Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa

Reviewer 1

Section

Comments

Response

Overall comments

The paper is interesting and well-written.

It is a very interesting case study from the Southern Hemisphere.

Thank you for your review and kind words. We appreciate your time and remarks.

Introduction

Just one practical remark:

Please consider providing explanation early in the paper what the ES abbreviation stands for. For example first mention - Ecosystem Services (ES)

Thank you for this comment. We have amended the text in the introduction to include ecosystem services before the abbreviation.

Reviewer 2

Section

Comments

Response

Overall

This paper should be revised to be less like a case report, but contribute more explicitly to international and theoretical literature. There is a brief discussion of “socioecological” system but the thread fails to be carried on beyond a surface. A more detailed discussion (with other connected concepts, such as nature-based solutions) is necessary to better situate the paper in the theoretical literatures:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213305421000205

https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/120144

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X15001715

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652620350940

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26799128

Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the manuscript in line with your comment and have added narrative around the various concepts and theories you suggested. We have included all 5 articles you proposed, and have added several others.

Abstract 

“This was achieved by establishing who the beneficiaries…” this is quite vague and unclear how this study is conducted.

We have altered the text to read “ This was achieved by establishing who benefits from freshwater ecosystem services”. We hope this improves clarity of the sentence.

Introduction

Line 41: “These parks are key elements of the social-ecological landscape where biophysical, social, economic and cultural factors are inextricably intertwined”—the concept social–ecological should not only appear once. Go to details for the terminologies brought up.

We have expanded the text to include several paragraphs on social-ecological systems, both in the introduction and later in the manuscript where we explore areas for future research.

Materials and methods

Data gathering and analyses

Line 135: “GIS”— I do not think citations are needed here, but more importantly, how this is performed in this study. Now it is very vague with only saying “GIS”.

The portion of the sentence referring to GIS has been removed. We have also reordered paragraphs in this section to improve the flow and reduce vagueness.

Figure 2: I do not think this figure is necessary. Instead, there should be a figure on how accessibility score is integrated with the survey to measure ESV, and how they are integrated into GIS (what types of data and how they are measured).

Thank you for this comment. This figure has been moved to the appendix. Some additional narrative has been added to the text in line with your comment.

Results

Figure 3: The ESV should have a unit, or how it is comparable to other studies?

We have adjusted the figure to include the units.

Discussion

Levels of accessibility

Line 458: “economically disadvantaged groups [75…” –I do not think this study differentiates socioeconomic status among respondents, so this arguments cannot be substantiated by the results.

We have moved this text to the limitations section of the study as we did not explore socioeconomic class in the survey but would be remiss to not mention this as a key consideration for managers of urban national parks to consider.

Conclusions

Is there any implications beyond a single case to the global relevance of cultural ESV?

Thank you for this final concept. We have added text throughout the manuscript detailing the global relevance of cultural ESV and the relational values these hold.

Reviewer 3

Section

Comments

Response

Throughout

Does Land use terminal commas?

We could not find notes to in the instructions to authors to determine whether the serial comma is used or not. We have reached out to the editor to confirm.

Title

The word “exploring” is rather vague. Can you change the title to declare what you found? Perhaps “The value of cultural ecosystems services….”

Thank you for this suggestion. We have changed the title in line with your proposal.

Abstract

Line  27: this cultural-service study…. OR change to “This cultural-service study can guide management….”

We have applied this amendment in text. The new sentence reads “This study of cultural ecosystem services study can guide management to ensure equitable and sustainable ecosystem service provision to all city residents.” 

Introduction

Line 39: need to define this acronym when the full phrase is first used.

We have amended the text in the introduction to include ecosystem services before the abbreviation.

Line 42: Their refers to what? Factors or parks?

We have changed “their” to rather reflect the “urban parks” under discussion.

Line 43: Perhaps try to use ES for ecosystem service and ESs for ecosystem services?

Thank you for this suggestion. We have amended this throughout the document and have ESs to indicate the plural (ecosystem services).

Line  48: for people to visit urban parks…

We have amended the text accordingly.

Line 52, 59: are you using the acronym here or not?

This has been amended to include the acronym.

Line 74: this what?

We have added “heterogeneity over different scales” to clarify what is meant here.

Lines 77-79: review grammar of this sentence

We have addressed the grammar and altered sentences in this paragraph to improve readability.

Before line 81: I would like to see a more thorough review of what other researchers have found regarding landscape factors, values, importance, etc. As it stands, this seems like a very exploratory study that does not build much on theory or past studies.

We have added additional literature around socio-ecological systems and relational values to elucidation of the value of the interactions between people and nature.

Line 89: why didn’t you address these demographic and societal factors?

We have removed this statement from the manuscript in line with other reviewer comments.

Line 91: please define green and blue infrastructure.

We have added some examples of both infrastructure categories in the introduction.

Line 95: please describe some other benefits of this type of study, with citations.

We have removed this sentence from the introduction, and rather added additional narrative to various sections of the manuscript relating to the benefits of this type of study.

Materials and methods

Study site

Lines 99-101: your writing suggests that residents participate in these activities and implies that non-residents don’t?

We have added “ Non-residents, comprising national and international visitors, make up the remaining 1.2 million visitors to the TMNP annually.” to mark the distinction between residents and non-residents.

Line 109: are these distinct sections adjoining? Word choice?

We have removed the term “adjoining” to remove any confusion.

Line 121: end sentence after Cape Town.

We have amended the sentence in line with your comment.

Material and methods

Data gathering and analyses

Introduction: what theories can you build upon? Which conceptual frameworks helped you decide which questions to ask?

We have restructured and augmented the introduction to more clearly highlight the emerging bodies of theory and associated frameworks on cultural ecosystem services, relation values and rapidly urbanising cities in the global south.

Line 140: Please add a sentence (or a citation) to describe how this stakeholder analysis worked.

We have clarified how we obtained the details for the organized groups surveyed in this study.

Line 161: you can delete “a total of”

This has been deleted.

Line 185: if this is in the methods, these should be in the past tense.

We have ensured that all sentences in the methods section are written in the past tense.

Line 188: sentence grammar needs fixing

We have corrected the grammar in the sentence and throughout the document. This will improve readability of the manuscript.

Line 216: please mention the alpha threshold used.

This has been added to the text.

Results

Characteristics of respondents

Line 220: please use the active voice whenever possible: “We received 265 complete entries…” Also, can delete “a total of”

Both amendments have been made. A thorough review for active voice has been undertaken.

Line 226: fewer than…

This has been corrected in text.

Line 221: was there a statistical test used here?

This sentence has been adapted to remove any confusion. The new sentence now reads “ There was a relatively even distribution of male and female respondents, totaling 139 (52.5%) and 126 (47.5%), respectively.”

Results

Influence of section

Line 290: put this in the methods section. Also, if you used the Kruskal-Wallis test throughout, you can just state that in the methods and talk about ‘tests for differences’ in the results.

We have changed the text in the results to read “test for difference” to reflect your comment.

Discussion

Water as a cultural ecosystem service

Line 347: can you elaborate on the “in keeping with the current literature”?

We have changed this text to rather read “… aligned with similar studies…” and “…supported by…”

You can describe some of these studies in the introduction to provide an overview of the kinds of issues to expect for this kind of study.

We have added additional text and references to the introduction which hopefully addresses this comment.

Line 368: please add to the limitations section

We have added a limitations section to the end of the discussion.

Line  372: don’t some groups have special spiritual associations with particular landscapes or features?

We have adapted the text to better reflect these spiritual connections with landscape features. The new sentence reads “However, some cultural services such as spiritual and religious values are not intuitively associated with any particular landscape attribute [27; 34; 56] or feature, despite some individuals, groups or communities holding strong spiritual connections with water and water-related features (65).”

Line  376: also add or move to limitations section

These sentences have been moved to the limitations section as per your suggestion.

Discussion

Identified trade-offs and tensions

Line 381: can delete first 6 words of sentence

These words have been deleted.

Discussion

State of water features

Line 403: work [..] which states…

Corrected in text.

Discussion

Proximity to park

Lines 430s: a long-standing theory in geography is the distance-decay curve, which supports your findings.

Thank you for this comment. We have added some references which speak to distance decay.

Discussion Levels of accessibility

Line 463: do these areas have other amenities that allow users to perceive that they are getting value for their fees?

We have made alterations in the text to address your comment.

Please collect management implications into a discrete section. Please add other relevant recommendations too.

A section on management implications and interventions has been added to the end of the discussion.

Please add a section on ideas for further research.

A section at the end of the discussion has been added that details potential areas for future research.

Reviewer 4

Section

Comments

Response

Overall

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. It is a quite interesting paper which highly contributes to the understanding of the cultural ecosystem services of freshwater ecosystems from the perspective of national park users.

The technical, structural and formal quality of the manuscript is really good where the paper reflects onto the importance of such approaches to be applied into the management implications where insights gained can guide management to ensure equitable and sustainable ecosystem service provision to all city residents.

I enjoyed reading this paper and look forward to seeing it published.

Thank you for your review and kind words. We appreciate your time and remarks.

Reviewer 3

Section

Comments

Response

Overall comments

This paper can be published.

Thank you for your time in this second review. This is very much appreciated.

Reviewer 3

Section

Comments

Response

Overall

Thank you for addressing most of my earlier review comments.

Thank you for your time in this second review. This is very much appreciated.

Overall

Thanks for addressing the conceptual issues that were not included in the earlier draft. That addition provides a better rationale for the study.

Your suggestion for greater consideration of concepts and theories was a good one. We feel these additions have strengthened the manuscript.

Introduction

Line 18: This objective was achieved….

The word ‘objective’ has been added.

Introduction

Line 23 ,and benefit from, (second comma)

This comma has been added.

Introduction

Line  64: remove brackets of ESs

Removed.

Throughout

Line 74 and other spots: You speak of the Global South; can you very briefly mention how the topic of urban parks differs in general from urban parks in the Global North?

We have added a brief section to speak to the Global South context (see Lines 535 – 540).  

Discussion

Line 581: was provided to respondents?

We have altered the text to reflect your suggestion.

Discussion

Line 597: good point.

Thank you.

Areas of future research

Areas of future research:

1.      how might these ESs change over time? In general? In Cape Town?

2.      This section can be condensed somewhat

We have added consideration for how ESs generation and provision may change over time, as well as how relational values to ESs may change.

We have also made this section more succinct.