The Role of Social Media in Public Forest Management Policies during COVID-19: Implications for Stakeholder Engagement
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled “The Role of Social Media in Public Forest Management Policies in the Covid-19 Context” by Bratu and co-authors explores the dynamics and possible relationship between social networks activity related to forests and forests policy (by the Government and three NGO`s in Romania) and legislative activity in that issue. Altought the topic is very worthy of exploring, this manuscript has a lot of issues. More specifically, all the “Limitations” section of the manuscript gives quite good reasons for its rejection: the timeframe is extremely short, and just one social network and 4 entities were analyzed. Is almost impossible to have strong conclusions, especially regarding the short timeframe, as we are still in the pandemic and just a few months were analyzed. Furthermore, there are two more critical aspects: firstly, there is no explanation of the relationship between the pandemic measures and social networks activity and policy regarding forest management, although this is in the title of the manuscript; and secondly, is never explicitly clear that social networks activity, comments, and reactions, caused changes in the country`s forest management legislation, as the authors seem to imply sometimes. There are also some basic mistakes in the Figures for example (Figs. 4 to 7), where they do not sum 100%, which does not makes sense at all. I am afraid these are enough reasons to reject this manuscript of an otherwise very interesting topic. Find specific comments below.
Abstract
L.13. Traditional methods of what?
L.20. Change “logging and stopping illegal logging and monitoring of timber shipments as a measure to” for “logging, and stopping illegal logging, and monitoring of timber shipments as measures to”.
L.19-21. This phrase is a bit redundant, is not?
L.21. Specify the analyzed period.
L.22. And, this coincided also with more social network activity?
L.23. Change “conservation and protection” for “conservation, and protection”.
L.21-25. This phrase is way too long, about in L.23, after “monitoring the traceability…” it should be split in two.
L.23-25. Here, you say “monitoring…. that allows the monitoring”. A bit redundant.
Introduction
L.28-92. In the whole Introduction there is nothing about forests, forest management and policy, and the public interest in those topics. This deserves at least one paragraph (if not more), as it is a crucial aspect in your article.
L.32. Change “Nidovirales and” for “Nidovirales, and are”.
L.33-34. Here, avoid saying phrases like “The major causes of human infections are caused”.
L.34-35. Avoid using the word “either” here.
L.38. Specify when those first 800 cases were detected.
L.40. Change “[14], World” for “[14], the World”.
L.52. Change “patients and vaccinate” for “patients, and vaccinate”. Change “that SARS-CoV-2” for “that the SARS-CoV-2”.
L.54. Change “[19]. European” for “[19]. The European”.
L.56. Change “Spain and Netherlands” for “Spain, and Netherlands”.
L.65. Change “accepted quarantine” for “accepted the quarantine”.
L.68. Infections of what? Be specific. Figure 1: the Y axis need labeling.
L.71. Change “of the organizations” for “for the organizations”.
L.72. Change “networks and facilitate” for “networks, and facilitate”.
L.74. Change “to better” for “to a better”.
L.79. Change “sharing and exchanging” for “sharing, and exchanging”.
L.81. Change “creativity and” for “creativity, and”.
L.69-82. Try to reduce the content of this paragraph, to synthesize the some of the things you are saying, and erase others (as, there is repetition of some concepts). This paragraph (all paragraphs in reality) should have a main conclusion. As it is now, this is lacking.
L.90. Change “of the quarantine” for “of quarantine”.
Materials and Methods
L.101. Change “isolation, social” for “isolation, and social”.
L.102-103. This is a quite short analyzed time, is not?
L.109. Change “Google+ and Pinterest” for “Google+, and Pinterest”.
L.113-115. What does the Y axis mean? What does the different colors (and bars) mean? This should be clear in the figure itself.
L.117. Change “identity [40] and” for “identity [40], and”.
L.119. Change “authors conceive of attitude” for “authors conceive attitude”.
L.121. Change “affective (favorable” for “an affective character (favorable”. Change “feelings) and conative (tendency” for “feelings), and a conative character (tendency”.
L.126. Change “formed and” for “formed, and”.
L.116-133. This part is mostly well written, and you make very good points here. But, this paragraph does not correspond to the Materials and Methods section.
L.138. Change “and view” for “and views”.
L.142. Change “then adopted into regulations was” for “and then adopted into regulations, was”.
L.142-145. How much environmental legislation could have been discussed and adopted in such a short time frame?
L.146. Change “on forest” for “on the forest”.
L.149. Table 1: this can be written in the text or it can be supplementary material.
L.151. Change “database, Initially” for “database. Initially”. Here, which three NGO`s are you referring to? This has not been specified before in the manuscript.
L.153. Change “select, process and analyze” for “selection, process, and analyze”.
Results
L.157-158. Avoid repetition of terms, ie. here “online activity” is repeated.
L.165-201. Why is this on the Results section? In the Results section you should only describe your most interesting findings. This does not correspond to that.
L.165. Change “to be registered” for “is registered”.
L.166. Change “type and number” for “type, and number”.
L.167. Change “wood and three” for “wood, and three”.
L.171. Delete here “and not only”.
L.175. Change “thinning, fellings” for “thinning, and fellings”.
L.177. Change “information” for “and information”.
L.186. A major problem of what? Be specific.
L.197. Change “through Green” for “through the Green”.
L.208-209. Figure 3: the Y axis need labeling.
L.219-220. I do not think that is like the post resulted on legislative changes, but rather that the posts announced such changes. This is in accordance with the following phrases in this paragraph.
L.223. Change “and another three” for “and the other three”.
L.226. Change “comments and 3,100” for “comments, and 3,100”.
L.230. Change “(SUMAL), planting trees” for “(SUMAL), and planting trees”.
L.233. Change “comments and shares” for “comments, and shares”.
L.234. Change “comments and 408” for “comments, and 408”.
L.236-238. The phrasing here is awkward, re-phrase it please.
L.241-243. Figure 4: this figure does not makes sense at all. The percentages of the graph should sum 100%, but they sum 56%. This is absolutely outrageous.
L.244. Change “statements and the” for “statements, and the”.
L.247. Here, “216,260 followers” at which date?
L.249. Use a better term than “aroused”.
L.255. Change “concerns” for “concern”.
L.259. Change “comments and 12%” for “comments, and 12%”.
L.264-265. Figure 5: same comment as for L.241-243. In this type of graph, the percentages should sum 100%.
L.266. Change “forests and wood” for “forests, and wood”.
L.278. Change “(65%) and the” for “(65%), and the”.
L.280-281. Figure 6: same comments as for Figs. 5 (L.264-265) and 4 (L.241-243). In this type of graph, the percentages should sum 100%.
L.282. Change “(SUMAL) and Forest” for “(SUMAL), and Forest”.
L.285. Here and elsewhere in the manuscript, when you say that certain Facebook page has X number of followers or users, you always need to specify when.
L.294-295. Here, again, same comment as before: in this type of graph, the percentages should sum 100%.
L.296. Change “trees and Forest” for “trees, and Forest”.
L.304. Change “(SUMAL), Illegal” for “(SUMAL) and Illegal”.
Discussion
L.309. Change “and especially” for “especially”.
L.314. Add a comma (,) before “or raising”.
L.317-322. Here the causality that you suspect is wrong, according to your own manuscript. It seems that several legislative measures caused peaks of social networks reactions and interactions, but not the other way around. This is crucial.
L.312-322. You should also mention what was the effect of the lockdown and of the pandemic overall on the different forest policy measures and the social network activity raised.
L.328-330. This phrase reads incomplete.
Limitations
L.352-363. I think that is precisely this type of limitations, besides many other incorrect aspects, that makes this study not acceptable.
Conclusions
L.368. What is the difference between “wildlife” and “wild” in this context?
L.371. Change “logging and were” for “logging, and were”.
L.373-376. This is a main issue with the manuscript. Now here you mention “coincidence”, while previously you stated a causation (check for example comments for L.317-322). I think the way that this is written here is a bit better, but this caution should be more common through the manuscript.
L.379-382. This is an unnecessary repetition from before.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We would like to address all our thanks and gratitude for the constructive observations, corrections and recommendations.
Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the authors of this paper responded point by point to all the suggestions and recommended aspects.
The answers to the specific comments can be found in the following.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This study uses the data collected on the topics that receive the most attention in the forest-related field in Facebook during the period of quarantine and social distancing imposed by the authorities as measures to limit the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in Romania. The results show a high interest of the community in the environment, especially regarding forests. The governmental environmental authority presented phenomena and natural disasters, such as wind-uprooted trees, or the activity of its own apparatus, such as tree planting, controls related to tree felling, timber transport, press conferences.
The logic of the article is relatively tight, but there are still some limitations that need to be overcome as follows:
- As the authors stated in the part of the limitation, this study collects the data from a single social media platform- Facebook. Activity on other social networks remained unexplored.
- Much attention has been focused on the details of how Facebook deals with misinformation and provides insight into product ads on Facebook and how users and marketers perceive them. However, "social networks are a new form of expression of modern society with implications that lead to major changes, including environmental policies" as the authors conclude in the article, are quite rare, because how much of the truth exists in a "virtual society" like Facebook?
- This study uses the data collected on the topics that receive the most attention in the forest-related field in Facebook but has not produced any practical results about "The Role of Social Media in Public Forest Management Policies" as the title stated.
- According to a recent report of Meta, Facebook lost daily users for the first time in its 18-year history, around 500,000 daily users in the last three months of 2021, falling from 1.93 billion logging in around the world each day to 1.929 billion. The ranking order by the number of users may change frequently in the future, so long-term trust in these platforms which is essential for policymakers is difficult to achieve.
- According to the article, “Of all the posts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, wood 232 transport control recorded the most reactions, comments, and shares”, which has not yet been shown the relation to economic and social effects.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We would like to address all our thanks and gratitude for the constructive observations, corrections and recommendations.
Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the authors of this paper responded point by point to all the suggestions and recommended aspects.
The answers to the specific comments can be found in the following.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a good paper. However before publication several corrections should be done.
- Provide conclusion in abstract.
- Provide authors and title in citation.
- What is the time of information on figure 1 and 2. In my opinion it shoild start from 1.12.2019 to 30.12.2021.
- At the end of introduction please wrire detailed aims.
- Ehat are the research questions?
- What are he hypotheses?
- The authors should provide at least descriptive statistics or more advanced tools.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We would like to address all our thanks and gratitude for the constructive observations, corrections and recommendations.
Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the authors of this paper responded point by point to all the suggestions and recommended aspects.
The answers to the specific comments can be found in the following.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I thank the authors for the work done over the manuscript, the editions, the comments made, and the answers to my previous revisions and those of other reviewers. I still think, anyway, that the main criticisms of the manuscript were not solved, namely:
-
More specifically, all the “Limitations” section of the manuscript gives quite good reasons for its rejection: the timeframe is extremely short, and just one social network and 4 entities were analyzed. Is almost impossible to have strong conclusions, especially regarding the short timeframe, as we are still in the pandemic and just a few months were analyzed. Furthermore, there are two more critical aspects: firstly, there is no explanation of the relationship between the pandemic measures and social networks activity and policy regarding forest management, although this is in the title of the manuscript; and secondly, is never explicitly clear that social networks activity, comments, and reactions, caused changes in the country`s forest management legislation, as the authors seem to imply sometimes.
So I reiterate my previous decision.
Author Response
Comment:
All the “Limitations” section of the manuscript gives quite good reasons for its rejection: the timeframe is extremely short, and just one social network and 4 entities were analyzed. Is almost impossible to have strong conclusions, especially regarding the short timeframe, as we are still in the pandemic and just a few months were analyzed.
Answer: We extend the timeframe of the study for 6 months (February 01 20202 to July 31 2020). We considered that the four NGOs that were present at the public consultations organized by the governmental authority for environmental protection in the stage of decisional transparency of the legislative acts are representatives, as mentioned in the bibliography.
Comment:
Furthermore, there are two more critical aspects: firstly, there is no explanation of the relationship between the pandemic measures and social networks activity and policy regarding forest management, although this is in the title of the manuscript.
Answer: We made the change in the conclusion section and we have specified, including through bibliographic sources, the data that support the statements made.
Comment:
and secondly, is never explicitly clear that social networks activity, comments, and reactions, caused changes in the country`s forest management legislation, as the authors seem to imply sometimes.
Answer: The entire documentation of the article has been redone, including the citation of the bibliography.
In conclusion, I appreciate your constructive review, and I thank you for all.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author,
Regarding the technique of getting data and analyzing social networks, the author did quite well. However, in my opinion, the credibility of the data obtained on social networks should be through verification methods. If these data provide misleading information or are only from a certain group of people, they cannot be used for general management policies.
Good Luck!
Author Response
Regarding the technique of getting data and analyzing social networks, the author did quite well. However, in my opinion, the credibility of the data obtained on social networks should be through verification methods. If these data provide misleading information or are only from a certain group of people, they cannot be used for general management policies.
Answer: In the new form of the paper, we extended the study period (February 01, 2020, to July 31, 2020) precisely to capture the period before the quarantine and then after its lifting, a period that extends over six months. We considered that the four NGOs that were present at the public consultations organized by the governmental authority for environmental protection in the stage of decisional transparency of the legislative acts are representatives, as mentioned in the bibliography. The conclusions drawn are supported by new bibliographic titles that should add credibility.
In conclusion, I appreciate your constructive review, and I thank you for all.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
