Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript studies the supply-demand matching of cultural ecosystem services in urban parks in Lhasa, which integrates various data sources to construct an evaluation system for CES.  This work is meaningful to urban park planning.  However, it could be improved, particularly regarding the selection of indicators for CES and the subjective judgment in coupling coordination.

1. Indicator Selection
   CES Supply Indicators: the work is heavily relianed on spatial and physical characteristics (e.g., NDVI, visibility, road area ratio) which may overlook non-physical cultural aspects that could influence CES, such as residents' emotional connections to parks or the socio-cultural importance of certain sites. CES Demand Indicators: the demand indicators are sound, but it would be useful to include more dynamic, temporal factors. For instance, visitor numbers or fluctuating demand patterns during cultural or religious events might offer more nuanced insights. In addition, the assumption that CES demand is static over time may not fully capture the reality of urban growth and changing demographic trends.

2. Coupling Coordination and Subjectivity
   The authors categorize regions into three coupling coordination groups (coordinated development, decline, and transitional states) based on a ratio and a coupling degree model. While this approach is common in spatial studies, it can be challenging to establish clear, objective thresholds for categorization. For example, the choice of thresholds for "coordinated development," "transitional states," and "decline" is crucial, and further explanation or sensitivity testing of these thresholds would enhance the reliability of the findings. Providing more details on the decision-making process behind these classifications and how they might be influenced by different perspectives would improve the transparency of the analysis.
3. Discussion and Conclusions: The discussion highlights the imbalances between supply and demand in Lhasa's urban parks, particularly the excess supply in some areas and lagging supply in others. The proposed optimization strategies, such as integrating small green spaces into urban areas and focusing on near-mountain regions, are practical and contextually relevant. However, these strategies could be more directly tied to the study's findings, particularly in the context of the supply-demand balance. Besides, comparative analysis with other cities could enhance the generalizability of the findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

The paper you submitted is quite interesting and inspiring, as ecosystem services are mostly studied from an ecological perspective, so broadening this approach is certainly innovative. However, in the desire to present it in as much detail as possible, precision in the presentation has been lost, and some confusion has been introduced into your work. Below are my suggestions on how to improve the paper.

 

I kindly ask the authors to avoid using the terms “Analysis and Optimization” in the title and consider shortening it. Is it necessary to include all those full terms in the title?

 

The abstract is too long. It contains more words than the number prescribed in the author guidelines.

 

Introduction

Lines 50-53 – I am not sure I understand how cognitive processes such as inspiration, aesthetics, and sense of place fit into the cultural elements of ecosystem services. Please elaborate and support with appropriate literature sources.

 

Lines 56-65 – It is not necessary to discuss methodologies in the introduction; perhaps move this to the methodology section so that later you can just refer to why you chose one of those methodologies or why you rejected the others.

 

Lines 65-75 – these are not definitions, as you clarified with the sentence “These studies offer diverse perspectives and methods for assessing CES in different urban contexts.” Please explain this part of the text more clearly.

 

The introduction does not clearly present the problem addressed by the paper. Please emphasise cultural ecosystem services more strongly. Explain the issue at the global level and relate it to your geographic area.

 

The objective of the paper is not highlighted, making it very difficult to follow the rest of the paper if it is omitted from the introduction.

 

Study Area

Figure 1 (right) – The dark green colour is not labelled to indicate what it represents.

I do not understand why only green spaces were studied, since cultural ecosystem services extend beyond the boundaries of green areas. You need to be clear about the aim of the paper for the further course of your research to be understood.

 

Figure 3 (line 165) needs a better explanation. The divisions provided in the text are not sufficient. The figure is quite complex and could greatly help in understanding what you investigated, but since the objective was missing, I advise the authors to delve deeper into the analysis of Figure 3.

 

Figure 4 is not legible; please increase the resolution.

It is unclear how you connected cultural identifications with park size, recreation, and aesthetics as ecosystem services. It is clear that monuments, historic houses, and similar elements have cultural identifications that provide certain services to people. However, how aesthetics as a cultural value fits in, and even less so, park size, is unclear. I believe this was already unclear in the introduction, which has now been confused.

 

“The size of a park influences its landscape diversity” (line 185) – which diversity exactly of CES diversity, ecological diversity, or vegetation diversity? Please be more precise to make the text later more reasonable.

 

You address the evaluation of the accessibility, NDVI vegetation index, park size, number of scientific papers, and art. It might be possible to connect all these but based on the introduction you had and undefined objectives, it is hard to understand the connection. Please remodel the text and define the methodology based on clearly stated guiding principles in the paper.

 

It is difficult to follow the Results if the previous steps are not well defined and explained. Please consider this suggestion.

 

The Discussion is written as if it is an extended conclusion, which is not good. Please compare your results with those from studies addressing similar or the same issues so that the results of this paper can be comparable with existing research. It is very important that the comparison is not only within the geographic area of Asia but also considers Europe, America, Australia, etc.

 

The Conclusion – How did you address the gap regarding the lack of development of a research framework and quantitative methods for CES supply and demand mentioned in the abstract?

 

Best regards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

although it was quite difficult to follow your text with the “track changes” option enabled, it is clear that you put a great deal of effort into carefully addressing all of my suggestions. The manuscript is now much clearer and better structured. Below, you will find a few additional suggestions for improvement, which I am confident you will handle successfully.

Lines 145–146: I’m afraid I didn’t fully understand the connection between “social needs–material needs.” Could you please clarify this relationship?

Lines 150–153: To clearly emphasise these as the study’s objectives, I suggest adding a brief explanation for each point, answering the question: “Why is this important?” This will help highlight these lines as the core aims of the paper.

Regarding your response to comment 9, I believe that the explanation you provided to me should also be briefly included in the Introduction section, at least in a few sentences. This would help clarify why the study focuses solely on urban parks, especially considering that cultural ecosystem services extend beyond the boundaries of green areas.

Table 1 – Park area and your response: “We clarified that larger parks typically support more complex landscape compositions and multifunctionality.”
Would it be possible to reach a compromise by removing the phrase “landscape compositions”? I believe that smaller parks can also provide multifunctionality, even if their composition is simpler.

Line 683 – Please check whether the correct term is “cities” or “city.”

 

Best regards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx