Sociocultural Profile as a Predictor of Perceived Importance of Forest Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work deals with an attractive contemporary topic and has a great potential to bring new knowledge. The information about the social structure of stakeholders at a local, regional, or national level and its impact on ecosystem service preferences is essential for applying participative planning approaches in modern forestry. The work is based on the vast empirical dataset (questionnaire survey fully available in Appendix) processed by standard statistical and regression modeling approaches and tools. The findings are presented concisely, including standard tables and graphic outputs. The discussion is sufficiently long and confronts the new findings with many other relevant literature sources. 

On the other side, several deficiencies still exist. Some are relatively important, and some have a marginal impact on work quality. Major objections can be listed in a few points:

·        The definition of the solved problem in the Introduction is almost wholly missing. Subsequently, the formulation of goals invokes the impression that the survey evaluation is the primary goal. It could be noted that evaluation is always the mean and not the goal of any scientific research. Adding a solved problem section into the Introduction is the most essential suggestion. It can be expected that the goals of the article will be reformulated after a careful description of the solved problem. Evidently, the work is helpful for the improvement of forest management planning.

·        In the Methods, the simple transformation of dependent ordinal qualitative variable Priority from Likert scale to numerical one is a very disputable approach implicitly assuming that quantitative differences between original qualitative values are the same (e.g., the difference between the very important and important assessment and not very important and irrelevant is the same and is equal to one dimensionless unit). Such an assumption can be valid, but it must not be. The exact definition is unavailable, and some respondents can individually consider some differences equal or not equal. The researcher has no control.   

·        Also, interpreting the average of the transformed numerical values is a problem. Let us say we received an average of 3.2. What does it mean? What quality is typical for the ES – Is it mostly moderately important with a small “amount” of important assessment? Furthermore, other values were absent? Such quality and judgment were not defined apriori.

·        A more valid approach to evaluate the prioritization of individual ES is to assess the frequency of the original Likert values and consider, let us say, the cumulative frequency of the very important and important assessments. All operations and analyses done in the manuscript should be repeated on a more objective base. Mainly, at the first reading, meeting Anova requirements (not reported in work; only a statement about the fulfillment was provided) about the normality of the dependent variable (numerical transformations of the Likert scale) is hardly imaginable for the double-bounded variable with a relatively narrow range. Here, using the relative frequency of very important and important grades can be strongly advised (maybe Anova-like graphs should be constructed – the relative frequency with confidence limits can be used to assess the statistical significance of frequency differences within interpretation).

·        Also, the description of the logit regression effort should be improved. Authors did not provide the exact description: (i) how the probability P(x) as the dependent variable in the regression model was obtained (not clear from current text), (ii) what parametrization method was used, (iii) correlation and accuracy measures of obtained ES models were not reported, quality of the models cannot be assessed, (iv) whether possible autocorrelations among independent variables were treated within the model building.                     

·        No information about the structure of questionnaire respondents and an explicit definition of the statistical population for which a representative sample was formed was not provided. Subsequently, the reader cannot control the representativeness of the sample. Both things should be included in Methods, maybe as a stand-alone subchapter. Otherwise, the description of the Material and Methods will be incomplete.

·        Finally, the precise and targeted conclusions from a detailed comparison of obtained results with those of other authors in the discussion are almost absent. Current conclusions are too general, especially concerning what should be revealed. The absence of the actual conclusion is routed in an absent definition of the research problem accompanied by relatively vague defined goals. Overall, it can be expected that a more exact formulation of research problems and goals will lead to more specific and complex conclusions and fully utilize the great potential of promising work.              

 

The work should undergo a major revision regarding deficiencies, recommendations, and open methodical questions. After that, the work has excellent publication potential; it brings many new interesting insides into participative planning and its important social dimension and will be a valuable contribution to an international audience.                    

The manuscript is well-structured, easy to read, and well-written in good English. The only minor grammar, editing, or stylistic errors are visible to non-native reviewers.

Author Response

Reviwer 1

 

The work deals with an attractive contemporary topic and has a great potential to bring new knowledge. The information about the social structure of stakeholders at a local, regional, or national level and its impact on ecosystem service preferences is essential for applying participative planning approaches in modern forestry. The work is based on the vast empirical dataset (questionnaire survey fully available in Appendix) processed by standard statistical and regression modeling approaches and tools. The findings are presented concisely, including standard tables and graphic outputs. The discussion is sufficiently long and confronts the new findings with many other relevant literature sources. 

On the other side, several deficiencies still exist. Some are relatively important, and some have a marginal impact on work quality. Major objections can be listed in a few points:

Answer - Thank you very much for your time and comments helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript. We have revised the text in terms of “vague and unfounded statements” in an attempt to provide clearer and more accurate information.

 

• The definition of the solved problem in the Introduction is almost wholly missing. Subsequently, the formulation of goals invokes the impression that the survey evaluation is the primary goal. It could be noted that evaluation is always the mean and not the goal of any scientific research. Adding a solved problem section into the Introduction is the most essential suggestion. It can be expected that the goals of the article will be reformulated after a careful description of the solved problem. Evidently, the work is helpful for the improvement of forest management planning.

Answer – We improved description of aim of the study

 

• In the Methods, the simple transformation of dependent ordinal qualitative variable Priority from Likert scale to numerical one is a very disputable approach implicitly assuming that quantitative differences between original qualitative values are the same (e.g., the difference between the very important and important assessment and not very important and irrelevant is the same and is equal to one dimensionless unit). Such an assumption can be valid, but it must not be. The exact definition is unavailable, and some respondents can individually consider some differences equal or not equal. The researcher has no control.   

Answer We fully agree with this reviewer's comment and have resigned from the transformation of dependent ordinal qualitative variable Priority from Likert scale to quantitative one.

 

• Also, interpreting the average of the transformed numerical values is a problem. Let us say we received an average of 3.2. What does it mean? What quality is typical for the ES – Is it mostly moderately important with a small “amount” of important assessment?Furthermore, other values were absent? Such quality and judgment were not defined apriori.

Answer - We agree with this reviewer's comment that using average of transformed numerical value is not the right approach. Using the solution proposed by the reviewer we calculated the cumulative frequency of the very important and important assessments.

 

• A more valid approach to evaluate the prioritization of individual ES is to assess the frequency of the original Likert values and consider, let us say, the cumulative frequency of the very important and important assessments. All operations and analyses done in the manuscript should be repeated on a more objective base. Mainly, at the first reading, meeting Anova requirements (not reported in work; only a statement about the fulfillment was provided) about the normality of the dependent variable (numerical transformations of the Likert scale) is hardly imaginable for the double-bounded variable with a relatively narrow range. Here, using the relative frequency of very important and important grades can be strongly advised (maybe Anova-like graphs should be constructed – the relative frequency with confidence limits can be used to assess the statistical significance of frequency differences within interpretation).

Answer- Statistical significance analysis of ES priority differences repeated from the beginning. Levene’a test showed that the condition of homogeneity of variance in the analyzed groups is not satisfy, so we used the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test rank ANOVA.

 

• Also, the description of the logit regression effort should be improved. Authors did not provide the exact description: (i) how the probability P(x) as the dependent variable in the regression model was obtained (not clear from current text), (ii) what parametrization method was used, (iii) correlation and accuracy measures of obtained ES models were not reported, quality of the models cannot be assessed, (iv) whether possible autocorrelations among independent variables were treated within the model building.                     

Answer – We improved description of development logit regression model according to Reviever’s remarks

 

• No information about the structure of questionnaire respondents and an explicit definition of the statistical population for which a representative sample was formed was not provided. Subsequently, the reader cannot control the representativeness of the sample. Both things should be included in Methods, maybe as a stand-alone subchapter. Otherwise, the description of the Material and Methods will be incomplete.

Answer - Thank you very much for your comment, we have amended the text accordingly

 

• Finally, the precise and targeted conclusions from a detailed comparison of obtained results with those of other authors in the discussion are almost absent. Current conclusions are too general, especially concerning what should be revealed. The absence of the actual conclusion is routed in an absent definition of the research problem accompanied by relatively vague defined goals. Overall, it can be expected that a more exact formulation of research problems and goals will lead to more specific and complex conclusions and fully utilize the great potential of promising work.              

Answer - Thank you very much for your comment, we have amended the text accordingly, we have improved the discussion section

 

The work should undergo a major revision regarding deficiencies, recommendations, and open methodical questions. After that, the work has excellent publication potential; it brings many new interesting insides into participative planning and its important social dimension and will be a valuable contribution to an international audience.       

Answer - We substantially revised manuscript changing the method of evaluating ES priority, adding additional description of method and statistical procedures.

Thank you very much for high assessment of the potential of manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

1) In the abstract section the author stated that“ This paper assesses the priority of forest ecosystem services (FES) and defines the socio- demographic profile of people who consider particular services an essential function of forests” and …. Provisioning functions are perceived as very important primarily by rural residents, “. The author describes very well the importance FES with respect to socio- demographic profile of people. Also in the methodology section the author stated that “Respondents were asked to provide information on their gender (female, male), age (18-30 years, 31-40 years, 41-50 and above ≥50 years), level of education (primary, secondary, higher), place of residence (rural area, small town with up to 15,000 inhabitants, medium town with 15,000–100,000 inhabitants, large town with more than 100,000 inhabitants), and satisfaction with their standard of living”. But in the abstract section no results were given regarding the urban residents. Please enrich your abstract with this.

Answer Thank you very much for your time and comments helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript. We agree with all remarks and have revised the text according to them. We added to abstract information about preference of urban residens.

 

 

2) The conclusion and application section might be included in the abstract in 2-3 lines

Answer – We added some statement from conclusion an aplication section to the abstact

 

3) The MS is related with ecosystem services; carbon stock and sequestration is one of the major component of forest ecosystem services, the introduction as well the discussion section need the addition of some of the literature rereading this please refer to the article.

Answer - Thank you very much for your comment, we have amended the text accordingly, we have improved the introduction and discussion section

 

4) The authors collected the data during the Covid-19 pandemic, however in the literature section as well in the discussion section , I did not found anything regarding pandemic, the pandemic might have a change the socio-cultural responsibilities of people, please enrich your introduction and particularly discussion section with this , please refer to “Chen, Z., Zhu, W., Feng, H., & Luo, H. (2022). Changes in Corporate Social Responsibility Efficiency in Chinese Food Industry Brought by COVID-19 Pandemic—A Study With the Super-Efficiency DEA-Malmquist-Tobit Model. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.875030”

Answe – Thank you very much for your comment, we have amended the text accordingly

 

5) Line 248-249: In discussion section the author stated that “In our study, we used a survey questionnaire. It is a very popular research tool that can be applied to examine the expectations and preferences of tourists and visitors to naturally valuable areas” this section need a source of citation also please enrich your discussion section with the socio- psychological prospects. Please refer to Li, X., Zhang, X., & Jia, T. (2023). Humanization of nature: Testing the influences of urban park characteristics and psychological factors on collegers’ perceived restoration. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 79, 127806. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127806.

Answer - Thank you very much for your comment, we have amended the text accordingly, we have improved the discussion section

 

6) Line 252-255: We opted for an online survey, which has some undeniable advantages, par252 ticularly when targeting a large respondent pool. However, it also has drawbacks, notably in reaching older individuals who are typically less inclined to use technology and the 254 internet. The low participation of older people may be attributed to the use of an online survey. I am suggesting that this may be the part of the limitation section.

Answer - Thank you very much for your comment, we have amended the text accordingly, we added a chapter on limitation

7) Line 264-274; the author put light on the importance of forest regarding the climate change and carbon sequestration. Please enrich this section with updated information regarding carbon sequestration. Please refer to Yang, Y., Liu, L., Zhang, P., Wu, F., Wang, Y., Xu, C.,... Kuzyakov, Y. (2023). Large-scale ecosystem carbon stocks and their driving factors across Loess Plateau. Carbon Neutrality, 2(1), 5. doi: 10.1007/s43979-023-00044-w

Answer - Thank you very much for your comment, we have amended the text accordingly

 

8) Line 325-340; the author discuss “Also the place of residence is a predictor for the appreciation of the importance of specific forest functions. Martín-López et al. [11] as well as Lindemann-Matthies et al. [43] 326 found that the inhabitants of rural areas mostly valued provisioning services, while urban residents emphasized regulating services……’’ does this section need an enrichment with respect to this article Humanization of nature: Testing the influences of urban park characteristics and psychological factors on collegers’ perceived restoration. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 79, 127806. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127806.

Answer – Thank you very much for your comment, we have amended the text accordingly

 

9) Please also go through this article “Wu, B., Quan, Q., Yang, S., & Dong, Y. (2023). A socialecological coupling model for evaluating the human-water relationship in basins within the Budyko framework. Journal of Hydrology, 619, 129361. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129361. Might be helpful in the discussion section in the regulating services with respect to water and flood protection.

Answer - Thank you very much for your comment, we have amended the text accordingly

 

10) I am suggesting that the author must include the limitation section. According to the results of the table 1, most of the respondent thinks that the FES has been increased, particularly the recreational (62%, the top one), as the author collected data during the pandemic, so I think the psychological factor might be involved in this high rating. Furthermore, line 252- 255, be the part of limitation section.

Answer - Thank you very much for your comment, we have amended the text accordingly, we added a chapter on limitation

Reviewer 3 Report

Title. The title conveys the main message of the paper but this only answers two of three important questions: What? and How? However, Where? was not included. I suggest that the authors add this.

 

Abstract. The abstract is concise, provides a clear overview, includes essential facts for the paper, and concludes with a final point that places the work described in a broader context.

 

Keywords. These are enough for the topic.

 

Introduction. The authors talk about ecosystem services, but it is necessary to include more background to see the particular topic of the research in relation to a general area of study. Finally, in the last paragraph, the aim states the specific purposes of the research.

 

Material and methods.  In this section, the authors describe the correct steps followed while conducting their study, give precise details of the study design, and how they analyzed the data.

 

Results. This section was well written and shows all data with good descriptions. The results say about the objective that motivates the research, and the authors take a broad look at their findings and examine the work in the larger context of the field.

L158 to L160 — This sentence must be deleted.  

 

Discussion. In this section, the authors take a broad look at their findings and examine the work in the larger context of the field. I suggest that the authors indicate the limitations of the research and discuss this. Do the limitations influence the results? How did the authors correct the limitations during the research?  

 

Conclusion. This section included the major conclusions, which were briefly written.

 

Tables and Figures.

 

These were presented in the correct form and showed clearly important information.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

Firstly we want to thank Rewiever for devoted time and valuable comments. We agree with all of them and we included them in revised version.

 

Title. The title conveys the main message of the paper but this only answers two of three important questions: What? and How? However, Where? was not included. I suggest that the authors add this.

Answer - We added in title “A Case from Poland”

 

 

Abstract. The abstract is concise, provides a clear overview, includes essential facts for the paper, and concludes with a final point that places the work described in a broader context.

Answer - Thank you for appreciating our efforts

 

 

Keywords. These are enough for the topic.

Answer - Thank you for appreciating our efforts

 

Introduction. The authors talk about ecosystem services, but it is necessary to include more background to see the particular topic of the research in relation to a general area of study. Finally, in the last paragraph, the aim states the specific purposes of the research.

Answer - Thank you very much for your comment, we have improved the introductory part

 

Material and methods.  In this section, the authors describe the correct steps followed while conducting their study, give precise details of the study design, and how they analyzed the data.

Answer - Thank you for appreciating our efforts

 

Results. This section was well written and shows all data with good descriptions. The results say about the objective that motivates the research, and the authors take a broad look at their findings and examine the work in the larger context of the field.

L158 to L160 — This sentence must be deleted.

Answer - we apologize for the omission – we deleted lines158-160

 

 

Discussion. In this section, the authors take a broad look at their findings and examine the work in the larger context of the field. I suggest that the authors indicate the limitations of the research and discuss this. Do the limitations influence the results? How did the authors correct the limitations during the research? 

Answer - Thank you very much for your comment, we have amended the text accordingly, we added a chapter on limitation

 

 

Conclusion. This section included the major conclusions, which were briefly written.

Answer - Thank you for appreciating our efforts

 

 

Tables and Figures.

These were presented in the correct form and showed clearly important information.

Answer - Thank you for appreciating our efforts

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors accepted almost all suggestions from my first review and improved the article substantially. All methodological and logical concerns were answered and removed. I suggest publishing it as a very interesting and insightful scientific work.    

Reviewer 2 Report

All the suggested changes have been made, and the MS may be accepted in the present from