Tourists’ Willingness to Pay for Eco-Compensation and Its Influencing Factors from the Perspective of Public Welfare: Evidence from Wuyishan National Park

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript is well-organized and touches upon an interesting research issue. Nevertheless, prior to its publication, there are a number of changes that have to be made. This paper discusses them in detail:

Lines 18–20: The methods (CVM and MBDC) are presented, but the number of respondents is not specified.
Lines 23–25: "tourists’ eco-compensation payments have some potential to cover conservation-related costs" – which parameters support this conclusion?
Lines 26–31: "have significant effects" – on what basis was this concluded (which analysis, which model, which values)? The results are presented without any indicator of the statistical analysis (regression, SEM, logistic model, etc.).
What is "VBN"? There is no explanation.
"This study reveals how environmental responsibility cognition is translated into willingness to pay..." The study did not demonstrate this, since only a questionnaire survey was conducted. Perhaps it shows a correlation.
Lines 40–161: The Introduction is too broad and should be shortened, especially the sections where the same ideas are repeated across several paragraphs. The research problem should be clearly and concisely defined, with new scientific arguments (limitations of previous studies, differences among them, research gap, research questions, hypotheses, etc.). Everything else should be shortened.
"public welfare" – the concept should be clearly defined (at the beginning it refers to free access, public funding, social equity, public participation, ecological responsibility, etc.). One of the main concepts of the paper changes its meaning throughout the Introduction.
Lines 73–161: There is a contradiction between "public good" and "market-based financing." How are these two concepts theoretically reconciled (add this as a discussion)?
Lines 164–182: Justify the selection of the study area. How does the study area differ from the other national parks in China?
It is not explained how the listed prices were incorporated into the analytical model or whether they represent independent or control variables.
Lines 186–269: The section "Theoretical analysis framework" belongs in the Introduction or in a separate chapter on the conceptual framework.
Why are the CVM and MBDC methods the most appropriate for the research subject?
Lines 272–292: How was the instrument adapted (was it translated, were the questions adapted to the Chinese context, etc.)?
Lines 300–323: How was the sampling conducted (respondent selection procedure, survey locations, survey period, etc.)?
Lines 300–303: Are there any differences between these two groups of respondents?
Lines 304–314: "48 questionnaires were excluded" – based on which criteria (how many were excluded because of missing data, and how many because of constant responses)?
Lines 414–419: WTP – how many extreme values were identified?
Lines 403–419: Why were these specific variables selected (gender, age, income, and education)?
Lines 423–432: Present statistical evidence confirming that significant differences were observed.
Lines 436–446: For the WTP distribution, present an indicator such as skewness or a graphical presentation of the distribution.
Lines 436–447: The average WTP is presented, but what does it mean in practice for national park management?
Lines 497–512: Why were other characteristics (age, education, or previous experience with visits to national parks, etc.) not considered?
Lines 535–552: Parts of the Results section are repeated (average WTP, median, standard deviation, and right-skewed distribution).
Lines 549–552 and 571–577: Different payment models and altruistically oriented tourists were not analyzed in the study.
The methodological limitations should include the use of a convenience sample, the possibility of self-report bias, the possibility of socially desirable responses, etc.
Lines 684–687: "tourists are willing to contribute additional funds for nature conservation" – is this conclusion supported by the results?
Lines 690–695: Development of voluntary, project-based, and transparent eco-compensation mechanisms – is this conclusion supported by the results?
The Conclusion should be based exclusively on one national park and on the hypothetical payment scenario

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled “Tourists’ Willingness to Pay for Eco-Compensation and Its Influencing Factors from the Perspective of Public Welfare: Evidence from Wuyishan National Park.” Your careful review has been highly valuable in improving the conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, statistical reporting, and overall quality of the manuscript.

In response to your suggestions, we have substantially revised the manuscript. The Abstract and Introduction now state the research gap, research questions, principal concepts, sample size, analytical methods, and key statistical results more clearly.  The Methods section has been expanded and restructured to clarify the study-area selection, questionnaire adaptation, sampling and data-screening procedures, CVM, MBDC estimation, control-variable selection, and regression analyses. The Results section now provides clearer evidence on the WTP distribution, more precise statistical interpretations, and a more cautious explanation of extreme values and income-group differences.

We have also revised the Discussion, Practical Implications, Limitations, and Conclusion sections. Unsupported causal and policy claims have been removed or qualified, and the findings are now consistently interpreted as statistical associations within a hypothetical payment scenario. Additional discussion has been provided on the restricted generalizability of this study.

Detailed responses and corresponding revisions are provided in the attached response document. We sincerely appreciate the time and expertise you devoted to reviewing our work and hope that the revised manuscript adequately addresses your concerns.

Best regards,

Jingwen Wang, Linsheng Zhong

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction, discussion and recommendations are the weakest parts of the paper. 

The introduction should be shortened - because it is too long compared to the other chapters and does not explain the willingness to pay (WTP) for eco-compensation and its influencing factors clearly enough, there is a lot of recent scientific literature on the topic, which is not mentioned in the paper.

The paper should have stronger justification of the unusually high willingness-to-pay estimates and a deeper discussion of hypothetical bias and limitations, and tighter, less repetitive writing. 

The authors recommend - diversified eco-compensation systems behavioral interventions, public education campaigns. However, those recommendations have not been directly tested or proven.
Environmental attitudes predict willingness to pay.
In the paper is given that "people who are already willing to pay may also report stronger environmental norms"; however, this is only briefly discussed in the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions you provided on our manuscript entitled “Tourists’ Willingness to Pay for Eco-Compensation and Its Influencing Factors from the Perspective of Public Welfare: Evidence from Wuyishan National Park.” Your observations have been highly valuable in helping us improve the structure, clarity, and academic rigor of the manuscript.

Following your recommendations, we have substantially shortened and reorganized the Introduction, clarified the research focus on tourists’ willingness to pay for eco-compensation and its influencing factors, and incorporated additional recent literature. We have also strengthened the Discussion by providing a more cautious interpretation of the relatively high WTP estimates.

In addition, the practical recommendations have been revised to distinguish clearly between findings directly supported by the empirical results and policy interventions that require further evaluation. Repetitive passages have also been removed, and the overall presentation has been tightened.

Detailed responses to each comment and the corresponding revisions are provided in the attached response document. Thank you again for your valuable time and expertise. We hope that the revised manuscript adequately addresses your concerns and meets with your approval.

Best regards,

Jingwen Wang, Linsheng Zhong

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a topical study on an issue of interest to many scholars and policy-makers. The study location is particularly important, given the stated prominence of national parks in China. 

One of the major issues that needs to be addressed is whether you are looking at visitors or tourists in this study. There is no clear or identifiable definition of either type of entrant to the national park and whether you were able to identify the status of entrants as either visitors or tourists to the park through the survey instrument. This needs to be addressed. There are a number of other major issues that also require further thought and response. What are the research questions driving this research and what are the research hypotheses or working research propositions that you are seeking to test or examine based on the theoretical frameworks presented and previous research cited? These appear to be missing from the manuscript. 

You have included a clear theoretical mechanism framework on page 7, Figure 2, but there does not appear to be an explicit mention of this in the body of the manuscript. In figure 1 on page 8 you have included the items included in the survey. You have a column named 'explanation', this might be best worded as measurement scale. In terms of the sample obtained and profiled in Table 2 on page 9, how representative is it of the population that you are studying? Can you compare it to a population profile or frame? In the discussion in section 4, on page 17 you mention that the total costs of basic tourism consumption is approx. Y340 - where did you obtain this figure/estimate from; is it from an official source? In the practical implications section on page 19 in the final paragraph, some of the recommendations mentioned are fairly generic - can they be made more specific and applied? Also, would you consider examining how visitor/tourist willingness to pay for eco-compensation changes over time? 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally well-written, but there are some expressions and incomplete or poorly constructed sentences that indicate that the manuscript can be further proof-read an edited to improve the clarity of expression and meaning. The paragraph length and structure could also benefit from being revised as some paragraphs are quite lengthy and contain multiple topics. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive assessment of the relevance of our research topic and the suitability of Wuyishan National Park as the study area. We also sincerely appreciate your detailed and constructive comments, which have been highly valuable in improving the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of the manuscript.

In response to your suggestions, we clarified the research population and standardized the use of relevant terminology throughout the manuscript. We added explicit research questions and theory-based propositions, strengthened the connection between the conceptual framework and the empirical analysis, and provided a more cautious explanation of the representativeness and limitations of the sample. We also revised and supplemented the information concerning tourism costs and the practical interpretation of the WTP estimates to improve the operational relevance of the findings. In addition, the discussion of longitudinal research and future comparative studies has been expanded.

Furthermore, we comprehensively revised the manuscript to improve its English expression, paragraph structure, conciseness, and terminological consistency. Detailed responses to each comment and the corresponding revisions are provided in the attached response document.

Thank you again for your valuable time and thoughtful suggestions. We hope that the revisions have adequately addressed your concerns and that the revised manuscript meets with your approval.

Best regards,

Jingwen Wang, Linsheng Zhong

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication. The paper has been substantially improved, and the authors have adequately addressed the reviewers' comments. I wish the authors every success with the publication of their work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have thoughtfully considered and responded to the comments in the review report. The manuscript is much improved and reflects a level of clarity and contribution suitable for publication.