## 6 Conclusions
Experiences of elderly users and infrequent visitors may therefore be underestimated, leading to biases in the coverage of different population groups. Second, the specific roles of urban facilities within parks (such as benches, walkways, and lighting) were not deeply examined. These facilities significantly influence park esthetics, functionality, and visitor experiences. Due to limitations in research scope, comprehensive analyses of their contributions to cultural services were not conducted. Finally, the unstructured characteristics of textual data and existing limitations in sentiment analysis techniques restrict the in-depth analysis of intangible cultural services (such as inspiration and sense of place). Additionally, these limitations hinder the comprehensive capture of users' complex emotions and deeper cultural value perceptions. To address the limitations identified in this study, future research could be enhanced in the following three aspects. First, field surveys, questionnaires, and sensor data could be integrated to address the limited representativeness of social media data. This integration would enable a more comprehensive understanding of cultural service perceptions across diverse population groups. Second, future studies should focus on specific park facilities, such as benches, walkways, and lighting. Quantitative analyses and user behavior tracking methods could be employed to evaluate the effects of these facilities on cultural service provision, thereby improving research precision. Finally, advanced natural language processing techniques and multimodal sentiment analysis models could be introduced to analyze complex emotions and deeper cultural values embedded in unstructured textual data. Additionally, integrating time-series data could help reveal dynamic changes in cultural services and their underlying driving mechanisms. Writing--original draft, K.L. ; Writing--review & editing, P.W. and J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. This research received no external funding. Not applicable. The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author. The authors declare no conflict of interest. * [PERSON] et al. (2022) [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] How do urban park features affect cultural ecosystem services: Quantified evidence for design practices. _Urban For. Urban Green._**2022**, _76_, 127713. * [PERSON] et al. (2016) [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Indicators of Cultural Ecosystem Services for urban planning: A review. _Ecol. Indic._**2016**, _61_, 74-89. * [PERSON] et al. (2016) [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Making space for cultural ecosystem services: Insights from a study of the UK nature improvement initiative. _Ecosyst. Serv._**2016**, _21_, 329-343. * [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2022) [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Assessing the Impact of Park Renovations on Cultural Ecosystem Services. _Land_**2022**, _11_, 610. [CrossRef]
* [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2022) [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Park inclusive design index as a systematic evaluation framework to improve inclusive urban park uses: The case of Hangzhou urban parks. _Appl. Sci._**2023**, _13_, 12954. [CrossRef]
* [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2022) [PERSON]; [PERSON] Cultural ecosystem services research progress and future prospects: A review. _Sustainability_**2022**, _14_, 11845. [CrossRef]
* [PERSON] et al. (2022) [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Patterns of Urban Green Space Use Applying Social Media Data: A Systematic Literature Review. _Land_**2022**, _11_, 238. [CrossRef]
* [PERSON] et al. (2022) [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Cultural ecosystem services evaluation using geolocated social media data: A review. _Tour. Geogr._**2022**, _24_, 646-668. * [PERSON] et al. (2025) [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] How do urban green space attributes affect visitation and satisfaction?