Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Hyun-ju Kim 1 and
  • Yoon Lee 2,*

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous Reviewer 4: Anonymous Reviewer 5: Anonymous Reviewer 6: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author(s)

Using socioeconomic date in South Korea, this study tries to quantitatively identify the economic value of improvements managing environmental problems due to climate change. As a result of analysis, this study finds that the willingness to pay could not be stimulated at any level of improvement in algal bloom. It seems that this study chooses an adequate research method and obtains exact results. Moreover, this study efficiently summarises results of previous studies in the sub-section of 2.2 Previous Studies Applying Choice Experience. However, author(s) fails to clearly state what previous studies have points to be improved and how this studies contribute to previous studies in the sub-section. Describing them in the sub-section leads to enhance the value of this study.

Sincerely.

Author Response

Attached please find our response to reviewer's comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Attached please find our response to reviewer's comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has some scientific novelty and strong practical value.

  1. In the Abstract, You should state the problem You solve, specify the approach You use and give numerical data of the obtained results.
  2. The structure of the paper must be modified by adding a Related works part.
  3. For better understanding the research, in the introduction indicate the purpose and objectives that the authors solve in this work.
  4. For better understanding the research, in the introduction describe the structure of the article.
  5. Literary review of the problem was conducted superficially. To conduct a deeper literature review, indicating the advantages and disadvantages of previous research.
  6. To better understand the study, in my opinion, it is necessary to add the value of the accuracy of the output data (and input data) using the model (equations 1-6).
  7. The authors should state clearly the novelty of the research in the main part as well as in the Conclusions.
  8. The research results should be compared with the other authors’

Author Response

Attached please find our response to reviewer's comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Overview

The authors assessed the economic valuation of improving environmental degradations in Korea using choice experiment and reported consumer do not find value in reducing number of algal bloom occurrences and improving pollutants.

 

Comments

The article is original, and it can be reconsidered once the issues are resolved. The following are my comment

 

  • The introduction needs to be remotivated.  
  • The author needs to state the motivation, problem statement and their contribution to the literature at the introduction.
  • The theoretical background should change to literature review
  • The literature is insufficient, and the following article should be used to fill in the gaps.

 

  • https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094683
  • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101718
  • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2019.101838
  • 1504/IJHD.2017.087932
  • https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052847
  • https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1909172
  • https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-08-2021-0185
  • https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1934179
  • https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1920064
  • https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1934179
  • The hypotheses tested should be specified.
  • The methodology is good because it uses survey methods to obtain respondents estimation of relative value attributes of a service which might include health and non-health cost, particular in their impact on environmental degradation and economic welfare. It provides utility of each attribute. However, the method may not be sufficient if respondent do not have appropriate frame.
  • The discussion of finding should be separated from the analysis.
  • The conclusion needs to remotivated with good policy implication and suggestion for future research.

Author Response

Attached please find our response to reviewer's comments

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 5 Report

The research line of the article is clear, and the data analysis of the research can justify the research question raised.  However, there are issues such as the format and research theoretical model, the elaboration of the research viewpoint of the article, and the English proofreading that need careful revision and inspection. Authors need to carefully revise the reviewer’s suggestions to make the article meet the publication requirements of SCI articles and journals.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Attached please find our response to reviewer's comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read this interesting manuscript providing socioeconomic data by quantitatively and identifying the economic value of improvements in managing environmental problems (fine particulate matter, algal bloom, and heat waves) caused by climate change, applying choice experiment research method.  

Even if the topic is interesting and significant are the results achieved, I suggest the authors improve its quality in terms of communication. It is not easy to read. I kindly propose to make a general re-visitation.

I hope that the authors will consider my suggestions and improve their manuscript accordingly and my invitation is to enhance the research by following them.

 

Best regards

 

 

Reviewer’s Comments:

-        Please check the match between manuscript and recommended author's guidelines.

-        In the manuscript Figure’ descriptions usually precede the figures. Moreover, the figure needs its sources (references and/or personal elaboration by the authors).

-        Figures 1,2 and Table 3, Algal bloom lines include these elements: (II), (Ia) and (Ib) why?

-        Monetary values in KRW must be expressed also in Euro or USD corresponding values to make the phenomenon easier to evaluate.

-        Including a preliminary brief description of all different steps made to achieve results, probably before section 3.

-        Improve the general clarity making the manuscript easy to read.

Author Response

Attached please find our response to reviewer's comments

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This version is right.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. It is always appreciated. 

Reviewer 3 Report

I recommend the article for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. It is always appreciated. 

Reviewer 4 Report

 Dear Author, 

The paper appears to have improved, but could you update the work with the following comments.

  • The introduction needs to be remotivated.
  • Authors should clearly state their contributions to literature at the introduction of the paper.
  • It appears that literature is weak and current studies need to be used to fill this gap. I suggest the following theoretical and empirical papers below.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121480 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1909172

https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-08-2021-0185

https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094683

 https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052847

Author Response

attached please find our responses to your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 6 Report

Dear Authors,

I can consider the revised version in line with my comments

Best regards

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. It is always appreciated.