Effect of The Development Level of Facilities for Forest Tourism on Tourists’ Willingness to Visit Urban Forest Parks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is methodologically and technically well organized. It raises an important topic of standardizing the concept of forest infrastructure, and therefore the role of forest infrastructure is often ignored in research on tourism in forest areas. The study distinguishes between forest and agricultural infrastructure and examines the influence of forest infrastructure on the intentions of forest tourism. The research is exploratory. Article prepared carefully. The results show that knowing the completeness of forest infrastructure has a significant positive impact on the perceived value of landscape resources, the perceived value of ecological resources and the satisfaction of tourists. Moreover, the perceived value of ecological resources has a significant positive impact on tourist satisfaction. The satisfaction of tourists has a significant positive influence on the willingness of forest tourism. Therefore, it is proposed to build a forest infrastructure in order to preserve cultural monuments, protect monuments and promote the folk landscape.
One aspect that could be a bit more detailed is the discussion of the research - not presented here, as in a typical article discussion, references to research by other authors. The work does not end with specific conclusions.
The last aspect / suggestion that will enrich this research in the future are indications for the future, which is a very valuable remark for future researchers of this topic. A small number of published studies on this topic shows that comprehensive research and a clear study of the elements that make up forest infrastructure are needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for the opportunity to read this text. The text is certainly valuable, but it still requires some additions and clarifications of individual threads. My comments to the authors:
1. In the abstract (line 10) the authors write that "...the concept of forestry infrastructure is not clearly defined and often mixed with agricultural infrastructure". Unfortunately, I did not find a definition of "forest infrastructure" in the introduction. I think that absolutely the introduction needs to be filled with information, to give a definition of this concept. What is the de facto difference between forest and forest infrastructure? It is also not clear what "forestry infrastructure completeness" means? Obviously Table 2 somehow clarifies this. But it should be explained in the text, in the introductory part.
2. In the introduction section, line 36, the authors refer to the paper by Cheng et al. I am not convinced about the context. After all, catering, transportation, accomodations (to a large extent) are correlated with forest environment, they are not part of forest technical infrastructure, they are not located inside the forest. Therefore, without defining what the forest infrastructure is, it is difficult to understand the authors' intentions.
3. Information about the division of forest parks in Beijing needs to be supplemented. Please provide a specific source and present in a few sentences the principles of this division (line 153-155). How many parks were in each group is important because the authors write that "we randomly selected forest parks from each level as research areas, including two in the first level, one in the second level, one in the third level and one in the fourth level". Please explain why once they are dos parks and another time only one.
4 There is no information regarding the total number of participants in the study. What does it mean "questionnaires were randomly distributed to tourists". Were children also surveyed?
5. Discussion is very weak, in fact there is no discussion at all in this paper, no limitations for the research and no future directions for research are given.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper provides an interesting perspective on the effect of forestry infrastructure completeness on forest tourism.
First, the title is not sufficiently comprehensive, it should clarify who's willingness it is focusing on? Tourists willingness to pursue forest tourism or activities in the forest or what exactly? In section 5.1., the authors state: "This study investigates the effect of forestry infrastructure on tourists’ willingness to visit forests". Therefore I suggest the same formulation in the title of the paper.
Furthermore, the abstract does not clearly state the aim of this paper and the methodology employed to attain it.
In the introduction section again, the scope of the paper is not sufficiently clarified and should be clearly stated.
However, the second, third and fourth sections of this paper are well documented.
In section 5 the authors should specify for each of the 4 finds of their study whether in confirms or contradicts previous theories/ studies, not just for "satisfaction and willingness". By the way, this formulation should be clarified throughout the paper: tourists' satisfaction with what? and tourists' willingness to do what?
Finally, in the introduction section, the authors state that they identify the study limitations but they don't mention anything about them in the final section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
This paper is very unique! It surveyed the relationship between forestry infrastructure and forest tourism.
However, if you can, please add more precise information about forestry infrastructure.
For example, forest stand density, tree species, stand height, forest treatment condition, and so forth. Other paper reported that forest treatment condition (thinning, pruning, weeding) might give impact to tour customers.
And what kind of elements give positive effects or negative effects on the tourists?
Please add your consideration.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The text is significantly better than before
Author Response
I really appreciate your work and review.
Reviewer 3 Report
I am satisified with the comments provided by the authors.
Author Response
Thank you for your affirmation and comments.
