Assessment of Visitor Preferences and Attendance to Singletrails in the Moravian Karst for the Sustainable Development Proposals
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
REVIEW MANUSCRIPT # 527430 - Sustainability
General comments
In the current research, an attempt is being made to access the attendance of a forest area in a general frame of bike cycling activity using technical means and to evaluate the potential impacts of illegal transits. The issue is interesting since it refers to recreational activities in a sustainable forest management framework. However, there are a number of issues related to the manuscript which require major revision in order to increase its scientific merit. The followed statistical methodology presents some issues which are necessary to be clarified.
1) The authors should explicitly state what they attempt to detect using statistical tests (in Questionnaire survey results)
2) How the assumptions of those tests are satisfied
3) Is the sample size large enough for the statistical analysis?
4) The associated p-value in each question should be mentioned.
In addition, the manuscript has a high level of detail which are not necessary. I suggest the authors simplify the writing style.
Specific comments
Abstract
Lines 24 – 25. What you mention is a standard procedure during a number of statistical tests. It is better to mention the statistical test you actually used (chi-square).
Lines 26-28. It is better to briefly refer to the basic results of the research.
Introduction
-Forest soil compaction is one of the main environmental impacts. I believe, it should be mentioned explicitly.
Lines 33-38. The paragraph is referred to cycling in general. However, the authors should mention that they actually mean mountain biking so as to link the second paragraph and the environmental impacts.
Lines 52 – 61. This extended paragraph can be omitted simply by using the relevant reference or by shorting to those which are relevant to biking. Alternatively, the “multiple forest use” concept can be added (MCPFE Criteria and indicators - Maintenance of Forest Ecosystem Health and Vitality and Maintenance of Other Socio-Economic Functions and Conditions).
Line 67. I recommend the authors to change the “publications” term. Use “literature” instead.
Line 118. I recommend the authors to erase the “is” word before singletrack.
Lines 120-122. It is not clear what you mean. Please rephrase.
Line 122. Maybe “smooth” instead of “even”?
Line 132. “This study is based” is a most suitable phrase.
Lines 144 - 146. Please use quotation marks in case of a copied phrase.
Line 169. I recommend the authors to add Nicolas Bowman’s (2018) reference, or remove otherwise. Even personal communications can be added as references.
Line 174. Please, see previous comment.
Lines 184-190. This paragraph can be transferred to the Discussion Section
Line 198. Please write the Janeczko and Woznicka (2009) reference correctly.
Site and study design
- A general orientation map would be very helpful. In addition, a smaller scaled, simple map will provide a better understanding of the area. The section provides many details. I recommend the authors to simplify some parts.
Line 216. Please, put the dot after the [55]
Lines 263-281. Too high level of detail. Please, simplify.
Figure 1. A satellite image as layer would be very helpful.
Line 298. Clearly, there is no need to set a null hypothesis at this point. Since you actually use descriptive statistics a simple reference is ok. If I understand well, on this occasion you actually have recorded all visitors (population).
Lines 301. Please, add the statistical method you used in order to select the sample.
Line 306. What do you mean with “general”? Maybe “descriptive”?
Lines 310 – 335. I recommend the authors to remove questions from this section. They can use “Appendix” so as to present their survey.
Line 336. I believe that table 1 must be changed also. I am not sure why someone to white null hypothesis during the chi-squared test. Isn’t it evident? In Chi-Square goodness of fit test, the null hypothesis assumes that there is no significant difference between the observed and the expected value. It is also necessary to write the variable’s type (dichotomous, nominal or ordinal). Finally, the expected proportion in each group of your categorical variable must be "equal" or "unequal", which is critical. It should be explicitly mentioned.
Questionnaire survey results
-I suggest the authors add a table with descriptive statistics of the sample.
-I recommend the authors to clearly state the result along with the corresponding p-value in parenthesis. This must be repeated in all the Results section.
Discussion/Conclusions
I recommend the authors to add more references in this section. They have to compare their findings with other, relevant studies.
Author Response
Firstly we would like to thank the reviewer for the comments. The comment were really useful and absolutely to the point. We hope that we followed all the corrections needed and that the article is now better than before the review.
Our response is in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors presented the article titled "Assessment of Visitor Preferences and Attendance to Singletrails in the Moravian Karst for the sustainable development proposals".
The article is interesting and actual.
However, I think that the subject is out of the scope of a journal like Sustainability.
In my opinion, the simplicity of an article like this is more suitable for a conference and not for a journal.
Author Response
Reviewer 2 suggested "rejection" because of his opinion the manuscript is beyond the scopus of the Sustainability journal.
- Response of Authors: We cannot agree with the Reviewer 2. We think
that the manuscript fits well the focus of Special Issue "Sustainable
Landscape Management and Planning" - thus we think the manuscript is
suitable for Sustanability journal in the frame
of this SI.
The article is interesting and actual.
- we would like to thank to the reviwer for this comment
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
REVIEW MANUSCRIPT # 527430 – Sustainability (R2)
The authors followed all the suggestions and the manuscript clearly improved. However, some changes related to writing style are recommended.
1) Line 24. “Hypotheses” (plural) instead of “hypothesis were…” ?
2) Line 26. “…to see the differences…” is better to change to “…in order to detect the differences…”.
3) Line 27. I suggest the authors to change “Women for example…” with “According to the results, women notably prefer…”.
4) Line 49. “As Martin et al.” – please add dot (.)
5) Lines 51-52. Which aerial imagery? Maybe you mean that “the aerial imagery may reveal….”.
6) Line 53. Is it “states” or “state”?
7) Line 135. I believe that it is “singletrack”.
8) Line 147. Please add dot after “et al”.
9) Line 186. Please add dot (.) after “too”.
10) Table 1. I think that the last column represents the significance level. I recommend to replace p-value with “significance level”.
11) Line 259. I suggest the authors to change it to “the general orientation map is presented (or depicted) in Figure 1”.
12) Line 275. Figure 1. Please check the ”singletrails” word.
13) Lines 411-435. A simple table of the descriptive statistics would have been sufficient enough. There is no need for such details (in the text).
14) Please explain briefly the numbers in the parenthesis after hypotheses. Shouldn’t this number be consistent with the p-value of table 1? Maybe a simple p-value is ok.
15) Line 435. Please add dot (.) after locality.
16) Line 470. I think that “women mainly use the singletrails…” is a more appropriate expression.
17) Line 671. Is it “states” or “state”?
18) Line 705. Please add dot (.) after adrenaline. By the way, the last word can be omitted.
19) Please check reference style (MDPI requirements). I am not sure if the date should be mentioned in the text together with the relevant number.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 comments – 2nd
We would like to again thank the reviewer for the second round of comments.
1) Line 24. “Hypotheses” (plural) instead of “hypothesis were…” ?
Response 1: Accepted. The sentence has been reworked folowing recommendation of Reviewer – see line 24.
2) Line 26. “…to see the differences…” is better to change to “…in order to detect the differences…”.
Response 1: Accepted. The sentence has been reworked folowing recommendation of Reviewer – see line 27.
3) Line 27. I suggest the authors to change “Women for example…” with “According to the results, women notably prefer…”.
Response 1: Accepted. The sentence has been reworked folowing recommendation of Reviewer – see line 27.
4) Line 49. “As Martin et al.” – please add dot (.)
Response 1: Accepted. The sentence has been reworked folowing recommendation of Reviewer – see line 49.
5) Lines 51-52. Which aerial imagery? Maybe you mean that “the aerial imagery may reveal….”.
Response 1: Accepted. The sentence has been reworked folowing recommendation of Reviewer – see line 52.
6) Line 53. Is it “states” or “state”?
Response 1: Accepted. The sentence has been reworked folowing recommendation of Reviewer – see line 53 – state is correct.
7) Line 135. I believe that it is “singletrack”.
Response 1: Accepted. The sentence has been reworked folowing recommendation of Reviewer – see line 139.
8) Line 147. Please add dot after “et al”.
Response 1: Accepted. The sentence has been reworked folowing recommendation of Reviewer – see line 152.
9) Line 186. Please add dot (.) after “too”.
Response 1: Accepted. The sentence has been reworked folowing recommendation of Reviewer – see line 192
10) Table 1. I think that the last column represents the significance level. I recommend to replace p-value with “significance level”.
Response 1: Accepted. The sentence has been reworked folowing recommendation of Reviewer – see line 366.
11) Line 259. I suggest the authors to change it to “the general orientation map is presented (or depicted) in Figure 1”.
Response 1: Accepted. The sentence has been reworked folowing recommendation of Reviewer – see line 262.
12) Line 275. Figure 1. Please check the ”singletrails” word.
Response 1: Accepted. The sentence has been reworked folowing recommendation of Reviewer – see line 283
13) Lines 411-435. A simple table of the descriptive statistics would have been sufficient enough. There is no need for such details (in the text).
Response 1: We accepted this comment, but we see the results quite interesting and table could simplify the information too much. We would like to suggest to let it in the form of text.
14) Please explain briefly the numbers in the parenthesis after hypotheses. Shouldn’t this number be consistent with the p-value of table 1? Maybe a simple p-value is ok.
Response 1: Accepted. We decided not to write the exact numbers from the tests. According to the signifikance level and the levels of freedom the result is clear.
15) Line 435. Please add dot (.) after locality.
Response 1: Accepted. The sentence has been reworked folowing recommendation of Reviewer – see line 446.
16) Line 470. I think that “women mainly use the singletrails…” is a more appropriate expression.
Response 1: Accepted. The sentence has been reworked folowing recommendation of Reviewer – see line 464.
17) Line 671. Is it “states” or “state”?
Response 1: Accepted. The sentence should be with the word states – it is singular – see line 689.
18) Line 705. Please add dot (.) after adrenaline. By the way, the last word can be omitted.
Response 1: Accepted. The sentence has been reworked folowing recommendation of Reviewer – see line 723.
19) Please check reference style (MDPI requirements). I am not sure if the date should be mentioned in the text together with the relevant number.
Response 1: Accepted. The dates has been removed from the text folowing recommendation of Reviewer.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors answered all questions presented by the reviewers and for that reason I consider that the article is ready to be published.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the statement.
