Review Reports - Uncovering Seasonal Heterogeneity in Forest Ecosystem Valuation: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis with Experimental Insights

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REVIEW REPORT

The manuscript requires major revisions as several sections need stronger theoretical grounding, clearer methodological justification, and more concise presentation of results. Addressing these issues will significantly enhance the clarity, rigor, and policy relevance of the study.

The introduction outlines the research gap but does not sufficiently differentiate this study from previous meta-analyses on forest ecosystem valuation. Strengthen the novelty claim by explicitly stating what has never been done before and why the seasonal dimension here is uniquely addressed.
The literature review is descriptive but lacks a cohesive conceptual framework linking seasonality, human behavior, and WTP. Adding a schematic model or conceptual diagram would help clarify the hypothesized relationships.
The aims of the study are scattered through the introduction. Consolidate them into a concise set of research questions or hypotheses, explicitly tied to seasonal variation in WTP.
While the systematic review process is described, the criteria for excluding certain studies (e.g., “negative or inconsistent values”) need more justification. Explain how these exclusions might affect bias and generalizability.
The choice of robust mixed-effects models is appropriate, but the paper should justify why random effects for both time and region are preferred over alternative specifications, and provide model diagnostics (e.g., residual plots, multicollinearity checks).
The discussion section reiterates results but offers limited practical policy recommendations. Expand on how policymakers could adjust forest management, pricing, or marketing strategies based on seasonal patterns.
Figure 1 (seasonal WTP distributions) lacks clear axis labels, confidence intervals, and explanatory notes. Tables are dense—consider moving some to an online appendix and using clearer variable naming in main tables.
The following studies are more relevant as they directly address willingness-to-pay and environmental valuation, aligning closely with this research. Read and cite in review section.

Ali, A., & Shedayi, A. A. (2023). Willingness to pay as an economic instrument for managing nature-based tourism in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 27, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03910-w

Ali, K., Amir, M., & Malik, M. S. (2023). Strategic motives, proactive environmental strategies and corporate performance: Role of business model innovation and competitive intensity. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 17(2), 348–369.

Ansari, A., Mahmood, S., Khan, K. I., & Asghar, F. (2023). Fostering green creativity through environmental values: The role of intrinsic motivation, environmental identity and green HR practices. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 17(2), 370–389.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We are truly grateful for your valuable comments, which we have taken into full consideration and reflected in the manuscript through all possible revisions and enhancements. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although seasonality plays a crucial role in environmental valuation and consumer behaviour in forest-related activities, studies explicitly addressing seasonal variations remain scarce. …….. Please, give citations
Authors should detailed how environmental service are valued monetarily. What are the parameters evaluated or what are the metrics. How are they scaled. These are obviously missing
we highlight the necessity of incorporating seasonal effects in valuing environmental services, which has been largely overlooked in previous research …… avoid the use of pronoun like ‘we’ and all through the manuscript
Given the nested nature of our meta-dataset—476 value estimates from 120 studies— we specify the following mixed-effects meta-regression model: …… specify the type of model….. linear or regression ? and justify the choice of the type of model used
The sustained delivery of these services is critical to public well-being …… This statement should be supported with some citation as a statement of fact

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.102957

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103363

In Table 1, it will be better to find a means of identifying those studies
Our empirical meta-regression model follows a semi-log functional form … why ? have such approach been used in previous studies….. indicate those studies
In Table 2, there was a report of t-test….. between which groups were mean comparison made. Please, indicate for clarity
Can author expand the explanation on marginal and conditional r-square. The r-square for conditional appear average while that of marginal is low …. Comment on the results and discuss it well
The F-value was calculated in equation 5, can authors please, present the T-value for validation purpose ….. Does it show significance or not

The references should be re-worked on. This does not conform to the Journal standard as it stands

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is devoted to the topical issue of assessing the willingness of the population to pay for forest resources and ecosystem services based on data from the Republic of Korea. The authors combine the results of 93 WTP surveys covering more than 20 years. The sample included 476 individual observations.

It is worth noting the high quality of the research methodology and the description of its results. Unfortunately, this is rare in modern research, which highlights the advantages of the reviewed manuscript. Nevertheless, I cannot help but note some significant shortcomings and questions that arise in relation to the work. These should be addressed before the paper can be recommended for publication.

1. My main concern is the correctness of the approach to combining the results of heterogeneous studies in the author's meta-analysis. It is obvious that the approaches of individual researchers to conducting surveys could be so different that attempting to think of them as more or less comparable could lead to completely incorrect results. Given that the authors have otherwise done very competent and probably useful work, this problem should be honestly described in the discussion and the strictness of the results obtained should be mitigated.

2. Taking into account point 1, I would not claim that the seasonal differences in willingness to pay identified in the paper can be interpreted without clauses about the large potential error in the results obtained.

3. This circumstance must be reflected in the abstract of the paper.

4. I do not think that seasonal differences in the assessment of ecosystem services can really be explained by the fact that in winter people think less about forests and appreciate their benefits less. There is clearly some other reason here. This should be carefully considered.

5. The end of section 4 contains a lot of obvious information from basic econometrics that can be omitted (e.g., well-known formulas for calculating F-statistics, etc.).

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic addressed by the present study is highly interesting and original. It is true that, to date, there is limited knowledge regarding the effect of seasonality on WTP, although stated preference techniques have been widely studied. Overall, the text is well-written and presented scientifically. However, some minor issues could be improved or clarified.

Firstly, the review process is significantly hindered by the fact that the lines are not numbered.

It may be necessary to clarify more precisely the quantity and type of studies examined. In the introduction, the authors state that they have studied “476 observations from Korea,” while in the methodology section, they refer to “90 studies.” Moreover, not all the papers appear to be from Korea. Please clarify this information.

In the last paragraph of section 3.1, it is stated that “Table 2 summarizes the data sources, selection criteria, and meta-data coverage,” but a different explanation is given for the same table earlier in the text. Furthermore, the table does not appear to display those elements. Please check it.

The authors mention that they “incorporated socioeconomic variables not often included in prior meta-analyses,” which is indeed important for a meta-analysis. However, in the results section, there is no extensive discussion regarding potential differences in these variables. It would be interesting to provide more results.

The authors state: “We also coded valuation method types: stated preference methods dominate… contingent valuation (296) and choice experiments (72)…” Were there also instances of conjoint analysis or best-worst scaling methods besides the two mentioned? Please clarify.

In the introduction and the tables, results from stated preference methods are presented; however, the text also mentions a comparison between stated and revealed methods. This point should be clarified further.

The finding that “WTP increases by 67% in autumn but declines by 18% in summer and 65% in winter” is extremely important and could represent a milestone for valuation methods. However, the text does not clearly explain how the possible effects of other parameters were isolated.

The “Conclusions and Discussion” section definitely needs improvement. Numerous aspects could be discussed following such a significant finding. Moreover, more in-depth engagement with existing published literature is needed. The authors cite only five references, although this is a review (meta-analysis) paper.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have incorporated all the suggested corrections, and the manuscript now appears suitable for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The concerns has been adequately addressed. The paper is now ready for publication

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The fact that the authors acknowledged the limitations of their approach reflects positively on the work as a whole. Although its usefulness is still not entirely clear, the material itself could be published as a research report.