A Study of the Dynamic Evolution Game of Cooperative Management by Multiple Subjects Under the Forest Ticket System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors proposed a dynamic evolutionary game of co-operative management by multiple subjects under the forest ticket system. They also provided some numerical simulations for verification. There exist some concerns regarding this manuscript:
-It is suggested to add a SOTA section and compare the work with similar approaches in a Table in that section.
-The main contributions of the proposed work must be declared in the Introduction section by bullets.
-It seems that the main ideas of the paper is borrowed from the following (not cited) paper:
Gou, Z.; Deng, Y. Dynamic Model of Collaboration in Multi-Agent System Based on Evolutionary Game Theory. Games 2021, 12, 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/g12040075
So, what is the difference? It must be clearly justified.
-In what part of simulations the claimed token system is used and what is its effect in the stability of system?
-The simulation results must be performed for more diverse parameter settings showing the stability margins.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper addresses the cooperative management of forest resources in China through the forest ticket system, which aims to revitalize collective forest land and achieve sustainable development. Using a dynamic evolutionary game model, the authors study the interactions between three key stakeholders or players: state-owned forest farms, village collective economic organizations, and individual forest farmers. Each player can adopt two different strategies, which essentially mean doing the right thing (i.e., cooperating) or not.
The study emphasizes that knowledge and participation levels are critical for optimal strategy development among these groups. It identifies three stable equilibrium (fixed-point) strategies, but only the fixed point (1,1,1) corresponds to a win-win situation for all three parties involved in cooperative forest management under the forest ticket system. This fixed point represents a scenario where there is a high level of input from state-owned forest farms, participation from village collective economic organizations, and high willingness from individual forest farmers to engage.
My main criticism of the paper concerns the mathematical analysis of equilibrium. The authors have found that there are three stable fixed points. It is now crucial to check whether the system is bistable, i.e. whether there is a set of parameters such that two or three fixed points are simultaneously stable. This could be easily shown by looking at the intersections of the stability conditions for the fixed points (0,1,0), (0,1,1) and (1,1,1). In the case of bistability, then, the final outcome of the dynamics depends on the initial conditions, and drawing graphs showing the time evolution of the different strategy frequencies is justified. However, if there is no bistability then the time evolution graphs (figures 5, 6 and 8) are not informative at all and should be omitted.
Forests are usually considered public goods, but the authors' formulation does not seem to be a public goods game in the sense that one player benefits from doing nothing if someone else does. Perhaps the authors could comment on this point.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English is OK, but the authors need to do some serious proofreading in their revision. Here are some problems:
line 33: correct "industrialisation and industrialisation"
line 56: ". As the" insert space after the period
line 65-66: move out of rural areas, not out of the country (China).
line 70-75: phrase is too long and confused. Reformulate it.
line 459: ". At this" insert space after the period
line 469: add space after "When" and remove "the"
line 490: add space after "When" and remove "time"
line 535: what is "E8(1,1,1)"?
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed most concerns. One minor concern exists.
-Please add a Table for comparing the SOTA with the proposed work.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have responded satisfactorily to my criticisms and have amended the paper in line with my suggestions.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMajor revision
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
minor editing reuired
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. This research is interesting but the concept of Forest Voucher System and forest ticket is still unfamiliar to readers. Therefore, an explanation can be added regarding this.
2. Why does this research use the evolutionary game method? Why not other methods? Please explain in more detail.
3. Who manages the forest ticket system?
4. The author claims that the forest ticket system was to promote large-scale and intensive forestry operations and to transform the ecological value of forests into economic value. What is the impact of this commercialization? Do all types of forests use the forest ticket system? In my opinion, protected forests are not suitable if there are mass visitors.
5. Why does this study not use willingness to accept and willingness to pay?
6. What do you mean "his" in line 124?
7. So, what is the research gap of this study?
8. The writing in Figure 1 is too small
9. I highly recommend that there be a map showing that Fujian Province is rich in forest resources.
10. How do you derive Equation 1?
11. How many respondents used in this study?
12. How to increase the participation?
13. Please kindly add the empirical evidences for each findings
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English is good enough. Just still need for proof reading.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I offer a number of recommendations that may improve the manuscript.
1) the introduction has low clarity and coherence of the motivation for the study; there is no clear definition of the purpose and hypotheses of the study.
2) you can expand the list of sources of literature used and support your arguments with them, for example,"Existing studies have discussed the development mode, practical application, and the participation willingness of each subject of the forest ticket system, but few studies have conducted indepth discussions on the insufficient participation of each subject in the cooperative forest ticket management and the difficulty in realising the interests..."
3) the text of the manuscript is narrative in nature, for example, "The forest ticket system is promoted by government departments and is based on joint operation, involving multiple subjects...", "The theory, first proposed by Freeman, emphasises that individuals and groups that have a direct or indirect impact on the achievement of organisational goals...". Whereas to attract the interest of readers it should contain critical analysis.
4) to eliminate the narrative, sections 2.2 and 2.3 can be presented as a comparative role chart.
5) in subsection 2.1.2, formalization of models can be used to improve understanding of the differences between the evolutionary model and the traditional one.
6) In subsection 2.1.2, formalization of models can be used to improve understanding of the differences between the evolutionary model and the traditional one.
7) It is recommended to provide more details on the measurement of some variables and their public sources, for example, Policy implementation benefits obtained by state-owned forest farms; Degree of low-level input in state-owned forest farms.
8) It is recommended that the discussion expand the comparison with similar previously obtained results, possibly in other countries.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWell done
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your highly revised papaer. Now I can accept your paper.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is good enough English quality
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I cannot welcome the narrative style of the article. It degrades the quality of scientific research.
