Study on Functional Zoning Method of National Park Based on MCDA: The Case of the Proposed “Ailaoshan-Wuliangshan” National Park
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review this manuscript.
I will give some comments:
1.- The manuscript looks more like a Master's thesis than a manuscript.
2.- Its wording is too extensive and confusing. Being too technical the reader loses interest throughout the reading.
3.- There are no references of previous findings neither in its Introduction nor in its literature
4.- It does not have a literature section and in its introduction there are no previous findings, therefore, there is no contribution to the academic literature.
5.- Its too extensive and detailed Methodology
6.- There is no discussion between previous findings and current findings. There is no literature cited related to the findings in the Discussion.
7.- In the Conclusions there is no theoretical contribution, there is no theoretical contribution related to previous findings.
8.- The study is a case study of zoning, but it is not a contribution to the academic literature.
Therefore, I am very sorry but I could not recommend this manuscript for publication in a JCR Journal such as the prestigious Land.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to read this work. It was quite an interesting look at how to zone or classify parks based on multiple landscape criteria.
The Introduction is difficult to read because there are a lot of tangents in there and jumps to examples rather than going through the bodies of work around the topic of park zoning, MCDA, and then the case of China / specific park. The results in the introduction seem somewhat misplaced. Subheadings and more entry into the topic of Zoning would ease this. There are also notable Zoning omissions, such as all the work around the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum to define zones and Manning's Managing Outdoor Recreation strategies and practices framework.
The methods are quite lengthy and the details may not be necessary or could be provided as an appendix. Please consider how to condense the 6 pages of methods into the core components. It currently reads as more of a manual than of a journal article. This could mean that you have an appendix that is focused on these specific details, for park managers or other data scientists to replicate, but as-is it seems to conflate those audiences with those who would be reading this article.
I think this paper is contributory but needs a serious self-reflection on the mechanistic methods. What do parks and people lose if the zoning is conducted in such a hands-off, quantitative manner? Especially for linear and fragmented parks that may have many adjacent communities and visitors coming to experience the resources across different geographies, it would seem that this type of zoning approach, while valid, should be complemented and potentially adjusted by social inquires. This is to say that parks are not just natural spaces and the exclusion of social factors then does a disservice to the zoning purposes. It may even undercut the application of such a procedure, as it doesn't match the social-ecological systems reality. This is somewhat mentioned in the discussion with "infrastructure," but needs much more attention. The authors must attend to discussing that omission.
My most major critique of this is related to my previous comment - So what? What was the utility of this exercise? Is it something that can be extrapolated to other areas, or was it an in-depth examination of utility for this particular park? What would it take for the park to implement your recommendations in the Discussion? This reads as a data exercise rather than as an applied research question. There is nothing inherently wrong with that approach, but if the intended utility is for a park or a system of new parks in China, then the questions of ease of use and broader applicability must be addressed as well.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents an original scientific research of high quality, the text is interesting and well composed. The material is of high importance for applying a similar approach to assessing the functional zoning of differ national parks, especially in conflict zones where other land users are presented.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
I found this paper very interesting. The topic of this paper is interesting and worthy of publication. The research part is clearly written, with good, concise prose, and also paper provides interesting findings. Great job author(s)!
Only one suggestion - you could add theoretical contributions as well as managerial implications in the conclusion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript again.
After reviewing the study again, I can conclude that it does meet the process of a scientific manuscript. Several aspects have been corrected, such as making the Methodology shorter and adding theoretical implications, previous findings and contributions. Therefore, I recommend its publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have adequately attended to my concerns in Round 1. I'm indicating "minor revision" remaining, as the paper could still use another round of editing for concise language.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
