Living Cultural Infrastructure as a Model for Biocultural Conservation: A Case Study of the Maekha Canal, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper has some innovations, but still needs to be revised as follows:(1) The paper mentions the use of a variety of research methods, such as participatory design and ethnobotanical surveys, but when expounding these methods, they do not emphasise their innovation enough, and do not mention the possible limitations of these methods.(2) The study provides a transferable framework for other cities, but when it comes to how to replicate this model, the content is relatively general and lacks detailed operation steps and analysis of key elements.(3) Although the article emphasises the importance of community participation in the project, there is a lack of in-depth discussion on how to ensure the long-term sustainability of community participation.(4) The paper mainly focuses on community participation and the mining of cultural values, and the long-term monitoring and evaluation of ecological restoration effects are relatively weak.(5) It is mentioned that cultural ecosystem services are an important part of the research framework, but in actual research, the quantitative evaluation of the value of cultural ecosystem services is not in-depth enough, and there is a lack of specific indicators and data support.(6) The significance and contribution of the study are expounded in the discussion part, but there is little comparative analysis with other similar studies, which makes it difficult to highlight the uniqueness and advantages of this study.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

• Comment (1) & (2): Lack of emphasis on method innovation/limitations and general content on replicating the model.
• Response: We have extensively revised Chapter 2 (Materials and Methods) to detail our innovative integration of methods. The new Section 4.6 (Limitations) directly addresses methodological limitations. Section 4.5 (Future Opportunities) now clarifies that the process, not the form, is the transferable element of the model.
• Comment (3) & (4): Lack of discussion on long-term sustainability and ecological monitoring.
• Response: We have strengthened Section 4.3 (Biocultural Stewardship) and Section 4.4 (Challenges, Limitations, and Adaptive Management) to focus on long-term stewardship and governance. The need for longitudinal ecological monitoring is now acknowledged in the new Limitations section.
• Comment (5) & (6): CES evaluation not in-depth and little comparative analysis.
• Response: The lack of quantitative CES evaluation is acknowledged as a limitation and an area for future research in Section 4.6. The entire Discussion (Chapter 4) has been revised to include substantive comparative analysis with international literature.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The article addresses a topic in the fields of landscape architecture and urban ethnobotany, addressing an issue of great importance for the relations between municipalities, cultural services and urban ecology. Below are my comments which I suggest you include if you find them reasonable.

Abstract: The abstract is clear, well structured and provides a good presentation of the aims, methodology and results. However, I would suggest a more concise presentation of the main numerical results (e.g. real impact on water quality or community involvement).
Introduction: The introduction is very well articulated because it combines the literature, the local context and the research gap. For a critical review, it would be suggested to clarify more how this study differs methodologically from similar projects in other regions.
Materials and Methods
is very well described in detail but I would suggest to provide a rationale for how the young participants were selected.
The results are very well presented, scientific names are very accurately noted, but I would suggest to have some comparative metrics, before and after the intervention.
The discussion is very well marked with contemporary literature, I would suggest that you give some recommendations for longer-term strategies.
The conclusion is very well marked,
References, I would suggest that more literature be added.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their careful reading of our manuscript and for providing such insightful and constructive comments. Their feedback has significantly improved the quality and clarity of our work.

Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each comment raised by the reviewer.

Comment 1: Abstract: The abstract is clear, well structured and provides a good presentation of the aims, methodology and results. However, I would suggest a more concise presentation of the main numerical results (e.g. real impact on water quality or community involvement).

Response 1: We appreciate this suggestion. The Abstract has been revised to be more concise and now includes key numerical results and figures from our findings to better highlight the impact of the project.

Comment 2: Introduction: The introduction is very well articulated because it combines the literature, the local context and the research gap. For a critical review, it would be suggested to clarify more how this study differs methodologically from similar projects in other regions.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this excellent point. We have revised the Introduction to more clearly articulate the methodological differences and the unique aspects of our study compared to similar projects in other regions.

Comment 3: Materials and Methods: is very well described in detail but I would suggest to provide a rationale for how the young participants were selected.

Response 3: We have added a detailed rationale for the selection of participants in the revised Materials and Methods section to provide greater transparency and clarity.

Comment 4: The results are very well presented, scientific names are very accurately noted, but I would suggest to have some comparative metrics, before and after the intervention.

Response 4: Thank you for this suggestion. While a full comparative study with before-and-after metrics was beyond the scope of this initial study, we have added a new section in the Discussion to provide a qualitative comparison and highlight potential areas for future research, including the use of such metrics.

Comment 5: The discussion is very well marked with contemporary literature, I would suggest that you give some recommendations for longer-term strategies.

Response 5: We agree that including recommendations for longer-term strategies is crucial. We have significantly revised and expanded the Discussion section to include a new subsection dedicated to outlining these strategies for municipalities and cultural services.

Comment 6: The conclusion is very well marked.

Response 6: Thank you for this positive feedback.

Comment 7: References, I would suggest that more literature be added.

Response 7: We have reviewed our reference list and added several relevant contemporary sources to strengthen the theoretical and practical underpinnings of our manuscript.

We believe that our revisions have addressed all of the reviewer's concerns and have resulted in a much stronger manuscript. We hope the revised version is now suitable for publication in your esteemed journal.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I present below some minor suggestions that, in my opinion, could further strengthen this already exceptional work:

1. Participant Details:
   In the Methods section (2.2), the analysis would benefit from slightly more detail about the profile of the 20 interviewed community members (e.g., a brief note on gender distribution, age ranges, or occupations). This would add an extra layer of contextual depth.

2. Methodological Challenges:
   Participatory research is rarely free of challenges. A brief discussion of any obstacles encountered during community engagement (e.g., difficulties involving certain groups, managing conflicting expectations) and how they were overcome would enrich the Methods section and offer valuable practical insights for other researchers.

3. Figure 4 Legibility:
   The chord diagram (Figure 4) is a fantastic data visualization tool. However, the labels of some smaller plant families are difficult to read. I recommend checking the image resolution and, if possible, slightly increasing the font size to ensure legibility in the final publication.

4. Policy Connection:
   The "Future Opportunities" section (4.5) discusses applying the model to policy contexts. The discussion would be even stronger if the authors could link their proposal to specific existing policy frameworks or development plans in Thailand, making the recommendation more concrete.

Congratulations on such a thorough and well-executed research endeavor. This article has the potential to become a cornerstone reference in the field.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their careful and thoughtful reading of our manuscript. Their insightful comments and suggestions have been incredibly helpful in further strengthening this work. We are very grateful for the positive feedback and the time taken to provide these constructive points.

We have addressed each of their comments as follows:

Comment 1: In the Methods section (2.2), the analysis would benefit from slightly more detail about the profile of the 20 interviewed community members (e.g., a brief note on gender distribution, age ranges, or occupations). This would add an extra layer of contextual depth.

Response 1: Thank you for this excellent suggestion. We agree that providing more participant details adds valuable context. We have revised Section 2.2 to include a brief demographic overview of the key informants, including their age ranges and occupations.

Comment 2: Participatory research is rarely free of challenges. A brief discussion of any obstacles encountered during community engagement (e.g., difficulties involving certain groups, managing conflicting expectations) and how they were overcome would enrich the Methods section and offer valuable practical insights for other researchers.

Response 2: We appreciate this important point. We have now added a discussion of the methodological challenges we encountered and our strategies for managing conflicting expectations within the community. This information is now included in a new Limitations section to provide a more comprehensive and honest reflection of the research process.

Comment 3: The chord diagram (Figure 4) is a fantastic data visualization tool. However, the labels of some smaller plant families are difficult to read. I recommend checking the image resolution and, if possible, slightly increasing the font size to ensure legibility in the final publication.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this issue. We will ensure that a high-resolution version of Figure 4 is provided for the final publication. We have also increased the font resolution as much as possible, of the labels to ensure all details are clearly legible.

Comment 4: The "Future Opportunities" section (4.5) discusses applying the model to policy contexts. The discussion would be even stronger if the authors could link their proposal to specific existing policy frameworks or development plans in Thailand, making the recommendation more concrete.

Response 4: We agree completely with this suggestion. In the revised Section 4.5 (Future Opportunities), we have now explicitly linked our proposed model to specific existing national policy frameworks in Thailand related to green urbanism and cultural heritage preservation. This provides a more concrete and actionable set of recommendations.

We believe these revisions have significantly improved the manuscript. We hope the revised version is now suitable for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Clarify and deepen the conceptual framework. The paper introduces “Living Cultural Infrastructures” as “dynamic social‑ecological systems where plant heritage and community knowledge are co‑produced to reclaim degraded urban landscapes”. While innovative, the concept’s relationship to existing theories on urban green and cultural infrastructure remains underdeveloped. Include a discussion of the concept’s origins, parallels or differences with related frameworks, and its theoretical contribution.

2. Provide more transparent and detailed methodology. The study mentions purposive interviews with 20 long‑term residents and the use of design workshops, walks and observations, but details are missing regarding interview question design, sampling criteria, data saturation and analysis. It is unclear whether the 149 culturally significant plant species resulted from systematic plot surveys or an exhaustive inventory. Please describe the field methods (transects vs. free walks), species identification protocols, and how the data were processed.

3. Offer greater specificity about the participatory design process. Activities such as “Mae Kha Walk Along” and the “community storyteller” program are intriguing, yet the number of workshops, participant demographics, discussion topics and co‑design outputs are not described. Provide concrete examples of how community input shaped trail routing, artwork or plant selection.

4. Expand reflection on challenges and limitations. The paper briefly notes land tenure complexity and intergenerational knowledge erosion, but does not explore specific conflicts or solutions. For instance, how were divergent priorities (e.g., traditional livelihoods vs. flood mitigation) negotiated? Discuss challenges faced during implementation and adaptive strategies adopted.

5. Address ethical and intellectual property considerations. Ethnobotanical research requires informed consent and respect for community knowledge rights. Indicate whether research permits and consent were obtained and how the benefits of knowledge sharing are managed.

6. Improve figure quality and readability. The chord diagram linking uses and plant families lacks a detailed explanation and may be difficult for colour‑blind readers to interpret. Provide clearer legends, simplified visuals, and/or high‑resolution supplementary material. Explain how to read the diagram and ensure accessibility.

7. Correct language and stylistic errors. There are typos (e.g., “ethnobtanical”), double periods in citations (“Techakijvej et al., 2024..”), and minor subject‑verb agreement issues. Carefully proofread the manuscript and standardise the reference format.

8. Discuss adaptability of the model to other contexts. The conclusion notes that the model could be applied to other Thai or Southeast Asian cities. To strengthen this claim, outline the conditions required for adaptation and compare to similar initiatives in cities like Bangkok or Phuket.

9. Provide concrete policy and practice recommendations. The conclusion hints at national frameworks for sustainable tourism and heritage preservation, but remains general. Break down specific policy recommendations (e.g., land‑use regulations, community participation mechanisms) and future research directions (e.g., long‑term monitoring, biodiversity assessments).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the manuscript is understandable, but there are several aspects of the English language that require attention to ensure clarity, precision and consistency:

1. Spelling and Typographical Errors: Some words are misspelled—for example, “ethnobtanical” instead of “ethnobotanical” and “Green Chireta” instead of “Green Chiretta.” These need to be corrected.

2. Punctuation and Formatting: Double punctuation appears in places (e.g., “Techakijvej et al., 2024..”), and the spacing around parentheses or hyphens is inconsistent. Uniform punctuation is important for readability.

3. Subject–Verb Agreement: In a few instances, verb forms do not match their subjects (e.g., “ecological and cultural knowledge are co‑produced” might be better as “ecological and cultural knowledge is co‑produced”). Review the manuscript for agreement issues.

4. Sentence Structure and Clarity: Many sentences are long and complex, which can obscure the intended meaning. For example, the description of the conceptual framework or results could be broken into shorter, clearer sentences. Consider revising overly long sentences to avoid reader fatigue.

5. Use of Technical Terms: The terminology is generally accurate, but occasionally inconsistent (e.g., switching between “ethnobotanical survey” and “ethnobtanical assessment”). Consistent use of key terms will improve coherence.

6. Use of Passive vs. Active Voice: The manuscript uses both passive and active constructions. While passive voice is acceptable in scientific writing, overuse can make text vague. Using active voice when appropriate (e.g., “We conducted interviews...” instead of “Interviews were conducted...”) improves clarity and engagement.

7. Consistency in Tense: The manuscript switches between past and present tense. For example, the study uses past tense to describe methodology but then shifts unexpectedly to present tense in the same paragraph. Ensure consistent tense usage within sections.

8. Cohesion and Flow: Some paragraphs contain multiple ideas without clear transitions, making the narrative harder to follow. Adding transitional phrases or reorganising sentences can strengthen the logical flow.

9. Capitalisation: Proper nouns (e.g., names of communities, programmes) should consistently be capitalised, while common nouns should remain lowercase. There are instances of inconsistent capitalisation that should be addressed.

10. Abbreviations: When abbreviations (e.g., UGI for urban green infrastructure) are introduced, they should be defined at first use and used consistently thereafter.

In summary, while the manuscript conveys its ideas effectively, careful editing for spelling, grammar, punctuation and sentence structure would enhance readability and professionalism. Engaging a native English speaker or professional language editor could help polish the text and ensure it meets international publication standards.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 "Please see the attachment."

Manuscript ID: conservation-3828410 Title: Participatory Design as Urban Ecology: Co-Producing a Living Cultural Infrastructure on the Maekha Canal, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Dear Reviewer 4,

Thank you for your thorough, insightful, and highly constructive review of our manuscript. We are grateful for your time and expertise. We have found your comments to be extremely valuable and have substantially revised the manuscript to address every point you raised. We believe the paper is significantly stronger and clearer as a result.

Below, we provide a point-by-point response to your comments. All revisions in the manuscript text have been highlighted in red for your convenience.

1. Comment: Clarify and deepen the conceptual framework.

• Response: Thank you for this excellent suggestion. We agree that the relationship between ‘Living Cultural Infrastructures’ (LCI) and existing theories needed to be more explicit. We have addressed this by adding a new introductory paragraph to Section 1.4 (Conceptual Framework). This new text now defines LCI and directly compares and contrasts it with related frameworks like Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI) and Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), clarifying its unique theoretical contribution centered on co-production and biocultural heritage as foundational elements.

2. Comment: Provide more transparent and detailed methodology.

• Response: We agree completely that more methodological detail was needed. We have significantly expanded and restructured the entire Chapter 2 (Materials and Methods) to enhance transparency and rigor. Specifically:
• We have detailed the sampling criteria for informants and the use of a snowball strategy (Section 2.2).
• We have clarified the field methods, specifying the use of "free-roaming transect walks" and the goal of an "exhaustive inventory" rather than plot surveys (Section 2.2).
• We have added details on the interview protocol and the concept of theoretical saturation (Section 2.2).
• We have expanded the species identification protocols, mentioning the collection of voucher specimens and verification at the Chiang Mai University Herbarium (Section 2.2).
• We have provided more detail on the data analysis process, including the software used (NVivo) and the use of double coding to ensure inter-coder reliability (Section 2.4).

3. Comment: Offer greater specificity about the participatory design process.

• Response: Thank you for pushing for more concrete examples. To address this, we have revised Section 3.3 (Community Insights) to be more specific. We now state the number of themed walks (six) and primary co-design workshops (three). Most importantly, we have added a concrete example of how community input directly shaped the trail's design, describing how residents' identification of a sacred Bodhi tree area led to the design of a "ritual grove" with specific plantings. We have also added Table 2, which summarizes all engagement activities and participant groups.

4. Comment: Expand reflection on challenges and limitations.

• Response: We agree that this reflection needed more depth. We have expanded Section 4.4 (Challenges, Limitations, and Adaptive Management). We now include a specific example of how divergent priorities (traditional livelihoods vs. flood mitigation) were negotiated during workshops, leading to a hybrid design solution as an adaptive strategy.

5. Comment: Address ethical and intellectual property considerations.

• Response: This is a crucial point. We have revised Section 2.5 (Ethical Considerations and Informed Consent) to be more comprehensive. The section now explicitly includes a statement on equitable benefit-sharing, clarifying that the knowledge co-produced was returned directly to the community through the co-designed trail and interpretive materials.

6. Comment: Improve figure quality and readability.

• Response: Thank you for this important point on accessibility. While we will ensure all figures are submitted in high resolution for the final publication, we have substantially revised the caption for Figure 4 (Chord Diagram). The new caption now includes a detailed "How to read this diagram" section to explain its components and interpretation, and notes that an interactive version is available in the Supplementary Materials to aid accessibility.

7. Comment: Correct language and stylistic errors.

• Response: We apologize for these oversights. We have carefully proofread the entire manuscript to correct the noted typos (e.g., “ethnobotanical”), citation errors, and any other grammatical or stylistic issues.

8. Comment: Discuss adaptability of the model to other contexts.

• Response: To strengthen this claim, we have revised Section 4.5 (Future Opportunities). The text now includes a direct comparison with the Khlong Ong Ang initiative in Bangkok to contrast our bottom-up model with a top-down approach. We also now explicitly outline four key "enabling conditions" required for the successful adaptation of our model in other contexts.

9. Comment: Provide concrete policy and practice recommendations.

• Response: We agree this is a crucial step. We have revised the final subsection of Section 4.5 to break down our general suggestions into three concrete and actionable policy recommendations regarding land-use regulations, funding for community stewardship, and the institutionalization of participatory assessments.

 

We thank you once again for your time and for providing such a detailed and helpful roadmap for improving our work. We hope that the revised manuscript now fully addresses your concerns and is suitable for publication.

Sincerely,

all authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been modified as required, and the fonts of individual pictures can be enlarged.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for your valuable time and constructive feedback on our manuscript.

We have diligently revised the manuscript according to all the comments and suggestions provided. As part of this revision, we have enlarged the fonts within the figures to enhance their readability.

Furthermore, the manuscript has undergone an additional professional language review to improve its clarity and flow. We have also carefully checked the entire reference list to ensure all citations are relevant and accurate.

We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript and hope that it is now suitable for publication.

Thank you again for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Warong