Influence of Landscape Preference and Place Attachment on Responsible Environmental Behavior—A Study of Taipei’s Guandu Nature Park Wetlands, Taiwan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for your manuscript. This is an interesting and generally well-written and well-researched paper on an important topic. Your approach seems quite solid, and the findings seem legitimate (to the degree that qualitative survey responses can be generalized). I do have some specific comments and suggestions on the attached PDF.
I look forward to seeing your work in publication.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The English is generally quite solid, but with a series of small errors and poor word choices. I've noted some in my attached PDF comments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
We would like to take this opportunity to express our heartfelt appreciation for your very constructive feedback provided, to assist us in improving the Land Manuscript ID: Land-2675910. We have reviewed your feedback thoroughly and made every attempt to address them in the revised manuscript. Please find attached our responses to your feedback and hope we have addressed them satisfactorily to your expectations.
Please address all correspondence concerning this revised manuscript to me at wtfang@ntnu.edu.tw.
Once again, thank you for your valuable time and consideration on this revised manuscript.
Sincerely,
Wei-Ta Fang
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic addressed by the paper is particularly interesting, the introduction part clarifies the importance of the proposed research within the proper scientific sector. The methodology too is well explained, and the results are clearly reported. I really appreciated this study and the findings, which I retain interesting in the fields of landscape perception and sense of place. The main concern regards the English language, I suggest authors to check it throughout the manuscript: sometimes authors have used “inappropriate” terms, such as vegetation (line 32 – maybe timber?) or non-scientific terms.
Other minor suggestions:
Please, add some info about the number of tourists visiting the site each year. Since tourists have to pay for visiting the site I guess that this data is not hard to find, and it could help in quantifying the touristic relevance of the place.
Please, specify in section 2.2 when questionnaires have been distributed to tourists (month and year) and specify if tourists were both national and international or only local/national.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish needs to be checked with particular attention tothe use of proper scientific terms
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
We would like to take this opportunity to express our heartfelt appreciation for your very constructive feedback provided, to assist us in improving the Land Manuscript ID: Land-2675910. We have reviewed your feedback thoroughly and made every attempt to address them in the revised manuscript. Please find attached our responses to your feedback and hope we have addressed them satisfactorily to your expectations.
Please address all correspondence concerning this revised manuscript to me at wtfang@ntnu.edu.tw.
Once again, thank you for your valuable time and consideration on this revised manuscript.
Sincerely,
Wei-Ta Fang
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Your article is dealing with very interesting theme but I have found some parts that need to be improved:
1. Statement: "landscape that makes people feel beautiful" which you wrote in an abstract and introduction is somehow strange for scientific article. Please use a scientific vocabulary for explaining the term beautiful feeling.
2. Line 416: Promoting or exhibiting environmentally friendly behaviour to ensure good water quality in wetland environments such as Guandu Nature Park is not only critical to landscape preference, but it also helps explain the ecological aesthetics of wetlands.
It is not very clear how environmentally friendly behaviour ensure good water quality? Please explain the statement which you repeat in the article.
From line 431:
In the case of this study, Guandu Nature Park is located in a highly developed urban area and the only nature park under closed management. That is, the park is accessible only during specified hours and through designated entrances, with fees imposed on visitors except for volunteers and local residents. Guandu Nature Park is located in the city, exhibits a degree of wildness, and this could have instigated visitor emotions and further influence their sense of place attachment.
This is a part which you wrote at the end. These information needs to be part of introduction chapter where you give an insight about the site where research is located. Reader do not know until the end of the article some basic information about the site.
line 444 What is a term - critically important site?
And at the end, please use more scientific vocabulary. I am not an english native speaker but still it has many subjective terms...
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
We would like to take this opportunity to express our heartfelt appreciation for your very constructive feedback provided, to assist us in improving the Land Manuscript ID: Land-2675910. We have reviewed your feedback thoroughly and made every attempt to address them in the revised manuscript. Please find attached our responses to your feedback and hope we have addressed them satisfactorily to your expectations.
Please address all correspondence concerning this revised manuscript to me at wtfang@ntnu.edu.tw.
Once again, thank you for your valuable time and consideration on this revised manuscript.
Sincerely,
Wei-Ta Fang
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the manuscript titled “Influence of landscape preference and place attachment on responsible environmental behaviour – A study on the wetland Guandu Nature Park in Taiwan”. Based on my review, here are some suggested major and minor revisions for improving the manuscript:
Major Revisions:
The introduction could be strengthened by providing more details on the research gaps and novelty of the study. The authors state there is little known about the relationships between wetland landscapes and responsible environmental behaviors, but more justification is needed on why this specific research is important. Here are some suggested recent research’s:
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11243046
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27554-5
The methods section is quite brief. More details are needed on the sample population, how participants were recruited, and the process for distributing the surveys.
The results rely heavily on quantitative data from the surveys, but the paper would be enriched by also including some qualitative data from interviews or open-ended survey questions to provide more context and insights.
The discussion could go into more depth on interpreting and contextualizing the results, especially in relation to the literature review and research gaps outlined in the introduction. The implications of the findings for theory, policy, and practice could also be expanded on.
Minor Revisions:
The abstract is quite lengthy. Consider shortening it to focus on the key findings.
There are some grammar issues throughout that need to be corrected.
The figures are low resolution and difficult to read. Higher quality image files should be used.
The citations are inconsistent in some places - double check a standard citation format is used throughout.
Carefully proofread the paper to fix any typos.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
We would like to take this opportunity to express our heartfelt appreciation for your very constructive feedback provided, to assist us in improving the Land Manuscript ID: Land-2675910. We have reviewed your feedback thoroughly and made every attempt to address them in the revised manuscript. Please find attached our responses to your feedback and hope we have addressed them satisfactorily to your expectations.
Please address all correspondence concerning this revised manuscript to me at wtfang@ntnu.edu.tw.
Once again, thank you for your valuable time and consideration on this revised manuscript.
Sincerely,
Wei-Ta Fang
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the revised version of the manuscript titled "Influence of landscape preference and place attachment on responsible environmental behaviour – A study of Taipei’s Guandu Nature Park wetlands, Taiwan." The authors have adequately addressed the major revisions from the previous round and improved the manuscript overall. However, some minor issues remain that need to be addressed to further strengthen the paper. I recommend the following minor revisions before acceptance:
Introduction:
· The introduction could briefly mention the use of remote sensing techniques (such as in the Liang & Li and Aslam et al. papers) as a complementary approach to studying wetland landscapes. This would acknowledge related wetland research.
The paper by Liang and Li (https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11243046) presents a remote sensing method using Synthetic Aperture Radar to map and monitor wetland vegetation. This could be relevant to the manuscript which examines landscape preference and place attachment in wetland environments. The remote sensing techniques could potentially complement or provide additional data on characterizing wetland landscapes that influence human perceptions and behaviors.
The paper by Aslam et al. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27554-5) utilizes satellite data and geospatial analysis to identify neglected wetlands in Pakistan. This could relate to the manuscript's focus on place attachment and responsible environmental behaviors in wetland settings. The identification of neglected wetlands highlights the need for conservation efforts and pro-environmental behaviors, connecting to the behavioral variables assessed.
In summary, while these two papers use remote sensing approaches, the mapping and monitoring of wetland landscapes (Liang & Li) and evaluating neglected wetlands (Aslam et al.) could provide useful context and complement the landscape perception and human dimensions examined in the manuscript. The authors may want to consider adding these references to the introduction or discussion to acknowledge related wetland research and how their work fits into the broader wetland science landscape.
· A sentence could be added highlighting a gap around qualitative data on perceptions of wetland landscapes and behaviors, as the results rely heavily on quantitative survey data.
Methods:
· More details could be provided on how the specific survey measures were developed and adapted from previous literature.
· Response rate is very high at 84% - the authors could comment on why they achieved such a high rate to provide context.
· Clarify if approval was obtained from an ethics review board for the survey methodology.
Results:
· Consider adding 1-2 illustrative quotes from open-ended survey questions to bring in qualitative insights.
Discussion:
· Comment on how remote sensing data could be used to complement and enrich understanding of landscape perceptions.
· Note limitations of relying solely on quantitative survey data for this topic and the value of mixed methods.
Author Response
Please see our response as attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
