Effective and Sustainable Managed Protected Areas: Evaluation and Driving Factors of Eco-Efficiency of China’s Forest Parks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors presented very interesting subject on forest parks in China. Still paper misses international context especially in the discussion and results. Study area (paragraph 2) should be more directed to spatial characteristics and distribution in order to give insight into the state of FPs in China to the potential reader. Add a map with the 30 provinces of China mainland.
The abbreviation SMB is firstly expanded and explained in line 147, but it should be when first mentioned in text. It is misleading when is stated as in paper: "undesired output model (SBM)" in place of "slack-based measure (SBM)". So please consider.
Figure 4 must be improved. Provinces should be mentioned on map.
Figure 5 also, it is nor clear enough. Reader has to make big effort to connect map results with the chart on the left side.
Fig 7 also, it misses broader context.
Please elaborate where the statement "An interesting result is that the economic efficiency of forest parks is lower than the eco-efficiency, but it is distinct from the economic efficiency of urban areas" come from? Have the authors measured the economic efficiency of urban areas in this paper? Please explain.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors of this manuscript have done a great job in being responsive to reviewer comments, and I believe that they have improved their paper to the point where it will be ready for publication after minor revisions. Below are the minor points I wanted to highlight for the authors.
1. Line 165: Edit this sentence so that it doesn’t start with the word “And”.
2. Line 169: I think the paper is much more approachable and still explains the methods well now that you have moved the technical details of the models to the appendix. If you wanted to, I still think this section could benefit from increasing the explanation of the methods, in simple terms, in this section.
3. Line 264: The section headers for sections 3.2.3 and 3.3.2 are very similar and could be confusing, I recommend changing the names
4. Figure 6 needs a more descriptive title that describes both charts within the figure. I think it is good you increased the size of the maps, it is easier to see now.
5. Line 770: Typo – change “n” to “In”.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
