Establishing an Evaluation Framework for Endangered Species Conservation Preferences for the Eurasian Otter

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are a lot of citations/references needed throughout the paper. See highlighted parts in the paper.

Secondly, more hanging statements (i.e., 41-43) that don't make sense. 

When you say understanding human dimensions (44-45), what do you mean? do you mean human dimensions of natural resources or

Across the paper, there are statements that are mentioned without citations/references and evidence to support them; please go through the manuscript and clean it up.

There is a difference between hunting and poaching (281). Did you mean illegal hunting? clarify here.

Previous literature, previous studies - which ones are these? 

183-185, you indicate that these policies will increase welfare; how will this be done?

OVERALL, there is a need for thorough edits to remove hanging statements and citations/references.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The statements in lines 48-49 are exaggerated, in reality the presence of otters can be tested on the basis of tracks, food scraps and droppings and it is not necessary to observe the animal. 

The phrase in lines 58-59 requires a more concrete explanation of how otter habitats have been destroyed by island development, especially since it is mentioned that in fact new habitats for otters are created by building ponds for daily use and agriculture (line 563).

For row 61 - is there demand from the public (either tourists or residents) about otter conservation? Where have these requests, concerns, initiatives been recorded?

Row 64 - Are residents and tourists aware of what the implementation of the five attributes would actually entail? 

Can tourists and residents estimate the current number of otters and what a 10% increase or 20% decrease would mean.  Are these percentages chosen in accordance with achieving favourable species conservation status in the area?

Regarding row 233 - what relevance does the amphibian group have in the context of otter conservation?  There are other groups of living things where the number of species included in the red lists is increasing...

Is paragraph 235- 246 relevant to the present study? Are similar situations encountered in Kinmen? What is the link between the results of the Spanish otter population increase and the results of this study?

Row 435- the five attributes have 2-5 levels not 3-5 as they are listed now

I think a correspondence between NT$ and an international currency like the dollar or euro would help to understand the willingness to pay of tourists or residents.

row 512 - What otter conservation programs have tourists been able to participate in? I think a description of the tourist flow in Kinmen is welcome as an introduction, to more easily understand the significant differences between the preferences of tourists and residents.

In the introduction perhaps it would also be good to explain the situation of studies completed by residents to explain the obviously differentiated segmentation between tourists and residents. 

on Market Segmentation of Eurasian Otter Conservation

The current division into the two groups is not supported by the experimental design, as the number of tourist and resident respondents with different degrees of education is approximately the same in each group. That is, the division into the two groups is not supported by the degree of education. 

I believe that the paper in its current form requires clarification both in terms of the results obtained based on the initial design and a clearer contribution to decision making regarding otter conservation based on the views of residents and tourists.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf