Towards a “City in Nature”: Evaluating the Cultural Ecosystem Services Approach Using Online Public Participation GIS to Support Urban Green Space Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
see attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors are appreciative of the reviewer's constructive comments and suggestions. Please find attached our detailed response. We strongly believe that our work significantly benefits from your inputs and has evolved into a much higher quality version of itself.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I congratulate you on a very interesting and useful contribution. The major innovation here is the use of social media to provide quantifiable data on the ecosystem services and benefits of UGS. Your methods are well done and your analysis is very appropriate. I also really value your CEB framework which separates identities, experiences and capabilities as measurable elements. I do recommend significant revisions: 1) there are quite a few typographical errors (e.g.. lines 14 and 15 should be "makes" and "definitions") and awkward English grammar errors (e.g., use "encourage" not "implore" in 3 places). This is easily fixed by a good copy-editing by a fluent English editor. 2) There are a lot of papers out there that now use social media mining in the context of parks and conservation and you could do a more thorough job of citing/mentioning a few more of those. 3) I'm sure you are aware there is almost certainly a big age bias here as younger people are much more likely to use social media and online reviews. I don't see where you have have really discussed the implications of that bias.
Author Response
The authors are appreciative of the reviewer's constructive comments and suggestions. Please find attached our detailed response. We strongly believe that our work significantly benefits from your inputs and has evolved into a much higher quality version of itself.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed the issues raised by the reviewer.
One issue of concern that should be addressed prior to publication. The authors are encouraged to explain how the questions used in the 20 question online survey were developed.
Author Response
The authors appreciate the supportive comment of the reviewer. We have added the following texts to clarify how the questionnaire was developed (page 6 lines 136 - 141)
"The questionnaire survey was developed based on references made to previous studies related to quantifying and mapping CES, see for instance, Yee et al. 2021 [4] or Loc et al. 2021 [5]. The questionnaire was pre-tested at the site and further improved, especially in terms of wording. The final version of the questionnaire used in this study is included as the supplementary material. "
Reviewer 2 Report
Very nice job of revising and addressing my concerns.
Author Response
The authors appreciate very useful and constructive comments from the reviewer. We believe that our work has greatly benefited from your input. It has become a much-improved version.
