Do Situations Influence the Environmentally Responsible Behaviors of National Park Visitors? Survey from Shennongjia National Park, Hubei Province, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to congratulate for their interesting research and its nice presentation on this paper. It seems interesting enough.Bellow, some comments are mentioned: 1. Introduction must be revised and improved in order for the readers to be better integrated to the subject of the paper. I think that Section 1 and Sub-section 2.1. can be (partially) incorporated, as Sub-section 2.1 seems to me more like "Introduction" than part of the literature review. In any case, I think that introduction section should be extended. 2. In line 241, a previous research is mentioned. Please add the reference. 3. Methodological issues about the questionnaire may be added. A couple of sentences about their structure may be mentioned. 4. Conclusions can be extended. I would like to recommend this paper for publication after minor revision.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions!

1. Section 2.1 of the original manuscript was transferred to 1. Introduction and the Introduction was extended with 13 references being added.
2. The references mentioned on line 241 of the original manuscript are listed in Table 1, and are explained in the revised manuscript.
3. In the part of about the questionnaire design and method, the wordings on the questionnaire design process and questionnaire structure were refined.
4. The Conclusion was expanded and better organized.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the article is quite interesting and we can see that the authors worked in order to get a bettere result. I consider that some clarifications are neccesarry . I think that it could be useful to explain what questions where in the questionaire and how peaople answered. Than, it is enaugh to ask people or it is better to complete with some observation of their behaviour.The questionaire could emphasise the perception. I think that in generally it shoul be more clear the entire article, you could add some graphs about the aswers from the questionaire. Thank You!

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions!

1. In the part of about the questionnaire design and method, the wordings on the questionnaire design process and questionnaire structure were refined. How all items measured the perception of visitors is introduced in the first paragraph of part 4.1. Research instrument design.
2. There are too many graphs analyzed by software Mplus 7.4. The authors listed the relevant data of all paths in Table 6 and table 7 to simplify these results.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, i have some suggestions for you (see comments reported on the attached pdf file and following comments). 

my major criticisms are: 

1) authors should do a complete revision of the English. several sentencies are not well written and the comprehension of the text is not always clear. 

2) the introduction section must be completely rewritten tryng to highlight the real aims of the work. also a more conceptual definition or the ERB must be highlighted in the introduction section. i suggest  to move  several sentencies and definitions written in the section 2 in the introduction section. 

3) the methodological section can be improved, highlighting the questionnaire design and the adopted statistical methods for the evaluation of the ERB variables. 

4) Results and discussion section is well written, although it would be better to separate the data results from the discussion

5) conclusion section can be improved highlighting the implications of the study on society, people and environment. 

6) citations are correctly reported in the text and in the references section. i suggest only to report more citations on ERB in the introduction section. 

7) finally also the title of the manuscript can be changed, highlighting also a geographycal indication of the study.

Cordially 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your clear and detailed suggestions!

1. Section 2.1 of the original manuscript was transferred to the 1. Introduction and extended the Introduction, with 13 references being added.
2. In the part of about the questionnaire design and method, the wordings on the questionnaire design process and questionnaire structure were refined. How all items measured the perception of visitors is introduced in the first paragraph of part 4.1. Research instrument design.
3. The conclusion was expanded and better organized.
4. The title now highlights the geographical location of this study case.
5. One of the authors is a native English speaker and carefully checked the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx