Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses the value of local recreational resources perceived by visitors in a rural area of Taiwan.

The originality of the studies is quite weak; however it offers an interesting insight into the potential to create alliances between local governments and local communities in Nature based Solutions to cope with climate change.

It might add much more with minors revisions such as the problematization of the risk related to tourism exploitation and anthropic pressure on natural fragile ecosystems due to increased touristic activities, the cultural shift requested to traditional local farmers in order to transform their farms into tourist attractions and  the commodification of cultural heritage and natural landmarks as critical point for local communities. The trends of market expansion in natural resources management are opportunities for economic viability; at the same time they are relevant threats for traditional communities, cultures, practices, and knowledges. I suggest to improve the conclusion part with such reflections.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors appreciate the Reviewer’s approval and valuable comments that make the improvement possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The conducted research is not informative enough due to the fact that

1) There is no estimate of how much money can be received in the event of establishing a particular fee and what they could be used for (perhaps the respondents were provided with this information before the survey, and what information was provided in general, maybe the questionnaire itself can be attached to the article)

2) It is not clear why these amounts were indicated (no more and no less) - i.e. what the researchers were starting from when they indicated these amounts in the questionnaire. In addition, for readers outside Taiwan it is not clear whether this is a lot or a little (it would be good to provide a link to the number of hamburgers, a cup of coffee that can be purchased for this amount, to the average salary, the minimum wage, etc.)

3) Questions regarding trust in the organizations indicated in the questionnaire assume that the respondents have sufficient social status and education (since they should have assessed not only the amount of the fee, but also known the functionality of these organizations). The article notes that the demographic characteristics of the respondents were obtained, you can give a short description of them, a little more than just that men are willing to pay more than women... etc.).

4) For example, on line 482-485 it is indicated that "The present study applied non-market valuation methods for the assessment and showed that the value of recreational resources for an average visitor was 1002.00 NTD." - is 30 USD a lot or a little for Taiwan? What share of the average salary?

5) It would be interesting to understand how much visitors pay now (if they pay). What are these funds spent on? Were the respondents informed during the survey about the purposes for which the funds could be spent - what additional values ​​​​will they receive? 6) Was the respondents' answer taken into account about how many times they visit this area (not only in terms of plans for the future, but also the assessment of actions already taken is important (i.e. if they have already been and arrived now, then the probability that they will come again is higher than if they arrived for the first time, but plan to come again.

7) The conclusions are very short, the reader would be interested in receiving more information about the results of the study, findings and recommendations for the development of agroecotourism (for example, perhaps during the survey it was revealed which of the components of agroecotourism was dominant when choosing a place and type of recreation, what recommendations can be given to the authorities. In addition, the abstract largely repeats the conclusions.

8) Regarding: it would be interesting to understand whether a similar or similar analysis was conducted in another area in Taiwan (or maybe beyond its borders), what were the results there.

I would recommend the authors to supplement the article with the missing facts for understanding as much as possible.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the Reviewer’s approval and valuable comments that make the improvement possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The section of introduction is around 2 pages to 3 pages. I think that is making readers a little confused. Such as the sentence in line 127 “This study assessed the perceived value of local recreational resources among visitors to YST.” Which is late to make an important information for readers what you want to do. The authors said many things which are not necessary, the introduction is not literate review.

 

The section of Materials and Methods is around 6 pages. Which is too long and making readers difficult to easy follow and understand. The methodology is to explain what the method you want to use and, how to collect and analysis the data from concerned evidences. But the contents from line 368 to line 370.

 

The number of those who were unwilling to pay was 261, as shown in Table 1. Table 1 demonstrates two key points: the distribution of respondents for each bidding amount was evenly spread, and there was a noticeable decline in willingness to pay at higher bidding price

 

This is research result or methodology. The descriptions are similar an important finding. Because the authors said to us we can see the two key points of demonstrates. Table 1 has showed the evidence.

 

On the contrary, the section of Results and Discussion is not interesting. Because what the important findings are revealed, which is difficult to see in this section. And especially, what the concept or theory has developed should be pointed out but no found it.

 

In doing so, the section of Conclusions is weakness. What the limitation, implications, and future works should be outlined in this section. However, this part lacks in these points.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the Reviewer’s approval and valuable comments that make the improvement possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for taking into account my kind recommendations. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is my second time to read this article. I think that the most suggested points have been revised.

The Single-Bounded Dichotomous Contingent Valuation Method has more added to explain why the method has  used for the concerned problems.

And the results have also revised more claearly.

Finally, the section of 4. Conclusions it is good enough for redeaers what the contributions have proposed. 

Totally, this paper has improved and suitable to be considered to publish on the journal.