Uncovering Urban Green Space (Dis)Investment Through Cultural Ecosystem Service Potential: A Case Study of Szeged, Hungary

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the revised version of the article is definitely better than the previous one. Thank you for addressing my comments/suggestions for corrections. The only thing I did not find was an explanation of what it means that the observations were conducted three times, at what time? I accept the other corrections. In my opinion, the article deserves to be published, but with reference to the above comment.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment, we have further expanded the methods section in order to clarify the field observation process. To shortly summarise, in the span of seven days (between October 8 and October 15, 2022), we observed each of the 19 sample areas three times, on three different days, in diverse time periods, including morning and afternoon observation sessions in the case of every sample area. An observation session included the evaluation of the potential cultural ecosystem service values and the assessment of the number of visitors and their activities in a five-minute period.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focuses on Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) as a key indicator for revealing disparities in urban green space investment and management. It employs non-monetary field observation methods to assess the CES value of green spaces. Through multivariate statistical analyses—including principal component analysis, factor analysis, and cluster analysis—the research systematically examines the collected data. Based on potential CES values, urban green spaces in Szeged are categorized into four types: Downtown Squares, Suburban Playgrounds, Central Parks, and Informal Green Spaces. Significant variations exist among these green space types in terms of potential CES values, visitor numbers, usage patterns, and investment levels. These differences not only influence how green spaces are utilized but also serve as significant indicators of investment inequality.  

I find that the paper falls short in providing a clear conclusion. It does not allow for direct determination of the actual investment value across different green space types, nor does it offer clear insights into which type holds greater investment potential. Additionally, while the paper's most notable innovation lies in its questionnaire-based approach, it fails to present the detailed questionnaire itself. This omission makes it impossible to assess the characteristics of the collected data. Moreover, relying solely on short-term visitor counts as a primary metric may introduce significant measurement bias issues.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. To clarify the conclusions of our paper regarding the investment values and potentials of the different urban green space types, we have added a new paragraph in the discussion and conclusions section. This describes the high amount of investment that city centre squares and central parks have already received; the unique possibilities of investment pathways of suburban playgrounds; and finally, the investment potential of the underdeveloped informal green spaces. To further highlight the importance of the environmental injustices connected to these investment differences, we modified figure 8 and have moved it into the discussion section. This enabled us to compare the finding of our case study to the review of Kronenberg et al. (2020) regarding the environmental injustices affecting the attractiveness or cultural ecosystem service values of urban green spaces. Finally, we agree that a key limitation of our paper is that we only used field observation methods, without further data gathering tools (like questionaries or interviews). However, the findings of this experimental case study reveal consistent tendencies that could serve as a foundation for future research focusing on urban green spaces, their ecosystem services and the environmental injustices related to these. Hence, we have expanded the conclusions section emphasizing the limitations and the wide range of possibilities to further expand the research on this topic.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is ready for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment.

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been fully revised according my previous comments

Author Response

Thank you for your comment.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the authors’ response has not fully alleviated my concerns about the manuscript, both the academic editor and the authors have confirmed that the study did not use a questionnaire-based approach. How the data were collected and their authenticity and accuracy verified, however, remains unclear. I recommend that these methodological details be explicitly addressed in the final published version to enhance reproducibility. I wish you continued success with your research.

Author Response

Comment: Although the authors’ response has not fully alleviated my concerns about the manuscript, both the academic editor and the authors have confirmed that the study did not use a questionnaire-based approach. How the data were collected and their authenticity and accuracy verified, however, remains unclear. I recommend that these methodological details be explicitly addressed in the final published version to enhance reproducibility. I wish you continued success with your research.

Response: 

Thank you for your comment and for your continuous feedback. We have modified and expanded the methodological section in order to clarify your concerns regarding the data collection methodology. A short justification of the method was also added: as a non-interventional method, field observation has not influenced visitor behaviours and attitudes. Moreover, in the new version of the manuscript, both data sheets can be found in Appendix A, which we used during the field observation. We hope this enhances the reproducibility of our study. Finally, we have expanded the limitations section highlighting the subjective nature of field observations. All updates and amendments were made with tracking the changes within the manuscript.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The problem statement in the introduction should be expanded and strengthened.
The research questions only refer to investments, even though we know very little about the types of investments. What about the other subtopics (cultural ecosystem services, visitation patterns, form of usage, etc.)? Research questions should be reformulated covering all subtopics introduced in the study.
The theoretical background lacks a detailed description of cultural ecosystem services (what they mean, what types there are, etc.).
Throughout the study, the author only discusses the issue of investments in general terms, without presenting what types of CES investments exist and are possible. It would also be important to present whether there are differences in investments between the delineated green space clusters.
Methodology
More information is needed on the process and rationale for selecting green areas (size, type, etc.).
Was October the right time for the survey? This should be substantiated in some way.
It should be emphasized in the study that the methodology applies to the assessment of the physical environment, otherwise, the assessment of social issues would be fundamentally inadequate from a methodological point of view (lack of questionnaire surveys, and interviews).
The international occurrence or applicability of the (locally modified) methodology should be discussed.
Results
The time period is unclear to number of visitors (see Figure 4 or line 282). Three occasions between October 8 and 15 as introduced in the methodology. Fifteen visitors a day? Is this sample size sufficient to produce relevant results?
It is unclear and only mentioned in passing in the methodology where the data on the age of visitors comes from.
It is not clear what cultural ecosystem services we are talking about, or whether there are differences between the clusters in their composition. More specific examples are needed in the introduction of scientific results.
Discussion and conclusions
The research results are not placed in an international context. This should be explained in more detail in the discussion section.

Author Response

Thanks for your review. Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID：land-3733577

Title：Uncovering urban green space (dis)investment through cultural ecosystem service potential: a case study of Szeged, Hungary

The article investigates the value of cultural ecosystem services (CES) through a survey on urban green space visits, aiming to measure the differences between invested and non-invested green spaces. While the research topic is highly relevant, the study fails to adequately address its two key research questions: (1) based on their potential cultural ecosystem service values, what are the differences between investment and disinvestment of urban green spaces? (2) if there are any major discrepancies, why do these form and how can be these processes mitigated or tackled?

First, the central question—whether urban green spaces are worth investing in—depends on a cost-benefit analysis. However, the authors present no data on investment costs. While they use charts to demonstrate that central parks and squares have exceptionally high CES values and visitor numbers, they provide no monetary valuation. This is problematic because land values are markedly higher in city centers, whereas green space development is cheaper in peripheral areas—an issue that fundamentally involves market equilibrium.

Second, the methodology remains unclear. Although the authors mention principal component analysis (PCA), factor analysis, and cluster analysis, they do not explain their implementation, present detailed results, or discuss validity checks and robustness tests.

Additionally, the classification of green space attributes—(A) activities performed, (B) environmental quality, (C) facilities, and (D) security—appears to draw from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) framework. However, the MEA defines ecosystem services as provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services, not just cultural services. This raises concerns about theoretical and analytical misalignment.

The findings suggest that central urban green spaces attract more visitors, implying greater investment value. Yet, as the authors themselves acknowledge, higher population density in city centers naturally leads to more visitors. This outcome is unsurprising, even without the study. A more meaningful contribution would have been to estimate an optimal investment level for central green spaces.

The visual presentation also requires improvement. The results could have been more effectively communicated by integrating them into Figure 3.

Finally, the survey design lacks transparency. The authors do not specify how the questionnaire was distributed or whether the sample was representative, undermining the reliability of the findings.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for your review. Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article is an interesting study that contributes new knowledge on the cultural ecosystem services potential. It presents the results of research on urban green areas in the post-socialist city of Szeged, Hungary. Field observations were carried out in 19 sample areas. The results of the research were subjected to statistical analysis.

The structure of the paper is generally correct. The article opens with an introduction that clearly presents the research problem and the aim of the study. This is followed by a description of the theoretical background, materials and methods, and the results of the research. Finally, the results are discussed, limitations and research perspectives are addressed, and the paper is summarised and conclusions are drawn.

However, I have a few comments, suggestions for additions and corrections.

1. I suggest adding ‘green infrastructure’ to the keywords.
2. I suggest supplementing the description of the city of Szeged with data on the city's area and urban green areas broken down into categories (e.g. in the form of a table).
3. I suggest adding a map of Europe/Hungary showing the location of the city of Szeged.
4. In the description of the methods, please add information on when exactly the observations were carried out, what does three times mean, at what time? Why was the period from 8 October to 15 October 2022 chosen?
5. The results (p. 8) mention that 860 users of green areas were examined after field observations. Please provide additional information on this. What does ‘users were examined’ mean? There is no information about this earlier (in the description of the methods).
6. On page 10, there is a reference to Figure 3. However, Figure 3 is on pages 8 and 10. The latter figure has probably been numbered incorrectly. It should be Figure 4. The sample areas... If I am correct, the following figures are also incorrectly numbered. Please correct this, as well as the references to these figures in the text.
7. I also wonder why no analysis of the accessibility of green areas using GIS was carried out. Please comment on this issue, especially since on page 13 there is a reference to ‘the amount of accessible green space for one person...’.
8. The literature review and discussion are limited. I suggest expanding these elements and referring to new publications on the subject from Central Europe, e.g.:

Derek M., Kulczyk S., Grzyb T., Woźniak E. (2025), ‘This is my magical place here’: Linking cultural ecosystem services and landscape elements in urban green spaces. Ecosystem Services 71, 2025, 101699, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101699

Kulesza, P., Lubiarz, M., Kociuba, P., Dubis, L., & Solski, M. (2025). Cultural Ecosystem Services of historic parks in context of their functionality and spatial organisation by the example of Lublin, Lviv, and London. Landscape Online, 100, 1134. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.2025.1134

9. I suggest enriching the text with a few photographs showing examples of the interiors of the green areas studied; alternatively, they could be added as an appendix.

Finally, I would like to point out that the work submitted for review is valuable and deserves to be published, but after corrections/additions have been made.

Author Response

Thanks for your review. Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting paper presenting the study concerning important problem of land cover /use changes in relation with wildfire occurrence in reference to precipitation amount and weather conditions (e.g. hot periods, prolonged periods of drought) - important as regards the need for climate change adaptation / mitigation.

The aim of this study is not directly formulated in the paper. However, a reader can conclude, that the study presents the recognition of monitoring land cover / use change dynamics with reference to wildfire occurrences with regard to weather / climatic conditions, including recognition of linear trends,  in the period 2001-2020 for all administrative regions in Italy. This research is based on monitoring data and monitoring study conducted by well-known and widely applicated methodical approach (so, the scientific value of this paper is not very high), but providing valuable quantitative data in results (it is valuable). Some assumptions (in the research) are interesting and partly innovative; especially: taking into account all administrative regions (not ecoregions) in the big country (havig various environmental / climatic conditions and land use /cover - representative for southern Europe), long period of conducting measurements (preliminar possibility to recognise trends of changes), and a special composition of tools to conduct this study and get outcomes (spectroradiometer MODIS + non-parametric Mann-Kendall trend test, Sen's slope for recognition of linear trends, Pearson's correlation method). Results are elaborated very well; they are helpful for decisionmakers, land managers, land authorities.

The paper is, in the most, substantively well elaborated (clearly written, well illustrated, especially valuable: Fig. 2 with flowchart of the study, Table 2, Fig. 7 and others), however the formatting of the article is not very good (troubles with line numbering).

Detailed comments

Ad ABSTRACT - aim of studies is not directly formulated.

Ad 1. INTRODUCTION - literature review is OK.; contributions (last paragraph) are rather aims of the study (have character of aims) - ? Please, formulate clearly aim /aims of the study

Ad. 3. RESULTS, 4. DISCUSSION and 5. CONCLUSIONS. The Authors have written that the progressive expansion of woodlands and forests was observed (in many parts of regions) and it may likely increase fire proneness during hot and prolonged dry periods... Such statements need comments... Incerase of woodlands and forests in land cover is very good for biodiversity , landscape naturalness, carbon sequstration... Leaving such statements without explanation may cause acting against forest and woodland increases by governments and managers in regions (in favor of types of land use / cover more controlled / ttransformed by man).

 

Author Response

Thanks for your review. Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf