans derive from ecosystems, including spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, aesthetic enjoyment, and recreational opportunities." Its abbreviation is CES (CESs), which is consistent with the indicators in Section 2.2.2.
Opinion 4：
The introduction is very broad and looks at previous research in the field of cultural ecosystem services, urban parks, and various aspects of perception. However, more convincing arguments are missing as to why it is the perceptions of different renders that should be studied. I found that reasoning in the conclusion section (Line 681-689), which could be moved to the Introductory section.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the section in the introduction regarding the significance and innovation of sex difference research and moved part of the conclusion to the introduction (Line 112-130)：
"Sex is a crucial component of socio-demographic attributes. The perceived differences in cultural ecosystem services (CESs) based on sex determine the varying landscape needs of urban parks. Conducting research on sex differences in CESs ensures that park design and management can incorporate nuanced, differentiated planning to meet the needs and expectations of different sex groups . Studies on sex differences in CESs help adjust the planning of landscape elements and functional configurations in parks based on preferences. Understanding the relationship between landscape elements and CESs from a sex perspective is essential for current landscape practices in mountainous urban parks . By calculating and mapping the actual supply and demand of ecosystem services and their spatial mismatches, planners can identify key development areas for enhancing the availability of CESs for both men and women in mountainous parks, thereby improving land use and management efficiency. Simultaneously, research from a sex perspective can externalize the deep-seated differences in sex characteristics within the field of CES perception, thereby constructing a sex-equitable ecological governance system in urban parks and breaking down sex stereotypes in cultural landscape concepts."
Opinion 5：
2.Methods
2.1. Study area
Line 155 - Please clarify what "190" is; it looks like it could be the year, but one of the digits has disappeared.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion and we apologize for our carelessness. The construction of Eling Park began in 1909. We had missed a digit, which has now been added.
Opinion 6：
Line 163 - Why are these categories needed - non-mountainous and mountainous? How does this affect the results of the study? Please add a justification. And, are they meant to represent different zones of the area or groups of landscape elements, or do they have another meaning? Such a question arises because the categories of landscape elements (11 for non-mountainous and 6 for mountainous) cause confusion. Why, for example, are animals, people, trees, and shrubs only in the non-mountainous category if they are actually found in the mountainous one as well?
Response: Thank you for your question. Eling Park exhibits characteristics of a mountainous park, featuring elevation differences and landscapes associated with mountainous terrain. The purpose of our study is to investigate the differences in landscape perception between mountainous and non-mountainous parks. While animals, people, trees, and shrubs are present in both mountainous and non-mountainous areas, they do not possess the unique landscape characteristics of mountainous regions. Therefore, we selected mountainous landscapes that exhibit unique features of mountainous terrain, while general landscapes that appear in both mountainous and non-mountainous areas are categorized as non-mountainous landscapes. Accordingly, we have revised Line 298-305.
"To explore the perceptual differences between mountainous landscapes and non-mountainous landscapes, we divided the 16 landscape elements into 5 landscape elements with mountainous features and 11 without mountainous features, providing corresponding schematic diagrams.Landscape elements with mountainous features refer to those that are distinctive or unique to mountainous areas, while non-mountainous elements are those characteristic of plains or found in both environments. Therefore, non-mountainous elements may also appear in mountainous regions.All the images were captured by volunteers who were solicited for this purpose. "
Opinion 7：
Line 172 – Figure 1 does not correspond to the text referring to that image. The figure should include landscape elements of 16 categories divided into non-mountainous and mountainous.
Response: Thanks for your question. The text in Figure 1 is primarily intended to convey the experimental route and land use types, which has some correspondence with Table 2 but are not entirely identical. Table 2 contains the environmental data required for SolVES 4.0. The classification of mountainous and non-mountainous landscape elements is based on their appearance in photographs rather than on the map. Therefore, Figure 1 does not have a direct correlation with the landscape elements. Figure 3 shows 16 landscape elements.
Opinion 8：
2.2Data acquisition
2.2.1 Experimental design
Line 184 – It is mentioned in sections 2.2.1 and 4.3 that semi-structured interviews have taken place in the research, but there is no mention of what exactly the data was obtained in the interviews and how it was used in the study. The suggestion is either to supplement the article with information about the data obtained during the interviews and its use in the research, or to add information that the method included such interviews, but they are not detailed in this particular article.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The main content collected through our semi-structured interviews was the social information of the volunteers, along with brief discussions about their experiences during the experiment. We mentioned in Line 194-196:
"During interviews, volunteers discussed their visit motivations and memorable experiences with the research team, enhancing survey reliability and offering valuable insights for further analysis."
Opinion 9：
2.2.2 Pre-survey
Line 215, 218, 220 – Please use common terminology, be they CES indicators or CES values or CES categories, if these terms have the same meaning.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have standardized the term to "CES value."
Opinion 10：
Please add to this section how exactly the volunteers assessed CES – whether they were free to choose points from which they captured landscape elements, or whether they were already determined on the route.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The route has been finalized and is illustrated in Figure 1. The text in Line 197-199 mentions:
"We posted volunteer recruitment information on university social media platforms. Eligible volunteers underwent pre-experiment training, covering CES concepts, '2bulu' usage, designated routes, and timing/weather requirements."
Opinion 11：
Table 1 – "Description" in the table is meant to be a base value for making an assessment of CES values (like – corresponds or not corresponds to description)? Please supplement in the text how these CES values were assessed by the volunteers – whether in response to the descriptions (corresponds or not corresponds to description) or using some kind of rating / point system?
Response: Thank you for raising these important questions. We provided the CES values to the volunteers in advance, and they made subjective judgments based on their understanding of the text and the on-site experiment. Volunteers will name the pictures they take based on the 16 CES values. This is mentioned in Line 197-198:
"Eligible volunteers underwent pre-experiment training, covering CES concepts, '2bulu' usage, designated routes, and timing/weather requirements."
In section 2.3.2, Line 265-272, the article provides a detailed description of how CES values can be evaluated through photos taken by volunteers:
"The research team analysed the photography dataset captured by the volunteers to identify three distinct types of information: the geographical coordinates of each photograph, the CES values identified by the visitors in the photograph titles, and the landscape elements present in the photographs. Landscape elements have been previously analysed based on their proportion in a photograph, with the criterion that the element occupies more than 20% of the image[30]. The analysis in this study was performed by four researchers in pairs, with each pair making joint decisions. In cases of disagreement, all four researchers collaborated to determine the final extraction results."
Opinion 12：
Please add an explanation of how 16 categories of landscape elements (Line 166) are involved in the evaluation of CES.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. As mentioned in section 2.3.2, "Landscape elements have been previously analyzed based on their proportion in a photograph, with the criterion that the element occupies more than 20% of the image." The research team first conducted manual identification, and then the volunteer CES data was incorporated into SPSS for data analysis. The results of the data analysis are presented in Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 9, and Fig. 10.
Opinion 13：
- Results
3.1. Demographic profile of volunteers
Line 294 – Please use a common term instead of different for clear understanding: Environmental elements OR landscape elements OR categories of landscape elements?
Response: Thank you for your question. The term has been standardized to "landscape elements" in full text.
Opinion 14：
Line 297 – Figure 3 – Please use a common term instead of different – non-mountainous / mountain-specific elements (Line 165) OR mountain / non-mountain feature.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The terms have been standardized to "mountain/non-mountain elements" in full text.
Opinion 15：
Figure 3 – Aren’t animals, people, trees and shrubs, recreation facilities also part of the mountain features? Please assess the need to divide the territory into the following categories – non-mountainous and mountainous. If necessary, please add an explanation in section 2.1.
Response: Thanks for raising this important question. Elements that do not exhibit typical mountainous characteristics have been categorized as non-mountain landscape features. Please see the response for opinion 6.
Opinion 16：
3.3 Spatial arrangement of CESs and subgroup disparities
Figure 7 – Very small graphics in which it is difficult to read information, it is necessary to assess whether it is important to add these graphics or whether it is possible to somehow display this information in any other way.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have increased the font size in figure7, and the relevant information is presented in the text in Line 373-384:
"Three representative environmental metrics were selected to analyse the AUC results: distance to the tower (DTT), distance to the cliff (DTCL), and distance to water bodies (DTW)[48]. The response curves illustrate the relationships between the environmental metrics (DTT, DTCL, and DTW) and the 11 selected CES types. For males, the value index (VI) for inspiration and health values increased with DTT (Fig. 7a). Conversely, for females, the VI for cultural diversity, spiritual and religious, inspiration, and health values sharply increased with DTT (Fig. 7b). For males, the VI for cultural heritage, social relations, and recreation values decreased with increasing DTCL (Fig. 7c). Conversely, for females, significant VI responses were observed for aesthetics, social relations, and health values (Fig. 7d). Owing to the small water area in Eling Park, VI responses to DTW were somewhat random (Fig. 7e), with females exhibiting a higher affinity for water bodies than males (Fig. 7f)."It illustrates the relationship between CES perception indicators and the distance to different landscape elements."
Opinion 17：
Line 389, 390 - Information about the 1-10 value gradient appears in the Results section. Please supplement the Methods section with this information.
Response: Thanks for this reminder. We have supplemented the information about the 1-10 value gradient in the Methods section. Line 246-248:
"Among them, the Ecosystem Services Social-Values Model uses a gradient scale of 1-10 to measure the level of CES indicators."
Opinion 18：
Figure 8 – Very small maps, it is difficult to compare the displayed information on them.
Response: Thanks for this reminder. We have enlarged the size of all maps in figure 8.
Opinion 19：
3.4. Association between CESs, landscape elements, and differences between subgroups
Figure 10 – Difficult to read texts, please make improvements.
Response: Thanks for this reminder. We have increased the font size and changed it to a more prominent color.
Opinion 20：
Conclusions
Conclusions must be followed from the results of the particular research; therefore, conclusions usually do not include information that has not been discussed in the article so far or insights expressed by other researchers. Consequently, conclusions usually do not include references. Such information fits better into the introduction part.
The Conclusions are not a summary of the article, so the collected facts must be accompanied by a concluding note. At the moment, the conclusions summarise the main results, which should be supplemented by concluding remarks, what these results indicate. There are a number of conclusions in the Discussion section that could possibly be moved to the Conclusions section.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have revised the conclusion section to emphasize the application of sex differences in cultural ecosystem services to urban sustainable development, and we have also modified the discussion section regarding the importance of sex studies. The revised conclusion section is presented in Line 701-727:
"Sex is a crucial factor in the spatial design of urban parks. However, differences in the perceptions of CESs between males and females are often overlooked in the landscape planning of mountain urban parks. This oversight can limit the activities and social participation of different sexes in mountainous parks, thereby affecting their perceptions and experiences. This study primarily explored the distribution characteristics of CESs in an urban, mountainous park based on sex differences and their associations with landscape elements. By collecting and analysing data from both sex groups, spatial distribution maps of CESs were constructed, which revealed potential differences in the association between landscape elements and CESs.
Men and women show distinct preferences in landscapes and CES perception, reflecting their different needs. Men favor slopes and recreational facilities, emphasizing physical activity and practicality, while women prefer viewing platforms and ponds, highlighting their need for emotional comfort and social interaction. Males had lower perceptions of cultural diversity and spiritual and religious values, whereas females had lower perceptions of future value. Regarding the space nodes in Eling Park, areas such as the central lawn, Kansheng Tower, and the park entrance were noted for high aesthetic, recreation, and sense of place values, with the cliffside path positively influencing various values. Females were more likely to perceive social relations value at space nodes such as the lotus pond and Kansheng Tower, whereas males were more likely to perceive inspiration value at Kansheng Tower, the park entrance, and the cliffside path. Regarding the relationship between landscape elements and CESs, for males, inspiration value was closely related to fort-like ridges and cliffs, whereas the social relations value was closely related to squares and platforms. For females, recreation value was closely related to shrubs and trees; science and ecological education value was closely related to flowers and lawns; inspiration value was related to tree roots, animals, and slopes and steps; and cultural heritage value was related to garden facilities. These differences shape how individuals use park spaces and affect the delivery of intangible services like cultural heritage and ecological education. By optimizing mountain-specific features—such as adding viewing platforms or integrating cultural relics—parks can better meet the needs of different sexes, improving CES delivery.
Sex-sensitive park design supports urban sustainability across ecological, social, and economic dimensions. Ecologically, integrating CES evaluation into urban green space planning and building culturally focused ecological corridors can help mountainous parks and other green spaces work together, forming a sustainable ecological network. Socially, sex-sensitive park optimization can foster inclusive urban development. For example, creating sex-specific zones—like climbing areas for men and semi-private social spaces for women—breaks traditional stereotypes and combines functionality with inclusive design. This approach enhances spatial fairness and strengthens community ties by increasing residents' connection to nature. Economically, it enhances park appeal and efficiency, stimulating local green economies. These measures align with the UN Sustainable Development Goals on well-being, sex equality, and inclusive spaces, providing practical solutions for balancing human, natural, and social needs in rapidly urbanizing mountainous cities."
Rviewer 4:
Opinion 1：
The introduction does not sufficiently differentiate this study from previous work on CES using the SolVES and VEP methodologies.
Response: Thanks for raising this important question. The SolVES model effectively reveals CES spatial distribution but relies on photographic data with detailed background information. VEP produces numerous object-linked photos but is costly and quality-demanding. The advantage of integrating the SoIVES model with the VEP method lies in the fact that VEP can enhance the SoIVES model's superior processing of spatial locations, allowing each point on the generated CESs distribution map to correspond to actual photographs and the landscape elements depicted on them. VEP ensures that the digitization of the SoIVES model is not confined to a mere point containing valuable data, but rather represents the tangible existence of the actual landscape.This combination enhances the authenticity and scientific rigor of the data, clearly deLineating the differences in landscape preferences and value demands among different gender groups.We have added a description of the research work on the SolVES and VEP methods in the introduction section:
Line 62-68:
"The advantage of integrating the SoIVES model with the VEP method lies in the fact that VEP can enhance the SoIVES model's superior processing of spatial locations, allowing each point on the generated CESs distribution map to correspond to actual photographs and the landscape elements depicted on them. VEP ensures that the digitization of the SoIVES model is not confined to a mere point containing valuable data, but rather represents the tangible existence of the actual landscape. "
The references added here in the text are as follows
[1] Zhang K, Tang X, Zhao Y, Huang B, Huang L, Liu M, Luo E, Li Y, Jiang T, Zhang L, Wang Y, Wan J. Differing perceptions of the youth and the elderly regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban parks: an exploration of the tour experience. Sci. Total Environ. 821, 153388 (2022).
[2].Tian, F. C. Y. Understanding the process from perception to cultural ecosystem services assessment by comparing valuation methods. Urban For. Urban Green. 57, 126945 (2021).
Opinion 2：
The novelty of incorporating sex-based differences in CES perception is mentioned, but it is not adequately elaborated upon. A clearer explanation of how this approach advances existing knowledge would strengthen the manuscript’s contribution to the field.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the introduction regarding the significance and innovation of sex difference research in Line 112-130：
"Sex is a crucial component of socio-demographic attributes. The perceived differences in cultural ecosystem services (CESs) based on sex determine the varying landscape needs of urban parks. Conducting research on sex differences in CESs ensures that park design and management can incorporate nuanced, differentiated planning to meet the needs and expectations of different sex groups . Studies on sex differences in CESs help adjust the planning of landscape elements and functional configurations in parks based on preferences. Understanding the relationship between landscape elements and CESs from a sex perspective is essential for current landscape practices in mountainous urban parks . By calculating and mapping the actual supply and demand of ecosystem services and their spatial mismatches, planners can identify key development areas for enhancing the availability of CESs for both men and women in mountainous parks, thereby improving land use and management efficiency. Simultaneously, research from a sex perspective can externalize the deep-seated differences in sex characteristics within the field of CES perception, thereby constructing a sex-equitable ecological governance system in urban parks and breaking down sex stereotypes in cultural landscape concepts. Based on the SoIVES model with the VEP method, the combination enhances the authenticity and scientific rigor of the data, clearly delineating the differences in landscape preferences and value demands among different sex groups."
Opinion 3：
While the SolVES model outputs are used to generate CES value maps, the manuscript does not discuss the validation of these outputs against empirical field data, such as visitor surveys, interviews, or observational studies. A discussion of how the model results were compared with real-world data would add rigor to the methodology and help validate the findings.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments.
1）We indeed simplified the interviews and questionnaires, only investigating social information such as whether participants were locals or whether they visited alone, because our research focus was on the perceptual differences of young people regarding mountainous landscapes based on gender. The social characteristics of the participants were merely auxiliary tools to help us control variables and understand the basic information of the participants.
2）We used questionnaires to collect the social information of the participants. We employed Visitor-Employed Photography (VEP) to record a large number of photos with Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) points. We used the SolVES model to study the spatial distribution and perception levels of CESs. We used the Area Under the Curve (AUC) values to study the relationship between the distance of certain landscapes from the shooting points and their perceived value. We conducted landscape identification to study the frequency of the 16 landscape elements contained in the photos. We used Correspondence Analysis (CA) biplots to study the correlations between landscape elements and CESs. The spatial distribution of CESs, the frequency of the 16 landscape elements, and the correlations between landscape elements and CESs can mutually validate each other. For example:
CES distribution conclusions:
Males had higher perceptions of inspiration, health, and scientific education values in areas such as Kansheng Tower, Entrance Plaza, and Cliffside Path.
Females had higher perceptions of social relations, sense of place, and spiritual and religious values in areas such as Kansheng Tower, Central Lawn, and Lotus Pond.
16 Landscape Elements Conclusions:
Males had higher perception frequencies for landscape elements such as slopes and steps, garden facilities, and recreational facilities.
Females had higher perception frequencies for landscape elements such as overlooks, ponds, and squares and platforms.
Correspondence:
The high perception of males in areas like Kansheng Tower and Cliffside Path corresponds to the high perception frequencies of landscape elements such as slopes and steps and garden facilities, suggesting that these landscape elements may enhance males' perceptions of inspiration and health values.
The high perception of females in areas like Kansheng Tower and Lotus Pond corresponds to the high perception frequencies of landscape elements such as overlooks and ponds, suggesting that these landscape elements may enhance females' perceptions of social relations and sense of place values.
CES and 16 Landscape Elements Chi-Square Test Conclusions:
In the male group, aesthetic and scientific education values were significantly correlated with landscape elements such as flowers and lawns, overlooks, and shrubs and trees.
In the female group, social relations value was significantly correlated with modern architecture, while recreation and health values were significantly correlated with shrubs and trees.
Correspondence:
In the male group, the significant correlations between aesthetic and scientific education values and landscape elements such as flowers and lawns and shrubs and trees correspond to the high perceptions of males in areas like Kansheng Tower and Central Lawn.
In the female group, the significant correlation between social relations value and modern architecture corresponds to the high perceptions of females in areas like Kansheng Tower and Lotus Pond.
Opinion 4：
The VEP methodology is not described in sufficient detail.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We appreciate the reviewer's comment and have added a section describing the VEP method：
Line 183-187："Visitor-Employed Photography (VEP) involves hiring tourists to capture photos that reflect the value of cultural ecosystem services, with software like "2bulu" used to record the photos and their location data."
In Line 265-272, we elaborated on how volunteers evaluate CES values based on the photos they take:
"The research team analysed the photography dataset captured by the volunteers to identify three distinct types of information: the geographical coordinates of each photograph, the CES values identified by the visitors in the photograph titles, and the landscape elements present in the photographs. Landscape elements have been previously analysed based on their proportion in a photograph, with the criterion that the element occupies more than 20% of the image. The analysis in this study was performed by four researchers in pairs, with each pair making joint decisions. In cases of disagreement, all four researchers collaborated to determine the final extraction results."
Opinion 5：
Furthermore, the selection of 90 students as survey participants may not be representative of the broader park user population. Including a more diverse sample of park visitors would improve the external validity of the findings. A more comprehensive discussion of the participant selection process and its potential limitations would be beneficial.
Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' valuable comments regarding the issue of sample representativeness. Prior to initiating this study, we referenced studies by Fengyun Sun et al. and Kaili Zhang et al., who employed the Visitor-Employed Photography (VEP) method to investigate cultural ecosystem services (CES) perceptions in outdoor green spaces, using sample sizes of 32 and 90 participants (45 elderly and 45 young), respectively. Based on these precedents, we adopted a sample size of 90 participantsfor our research.
[1]Sun F , Xiang J , Tao Y ,et al.Mapping the social values for ecosystem services in urban green spaces: Integrating a visitor-employed photography method into SolVES[J].Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 38, 105-113, (2019).
[2] Zhang K, Tang X, Zhao Y, Huang B, Huang L, Liu M, Luo E, Li Y, Jiang T, Zhang L, Wang Y, Wan J. Differing perceptions of the youth and the elderly regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban parks: an exploration of the tour experience. Sci. Total Environ. 821, 153388 (2022)
In addation, we have addressed this concern in the Limitations section (Line 619-620)：
"However, in the process of the volunteer experiment, there were some problems, such as a small sample size (90) and insufficient consideration of the group effect, among others. "
In future research, we will increase the sample size, control variables, and conduct more scientific studies.
If you believe that this study requires an increase in the sample size, please allow us more time to recruit additional volunteers and conduct the experiment again. Thank you.
Opinion 6：
The manuscript claims that there are significant sex-based differences in CES perception. However, the statistical methods used to test these differences (e.g., Chi-square tests or t-tests) may not be appropriate for spatially clustered data. A more detailed justification of the statistical methods used, including their suitability for spatial analysis, would enhance the robustness of the results.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have revisited the literature in the field of ecosystem services and found that the chi-square test has been used in the following papers:
[1] Zhang K, Tang X, Zhao Y, Huang B, Huang L, Liu M, Luo E, Li Y, Jiang T, Zhang L, Wang Y, Wan J. Differing perceptions of the youth and the elderly regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban parks: an exploration of the tour experience. Sci. Total Environ. 821, 153388 (2022).
[2] Kicic, M., Haase, D. & Marin, A. M. Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services of tree-based green infrastructure: a focus group participatory mapping in Zagreb, Croatia. Urban For. Urban Green. 78, 127767 (2022).
[3] Chen, Y., Hong, C., Yang, Y., Li, J., Wang, Y., Zheng, T., Zhang, Y. & Shao, F. Mining Social Media Data to Capture Urban Park Visitors’ Perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Landscape Factors. Forests 15, 213 (2024).
Furthermore, the data we used for the chi-square test, namely the frequency of the 16 landscapes appearing in the photographs and the frequency of CES values, no longer contain spatial coordinate information and therefore should not be classified as spatial clustering data. However, we transformed the trajectory and CES point data, which originally included spatial clustering information, into ordinary data devoid of spatial coordinates. This may represent a limitation in our experimental methodology. In future research, we will strive to improve this aspect.
Opinion 7：
The interpretation of results, especially with regard to the observed sex-based differences, could benefit from a more nuanced discussion. Are the observed differences influenced by environmental factors, personal preferences, or other variables? A more in-depth exploration of the potential reasons behind the differences would provide valuable insights.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments.
We have reorganized "4.1. Landscape Environmental Value Orientation". And added
"4.1.4 Influencing factors of differences":
"Preferences for CESs in mountainous versus plain cities can be attributed to factors such as geographic features, socio-cultural background, personal experience, and psychological perceptions. The steep terrain, rich vegetation, and unique landscapes of mountainous areas are more likely than plains area to evoke inspiration, aesthetics, and cultural diversity values. Public preferences for CESs are influenced by the interplay of natural and infrastructural elements with cultural and social backgrounds, particularly in regions with distinct cultural histories, such as Chongqing. Additionally, personal experiences and psychological needs further shape individual landscape perceptions. Individuals who frequently hike in mountainous areas often prioritise inspiration and aesthetic values in natural landscapes, whereas urban dwellers focus on the wellness and social functions of plain parks. Mountainous environments cater to the psychological needs of adventure and discovery, whereas plains environments fulfil the need for relaxation and interaction. These preferences reflect the diverse demands and expectations of visitors for both natural and cultural landscape across different geographic environments and sexes."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the paper is interesting, but I have to point out to some issues that need to be resolved in order to enhance quality of the research. Those are:
- Introduction - The introduction effectively presents the research gap and contextualizes the study within the broader literature. However, the discussion on previous studies related to CES valuation methods could have been more critically analyzed. The paper mainly references studies that align with its hypothesis without addressing potential contradictions in existing literature. Also, the rationale for selecting Eling Park as the study site could be better justified with more comparative references.
- Methodology - While using college students (aged 18-22) ensures consistency, the study lacks diversity in the sample population. This limits generalizability. Further, the impact of environmental conditions (e.g., weather, time of visit) on CES perceptions could have been explored further. Finally, potential biases introduced by self-reported CES categorizations should be acknowledged in greater detail.
- Results - The paper could have further examined why specific landscape elements correspond to certain CESs from a psychological or sociocultural perspective. Further, the limited focus on social demographics other than sex (e.g., educational background, cultural upbringing) might oversimplify CES perception variations. Finally, no explicit discussion on how park management could practically implement findings.
- Discussion - Certain claims, such as "males are more likely to seek recreational CESs due to their preference for physical activity," rely on generalizations rather than empirical evidence from the study. The discussion should acknowledge alternative explanations and potential confounding factors. The interpretation of results occasionally relies on gender stereotypes rather than directly observed behavior. Practical recommendations for park planners and policymakers could be expanded.
- Conclusion and Implications - The study calls for gender-sensitive landscape planning but does not provide actionable steps for implementation. The study should offer specific recommendations, such as modifications to park design, policy guidelines, or further research directions. It should also discuss how CES assessments can be integrated into broader urban sustainability frameworks.
- Limitations and Future Research - The authors acknowledge several methodological limitations, including sample representativeness and potential biases in CES self-reporting. However, the study does not adequately address how future research can mitigate these limitations. Discussion of how CES perceptions might change over time due to urbanization or climate change is missing.
Author Response
Assessment of cultural ecosystem service values in mountainous urban parks based on sex differences: a case study of Eling Park in Chongqing
First Round of Revision Explanation and Revised Draft
Dear Reviewers and Editors,
Thank you very much for your careful reading and valuable comments! Your review has been very helpful to our research, and we have benefited greatly from your insights during the process of thinking and revising. These insights have helped us to take a deeper look at our own research and identify and revise areas of data variable control and other shortcomings.
In the revised manuscript, we have made the necessary changes according to your review comments and highlighted them in red. Below is a brief explanation of the review comments and the modifications made,. If you have any further suggestions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to let us know, and we would be most grateful.
Once again, thank you for your selfless assistance and hard work.
Sincerely,
We will number the comments made by the four reviewers and provide explanations and revisions accordingly.
Rviewer 1:
Opinion 1:
Line 48-51. The original sentence is somewhat complex. Consider rewording it for clarity:
"Research on park CESs is essential for improving residents' physical and mental well-being, enhancing urban aesthetics, and promoting a balanced human-nature relationship."
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments. Please see Line 35-37.
Opinion 2:
Line 154. The number 6.6254 should be rounded to two decimal places for consistency. Ensure that all numerical values throughout the manuscript follow this rule.
Response: Thanks for this reminder. We rounded 6.6254 to two decimal places, resulting in 6.63. Please see Line 158.
Opinion 3：
Figure 1. This figure should also be provided as a supplementary file, as it is too small to be readable for a wider audience. The colors for the tower and monument are very similar, making it difficult for some readers to distinguish between them in the legend. Consider using more contrasting colors.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have adjusted the font size in Figure 1 to enhance readability. Meanwhile, the color of the monument icon has been altered to ensure distinction.
Opinion 4：
Line 180-182. The "2bulu" app should be better explained. Include details such as: What type of data does it collect? Whether the data publicly available? How precise and reliable the collected data is?
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. "2bulu" can generate KML files containing walking paths, photo point locations, as well as walking time, walking speed, and altitude data, which can be publicly shared as research data (in the appendix). The accuracy and reliability of its data primarily depend on the mobile phone's positioning system.
Accordingly, we have revised Line 189-191 to: "'2bulu' generates publicly accessible KML files with walking paths, photo points, walking time, speed, and poster height, relying on mobile phone positioning for data accuracy and reliability."
Opinion 5：
Line 204. You mention that parameters (temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions) were controlled. How were these parameters controlled? Provide a clearer explanation. Was research conducted in a specific part of the day?
Response: Thank you for raising these important questions. The final experiment was conducted on sunny afternoons from October to November 2023, during the autumn season at Eling Park, to maintain consistent temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions as much as possible. Based on reviewers' comments, experimental facts, and length control, we revised Line 197-206 of the original text to:
"We posted volunteer recruitment information on university social media platforms. Eligible volunteers underwent pre-experiment training, covering CES concepts, '2bulu' usage, designated routes, and timing/weather requirements. To ensure the absolute influence of sex factors, we selected college students aged 18-22 with similar educational backgrounds. Volunteers conducted the experiment on sunny afternoons during rest days in October and November 2023 to maintain environmental consistency, relaxed conditions, and photo clarity. They visited Eling Park under specified conditions, captured at least 50 photos meeting at least one CES indicator, categorized them, and submitted the photos to the research team (Fig. 2). We set the number of male and female participants equally at 45 each."
In Line 232-235, we continue to emphasize controlling environmental variables：
"The formal survey was conducted on sunny days between 1:00 PM and 5:00 PM from 10 October to 8 November 2023. During this period, the landscape of Eling Park remained almost unchanged, with stable temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions and no significant noise interference."
Opinion 6：
Line 241. Add more information about SolVES 4.0.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The SolVES (Social Values for Ecosystem Services) model was jointly developed by the Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center (RMGSC) of the United States Geological Survey and Colorado State University. It is primarily used to assess the social values of ecosystem services, quantifying the social values of ecosystem service functions such as aesthetics, biodiversity, recreation, and cultural activities. The evaluation results are derived from public attitudes and preferences, expressed as non-monetary value indices, and have high application value. The SolVES model is widely applied in the social value assessment of ecological environments such as landscapes and parks.SolVES 4.0 is a commonly used research model for assessing cultural ecosystem services. We have refined the various components of SolVES 4.0.
Please see section 2.3.1, Line 244-248.
、
Opinion 7：
Line 245. Explain why you specifically chose to use these two SolVES submodels instead of others.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. The Value Transfer Mapping Model in SolVES 4.0 requires pre-existing SolVES 4.0 models, and it can only be used for experimental analysis if the new experimental data is proven to be applicable to the old, established models. Since we have not conducted similar experiments in other parks, we do not meet the conditions for using the Value Transfer Mapping Model. Additionally, our goal is to establish new CES indicators, so pre-existing models are unnecessary. In summary, we did not use the Value Transfer Mapping Model. On the other hand, the Ecosystem Services Social-Values Model and the Value Mapping Model do not require pre-existing models. After establishing the cultural ecosystem service (CES) indicators and environmental factor indicators, we can import point files containing photo location information and CES classification data into the model to conduct relevant research. These modules enable us to explore the distribution and frequency of CES indicators, as well as the relationship between CES distribution and environmental factors, aligning with our experimental needs. Therefore, we selected these two modules for our study.Based on the reviewers' comments, we have added an explanation for why the Value Transfer Mapping Model is not applicable.
Please see section 2.3.1, Line 244-248.
Opinion 8：
Line 254. Provide more details about the CAD map used. Does it represent the entire landscaping of the park or just its boundaries?
Response: Thank you for your question. The detailed information of the CAD map is presented in a colored version in Figure 1, which includes both the boundaries and a portion of the detailed information.
Opinion 9：
Line 256. Add a brief explanation of PostgreSQL (e.g., what it is and why it was used in the study).
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. PostgreSQL is a database that is utilized in the SolVES 4.0 manual. According to the official manual, we used this database for data import and storage. Based on this, we have revised the original text：
Please see Line 259-261: "Using PostgreSQL for data storage, the MaxEnt model for maximum value analysis, and QGIS as the mapping software, the pixel size in SolVES 4.0 was set to 0.1 m for the 64,557 m² area of Eling Park, with a search radius parameter of 10 m."
Opinion 10：
Line 258. Clarify whether the data is publicly available. If so, is there a database or repository where it can be accessed?
Response: Thank you for your question. It can be publicly available. We have uploaded the data to the OPENICPSR database. The website link is:
https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/221741/version/V1/view
The data identifier is openicpsr-221741, and the content includes data tables, KML trajectory files, point files, and other related data.
Opinion 11：
Line 287. The correct phrase should be: "…were Chongqing residents…"
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the manuscript accordingly as per their suggestions. Please see Line 292.
Rviewer 2:
Opinion 1：
Introduction - The introduction effectively presents the research gap and contextualizes the study within the broader literature. However, the discussion on previous studies related to CES valuation methods could have been more critically analyzed. The paper mainly references studies that align with its hypothesis without addressing potential contradictions in existing literature.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have revised the description of CES valuation and provided further elaboration on the integration of the VEP method and the SolVES model in Line 48-68.
"CES evaluation methods mainly involve monetization and non-monetization assessments . Monetization is often limited to values like recreation, ecotourism, and cultural values , while non-monetization is widely used for its broader applicability across categoriesConsequently, scholarly interest in non-monetary valuation methods has grown significantly due to their ability to optimize environmental resource allocation. Current research on park CESs employs various non-monetary methods, each with unique strengths and limitations in capturing user perceptions and preferences. Traditional methods like questionnaires and field surveyseffectively gather detailed insights but are labor-intensive and hard to scale . Social media analysis offers abundant user-generated content but often lacks socio-demographic data, limiting group-specific analysis. Participatory mapping provides precise spatial data but requires extensive participant training. The SolVES model effectively reveals CES spatial distribution but relies on photographic data with detailed background information .VEP produces numerous object-linked photos but is costly and quality-demanding. Integrating SolVES with VEP optimizes CES spatial data utilization."
Opinion 2：
Also, the rationale for selecting Eling Park as the study site could be better justified with more comparative references.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. Compared to other mountain parks in Chongqing, such as Pipashan Park (which is too small), Zou Rong Park (with fewer landscape elements), and Binjiang Park (lacking mountain characteristics), our study site has a moderate size, rich landscape features, distinct mountain characteristics, and clearly defined main walking paths, making it suitable for our experimental requirements. We have added this description in Line 148-153：
"Compared to other mountainous parks in Chongqing, such as Pipashan Park (too small in area), Zou Rong Park (limited landscape elements), and Binjiang Park (lacking mountainous features), Eling Park stands out with its moderate size, rich landscape elements, distinct mountainous characteristics, and well-defined main trails, making it an ideal site for our experimental needs."
Opinion 3：
Methodology - While using college students (aged 18-22) ensures consistency, the study lacks diversity in the sample population. This limits generalizability. Further, the impact of environmental conditions (e.g., weather, time of visit) on CES perceptions could have been explored further. Finally, potential biases introduced by self-reported CES categorizations should be acknowledged in greater detail.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We acknowledge the limitation of insufficient sample size during our experiment. In addation, since our study focuses on exploring the impact of sex on the perception of cultural ecosystem services (CES), we made every effort to ensure consistency in other influencing factors. Based on the experimental conditions, we adjusted the control of environmental factors and ensured that the experiments were conducted on sunny afternoons between October and November to maintain consistency in environmental conditions as much as possible. We also recognize that our classification of CES may be incomplete or non-representative. Accordingly, we have revised the descriptions of the experimental background and reflections in the manuscript.：
Line 197-206："We posted volunteer recruitment information on university social media platforms. Eligible volunteers underwent pre-experiment training, covering CES concepts, "2bulu" usage, designated routes, and timing/weather requirements. To ensure the absolute influence of sex factors, we selected college students aged 18-22 with similar educational backgrounds. Volunteers conducted the experiment on sunny afternoons during rest days in October and November 2023 to maintain environmental consistency, relaxed conditions, and photo clarity. They visited Eling Park under specified conditions, captured at least 50 photos meeting at least one CES value, categorized them, and submitted the photos to the research team (Fig. 2). We set the number of male and female participants equally at 45 each."
In Line 232-236, we continue to emphasize controlling environmental variables：
"The formal survey was conducted on sunny days between 1:00 PM and 5:00 PM from 10 October to 8 November 2023. During this period, the landscape of Eling Park remained almost unchanged, with stable temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions and no significant noise interference."
In addition, in Line 619-625, we reflect on the research limitations:
"However, in the process of the volunteer experiment, there were some problems, such as a small sample size (90) and insufficient consideration of the group effect, among others. In the discussion of the factors affecting CESs, we did not account for the impact of whether they went alone or whether they went to the park for the first time on their perception. Although the age group and educational background of the population were controlled, subjectivity among volunteers can introduce bias, a common challenge in CES research. "
Opinion 4：
Results - The paper could have further examined why specific landscape elements correspond to certain CESs from a psychological or sociocultural perspective.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. In Section 4.1.3 (Line 527-545), we have revised the explanation regarding why specific landscape elements correspond to certain CES：
"Analysis of the relationship between landscape features and CESs indicated that both males and females recognised recreation, aesthetic, and social relations values in Eling Park (Figs. 8 and 9). In the male subgroup, inspiration was associated with landscape elements, such as fort-like ridges and cliffs, which may be linked to their need for physical activity, their spatial awareness, and the visual impact of these features. Consistent with the findings of Swapan et al, the males frequently perceived recreation. Additionally, males typically visit parks for physical exercise, challenging activities, and social interactions[54], leading to the association between social relations and squares and platforms. CA analysis revealed that air-raid shelters and ponds were less associated with other CESs for males, likely owing to their infrequent appearance. Females generally prefer aesthetic and artistic enjoyment, comfort, security, and micro landscape features, as evidenced by the relationship between recreation and shrubs and trees. Science and ecological education value was associated with flowers and lawns, indicating that these elements can stimulate enthusiasm for ecological education in female. Inspiration was often associated with artistic tree roots exposed on the surface, animals, and slopes and steps, confirming that females focus more on detailed aesthetic value than men. Garden facilities are linked to cultural heritage value, reflecting their role in prompting thoughts on cultural heritage. ."
Opinion 5：
Further, the limited focus on social demographics other than sex (e.g., educational background, cultural upbringing) might oversimplify CES perception variations.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. Indeed, during this field study, we encountered various environmental and demographic variables. To ensure the accuracy of our results, we controlled for educational background as a constant by focusing on a specific group of college students aged 18-22. In future research, we plan to expand the sample size and investigate the differences in CES perception among individuals with diverse cultural backgrounds. In section 4.3., we also pointed out the research limitations.
Opinion 6：
Finally, no explicit discussion on how park management could practically implement findings.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised Section 4.4 regarding how park management can implement specific measures, making the proposed actions more concrete. Please see section 4.4, Line 674-699.
Opinion 7：
Discussion - Certain claims, such as "males are more likely to seek recreational CESs due to their preference for physical activity," rely on generalizations rather than empirical evidence from the study. The discussion should acknowledge alternative explanations and potential confounding factors. The interpretation of results occasionally relies on sex stereotypes rather than directly observed behavior.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We acknowledge the issues of insufficient causality and stereotypes in our discussion regarding males seeking recreational CES and their preference for sports. Therefore, we have revised the relevant descriptions in section 4.1.2 (Line 506-525)：
"4.1.2 Sex differences in CESs value orientation
Both the male and female subgroups clearly perceived the aesthetic, recreation, cultural heritage, and social relations values of the park. This aligns with Eling Park’s primary functions of providing natural and cultural landscapes, as well as serving as a public space for leisure, fitness, and community interaction. This conclusion differs from that of previous studies, such as those by Kicic et al. [25] on park forests and Dou et al.[51] on the National Wetland Park, likely owing to differences in environmental characteristics and the surveyed population. For the male subgroup, the most highly perceived CESs were recreation and aesthetic values, whereas the least perceived were cultural diversity and spiritual and religious values, consistent with the findings of Zhou et al.[52] and Swapan et al.[33]. Males typically engage in activities such as sports, running, and family gatherings in community parks, which offer relaxation and social opportunities. In contrast, males might be less attuned to cultural diversity and spiritual and religious values, which involve deeper cultural and spiritual experiences that may not be as immediately engaging as recreation and aesthetics. For the female subgroup, the most highly perceived value was aesthetics while the least perceived was future value. Females often have a keener sense of beauty and seek relaxation and joy through aesthetic experiences during leisure, rendering them more likely to prefer spaces that offer high aesthetic value over spaces that offer abstract future value during visits to parks[53]. ."
Opinion 8：
Practical recommendations for park planners and policymakers could be expanded.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the specific measures for landscape planning in section 4.4. (Please refer to the response to the Opinion 6.)
Opinion 9：
Conclusion and Implications - The study calls for sex-sensitive landscape planning but does not provide actionable steps for implementation. The study should offer specific recommendations, such as modifications to park design, policy guideLine, or further research directions. It should also discuss how CES assessments can be integrated into broader urban sustainability frameworks.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. In the conclusion (section 4.4), we have revised the specific measures for landscape planning and integrated their evaluation into a broader framework for urban sustainable development:
Please see line 674-699:
"4.4. Implications for landscape design and management
4.4.1 Enhancing CES-oriented landscape elements
Mountainous terrains should be leveraged to improve inspiration, aesthetic, and cultural heritage values. Viewing platforms with seating should be integrated along cliff trails to enhance scenic appreciation, while historical features, such as air-raid shelters and fortress-like ridges, should be preserved and equipped with interpretive signage to strengthen cultural heritage value.
4.4.2 Balancing CES supply and demand
Spatial analysis of CES values should guide targeted interventions. Males, who prioritize recreation, would benefit from the addition of climbing walls and fitness zones along steep paths. Females, who value social interaction and cultural heritage, require more shaded seating, garden spaces, and semi-private pavilions near key social hubs like lotus ponds and overlooks.
4.4.3 Establishing sex-sensitive development zones
By mapping CES perception hotspots, planners can designate areas that cater to specific needs. High-traffic areas should integrate features that promote both social engagement and recreation, ensuring an inclusive environment. Meditation zones and cultural festivals can enhance spiritual and religious values, particularly in spaces where such CESs are currently underrepresented.
4.4.4 Incorporating CES values into Sustainable Development Goal
Embed CES into SDG frameworks by linking health-centric landscapes (Goal 3), equitable greenway networks (Goal 11), and community co-design workshops to ensure inclusive access. Strengthening connectivity between Eling Park and other green spaces through ecological corridors will enhance CES accessibility. Promote community participation by regularly assessing resident needs and dynamically adjusting landscape configurations to align CES supply with urban sustainability goals."
Opinion 10：
Limitations and Future Research - The authors acknowledge several methodological limitations, including sample representativeness and potential biases in CES self-reporting. However, the study does not adequately address how future research can mitigate these limitations. Discussion of how CES perceptions might change over time due to urbanization or climate change is missing.
Response:
1.About insufficient sample size.
We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' valuable comments regarding the issue of sample representativeness. Prior to initiating this study, we referenced studies by Fengyun Sun et al. and Kaili Zhang et al., who employed the Visitor-Employed Photography (VEP) method to investigate cultural ecosystem services (CES) perceptions in outdoor green spaces, using sample sizes of 32 and 90 participants (45 elderly and 45 young), respectively. Based on these precedents, we adopted a sample size of 90 participantsfor our research.
- Sun F , Xiang J , Tao Y ,et al.Mapping the social values for ecosystem services in urban green spaces: Integrating a visitor-employed photography method into SolVES[J].Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 38, 105-113, (2019).
[2] Zhang K, Tang X, Zhao Y, Huang B, Huang L, Liu M, Luo E, Li Y, Jiang T, Zhang L, Wang Y, Wan J. Differing perceptions of the youth and the elderly regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban parks: an exploration of the tour experience. Sci. Total Environ. 821, 153388 (2022).
In future research, we plan to expand the sample size and place greater emphasis on sample diversity, encompassing individuals of different ages, educational backgrounds, and physical conditions. For instance, recent studies have shown that socio-demographic characteristics (such as age, income, and education level) significantly influence the perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES). We will employ stratified or quota sampling methods to ensure that the sample more comprehensively reflects the perceived differences in CES values of mountain parks among various groups. Additionally, we will incorporate a multi-site research design to capture the perceptual differences among populations in different geographical and social contexts. These improvements will help reduce sample bias and enhance the generalizability and reliability of the research findings.
2.Potential Bias in CES Self-Reporting by Participants
We are deeply grateful for the reviewers' attention to the potential bias in CES self-reporting. To mitigate this bias, we plan to adopt a mixed-methods research approach in future studies, combining laboratory simulations with outdoor field research (Zwierzchowska, I., 2018). The laboratory environment allows for better control of variables and reduces external interference, while field research can more authentically reflect participants' perceptions in natural settings.
[3] Zwierzchowska, I., Hof, A., Iojă, I.-C., Mueller, C., Poniży, L., Breuste, J., & Mizgajski, A. Multi-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services of parks in Central European cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 30, 84–97 (2018).
3.The Impact of Urbanization or Climate Change on CES Perception
We greatly appreciate the reviewers' important reminder regarding the effects of urbanization and climate change. Indeed, urbanization and climate change can significantly influence people's perceptions of CES. For example, recent studies indicate that extreme weather events (such as high temperatures and droughts) caused by climate change can markedly alter residents' demand for and perception of green spaces (Manley, K., 2024). In mountainous environments like Chongqing, the climatic characteristics of hot summers and cold winters may further exacerbate this impact. Therefore, future research could explore the variations in residents' perceptions of mountain park CES across different seasons and the potential long-term effects of climate change on people's preferences. For instance, summer heat may increase the demand for shade and cooling services, while winter cold may make people more concerned about sunlight and wind protection services.
[4] Manley, K., & Egoh, B. N. Climate and biodiversity change constrain the flow of cultural ecosystem services to people: A case study modeling birding across Africa under future climate scenarios. Science of The Total Environment, 919, 170872 (2024).
Based on the reviewers' comments and our responses, we have revised the manuscript accordingly：
Line 661-673：In future research, we will increase the sample size and focus on diversity, including people of different ages, education levels, and health conditions. We will use stratified or quota sampling to better understand how different groups perceive the value of cultural ecosystem services (CES) in mountain parks. To reduce bias in CES self-reports, we will combine lab experiments with field studies to more accurately measure participants' perceptions . Additionally, urbanization and climate change can significantly affect how people perceive CES. Extreme weather, like heatwaves or droughts, may change how residents value green spaces . In Chongqing’s mountainous area, hot summers and cold winters could make these effects stronger. Future studies will examine how seasonal changes and long-term climate shifts influence people’s preferences, such as the need for shade in summer or sunlight in winter. These improvements will make the findings more reliable and provide useful insights for better park planning.
Rviewer 3:
Opinion 1：
General recommendations:
The article is complex and covers both the extensive methodological part and the study of a particular problem and territory, so it is difficult to include in detail in one article everything related to both the methodology and the specific problem and territory. Therefore, if possible, I would recommend reviewing the article and focusing it on a methodology and its approbating, since the methodology considered is the main contribution and value of the article. If the article will focus more on methodology, then all chapters of the article should be reviewed, including the Abstract. In this case, the Introduction and Conclusion sections would also focus directly on methodology. In the introduction - what methodology has been used so far for such studies and what exactly specific and challenging are studies based related to perception of different sexs (whether there are any specific criteria, conditions, etc.). It would also help to make the Introduction part more compact and focused on a specific issue – methodology. The Conclusions, on the other hand, should place greater emphasis on the possibilities and limitations of using the methodology. Also, parts of the results and discussion should be reviewed and focused on what results can be obtained by specific methods. If the article is more focused on the methodology, then perhaps the amount of methods included in the article could also be reduced, since at the moment the description of each method is a bit lacking in detail, which could affect the repeatability of the study. Better and larger images could be added, allowing the textual and visual information contained in them to be read.
BUT if the article is kept in its current content and format, then the reviewer's recommendations for improving some of the sections of the article are added below.
Some more general recommendations are related to terminology and quality of figures used in the article. Please use common terminology for the whole article to keep clear if this term is the same in different places of the article. For example – cultural ecosystem services values / cultural ecosystem services categories. In the Title – did you mean ecosystem service or services? If second, please make correction.
Figures (Images) significantly complement the textual part of the article, however, their quality does not allow to fully perceive the information displayed in them (too small texts, maps).
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We acknowledge that there are shortcomings in the structure and research focus of the article. Taking into account the feedback from multiple reviewers, we have revised the content of the introduction, discussion, and conclusion sections.We have enhanced the description of our methodology, particularly highlighting the innovative aspects related to the VEP and SolVES models. Our approach is tailored to the research objectives of the paper, which focus on gender-based differences in young people's perceptions of various landscape elements. In the introduction, we discussed the advantages and disadvantages of existing methods such as questionnaire surveys and field research, ultimately opting to combine SolVES with VEP and employing chi-square tests for data analysis. The first step of our research involved using VEP to collect photos and CES value point data, thereby obtaining raw data. The second step utilized SolVES for spatial data analysis to derive the spatial distribution of CESs. The third step identified 16 landscape elements from the photos and conducted chi-square tests with the CESs tabular data to explore the correlations between CESs and landscape elements.
However, our current experimental data, processes, and paper structure do not sufficiently support a shift in focus towards methodology. Therefore, in response to the reviewer's comments, we may explore methodological aspects more deeply in future research. Thank you.
We have addressed the issue of inconsistent terminology in the text, with corresponding responses provided in the latter sections of our reply. Regarding specific terminology issues, we noticed that the reviewer has raised detailed questions later in the suggestions, so related issues have also been moved to the subsequent sections. The same applies to the quality of images.
Once again, we thank the reviewer for the comprehensive suggestions on the manuscript, which have been immensely beneficial to us.
Opinion 2：
Abstract
Abstract exceeds the number of words specified in the requirements for the article (not more than 200), it should be revised and made into compact ones. I would suggest adding a more convincing argument to the abstract - why it is important to study the perception of different sexs in relation to cultural ecosystem services.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the word count and content of the abstract, incorporating the importance of studying different sexes' perceptions of cultural ecosystem services (Line 11-28).
"Urban parks are vital for providing cultural ecosystem services (CESs) to residents. However, few studies have explored sex-based differences in CES demand, particularly within mountainous urban parks. This study aimed to elucidate sex-based differences in the perceptions and preferences for CESs and landscape elements, and explore their relationship in mountainous urban parks. Using value-labelled photographs from equal number of male and female volunteers’ visits to Eling Park in Chongqing, China, the SolVES model was employed to investigate the relationship between sex-specific perceptions of CESs and landscape elements. The results showed that males preferred slopes and steps, garden facilities, and recreation facilities, whereas females preferred overlooks that offer multiple CES values, including science and ecological education, aesthetic, and cultural heritage values. Females perceived social relational value at the lotus pond and Kansheng Tower, whereas males perceived inspirational value at Kansheng Tower, the entrance, and the cliffside path. Males linked inspirational value to fort-like ridges and cliffs. Females associated inspirational value with slopes and steps. Based on the findings, the study recommends enhancing CES specific to mountainous landscapes and incorporating sex-sensitive design elements. Ultimately, these efforts aim to position parks as key components of urban sustainable development, promoting overall resident well-being."
Opinion 3：
Introduction
The term "Cultural ecosystem services values" is included in the title – but nowhere in the text (also in other sections) is there an explanation of what is meant by this. Are they the same as indicators mentioned in section 2.2.27? Please clarify this.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have mentioned the definition of this term in the introduction (Line 35-37):
"CESs encompass the non-material benefits humans derive from ecosystems, including spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, aesthetic enjoyment, and recreational opportunities." Its abbreviation is CES (CESs), which is consistent with the indicators in Section 2.2.2.
Opinion 4：
The introduction is very broad and looks at previous research in the field of cultural ecosystem services, urban parks, and various aspects of perception. However, more convincing arguments are missing as to why it is the perceptions of different renders that should be studied. I found that reasoning in the conclusion section (Line 681-689), which could be moved to the Introductory section.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the section in the introduction regarding the significance and innovation of sex difference research and moved part of the conclusion to the introduction (Line 112-130)：
"Sex is a crucial component of socio-demographic attributes. The perceived differences in cultural ecosystem services (CESs) based on sex determine the varying landscape needs of urban parks. Conducting research on sex differences in CESs ensures that park design and management can incorporate nuanced, differentiated planning to meet the needs and expectations of different sex groups . Studies on sex differences in CESs help adjust the planning of landscape elements and functional configurations in parks based on preferences. Understanding the relationship between landscape elements and CESs from a sex perspective is essential for current landscape practices in mountainous urban parks . By calculating and mapping the actual supply and demand of ecosystem services and their spatial mismatches, planners can identify key development areas for enhancing the availability of CESs for both men and women in mountainous parks, thereby improving land use and management efficiency. Simultaneously, research from a sex perspective can externalize the deep-seated differences in sex characteristics within the field of CES perception, thereby constructing a sex-equitable ecological governance system in urban parks and breaking down sex stereotypes in cultural landscape concepts."
Opinion 5：
2.Methods
2.1. Study area
Line 155 - Please clarify what "190" is; it looks like it could be the year, but one of the digits has disappeared.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion and we apologize for our carelessness. The construction of Eling Park began in 1909. We had missed a digit, which has now been added.
Opinion 6：
Line 163 - Why are these categories needed - non-mountainous and mountainous? How does this affect the results of the study? Please add a justification. And, are they meant to represent different zones of the area or groups of landscape elements, or do they have another meaning? Such a question arises because the categories of landscape elements (11 for non-mountainous and 6 for mountainous) cause confusion. Why, for example, are animals, people, trees, and shrubs only in the non-mountainous category if they are actually found in the mountainous one as well?
Response: Thank you for your question. Eling Park exhibits characteristics of a mountainous park, featuring elevation differences and landscapes associated with mountainous terrain. The purpose of our study is to investigate the differences in landscape perception between mountainous and non-mountainous parks. While animals, people, trees, and shrubs are present in both mountainous and non-mountainous areas, they do not possess the unique landscape characteristics of mountainous regions. Therefore, we selected mountainous landscapes that exhibit unique features of mountainous terrain, while general landscapes that appear in both mountainous and non-mountainous areas are categorized as non-mountainous landscapes. Accordingly, we have revised Line 298-305.
"To explore the perceptual differences between mountainous landscapes and non-mountainous landscapes, we divided the 16 landscape elements into 5 landscape elements with mountainous features and 11 without mountainous features, providing corresponding schematic diagrams.Landscape elements with mountainous features refer to those that are distinctive or unique to mountainous areas, while non-mountainous elements are those characteristic of plains or found in both environments. Therefore, non-mountainous elements may also appear in mountainous regions.All the images were captured by volunteers who were solicited for this purpose. "
Opinion 7：
Line 172 – Figure 1 does not correspond to the text referring to that image. The figure should include landscape elements of 16 categories divided into non-mountainous and mountainous.
Response: Thanks for your question. The text in Figure 1 is primarily intended to convey the experimental route and land use types, which has some correspondence with Table 2 but are not entirely identical. Table 2 contains the environmental data required for SolVES 4.0. The classification of mountainous and non-mountainous landscape elements is based on their appearance in photographs rather than on the map. Therefore, Figure 1 does not have a direct correlation with the landscape elements. Figure 3 shows 16 landscape elements.
Opinion 8：
2.2Data acquisition
2.2.1 Experimental design
Line 184 – It is mentioned in sections 2.2.1 and 4.3 that semi-structured interviews have taken place in the research, but there is no mention of what exactly the data was obtained in the interviews and how it was used in the study. The suggestion is either to supplement the article with information about the data obtained during the interviews and its use in the research, or to add information that the method included such interviews, but they are not detailed in this particular article.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The main content collected through our semi-structured interviews was the social information of the volunteers, along with brief discussions about their experiences during the experiment. We mentioned in Line 194-196:
"During interviews, volunteers discussed their visit motivations and memorable experiences with the research team, enhancing survey reliability and offering valuable insights for further analysis."
Opinion 9：
2.2.2 Pre-survey
Line 215, 218, 220 – Please use common terminology, be they CES indicators or CES values or CES categories, if these terms have the same meaning.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have standardized the term to "CES value."
Opinion 10：
Please add to this section how exactly the volunteers assessed CES – whether they were free to choose points from which they captured landscape elements, or whether they were already determined on the route.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The route has been finalized and is illustrated in Figure 1. The text in Line 197-199 mentions:
"We posted volunteer recruitment information on university social media platforms. Eligible volunteers underwent pre-experiment training, covering CES concepts, '2bulu' usage, designated routes, and timing/weather requirements."
Opinion 11：
Table 1 – "Description" in the table is meant to be a base value for making an assessment of CES values (like – corresponds or not corresponds to description)? Please supplement in the text how these CES values were assessed by the volunteers – whether in response to the descriptions (corresponds or not corresponds to description) or using some kind of rating / point system?
Response: Thank you for raising these important questions. We provided the CES values to the volunteers in advance, and they made subjective judgments based on their understanding of the text and the on-site experiment. Volunteers will name the pictures they take based on the 16 CES values. This is mentioned in Line 197-198:
"Eligible volunteers underwent pre-experiment training, covering CES concepts, '2bulu' usage, designated routes, and timing/weather requirements."
In section 2.3.2, Line 265-272, the article provides a detailed description of how CES values can be evaluated through photos taken by volunteers:
"The research team analysed the photography dataset captured by the volunteers to identify three distinct types of information: the geographical coordinates of each photograph, the CES values identified by the visitors in the photograph titles, and the landscape elements present in the photographs. Landscape elements have been previously analysed based on their proportion in a photograph, with the criterion that the element occupies more than 20% of the image[30]. The analysis in this study was performed by four researchers in pairs, with each pair making joint decisions. In cases of disagreement, all four researchers collaborated to determine the final extraction results."
Opinion 12：
Please add an explanation of how 16 categories of landscape elements (Line 166) are involved in the evaluation of CES.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. As mentioned in section 2.3.2, "Landscape elements have been previously analyzed based on their proportion in a photograph, with the criterion that the element occupies more than 20% of the image." The research team first conducted manual identification, and then the volunteer CES data was incorporated into SPSS for data analysis. The results of the data analysis are presented in Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 9, and Fig. 10.
Opinion 13：
- Results
3.1. Demographic profile of volunteers
Line 294 – Please use a common term instead of different for clear understanding: Environmental elements OR landscape elements OR categories of landscape elements?
Response: Thank you for your question. The term has been standardized to "landscape elements" in full text.
Opinion 14：
Line 297 – Figure 3 – Please use a common term instead of different – non-mountainous / mountain-specific elements (Line 165) OR mountain / non-mountain feature.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The terms have been standardized to "mountain/non-mountain elements" in full text.
Opinion 15：
Figure 3 – Aren’t animals, people, trees and shrubs, recreation facilities also part of the mountain features? Please assess the need to divide the territory into the following categories – non-mountainous and mountainous. If necessary, please add an explanation in section 2.1.
Response: Thanks for raising this important question. Elements that do not exhibit typical mountainous characteristics have been categorized as non-mountain landscape features. Please see the response for opinion 6.
Opinion 16：
3.3 Spatial arrangement of CESs and subgroup disparities
Figure 7 – Very small graphics in which it is difficult to read information, it is necessary to assess whether it is important to add these graphics or whether it is possible to somehow display this information in any other way.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have increased the font size in figure7, and the relevant information is presented in the text in Line 373-384:
"Three representative environmental metrics were selected to analyse the AUC results: distance to the tower (DTT), distance to the cliff (DTCL), and distance to water bodies (DTW)[48]. The response curves illustrate the relationships between the environmental metrics (DTT, DTCL, and DTW) and the 11 selected CES types. For males, the value index (VI) for inspiration and health values increased with DTT (Fig. 7a). Conversely, for females, the VI for cultural diversity, spiritual and religious, inspiration, and health values sharply increased with DTT (Fig. 7b). For males, the VI for cultural heritage, social relations, and recreation values decreased with increasing DTCL (Fig. 7c). Conversely, for females, significant VI responses were observed for aesthetics, social relations, and health values (Fig. 7d). Owing to the small water area in Eling Park, VI responses to DTW were somewhat random (Fig. 7e), with females exhibiting a higher affinity for water bodies than males (Fig. 7f)."It illustrates the relationship between CES perception indicators and the distance to different landscape elements."
Opinion 17：
Line 389, 390 - Information about the 1-10 value gradient appears in the Results section. Please supplement the Methods section with this information.
Response: Thanks for this reminder. We have supplemented the information about the 1-10 value gradient in the Methods section. Line 246-248:
"Among them, the Ecosystem Services Social-Values Model uses a gradient scale of 1-10 to measure the level of CES indicators."
Opinion 18：
Figure 8 – Very small maps, it is difficult to compare the displayed information on them.
Response: Thanks for this reminder. We have enlarged the size of all maps in figure 8.
Opinion 19：
3.4. Association between CESs, landscape elements, and differences between subgroups
Figure 10 – Difficult to read texts, please make improvements.
Response: Thanks for this reminder. We have increased the font size and changed it to a more prominent color.
Opinion 20：
Conclusions
Conclusions must be followed from the results of the particular research; therefore, conclusions usually do not include information that has not been discussed in the article so far or insights expressed by other researchers. Consequently, conclusions usually do not include references. Such information fits better into the introduction part.
The Conclusions are not a summary of the article, so the collected facts must be accompanied by a concluding note. At the moment, the conclusions summarise the main results, which should be supplemented by concluding remarks, what these results indicate. There are a number of conclusions in the Discussion section that could possibly be moved to the Conclusions section.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have revised the conclusion section to emphasize the application of sex differences in cultural ecosystem services to urban sustainable development, and we have also modified the discussion section regarding the importance of sex studies. The revised conclusion section is presented in Line 701-727:
"Sex is a crucial factor in the spatial design of urban parks. However, differences in the perceptions of CESs between males and females are often overlooked in the landscape planning of mountain urban parks. This oversight can limit the activities and social participation of different sexes in mountainous parks, thereby affecting their perceptions and experiences. This study primarily explored the distribution characteristics of CESs in an urban, mountainous park based on sex differences and their associations with landscape elements. By collecting and analysing data from both sex groups, spatial distribution maps of CESs were constructed, which revealed potential differences in the association between landscape elements and CESs.
Men and women show distinct preferences in landscapes and CES perception, reflecting their different needs. Men favor slopes and recreational facilities, emphasizing physical activity and practicality, while women prefer viewing platforms and ponds, highlighting their need for emotional comfort and social interaction. Males had lower perceptions of cultural diversity and spiritual and religious values, whereas females had lower perceptions of future value. Regarding the space nodes in Eling Park, areas such as the central lawn, Kansheng Tower, and the park entrance were noted for high aesthetic, recreation, and sense of place values, with the cliffside path positively influencing various values. Females were more likely to perceive social relations value at space nodes such as the lotus pond and Kansheng Tower, whereas males were more likely to perceive inspiration value at Kansheng Tower, the park entrance, and the cliffside path. Regarding the relationship between landscape elements and CESs, for males, inspiration value was closely related to fort-like ridges and cliffs, whereas the social relations value was closely related to squares and platforms. For females, recreation value was closely related to shrubs and trees; science and ecological education value was closely related to flowers and lawns; inspiration value was related to tree roots, animals, and slopes and steps; and cultural heritage value was related to garden facilities. These differences shape how individuals use park spaces and affect the delivery of intangible services like cultural heritage and ecological education. By optimizing mountain-specific features—such as adding viewing platforms or integrating cultural relics—parks can better meet the needs of different sexes, improving CES delivery.
Sex-sensitive park design supports urban sustainability across ecological, social, and economic dimensions. Ecologically, integrating CES evaluation into urban green space planning and building culturally focused ecological corridors can help mountainous parks and other green spaces work together, forming a sustainable ecological network. Socially, sex-sensitive park optimization can foster inclusive urban development. For example, creating sex-specific zones—like climbing areas for men and semi-private social spaces for women—breaks traditional stereotypes and combines functionality with inclusive design. This approach enhances spatial fairness and strengthens community ties by increasing residents' connection to nature. Economically, it enhances park appeal and efficiency, stimulating local green economies. These measures align with the UN Sustainable Development Goals on well-being, sex equality, and inclusive spaces, providing practical solutions for balancing human, natural, and social needs in rapidly urbanizing mountainous cities."
Rviewer 4:
Opinion 1：
The introduction does not sufficiently differentiate this study from previous work on CES using the SolVES and VEP methodologies.
Response: Thanks for raising this important question. The SolVES model effectively reveals CES spatial distribution but relies on photographic data with detailed background information. VEP produces numerous object-linked photos but is costly and quality-demanding. The advantage of integrating the SoIVES model with the VEP method lies in the fact that VEP can enhance the SoIVES model's superior processing of spatial locations, allowing each point on the generated CESs distribution map to correspond to actual photographs and the landscape elements depicted on them. VEP ensures that the digitization of the SoIVES model is not confined to a mere point containing valuable data, but rather represents the tangible existence of the actual landscape.This combination enhances the authenticity and scientific rigor of the data, clearly deLineating the differences in landscape preferences and value demands among different gender groups.We have added a description of the research work on the SolVES and VEP methods in the introduction section:
Line 62-68:
"The advantage of integrating the SoIVES model with the VEP method lies in the fact that VEP can enhance the SoIVES model's superior processing of spatial locations, allowing each point on the generated CESs distribution map to correspond to actual photographs and the landscape elements depicted on them. VEP ensures that the digitization of the SoIVES model is not confined to a mere point containing valuable data, but rather represents the tangible existence of the actual landscape. "
The references added here in the text are as follows
[1] Zhang K, Tang X, Zhao Y, Huang B, Huang L, Liu M, Luo E, Li Y, Jiang T, Zhang L, Wang Y, Wan J. Differing perceptions of the youth and the elderly regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban parks: an exploration of the tour experience. Sci. Total Environ. 821, 153388 (2022).
[2].Tian, F. C. Y. Understanding the process from perception to cultural ecosystem services assessment by comparing valuation methods. Urban For. Urban Green. 57, 126945 (2021).
Opinion 2：
The novelty of incorporating sex-based differences in CES perception is mentioned, but it is not adequately elaborated upon. A clearer explanation of how this approach advances existing knowledge would strengthen the manuscript’s contribution to the field.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the introduction regarding the significance and innovation of sex difference research in Line 112-130：
"Sex is a crucial component of socio-demographic attributes. The perceived differences in cultural ecosystem services (CESs) based on sex determine the varying landscape needs of urban parks. Conducting research on sex differences in CESs ensures that park design and management can incorporate nuanced, differentiated planning to meet the needs and expectations of different sex groups . Studies on sex differences in CESs help adjust the planning of landscape elements and functional configurations in parks based on preferences. Understanding the relationship between landscape elements and CESs from a sex perspective is essential for current landscape practices in mountainous urban parks . By calculating and mapping the actual supply and demand of ecosystem services and their spatial mismatches, planners can identify key development areas for enhancing the availability of CESs for both men and women in mountainous parks, thereby improving land use and management efficiency. Simultaneously, research from a sex perspective can externalize the deep-seated differences in sex characteristics within the field of CES perception, thereby constructing a sex-equitable ecological governance system in urban parks and breaking down sex stereotypes in cultural landscape concepts. Based on the SoIVES model with the VEP method, the combination enhances the authenticity and scientific rigor of the data, clearly delineating the differences in landscape preferences and value demands among different sex groups."
Opinion 3：
While the SolVES model outputs are used to generate CES value maps, the manuscript does not discuss the validation of these outputs against empirical field data, such as visitor surveys, interviews, or observational studies. A discussion of how the model results were compared with real-world data would add rigor to the methodology and help validate the findings.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments.
1）We indeed simplified the interviews and questionnaires, only investigating social information such as whether participants were locals or whether they visited alone, because our research focus was on the perceptual differences of young people regarding mountainous landscapes based on gender. The social characteristics of the participants were merely auxiliary tools to help us control variables and understand the basic information of the participants.
2）We used questionnaires to collect the social information of the participants. We employed Visitor-Employed Photography (VEP) to record a large number of photos with Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) points. We used the SolVES model to study the spatial distribution and perception levels of CESs. We used the Area Under the Curve (AUC) values to study the relationship between the distance of certain landscapes from the shooting points and their perceived value. We conducted landscape identification to study the frequency of the 16 landscape elements contained in the photos. We used Correspondence Analysis (CA) biplots to study the correlations between landscape elements and CESs. The spatial distribution of CESs, the frequency of the 16 landscape elements, and the correlations between landscape elements and CESs can mutually validate each other. For example:
CES distribution conclusions:
Males had higher perceptions of inspiration, health, and scientific education values in areas such as Kansheng Tower, Entrance Plaza, and Cliffside Path.
Females had higher perceptions of social relations, sense of place, and spiritual and religious values in areas such as Kansheng Tower, Central Lawn, and Lotus Pond.
16 Landscape Elements Conclusions:
Males had higher perception frequencies for landscape elements such as slopes and steps, garden facilities, and recreational facilities.
Females had higher perception frequencies for landscape elements such as overlooks, ponds, and squares and platforms.
Correspondence:
The high perception of males in areas like Kansheng Tower and Cliffside Path corresponds to the high perception frequencies of landscape elements such as slopes and steps and garden facilities, suggesting that these landscape elements may enhance males' perceptions of inspiration and health values.
The high perception of females in areas like Kansheng Tower and Lotus Pond corresponds to the high perception frequencies of landscape elements such as overlooks and ponds, suggesting that these landscape elements may enhance females' perceptions of social relations and sense of place values.
CES and 16 Landscape Elements Chi-Square Test Conclusions:
In the male group, aesthetic and scientific education values were significantly correlated with landscape elements such as flowers and lawns, overlooks, and shrubs and trees.
In the female group, social relations value was significantly correlated with modern architecture, while recreation and health values were significantly correlated with shrubs and trees.
Correspondence:
In the male group, the significant correlations between aesthetic and scientific education values and landscape elements such as flowers and lawns and shrubs and trees correspond to the high perceptions of males in areas like Kansheng Tower and Central Lawn.
In the female group, the significant correlation between social relations value and modern architecture corresponds to the high perceptions of females in areas like Kansheng Tower and Lotus Pond.
Opinion 4：
The VEP methodology is not described in sufficient detail.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We appreciate the reviewer's comment and have added a section describing the VEP method：
Line 183-187："Visitor-Employed Photography (VEP) involves hiring tourists to capture photos that reflect the value of cultural ecosystem services, with software like "2bulu" used to record the photos and their location data."
In Line 265-272, we elaborated on how volunteers evaluate CES values based on the photos they take:
"The research team analysed the photography dataset captured by the volunteers to identify three distinct types of information: the geographical coordinates of each photograph, the CES values identified by the visitors in the photograph titles, and the landscape elements present in the photographs. Landscape elements have been previously analysed based on their proportion in a photograph, with the criterion that the element occupies more than 20% of the image. The analysis in this study was performed by four researchers in pairs, with each pair making joint decisions. In cases of disagreement, all four researchers collaborated to determine the final extraction results."
Opinion 5：
Furthermore, the selection of 90 students as survey participants may not be representative of the broader park user population. Including a more diverse sample of park visitors would improve the external validity of the findings. A more comprehensive discussion of the participant selection process and its potential limitations would be beneficial.
Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' valuable comments regarding the issue of sample representativeness. Prior to initiating this study, we referenced studies by Fengyun Sun et al. and Kaili Zhang et al., who employed the Visitor-Employed Photography (VEP) method to investigate cultural ecosystem services (CES) perceptions in outdoor green spaces, using sample sizes of 32 and 90 participants (45 elderly and 45 young), respectively. Based on these precedents, we adopted a sample size of 90 participantsfor our research.
[1]Sun F , Xiang J , Tao Y ,et al.Mapping the social values for ecosystem services in urban green spaces: Integrating a visitor-employed photography method into SolVES[J].Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 38, 105-113, (2019).
[2] Zhang K, Tang X, Zhao Y, Huang B, Huang L, Liu M, Luo E, Li Y, Jiang T, Zhang L, Wang Y, Wan J. Differing perceptions of the youth and the elderly regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban parks: an exploration of the tour experience. Sci. Total Environ. 821, 153388 (2022)
In addation, we have addressed this concern in the Limitations section (Line 619-620)：
"However, in the process of the volunteer experiment, there were some problems, such as a small sample size (90) and insufficient consideration of the group effect, among others. "
In future research, we will increase the sample size, control variables, and conduct more scientific studies.
If you believe that this study requires an increase in the sample size, please allow us more time to recruit additional volunteers and conduct the experiment again. Thank you.
Opinion 6：
The manuscript claims that there are significant sex-based differences in CES perception. However, the statistical methods used to test these differences (e.g., Chi-square tests or t-tests) may not be appropriate for spatially clustered data. A more detailed justification of the statistical methods used, including their suitability for spatial analysis, would enhance the robustness of the results.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have revisited the literature in the field of ecosystem services and found that the chi-square test has been used in the following papers:
[1] Zhang K, Tang X, Zhao Y, Huang B, Huang L, Liu M, Luo E, Li Y, Jiang T, Zhang L, Wang Y, Wan J. Differing perceptions of the youth and the elderly regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban parks: an exploration of the tour experience. Sci. Total Environ. 821, 153388 (2022).
[2] Kicic, M., Haase, D. & Marin, A. M. Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services of tree-based green infrastructure: a focus group participatory mapping in Zagreb, Croatia. Urban For. Urban Green. 78, 127767 (2022).
[3] Chen, Y., Hong, C., Yang, Y., Li, J., Wang, Y., Zheng, T., Zhang, Y. & Shao, F. Mining Social Media Data to Capture Urban Park Visitors’ Perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Landscape Factors. Forests 15, 213 (2024).
Furthermore, the data we used for the chi-square test, namely the frequency of the 16 landscapes appearing in the photographs and the frequency of CES values, no longer contain spatial coordinate information and therefore should not be classified as spatial clustering data. However, we transformed the trajectory and CES point data, which originally included spatial clustering information, into ordinary data devoid of spatial coordinates. This may represent a limitation in our experimental methodology. In future research, we will strive to improve this aspect.
Opinion 7：
The interpretation of results, especially with regard to the observed sex-based differences, could benefit from a more nuanced discussion. Are the observed differences influenced by environmental factors, personal preferences, or other variables? A more in-depth exploration of the potential reasons behind the differences would provide valuable insights.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments.
We have reorganized "4.1. Landscape Environmental Value Orientation". And added
"4.1.4 Influencing factors of differences":
"Preferences for CESs in mountainous versus plain cities can be attributed to factors such as geographic features, socio-cultural background, personal experience, and psychological perceptions. The steep terrain, rich vegetation, and unique landscapes of mountainous areas are more likely than plains area to evoke inspiration, aesthetics, and cultural diversity values. Public preferences for CESs are influenced by the interplay of natural and infrastructural elements with cultural and social backgrounds, particularly in regions with distinct cultural histories, such as Chongqing. Additionally, personal experiences and psychological needs further shape individual landscape perceptions. Individuals who frequently hike in mountainous areas often prioritise inspiration and aesthetic values in natural landscapes, whereas urban dwellers focus on the wellness and social functions of plain parks. Mountainous environments cater to the psychological needs of adventure and discovery, whereas plains environments fulfil the need for relaxation and interaction. These preferences reflect the diverse demands and expectations of visitors for both natural and cultural landscape across different geographic environments and sexes."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview report is enclosed to Comments section
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Assessment of cultural ecosystem service values in mountainous urban parks based on sex differences: a case study of Eling Park in Chongqing
First Round of Revision Explanation and Revised Draft
Dear Reviewers and Editors,
Thank you very much for your careful reading and valuable comments! Your review has been very helpful to our research, and we have benefited greatly from your insights during the process of thinking and revising. These insights have helped us to take a deeper look at our own research and identify and revise areas of data variable control and other shortcomings.
In the revised manuscript, we have made the necessary changes according to your review comments and highlighted them in red. Below is a brief explanation of the review comments and the modifications made,. If you have any further suggestions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to let us know, and we would be most grateful.
Once again, thank you for your selfless assistance and hard work.
Sincerely,
We will number the comments made by the four reviewers and provide explanations and revisions accordingly.
Rviewer 1:
Opinion 1:
Line 48-51. The original sentence is somewhat complex. Consider rewording it for clarity:
"Research on park CESs is essential for improving residents' physical and mental well-being, enhancing urban aesthetics, and promoting a balanced human-nature relationship."
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments. Please see Line 35-37.
Opinion 2:
Line 154. The number 6.6254 should be rounded to two decimal places for consistency. Ensure that all numerical values throughout the manuscript follow this rule.
Response: Thanks for this reminder. We rounded 6.6254 to two decimal places, resulting in 6.63. Please see Line 158.
Opinion 3：
Figure 1. This figure should also be provided as a supplementary file, as it is too small to be readable for a wider audience. The colors for the tower and monument are very similar, making it difficult for some readers to distinguish between them in the legend. Consider using more contrasting colors.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have adjusted the font size in Figure 1 to enhance readability. Meanwhile, the color of the monument icon has been altered to ensure distinction.
Opinion 4：
Line 180-182. The "2bulu" app should be better explained. Include details such as: What type of data does it collect? Whether the data publicly available? How precise and reliable the collected data is?
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. "2bulu" can generate KML files containing walking paths, photo point locations, as well as walking time, walking speed, and altitude data, which can be publicly shared as research data (in the appendix). The accuracy and reliability of its data primarily depend on the mobile phone's positioning system.
Accordingly, we have revised Line 189-191 to: "'2bulu' generates publicly accessible KML files with walking paths, photo points, walking time, speed, and poster height, relying on mobile phone positioning for data accuracy and reliability."
Opinion 5：
Line 204. You mention that parameters (temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions) were controlled. How were these parameters controlled? Provide a clearer explanation. Was research conducted in a specific part of the day?
Response: Thank you for raising these important questions. The final experiment was conducted on sunny afternoons from October to November 2023, during the autumn season at Eling Park, to maintain consistent temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions as much as possible. Based on reviewers' comments, experimental facts, and length control, we revised Line 197-206 of the original text to:
"We posted volunteer recruitment information on university social media platforms. Eligible volunteers underwent pre-experiment training, covering CES concepts, '2bulu' usage, designated routes, and timing/weather requirements. To ensure the absolute influence of sex factors, we selected college students aged 18-22 with similar educational backgrounds. Volunteers conducted the experiment on sunny afternoons during rest days in October and November 2023 to maintain environmental consistency, relaxed conditions, and photo clarity. They visited Eling Park under specified conditions, captured at least 50 photos meeting at least one CES indicator, categorized them, and submitted the photos to the research team (Fig. 2). We set the number of male and female participants equally at 45 each."
In Line 232-235, we continue to emphasize controlling environmental variables：
"The formal survey was conducted on sunny days between 1:00 PM and 5:00 PM from 10 October to 8 November 2023. During this period, the landscape of Eling Park remained almost unchanged, with stable temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions and no significant noise interference."
Opinion 6：
Line 241. Add more information about SolVES 4.0.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The SolVES (Social Values for Ecosystem Services) model was jointly developed by the Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center (RMGSC) of the United States Geological Survey and Colorado State University. It is primarily used to assess the social values of ecosystem services, quantifying the social values of ecosystem service functions such as aesthetics, biodiversity, recreation, and cultural activities. The evaluation results are derived from public attitudes and preferences, expressed as non-monetary value indices, and have high application value. The SolVES model is widely applied in the social value assessment of ecological environments such as landscapes and parks.SolVES 4.0 is a commonly used research model for assessing cultural ecosystem services. We have refined the various components of SolVES 4.0.
Please see section 2.3.1, Line 244-248.
、
Opinion 7：
Line 245. Explain why you specifically chose to use these two SolVES submodels instead of others.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. The Value Transfer Mapping Model in SolVES 4.0 requires pre-existing SolVES 4.0 models, and it can only be used for experimental analysis if the new experimental data is proven to be applicable to the old, established models. Since we have not conducted similar experiments in other parks, we do not meet the conditions for using the Value Transfer Mapping Model. Additionally, our goal is to establish new CES indicators, so pre-existing models are unnecessary. In summary, we did not use the Value Transfer Mapping Model. On the other hand, the Ecosystem Services Social-Values Model and the Value Mapping Model do not require pre-existing models. After establishing the cultural ecosystem service (CES) indicators and environmental factor indicators, we can import point files containing photo location information and CES classification data into the model to conduct relevant research. These modules enable us to explore the distribution and frequency of CES indicators, as well as the relationship between CES distribution and environmental factors, aligning with our experimental needs. Therefore, we selected these two modules for our study.Based on the reviewers' comments, we have added an explanation for why the Value Transfer Mapping Model is not applicable.
Please see section 2.3.1, Line 244-248.
Opinion 8：
Line 254. Provide more details about the CAD map used. Does it represent the entire landscaping of the park or just its boundaries?
Response: Thank you for your question. The detailed information of the CAD map is presented in a colored version in Figure 1, which includes both the boundaries and a portion of the detailed information.
Opinion 9：
Line 256. Add a brief explanation of PostgreSQL (e.g., what it is and why it was used in the study).
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. PostgreSQL is a database that is utilized in the SolVES 4.0 manual. According to the official manual, we used this database for data import and storage. Based on this, we have revised the original text：
Please see Line 259-261: "Using PostgreSQL for data storage, the MaxEnt model for maximum value analysis, and QGIS as the mapping software, the pixel size in SolVES 4.0 was set to 0.1 m for the 64,557 m² area of Eling Park, with a search radius parameter of 10 m."
Opinion 10：
Line 258. Clarify whether the data is publicly available. If so, is there a database or repository where it can be accessed?
Response: Thank you for your question. It can be publicly available. We have uploaded the data to the OPENICPSR database. The website link is:
https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/221741/version/V1/view
The data identifier is openicpsr-221741, and the content includes data tables, KML trajectory files, point files, and other related data.
Opinion 11：
Line 287. The correct phrase should be: "…were Chongqing residents…"
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the manuscript accordingly as per their suggestions. Please see Line 292.
Rviewer 2:
Opinion 1：
Introduction - The introduction effectively presents the research gap and contextualizes the study within the broader literature. However, the discussion on previous studies related to CES valuation methods could have been more critically analyzed. The paper mainly references studies that align with its hypothesis without addressing potential contradictions in existing literature.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have revised the description of CES valuation and provided further elaboration on the integration of the VEP method and the SolVES model in Line 48-68.
"CES evaluation methods mainly involve monetization and non-monetization assessments . Monetization is often limited to values like recreation, ecotourism, and cultural values , while non-monetization is widely used for its broader applicability across categoriesConsequently, scholarly interest in non-monetary valuation methods has grown significantly due to their ability to optimize environmental resource allocation. Current research on park CESs employs various non-monetary methods, each with unique strengths and limitations in capturing user perceptions and preferences. Traditional methods like questionnaires and field surveyseffectively gather detailed insights but are labor-intensive and hard to scale . Social media analysis offers abundant user-generated content but often lacks socio-demographic data, limiting group-specific analysis. Participatory mapping provides precise spatial data but requires extensive participant training. The SolVES model effectively reveals CES spatial distribution but relies on photographic data with detailed background information .VEP produces numerous object-linked photos but is costly and quality-demanding. Integrating SolVES with VEP optimizes CES spatial data utilization."
Opinion 2：
Also, the rationale for selecting Eling Park as the study site could be better justified with more comparative references.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. Compared to other mountain parks in Chongqing, such as Pipashan Park (which is too small), Zou Rong Park (with fewer landscape elements), and Binjiang Park (lacking mountain characteristics), our study site has a moderate size, rich landscape features, distinct mountain characteristics, and clearly defined main walking paths, making it suitable for our experimental requirements. We have added this description in Line 148-153：
"Compared to other mountainous parks in Chongqing, such as Pipashan Park (too small in area), Zou Rong Park (limited landscape elements), and Binjiang Park (lacking mountainous features), Eling Park stands out with its moderate size, rich landscape elements, distinct mountainous characteristics, and well-defined main trails, making it an ideal site for our experimental needs."
Opinion 3：
Methodology - While using college students (aged 18-22) ensures consistency, the study lacks diversity in the sample population. This limits generalizability. Further, the impact of environmental conditions (e.g., weather, time of visit) on CES perceptions could have been explored further. Finally, potential biases introduced by self-reported CES categorizations should be acknowledged in greater detail.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We acknowledge the limitation of insufficient sample size during our experiment. In addation, since our study focuses on exploring the impact of sex on the perception of cultural ecosystem services (CES), we made every effort to ensure consistency in other influencing factors. Based on the experimental conditions, we adjusted the control of environmental factors and ensured that the experiments were conducted on sunny afternoons between October and November to maintain consistency in environmental conditions as much as possible. We also recognize that our classification of CES may be incomplete or non-representative. Accordingly, we have revised the descriptions of the experimental background and reflections in the manuscript.：
Line 197-206："We posted volunteer recruitment information on university social media platforms. Eligible volunteers underwent pre-experiment training, covering CES concepts, "2bulu" usage, designated routes, and timing/weather requirements. To ensure the absolute influence of sex factors, we selected college students aged 18-22 with similar educational backgrounds. Volunteers conducted the experiment on sunny afternoons during rest days in October and November 2023 to maintain environmental consistency, relaxed conditions, and photo clarity. They visited Eling Park under specified conditions, captured at least 50 photos meeting at least one CES value, categorized them, and submitted the photos to the research team (Fig. 2). We set the number of male and female participants equally at 45 each."
In Line 232-236, we continue to emphasize controlling environmental variables：
"The formal survey was conducted on sunny days between 1:00 PM and 5:00 PM from 10 October to 8 November 2023. During this period, the landscape of Eling Park remained almost unchanged, with stable temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions and no significant noise interference."
In addition, in Line 619-625, we reflect on the research limitations:
"However, in the process of the volunteer experiment, there were some problems, such as a small sample size (90) and insufficient consideration of the group effect, among others. In the discussion of the factors affecting CESs, we did not account for the impact of whether they went alone or whether they went to the park for the first time on their perception. Although the age group and educational background of the population were controlled, subjectivity among volunteers can introduce bias, a common challenge in CES research. "
Opinion 4：
Results - The paper could have further examined why specific landscape elements correspond to certain CESs from a psychological or sociocultural perspective.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. In Section 4.1.3 (Line 527-545), we have revised the explanation regarding why specific landscape elements correspond to certain CES：
"Analysis of the relationship between landscape features and CESs indicated that both males and females recognised recreation, aesthetic, and social relations values in Eling Park (Figs. 8 and 9). In the male subgroup, inspiration was associated with landscape elements, such as fort-like ridges and cliffs, which may be linked to their need for physical activity, their spatial awareness, and the visual impact of these features. Consistent with the findings of Swapan et al, the males frequently perceived recreation. Additionally, males typically visit parks for physical exercise, challenging activities, and social interactions[54], leading to the association between social relations and squares and platforms. CA analysis revealed that air-raid shelters and ponds were less associated with other CESs for males, likely owing to their infrequent appearance. Females generally prefer aesthetic and artistic enjoyment, comfort, security, and micro landscape features, as evidenced by the relationship between recreation and shrubs and trees. Science and ecological education value was associated with flowers and lawns, indicating that these elements can stimulate enthusiasm for ecological education in female. Inspiration was often associated with artistic tree roots exposed on the surface, animals, and slopes and steps, confirming that females focus more on detailed aesthetic value than men. Garden facilities are linked to cultural heritage value, reflecting their role in prompting thoughts on cultural heritage. ."
Opinion 5：
Further, the limited focus on social demographics other than sex (e.g., educational background, cultural upbringing) might oversimplify CES perception variations.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. Indeed, during this field study, we encountered various environmental and demographic variables. To ensure the accuracy of our results, we controlled for educational background as a constant by focusing on a specific group of college students aged 18-22. In future research, we plan to expand the sample size and investigate the differences in CES perception among individuals with diverse cultural backgrounds. In section 4.3., we also pointed out the research limitations.
Opinion 6：
Finally, no explicit discussion on how park management could practically implement findings.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised Section 4.4 regarding how park management can implement specific measures, making the proposed actions more concrete. Please see section 4.4, Line 674-699.
Opinion 7：
Discussion - Certain claims, such as "males are more likely to seek recreational CESs due to their preference for physical activity," rely on generalizations rather than empirical evidence from the study. The discussion should acknowledge alternative explanations and potential confounding factors. The interpretation of results occasionally relies on sex stereotypes rather than directly observed behavior.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We acknowledge the issues of insufficient causality and stereotypes in our discussion regarding males seeking recreational CES and their preference for sports. Therefore, we have revised the relevant descriptions in section 4.1.2 (Line 506-525)：
"4.1.2 Sex differences in CESs value orientation
Both the male and female subgroups clearly perceived the aesthetic, recreation, cultural heritage, and social relations values of the park. This aligns with Eling Park’s primary functions of providing natural and cultural landscapes, as well as serving as a public space for leisure, fitness, and community interaction. This conclusion differs from that of previous studies, such as those by Kicic et al. [25] on park forests and Dou et al.[51] on the National Wetland Park, likely owing to differences in environmental characteristics and the surveyed population. For the male subgroup, the most highly perceived CESs were recreation and aesthetic values, whereas the least perceived were cultural diversity and spiritual and religious values, consistent with the findings of Zhou et al.[52] and Swapan et al.[33]. Males typically engage in activities such as sports, running, and family gatherings in community parks, which offer relaxation and social opportunities. In contrast, males might be less attuned to cultural diversity and spiritual and religious values, which involve deeper cultural and spiritual experiences that may not be as immediately engaging as recreation and aesthetics. For the female subgroup, the most highly perceived value was aesthetics while the least perceived was future value. Females often have a keener sense of beauty and seek relaxation and joy through aesthetic experiences during leisure, rendering them more likely to prefer spaces that offer high aesthetic value over spaces that offer abstract future value during visits to parks[53]. ."
Opinion 8：
Practical recommendations for park planners and policymakers could be expanded.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the specific measures for landscape planning in section 4.4. (Please refer to the response to the Opinion 6.)
Opinion 9：
Conclusion and Implications - The study calls for sex-sensitive landscape planning but does not provide actionable steps for implementation. The study should offer specific recommendations, such as modifications to park design, policy guideLine, or further research directions. It should also discuss how CES assessments can be integrated into broader urban sustainability frameworks.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. In the conclusion (section 4.4), we have revised the specific measures for landscape planning and integrated their evaluation into a broader framework for urban sustainable development:
Please see line 674-699:
"4.4. Implications for landscape design and management
4.4.1 Enhancing CES-oriented landscape elements
Mountainous terrains should be leveraged to improve inspiration, aesthetic, and cultural heritage values. Viewing platforms with seating should be integrated along cliff trails to enhance scenic appreciation, while historical features, such as air-raid shelters and fortress-like ridges, should be preserved and equipped with interpretive signage to strengthen cultural heritage value.
4.4.2 Balancing CES supply and demand
Spatial analysis of CES values should guide targeted interventions. Males, who prioritize recreation, would benefit from the addition of climbing walls and fitness zones along steep paths. Females, who value social interaction and cultural heritage, require more shaded seating, garden spaces, and semi-private pavilions near key social hubs like lotus ponds and overlooks.
4.4.3 Establishing sex-sensitive development zones
By mapping CES perception hotspots, planners can designate areas that cater to specific needs. High-traffic areas should integrate features that promote both social engagement and recreation, ensuring an inclusive environment. Meditation zones and cultural festivals can enhance spiritual and religious values, particularly in spaces where such CESs are currently underrepresented.
4.4.4 Incorporating CES values into Sustainable Development Goal
Embed CES into SDG frameworks by linking health-centric landscapes (Goal 3), equitable greenway networks (Goal 11), and community co-design workshops to ensure inclusive access. Strengthening connectivity between Eling Park and other green spaces through ecological corridors will enhance CES accessibility. Promote community participation by regularly assessing resident needs and dynamically adjusting landscape configurations to align CES supply with urban sustainability goals."
Opinion 10：
Limitations and Future Research - The authors acknowledge several methodological limitations, including sample representativeness and potential biases in CES self-reporting. However, the study does not adequately address how future research can mitigate these limitations. Discussion of how CES perceptions might change over time due to urbanization or climate change is missing.
Response:
1.About insufficient sample size.
We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' valuable comments regarding the issue of sample representativeness. Prior to initiating this study, we referenced studies by Fengyun Sun et al. and Kaili Zhang et al., who employed the Visitor-Employed Photography (VEP) method to investigate cultural ecosystem services (CES) perceptions in outdoor green spaces, using sample sizes of 32 and 90 participants (45 elderly and 45 young), respectively. Based on these precedents, we adopted a sample size of 90 participantsfor our research.
- Sun F , Xiang J , Tao Y ,et al.Mapping the social values for ecosystem services in urban green spaces: Integrating a visitor-employed photography method into SolVES[J].Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 38, 105-113, (2019).
[2] Zhang K, Tang X, Zhao Y, Huang B, Huang L, Liu M, Luo E, Li Y, Jiang T, Zhang L, Wang Y, Wan J. Differing perceptions of the youth and the elderly regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban parks: an exploration of the tour experience. Sci. Total Environ. 821, 153388 (2022).
In future research, we plan to expand the sample size and place greater emphasis on sample diversity, encompassing individuals of different ages, educational backgrounds, and physical conditions. For instance, recent studies have shown that socio-demographic characteristics (such as age, income, and education level) significantly influence the perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES). We will employ stratified or quota sampling methods to ensure that the sample more comprehensively reflects the perceived differences in CES values of mountain parks among various groups. Additionally, we will incorporate a multi-site research design to capture the perceptual differences among populations in different geographical and social contexts. These improvements will help reduce sample bias and enhance the generalizability and reliability of the research findings.
2.Potential Bias in CES Self-Reporting by Participants
We are deeply grateful for the reviewers' attention to the potential bias in CES self-reporting. To mitigate this bias, we plan to adopt a mixed-methods research approach in future studies, combining laboratory simulations with outdoor field research (Zwierzchowska, I., 2018). The laboratory environment allows for better control of variables and reduces external interference, while field research can more authentically reflect participants' perceptions in natural settings.
[3] Zwierzchowska, I., Hof, A., Iojă, I.-C., Mueller, C., Poniży, L., Breuste, J., & Mizgajski, A. Multi-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services of parks in Central European cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 30, 84–97 (2018).
3.The Impact of Urbanization or Climate Change on CES Perception
We greatly appreciate the reviewers' important reminder regarding the effects of urbanization and climate change. Indeed, urbanization and climate change can significantly influence people's perceptions of CES. For example, recent studies indicate that extreme weather events (such as high temperatures and droughts) caused by climate change can markedly alter residents' demand for and perception of green spaces (Manley, K., 2024). In mountainous environments like Chongqing, the climatic characteristics of hot summers and cold winters may further exacerbate this impact. Therefore, future research could explore the variations in residents' perceptions of mountain park CES across different seasons and the potential long-term effects of climate change on people's preferences. For instance, summer heat may increase the demand for shade and cooling services, while winter cold may make people more concerned about sunlight and wind protection services.
[4] Manley, K., & Egoh, B. N. Climate and biodiversity change constrain the flow of cultural ecosystem services to people: A case study modeling birding across Africa under future climate scenarios. Science of The Total Environment, 919, 170872 (2024).
Based on the reviewers' comments and our responses, we have revised the manuscript accordingly：
Line 661-673：In future research, we will increase the sample size and focus on diversity, including people of different ages, education levels, and health conditions. We will use stratified or quota sampling to better understand how different groups perceive the value of cultural ecosystem services (CES) in mountain parks. To reduce bias in CES self-reports, we will combine lab experiments with field studies to more accurately measure participants' perceptions . Additionally, urbanization and climate change can significantly affect how people perceive CES. Extreme weather, like heatwaves or droughts, may change how residents value green spaces . In Chongqing’s mountainous area, hot summers and cold winters could make these effects stronger. Future studies will examine how seasonal changes and long-term climate shifts influence people’s preferences, such as the need for shade in summer or sunlight in winter. These improvements will make the findings more reliable and provide useful insights for better park planning.
Rviewer 3:
Opinion 1：
General recommendations:
The article is complex and covers both the extensive methodological part and the study of a particular problem and territory, so it is difficult to include in detail in one article everything related to both the methodology and the specific problem and territory. Therefore, if possible, I would recommend reviewing the article and focusing it on a methodology and its approbating, since the methodology considered is the main contribution and value of the article. If the article will focus more on methodology, then all chapters of the article should be reviewed, including the Abstract. In this case, the Introduction and Conclusion sections would also focus directly on methodology. In the introduction - what methodology has been used so far for such studies and what exactly specific and challenging are studies based related to perception of different sexs (whether there are any specific criteria, conditions, etc.). It would also help to make the Introduction part more compact and focused on a specific issue – methodology. The Conclusions, on the other hand, should place greater emphasis on the possibilities and limitations of using the methodology. Also, parts of the results and discussion should be reviewed and focused on what results can be obtained by specific methods. If the article is more focused on the methodology, then perhaps the amount of methods included in the article could also be reduced, since at the moment the description of each method is a bit lacking in detail, which could affect the repeatability of the study. Better and larger images could be added, allowing the textual and visual information contained in them to be read.
BUT if the article is kept in its current content and format, then the reviewer's recommendations for improving some of the sections of the article are added below.
Some more general recommendations are related to terminology and quality of figures used in the article. Please use common terminology for the whole article to keep clear if this term is the same in different places of the article. For example – cultural ecosystem services values / cultural ecosystem services categories. In the Title – did you mean ecosystem service or services? If second, please make correction.
Figures (Images) significantly complement the textual part of the article, however, their quality does not allow to fully perceive the information displayed in them (too small texts, maps).
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We acknowledge that there are shortcomings in the structure and research focus of the article. Taking into account the feedback from multiple reviewers, we have revised the content of the introduction, discussion, and conclusion sections.We have enhanced the description of our methodology, particularly highlighting the innovative aspects related to the VEP and SolVES models. Our approach is tailored to the research objectives of the paper, which focus on gender-based differences in young people's perceptions of various landscape elements. In the introduction, we discussed the advantages and disadvantages of existing methods such as questionnaire surveys and field research, ultimately opting to combine SolVES with VEP and employing chi-square tests for data analysis. The first step of our research involved using VEP to collect photos and CES value point data, thereby obtaining raw data. The second step utilized SolVES for spatial data analysis to derive the spatial distribution of CESs. The third step identified 16 landscape elements from the photos and conducted chi-square tests with the CESs tabular data to explore the correlations between CESs and landscape elements.
However, our current experimental data, processes, and paper structure do not sufficiently support a shift in focus towards methodology. Therefore, in response to the reviewer's comments, we may explore methodological aspects more deeply in future research. Thank you.
We have addressed the issue of inconsistent terminology in the text, with corresponding responses provided in the latter sections of our reply. Regarding specific terminology issues, we noticed that the reviewer has raised detailed questions later in the suggestions, so related issues have also been moved to the subsequent sections. The same applies to the quality of images.
Once again, we thank the reviewer for the comprehensive suggestions on the manuscript, which have been immensely beneficial to us.
Opinion 2：
Abstract
Abstract exceeds the number of words specified in the requirements for the article (not more than 200), it should be revised and made into compact ones. I would suggest adding a more convincing argument to the abstract - why it is important to study the perception of different sexs in relation to cultural ecosystem services.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the word count and content of the abstract, incorporating the importance of studying different sexes' perceptions of cultural ecosystem services (Line 11-28).
"Urban parks are vital for providing cultural ecosystem services (CESs) to residents. However, few studies have explored sex-based differences in CES demand, particularly within mountainous urban parks. This study aimed to elucidate sex-based differences in the perceptions and preferences for CESs and landscape elements, and explore their relationship in mountainous urban parks. Using value-labelled photographs from equal number of male and female volunteers’ visits to Eling Park in Chongqing, China, the SolVES model was employed to investigate the relationship between sex-specific perceptions of CESs and landscape elements. The results showed that males preferred slopes and steps, garden facilities, and recreation facilities, whereas females preferred overlooks that offer multiple CES values, including science and ecological education, aesthetic, and cultural heritage values. Females perceived social relational value at the lotus pond and Kansheng Tower, whereas males perceived inspirational value at Kansheng Tower, the entrance, and the cliffside path. Males linked inspirational value to fort-like ridges and cliffs. Females associated inspirational value with slopes and steps. Based on the findings, the study recommends enhancing CES specific to mountainous landscapes and incorporating sex-sensitive design elements. Ultimately, these efforts aim to position parks as key components of urban sustainable development, promoting overall resident well-being."
Opinion 3：
Introduction
The term "Cultural ecosystem services values" is included in the title – but nowhere in the text (also in other sections) is there an explanation of what is meant by this. Are they the same as indicators mentioned in section 2.2.27? Please clarify this.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have mentioned the definition of this term in the introduction (Line 35-37):
"CESs encompass the non-material benefits humans derive from ecosystems, including spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, aesthetic enjoyment, and recreational opportunities." Its abbreviation is CES (CESs), which is consistent with the indicators in Section 2.2.2.
Opinion 4：
The introduction is very broad and looks at previous research in the field of cultural ecosystem services, urban parks, and various aspects of perception. However, more convincing arguments are missing as to why it is the perceptions of different renders that should be studied. I found that reasoning in the conclusion section (Line 681-689), which could be moved to the Introductory section.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the section in the introduction regarding the significance and innovation of sex difference research and moved part of the conclusion to the introduction (Line 112-130)：
"Sex is a crucial component of socio-demographic attributes. The perceived differences in cultural ecosystem services (CESs) based on sex determine the varying landscape needs of urban parks. Conducting research on sex differences in CESs ensures that park design and management can incorporate nuanced, differentiated planning to meet the needs and expectations of different sex groups . Studies on sex differences in CESs help adjust the planning of landscape elements and functional configurations in parks based on preferences. Understanding the relationship between landscape elements and CESs from a sex perspective is essential for current landscape practices in mountainous urban parks . By calculating and mapping the actual supply and demand of ecosystem services and their spatial mismatches, planners can identify key development areas for enhancing the availability of CESs for both men and women in mountainous parks, thereby improving land use and management efficiency. Simultaneously, research from a sex perspective can externalize the deep-seated differences in sex characteristics within the field of CES perception, thereby constructing a sex-equitable ecological governance system in urban parks and breaking down sex stereotypes in cultural landscape concepts."
Opinion 5：
2.Methods
2.1. Study area
Line 155 - Please clarify what "190" is; it looks like it could be the year, but one of the digits has disappeared.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion and we apologize for our carelessness. The construction of Eling Park began in 1909. We had missed a digit, which has now been added.
Opinion 6：
Line 163 - Why are these categories needed - non-mountainous and mountainous? How does this affect the results of the study? Please add a justification. And, are they meant to represent different zones of the area or groups of landscape elements, or do they have another meaning? Such a question arises because the categories of landscape elements (11 for non-mountainous and 6 for mountainous) cause confusion. Why, for example, are animals, people, trees, and shrubs only in the non-mountainous category if they are actually found in the mountainous one as well?
Response: Thank you for your question. Eling Park exhibits characteristics of a mountainous park, featuring elevation differences and landscapes associated with mountainous terrain. The purpose of our study is to investigate the differences in landscape perception between mountainous and non-mountainous parks. While animals, people, trees, and shrubs are present in both mountainous and non-mountainous areas, they do not possess the unique landscape characteristics of mountainous regions. Therefore, we selected mountainous landscapes that exhibit unique features of mountainous terrain, while general landscapes that appear in both mountainous and non-mountainous areas are categorized as non-mountainous landscapes. Accordingly, we have revised Line 298-305.
"To explore the perceptual differences between mountainous landscapes and non-mountainous landscapes, we divided the 16 landscape elements into 5 landscape elements with mountainous features and 11 without mountainous features, providing corresponding schematic diagrams.Landscape elements with mountainous features refer to those that are distinctive or unique to mountainous areas, while non-mountainous elements are those characteristic of plains or found in both environments. Therefore, non-mountainous elements may also appear in mountainous regions.All the images were captured by volunteers who were solicited for this purpose. "
Opinion 7：
Line 172 – Figure 1 does not correspond to the text referring to that image. The figure should include landscape elements of 16 categories divided into non-mountainous and mountainous.
Response: Thanks for your question. The text in Figure 1 is primarily intended to convey the experimental route and land use types, which has some correspondence with Table 2 but are not entirely identical. Table 2 contains the environmental data required for SolVES 4.0. The classification of mountainous and non-mountainous landscape elements is based on their appearance in photographs rather than on the map. Therefore, Figure 1 does not have a direct correlation with the landscape elements. Figure 3 shows 16 landscape elements.
Opinion 8：
2.2Data acquisition
2.2.1 Experimental design
Line 184 – It is mentioned in sections 2.2.1 and 4.3 that semi-structured interviews have taken place in the research, but there is no mention of what exactly the data was obtained in the interviews and how it was used in the study. The suggestion is either to supplement the article with information about the data obtained during the interviews and its use in the research, or to add information that the method included such interviews, but they are not detailed in this particular article.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The main content collected through our semi-structured interviews was the social information of the volunteers, along with brief discussions about their experiences during the experiment. We mentioned in Line 194-196:
"During interviews, volunteers discussed their visit motivations and memorable experiences with the research team, enhancing survey reliability and offering valuable insights for further analysis."
Opinion 9：
2.2.2 Pre-survey
Line 215, 218, 220 – Please use common terminology, be they CES indicators or CES values or CES categories, if these terms have the same meaning.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have standardized the term to "CES value."
Opinion 10：
Please add to this section how exactly the volunteers assessed CES – whether they were free to choose points from which they captured landscape elements, or whether they were already determined on the route.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The route has been finalized and is illustrated in Figure 1. The text in Line 197-199 mentions:
"We posted volunteer recruitment information on university social media platforms. Eligible volunteers underwent pre-experiment training, covering CES concepts, '2bulu' usage, designated routes, and timing/weather requirements."
Opinion 11：
Table 1 – "Description" in the table is meant to be a base value for making an assessment of CES values (like – corresponds or not corresponds to description)? Please supplement in the text how these CES values were assessed by the volunteers – whether in response to the descriptions (corresponds or not corresponds to description) or using some kind of rating / point system?
Response: Thank you for raising these important questions. We provided the CES values to the volunteers in advance, and they made subjective judgments based on their understanding of the text and the on-site experiment. Volunteers will name the pictures they take based on the 16 CES values. This is mentioned in Line 197-198:
"Eligible volunteers underwent pre-experiment training, covering CES concepts, '2bulu' usage, designated routes, and timing/weather requirements."
In section 2.3.2, Line 265-272, the article provides a detailed description of how CES values can be evaluated through photos taken by volunteers:
"The research team analysed the photography dataset captured by the volunteers to identify three distinct types of information: the geographical coordinates of each photograph, the CES values identified by the visitors in the photograph titles, and the landscape elements present in the photographs. Landscape elements have been previously analysed based on their proportion in a photograph, with the criterion that the element occupies more than 20% of the image[30]. The analysis in this study was performed by four researchers in pairs, with each pair making joint decisions. In cases of disagreement, all four researchers collaborated to determine the final extraction results."
Opinion 12：
Please add an explanation of how 16 categories of landscape elements (Line 166) are involved in the evaluation of CES.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. As mentioned in section 2.3.2, "Landscape elements have been previously analyzed based on their proportion in a photograph, with the criterion that the element occupies more than 20% of the image." The research team first conducted manual identification, and then the volunteer CES data was incorporated into SPSS for data analysis. The results of the data analysis are presented in Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 9, and Fig. 10.
Opinion 13：
- Results
3.1. Demographic profile of volunteers
Line 294 – Please use a common term instead of different for clear understanding: Environmental elements OR landscape elements OR categories of landscape elements?
Response: Thank you for your question. The term has been standardized to "landscape elements" in full text.
Opinion 14：
Line 297 – Figure 3 – Please use a common term instead of different – non-mountainous / mountain-specific elements (Line 165) OR mountain / non-mountain feature.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The terms have been standardized to "mountain/non-mountain elements" in full text.
Opinion 15：
Figure 3 – Aren’t animals, people, trees and shrubs, recreation facilities also part of the mountain features? Please assess the need to divide the territory into the following categories – non-mountainous and mountainous. If necessary, please add an explanation in section 2.1.
Response: Thanks for raising this important question. Elements that do not exhibit typical mountainous characteristics have been categorized as non-mountain landscape features. Please see the response for opinion 6.
Opinion 16：
3.3 Spatial arrangement of CESs and subgroup disparities
Figure 7 – Very small graphics in which it is difficult to read information, it is necessary to assess whether it is important to add these graphics or whether it is possible to somehow display this information in any other way.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have increased the font size in figure7, and the relevant information is presented in the text in Line 373-384:
"Three representative environmental metrics were selected to analyse the AUC results: distance to the tower (DTT), distance to the cliff (DTCL), and distance to water bodies (DTW)[48]. The response curves illustrate the relationships between the environmental metrics (DTT, DTCL, and DTW) and the 11 selected CES types. For males, the value index (VI) for inspiration and health values increased with DTT (Fig. 7a). Conversely, for females, the VI for cultural diversity, spiritual and religious, inspiration, and health values sharply increased with DTT (Fig. 7b). For males, the VI for cultural heritage, social relations, and recreation values decreased with increasing DTCL (Fig. 7c). Conversely, for females, significant VI responses were observed for aesthetics, social relations, and health values (Fig. 7d). Owing to the small water area in Eling Park, VI responses to DTW were somewhat random (Fig. 7e), with females exhibiting a higher affinity for water bodies than males (Fig. 7f)."It illustrates the relationship between CES perception indicators and the distance to different landscape elements."
Opinion 17：
Line 389, 390 - Information about the 1-10 value gradient appears in the Results section. Please supplement the Methods section with this information.
Response: Thanks for this reminder. We have supplemented the information about the 1-10 value gradient in the Methods section. Line 246-248:
"Among them, the Ecosystem Services Social-Values Model uses a gradient scale of 1-10 to measure the level of CES indicators."
Opinion 18：
Figure 8 – Very small maps, it is difficult to compare the displayed information on them.
Response: Thanks for this reminder. We have enlarged the size of all maps in figure 8.
Opinion 19：
3.4. Association between CESs, landscape elements, and differences between subgroups
Figure 10 – Difficult to read texts, please make improvements.
Response: Thanks for this reminder. We have increased the font size and changed it to a more prominent color.
Opinion 20：
Conclusions
Conclusions must be followed from the results of the particular research; therefore, conclusions usually do not include information that has not been discussed in the article so far or insights expressed by other researchers. Consequently, conclusions usually do not include references. Such information fits better into the introduction part.
The Conclusions are not a summary of the article, so the collected facts must be accompanied by a concluding note. At the moment, the conclusions summarise the main results, which should be supplemented by concluding remarks, what these results indicate. There are a number of conclusions in the Discussion section that could possibly be moved to the Conclusions section.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have revised the conclusion section to emphasize the application of sex differences in cultural ecosystem services to urban sustainable development, and we have also modified the discussion section regarding the importance of sex studies. The revised conclusion section is presented in Line 701-727:
"Sex is a crucial factor in the spatial design of urban parks. However, differences in the perceptions of CESs between males and females are often overlooked in the landscape planning of mountain urban parks. This oversight can limit the activities and social participation of different sexes in mountainous parks, thereby affecting their perceptions and experiences. This study primarily explored the distribution characteristics of CESs in an urban, mountainous park based on sex differences and their associations with landscape elements. By collecting and analysing data from both sex groups, spatial distribution maps of CESs were constructed, which revealed potential differences in the association between landscape elements and CESs.
Men and women show distinct preferences in landscapes and CES perception, reflecting their different needs. Men favor slopes and recreational facilities, emphasizing physical activity and practicality, while women prefer viewing platforms and ponds, highlighting their need for emotional comfort and social interaction. Males had lower perceptions of cultural diversity and spiritual and religious values, whereas females had lower perceptions of future value. Regarding the space nodes in Eling Park, areas such as the central lawn, Kansheng Tower, and the park entrance were noted for high aesthetic, recreation, and sense of place values, with the cliffside path positively influencing various values. Females were more likely to perceive social relations value at space nodes such as the lotus pond and Kansheng Tower, whereas males were more likely to perceive inspiration value at Kansheng Tower, the park entrance, and the cliffside path. Regarding the relationship between landscape elements and CESs, for males, inspiration value was closely related to fort-like ridges and cliffs, whereas the social relations value was closely related to squares and platforms. For females, recreation value was closely related to shrubs and trees; science and ecological education value was closely related to flowers and lawns; inspiration value was related to tree roots, animals, and slopes and steps; and cultural heritage value was related to garden facilities. These differences shape how individuals use park spaces and affect the delivery of intangible services like cultural heritage and ecological education. By optimizing mountain-specific features—such as adding viewing platforms or integrating cultural relics—parks can better meet the needs of different sexes, improving CES delivery.
Sex-sensitive park design supports urban sustainability across ecological, social, and economic dimensions. Ecologically, integrating CES evaluation into urban green space planning and building culturally focused ecological corridors can help mountainous parks and other green spaces work together, forming a sustainable ecological network. Socially, sex-sensitive park optimization can foster inclusive urban development. For example, creating sex-specific zones—like climbing areas for men and semi-private social spaces for women—breaks traditional stereotypes and combines functionality with inclusive design. This approach enhances spatial fairness and strengthens community ties by increasing residents' connection to nature. Economically, it enhances park appeal and efficiency, stimulating local green economies. These measures align with the UN Sustainable Development Goals on well-being, sex equality, and inclusive spaces, providing practical solutions for balancing human, natural, and social needs in rapidly urbanizing mountainous cities."
Rviewer 4:
Opinion 1：
The introduction does not sufficiently differentiate this study from previous work on CES using the SolVES and VEP methodologies.
Response: Thanks for raising this important question. The SolVES model effectively reveals CES spatial distribution but relies on photographic data with detailed background information. VEP produces numerous object-linked photos but is costly and quality-demanding. The advantage of integrating the SoIVES model with the VEP method lies in the fact that VEP can enhance the SoIVES model's superior processing of spatial locations, allowing each point on the generated CESs distribution map to correspond to actual photographs and the landscape elements depicted on them. VEP ensures that the digitization of the SoIVES model is not confined to a mere point containing valuable data, but rather represents the tangible existence of the actual landscape.This combination enhances the authenticity and scientific rigor of the data, clearly deLineating the differences in landscape preferences and value demands among different gender groups.We have added a description of the research work on the SolVES and VEP methods in the introduction section:
Line 62-68:
"The advantage of integrating the SoIVES model with the VEP method lies in the fact that VEP can enhance the SoIVES model's superior processing of spatial locations, allowing each point on the generated CESs distribution map to correspond to actual photographs and the landscape elements depicted on them. VEP ensures that the digitization of the SoIVES model is not confined to a mere point containing valuable data, but rather represents the tangible existence of the actual landscape. "
The references added here in the text are as follows
[1] Zhang K, Tang X, Zhao Y, Huang B, Huang L, Liu M, Luo E, Li Y, Jiang T, Zhang L, Wang Y, Wan J. Differing perceptions of the youth and the elderly regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban parks: an exploration of the tour experience. Sci. Total Environ. 821, 153388 (2022).
[2].Tian, F. C. Y. Understanding the process from perception to cultural ecosystem services assessment by comparing valuation methods. Urban For. Urban Green. 57, 126945 (2021).
Opinion 2：
The novelty of incorporating sex-based differences in CES perception is mentioned, but it is not adequately elaborated upon. A clearer explanation of how this approach advances existing knowledge would strengthen the manuscript’s contribution to the field.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the introduction regarding the significance and innovation of sex difference research in Line 112-130：
"Sex is a crucial component of socio-demographic attributes. The perceived differences in cultural ecosystem services (CESs) based on sex determine the varying landscape needs of urban parks. Conducting research on sex differences in CESs ensures that park design and management can incorporate nuanced, differentiated planning to meet the needs and expectations of different sex groups . Studies on sex differences in CESs help adjust the planning of landscape elements and functional configurations in parks based on preferences. Understanding the relationship between landscape elements and CESs from a sex perspective is essential for current landscape practices in mountainous urban parks . By calculating and mapping the actual supply and demand of ecosystem services and their spatial mismatches, planners can identify key development areas for enhancing the availability of CESs for both men and women in mountainous parks, thereby improving land use and management efficiency. Simultaneously, research from a sex perspective can externalize the deep-seated differences in sex characteristics within the field of CES perception, thereby constructing a sex-equitable ecological governance system in urban parks and breaking down sex stereotypes in cultural landscape concepts. Based on the SoIVES model with the VEP method, the combination enhances the authenticity and scientific rigor of the data, clearly delineating the differences in landscape preferences and value demands among different sex groups."
Opinion 3：
While the SolVES model outputs are used to generate CES value maps, the manuscript does not discuss the validation of these outputs against empirical field data, such as visitor surveys, interviews, or observational studies. A discussion of how the model results were compared with real-world data would add rigor to the methodology and help validate the findings.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments.
1）We indeed simplified the interviews and questionnaires, only investigating social information such as whether participants were locals or whether they visited alone, because our research focus was on the perceptual differences of young people regarding mountainous landscapes based on gender. The social characteristics of the participants were merely auxiliary tools to help us control variables and understand the basic information of the participants.
2）We used questionnaires to collect the social information of the participants. We employed Visitor-Employed Photography (VEP) to record a large number of photos with Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) points. We used the SolVES model to study the spatial distribution and perception levels of CESs. We used the Area Under the Curve (AUC) values to study the relationship between the distance of certain landscapes from the shooting points and their perceived value. We conducted landscape identification to study the frequency of the 16 landscape elements contained in the photos. We used Correspondence Analysis (CA) biplots to study the correlations between landscape elements and CESs. The spatial distribution of CESs, the frequency of the 16 landscape elements, and the correlations between landscape elements and CESs can mutually validate each other. For example:
CES distribution conclusions:
Males had higher perceptions of inspiration, health, and scientific education values in areas such as Kansheng Tower, Entrance Plaza, and Cliffside Path.
Females had higher perceptions of social relations, sense of place, and spiritual and religious values in areas such as Kansheng Tower, Central Lawn, and Lotus Pond.
16 Landscape Elements Conclusions:
Males had higher perception frequencies for landscape elements such as slopes and steps, garden facilities, and recreational facilities.
Females had higher perception frequencies for landscape elements such as overlooks, ponds, and squares and platforms.
Correspondence:
The high perception of males in areas like Kansheng Tower and Cliffside Path corresponds to the high perception frequencies of landscape elements such as slopes and steps and garden facilities, suggesting that these landscape elements may enhance males' perceptions of inspiration and health values.
The high perception of females in areas like Kansheng Tower and Lotus Pond corresponds to the high perception frequencies of landscape elements such as overlooks and ponds, suggesting that these landscape elements may enhance females' perceptions of social relations and sense of place values.
CES and 16 Landscape Elements Chi-Square Test Conclusions:
In the male group, aesthetic and scientific education values were significantly correlated with landscape elements such as flowers and lawns, overlooks, and shrubs and trees.
In the female group, social relations value was significantly correlated with modern architecture, while recreation and health values were significantly correlated with shrubs and trees.
Correspondence:
In the male group, the significant correlations between aesthetic and scientific education values and landscape elements such as flowers and lawns and shrubs and trees correspond to the high perceptions of males in areas like Kansheng Tower and Central Lawn.
In the female group, the significant correlation between social relations value and modern architecture corresponds to the high perceptions of females in areas like Kansheng Tower and Lotus Pond.
Opinion 4：
The VEP methodology is not described in sufficient detail.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We appreciate the reviewer's comment and have added a section describing the VEP method：
Line 183-187："Visitor-Employed Photography (VEP) involves hiring tourists to capture photos that reflect the value of cultural ecosystem services, with software like "2bulu" used to record the photos and their location data."
In Line 265-272, we elaborated on how volunteers evaluate CES values based on the photos they take:
"The research team analysed the photography dataset captured by the volunteers to identify three distinct types of information: the geographical coordinates of each photograph, the CES values identified by the visitors in the photograph titles, and the landscape elements present in the photographs. Landscape elements have been previously analysed based on their proportion in a photograph, with the criterion that the element occupies more than 20% of the image. The analysis in this study was performed by four researchers in pairs, with each pair making joint decisions. In cases of disagreement, all four researchers collaborated to determine the final extraction results."
Opinion 5：
Furthermore, the selection of 90 students as survey participants may not be representative of the broader park user population. Including a more diverse sample of park visitors would improve the external validity of the findings. A more comprehensive discussion of the participant selection process and its potential limitations would be beneficial.
Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' valuable comments regarding the issue of sample representativeness. Prior to initiating this study, we referenced studies by Fengyun Sun et al. and Kaili Zhang et al., who employed the Visitor-Employed Photography (VEP) method to investigate cultural ecosystem services (CES) perceptions in outdoor green spaces, using sample sizes of 32 and 90 participants (45 elderly and 45 young), respectively. Based on these precedents, we adopted a sample size of 90 participantsfor our research.
[1]Sun F , Xiang J , Tao Y ,et al.Mapping the social values for ecosystem services in urban green spaces: Integrating a visitor-employed photography method into SolVES[J].Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 38, 105-113, (2019).
[2] Zhang K, Tang X, Zhao Y, Huang B, Huang L, Liu M, Luo E, Li Y, Jiang T, Zhang L, Wang Y, Wan J. Differing perceptions of the youth and the elderly regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban parks: an exploration of the tour experience. Sci. Total Environ. 821, 153388 (2022)
In addation, we have addressed this concern in the Limitations section (Line 619-620)：
"However, in the process of the volunteer experiment, there were some problems, such as a small sample size (90) and insufficient consideration of the group effect, among others. "
In future research, we will increase the sample size, control variables, and conduct more scientific studies.
If you believe that this study requires an increase in the sample size, please allow us more time to recruit additional volunteers and conduct the experiment again. Thank you.
Opinion 6：
The manuscript claims that there are significant sex-based differences in CES perception. However, the statistical methods used to test these differences (e.g., Chi-square tests or t-tests) may not be appropriate for spatially clustered data. A more detailed justification of the statistical methods used, including their suitability for spatial analysis, would enhance the robustness of the results.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have revisited the literature in the field of ecosystem services and found that the chi-square test has been used in the following papers:
[1] Zhang K, Tang X, Zhao Y, Huang B, Huang L, Liu M, Luo E, Li Y, Jiang T, Zhang L, Wang Y, Wan J. Differing perceptions of the youth and the elderly regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban parks: an exploration of the tour experience. Sci. Total Environ. 821, 153388 (2022).
[2] Kicic, M., Haase, D. & Marin, A. M. Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services of tree-based green infrastructure: a focus group participatory mapping in Zagreb, Croatia. Urban For. Urban Green. 78, 127767 (2022).
[3] Chen, Y., Hong, C., Yang, Y., Li, J., Wang, Y., Zheng, T., Zhang, Y. & Shao, F. Mining Social Media Data to Capture Urban Park Visitors’ Perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Landscape Factors. Forests 15, 213 (2024).
Furthermore, the data we used for the chi-square test, namely the frequency of the 16 landscapes appearing in the photographs and the frequency of CES values, no longer contain spatial coordinate information and therefore should not be classified as spatial clustering data. However, we transformed the trajectory and CES point data, which originally included spatial clustering information, into ordinary data devoid of spatial coordinates. This may represent a limitation in our experimental methodology. In future research, we will strive to improve this aspect.
Opinion 7：
The interpretation of results, especially with regard to the observed sex-based differences, could benefit from a more nuanced discussion. Are the observed differences influenced by environmental factors, personal preferences, or other variables? A more in-depth exploration of the potential reasons behind the differences would provide valuable insights.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments.
We have reorganized "4.1. Landscape Environmental Value Orientation". And added
"4.1.4 Influencing factors of differences":
"Preferences for CESs in mountainous versus plain cities can be attributed to factors such as geographic features, socio-cultural background, personal experience, and psychological perceptions. The steep terrain, rich vegetation, and unique landscapes of mountainous areas are more likely than plains area to evoke inspiration, aesthetics, and cultural diversity values. Public preferences for CESs are influenced by the interplay of natural and infrastructural elements with cultural and social backgrounds, particularly in regions with distinct cultural histories, such as Chongqing. Additionally, personal experiences and psychological needs further shape individual landscape perceptions. Individuals who frequently hike in mountainous areas often prioritise inspiration and aesthetic values in natural landscapes, whereas urban dwellers focus on the wellness and social functions of plain parks. Mountainous environments cater to the psychological needs of adventure and discovery, whereas plains environments fulfil the need for relaxation and interaction. These preferences reflect the diverse demands and expectations of visitors for both natural and cultural landscape across different geographic environments and sexes."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents an interesting study on the assessment of Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) in mountainous urban parks, focusing on sex-based differences. The use of the SolVES model and the Visual Exposure Potential (VEP) methodology provides a structured framework for assessing CES. However, several aspects of the manuscript need significant revisions before it can be considered for publication. The following are key concerns that should be addressed:
1. The introduction does not sufficiently differentiate this study from previous work on CES using the SolVES and VEP methodologies. The novelty of incorporating sex-based differences in CES perception is mentioned, but it is not adequately elaborated upon. A clearer explanation of how this approach advances existing knowledge would strengthen the manuscript’s contribution to the field.
2. While the SolVES model outputs are used to generate CES value maps, the manuscript does not discuss the validation of these outputs against empirical field data, such as visitor surveys, interviews, or observational studies. A discussion of how the model results were compared with real-world data would add rigor to the methodology and help validate the findings.
3. The VEP methodology is not described in sufficient detail. Furthermore, the selection of 90 students as survey participants may not be representative of the broader park user population. Including a more diverse sample of park visitors would improve the external validity of the findings. A more comprehensive discussion of the participant selection process and its potential limitations would be beneficial.
4. The manuscript claims that there are significant sex-based differences in CES perception. However, the statistical methods used to test these differences (e.g., Chi-square tests or t-tests) may not be appropriate for spatially clustered data. A more detailed justification of the statistical methods used, including their suitability for spatial analysis, would enhance the robustness of the results.
5. The interpretation of results, especially with regard to the observed sex-based differences, could benefit from a more nuanced discussion. Are the observed differences influenced by environmental factors, personal preferences, or other variables? A more in-depth exploration of the potential reasons behind the differences would provide valuable insights.
Author Response
Assessment of cultural ecosystem service values in mountainous urban parks based on sex differences: a case study of Eling Park in Chongqing
First Round of Revision Explanation and Revised Draft
Dear Reviewers and Editors,
Thank you very much for your careful reading and valuable comments! Your review has been very helpful to our research, and we have benefited greatly from your insights during the process of thinking and revising. These insights have helped us to take a deeper look at our own research and identify and revise areas of data variable control and other shortcomings.
In the revised manuscript, we have made the necessary changes according to your review comments and highlighted them in red. Below is a brief explanation of the review comments and the modifications made,. If you have any further suggestions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to let us know, and we would be most grateful.
Once again, thank you for your selfless assistance and hard work.
Sincerely,
We will number the comments made by the four reviewers and provide explanations and revisions accordingly.
Rviewer 1:
Opinion 1:
Line 48-51. The original sentence is somewhat complex. Consider rewording it for clarity:
"Research on park CESs is essential for improving residents' physical and mental well-being, enhancing urban aesthetics, and promoting a balanced human-nature relationship."
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments. Please see Line 35-37.
Opinion 2:
Line 154. The number 6.6254 should be rounded to two decimal places for consistency. Ensure that all numerical values throughout the manuscript follow this rule.
Response: Thanks for this reminder. We rounded 6.6254 to two decimal places, resulting in 6.63. Please see Line 158.
Opinion 3：
Figure 1. This figure should also be provided as a supplementary file, as it is too small to be readable for a wider audience. The colors for the tower and monument are very similar, making it difficult for some readers to distinguish between them in the legend. Consider using more contrasting colors.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have adjusted the font size in Figure 1 to enhance readability. Meanwhile, the color of the monument icon has been altered to ensure distinction.
Opinion 4：
Line 180-182. The "2bulu" app should be better explained. Include details such as: What type of data does it collect? Whether the data publicly available? How precise and reliable the collected data is?
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. "2bulu" can generate KML files containing walking paths, photo point locations, as well as walking time, walking speed, and altitude data, which can be publicly shared as research data (in the appendix). The accuracy and reliability of its data primarily depend on the mobile phone's positioning system.
Accordingly, we have revised Line 189-191 to: "'2bulu' generates publicly accessible KML files with walking paths, photo points, walking time, speed, and poster height, relying on mobile phone positioning for data accuracy and reliability."
Opinion 5：
Line 204. You mention that parameters (temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions) were controlled. How were these parameters controlled? Provide a clearer explanation. Was research conducted in a specific part of the day?
Response: Thank you for raising these important questions. The final experiment was conducted on sunny afternoons from October to November 2023, during the autumn season at Eling Park, to maintain consistent temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions as much as possible. Based on reviewers' comments, experimental facts, and length control, we revised Line 197-206 of the original text to:
"We posted volunteer recruitment information on university social media platforms. Eligible volunteers underwent pre-experiment training, covering CES concepts, '2bulu' usage, designated routes, and timing/weather requirements. To ensure the absolute influence of sex factors, we selected college students aged 18-22 with similar educational backgrounds. Volunteers conducted the experiment on sunny afternoons during rest days in October and November 2023 to maintain environmental consistency, relaxed conditions, and photo clarity. They visited Eling Park under specified conditions, captured at least 50 photos meeting at least one CES indicator, categorized them, and submitted the photos to the research team (Fig. 2). We set the number of male and female participants equally at 45 each."
In Line 232-235, we continue to emphasize controlling environmental variables：
"The formal survey was conducted on sunny days between 1:00 PM and 5:00 PM from 10 October to 8 November 2023. During this period, the landscape of Eling Park remained almost unchanged, with stable temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions and no significant noise interference."
Opinion 6：
Line 241. Add more information about SolVES 4.0.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The SolVES (Social Values for Ecosystem Services) model was jointly developed by the Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center (RMGSC) of the United States Geological Survey and Colorado State University. It is primarily used to assess the social values of ecosystem services, quantifying the social values of ecosystem service functions such as aesthetics, biodiversity, recreation, and cultural activities. The evaluation results are derived from public attitudes and preferences, expressed as non-monetary value indices, and have high application value. The SolVES model is widely applied in the social value assessment of ecological environments such as landscapes and parks.SolVES 4.0 is a commonly used research model for assessing cultural ecosystem services. We have refined the various components of SolVES 4.0.
Please see section 2.3.1, Line 244-248.
、
Opinion 7：
Line 245. Explain why you specifically chose to use these two SolVES submodels instead of others.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. The Value Transfer Mapping Model in SolVES 4.0 requires pre-existing SolVES 4.0 models, and it can only be used for experimental analysis if the new experimental data is proven to be applicable to the old, established models. Since we have not conducted similar experiments in other parks, we do not meet the conditions for using the Value Transfer Mapping Model. Additionally, our goal is to establish new CES indicators, so pre-existing models are unnecessary. In summary, we did not use the Value Transfer Mapping Model. On the other hand, the Ecosystem Services Social-Values Model and the Value Mapping Model do not require pre-existing models. After establishing the cultural ecosystem service (CES) indicators and environmental factor indicators, we can import point files containing photo location information and CES classification data into the model to conduct relevant research. These modules enable us to explore the distribution and frequency of CES indicators, as well as the relationship between CES distribution and environmental factors, aligning with our experimental needs. Therefore, we selected these two modules for our study.Based on the reviewers' comments, we have added an explanation for why the Value Transfer Mapping Model is not applicable.
Please see section 2.3.1, Line 244-248.
Opinion 8：
Line 254. Provide more details about the CAD map used. Does it represent the entire landscaping of the park or just its boundaries?
Response: Thank you for your question. The detailed information of the CAD map is presented in a colored version in Figure 1, which includes both the boundaries and a portion of the detailed information.
Opinion 9：
Line 256. Add a brief explanation of PostgreSQL (e.g., what it is and why it was used in the study).
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. PostgreSQL is a database that is utilized in the SolVES 4.0 manual. According to the official manual, we used this database for data import and storage. Based on this, we have revised the original text：
Please see Line 259-261: "Using PostgreSQL for data storage, the MaxEnt model for maximum value analysis, and QGIS as the mapping software, the pixel size in SolVES 4.0 was set to 0.1 m for the 64,557 m² area of Eling Park, with a search radius parameter of 10 m."
Opinion 10：
Line 258. Clarify whether the data is publicly available. If so, is there a database or repository where it can be accessed?
Response: Thank you for your question. It can be publicly available. We have uploaded the data to the OPENICPSR database. The website link is:
https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/221741/version/V1/view
The data identifier is openicpsr-221741, and the content includes data tables, KML trajectory files, point files, and other related data.
Opinion 11：
Line 287. The correct phrase should be: "…were Chongqing residents…"
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the manuscript accordingly as per their suggestions. Please see Line 292.
Rviewer 2:
Opinion 1：
Introduction - The introduction effectively presents the research gap and contextualizes the study within the broader literature. However, the discussion on previous studies related to CES valuation methods could have been more critically analyzed. The paper mainly references studies that align with its hypothesis without addressing potential contradictions in existing literature.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have revised the description of CES valuation and provided further elaboration on the integration of the VEP method and the SolVES model in Line 48-68.
"CES evaluation methods mainly involve monetization and non-monetization assessments . Monetization is often limited to values like recreation, ecotourism, and cultural values , while non-monetization is widely used for its broader applicability across categoriesConsequently, scholarly interest in non-monetary valuation methods has grown significantly due to their ability to optimize environmental resource allocation. Current research on park CESs employs various non-monetary methods, each with unique strengths and limitations in capturing user perceptions and preferences. Traditional methods like questionnaires and field surveyseffectively gather detailed insights but are labor-intensive and hard to scale . Social media analysis offers abundant user-generated content but often lacks socio-demographic data, limiting group-specific analysis. Participatory mapping provides precise spatial data but requires extensive participant training. The SolVES model effectively reveals CES spatial distribution but relies on photographic data with detailed background information .VEP produces numerous object-linked photos but is costly and quality-demanding. Integrating SolVES with VEP optimizes CES spatial data utilization."
Opinion 2：
Also, the rationale for selecting Eling Park as the study site could be better justified with more comparative references.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. Compared to other mountain parks in Chongqing, such as Pipashan Park (which is too small), Zou Rong Park (with fewer landscape elements), and Binjiang Park (lacking mountain characteristics), our study site has a moderate size, rich landscape features, distinct mountain characteristics, and clearly defined main walking paths, making it suitable for our experimental requirements. We have added this description in Line 148-153：
"Compared to other mountainous parks in Chongqing, such as Pipashan Park (too small in area), Zou Rong Park (limited landscape elements), and Binjiang Park (lacking mountainous features), Eling Park stands out with its moderate size, rich landscape elements, distinct mountainous characteristics, and well-defined main trails, making it an ideal site for our experimental needs."
Opinion 3：
Methodology - While using college students (aged 18-22) ensures consistency, the study lacks diversity in the sample population. This limits generalizability. Further, the impact of environmental conditions (e.g., weather, time of visit) on CES perceptions could have been explored further. Finally, potential biases introduced by self-reported CES categorizations should be acknowledged in greater detail.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We acknowledge the limitation of insufficient sample size during our experiment. In addation, since our study focuses on exploring the impact of sex on the perception of cultural ecosystem services (CES), we made every effort to ensure consistency in other influencing factors. Based on the experimental conditions, we adjusted the control of environmental factors and ensured that the experiments were conducted on sunny afternoons between October and November to maintain consistency in environmental conditions as much as possible. We also recognize that our classification of CES may be incomplete or non-representative. Accordingly, we have revised the descriptions of the experimental background and reflections in the manuscript.：
Line 197-206："We posted volunteer recruitment information on university social media platforms. Eligible volunteers underwent pre-experiment training, covering CES concepts, "2bulu" usage, designated routes, and timing/weather requirements. To ensure the absolute influence of sex factors, we selected college students aged 18-22 with similar educational backgrounds. Volunteers conducted the experiment on sunny afternoons during rest days in October and November 2023 to maintain environmental consistency, relaxed conditions, and photo clarity. They visited Eling Park under specified conditions, captured at least 50 photos meeting at least one CES value, categorized them, and submitted the photos to the research team (Fig. 2). We set the number of male and female participants equally at 45 each."
In Line 232-236, we continue to emphasize controlling environmental variables：
"The formal survey was conducted on sunny days between 1:00 PM and 5:00 PM from 10 October to 8 November 2023. During this period, the landscape of Eling Park remained almost unchanged, with stable temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions and no significant noise interference."
In addition, in Line 619-625, we reflect on the research limitations:
"However, in the process of the volunteer experiment, there were some problems, such as a small sample size (90) and insufficient consideration of the group effect, among others. In the discussion of the factors affecting CESs, we did not account for the impact of whether they went alone or whether they went to the park for the first time on their perception. Although the age group and educational background of the population were controlled, subjectivity among volunteers can introduce bias, a common challenge in CES research. "
Opinion 4：
Results - The paper could have further examined why specific landscape elements correspond to certain CESs from a psychological or sociocultural perspective.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. In Section 4.1.3 (Line 527-545), we have revised the explanation regarding why specific landscape elements correspond to certain CES：
"Analysis of the relationship between landscape features and CESs indicated that both males and females recognised recreation, aesthetic, and social relations values in Eling Park (Figs. 8 and 9). In the male subgroup, inspiration was associated with landscape elements, such as fort-like ridges and cliffs, which may be linked to their need for physical activity, their spatial awareness, and the visual impact of these features. Consistent with the findings of Swapan et al, the males frequently perceived recreation. Additionally, males typically visit parks for physical exercise, challenging activities, and social interactions[54], leading to the association between social relations and squares and platforms. CA analysis revealed that air-raid shelters and ponds were less associated with other CESs for males, likely owing to their infrequent appearance. Females generally prefer aesthetic and artistic enjoyment, comfort, security, and micro landscape features, as evidenced by the relationship between recreation and shrubs and trees. Science and ecological education value was associated with flowers and lawns, indicating that these elements can stimulate enthusiasm for ecological education in female. Inspiration was often associated with artistic tree roots exposed on the surface, animals, and slopes and steps, confirming that females focus more on detailed aesthetic value than men. Garden facilities are linked to cultural heritage value, reflecting their role in prompting thoughts on cultural heritage. ."
Opinion 5：
Further, the limited focus on social demographics other than sex (e.g., educational background, cultural upbringing) might oversimplify CES perception variations.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. Indeed, during this field study, we encountered various environmental and demographic variables. To ensure the accuracy of our results, we controlled for educational background as a constant by focusing on a specific group of college students aged 18-22. In future research, we plan to expand the sample size and investigate the differences in CES perception among individuals with diverse cultural backgrounds. In section 4.3., we also pointed out the research limitations.
Opinion 6：
Finally, no explicit discussion on how park management could practically implement findings.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised Section 4.4 regarding how park management can implement specific measures, making the proposed actions more concrete. Please see section 4.4, Line 674-699.
Opinion 7：
Discussion - Certain claims, such as "males are more likely to seek recreational CESs due to their preference for physical activity," rely on generalizations rather than empirical evidence from the study. The discussion should acknowledge alternative explanations and potential confounding factors. The interpretation of results occasionally relies on sex stereotypes rather than directly observed behavior.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We acknowledge the issues of insufficient causality and stereotypes in our discussion regarding males seeking recreational CES and their preference for sports. Therefore, we have revised the relevant descriptions in section 4.1.2 (Line 506-525)：
"4.1.2 Sex differences in CESs value orientation
Both the male and female subgroups clearly perceived the aesthetic, recreation, cultural heritage, and social relations values of the park. This aligns with Eling Park’s primary functions of providing natural and cultural landscapes, as well as serving as a public space for leisure, fitness, and community interaction. This conclusion differs from that of previous studies, such as those by Kicic et al. [25] on park forests and Dou et al.[51] on the National Wetland Park, likely owing to differences in environmental characteristics and the surveyed population. For the male subgroup, the most highly perceived CESs were recreation and aesthetic values, whereas the least perceived were cultural diversity and spiritual and religious values, consistent with the findings of Zhou et al.[52] and Swapan et al.[33]. Males typically engage in activities such as sports, running, and family gatherings in community parks, which offer relaxation and social opportunities. In contrast, males might be less attuned to cultural diversity and spiritual and religious values, which involve deeper cultural and spiritual experiences that may not be as immediately engaging as recreation and aesthetics. For the female subgroup, the most highly perceived value was aesthetics while the least perceived was future value. Females often have a keener sense of beauty and seek relaxation and joy through aesthetic experiences during leisure, rendering them more likely to prefer spaces that offer high aesthetic value over spaces that offer abstract future value during visits to parks[53]. ."
Opinion 8：
Practical recommendations for park planners and policymakers could be expanded.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the specific measures for landscape planning in section 4.4. (Please refer to the response to the Opinion 6.)
Opinion 9：
Conclusion and Implications - The study calls for sex-sensitive landscape planning but does not provide actionable steps for implementation. The study should offer specific recommendations, such as modifications to park design, policy guideLine, or further research directions. It should also discuss how CES assessments can be integrated into broader urban sustainability frameworks.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. In the conclusion (section 4.4), we have revised the specific measures for landscape planning and integrated their evaluation into a broader framework for urban sustainable development:
Please see line 674-699:
"4.4. Implications for landscape design and management
4.4.1 Enhancing CES-oriented landscape elements
Mountainous terrains should be leveraged to improve inspiration, aesthetic, and cultural heritage values. Viewing platforms with seating should be integrated along cliff trails to enhance scenic appreciation, while historical features, such as air-raid shelters and fortress-like ridges, should be preserved and equipped with interpretive signage to strengthen cultural heritage value.
4.4.2 Balancing CES supply and demand
Spatial analysis of CES values should guide targeted interventions. Males, who prioritize recreation, would benefit from the addition of climbing walls and fitness zones along steep paths. Females, who value social interaction and cultural heritage, require more shaded seating, garden spaces, and semi-private pavilions near key social hubs like lotus ponds and overlooks.
4.4.3 Establishing sex-sensitive development zones
By mapping CES perception hotspots, planners can designate areas that cater to specific needs. High-traffic areas should integrate features that promote both social engagement and recreation, ensuring an inclusive environment. Meditation zones and cultural festivals can enhance spiritual and religious values, particularly in spaces where such CESs are currently underrepresented.
4.4.4 Incorporating CES values into Sustainable Development Goal
Embed CES into SDG frameworks by linking health-centric landscapes (Goal 3), equitable greenway networks (Goal 11), and community co-design workshops to ensure inclusive access. Strengthening connectivity between Eling Park and other green spaces through ecological corridors will enhance CES accessibility. Promote community participation by regularly assessing resident needs and dynamically adjusting landscape configurations to align CES supply with urban sustainability goals."
Opinion 10：
Limitations and Future Research - The authors acknowledge several methodological limitations, including sample representativeness and potential biases in CES self-reporting. However, the study does not adequately address how future research can mitigate these limitations. Discussion of how CES perceptions might change over time due to urbanization or climate change is missing.
Response:
1.About insufficient sample size.
We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' valuable comments regarding the issue of sample representativeness. Prior to initiating this study, we referenced studies by Fengyun Sun et al. and Kaili Zhang et al., who employed the Visitor-Employed Photography (VEP) method to investigate cultural ecosystem services (CES) perceptions in outdoor green spaces, using sample sizes of 32 and 90 participants (45 elderly and 45 young), respectively. Based on these precedents, we adopted a sample size of 90 participantsfor our research.
- Sun F , Xiang J , Tao Y ,et al.Mapping the social values for ecosystem services in urban green spaces: Integrating a visitor-employed photography method into SolVES[J].Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 38, 105-113, (2019).
[2] Zhang K, Tang X, Zhao Y, Huang B, Huang L, Liu M, Luo E, Li Y, Jiang T, Zhang L, Wang Y, Wan J. Differing perceptions of the youth and the elderly regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban parks: an exploration of the tour experience. Sci. Total Environ. 821, 153388 (2022).
In future research, we plan to expand the sample size and place greater emphasis on sample diversity, encompassing individuals of different ages, educational backgrounds, and physical conditions. For instance, recent studies have shown that socio-demographic characteristics (such as age, income, and education level) significantly influence the perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES). We will employ stratified or quota sampling methods to ensure that the sample more comprehensively reflects the perceived differences in CES values of mountain parks among various groups. Additionally, we will incorporate a multi-site research design to capture the perceptual differences among populations in different geographical and social contexts. These improvements will help reduce sample bias and enhance the generalizability and reliability of the research findings.
2.Potential Bias in CES Self-Reporting by Participants
We are deeply grateful for the reviewers' attention to the potential bias in CES self-reporting. To mitigate this bias, we plan to adopt a mixed-methods research approach in future studies, combining laboratory simulations with outdoor field research (Zwierzchowska, I., 2018). The laboratory environment allows for better control of variables and reduces external interference, while field research can more authentically reflect participants' perceptions in natural settings.
[3] Zwierzchowska, I., Hof, A., Iojă, I.-C., Mueller, C., Poniży, L., Breuste, J., & Mizgajski, A. Multi-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services of parks in Central European cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 30, 84–97 (2018).
3.The Impact of Urbanization or Climate Change on CES Perception
We greatly appreciate the reviewers' important reminder regarding the effects of urbanization and climate change. Indeed, urbanization and climate change can significantly influence people's perceptions of CES. For example, recent studies indicate that extreme weather events (such as high temperatures and droughts) caused by climate change can markedly alter residents' demand for and perception of green spaces (Manley, K., 2024). In mountainous environments like Chongqing, the climatic characteristics of hot summers and cold winters may further exacerbate this impact. Therefore, future research could explore the variations in residents' perceptions of mountain park CES across different seasons and the potential long-term effects of climate change on people's preferences. For instance, summer heat may increase the demand for shade and cooling services, while winter cold may make people more concerned about sunlight and wind protection services.
[4] Manley, K., & Egoh, B. N. Climate and biodiversity change constrain the flow of cultural ecosystem services to people: A case study modeling birding across Africa under future climate scenarios. Science of The Total Environment, 919, 170872 (2024).
Based on the reviewers' comments and our responses, we have revised the manuscript accordingly：
Line 661-673：In future research, we will increase the sample size and focus on diversity, including people of different ages, education levels, and health conditions. We will use stratified or quota sampling to better understand how different groups perceive the value of cultural ecosystem services (CES) in mountain parks. To reduce bias in CES self-reports, we will combine lab experiments with field studies to more accurately measure participants' perceptions . Additionally, urbanization and climate change can significantly affect how people perceive CES. Extreme weather, like heatwaves or droughts, may change how residents value green spaces . In Chongqing’s mountainous area, hot summers and cold winters could make these effects stronger. Future studies will examine how seasonal changes and long-term climate shifts influence people’s preferences, such as the need for shade in summer or sunlight in winter. These improvements will make the findings more reliable and provide useful insights for better park planning.
Rviewer 3:
Opinion 1：
General recommendations:
The article is complex and covers both the extensive methodological part and the study of a particular problem and territory, so it is difficult to include in detail in one article everything related to both the methodology and the specific problem and territory. Therefore, if possible, I would recommend reviewing the article and focusing it on a methodology and its approbating, since the methodology considered is the main contribution and value of the article. If the article will focus more on methodology, then all chapters of the article should be reviewed, including the Abstract. In this case, the Introduction and Conclusion sections would also focus directly on methodology. In the introduction - what methodology has been used so far for such studies and what exactly specific and challenging are studies based related to perception of different sexs (whether there are any specific criteria, conditions, etc.). It would also help to make the Introduction part more compact and focused on a specific issue – methodology. The Conclusions, on the other hand, should place greater emphasis on the possibilities and limitations of using the methodology. Also, parts of the results and discussion should be reviewed and focused on what results can be obtained by specific methods. If the article is more focused on the methodology, then perhaps the amount of methods included in the article could also be reduced, since at the moment the description of each method is a bit lacking in detail, which could affect the repeatability of the study. Better and larger images could be added, allowing the textual and visual information contained in them to be read.
BUT if the article is kept in its current content and format, then the reviewer's recommendations for improving some of the sections of the article are added below.
Some more general recommendations are related to terminology and quality of figures used in the article. Please use common terminology for the whole article to keep clear if this term is the same in different places of the article. For example – cultural ecosystem services values / cultural ecosystem services categories. In the Title – did you mean ecosystem service or services? If second, please make correction.
Figures (Images) significantly complement the textual part of the article, however, their quality does not allow to fully perceive the information displayed in them (too small texts, maps).
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We acknowledge that there are shortcomings in the structure and research focus of the article. Taking into account the feedback from multiple reviewers, we have revised the content of the introduction, discussion, and conclusion sections.We have enhanced the description of our methodology, particularly highlighting the innovative aspects related to the VEP and SolVES models. Our approach is tailored to the research objectives of the paper, which focus on gender-based differences in young people's perceptions of various landscape elements. In the introduction, we discussed the advantages and disadvantages of existing methods such as questionnaire surveys and field research, ultimately opting to combine SolVES with VEP and employing chi-square tests for data analysis. The first step of our research involved using VEP to collect photos and CES value point data, thereby obtaining raw data. The second step utilized SolVES for spatial data analysis to derive the spatial distribution of CESs. The third step identified 16 landscape elements from the photos and conducted chi-square tests with the CESs tabular data to explore the correlations between CESs and landscape elements.
However, our current experimental data, processes, and paper structure do not sufficiently support a shift in focus towards methodology. Therefore, in response to the reviewer's comments, we may explore methodological aspects more deeply in future research. Thank you.
We have addressed the issue of inconsistent terminology in the text, with corresponding responses provided in the latter sections of our reply. Regarding specific terminology issues, we noticed that the reviewer has raised detailed questions later in the suggestions, so related issues have also been moved to the subsequent sections. The same applies to the quality of images.
Once again, we thank the reviewer for the comprehensive suggestions on the manuscript, which have been immensely beneficial to us.
Opinion 2：
Abstract
Abstract exceeds the number of words specified in the requirements for the article (not more than 200), it should be revised and made into compact ones. I would suggest adding a more convincing argument to the abstract - why it is important to study the perception of different sexs in relation to cultural ecosystem services.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the word count and content of the abstract, incorporating the importance of studying different sexes' perceptions of cultural ecosystem services (Line 11-28).
"Urban parks are vital for providing cultural ecosystem services (CESs) to residents. However, few studies have explored sex-based differences in CES demand, particularly within mountainous urban parks. This study aimed to elucidate sex-based differences in the perceptions and preferences for CESs and landscape elements, and explore their relationship in mountainous urban parks. Using value-labelled photographs from equal number of male and female volunteers’ visits to Eling Park in Chongqing, China, the SolVES model was employed to investigate the relationship between sex-specific perceptions of CESs and landscape elements. The results showed that males preferred slopes and steps, garden facilities, and recreation facilities, whereas females preferred overlooks that offer multiple CES values, including science and ecological education, aesthetic, and cultural heritage values. Females perceived social relational value at the lotus pond and Kansheng Tower, whereas males perceived inspirational value at Kansheng Tower, the entrance, and the cliffside path. Males linked inspirational value to fort-like ridges and cliffs. Females associated inspirational value with slopes and steps. Based on the findings, the study recommends enhancing CES specific to mountainous landscapes and incorporating sex-sensitive design elements. Ultimately, these efforts aim to position parks as key components of urban sustainable development, promoting overall resident well-being."
Opinion 3：
Introduction
The term "Cultural ecosystem services values" is included in the title – but nowhere in the text (also in other sections) is there an explanation of what is meant by this. Are they the same as indicators mentioned in section 2.2.27? Please clarify this.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have mentioned the definition of this term in the introduction (Line 35-37):
"CESs encompass the non-material benefits humans derive from ecosystems, including spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, aesthetic enjoyment, and recreational opportunities." Its abbreviation is CES (CESs), which is consistent with the indicators in Section 2.2.2.
Opinion 4：
The introduction is very broad and looks at previous research in the field of cultural ecosystem services, urban parks, and various aspects of perception. However, more convincing arguments are missing as to why it is the perceptions of different renders that should be studied. I found that reasoning in the conclusion section (Line 681-689), which could be moved to the Introductory section.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the section in the introduction regarding the significance and innovation of sex difference research and moved part of the conclusion to the introduction (Line 112-130)：
"Sex is a crucial component of socio-demographic attributes. The perceived differences in cultural ecosystem services (CESs) based on sex determine the varying landscape needs of urban parks. Conducting research on sex differences in CESs ensures that park design and management can incorporate nuanced, differentiated planning to meet the needs and expectations of different sex groups . Studies on sex differences in CESs help adjust the planning of landscape elements and functional configurations in parks based on preferences. Understanding the relationship between landscape elements and CESs from a sex perspective is essential for current landscape practices in mountainous urban parks . By calculating and mapping the actual supply and demand of ecosystem services and their spatial mismatches, planners can identify key development areas for enhancing the availability of CESs for both men and women in mountainous parks, thereby improving land use and management efficiency. Simultaneously, research from a sex perspective can externalize the deep-seated differences in sex characteristics within the field of CES perception, thereby constructing a sex-equitable ecological governance system in urban parks and breaking down sex stereotypes in cultural landscape concepts."
Opinion 5：
2.Methods
2.1. Study area
Line 155 - Please clarify what "190" is; it looks like it could be the year, but one of the digits has disappeared.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion and we apologize for our carelessness. The construction of Eling Park began in 1909. We had missed a digit, which has now been added.
Opinion 6：
Line 163 - Why are these categories needed - non-mountainous and mountainous? How does this affect the results of the study? Please add a justification. And, are they meant to represent different zones of the area or groups of landscape elements, or do they have another meaning? Such a question arises because the categories of landscape elements (11 for non-mountainous and 6 for mountainous) cause confusion. Why, for example, are animals, people, trees, and shrubs only in the non-mountainous category if they are actually found in the mountainous one as well?
Response: Thank you for your question. Eling Park exhibits characteristics of a mountainous park, featuring elevation differences and landscapes associated with mountainous terrain. The purpose of our study is to investigate the differences in landscape perception between mountainous and non-mountainous parks. While animals, people, trees, and shrubs are present in both mountainous and non-mountainous areas, they do not possess the unique landscape characteristics of mountainous regions. Therefore, we selected mountainous landscapes that exhibit unique features of mountainous terrain, while general landscapes that appear in both mountainous and non-mountainous areas are categorized as non-mountainous landscapes. Accordingly, we have revised Line 298-305.
"To explore the perceptual differences between mountainous landscapes and non-mountainous landscapes, we divided the 16 landscape elements into 5 landscape elements with mountainous features and 11 without mountainous features, providing corresponding schematic diagrams.Landscape elements with mountainous features refer to those that are distinctive or unique to mountainous areas, while non-mountainous elements are those characteristic of plains or found in both environments. Therefore, non-mountainous elements may also appear in mountainous regions.All the images were captured by volunteers who were solicited for this purpose. "
Opinion 7：
Line 172 – Figure 1 does not correspond to the text referring to that image. The figure should include landscape elements of 16 categories divided into non-mountainous and mountainous.
Response: Thanks for your question. The text in Figure 1 is primarily intended to convey the experimental route and land use types, which has some correspondence with Table 2 but are not entirely identical. Table 2 contains the environmental data required for SolVES 4.0. The classification of mountainous and non-mountainous landscape elements is based on their appearance in photographs rather than on the map. Therefore, Figure 1 does not have a direct correlation with the landscape elements. Figure 3 shows 16 landscape elements.
Opinion 8：
2.2Data acquisition
2.2.1 Experimental design
Line 184 – It is mentioned in sections 2.2.1 and 4.3 that semi-structured interviews have taken place in the research, but there is no mention of what exactly the data was obtained in the interviews and how it was used in the study. The suggestion is either to supplement the article with information about the data obtained during the interviews and its use in the research, or to add information that the method included such interviews, but they are not detailed in this particular article.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The main content collected through our semi-structured interviews was the social information of the volunteers, along with brief discussions about their experiences during the experiment. We mentioned in Line 194-196:
"During interviews, volunteers discussed their visit motivations and memorable experiences with the research team, enhancing survey reliability and offering valuable insights for further analysis."
Opinion 9：
2.2.2 Pre-survey
Line 215, 218, 220 – Please use common terminology, be they CES indicators or CES values or CES categories, if these terms have the same meaning.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have standardized the term to "CES value."
Opinion 10：
Please add to this section how exactly the volunteers assessed CES – whether they were free to choose points from which they captured landscape elements, or whether they were already determined on the route.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The route has been finalized and is illustrated in Figure 1. The text in Line 197-199 mentions:
"We posted volunteer recruitment information on university social media platforms. Eligible volunteers underwent pre-experiment training, covering CES concepts, '2bulu' usage, designated routes, and timing/weather requirements."
Opinion 11：
Table 1 – "Description" in the table is meant to be a base value for making an assessment of CES values (like – corresponds or not corresponds to description)? Please supplement in the text how these CES values were assessed by the volunteers – whether in response to the descriptions (corresponds or not corresponds to description) or using some kind of rating / point system?
Response: Thank you for raising these important questions. We provided the CES values to the volunteers in advance, and they made subjective judgments based on their understanding of the text and the on-site experiment. Volunteers will name the pictures they take based on the 16 CES values. This is mentioned in Line 197-198:
"Eligible volunteers underwent pre-experiment training, covering CES concepts, '2bulu' usage, designated routes, and timing/weather requirements."
In section 2.3.2, Line 265-272, the article provides a detailed description of how CES values can be evaluated through photos taken by volunteers:
"The research team analysed the photography dataset captured by the volunteers to identify three distinct types of information: the geographical coordinates of each photograph, the CES values identified by the visitors in the photograph titles, and the landscape elements present in the photographs. Landscape elements have been previously analysed based on their proportion in a photograph, with the criterion that the element occupies more than 20% of the image[30]. The analysis in this study was performed by four researchers in pairs, with each pair making joint decisions. In cases of disagreement, all four researchers collaborated to determine the final extraction results."
Opinion 12：
Please add an explanation of how 16 categories of landscape elements (Line 166) are involved in the evaluation of CES.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. As mentioned in section 2.3.2, "Landscape elements have been previously analyzed based on their proportion in a photograph, with the criterion that the element occupies more than 20% of the image." The research team first conducted manual identification, and then the volunteer CES data was incorporated into SPSS for data analysis. The results of the data analysis are presented in Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 9, and Fig. 10.
Opinion 13：
- Results
3.1. Demographic profile of volunteers
Line 294 – Please use a common term instead of different for clear understanding: Environmental elements OR landscape elements OR categories of landscape elements?
Response: Thank you for your question. The term has been standardized to "landscape elements" in full text.
Opinion 14：
Line 297 – Figure 3 – Please use a common term instead of different – non-mountainous / mountain-specific elements (Line 165) OR mountain / non-mountain feature.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. The terms have been standardized to "mountain/non-mountain elements" in full text.
Opinion 15：
Figure 3 – Aren’t animals, people, trees and shrubs, recreation facilities also part of the mountain features? Please assess the need to divide the territory into the following categories – non-mountainous and mountainous. If necessary, please add an explanation in section 2.1.
Response: Thanks for raising this important question. Elements that do not exhibit typical mountainous characteristics have been categorized as non-mountain landscape features. Please see the response for opinion 6.
Opinion 16：
3.3 Spatial arrangement of CESs and subgroup disparities
Figure 7 – Very small graphics in which it is difficult to read information, it is necessary to assess whether it is important to add these graphics or whether it is possible to somehow display this information in any other way.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have increased the font size in figure7, and the relevant information is presented in the text in Line 373-384:
"Three representative environmental metrics were selected to analyse the AUC results: distance to the tower (DTT), distance to the cliff (DTCL), and distance to water bodies (DTW)[48]. The response curves illustrate the relationships between the environmental metrics (DTT, DTCL, and DTW) and the 11 selected CES types. For males, the value index (VI) for inspiration and health values increased with DTT (Fig. 7a). Conversely, for females, the VI for cultural diversity, spiritual and religious, inspiration, and health values sharply increased with DTT (Fig. 7b). For males, the VI for cultural heritage, social relations, and recreation values decreased with increasing DTCL (Fig. 7c). Conversely, for females, significant VI responses were observed for aesthetics, social relations, and health values (Fig. 7d). Owing to the small water area in Eling Park, VI responses to DTW were somewhat random (Fig. 7e), with females exhibiting a higher affinity for water bodies than males (Fig. 7f)."It illustrates the relationship between CES perception indicators and the distance to different landscape elements."
Opinion 17：
Line 389, 390 - Information about the 1-10 value gradient appears in the Results section. Please supplement the Methods section with this information.
Response: Thanks for this reminder. We have supplemented the information about the 1-10 value gradient in the Methods section. Line 246-248:
"Among them, the Ecosystem Services Social-Values Model uses a gradient scale of 1-10 to measure the level of CES indicators."
Opinion 18：
Figure 8 – Very small maps, it is difficult to compare the displayed information on them.
Response: Thanks for this reminder. We have enlarged the size of all maps in figure 8.
Opinion 19：
3.4. Association between CESs, landscape elements, and differences between subgroups
Figure 10 – Difficult to read texts, please make improvements.
Response: Thanks for this reminder. We have increased the font size and changed it to a more prominent color.
Opinion 20：
Conclusions
Conclusions must be followed from the results of the particular research; therefore, conclusions usually do not include information that has not been discussed in the article so far or insights expressed by other researchers. Consequently, conclusions usually do not include references. Such information fits better into the introduction part.
The Conclusions are not a summary of the article, so the collected facts must be accompanied by a concluding note. At the moment, the conclusions summarise the main results, which should be supplemented by concluding remarks, what these results indicate. There are a number of conclusions in the Discussion section that could possibly be moved to the Conclusions section.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have revised the conclusion section to emphasize the application of sex differences in cultural ecosystem services to urban sustainable development, and we have also modified the discussion section regarding the importance of sex studies. The revised conclusion section is presented in Line 701-727:
"Sex is a crucial factor in the spatial design of urban parks. However, differences in the perceptions of CESs between males and females are often overlooked in the landscape planning of mountain urban parks. This oversight can limit the activities and social participation of different sexes in mountainous parks, thereby affecting their perceptions and experiences. This study primarily explored the distribution characteristics of CESs in an urban, mountainous park based on sex differences and their associations with landscape elements. By collecting and analysing data from both sex groups, spatial distribution maps of CESs were constructed, which revealed potential differences in the association between landscape elements and CESs.
Men and women show distinct preferences in landscapes and CES perception, reflecting their different needs. Men favor slopes and recreational facilities, emphasizing physical activity and practicality, while women prefer viewing platforms and ponds, highlighting their need for emotional comfort and social interaction. Males had lower perceptions of cultural diversity and spiritual and religious values, whereas females had lower perceptions of future value. Regarding the space nodes in Eling Park, areas such as the central lawn, Kansheng Tower, and the park entrance were noted for high aesthetic, recreation, and sense of place values, with the cliffside path positively influencing various values. Females were more likely to perceive social relations value at space nodes such as the lotus pond and Kansheng Tower, whereas males were more likely to perceive inspiration value at Kansheng Tower, the park entrance, and the cliffside path. Regarding the relationship between landscape elements and CESs, for males, inspiration value was closely related to fort-like ridges and cliffs, whereas the social relations value was closely related to squares and platforms. For females, recreation value was closely related to shrubs and trees; science and ecological education value was closely related to flowers and lawns; inspiration value was related to tree roots, animals, and slopes and steps; and cultural heritage value was related to garden facilities. These differences shape how individuals use park spaces and affect the delivery of intangible services like cultural heritage and ecological education. By optimizing mountain-specific features—such as adding viewing platforms or integrating cultural relics—parks can better meet the needs of different sexes, improving CES delivery.
Sex-sensitive park design supports urban sustainability across ecological, social, and economic dimensions. Ecologically, integrating CES evaluation into urban green space planning and building culturally focused ecological corridors can help mountainous parks and other green spaces work together, forming a sustainable ecological network. Socially, sex-sensitive park optimization can foster inclusive urban development. For example, creating sex-specific zones—like climbing areas for men and semi-private social spaces for women—breaks traditional stereotypes and combines functionality with inclusive design. This approach enhances spatial fairness and strengthens community ties by increasing residents' connection to nature. Economically, it enhances park appeal and efficiency, stimulating local green economies. These measures align with the UN Sustainable Development Goals on well-being, sex equality, and inclusive spaces, providing practical solutions for balancing human, natural, and social needs in rapidly urbanizing mountainous cities."
Rviewer 4:
Opinion 1：
The introduction does not sufficiently differentiate this study from previous work on CES using the SolVES and VEP methodologies.
Response: Thanks for raising this important question. The SolVES model effectively reveals CES spatial distribution but relies on photographic data with detailed background information. VEP produces numerous object-linked photos but is costly and quality-demanding. The advantage of integrating the SoIVES model with the VEP method lies in the fact that VEP can enhance the SoIVES model's superior processing of spatial locations, allowing each point on the generated CESs distribution map to correspond to actual photographs and the landscape elements depicted on them. VEP ensures that the digitization of the SoIVES model is not confined to a mere point containing valuable data, but rather represents the tangible existence of the actual landscape.This combination enhances the authenticity and scientific rigor of the data, clearly deLineating the differences in landscape preferences and value demands among different gender groups.We have added a description of the research work on the SolVES and VEP methods in the introduction section:
Line 62-68:
"The advantage of integrating the SoIVES model with the VEP method lies in the fact that VEP can enhance the SoIVES model's superior processing of spatial locations, allowing each point on the generated CESs distribution map to correspond to actual photographs and the landscape elements depicted on them. VEP ensures that the digitization of the SoIVES model is not confined to a mere point containing valuable data, but rather represents the tangible existence of the actual landscape. "
The references added here in the text are as follows
[1] Zhang K, Tang X, Zhao Y, Huang B, Huang L, Liu M, Luo E, Li Y, Jiang T, Zhang L, Wang Y, Wan J. Differing perceptions of the youth and the elderly regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban parks: an exploration of the tour experience. Sci. Total Environ. 821, 153388 (2022).
[2].Tian, F. C. Y. Understanding the process from perception to cultural ecosystem services assessment by comparing valuation methods. Urban For. Urban Green. 57, 126945 (2021).
Opinion 2：
The novelty of incorporating sex-based differences in CES perception is mentioned, but it is not adequately elaborated upon. A clearer explanation of how this approach advances existing knowledge would strengthen the manuscript’s contribution to the field.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the introduction regarding the significance and innovation of sex difference research in Line 112-130：
"Sex is a crucial component of socio-demographic attributes. The perceived differences in cultural ecosystem services (CESs) based on sex determine the varying landscape needs of urban parks. Conducting research on sex differences in CESs ensures that park design and management can incorporate nuanced, differentiated planning to meet the needs and expectations of different sex groups . Studies on sex differences in CESs help adjust the planning of landscape elements and functional configurations in parks based on preferences. Understanding the relationship between landscape elements and CESs from a sex perspective is essential for current landscape practices in mountainous urban parks . By calculating and mapping the actual supply and demand of ecosystem services and their spatial mismatches, planners can identify key development areas for enhancing the availability of CESs for both men and women in mountainous parks, thereby improving land use and management efficiency. Simultaneously, research from a sex perspective can externalize the deep-seated differences in sex characteristics within the field of CES perception, thereby constructing a sex-equitable ecological governance system in urban parks and breaking down sex stereotypes in cultural landscape concepts. Based on the SoIVES model with the VEP method, the combination enhances the authenticity and scientific rigor of the data, clearly delineating the differences in landscape preferences and value demands among different sex groups."
Opinion 3：
While the SolVES model outputs are used to generate CES value maps, the manuscript does not discuss the validation of these outputs against empirical field data, such as visitor surveys, interviews, or observational studies. A discussion of how the model results were compared with real-world data would add rigor to the methodology and help validate the findings.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments.
1）We indeed simplified the interviews and questionnaires, only investigating social information such as whether participants were locals or whether they visited alone, because our research focus was on the perceptual differences of young people regarding mountainous landscapes based on gender. The social characteristics of the participants were merely auxiliary tools to help us control variables and understand the basic information of the participants.
2）We used questionnaires to collect the social information of the participants. We employed Visitor-Employed Photography (VEP) to record a large number of photos with Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) points. We used the SolVES model to study the spatial distribution and perception levels of CESs. We used the Area Under the Curve (AUC) values to study the relationship between the distance of certain landscapes from the shooting points and their perceived value. We conducted landscape identification to study the frequency of the 16 landscape elements contained in the photos. We used Correspondence Analysis (CA) biplots to study the correlations between landscape elements and CESs. The spatial distribution of CESs, the frequency of the 16 landscape elements, and the correlations between landscape elements and CESs can mutually validate each other. For example:
CES distribution conclusions:
Males had higher perceptions of inspiration, health, and scientific education values in areas such as Kansheng Tower, Entrance Plaza, and Cliffside Path.
Females had higher perceptions of social relations, sense of place, and spiritual and religious values in areas such as Kansheng Tower, Central Lawn, and Lotus Pond.
16 Landscape Elements Conclusions:
Males had higher perception frequencies for landscape elements such as slopes and steps, garden facilities, and recreational facilities.
Females had higher perception frequencies for landscape elements such as overlooks, ponds, and squares and platforms.
Correspondence:
The high perception of males in areas like Kansheng Tower and Cliffside Path corresponds to the high perception frequencies of landscape elements such as slopes and steps and garden facilities, suggesting that these landscape elements may enhance males' perceptions of inspiration and health values.
The high perception of females in areas like Kansheng Tower and Lotus Pond corresponds to the high perception frequencies of landscape elements such as overlooks and ponds, suggesting that these landscape elements may enhance females' perceptions of social relations and sense of place values.
CES and 16 Landscape Elements Chi-Square Test Conclusions:
In the male group, aesthetic and scientific education values were significantly correlated with landscape elements such as flowers and lawns, overlooks, and shrubs and trees.
In the female group, social relations value was significantly correlated with modern architecture, while recreation and health values were significantly correlated with shrubs and trees.
Correspondence:
In the male group, the significant correlations between aesthetic and scientific education values and landscape elements such as flowers and lawns and shrubs and trees correspond to the high perceptions of males in areas like Kansheng Tower and Central Lawn.
In the female group, the significant correlation between social relations value and modern architecture corresponds to the high perceptions of females in areas like Kansheng Tower and Lotus Pond.
Opinion 4：
The VEP methodology is not described in sufficient detail.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We appreciate the reviewer's comment and have added a section describing the VEP method：
Line 183-187："Visitor-Employed Photography (VEP) involves hiring tourists to capture photos that reflect the value of cultural ecosystem services, with software like "2bulu" used to record the photos and their location data."
In Line 265-272, we elaborated on how volunteers evaluate CES values based on the photos they take:
"The research team analysed the photography dataset captured by the volunteers to identify three distinct types of information: the geographical coordinates of each photograph, the CES values identified by the visitors in the photograph titles, and the landscape elements present in the photographs. Landscape elements have been previously analysed based on their proportion in a photograph, with the criterion that the element occupies more than 20% of the image. The analysis in this study was performed by four researchers in pairs, with each pair making joint decisions. In cases of disagreement, all four researchers collaborated to determine the final extraction results."
Opinion 5：
Furthermore, the selection of 90 students as survey participants may not be representative of the broader park user population. Including a more diverse sample of park visitors would improve the external validity of the findings. A more comprehensive discussion of the participant selection process and its potential limitations would be beneficial.
Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' valuable comments regarding the issue of sample representativeness. Prior to initiating this study, we referenced studies by Fengyun Sun et al. and Kaili Zhang et al., who employed the Visitor-Employed Photography (VEP) method to investigate cultural ecosystem services (CES) perceptions in outdoor green spaces, using sample sizes of 32 and 90 participants (45 elderly and 45 young), respectively. Based on these precedents, we adopted a sample size of 90 participantsfor our research.
[1]Sun F , Xiang J , Tao Y ,et al.Mapping the social values for ecosystem services in urban green spaces: Integrating a visitor-employed photography method into SolVES[J].Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 38, 105-113, (2019).
[2] Zhang K, Tang X, Zhao Y, Huang B, Huang L, Liu M, Luo E, Li Y, Jiang T, Zhang L, Wang Y, Wan J. Differing perceptions of the youth and the elderly regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban parks: an exploration of the tour experience. Sci. Total Environ. 821, 153388 (2022)
In addation, we have addressed this concern in the Limitations section (Line 619-620)：
"However, in the process of the volunteer experiment, there were some problems, such as a small sample size (90) and insufficient consideration of the group effect, among others. "
In future research, we will increase the sample size, control variables, and conduct more scientific studies.
If you believe that this study requires an increase in the sample size, please allow us more time to recruit additional volunteers and conduct the experiment again. Thank you.
Opinion 6：
The manuscript claims that there are significant sex-based differences in CES perception. However, the statistical methods used to test these differences (e.g., Chi-square tests or t-tests) may not be appropriate for spatially clustered data. A more detailed justification of the statistical methods used, including their suitability for spatial analysis, would enhance the robustness of the results.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments. We have revisited the literature in the field of ecosystem services and found that the chi-square test has been used in the following papers:
[1] Zhang K, Tang X, Zhao Y, Huang B, Huang L, Liu M, Luo E, Li Y, Jiang T, Zhang L, Wang Y, Wan J. Differing perceptions of the youth and the elderly regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban parks: an exploration of the tour experience. Sci. Total Environ. 821, 153388 (2022).
[2] Kicic, M., Haase, D. & Marin, A. M. Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services of tree-based green infrastructure: a focus group participatory mapping in Zagreb, Croatia. Urban For. Urban Green. 78, 127767 (2022).
[3] Chen, Y., Hong, C., Yang, Y., Li, J., Wang, Y., Zheng, T., Zhang, Y. & Shao, F. Mining Social Media Data to Capture Urban Park Visitors’ Perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Landscape Factors. Forests 15, 213 (2024).
Furthermore, the data we used for the chi-square test, namely the frequency of the 16 landscapes appearing in the photographs and the frequency of CES values, no longer contain spatial coordinate information and therefore should not be classified as spatial clustering data. However, we transformed the trajectory and CES point data, which originally included spatial clustering information, into ordinary data devoid of spatial coordinates. This may represent a limitation in our experimental methodology. In future research, we will strive to improve this aspect.
Opinion 7：
The interpretation of results, especially with regard to the observed sex-based differences, could benefit from a more nuanced discussion. Are the observed differences influenced by environmental factors, personal preferences, or other variables? A more in-depth exploration of the potential reasons behind the differences would provide valuable insights.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments.
We have reorganized "4.1. Landscape Environmental Value Orientation". And added
"4.1.4 Influencing factors of differences":
"Preferences for CESs in mountainous versus plain cities can be attributed to factors such as geographic features, socio-cultural background, personal experience, and psychological perceptions. The steep terrain, rich vegetation, and unique landscapes of mountainous areas are more likely than plains area to evoke inspiration, aesthetics, and cultural diversity values. Public preferences for CESs are influenced by the interplay of natural and infrastructural elements with cultural and social backgrounds, particularly in regions with distinct cultural histories, such as Chongqing. Additionally, personal experiences and psychological needs further shape individual landscape perceptions. Individuals who frequently hike in mountainous areas often prioritise inspiration and aesthetic values in natural landscapes, whereas urban dwellers focus on the wellness and social functions of plain parks. Mountainous environments cater to the psychological needs of adventure and discovery, whereas plains environments fulfil the need for relaxation and interaction. These preferences reflect the diverse demands and expectations of visitors for both natural and cultural landscape across different geographic environments and sexes."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors provided much improved version of the paper, responding adequately to the reviewer comments. I suggest accepting this paper.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have sufficiently addressed the comments and concerns raised in the previous review. The revisions have improved the clarity and quality of the manuscript, and the responses provided are satisfactory. After reviewing the revised version, I find the manuscript acceptable for publication.
