-->PONE-D-25-21587-->-->A Comprehensive Decision-making Framework for Prioritizing Carbon Management in Complex Urban Landscape-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yoo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 08 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tianheng Shu, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by Korea Environment Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI) through "Climate Change R&D Project for New Climate Regime.", funded by Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE) (2022003560006)”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. We note that Figure 1, 2, 3 and 4 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1, 2, 3 and 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: This paper presented a spatial decision-making framework for the urban carbon sequestration management based on a novel Carbon Management Prioritizing Index (CMPI) and the ternary plots. The CMPI integrates the spatial data on vegetation C storage, soil C storage, net C uptake, and soil C storage potential and complete the diagnosis procedure and the ternary plots implements site-specific C management strategies. This framework was applied to a case study in Suwon, South Korea. Generally, this research is interesting and the framework can be applicable to urban C management. The writing-up of this manuscript is generally acceptable, but some clarifications and improvements are still necessary. My particular comments are as follows.

1. What is the minimum grid size for a landscape simulation? This one should be discussed in details because it concerns the balance between computation load and accuracy.

2. All equations should have their number.

3. Is whether ‘Section 2.2 Case Study’ here suitable or not? Is the framework associated with case study? My understanding is that Case study only demonstrates the application of this framework.

4. English and presentations should be significantly improved for clear and correct statements or expressions

Reviewer #2: This study presents a spatially explicit framework for diagnosing and prioritizing urban carbon management using a newly developed Carbon Management Prioritizing Index (CMPI) and ternary plots. Overall, the study is timely and policy-relevant. I particularly appreciate the integration of both vegetation and soil carbon components and the use of high-resolution data in a highly urbanized context. However, several issues need to be addressed to improve the scientific rigor, policy applicability, and clarity of the manuscript. I recommend major revision before further consideration for publication.

1. Silt and clay content is an intrinsic parent-material property that cannot be manipulated by urban green-space management on policy-relevant timescales. Thus, I think that including it in a “management prioritisation index” (CMPI) is conceptually invalid. Moreover, the use of silt and clay content alone as a proxy for soil carbon potential is overly simplistic and may overlook key edaphic factors (e.g., pH, bulk density, microbial activity). In addition, due to its high spatial heterogeneity at the fine scale, silt and clay content receives the highest weight (>0.4), while vegetation C stock, the only component directly manageable by urban forestry, is down-weighted. The outcome is a mathematically tractable but ecologically meaningless index.

2. I am confused that high-biomass forests receive low CMPI scores and are consequently ranked as “low priority”, whereas low-biomass roadside plantings receive high CMPI scores. The authors implicitly assume that marginal C gains are automatically larger where current stocks are low, but supply no cost–benefit or marginal abatement cost curve to support this assumption. In fact, mature forests often provide the largest, cheapest avoided emissions simply by conserving existing carbon; ignoring this principle undermines the entire prioritisation logic.

3. A unit loss in vegetation C is compensated by an equivalent gain in soil C or NEP. In reality vegetation removal often accelerates soil C loss, producing positive feedbacks. The linear model ignores the inter-process coupling and nonlinear thresholds and synergies, which is a primary error in ecological modeling.

4. Soil C data are taken from the 1 km Global Soil Organic Carbon map (GSOC v1.6) and resampled to 30 m with bilinear interpolation. Interpolation cannot create new information; the “30 m” soil layer still carries 1 km effective support. The validation R2 = 0.84 derives from 121 national soil samples that were never designed to test 30 m spatial accuracy. Using this as evidence of high-resolution reliability is misleading.

5. GPP and Reco models are calibrated with Mt. Taehwa eddy-covariance data (a peri-natural forest on rugged terrain 400 m a.s.l.) and applied to inner-city grids where surface energy balance, aerosol load, irrigation, and heat-island effects differ drastically. No site-specific validation is provided for Suwon’s urban land covers. Systematic over-estimation of NEP is highly probable.

6. Roadside plots cluster near the centre of the ternary diagram and are declared “multi-dimensionally degraded”. Given their young age, small size and engineered substrates these plots are expected to start with low biomass; without a temporal baseline the authors cannot demonstrate a decline (degradation). The interpretation is therefore a logical fallacy.

7. Forest edges exhibit 34 % higher CMPI than interiors (p < 0.001). The authors immediately prescribe “buffer zones”, yet provide no evidence that the CMPI difference corresponds to measurable biomass loss or soil C reduction.

8. Urban parks show a weak negative correlation (r = –0.27) between patch size and CMPI. The authors conclude that “smaller patches need intervention”. However, small parks are often sport fields or playgrounds with intentionally low biomass; again the paper confers a management necessity onto a land-use pattern that is by design.

9. The manuscript closes with generic advice: “create buffer zones”, “reduce soil compaction”, “apply multi-layer planting”. No cost estimates, no trade-off analyses, no references to municipal codes or land-opportunity prices (USD > 1 000 m2 in Suwon) are provided. Such recommendations are not actionable and fall well short of PLOS ONE’s requirement that papers offer “evidence-based, practical solutions”.

Reviewer #3: The results and discussion section is too weak to support the final conclusion in this manuscript. in contrast, the author put too many details on the materials/methods section, which make the structure of this manuscript is unbalanced. Also, all figures are in a limited quality. I don't think the current manuscript meet the standard of the submitted journal.

Reviewer #4: This manuscript presents an interesting framework for a Carbon Management Priority Index (CMPI) that integrates vegetation, soil, and productivity indicators at fine resolution for urban carbon management. Several issues need to be addressed:

1. The manuscript relies on multi-resolution datasets that are all resampled to 30 m, yet the methods for resampling are insufficiently explained. Please clarify exactly how each dataset was resampled, justify the choices, and provide an assessment of how resampling errors may affect CMPI outputs.

2. The refinement of land-use data from 1 m to 0.25 m resolution also needs stronger justification (Line 201-210). Since the final analysis is conducted at 30 m, it is unclear whether this refinement adds meaningful information beyond additional processing. Please provide quantitative evidence that this improves classification accuracy and ultimately influences CMPI estimates.

3. In Section 2, the roadside vegetation correction model, the U-Net classification, and the digital soil mapping are described only briefly, without sufficient information on model type, input features, training and validation procedures, hyperparameters, or performance metrics. These details are critical for reproducibility and should be provided, at least in supplementary materials.

4. The discussion does not sufficiently situate CMPI in relation to existing indices and prior studies. A more explicit comparison with other urban carbon assessment methods would help demonstrate what CMPI adds, both in terms of input variables, weighting strategies, and management relevance. Even a qualitative comparison, if quantitative replication is not feasible, would make the contribution more convincing.

5. Line428-429, the correlation reported between patch size and CMPI (r = –0.27, p < 0.001) is weak. This does not justify the strong claim that smaller patches “generally” had higher CMPI values.

Reviewer #5: Dear Authors,

I have read carefully the manuscript entitled "A Comprehensive Decision-Making Framework for Prioritizing Carbon Management in Complex Urban Landscape" submitted by Seo et al. to PLOS One.

This manuscript seeks to introduce a novel decision-making framework designed to evaluate existing carbon storage and sequestration and to identify areas exhibiting deteriorated carbon dynamics.

Based on my review, I find that this manuscript addresses a highly relevant topic, given the urgent need for carbon neutrality strategies in urban areas. The proposed framework offers a practical and scientifically sound tool to support public policies for carbon management in urban landscapes. However, several issues require careful attention before the manuscript can be considered for publication. The key points are outlined below:

1) MATERIALS AND METHODS

1.1 The authors use EVI, LSWI, PAR, Tair, and VPD, but they do not discuss why these indices were chosen instead of others (e.g., NDVI, drought index, soil moisture).

1.2 In the Reco equation, the parameters a, b, and c are introduced, but their values, fitting ranges, or calibration methods are not provided. This omission limits the reproducibility of the study.

1.3 The reported R◯2 = 0.76 indicates a reasonably good model fit, but it is not particularly strong. The authors do not discuss the limitations of the model, such as potential biases related to seasonality, differences among vegetation types, or the influence of extreme events.

1.4 Although the authors indicate the units for GPP, they do not do the same for Reco in the corresponding formula.

1.5 It is only implied, but not clearly stated, whether the calculation is performed on a daily or hourly basis.

1.6 Validation using only one flux tower (Mt. Taehwa) may introduce bias. Consequently, the model may not generalize well across different land-cover types.

1.7 The authors defined 30 m as the threshold, but they did not justify this choice. It is unclear whether this value was based on previous literature, the resolution of the datasets, or a methodological decision.

2) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

2.1 Figure 3c shows NEP ranging from –0.69 to 16.95 t C ha-1 yr-1. Could the authors clarify the negative value?

2.2 The authors state that CMPI is “more effective” than previous approaches, but the comparison appears mainly descriptive. Could the authors provide a quantitative comparison or benchmarking against existing indices?

2.3 How do the authors assess the propagation of uncertainties from the GSOC data and the GPP/Reco modeling into the CMPI values?

2.4 The results represent a specific time period, but urban carbon dynamics can vary under extreme climate events. Do the authors plan to validate the CMPI using longer time series or under climate change scenarios?

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Hanqing Wu

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

-->PONE-D-25-21587R1-->-->The urban green carbon index (UGCI): A spatial framework for suggesting urban carbon management-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Yoo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 13 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

-->If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tianheng Shu, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The reviewers have further raised some minor concerns. Please make some changes to your paper accordingly.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: The authors have well addressed our comments and improved the quality of this manuscript. I have no more technical comments.

Reviewer #2: This study presents a novel, spatially explicit decision-support framework that integrates vegetation carbon storage, soil carbon storage, net carbon uptake, and soil carbon storage potential into a composite “Urban Green Carbon Index (UGCI)”. Coupled with ternary plot analysis, the framework provides a diagnostic tool and a basis for prescribing site-specific management strategies for urban carbon sequestration. The research addresses a scientifically significant and policy-relevant topic. The methodological approach is robust, combining high-resolution remote sensing, modeling, and machine learning techniques. The case study in Suwon, South Korea, is well-designed, and the results are presented and analyzed thoroughly. The authors have undertaken extensive and thoughtful revisions in response to the reviewers’ comments. Key improvements include the conceptual refinement of the index (renaming from CMPI to UGCI), strengthened methodological justifications, enhanced validation and contextualization through comparison with an existing index, more nuanced interpretation of results, and clearer acknowledgment of limitations. These revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript's clarity, rigor, and impact.

While the manuscript is of high quality, the following minor points could further enhance it:

1. In Section 2.2.4 or the Discussion/Limitations, consider adding a sentence explicitly stating that soil texture is used as a feasible proxy indicator for physical carbon stabilization potential, acknowledging that future iterations of UGCI could incorporate more direct measures of soil carbon saturation deficit or stabilization capacity as such data become available at relevant scales.

2.The authors correctly acknowledge the limitation of using a single flux tower for model validation and extrapolation to diverse urban interiors. In Section 3.5, this point could be slightly expanded. It could be suggested that future work aims to establish more micrometeorological or chamber-based flux measurements across distinct urban green space types (e.g., pocket parks, green roofs) to directly calibrate/validate carbon flux models for the specific urban matrix, thereby reducing uncertainty in the NEP component of UGCI.

3. In Section 3.3, when listing strategies like “reducing soil compaction” or “multi-layered planting”, you could add a brief illustrative example without delving into full cost analysis. For instance: “...such as using organic mulch amendments and planting deep-rooted species to alleviate compaction in urban parks”, or “...prioritizing drought-tolerant understory species in multi-layered roadside plantings”. This adds specificity while maintaining the focus on science-driven diagnosis.

This is a well-executed study with strong conceptual and methodological contributions to the field of urban carbon management. The authors have successfully addressed the substantive concerns raised during review. The manuscript is now suitable for publication, pending incorporation of the minor, constructive suggestions outlined above.

Reviewer #3: The authors addressed most of the main comments from previous reviewers. I believe it makes the manuscript much better and is suitable for getting a publishment.

Reviewer #4: The authors have responded adequately and revised the manuscript accordingly. I have no further major concerns.

Reviewer #5: Dear Authors,

I have carefully read again the manuscript entitled "The Urban Green Carbon Index (UGCI): a spatial framework for suggesting urban carbon management" submitted by Seo et al. to PLOS One.

This manuscript seeks to introduce a novel decision-making framework designed to evaluate existing carbon storage and sequestration and to identify areas exhibiting deteriorated carbon dynamics.

Based on my review, I am satisfied with the authors’ responses to my comments.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Hanqing Wu

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

The urban green carbon index (UGCI): A spatial framework for suggesting urban carbon management

PONE-D-25-21587R2

Dear Dr. Yoo,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Tianheng Shu, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #2: The authors have provided a thorough and well-structured response to the previous round of reviews, and the revisions made to the manuscript are both appropriate and clearly documented. All points raised by the reviewers have been addressed in a systematic manner. Specifically, the clarification regarding the use of silt and clay content as a feasible proxy for soil carbon storage potential is now explicitly stated, and the forward-looking statement about incorporating more direct indicators when data become available adds appropriate nuance. The expansion of the limitations section to acknowledge the uncertainty associated with using a single flux tower for NEP validation is well justified, and the proposed direction for future work involving additional micrometeorological or chamber-based flux measurements across diverse urban green space types strengthens the scientific rigor of the study. Furthermore, the integration of brief, concrete examples into the management strategies in Section 3.3 enhances practical clarity without shifting the focus from the science-driven diagnostic approach. The authors have demonstrated careful attention to detail, and the revised manuscript shows clear improvements in clarity, transparency, and methodological justification. I find that the revisions satisfactorily address the remaining minor concerns, and the manuscript is now suitable for publication.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #2: No

**********