Influence of Perceived Sensory Dimensions on Cultural Ecosystem Benefits of National Forest Parks Based on Public Participation: The Case of Fuzhou National Forest Park

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1)study conducted by the authors contains a number of recommendations that are intended for the management of Fuzhou NFP, and can also be recommended for use for NFP system in general. I think that readers would be interested to learn (if possible at this stage of the study and it does not take much time) about the attitude of the NFP authorities to this research and their readiness to apply it in practice. 

2) It would be useful to introduce Fuzhou NFP and China in the list of Key words.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The topic covered is interesting and the effort put into its research is considerable.

Here are some comments and suggestions to improve the quality of your article:

-In the Limitations please refer to the relationship between the sample (which is, I understand, non-representative) and the possibility of extending the conclusions.

-In the Conclusions, I suggest you better emphasize the relationship between the results obtained and the research objectives.

-Also in the Conclusions, I suggest you present more extensively the usefulness of your research results.

-Table 1 does not have a name indicating its content, please correct it.

-Figure 5 needs a reconfiguration (maybe two by two images?). As it is now, its content is not intelligible.

-Line 588: the quotation marks that are no longer closed are opened. Check and complete the text, if necessary, please.

Success!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your article explores very interesting constructs in the Forest Parks setting and I really enjoyed reading it. The overall quality of the manuscript is relatively good, although there are a few concerns that need to be addressed. The quality of the structure is generally good, but the clarity could be improved. My recommendations are as follows:

Abstract

The abstract should intrigue and lure readers to read the whole article. In this regard, I think this section should be revised, simplified and made easier to read. It would be beneficial to add information about the participants in the research, sample size and when the research was conducted. Attention should be paid to the following aspects: Background (Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study); Methods (briefly describe the main methods or treatments applied); Results (summarize the article's main findings); and most important Conclusions.

1. Introduction

The Introduction provides sufficient background, it is clear and easy to follow. The purpose and need for research are clearly presented and explained. This study has also emphasized its originality on several occasions. Placing Research Questions at the end of the Introduction significantly contributes to readability and a clear presentation of the study's objectives, but questions number 2 and 3 seem similar. In both cases, the question is related to the influence of perceived sensory dimensions on cultural ecosystem benefits? Also, no research question was asked under number 4. Please form research questions more clearly.

What I feel is missing is a literature review section where the constructs being researched would be described and defined, so that the readers can get familiar with the terms, namely Cultural Ecosystem Benefits and Perceived Sensory Dimensions. Therefore, I encourage authors to consider writing this section.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study area, first paragraph – source(s) missing, please correct it. Also, is there only one source (reference) for the following paragraph?

Lines 167-169; I would propose splitting it to two sentences: The questionnaire of this study contains three scales, namely, the Socio-Demographic Survey, the Cultural Ecosystem Benefits Scale, and the Perceived Sensory Dimensions Scale. All indicators and descriptions are presented in simplified Chinese.

2.2.2. - this section seems quite extensive for the methods, it seems that the theoretical explanations of the terms would be more suitable in the Literature Review, and that the structure of the instrument, dimensions, number of items and the sources from which they were taken should be more simply presented in this part.

Table 1 does not have a title, please correct this. Also, instead of PRS and SF-6D, in the column for references, write authors as for other references.

The study sample section is missing. What was the sample size for the questionnaire? What is the socio-demographic structure of the sample? It is important to add the description of the study sample to the methods.

3. Results

3.1. Considering that it is a questionnaire where the respondents evaluated the level of agreement with the statements on a scale from 1 to 5, it would be desirable to present the mean values. In that table (untitled e.g., Descriptive statistics and measurement model validity) should be also included St. deviation and Cronbach's α.

Appendix A, Table A1 – I think it would be more transparent if the values ​​within each group of factors were emphasized in some way; for example, italic or bold. The display would be clearer.

I noticed that the results are not shown independently for PSD. Is it an oversight or you didn't consider it necessary? I think it would be useful and interesting to briefly show the results (at least mean values) for these statements to see how the respondents responded in general before analyzing their impact on CEB.

4. Discussion

4.1. The first paragraph seems like a better fit in the Literature Review section.

In the discussion, attention should also be paid to answering the research questions.

Lines 456-471; there is no need to include numbers in brackets within this section.

Similar to research questions, section 4.2. and 4.3. seem alike? Both sections mention e.g. The influence of "Serene" and "Open" on CEB. That's confusing, what's the difference?

Line 510 (Edwards et al.'s (2012)) – There is an error in the reference style

Limitations should be placed at the end of the conclusion section.

5. Conclusion

The conclusion is brief. The study is quite interesting, but I think it could conclude better. Therefore, this section should be expanded. The following questions can guide you in supplementing the conclusion: Explain the importance of your work, novelty, and originality. What are the most relevant conclusions you can make based on the article? What are the theoretical and practical contributions? Limitations and Future research recommendations?

I wish you all the best and good luck in your future work,

Sincerely,

 

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your efforts in addressing reviewer comments and revising the manuscript. You did an excellent job. You have greatly improved the manuscript, and the revised version is of much higher quality. The structure and clarity are greatly improved. It is much easier to follow, and I really enjoyed reading it. However, I noticed two minor errors that need to be corrected; otherwise, I have no further recommendations.

1. Section 2.2., the sentence “Fish et al [20] argue that cultural ecosystem benefits are the product of a combination of environmental space and the cultural practices of individuals, and summarize them in three dimensions; identities, experiences, and identities refer to the role of ecosystems…” - There is a writing error. It seems that the third dimension (capabilities) is missing and that the next sentence should start with “identities refer to the role of ecosystems.”. Please check and correct. 

 

2. Table 1 is still named “Table 1. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near the first time they are cited.”. Please give it an appropriate title.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf