Understanding Public Intentions to Participate in Protection Initiatives for Forested Watershed Areas Using the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Case Study of Cameron Highlands in Pahang, Malaysia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

At line 42: "capabilities of forests to function as watershed areas". I don't understand this phrase. Maybe you say the ability of the forest to regulate the water flow at the level of the river basin.

At line 45 to 47: The paragraph request a reference

At line 104: Please rethink the figure because the study area is not well understood. 

At line 107 to 109: Please rephrase because it is not understood and further exemplify the main forest type

At line 147 to 148: requires reference 

At line 170: "PBC" I didn't see the PBC abbreviate in the equation no. 1. Please clarify this aspect

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments

The paper explores the public intentions to participate in the protection initiatives for the forested watershed areas using the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) in the Cameron Highlands in Pahang. Malaysia. The topic is very interesting especially in light of climate change, deforestation and water shortage, which represent global concerns. Therefore, the results can be useful for researchers, public officers and policy makers.  Furthermore, the paper employs TPB which is a well-known and appropriate methodology to model human behaviour. It is also commonly used to explore public’s intention to engage in eco-friendly practices. However, there are some concerns regarding the implementation of the methodology that are presented in the specific remarks that follow.

Spell and syntax check is advised (for example in line 86 the verb “is” is missing, in line 150 the word “are” is missing etc)

Specific remarks

Abstract: the abstract is informative and provides the necessary background the methodology and the main results of the study.

Introduction: The Introduction section gives the background of the study and the research questions addressed. The literature review, regarding the relevant environmental issues and the public’s participation in environmental protection is adequate. However, the literature review regarding the factors that affect the public’s behavioural intention to participate in environmental protection initiatives could be enriched (last paragraph) with the inclusion of some main findings of other studies. Though this is done more extensively in the Theoretical Framework section (lines 174-183), it is important to show evidence of the appropriateness of the methodology chosen in the introduction section as well, so that the literature review is more balanced and the placement and contribution of the paper  in the relevant literature is more evident.

The study area and the theoretical framework are also well presented.

Materials and Methods: prior to the main survey a pilot survey was conducted, which strengthens the methodology, since the content of the questionnaire and the TPB variables were not only based on literature review.

However, the sample size is determined at 380 and although the response rate is 72% the complete questionnaires are 143, which seems rather small. 57 questionnaires were discarded as incomplete. Was there any effort to handle missing data, so as to include the 57 questionnaires?

Results: The results of the statistical analysis are adequately presented, though the discussion of the results can be enriched. For example, it is interesting that the government is the most  important  source  of  norm  pressure. How is this explained? What is the role of government supports?

There are three main issues regarding the data used that I believe authors should explain further:

1. There was a higher female participation in the research, because men were working when the interviews were conducted. Does this affect the outcome of the research? Many studies find that women have a more environmentally friendly attitude. Also, is decision making regarding the participation in environmental protection schemes, management of fertilizers and pesticides, participation in sustainable agriculture seminars etc mainly left on women within the family?
2. Why are visitors included in the study if the question addressed is the participation in protection initiatives of the forested watershed areas? How can visitors be involved in this decision making? In opinion it would make more sense to address only locals.
3. Most interviewed are Malays, while the main part of the population in the study area consists of Indians and Chinese. How does this affect the outcome of the research? Is this because the questionnaire was in Malay and English?

Concluding discussion: this part summarizes the main findings of the research and provides the importance of this findings for public authorities. However, the limitations of the research should also be discussed or suggestions for further development of the research should be included. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx