Experimental Study Based on Game Theory on the Private, Voluntary Supply Mechanisms of Goods for Forestry Infrastructure from the Perspective of Quasi-Public Goods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My review will be presented by line numbers from the copy I have.

Line 12 - what is meant by home and abroad?

Line 18 - "author" is indicated at the end of the line but there are multiple authors

The first paragraph for the Introduction is difficult to follow.  

Lines 30-32 - again what is hoem and abroad

Lines 32-34 - you write "infrastructure impedes or promotes the development of forest economy" this needs to be explained.

Line 35 - an explanation is needed to what the forest tenure reform system is.

Line 36 - what is Under-forest economy?

Line 40 - what are backward facilities?  Avoid the use of "Anyway" to start a sentence.

Line 46 - the transition is very abrupt.  The previous paragraph is a discussion on the lack of research and then this paragraph starts with "General items".  

Line 53 - home and abroad again.

Lines 54-55 - the sentence does not make sense

Line 60 - existing research is used twice

Line 83 - the last sentence is incomplete

Lines 90-94 is there a difference in the 2 sentences?

Line 99 - Lin Nong A and B are presented and they do not get mentioned again so it seems like there is no need to use a name.

Line 269 - it would be good to mention Figure 2 in the text prior to discussing it after the figure is presented.  The same for Table 5, Table 7, and Figure 4.

Can the Appendices be understood world-wide?

It would help to have a Conclusion paragraph for the take-home message of the paper. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for your Comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript based on your comments.As shown below：

1.Line 12 - what is meant by home and abroad?

 

Response:

Thank you very much for your suggestions and review. The expression used in this article, “At home and abroad” is inappropriate. Therefore, it has been deleted. The revised sentence (line11-12) is:

 

 “The existing research on forestry infrastructure has focused on suggestions from other areas of forestry research, with the belief that forestry infrastructure should be improved.”

 

2.Line 18 - "author" is indicated at the end of the line but there are multiple authors

 

Response:

The expression "author" is inappropriate. Therefore, we change "the author" into "we". The revised sentence (line17-20) is:

 

“We designed parameters relevant to forest area infrastructure, such as communication, environmental certainty, information feedback, and reward and punishment mechanisms, and used experimental economics methods to simulate accurate behavior regarding the supply of goods.”

 

3.The first paragraph for the Introduction is difficult to follow. 

 

Response:

We have rewritten the first paragraph of the introduction. It is shown in lines 26-43.

 

“Forestry infrastructure refers to material engineering facilities for forestry public services that provide economic, social and ecological benefits, such as cycling roads, tool storerooms, and transfer facilities. Forestry infrastructure is material for the sustainable development of the forestry industry. Research on the private and voluntary supply of goods for forestry infrastructure is important to ensure long-term supplies. A sound forestry infrastructure could promote the sustainable development of forestry production.

Up to now, the research on forestry infrastructure supplies has mainly focused on analyses of issues such as insufficient supplies, low quality, and a shortage of funds [1-8]. Research on forestry infrastructure supplies has not been enough, but forestry infrastructure is receiving increasing attention: many studies have mentioned the importance of forestry infrastructure. In terms of forestry production activities, many scholars believe that a sound forestry infrastructure can promote the development of a forestry economy and deepen the forest tenure reform system [5, 9-11]. The development of the under-forest economy and disaster prevention in forest areas is inexorably linked to sound forestry infrastructure [12-16]. Sound forestry infrastructure is not only conducive to accelerating the circulation of forest products, but also can improve the efficiency of the use of forestry industry information resources [17-20]. In terms of environmental protection, one study has shown that responding to more extreme climatic changes will require infrastructure support [21]. In terms of environmental planning, some scholars believe that a sound forestry infrastructure is integral to ecological restoration after a disaster [22-23]. Therefore, many scholars have suggested that infrastructure construction and investment should be strengthened to improve forestry foundation facilities [5, 9-11].”

 

4.Lines 30-32 - again what is home and abroad

 

Response:

We delete it in the revised paper.

 

5.Lines 32-34 - you write "infrastructure impedes or promotes the development of forest economy" this needs to be explained.

 

Response:

This sentence is wrong. We have modified it. As shown in line 30：

 

“A sound forestry infrastructure could promote the sustainable development of forestry production.”

 

6.Line 35 - an explanation is needed to what the forest tenure reform system is.

 

Response:

We added footnote to explain the forest tenure reform system.

 

“The forest tenure reform system distinguishes forest ownership, forest use rights and forest land use rights. Its purpose is to analyze property rights clearly.”

 

7.Line 36 - what is Under-forest economy?

 

Response:

We added footnote to explain the under-forest economy.

 

“Under-forest economy is based on the ecological environment of forest land, using forest land resources, and carrying out multiple operations of forest, agriculture, animal husbandry and other projects under the canopy.”  

 

8.Line 40 - what are backward facilities?  Avoid the use of "Anyway" to start a sentence.

 

Response:

Thank you very much for your suggestions and comments. “backward facilities” has been changed into "low quality". And "Anyway" was changed into "Up to now". As shown in lines 31-32：

 

“Up to now, the research on forestry infrastructure supplies has mainly focused on analyses of issues such as insufficient supplies, low quality, and a shortage of funds [1-8].”

 

9.Line 46 - the transition is very abrupt. The previous paragraph is a discussion on the lack of research and then this paragraph starts with "General items". 

 

Response:

We have added transition sentences between the two paragraphs. As shown in lines 44-45：

 

“General goods include forestry infrastructure. Forestry infrastructure can be classified according to the classification of general goods.”

 

10.Line 53 - home and abroad again.

 

Response:

We delete it in the revised paper.

 

11.Lines 54-55 - the sentence does not make sense

 

Response:

Thanks for your suggestion. We have modified this sentence. As shown in lines 80-81：

 

“Our research object is quasi-public goods for forestry infrastructure. And we mainly simulate the supply process of quasi-public goods for forestry infrastructure.”

 

12.Line 60 - existing research is used twice

 

Response:

Thank you very much for your reminder. We deleted one of the two words. As shown in lines 57-58：

 

“This paper draws on existing research and uses game theory to analyze the supply mechanisms of quasi-public goods for forestry infrastructure.”

 

13.Line 83 - the last sentence is incomplete

 

Response:

We added the subject "we" to this sentence. It is shown in lines 81-82.

 

“Finally, we indicate the main factors that affect the cooperative games.”

 

14.Lines 90-94 is there a difference in the 2 sentences?

 

Response:

These two sentences explain cooperative and non-cooperative games. But the expression is not clear, which leads to ambiguous meaning. We asked professionals to make changes. As shown in lines 87-89.

 

“These can be divided into different categories according to different classification methods. Among these methods are non-cooperative games and cooperative games (depending on the relationship between individual interests and collective interests) [46,47].”

 

15.Line 99 - Lin Nong A and B are presented and they do not get mentioned again so it seems like there is no need to use a name.

 

Response:

 

“Suppose there are two rational people in a forest area, subject A and subject B, both of whom have the same income.”

 

16.Line 269 - it would be good to mention Figure 2 in the text prior to discussing it after the figure is presented.  The same for Table 5, Table 7, and Figure 4.

 

Response:

Referring to your suggestions, we have added discussions after the Table 5, Table 7, and Figure 4.

 

Table 5. indicates the results of a Wilcoxon signed-rank test to check whether there is a difference between "donations determined after consultation" and "actual donations" in the six groups of experiments. "Median of the average of donations after consultation" and "median of the average of actual donations" were calculated. "Median difference" refers to the median difference between "donations determined after consultation" and "actual donations", and the "P-value" represents the significance level of the difference. When the P value is less than 0.1, the difference is significant. （lines 324-329）

 

Table 7. includes a Wilcoxon signed-rank test to check whether there was a difference between "the true value of the return rate β" and "the estimated value of the return rate β". "Mean of true values of β", "mean of estimated values of β", "median of mean of true values of β", and "median of mean of estimated values of β" were each calculated. "Median difference" refers to the median of the difference between "the true value of the return rate β" and "the estimated value of the return rate β". "P-value" represents the level of significance level of the difference. When "P-value" is less than 0.1, the difference is significant. （lines 385-390）

 

Figure 4. Summary of reward and punishment in the groups with reward and punishment: (a) under the conditions of Experiment 4, when the group members could not communicate (statistics on rewards and punishments meted out to other people or statistics on rewards and punishments received by members); (b) under the conditions of Experiment 4, when the group members could communicate (statistics on rewards and punishments mete out to other people or statistics on rewards and punishments received by members); (c) under the conditions of Experiment 6, when the group members could not communicate (statistics on rewards and punishments meted out to other people or statistics on rewards and punishments received by members); and (d) under the conditions of Experiment 6, when the group members could communicate, (statistics on rewards and punishments meted out to other people or statistics on rewards and punishments received by members). “Average donation amount for reward”, “average donation amount for punishment”, “average reward received”, and “average penalty received” represent the number of experimental coins under different experimental conditions. Before each round of experiments began, each member had 50 initial coins. “Time” is the number of rounds in the experiment. 1-10 represents the first to tenth round. Each experiment contains 10 rounds. （lines 487-500）

 

17.Can the Appendices be understood world-wide?

 

Response:

We have translated the appendices into English to make it easier for scholars worldwide to understand.

 

18.It would help to have a Conclusion paragraph for the take-home message of the paper.

 

Response:

Thank you very much for your advice. We added the conclusion section. As shown in lines 663-686：

“4. Discussion and Conclusion

We studied two issues: (1) Which is better, cooperation or noncooperation.? (2) What are the key factors affecting the private voluntary supply of goods for forestry infrastructure? Our research finds that (1) with private cooperation, the supply was higher than with private noncooperation. (2) Communication, environmental determination, information feedback, and reward and punishment mechanisms affected the quantity of private, voluntary supplies. (3) Communication could increase supply. (4) Reward and punishment mechanisms could also increase supply. (5) The impact of environmental certainty on supply depended on reward and punishment mechanisms. When there was no reward and punishment mechanism, environmental uncertainty increased the supply of goods for forestry infrastructure. When incentives and penalties were in place, a defined environment increased the supply of goods for forestry infrastructure. (6) The impact of information feedback on supply depended on environmental certainty. When the environment was determined, information feedback will increase donations. When the environment was uncertain, no information feedback increases donations.

Choi and Ahn have written that rewards and punishments can increase supply [49]. This is consistent with our findings. Zhou and other scholars have indicated that environmental uncertainty will increase donations [48]. Zhou's experimental design considered leaders and did not consider reward and punishment mechanisms, which is not exactly what our experimental design did. Zhang found that the method of information feedback will affect the free-riding behavior [50]. Our research did not consider the method of information feedback, which is a disadvantage of our experimental design.

The conclusions of our experiments are instructive for the private voluntary provision of quasi-public goods for forestry infrastructure. On the one hand, low-cost quasi-public goods can be provided by private voluntary foresters in the forest. Meanwhile, cooperation between foresters should be promoted as far as possible. On the other hand, reward and punishment mechanisms should be made public as much as possible, and members should communicate more.”

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed the paper "Experimental Study on Private Voluntary Supply Mechanism of Forestry Infrastructure Based on Game Theory from the Perspective of Quasi-public goods". The aims of the paper are germane with Sustainability journal, in this form of article could fit with the international scientific standards, although important flaws are present, for these reasons changes are needed. The paper is written with an appropriate technical English level. The contribution of this paper to the scientific knowledge in the present form is poor.

I suggest the corrections in the file attached and, in the comments, below:

• Introduction: this chapter seems well written, however I suggest to go into two very important aspects to better contextualize the topic:

1) you write always and only referring to the forestry infrastructure, but you never describe in detail what it is specifically. I think it is appropriate to dedicate at least an entire period to the topic;

2) you have linked the importance of forestry infrastructure mainly to the industrial context but there are many aspects concerning forestry infrastructure, both environmental and protective / planning. I suggest developing a period for these aspects too.

• In the text there are several mistakes related to spacing (between words or line).
• Materials and methods: in my opinion this part is too didactic, try to summarize it by focusing mainly on technical-scientific applications, using bibliographic references as much as possible.
• In some graphics and tables: please in order to have a better comprehension could you write what is the value or a hypothetical measurement unit of these numbers?
• Discussion and conclusion: this is the real lack of this paper. It would be desirable that in the discussions the data obtained from the results are also discussed in comparison with other bibliographical references. This is a serious shortcoming for this well-done study. It is absolutely necessary to reformulate this part with a more scientific detail.

References: please attention in formatting the papers correctly.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for your Comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript based on your comments.As shown below:

1.This chapter seems well written, however I suggest to go into two very important aspects to better contextualize the topic:

1) you write always and only referring to the forestry infrastructure, but you never describe in detail what it is specifically. I think it is appropriate to dedicate at least an entire period to the topic;

2) you have linked the importance of forestry infrastructure mainly to the industrial context but there are many aspects concerning forestry infrastructure, both environmental and protective / planning. I suggest developing a period for these aspects too.

 

Response:

Thank you very much for your suggestions and review. We have modified the introduction according to your suggestion. As shown in lines 26 to 43：

 

“Forestry infrastructure refers to material engineering facilities for forestry public services that provide economic, social and ecological benefits, such as cycling roads, tool storerooms, and transfer facilities. Forestry infrastructure is material for the sustainable development of the forestry industry. Research on the private and voluntary supply of goods for forestry infrastructure is important to ensure long-term supplies. A sound forestry infrastructure could promote the sustainable development of forestry production.

Up to now, the research on forestry infrastructure supplies has mainly focused on analyses of issues such as insufficient supplies, low quality, and a shortage of funds [1-8]. Research on forestry infrastructure supplies has not been enough, but forestry infrastructure is receiving increasing attention: many studies have mentioned the importance of forestry infrastructure. In terms of forestry production activities, many scholars believe that a sound forestry infrastructure can promote the development of a forestry economy and deepen the forest tenure reform system [5, 9-11]. The development of the under-forest economy and disaster prevention in forest areas is inexorably linked to sound forestry infrastructure [12-16]. Sound forestry infrastructure is not only conducive to accelerating the circulation of forest products, but also can improve the efficiency of the use of forestry industry information resources [17-20]. In terms of environmental protection, one study has shown that responding to more extreme climatic changes will require infrastructure support [21]. In terms of environmental planning, some scholars believe that a sound forestry infrastructure is integral to ecological restoration after a disaster [22-23]. Therefore, many scholars have suggested that infrastructure construction and investment should be strengthened to improve forestry foundation facilities [5, 9-11].”

 

2.Please insert space

 

Response:

We inserted spaces based on your suggestion.

 

3.Please insert some references about

 

Response:

We have inserted relevant references according to your comments. As shown in lines 85-92:

 

“Game theory is a mathematical theory and method for studying the phenomena of struggle or competition. The basic concepts include people, actions, information, strategies, benefits, equilibrium, and results. These can be divided into different categories according to different classification methods. Among these methods are noncooperative games and cooperative games (depending on the relationship between individual interests and collective interests) [46,47]. Using this kind of game classification, we first studied the noncooperative game equilibrium results and then studied the cooperative game equilibrium results. It was concluded that the cooperative game equilibrium results were better than those of the non-cooperative games. A detailed analysis follows.”

 

46. Xie, S.Y. Economic Game Theory; Fudan University Press: Shanghai, China, 2017; 23-24.
47. Klaus, R. Foundations of Non-Cooperative Game Theory. Oxford University Press: Oxford, England, 2003; 7-8.”

 

4.in my opinion this part is too didactic, try to summarize it by focusing mainly on technical-scientific applications, using bibliographic references as much as possible.

 

Response:

Thank you very much for your advice and guidance. We have explained "Noncooperative game theory" following your suggestion. As shown in lines 94-97 ：

 

“Noncooperative game theory can be defined as games theory with complete rules. Hence, noncooperative game theory can be described by three features. First, the Rules are complete. Second, the ultimate decision units are the individual players. Third, Commitments are not available, unless allowed for by the rules of the game [47].”

 

47. Klaus, R. Foundations of Non-Cooperative Game Theory. Oxford University Press: Oxford, England, 2003;7-8.

 

5.please insert spacing above

 

Response:

We follow your comments "insert spacing above" and "insert spacing below". The same changes have been made to other Tables and Figures.

 

6. In my opinion this part is too didactic, try to summarize it by focusing mainly on technical-scientific applications, using bibliographic references as much as possible.

 

Response:

Thank you very much for your suggestions and review. We have explained "Noncooperative game theory" following your suggestion. This is shown in lines 159 to 164：

 

“Since rules are only broadly defined, the individual decision problems of players cannot be directly analyzed. Cooperative game theory circumvents this difficulty by emphasizing coalitions of players. The study of coalitions implicitly assumes that such coalitions contain a presumption that players commit themselves, either by explicitly signing enforceable contracts or by transferring their decision-making powers. Hence, cooperative game theory is characterized by three features. First, rules are kept implicit. Second, the emphasis is on coalitions. Third, commitments are available [47].”

 

47. Klaus, R. Foundations of Non-Cooperative Game Theory. Oxford University Press: Oxford, England, 2003;7-8.

 

7. please it is necessary to specify what kind of literature, insert specific citations

 

Response:

We supplemented your references with your comments, as shown in lines 200-207:

 

“In order to study the main factors that affect cooperative games, this paper uses experimental economics methods. On the basis of the literature and real-life situations, four control variables were selected: whether there was communication, whether the environment was determined, whether the information was feedback information, and whether there was a reward and punishment mechanism [48,49]. A total of 12 experiments were designed, including 6 experiments in the nonexchange group and 6 experiments in the exchange group. The specific experimental design is shown in Table 3. The realization of the experimental design relied on Z-Tree software. This paper only shows a part of the experimental process and experimental procedures. For related information, see Appendix A.”

 

48. Zhou, Y.A.; Huang, G.B.; He H.R; Liu M.W. Can Leaders Really Serve as Role Models: A Study Based on Public Goods Game Experiments. Management World 2014,30, 75-90.
49. Choi, J.-K.; Ahn, T.K. Strategic Reward and Altruistic Punishment Support Cooperation in a Public Goods Game Experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology 2013, 35, 17-30.

 

8.please in order to have a better comprehension could you write what is the value or an hypothetical measurement unit of these numbers?

 

Response:

The numbers in Table 4 are statistics on donations. When experimenting with Z-tree, the donation amount and income are calculated by counting the number of virtual experimental coins. Therefore, these numbers are actually statistics of experimental coins. We have added relevant explanations below the Table 4, Figure 2, Figure 3 ,Figure 4：

 

Table 4.  “C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C11, C22, C33, C44, C55, and C66 represent the number of experimental coins donated under different experimental conditions. Before each round of experiments began, each member had 50 initial coins.” (line 276-278)

Figure 2. “Mean values of donations without communication”, “mean values of donations with communication”, “mean values of planned investment after communication”, “mean values of earnings without communication”, and “means values of earnings with communication” represent the number of experimental coins under different experimental conditions. Before each round of experiments began, each member had 50 initial coins. Time is the number of rounds in the experiment. 1-10 represents the first to tenth round. Each experiment contains 10 rounds. (line 300-305)

Figure 3. “Actual value” and “estimated value” represent the number of experimental coins under different experimental conditions. Before each round of experiments began, each member had 50 initial coins. Time is the number of rounds in the experiment. 1-10 represents the first to tenth round. Each experiment contains 10 rounds. (line 409-412)

Figure 4. “Average donation amount for reward”, “average donation amount for punishment”, “average reward received”, and “average penalty received” represent the number of experimental coins under different experimental conditions. Before each round of experiments began, each member had 50 initial coins. “Time” is the number of rounds in the experiment. 1-10 represents the first to tenth round. Each experiment contains 10 rounds. (line 496-500)

 

9. please in order to have a better comprehension could you write what is the value or an hypothetical measurement unit of these numbers? Please also for the time.

 

Response:

We have modified it according to your suggestions. For details, see Question 8.

 

10. “The Analyzation of Figure 2 is as follows. The amount of donation in Experiment 2 is slightly higher than Experiment 1, , which indicates that the uncertainty of the environment can increase the donation level when there is no information feedback. “delete", ".

 

Response:

Thank you very much for reminding. We deleted one of the symbols ", ". (line 306-307)

 

11. please insert the format apex for the number 2.

Please verify also in the other tables.

 

Response:

According to your suggestion, we changed R2 to R². We have made the same changes in other Tables.

 

12. please note that the significant p-value normally are different. Specify why do you use this 3 different levels.

Verify also in the other tables.

 

Response:

We have explained the significance of P-value in detail. As shown in lines 540-544:

 

“When P was less than 0.1, H0 could be rejected (there was no relationship between the two variables). Therefore, the P-value of the variable was less than 0.1, which indicates that the explanatory variable had a significant effect on the dependent variable. In order to more accurately describe the significance of the variables, P-values less than 0.1 were divided into three levels. 0.05 < P < 0.1, the first level, is marked with *; 0.01 < P < 0.05, the second level, is marked **; and P < 0.01, the third level, is marked with ***.”

 

13 Discussion and conclusion

 

Response:

According to your suggestion, we changed "Discussion" into "Discussion and Conclusion". (line 663)

 

14. It would be desirable that in the discussions the data obtained from the results are also discussed in comparison with other bibliographical references. This is a serious shortcoming for this well-done study. It is absolutely necessary to reformulate this part with a more scientific detail.

 

Response:

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We took your suggestions into consideration and re-wrote "Discussion and Conclusion". As shown in line 663-686:

“4. Discussion and Conclusion

We studied two issues: (1) Which is better, cooperation or noncooperation.? (2) What are the key factors affecting the private voluntary supply of goods for forestry infrastructure? Our research finds that (1) with private cooperation, the supply was higher than with private noncooperation. (2) Communication, environmental determination, information feedback, and reward and punishment mechanisms affected the quantity of private, voluntary supplies. (3) Communication could increase supply. (4) Reward and punishment mechanisms could also increase supply. (5) The impact of environmental certainty on supply depended on reward and punishment mechanisms. When there was no reward and punishment mechanism, environmental uncertainty increased the supply of goods for forestry infrastructure. When incentives and penalties were in place, a defined environment increased the supply of goods for forestry infrastructure. (6) The impact of information feedback on supply depended on environmental certainty. When the environment was determined, information feedback will increase donations. When the environment was uncertain, no information feedback increases donations.

Choi and Ahn have written that rewards and punishments can increase supply [49]. This is consistent with our findings. Zhou and other scholars have indicated that environmental uncertainty will increase donations [48]. Zhou's experimental design considered leaders and did not consider reward and punishment mechanisms, which is not exactly what our experimental design did. Zhang found that the method of information feedback will affect the free-riding behavior [50]. Our research did not consider the method of information feedback, which is a disadvantage of our experimental design.

The conclusions of our experiments are instructive for the private voluntary provision of quasi-public goods for forestry infrastructure. On the one hand, low-cost quasi-public goods can be provided by private voluntary foresters in the forest. Meanwhile, cooperation between foresters should be promoted as far as possible. On the other hand, reward and punishment mechanisms should be made public as much as possible, and members should communicate more.”

48. Zhou, Y.A.; Huang, G.B.; He H.R; Liu M.W. Can Leaders Really Serve as Role Models: A Study Based on Public Goods Game Experiments. Management World 2014,30, 75-90.
49. Choi, J.-K.; Ahn, T.K. Strategic Reward and Altruistic Punishment Support Cooperation in a Public Goods Game Experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology 2013, 35, 17-30.
50. Zhang J.B. Research on the Free-riding Behavior of Public Goods Based on Experimental Economics. Master. Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, 2014.

 

Best wishes,                                          Liying Zhang

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

great job with the re-write of the manuscript. best wishes getting it published.  a little text editing is needed but i assume the journal will do that.

Author Response

Experimental Study Based on Game Theory on the Private, Voluntary Supply Mechanisms of Goods for Forestry Infrastructure from the Perspective of Quasi-public Goods

 

Reviewer: 1 - Comments to the Author

1.Great job with the re-write of the manuscript. Best wishes getting it published. A little text editing is needed but I assume the journal will do that.

 

Response:

Thank you very much for your support. We commissioned two native speakers to revise the manuscript again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed the second submission of the paper " Experimental Study Based on Game Theory on the Private, Voluntary Supply Mechanisms of Goods for Forestry Infrastructure from the Perspective of Quasi-public Good". The aims of the paper are germane with Sustainability journal, in this form of article fits with the international scientific standards, although some flaws are still present, for these reasons changes are needed. The paper is written with an appropriate technical English level. The contribution of this paper to the scientific knowledge in the present form is appropriate/good. I suggest the corrections in the comments below and also in the file attached.

• Introduction further details and references are necessary to better contextualize the topic.
• Materials and methods: I suggest to add a further sub chapter about statistical analysis.
• Some statistical tests and p-value need more specification, please see the comments in the pdf attached.
• References format is again wrong.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

In the first revision, we commissioned the revision agency recommended by MDPI for revising. In the second revision, the time used to revise was short and included weekends, so we did not return to the MDPI for the second revision. We commissioned two native speakers for revising.

 

Experimental Study Based on Game Theory on the Private, Voluntary Supply Mechanisms of Goods for Forestry Infrastructure from the Perspective of Quasi-public Goods

 

Reviewer: 2 - Comments to the Author

 

1. In order to have a further detailed introduction about the topic I suggest also to referring to some of these suggested references:

• Akay, A.E.; Sessions, J. Roading and transport operations. In: Burley. J., Evans. J., Youngquist. J. Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences (Eds). Elsevier Academic Press. Amsterdam. The Netherlands, 2004, pp. 472 259-269.
• Corona, P.; Ascoli, D.; Barbati, A.; Bovio, G.; Colangelo, G.; Elia, M.; Garfì, V.; Iovino, F.; Lafortezza, R.; Leone, V.; Lovreglio, R.; Marchetti, M.; Marchi, E.; Menguzzato, G.; Nocentini, S.; Picchio, R.; Portoghesi, L.; Puletti, N.; Sanesi, G.; Chianucci, F. Integrated forest management to prevent wildfires under Mediterranean environments. Ann. Silvic. Res. 2015, 39, 1–22.
• Enache, A.; Pentek, T.; Ciobanu, V. D.; Stampfer, K. GIS based methods for computing the mean extraction distance and its correction factors in Romanian mountain forests. Šumarski list. 2015, 1–2, 35–46.
• Gumus, S.; Turk, Y. A New Skid Trail Pattern Design for Farm Tractors Using Linear Programing and Geographical Information Systems. Forests 2016, 7,306. doi:10.3390/f7120306.
• Hayati, E.; Majnounian, B.; Abdi, E. Qualitative evaluation and optimization of forest road network to minimize total costs and environmental impacts. iForest 2012, 5(3), 121–125.
• Laschi, A.; Neri, F.; Brachetti Montorselli, N.; Marchi, E. A Methodological Approach Exploiting Modern Techniques for Forest Road Network Planning. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2016, 37(2), 319-331.
• Parsakhoo, A.; Mostafa, M. Road network analysis for timber transportation from a harvesting site to mills (Case study: Gorgan county–Iran). J. For. Sci. 2015, 61, 520–525.
• Picchio, R.; Latterini, F.; Mederski, P.S; Venanzi, R.; Karaszewski, Z.; Bembenek, M.; Croce, M. Open Source GIS application: comparing accuracy of three methods for determining winching areas. Electronics 2019, 8(1), 53.
• Picchio, R.; Spina, R.; Calienno, L.; Venanzi, R.; Lo Monaco, A. Forest operations for implementing silvicultural treatments for multiple purposes. Ital. J. Agron. 2016, 11, 156-161.

 

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. We have modified the introduction to follow your suggestions. [9-14, 18, 19, 25] referenced the references you suggested. The revised sentences (lines 31-54) are:

 

“Up to now, the researches on forestry infrastructure supplies have mainly focused on analyses of insufficient supplies, low quality, and a shortage of funds etc. [1-8]. Some scholars also studied on forest roads. Road location and design is a complex engineering problem involving economic and environmental requirements [9]. For instance, Enache et al. [10] carried out research on how the extraction distance and correction factors could be computed and used for assessing forest road options in a more efficient and effective manner utilizing process automation in Geographic Information Systems. Hayati et al. [11] considered skidding cost, road construction and maintenance costs, and harvesting volume in each compartment to confirm the optimum forest road network density and evaluated the quantity and quality of the existing forest road network. Laschi et al. [12] developed a Decision Support System to assist managers in the process of forest road network planning, exploiting Multi-Criteria Analysis, an Analytic Hierarchy Process and Geographic Information Systems. Parsakhoo and Mostafa [13] summarized the results of Road Network Analysis (RNA) and evaluated the shortest path in Gorgan city public road network in Iran to save travel time. Picchio et al. [14] tested the accuracy in estimating areas accessible for winching along skid trails with three Geographic Information Systems, namely correct distance method (CDM), real distance buffer method 12 (RDBM12) and real distance buffer method 10 (RDBM10). However, research on forestry infrastructure supplies is not enough.

 Forestry infrastructure is getting more and more attentions. Many studies have mentioned the importance of forestry infrastructure. In terms of forestry production activities, many scholars believed that a sound forestry infrastructure could promote the development of forestry economy and deepen the forest tenure reform system and forest operations [5, 15-18]. Gumus and Turk [19] analyzed the timber extraction by farm tractors, and developed a new skid trail pattern design using Linear Programming (LP) and Geographical Information Systems.

The development of under-forest economy and disaster prevention in forest areas is inexorably linked to sound forestry infrastructure [20-25].”

 

[9] Akay, A.E.; Sessions, J. Roading and transport operations. In: Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences. Burley. J., Evans. J., Youngquist. J., (Eds).; Elsevier Academic Press: Amsterdam. The Netherlands, 2004, pp. 259-269.

[10] Corona, P.; Ascoli, D.; Barbati, A.; Bovio, G.; Colangelo, G.; Elia, M.; Garfì, V.; Iovino, F.; Lafortezza, R.; Leone, V.; Lovreglio, R.; Marchetti, M.; Marchi, E.; Menguzzato, G.; Nocentini, S.; Picchio, R.; Portoghesi, L.; Puletti, N.; Sanesi, G.; Chianucci, F. Integrated forest management to prevent wildfires under Mediterranean environments. Ann. Silvic. Res. 2015, 39, 1-22.

[11] Enache, A.; Pentek, T.; Ciobanu, V. D.; Stampfer, K. GIS based methods for computing the mean extraction distance and its correction factors in Romanian mountain forests. Šumar List. 2015, 139, 35-46.

[12] Gumus, S.; Turk, Y. A New Skid Trail Pattern Design for Farm Tractors Using Linear Programing and Geographical Information Systems. Forests 2016, 7, 306.

[13] Hayati, E.; Majnounian, B.; Abdi, E. Qualitative evaluation and optimization of forest road network to minimize total costs and environmental impacts. Forests 2012, 5, 121-125.

[14] Laschi, A.; Neri, F.; Brachetti Montorselli, N.; Marchi, E. A Methodological Approach Exploiting Modern Techniques for Forest Road Network Planning. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2016, 37, 319-331.

[18] Parsakhoo, A.; Mostafa, M. Road network analysis for timber transportation from a harvesting site to mills (Case study: Gorgan county–Iran). J. For. Sci. 2015, 61, 520–525.

[19] Picchio, R.; Latterini, F.; Mederski, P.S; Venanzi, R.; Karaszewski, Z.; Bembenek, M.; Croce, M. Comparing accuracy of three methods based on the gis environment for determining winching areas. Electronics-Switz. 2019, 8, 53.

[25] Picchio, R.; Spina, R.; Calienno, L.; Venanzi, R.; Lo Monaco, A. Forest operations for implementing silvicultural treatments for multiple purposes. Ital. J. Agron. 2016, 11, 156-161.

 

2. Table1 --There is a mistake?

 

Response:

Thank you very much for reminding. We have corrected it to "Does not offer". (Lines 171-172)

 

3. I suggest also to add a further sub chapter: 2.2.3 Statistical analysis

 

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the chapter “2.2.3 Statistical Analysis”. The added chapter (lines 286-296) is:

“2.2.3 Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis of the personal characteristics of the experimental subjects are shown in Table 4. We counted some variables such as gender, age, income, and trustworthiness of the experimental subjects.

Table 4. Statistical analysis of experimental objects

Variables	Mean	Standard deviation	Min	Median	Max
Gender	0.100	0.300	0.000	0.000	1.000
Ethnic group	0.950	0.218	0.000	1.000	1.000
Communist or not	0.050	0.218	0.000	0.000	1.000
Overdraft or not	0.200	0.400	0.000	0.000	1.000
Part-time or not	0.500	0.500	0.000	0.500	1.000
Participated in the experiment or not	0.150	0.357	0.000	0.000	1.000
Average household income per month	3.250	0.829	1.000	3.000	4.000
Evaluation of self-reliability	3.800	0.600	2.000	4.000	5.000
Evaluation of Stranger's credibility	2.700	0.781	1.000	3.000	4.000

Note: Gender (0 = female; 1 = male); Ethnic group (0 = ethnic minorities; 1 = Han ethnic); Communist or not (0 = No; 1 = Yes); Overdraft or not (0 = No; 1 = Yes); Part-time or not (0 = No; 1 = Yes);  Participated in the experiment or not (0 = no; 1 = yes); Average household income per month (1 = 0-3000 RMB; 2 = 3001 RMB-6000 RMB; 3 = 6001 RMB-9000 RMB; 4 = 9000 RMB or more); Evaluation of self-reliability(5 = very trustworthy; 4 = trustworthy; 3 = fair; 2 = untrustworthy; 1 = quite untrustworthy); Evaluation of Stranger's credibility (5 = very trusting; 4 = trusting; 3 = fair; 2 = untrusting; 1 = quite untrusting).”

 

4. Please if possible, specify this limit value of p, normally it is 0.05. I suppose that you consider the two tails of the Gaussian, is it true? Or what else?

 

Response:

Thank you very much for your reminders and guidance. After reading some papers, we found that the limit value of p in Mann-Whitney U- test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test is more often 0.05. We have modified them. When p <0.05, the mean of two independent samples is significantly different. The specific content is added in "2.3 Methods". The corresponding tables and analysis of results have also been modified. The revised sentences (lines 298-310) are:

 

“2.3.1 Mann-Whitney U- test

The Man-Whitney U- test, also called the "Man-Whitney rank sum test", was proposed by Mann and Whitney in 1947. The purpose was to test whether the means of these two samples were significantly different. The manuscript used this method to analyze whether the experimental results of these two groups of experiments were different when a certain experimental variable was changed. When the P value was <0.05, it indicated that the mean two independent samples was significantly different.

2.3.2 Wilcoxon signed-rank test

The Wilcoxon signed-rank test or Wilcoxon symbol test, was proposed by Wilcoxon (F. Wilcoxon) in 1945. The manuscript used this method to test whether the difference between two types of data in the same group was significant. For example, Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test whether the difference between "average of donations after consultation" and "the average of actual donations" was significant in Experiment 1 with communication. When the P value was <0.05, it indicated that the mean of two independent samples is significantly different.”

 

5. 351-362----Why do you use this statistical test? Do you want a comparison among two statistical samples or a design more complex? Please specify, and in my opinion a nonparametric ANOVA (Kruskall Wallis test) and post hoc, could be better.

 

Response:

We used a statistical test to compare whether the experimental results of the two groups of experiments changed when one of the experimental conditions was changed. This can be used to analyze the main factors affecting the donation amount. We compared the experimental groups in pairs. For example, in Table 7, Experiment 1 (NC) and Experiment 1 (C) were compared. Therefore, we used Mann - Whitney U-test. The form of the previous table is misleading, so we have modified the table. The revised table and sentences (lines 403-414) are:

 

“Table 7. Mann–Whitney U-test on the influence of communication on the supply of goods for forestry infrastructure.

Contrast Groups	P-values	Contrast Groups	P-values
Experiment 1(NC) & Experiment 1(C)	0.001	Experiment 4(NC) & Experiment 4(C)	0.363
Experiment 2(NC) & Experiment 2(C)	0.161	Experiment 5(NC) & Experiment 5(C)	0.406
Experiment 3(NC) & Experiment 3(C)	0.021	Experiment 6(NC) & Experiment 6(C)	0.028

 

An analysis of Table 7 is given below. It could be concluded that the difference between Experiment 1(NC) and Experiment 1(C) was significant, while the difference between Experiment 2(NC) and Experiment 2(C) was not significant. It shows that when there was no information feedback and the environment was determined, communication could increase donations. The difference between Experiment 3(NC) and Experiment 3(C) was significant, while the difference between Experiment 5(NC) and Experiment 5(C) was not. It shows that when there was information feedback, not reward and punishment mechanism, communication could increase donations in a determined environment. It could be concluded that the difference between Experiment 6(NC) and Experiment 6(C) was significant, but it was not between Experiment 4(NC) and Experiment 4(C), indicating that when there was a reward and punishment mechanism and an uncertain environment, communication could increase donations. “

 

6.384—table7----Also in this case, please specify why this test or change with KW test.

 

Response:

Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used to test whether there is a significant difference between the two groups of data in the same group. Mann-Whitney U-test is used to test whether there is a significant difference between the data of two different groups. We compare the data in pairs. For example, in Table 8, “the average of donations after consultation” and “average of actual donations” were compared in Experiment 1(C) to study hitchhiking behavior. The format of the original table is misleading. Therefore, we have modified the format of the table (table5-10). Because "Table 4. Statistical analysis of experimental objects" was added, the table numbers have changed. The modified tables (tables 6-11) are:

 

“Table 6. Wilcoxon signed-rank test results of the mean values of donations determined after consultation and actual donations in the experimental groups that were allowed to communicate.

Groups	Median of the average of donations after consultation	Median of the average of actual donations	Median difference	P-values
Experiment 1(C)	4.600	5.050	-0.133	0.674
Experiment 2(C)	8.375	4.083	2.875	0.012
Experiment 3(C)	15.375	7.750	5.667	0.007
Experiment 4(C)	15.4375	14.5833	0.7500	0.021
Experiment 5(C)	5.500	5.308	0.125	0.192
Experiment 6(C)	8.750	8.750	-0.200	0.207

 

Table 7. Mann–Whitney U-test on the influence of communication on the supply of goods for forestry infrastructure.

Contrast Groups	P-values	Contrast Groups	P-values
Experiment 1(NC) & Experiment 1(C)	0.001	Experiment 4(NC) & Experiment 4(C)	0.363
Experiment 2(NC) & Experiment 2(C)	0.161	Experiment 5(NC) & Experiment 5(C)	0.406
Experiment 3(NC) & Experiment 3(C)	0.021	Experiment 6(NC) & Experiment 6(C)	0.028

 

Table 8. Wilcoxon signed-rank test results of the true value and estimated value of the return rate β.

Groups	Median of mean of true values of β	Median of mean of estimated values of β	Median difference	P- values
Experiment 2(NC)	0.420	0.407	0.010	0.439
Experiment 5(NC)	0.430	0.468	-0.040	0.021
Experiment 6(NC)	0.420	0.426	-0.020	0.058
Experiment 2(C)	0.420	0.410	-0.015	0.306
Experiment 5(C)	0.430	0.430	0.013	0.959
Experiment 6(C)	0.430	0.408	0.030	0.105

 

Table 9. Mann–Whitney U-test of the impact of environmental certainty on the supply level of good for forestry infrastructure.

Contrast Groups	P-values	Contrast Groups	P-values
Experiment 1(NC) & Experiment 2(NC)	0.000	Experiment 1(C) & Experiment 2(C)	0.384
Experiment 3(NC) & Experiment 5(NC)	0.054	Experiment 3(C) & Experiment 5(C)	0.089
Experiment 4(NC) & Experiment 6(NC)	0.088	Experiment 4(C) & Experiment 6(C)	0.000

 

Table 10. Mann–Whitney U-test on the impact of information feedback on the supply levels of goods for forestry infrastructure.

Contrast Groups	P-values	Contrast Groups	P-values
Experiment 1(NC) & Experiment 3(NC)	0.009	Experiment 1(C) & Experiment 3(C)	0.496
Experiment 2(NC) & Experiment 5(NC)	0.028	Experiments 2(C) & Experiment 5(C)	0.256

 

Table 11. Mann–Whitney U-test on the influence of reward and punishment on the supply level of goods for forestry infrastructure.”

Contrast Groups	P-values	Contrast Groups	P-values
Experiment 3(NC) & Experiment 4(NC)	0.000	Experiment 3(C) & Experiment 4(C)	0.003
Experiment 5(NC) & Experiment 6(NC)	0.000	Experiment 5(C) & Experiment 6(C)	0.001

 

7. Please specify why did you use these limits? Normally they are: 0.05-0.01; 0.01-0.001 and <0.001. It is necessary a detailed sentence in the materials and methods.

 

Response:

Thank you very much for your suggestions and guidance. After reading some papers, we found that the limit value of p in multiple regression analysis is more often 0.05. So, we modified the limit of P-value. We have also modified the analysis of the corresponding regression results. We added "2.3.3 Multiple regression analysis". The revised sentences (lines 311-317) are:

 

“2.3.3 Multiple regression analysis

The manuscript used multiple regression to analyze the main factors that affect the amount of donations under different experimental conditions.

When P was less than 0.05, H0 could be rejected (there was no relationship between the two variables). Therefore, the P-value of the variable was less than 0.05, which indicated the explanatory variable had a significant effect on the dependent variable. * significant at the 0.05 probability level; ** significant at the 0.01 probability level.”

 

8.Please the references format is again not suitable for Sustainability. See the example below and apply to the complete list. Please I suggest to pay attention to the capital letters:

Business clusters in Mississippi's forest products industry. Please abbreviation in italic: Forest Policy Econ. Please this number in italic.

 

Response:

Thank you very much for your guidance. We have modified the format of the references in accordance with your suggestions and template.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx