How Does Vegetation Landscape Structure of Urban Green Spaces Affect Cultural Ecosystem Services at Multiscale: Based on PLS-SEM Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a unique treatise on the structure of urban green space vegetation landscapes. Please add additional explanations about the following points.

1. This paper is considered and developed on the basis of Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES). Please add a little more detail about CES.

2. Multi-scale detection of critical landscape features that influence CES is stated as a first step in the study. Please provide a specific supplementary explanation of what multi-scale means in this case.

3. Zhengzhou city is selected as the research target. Please add a supplementary explanation as to why the city was selected.

4. The study states that large open spaces were the most important factor influencing residents' perceptions in particular. Please provide a supplementary explanation of what could be the reason for this.

5. In Vegetation Structures, it is stated that open vegetation structures were particularly beneficial in enhancing aesthetic services. Please explain why.

6. You mention the importance of improving the management of green vegetation. Please add an explanation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of „How does vegetation land structure of urban green spaces affect cultural ecosystem services…” (forests-2449018)

This paper presents an interesting study on the linkages between urban green spaces (parks, larger green areas) and cultural ecosystem services. Interestingly, the authors use objective landscape and park metrics to assess the types and qualities of urban green spaces, and try to correlate these objective measures to subjective valuations of cultural ecosystem services of residents and visitors. While I am generally impressed by the authors’ work, I have major reservations in regard to the structure, the clear conceptualization of cultural ecosystem services, and hedonic pricing. My general suggestion is to have a more clear understanding of cultural ecosystem services, management, and to leave out some parts of the paper. My specific comments are:

-         The paper does not seem to acknowledge that “cultural ecosystem services” is a very wide concept that includes various ecosystem services, such as aesthetics, spiritual, recreation, and existence values for biodiversity conservation. As such, there are significant trade-offs within the concept. For instance, aesthetics and biodiversity conservation are regularly in (sharp) conflict with recreation; infrastructure for recreation is in conflict with spiritual values of landscapes. My suggestion is therefore to stick to one or two elements of this broad concept, for instance by concentrating on the quality of recreation, and connect this to landscape and park attributes.

-         Secondly, the authors refer to recreation/cultural ES and the positive health impacts of green spaces. As the authors point out, recreation in green areas can be paramount to human health (esp. mental health). However, I suggest to refer only to the quality of recreation and landscape features, and leave out human health. It might well be that some landscape elements might be favorable for many recreation activities, but human health may require other elements (and presumable quietude, and thus fewer visitors).

-         Figure 1 mixes up some basic concepts of ecosystem services and valuation. Left, we find “subjective demand” – based on economic theory, preferences and, e.g., income shape demand. Therefore, the figure should somewhat be reversed. Instead, we find preferences – a determinant of demand – influenced by demand (instead of v.v.); also socioeconomic (factors?) are influences by regulating services? I strongly encourage the authors to refine their conceptual model, e.g., by referring to the cascade model of ecosystem services.

-         A major variable of the authors’ study is the (e)valuation of CES. Unfortunately, we do not find much about the underlying valuation study that accesses CES. The authors have to present the valuation of CES in detail, e.g.: questionnaire, survey design, response rates, descriptive evidence. Otherwise, the reader is left alone with guessing what this paper actually does, and how CES are valued.

-         While the statistical approach is certainly fine, the estimations results including the fit of the different models have to presented in detail. In chapter 3, the authors try to much in terms of presenting results, and the text is confusing as we find numerous indicators, CES variables, and landscape/park attributes. It would be much clearer if the authors would present only selected results (e.g., link recreation and aesthetic values to landscape elements and indicators). Otherwise, readers loose track of the manifold details of the analysis.

-         The paragraphs on the hedonic pricing correlations should be left out completely. Pursuing a hedonic price study is a paper on its own, and the authors can’t possibly draw any conclusions based on a study that only explore the correlations between greenness and property values.

-         Usually, one would expect that recreation is also a summarizing concept. We found out in our studies that recreation consists of various activities, that all need different types of landscape attributes, infrastructures etc. In addition, the socio-economics of recreationists is extremely important: families need other types of parks than runners or bicyclists. It would be good to be more careful about these different types of activities.

-         The quality of UGS is also influenced by various other attributes, such as subjective (and objective) safety, and crowding. How did the authors deals with these issues?

-         Chapter 4: please discuss whether your results can be transferred to other regions.

-         A couple of minor points:

o   Introduction, lines 37/38: these statements need references.

o   Figure 1 needs a references/source.

o   Line 55 (and at other places in the manuscript): which role has inequality in this paper. As far as I see, the paper does not deal with this topic; my suggestion is to leave it out.

o   Line 59: CES/health, would need a reference.

o   Page 3, top paragraphs: CES should be differentiated here (see my comments above).

o   Line 124: we termed the wording “local recreation” to refer to UGS that are visited on a regular basis (without extensive travel or overnight stays); the 500 meters distance is arbitrary, and would have to be based on a reference or empirical study.

o   Line 153: please indicate RMB also in USD.

o   Lines 164/165: please provide for the parks/UGS both hectares and %.

o   Line 184/185: the sentence suggests that cultural services and recreational… are separate things – needs clarification.

o   Line 243 and Table 3, botton line: in the text, it’s “clean”, in the table, it’s “neat”.

o   Chapter 3, CES: please provide some numbers how many people visit UGS, average distance traveled…

o   Line 324: what is “analysis process”?

o   Line 428: these are very different activities with different needs for infrastructures, so it is not surprising that there is no correlation.

o   Line 470: inequality was not tested in this paper, please leave out.

o   Line 644: What role does city planning play in designing green spaces? Is this all private?

English is fine, minor errors of grammar/idiom detected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf