Tourists’ Intention of Undertaking Environmentally Responsible Behavior in National Forest Trails: A Comparative Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Greetings,
It is necessary to state the concrete results of the research in the summary. The overview of the results is as well written as the results. The obtained results meet the conditions for conducting SEM analysis. With the results, you need to set the models more clearly because the figure is unclear. The selection Discussions and Implications needs to be corrected, because there is no discussion, this is all Conclusion. It is necessary to write a discussion.
All best.
Author Response
Point 1: It is necessary to state the concrete results of the research in the summary. The overview of the results is as well written as the results. The obtained results meet the conditions for conducting SEM analysis. With the results, you need to set the models more clearly because the figure is unclear. The selection Discussions and Implications needs to be corrected, because there is no discussion, this is all Conclusion. It is necessary to write a discussion.
Response 1: We greatly appreciate the constructive feedback from Reviewer 1. Following the suggestions, we revised the title of section 5 to be Conclusion, and section 5.1 as Discussion of the results. We specifically added the discussion of the test results of this study (please see the detailed revision in Page 10 under Section 5.1). We highlighted all the changes in red color in the revised manusript.
When we submitted the original mansucript, Figures 3, 4, and 5 were in a much larger size and easier to read, but these figures were formatted by the journal’s editorial staff to fit into Page 9 so it is beyond the authors’ control. We will pass this information to the corresponding editor to see if there is any other options to set the figures clearer.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
the research is interesting from a thematic point of view, especially for the historical period in which it is developed. Accordingly, this research has an important limitation: it did not consider (or at least did not make explicit) the historical period in which the measurements were developed.
The time frame on which the research focuses coincides with a global pandemic and a consequent focus on the natural environment and its perception and consumption (e.g. see UNWTO reports). The authors should ask whether the literature review developed to define the measurements of the survey instruments has been hybridised by the 'covid-19 factor' and the policies implemented by governments. Whether this literature has taken into account the new studies on the perception of the environment (and thus whether and how behavioural intention, rationality or morality have been hybridised by the historical moment).
In addition, there are some comments in the attached file that you need to reply to in order to improve the quality of the paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I think this topic is interesting and is worthy of continued research. However, it was not developed very well in this manuscript. I have provided detailed comments in the hope that the authors can use this information to make the manuscript for publication.
In terms of introduction, the introduction needs to justify in order to delineate the knowledge gap in the literature. In other words, the authors might provide more justification for the importance of the research.
Moreover, the theoretical foundation is somewhat weak.
Author(s) need to reorganize your literature review sections. I appreciate your detailed explanations. For instance, you might create a section about hypotheses development.
Moreover, the authors need to provide a more detailed justification.
For instance, as you may know, there are some recent previous studies related to this issue. In other words, you should provide update on your references.
Currently, the implications are weak.
The author may elaborate on academic and practical implications through the study results and provide study limitations. In other words, the discussion needs to be more in-depth and how it relates to what has already been found and how your research is similar or different.
The overall grammar of the manuscript has issues, and sources are frequently missing for some overall claims that are stated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Greetings,
The authors complied with all comments. The paper should be accepted now.
All best.
Reviewer 2 Report
Previous comments and suggestions have been clarified.
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall, I am satisfied with the changes made by the author.
You need to cross check all references within text with your reference list. You may like to add more recent and relevant references published in recent months/years.
Revisit the Discussion and Conclusions sections one more time to better answer the "So What" question.
Proofread your article one more time and also you may ask a technical writer/copy editor to proofread it for you.
