Understanding Public Intentions to Pay for the Conservation of Urban Trees Using the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is well-organized and well-structured to present the results of well-designed research. I suggest the following points to be revised for better quality. 

• English proofreading
• Theory driven hypothesis building. The subsection 2.1 is based on only two references [21,27].
• There are two ways of writing a hypothesis statement: technical/statistical OR usual sentence type. I would prefer the latter to the former. For example, "Perceived usefulness (PU) has a positive effect on the behavioral intention to pay to conserve urban trees (BI)" What does this statement mean? Reasonable writing makes better sense for the understanding of the audience.
• The theoretical discussion (TPB and ETPB) is not really addressed with the context of urban trees.
• Sampling might be well-designed in its intention, but resultingly it is not sufficient. 3,000 was designed, but the number of observations used in the statistical analysis ends up with 364. The authors should prove the absence of bias. 

Author Response

This manuscript is well-organized and well-structured to present the results of well-designed research. I suggest the following points to be revised for better quality. 

Reply: Thank you for your reviewing and comments.

English proofreading

Reply: Revised as suggested.

Theory driven hypothesis building. The subsection 2.1 is based on only two references [21,27].

Reply: Revised as suggested in the subjection 2.1. (line 84-90)

There are two ways of writing a hypothesis statement: technical/statistical OR usual sentence type. I would prefer the latter to the former. For example, "Perceived usefulness (PU) has a positive effect on the behavioral intention to pay to conserve urban trees (BI)" What does this statement mean? Reasonable writing makes better sense for the understanding of the audience.

Reply: The hypothesis statement was revised as suggested. (line 92-97, 125-128, 149-152)

The theoretical discussion (TPB and ETPB) is not really addressed with the context of urban trees.

Reply: Revised as suggested in the section “2.Theoretical framework and hypotheses”. (line 69-152)

Sampling might be well-designed in its intention, but resultingly it is not sufficient. 3,000 was designed, but the number of observations used in the statistical analysis ends up with 364. The authors should prove the absence of bias.

Reply: Revised as suggested in the subsection 4.1. (line 243-245, 259-265)

Reviewer 2 Report

Urban trees are one of the important green resources in a city. As authors written, they require conservation to sustain healthy and consistent provision of services. Reviewed study applies an extended theory of planned behavior to understand citizens’ pay intention for conserving urban trees. In order to explore the impact of the public perception of urban trees, two additional constructs have been added to the basic model. The authors asked 364 respondents using a survey (in Taiwan). They found that residents’ perceived usefulness and perceived tree benefits of urban trees have a positive impact on public attitude toward protecting urban trees.

This text is read very well and is written in very good English. The layout of this article is unusual and many elements are missing here. For example, a clearly defined goal is missing here. The introduction very poorly supports the rest of the text and consists in most cases of general assumptions and concepts. The results achieved are diluted (maybe divide into Results and Disscussion). Conclusions should be rewritten and shortened - now they even include discussions (research in other cities, etc.), and they should be very consistent and specific.

In general, the article is interesting and provides results that can be compared with other countries (differing in culture, wealth, etc.). I suggest reviewing the article critically and shortening it, add the original and transcript to English of your survey (attached), as well as dividing the results and discussion before final approval for publication.

Author Response

Urban trees are one of the important green resources in a city. As authors written, they require conservation to sustain healthy and consistent provision of services. Reviewed study applies an extended theory of planned behavior to understand citizens’ pay intention for conserving urban trees. In order to explore the impact of the public perception of urban trees, two additional constructs have been added to the basic model. The authors asked 364 respondents using a survey (in Taiwan). They found that residents’ perceived usefulness and perceived tree benefits of urban trees have a positive impact on public attitude toward protecting urban trees.

Reply: Thank you for your reviewing and comments.

This text is read very well and is written in very good English. The layout of this article is unusual and many elements are missing here. For example, a clearly defined goal is missing here. The introduction very poorly supports the rest of the text and consists in most cases of general assumptions and concepts. The results achieved are diluted (maybe divide into Results and Disscussion). Conclusions should be rewritten and shortened - now they even include discussions (research in other cities, etc.), and they should be very consistent and specific.

Reply: Revised as suggested. The goal of this study was defined in the introduction (line 37-46, 58-68), the results and discussion were divided into section 4 and 5, and the conclusion was rewritten and shortened. (line 371-364)

In general, the article is interesting and provides results that can be compared with other countries (differing in culture, wealth, etc.). I suggest reviewing the article critically and shortening it, add the original and transcript to English of your survey (attached), as well as dividing the results and discussion before final approval for publication.

Reply: Revised as suggested. The items of survey have been listed in Table 2, and we divide the results and discussion into section 4 and 5.