The Greater the Contact, the Closer the Threat: The Influence of Contact with Nature on the Social Perception of Biodiversity Loss and the Effectiveness of Conservation Behaviours

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting and globally demonstrated its point: that contact with "nature" directly affect our perception of biodiversity loss and our engagement with "nature". There are still some issues with the paper.

First, its definition of nature is too vague: can we put in the same category wilderness and city parks? It will have been better to dissociate the two things. Because city parks can be considered as non-natural. And they are not equivalent at all in terms of biodiversity preservation.

Second, the number of people participating to the questionary seems very small: 261 and 178! Can we really extract robust conclusions from such a few respondants?  

Third, some graphs are very difficult to read. Figure 1 seems quite esoteric for us.

Fourth, since the main point of the paper is to contrast the optimism bias narrative, it will have been better to provide more background knowledge about it. Indeed, the perspective of the author seems more intuitive and the opposite theory, that being closer to nature makes us diminishing the threat to it, could appear rather counter-intuitive. More explanation about this theory and its edification could allow us to more appreciate the contrasting evidences proposed by the authors.

Fifth, another issue with the paper is that if its results are correct that mean that people living in urban centers and separated from nature will have less concern about nature. However, by contrast, it seems that often concern for nature and biodiversity comes more from educated wealthier people. Reversely, for someone living in a populated suburban area without the financial means to be in contact with nature the concern for nature will be almost absent. Which can be true. But which comes as a problem in terms of social-environmental justice. In other words, the sociological aspect of being or not in contact with nature is not addressed at all by the paper. But it seems to us to be potentially a huge determinant. However the paper is never disclosing the social-economical background of the respondants. 

Finally, the biggest issue with the logic of the paper is its potential circularity. We don't know what is the causal link between frequentation of nature and concern for biodiversity. The authors argue that the frequentation of nature influe over our concern for biodiversity. But it can be the other way round; our frequentation of nature comes from a primary interest for nature in its own stake and its inhabitants (= biodiversity).

This is important in terms of policy recommandations: we can hope that fostering more contact with nature we will achieve more concern about it, but access to nature is socially distributed in asymetrical ways.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Major comments

First four paragraphs of the Introduction part. The disadvantages of natural ecosystems are common sense. Just using one section to introduce those is enough. Additionally, the authors should submit the conception and case study of human contact with nature.

 

The questionnaire study is online. The language and website of the questionnaire may influence the volunteered respondents. The hundreds of questionnaires could not represent the global sense. The author should clarify this.

 

 

1) Line 25 Ecosystem functions --> Ecosystem services

2) Line 28 Protected area --> Protected areas

3) Line 32 Why are the strategies “on private land” but not public land?

4) Line 35 is fundamental --> are the fundamental

5) Line 44 “and increasingly, climate change”-->, “and increasing climate change.”

6) Line 48 climate change is a very commonly used word. Do not use the abbreviation CC.

7) What is the abbreviation of GHG?

8) ACM or MCA??

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have taken into accounts remarks and emphasized the clear limitations of their study in conclusion

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear editor and authors,

This MS has improved a lot.

After language checking, this MS could be publised.