Key Factors and Configuration Analysis of Improving Tourist Loyalty in Forest Park: Evidence from Yingde National Forest Park, South China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research is quite successful and valuable in itself. However, the fact that the authors' only concern for tourism planning in protected areas is focused on the satisfaction of tourists and therefore their loyalty to the area may be somewhat contradictory to the concern for sustainability. Because the main tourism concern in conserved areas or sensitive ecosystems should be higher than maximizing the number of tourists and satisfying them. Therefore, in this study, which is very valuable in itself, there is a need for approaches that make a difference from mass tourism, such as "Although it focuses on tourists' feelings of satisfaction and loyalty, what matters in tourism activities in sensitive ecosystems is the experience and protection of ecosystems. Therefore, sensitivities such as carrying capacity should also be taken into account when planning the process, and if necessary, conservation decisions for the area should be taken regardless of the level of user satisfaction." Moreover, issues such as silence, calmness, and quality of experience naturally have the potential to affect tourists' loyalty.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author

Please make the revision according to the comment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction is a broad introduction to the subject, it also contains well-defined objectives of the work and presents what is found in the further part.

The authors write about the need for sustainable development in forest parks (it should be emphasized that this refers to national forest parks, which we learn about in the further part of the work), and at the same time they want to increase the loyalty of tourists and thus the number of visits to national forest parks. It is extremely difficult to reconcile intensive tourist use of the area, especially protected (national forest parks) with the idea of ​​sustainable development. It is possible, but one must set boundaries. Such a boundary may be, for example, the tourist and recreational potential of forests, as an indicator of the control of the accessibility of protected forests (see: DOI: 10.1007/s11629-016-4018-z). The tourist potential of forests depends, among others, on the age of the forest, the humidity of the habitat and the slope of the terrain, but also on the stand density, presence of undergrowth and underbrush, soil cover and species composition of the stand. This aspect should be developed in the introduction to the work, emphasizing the threats to national forest parks due to excessive tourist traffic. The National Park Board, often wanting to improve the financial situation of the park, increases its efforts to increase the number of tourists. This is very dangerous, because excessive tourist traffic can cause degradation of protected areas. Therefore, attempts to increase the number of visitors to the national park should be approached with caution, it is necessary to set boundaries and introduce traffic intensity monitoring so that these designated boundaries are not exceeded. In the future, the model proposed by the authors should also take into account these factors - threats to the protected area.

The research hypotheses were logically formulated after a thorough review of the literature relating to the issues that built the model. The methodology was well described, which allows the study to be repeated. However, one may have concerns about the overly similar nature of some of the questions used:

EV1: This forest park generates a feeling of wellbeing  and EV5: This forest park makes me feel happy.

SV2: This forest park gives social approval from others and SV3: This forest park helps me to feel acceptable to others

SAT1: I am satisfied with my visit to this forest park and SAT4: I felt emotionally fulfilled during my visit to this park

The results are presented and described in an exhaustive manner. I have a note here about Tables 8 and 9: in the table caption, below the table, there is a legend to it: Large circle (●, ) indicates core condition, small circle (●，) means peripheral condition, and black space means don’t care condition. However, there is no difference between large circle and small circle. I also do not see the black space used. Is there a technical error?

In most of the results and especially in the summary, the focus was on value groups (emotional value, epistemic value, functional value, social value…), thus averaging the results assigned to previously specified subgroups (e.g. Epistemic value (EpV): EpV1…EpV5). I understand that there are a lot of these subgroups, but by focusing on groups we lose some of the detailed information, they are blurred. If it is technically possible, it would be worth considering in the future whether we could not make better use of the answers obtained to these detailed questions.

In summary, this is an original and valuable scientific work that proposes a very interesting approach to determining the combined effects of perceived value on tourist loyalty using the example of a forest national park. The proposed approach can be used in many other places where we want to identify factors influencing tourist loyalty. In the case of national parks, however, we must remember to maintain a balance between the intensity of tourist traffic and the protection of the area. I think that the work may be of interest to a wider group of readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author 

While the manuscript is generally well-written, there are some instances where the phrasing is unclear or overly complex. Consider revising for conciseness and readability.

While the discussion highlights key contributions, it could better compare the findings with prior studies to emphasize the novelty of the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf