Does Public Environmental Education and Advocacy Reinforce Conservation Behavior Value in Rural Southwest China?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
I have read this paper with interest and I hope you are open for some comments that may clarify some to even improve this presentation a bit.
This manuscript raises a very interesting topic. It provides an important voice in the discussion of how the environmental behaviors of rural Chinese residents are driven. Understanding this phenomenon can help reduce anthropogenic impacts on the environment.
In addition, the manuscript attempts to introduce an appealing research method. However, the manuscript can be supplemented with a few elements.
In the paper, you have shown interesting research. But in my opinion, a few things are missing.
It is a pity that the issues (theory) related to externalities, environmental services and sustainable development were not developed. Completion of the manuscript would undoubtedly have enriched the text. I recommend the articles by Robert Costanza.
The manuscript is mainly based on publications by Chinese authors. I think it would be good to expand this to include publications from the international scientific community (especially discussion).
So, the manuscript can be published after summarizing the comments and suggestions contained in this review and approval by the editor.
Title
The title would sound better if it were a question, e.g.: “Does public environmental education and conservation advocacy enhance conservation behavior values in rural southwestern China?”
Abstract
Annotate the year of the study in the abstract.
l.15 Instead of "destruction" maybe "a negative impact on"
l.24 Add the abbreviation (TPB).
Introduction
l.43-45. I would add “excessive” because ecosystems have their limit of anthropogenic activity. Up to a certain level, ecosystems can handle anthropogenic impacts. Once past that limit, ecosystems can have trouble returning to their baseline. Unfortunately, they may be lost irretrievably as well.
l46-47. Currently, is it no longer considered so? This opinion should be changed.
l.65. Whose studies?
l.66-67. without parentheses
- 95. “However, our understanding” – who – the author or all people? It is worth adding about a rational owner of private resources without state intervention. Such an owner will be guided primarily by satisfying his own needs (gain). If the price is high, he will “cut the forest” without thinking about sustainable development. Only state intervention can stop this.
l.100-103. Whose example is this? It sounds strange. Please provide references.
- 136. "knowledge from questionnaires" – knowledge from analysis from questionnaire measures.
Materials and methods
Please write clearly whether the study was statistically representative.
What was the general population, and what was the size of the research population in this regard?
l.169-170. The reliability of the measurement tool is described rather laconically. In Table S2, not much can be learned about it. Besides, there is not much to be learned from section “2.4 Data analysis” either. This needs to be described in great detail. In psychology, it is considered that the Cronbach's alpha of a tool should be at least 0.60, while it is preferred that the coefficient be close to 0.90. In Table S2, “Economics” has a very low coefficient of 0.07 (unless this is an error), “Willingness to conserve nature” 0.5.
It should be emphasized that the Cronbach's alpha index has its drawbacks (Sijtsma, K. On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very Limited Usefulness of Cronbach's Alpha. Psychometrika 2009, 74, 107-120.).
l.204. When were preliminary surveys conducted?
Hope this helps, keep it up!
Author Response
Responce to Reviewer 1
Dear author,
I have read this paper with interest and I hope you are open for some comments that may clarify some to even improve this presentation a bit.
This manuscript raises a very interesting topic. It provides an important voice in the discussion of how the environmental behaviors of rural Chinese residents are driven. Understanding this phenomenon can help reduce anthropogenic impacts on the environment.
In addition, the manuscript attempts to introduce an appealing research method. However, the manuscript can be supplemented with a few elements.
In the paper, you have shown interesting research. But in my opinion, a few things are missing.
It is a pity that the issues (theory) related to externalities, environmental services and sustainable development were not developed. Completion of the manuscript would undoubtedly have enriched the text. I recommend the articles by Robert Costanza.
Response (R): Robert Costanza has made many scientific contributions to the valuation of ecosystem services and their linkage to human economic and social aspects, in order to be able to reach and meet the SDGs. Thank you for you recommendation! The topic described from our manuscript is more about using the knowledge of ecosystem services to build model and the importance of illustrating ecosystem knowledge. We all have the same goal——how to reach the SDGs.
The manuscript is mainly based on publications by Chinese authors. I think it would be good to expand this to include publications from the international scientific community (especially discussion).
So, the manuscript can be published after summarizing the comments and suggestions contained in this review and approval by the editor.
R: We thank the reviewer for appreciating the importance of this work. And we have revised our manuscript based on your valuable suggestions.
Title
The title would sound better if it were a question, e.g.: “Does public environmental education and conservation advocacy enhance conservation behavior values in rural southwestern China?”
R:Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the title in revised manuscript as follows:
“Does Public environmental education and advocacy reinforce conservation behavior value in rural Southwest China?”
Abstract
Annotate the year of the study in the abstract.
R: Corrected as suggested. See in revised manuscript in Line 25 as follows:
“Our surveys examined behavior in the context of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) in Menglun town, rural southwest China in 2020.”
l.15 Instead of "destruction" maybe "a negative impact on"
R: Corrected as suggested. See in revised manuscript in Line 15 as follows:
“But a negative anthropogenic impact on natural habitats exacerbates the ongoing decline of global biodiversity and further undermines to ecosystem services for human well-being.”
l.24 Add the abbreviation (TPB).
R: Corrected as suggested. See in revised manuscript in Line 25 as follows:
“Our surveys examined behavior in the context of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) in Menglun town, rural southwest China in 2020.”
Introduction
l.43-45. I would add “excessive” because ecosystems have their limit of anthropogenic activity. Up to a certain level, ecosystems can handle anthropogenic impacts. Once past that limit, ecosystems can have trouble returning to their baseline. Unfortunately, they may be lost irretrievably as well.
R: Corrected as suggested. See in revised manuscript in Line 45 as follows:
“However, natural habitats face many excessive anthropogenic-driven threats, and their fragmentation and natural degradation directly or indirectly lead to a continuous decline in biodiversity.”
l46-47. Currently, is it no longer considered so? This opinion should be changed.
R: Thank you for pointing out. See in revised manuscript in Line 47 as follows:
“Human behavior is considered one of the greatest threats to habitat conservation.”
l.65. Whose studies?
R: Thank you! See in revised manuscript in Lines 67-69 as follows:
“Coon et al. [17] and Meijer et al. [18] have also indicated that the decision-making process is affected by external factors (e.g., geographical setting, social culture, atti-tudes, perceptions from others, economic stability, and personal sense of safety)”
l.66-67. without parentheses
R: Corrected as suggested.
- 95. “However, our understanding” – who – the author or all people? It is worth adding about a rational owner of private resources without state intervention. Such an owner will be guided primarily by satisfying his own needs (gain). If the price is high, he will “cut the forest” without thinking about sustainable development. Only state intervention can stop this.
R: Thank you. Here “our understanding” refers to all people`s understanding. But not all people are so considered. Therefore, I have added people`s explanation and redescribed my view (it refers to the fact that our understanding of human behaviors lags far behind the social concepts and perceptions that have been developed, which is why understanding and explanation have become more important) in the revised manuscript. See in Lines 93-99 as follows:
“However, our understanding for why people who take for granted the need to priori-tize their own gain act in deforestation, poaching and acquiring usable resources in natural habitats goes far behind social perceptions, focusing on ecological knowledge, the pleasure of acquiring material benefits, and traditional culture, beliefs that associated with local villagers”
l.100-103. Whose example is this? It sounds strange. Please provide references.
R: Thank you for pointing out. See in revised manuscript in Lines 99-101 as follows:
“For example, local people (refers to villager, government and stakeholders) lack or misunderstand knowledge of ecosystem services provided by local natural habitats (representing benefits of the ecosystem to human beings) [32]”s
1.136. "knowledge from questionnaires" – knowledge from analysis from questionnaire measures.
R: Corrected as suggested. See in revised manuscript in Line 134 as follows:
“We emphasize the importance of utilizing knowledge from analysis from questionnaire measures involving ecosystem services,…”
Materials and methods
Please write clearly whether the study was statistically representative.
R: Thank you for pointing out. Corrected as suggested.
What was the general population, and what was the size of the research population in this regard?
R: Thank you for pointing out. The general population is range from aged 15s and above, to ensure that they have experienced the behaviors described in the survey or can understand our survey. And according to the filed survey we all collected 211 valid questionnaires that is our size population. In order to more clearly describe our sample population and sample size, we then added descriptions to the revised manuscript. See in Lines 179-181 as follows:
“Our general population was villagers from surrounding villages in Menglun town, who are indigenous or have lived there for a long time and are familiar with the local natural environment. The general population is range from aged 15s and above.”
See in Lines 165-167 as follows:
“In total, we collected 7 valid interview text transcripts, and 211 valid questionnaires as sample sizes, with a validity rate of 96%.”
l.169-170. The reliability of the measurement tool is described rather laconically. In Table S2, not much can be learned about it. Besides, there is not much to be learned from section “2.4 Data analysis” either. This needs to be described in great detail. In psychology, it is considered that the Cronbach's alpha of a tool should be at least 0.60, while it is preferred that the coefficient be close to 0.90. In Table S2, “Economics” has a very low coefficient of 0.07 (unless this is an error), “Willingness to conserve nature” 0.5.
It should be emphasized that the Cronbach's alpha index has its drawbacks (Sijtsma, K. On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very Limited Usefulness of Cronbach's Alpha. Psychometrika 2009, 74, 107-120.).
R:Thank you for your suggestion. We have checked the data as well as the results of the analysis, and there were no errors in the low values for the Economic and Willingness indicators. However, based on the result that income has no impact on the contribution of conserving willingness (see Figure 2), the Economics indicator has no impact on the structural model results.
Based on your suggestion, we have added this paragraph to our supplementary materials as follows:
“It should be noted that the use of Cronbach's alpha also has its limits when it comes to measuring the consistency of variables [1]. Secondly, the low value of Economic indicator may be due to the effect of E2 classified by the area of villagers` land owned.”
l.204. When were preliminary surveys conducted?
R: Corrected as suggested. See in revised manuscript in Line 202 as follows:
“The questionnaire was written in Chinese, and minor adjustments were made to the text during a preliminary survey in August of 2020,…”
Hope this helps, keep it up!
R: Thank you!
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments:
The study and the written article are valuable contributions to the understanding of the importance of public environmental education and advocacy in the conservation behavior of villagers with various educational backgrounds, age groups, and income level. The article was generally well-written and is worth publishing. However, it would be much desirable to include the UN sustainability development goals (SDGs) in the introduction and discussion sections too. This research makes a very good example of explaining how SDG 4 (quality education), especially for young people (corresponding to line 392-394), would somehow influence the future sustainability of the forest and water resources (SDG 14, 15) and also not to be masked by short-term returns after drastic land use conversion into rubber monoculture plantation. Ultimately, villager should understand protection of nature (SDG14, 15) (corresponding to Line 381-383) would sustain long-term economic benefits (SDG 8) (corresponding to Line 388-390; Line 380-383) and self-satisfaction (SDG3) (corresponding to Line 388-390; Line 355-359). The authors may add more discussion based on the above points and how public environmental education would further increase their awareness of their level of protection and the underlying reasons (e.g., not to pick premature mushrooms, not to overfishing, not to expand rubber plantations).
The authors should note that the citation format should be made according to a numbering system with the order of occurrence.
Specific comments:
Abstract:
Line 16
…. And further undermines??? to ecosystem services.
Comment: the phrase should be revised to increase clarity, especially after the word undermines.
Keyword:
The authors may consider to include “sustainability literacy”
Introduction:
The authors may consider to include the concept of “sustainability literacy” which is the knowledge, skills and mindsets that allow individuals to become deeply committed to building a sustainable future and assisting in making informed and effective decisions to this end. Also, as I mentioned above, it is better to link different SDGs with your theory, which is quite common nowadays.
Line 117
“a biodiversity hotspot globally”
Comments: should be revised as "one of the biodiversity hotspots”
Line 119
“where there is rubber expansion”
Comments: should be revised as “there is a trend of expansion of rubber plantation”
Line 122-124
Comments: should be revised to increase clarity of phrase.
Line 123
“mushroom collection and fishing”
Comments: should be revised as “mushroom hunting/foraging and fishing”
Line 139
“manuscript”
Comments: should be revised as “study”
Line 196
“questionnaire”
Comments: should add “the questionnaire”
Discussion:
Line 386-396
Comment: somewhere in 4.1, the authors should mention there is some needs to enhance environmental education and between the age of 40-59, which we understand that they are the age group that can cause strong impact and make radical changes to the environment. They are the group that has the ability and power to convert lands into rubber plantations. How to disseminate the necessary message to them would be critical to the sustainable future in Yunnan.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer,
We would like to thank you and the anonymous reviewers for your very positive and encouraging comments. We appreciate the chance to revise and improve our work. The comments are all addressed in the updated manuscript, as described point-by-point below. We have submitted the manuscript in “track change” mode, so that the changes can easily be found. We found the comments helpful and believe the manuscript has been improved by taking them into account.
Please do not hesitate to contact us with feedback on the revised manuscript and thank you for your time,
Yours sincerely
Yang Bai, on behalf of the co-authors.
Responce to Reviewer
General comments:
The study and the written article are valuable contributions to the understanding of the importance of public environmental education and advocacy in the conservation behavior of villagers with various educational backgrounds, age groups, and income level. The article was generally well-written and is worth publishing. However, it would be much desirable to include the UN sustainability development goals (SDGs) in the introduction and discussion sections too. This research makes a very good example of explaining how SDG 4 (quality education), especially for young people (corresponding to line 392-394), would somehow influence the future sustainability of the forest and water resources (SDG 14, 15) and also not to be masked by short-term returns after drastic land use conversion into rubber monoculture plantation. Ultimately, villager should understand protection of nature (SDG14, 15) (corresponding to Line 381-383) would sustain long-term economic benefits (SDG 8) (corresponding to Line 388-390; Line 380-383) and self-satisfaction (SDG3) (corresponding to Line 388-390; Line 355-359). The authors may add more discussion based on the above points and how public environmental education would further increase their awareness of their level of protection and the underlying reasons (e.g., not to pick premature mushrooms, not to overfishing, not to expand rubber plantations).
Responce (R): Thank you for your suggestion. Your suggestion is a great improvement to the article quality. We refer to the suggestions you provided to incorporate SDGs content into the article, especially SDGs 4, 8, 12 and 13, but SDG 3 is mainly concerned with health and its human well-being. I have revised and added specific content in each section.
See in Lines 15-17 as follows:
“But a negative anthropogenic impact on natural habitats exacerbates the ongoing decline of global biodiversity, further undermines to ecosystem services for human well-being and difficult to reach the UN sustainability development goals (SDGs).”
See in Lines 53-55 as follows:
“As the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda commitments are implemented, human behavior is receiving increased attention because it can slow down the harmonious coexistence of environment and society.”
See in Lines 106-107 as follows:
“This slogan aims to increase social perception of ecosystem services, promote the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),…”
See in Lines 391-393 as follows:
“Because the UN 2030 Agenda also emphasizes the synergies between achieving various SDGs, containing SDGs 4, 8, 14 and 15, it implies that individual economic development and environment are closely linked.”
See in Line 471 as follows:
“Revitalizing the countryside is a SDGs issue that seeks ecological development paths…”
See in Line 549 as follows:
“These factors can be taken into account in local community management and SDGs.”
The authors should note that the citation format should be made according to a numbering system with the order of occurrence.
R: Thank you for pointing out. Corrected as suggested.
Specific comments:
Abstract:
Line 16
…. And further undermines??? to ecosystem services.
Comment: the phrase should be revised to increase clarity, especially after the word undermines.
R: Yes. The word “undermine” was suggested by another reviewer. I think this suggestion is fine. But we have revised this phrase in Lines 15-17 as follows:
“But a negative anthropogenic impact on natural habitats exacerbates the ongoing decline of global biodiversity and further undermines to ecosystem services for human well-being,…”
Keyword:
The authors may consider to include “sustainability literacy”
R: Thank you for your suggestion. Corrected as suggested. See in the Lines 39-40 as follows:
“Habitat conservation; Rural development; Structural equation modelling; Theory of Planned Behavior; Interviews; Ecosystem services; Sustainability Literacy”
Introduction:
The authors may consider to include the concept of “sustainability literacy” which is the knowledge, skills and mindsets that allow individuals to become deeply committed to building a sustainable future and assisting in making informed and effective decisions to this end. Also, as I mentioned above, it is better to link different SDGs with your theory, which is quite common nowadays.
R: Thank you for your suggestion. The analytical data base on which we build our theory and its concepts are derived from the knowledge of ecosystem services. But there is no denying that the knowledge of ecosystem services and SDGs are closely linked. Now I did not modify the model description built based on the knowledge of ecosystem services in fear of causing greater ambiguity. However, I have added the SDGs content in the Introduction section to increase their connection and make it easier for the reader to link them together.
See in Lines 53-55 as follows:
“As the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda commitments are implemented, human behavior is receiving increased attention because it can slow down the harmonious coexistence of environment and society.”
See in Lines 106-107 as follows:
“This slogan aims to increase social perception of ecosystem services, promote the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),…”
Line 117
“a biodiversity hotspot globally”
Comments: should be revised as "one of the biodiversity hotspots”
R: Corrected as suggested. See in the Lines 116-117 as follows:
“Our study was placed in a rural town in Xishuangbanna Prefecture, Yunnan Province, China. This tropical region is one of the biodiversity hotspots”
Line 119
“where there is rubber expansion”
Comments: should be revised as “there is a trend of expansion of rubber plantation”
R: Corrected as suggested. See in the Lines 117-118 as follows:
“It is also one of the most biodiversity threatened areas, where there is a trend of expansion of rubber plantation, overexploitation of native forests and local hunting culture…”
Line 122-124
Comments: should be revised to increase clarity of phrase.
R: Thank you for pointing out. We have revised this phrase in the Lines 120-123 as follows:
“There exist traditional religious (e.g., devotional attitude to nature), cultural beliefs (e.g., sacred woods or forests), and achieving material benefits (e.g., mushroom hunt-ing/foraging and fishing) underpinning their environmental behaviors.”
Line 123
“mushroom collection and fishing”
Comments: should be revised as “mushroom hunting/foraging and fishing”
R: Corrected as suggested. See in the Line 122 as follows:
“and achieving material benefits (e.g., mushroom hunting/foraging and fishing) …”
Line 139
“manuscript”
Comments: should be revised as “study”
R: Corrected as suggested. See in the Line 138 as follows:
“Hence, in this study,…”
Line 196
“questionnaire”
Comments: should add “the questionnaire”
R: Corrected as suggested. See in the Line 194 as follows:
“…to complete the questionnaire.”
Discussion:
Line 386-396
Comment: somewhere in 4.1, the authors should mention there is some needs to enhance environmental education and between the age of 40-59, which we understand that they are the age group that can cause strong impact and make radical changes to the environment. They are the group that has the ability and power to convert lands into rubber plantations. How to disseminate the necessary message to them would be critical to the sustainable future in Yunnan.
R: Thank you for pointing out. We have added this phrase in the revised manuscript. Suggestions for how to sustainably develop were discussed in 4.2 section, but not just for this group. The suggestions mentioned are generally suitable for use in this group and thus are not discussed separately. See in Lines 396-399 as follows:
“The higher age groups, especially between 50-59 years old, were weaker in indicating their willingness. This group is probably more adamant when it comes to interest con-siderations (e.g., the cultivation of rubber plantation).”
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper entitled "Public environmental education and advocacy reinforce conservation behavior value in rural Southwest China" is an interesting study and need some Major changes to improve the quality of the work to reach it to the publishable level. Followings are recommendations needed to improve quality of the work before it is finally published.
Title: title needs to rewrite as it depicts the Public environmental education, but i could find 5 to 6 times this concept in the study. The author should focus on either they consider the environmental education if yes then they should explain clearly how they considered in model.
Introduction: the problem statement should be clearly explained in this part. but author focused on the theory and material they used in the current study. these should be explained in material and method parts not in introduction.
Author extensively focused on the TMT what is it? and why it is so important in the study area? and how it should be incorporated in TPB? all these concepts should be explained separately in new section.
Sampling: the sampling is not clear. like, why only 211 respondents were selected and interviewed? what does mean of Valid questionnaire? The "Interview text transcript" needs more explanation? it was written once in article but where you have used?
the results presented in lines 171 to 179 should not be presented in the material and method section. this material and method section needs to explain the TMT and TPB links you created and how you combined them. what are these theories?
the figure 2 needs re-evaluation. because the annual family income categories should be same as presented in table S1.
The author can improve the presentation of the article by placing the interlinked material at one place. the things and concepts are spreaded around the article. when the author will rearrange all the concept, that will improve the quality of the article to understand the all levels of researchers (experts as well as beginners).
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer,
We would like to thank you and the anonymous reviewers for your very positive and encouraging comments. We appreciate the chance to revise and improve our work. The comments are all addressed in the updated manuscript, as described point-by-point below. We have submitted the manuscript in “track change” mode, so that the changes can easily be found. We found the comments helpful and believe the manuscript has been improved by taking them into account.
Please do not hesitate to contact us with feedback on the revised manuscript and thank you for your time,
Yours sincerely
Yang Bai, on behalf of the co-authors.
Response to Reviewer
This paper entitled "Public environmental education and advocacy reinforce conservation behavior value in rural Southwest China" is an interesting study and need some Major changes to improve the quality of the work to reach it to the publishable level. Followings are recommendations needed to improve quality of the work before it is finally published.
Response (R): We thank the reviewers for appreciating the importance of this work. And we have revised our manuscript based on your valuable suggestions.
Title: title needs to rewrite as it depicts the Public environmental education, but i could find 5 to 6 times this concept in the study. The author should focus on either they consider the environmental education if yes then they should explain clearly how they considered in model.
R: We accepted other reviewer`s suggestion. See the new title in revised manuscript as follows:
“Does Public environmental education and advocacy reinforce conservation behavior value in rural Southwest China?”
Can environmental education be the main topic of the article's explanation? My answer is not 100%, because environmental education is only included in the external factors we discuss. However, it is definitely worth mentioning that environmental education and policy advocacy among our external factors can be found in Table 1. They were considered as part of the measure scales in our model and next step analysis. So we think there is nothing unsuitable in this title. We mentioned and rechanged the phrase of the external factor containing environmental education in Lines 27-28 as follows:
“The path analysis revealed that villagers' willingness to conserve nature was directly influenced by external factors, mainly containing policy advocacy and environmental education…”
And see in Lines 318-320 as follows:
“Willingness to conserve nature was also positively and directly influenced by external factors, such as policy advocacy, others` opinions or environmental education.”
And see in Lines 402-404 as follows:
“path analysis verified that both external factors (government's beautiful countryside policy, communication from others and environmental education from outside the villages)…”
Introduction: the problem statement should be clearly explained in this part. but author focused on the theory and material they used in the current study. these should be explained in material and method parts not in introduction.
R: Thank you for your suggestion. For the research questions, we introduce the purpose of our study in line 132 in the Introduction section, as well as describing our study problem to be solved in Lines 141-144, which can be summarized in 3.
In the introduction section, there is a small phrase describing the theory, which I think is necessary for a brief description of TMT and TPB and research methods. But I have tried to put most of the involved theoretical and methodological content in the Materials and methods section, see in the Lines 215-244.
Author extensively focused on the TMT what is it? and why it is so important in the study area? and how it should be incorporated in TPB? all these concepts should be explained separately in new section.
R: Thank you for your suggestions. The concept of the Two Mountains Theory (TMT) is new, and such a scientific term may be rarely used in an English language environment, but it will certainly appear more widely in the future. Its definition comes from the benign supply of ecosystem services. Thus it is necessary to briefly introduce it and how it is associated with TPB to the study area. This section I had thought of improving as you suggested, but looking at Lines 103-105 now the description and structure may be more complete.
Sampling: the sampling is not clear. like, why only 211 respondents were selected and interviewed? what does mean of Valid questionnaire? The "Interview text transcript" needs more explanation? it was written once in article but where you have used?
R: Thank you for your suggestions. Based on our field survey sampling methods, the detailed sampling has been described in revised manuscript in Lines 181-203.
For why only 211 questionnaires were selected, we received a total of 220, of which 9 were invalid, so only 211 data were finally available for the next step of analysis. that I changed the demonstration in Line 165-168 as follows:
“In total, we collected 7 valid interview text transcripts for qualitative analysis, and 211 valid questionnaires as sample sizes for…”
For what is the valid questionnaire sample, it is the sample that has been filed sampled, and confirmed to be use for the next step of analysis. Thus we redescribed the phrase in Lines 166-168 as follows:
“we collected 7 valid interview text transcripts for qualitative analysis, and 211 valid questionnaires as sample sizes for further quantitative analysis, with a validity rate of 96%.”
For the interview text transcript, it is based on the textual details obtained from the semi-structured interviews (see Table S4 for semi-structured questions). It is the content of the qualitative analysis, a complement to the quantitative analysis, in order to further analyze the attitudes and willingness of the residents.
We agree with you, so we have redescribed the phrases.
Seeing in Lines 165-168 as follows:
“…we collected 7 valid interview text transcripts for qualitative analysis, and 211 valid questionnaires as sample sizes for further quantitative analysis, with a validity rate of 96%.”
Seeing in Line 285as follows:
“For qualitative data, main results were summarized or interpreted directly after semi-structured interviews were organized into textual data as interview text transcript.”
the results presented in lines 171 to 179 should not be presented in the material and method section. this material and method section needs to explain the TMT and TPB links you created and how you combined them. what are these theories?
R: Thank you! For the basic demographic information of samples (Lines 169-177), I previously considered putting this phrase in the first section of Results, but the content of Results was not necessary for this description, so I just put this phrase in this Sample section. Describing the sample firstly and then describing the basic demographic information can be more friendly to the reader.
For the TMT and TPB, it is written in Theoretical assumptions section. We agreed with you! We added the definition of TMT and redescribed how the TMT content can be combined with the TPB. Seeing in Lines 103-104 as follows:
“In terms of social advocacy in China, the Two Mountains Theory (Chinese name refers as绿水青山就是金山银山) and its slogan “lucid waters and lush mountains are inval-uable assets” has been promoted for 15 years.”
Also seeing in Lines 212-215 as follows:
“The TMT emerged from knowledge of ecosystem services, defined as how to maximize the value of ecosystem services and minimize negative impacts on acquiring natural resources. The TMT slogan`s content related to ecosystem services was incorporated into the questionnaire layout, thus combined with the TPB…”
the figure 2 needs re-evaluation. because the annual family income categories should be same as presented in table S1.
R: Thank you for pointing out. We previously considered using US dollars instead of RMB to show the income of local residents. But when I subdivided the income by exchange rate, the demonstration of the US dollar was not as direct as the RMB instead. Thus I changed it to RMB. On the corresponding text, we changed the description accordingly. And Figure 2 is correct, we also changed the demonstration of Table S1.
See in the Lines 174-175 as follows:
“The proportion of annual family incomes varies widely by household, with 38.8% of households within the CNY ¥20000-39999/year income range.”
The author can improve the presentation of the article by placing the interlinked material at one place. the things and concepts are spreaded around the article. when the author will rearrange all the concept, that will improve the quality of the article to understand the all levels of researchers (experts as well as beginners).
R: Thank you! We did our best to revise the manuscript according to all reviewers' comments.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Sampling
How do you know the required sample size should be 220 out of which you found only 211 valid questionnaire. i means, you should explain how you extracted your sample size. For example, did you use any sample size extraction formula, or directly you think that 220 will be enough for the valid analysis.
Author Response
Response to the Reviewer
Sampling
How do you know the required sample size should be 220 out of which you found only 211 valid questionnaire. i means, you should explain how you extracted your sample size. For example, did you use any sample size extraction formula, or directly you think that 220 will be enough for the valid analysis.
Response: We thank you for asking the sampling question again, due to my misunderstanding of your question in the Round 1.
For the decision on sample size, we did not use a similar geospatial formula because the spatial scale of our study area is relatively small. We also did not directly assume that the 220 questionnaires would be sufficient for the valid sample analysis.
We put the sampling size and method in the 2.2. Field survey section.
We decided that our sample size was based on the size of the village households, and the distance between nearby original forest habitat and river, with the closer the distance the larger the sample surveyed (e.g., the Manhaguo samples are 19 and the Dakaxinzhai samples are 11), for a total of 16 villages, with an average of between 10-20 villages each. Of course, our questionnaire and semi-structured interview sampling method and sampling size were also based on the related field work done by our colleagues in the Xishuangbanna (open access to Zhang`s paper in https://doi.org/10.3390/f11020159 and Chang`s paper in doi: 10.5751/ES-09072-220143 ).
For the sample size of the semi-structured interviews, we conducted the interviews based on the respondents` feedback and willingness to participate in the interview. The sample size was also subject to the snowball sampling method, which resulted in a small sample size and a final valid sample size of 7.
And see the redescribed sentence in the revised manuscript in Lines 181-186 as follows:
“We determined the sample size based on the village households and the distance of ethnic people between villages and their nearby original forest habitat and rivers, with the closer the distance the larger the sample surveyed (e.g., 19 for the Manhaguo samples and 11 for the Dakaxinzhai samples), 10-20 samples per village. The sampling size and method also refer to the previous study`s guidance in the Xishuangbanna [12, 42].”
See the quantitative survey description in Lines 193-197 as follows:
“Firstly, the quantitative survey was conducted using a randomized sampling design, supplemented by snowball sampling. Before conducting each survey, the investigators sought permission from the villagers' committee and then walked along village roads, interviewing only one person per household and taking about 20 minutes on average to complete the questionnaire.”
See the quantitative survey description in Lines 198-203 as follows:
“Secondly, recorded semi-structured interviews were conducted with willing interviewees (see Table S4 for key interview prompts). The average length of the interviews was about 35 minutes. Recordings were subsequently organized into textual data. Snowball sampling was used based on the closeness and understanding of the villagers' relationship (i.e., the interviewees were asked to recommend trustworthy contacts to interview).”
