Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior to Understand Ecotourism Behavior: The Role of Human–Land Coordination and Self-Mastery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study has not yet met the requirements for publication. The specific issues are as follows:

• The research motivation and gap are not clearly explained in the first chapter.
• Please replace articles from 2010-2016 with literature from the past five years.
• Please explain how this research method addresses the research objectives and how the sample was collected.
• Research recommendations should be combined with data analysis.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article has many grammatical problems

Author Response

Comments 1: The research motivation and gap are not clearly explained in the first chapter.

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We have addressed this concern in the revised manuscript. The first chapter now clearly explains the research motivation by emphasizing the need to integrate human-land coordination and self-mastery into the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) framework for understanding ecotourism behavior. Additionally, we have outlined the research gap by highlighting the limited studies that incorporate these variables in the context of ecotourism, particularly in China, thus demonstrating the unique contribution of our study.

 

Comments 2: Please replace articles from 2010-2016 with literature from the past five years.

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. We have updated the references in the manuscript, replacing articles from 2010-2016 with recent literature from the past five years to ensure the study reflects the latest research developments.

 

Comments 3: Please explain how this research method addresses the research objectives and how the sample was collected.

Response 3: We have added an explanation in the "Research Methods" section, clarifying how the research method aligns with the objectives and describing the sample collection process.

 

Comments 4: Research recommendations should be combined with data analysis.

Response 4:Thank you for the feedback. We have revised the manuscript by combining the research recommendations with the data analysis in the "Results and Discussion" section to create a more cohesive narrative and better support our findings with actionable suggestions.

 

评论 5： 这篇文章有很多语法问题。

回应 5：感谢您指出这一点。我们彻底修改了手稿，以解决语法问题，并确保清晰度、连贯性和整体可读性。

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version of the article is significantly improved over the first version. That said, a few clarifications are in order. Figure 1 is not visible within the manuscript. Also, the authors state on page 6, that the study was conducted across "a broad geographic reach across different regions of China" whereas on page 19, the authors state that a limitation of the study was that it was conducted "within a specific geographic region." The authors should clarify that they are referring to China as this region, within which they were able to conduct their study in multiple regions. It is not clear why and what type of clinical trials are recommended  (p.18, line 635) for future research. The other recommendations of long-term studies conducted comparatively, across regions and mixed method are sufficient.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some very minor English errors, such as the caption to Figure 8 on page 15, that need to be checked.

Author Response

Comments 1:This version of the article is significantly improved over the first version. That said, a few clarifications are in order.

Response 1: Thank you for your positive feedback. We appreciate your suggestions and have made the necessary clarifications further to enhance the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

 

Comments 2: Figure 1 is not visible within the manuscript.

Response 2: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have reinserted and ensured that Figure 1 is now visible and properly formatted within the manuscript. Please let us know if there are any further issues.

 

Comments 3: The authors state on page 6 that the study was conducted across "a broad geographic reach across different regions of China"

Response 3: Thank you for your observation. We have revised the statement on page 6 to provide more precise information regarding the geographic regions in the study, specifying the coverage of various provinces and regions to reflect the sample distribution accurately.

 

Comments 4: On page 19, the authors state that a limitation of the study was that it was conducted "within a specific geographic region." The authors should clarify that they are referring to China as this region, within which they were able to conduct their study in multiple regions.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. We have clarified the limitation on page 19, specifying that the geographic region refers to China and highlighting the diverse representation from multiple regions within the country.

 

Comments 5: It is not clear why and what type of clinical trials are recommended (p.18, line 635) for future research.

Response 5: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the statement on page 18 to specify that clinical trials are recommended to test the effectiveness of ecotourism interventions (e.g., educational programs) on altering tourists' attitudes and behaviors, ensuring a more precise alignment with the study’s objectives.

 

Comments 6: The other recommendations of long-term studies conducted comparatively, across regions and mixed method are sufficient.

Response 6: Thank you for your comment. We have retained the recommendations for long-term studies conducted comparatively across regions and using mixed methods, as they provide a comprehensive approach for future research and are well aligned with the study’s objectives.

 

Comments 7: There are some very minor English errors, such as the caption to Figure 8 on page 15, that need to be checked.

Response 7: Thank you for highlighting this. To ensure accuracy and clarity, we have reviewed and corrected minor English errors throughout the manuscript, including the caption for Figure 8 on page 15.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Abstract:

 

Clarity: The abstract is generally informative, but it could be more concise. Consider condensing the background and focusing more on key findings and contributions of the study.

Key Terms: The abstract introduces important concepts like ecotourism, human-land coordination, and self-mastery, but these terms should be shortly explained for better clarity to a broader audience.

 

 

Research Gap: The identified research gap is clear, but it could be articulated more strongly. The manuscript could benefit from emphasizing how this study uniquely extends the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) with additional variables like human-land coordination.

 

3. Literature Review:

 

Add Last para of section - Novel Contributions: While the review covers significant topics like ecotourism tendency and human-land coordination, it would benefit from discussing how these elements have been explored in previous studies. This would clarify the novelty of the current study’s approach. Also describe clear research gap and solution to it.

 

4. Methods:

 

Data Collection: The section on data collection mentions the use of questionnaires from 847 participants. While this is a robust sample size, more details could be provided about how the sample was recruited (e.g., online, in person) and any efforts made to reduce sampling bias.

Analysis Techniques: The use of reliability testing, descriptive statistics, and regression analysis is appropriate, but the methods could be explained in more detail. For instance, provide more justification for why specific statistical techniques were chosen and how they relate to the hypotheses being tested.

 

5. Results:

 

Presentation of Data: The results are well-organized, but some tables and figures could benefit from clearer labeling and explanations. For instance, Figure 6 and Figure 7 would be more informative if there was a brief description of what each graph shows and how it relates to the research questions.

Deeper Analysis: The regression models presented are useful, but they could be expanded with a more in-depth interpretation of the statistical significance. It is recommended to add a comparison of the explanatory power of each model and discuss why some variables (like self-control) play a larger role than others.

 

 

7. Conclusion and Future Work:

 

Conclusion: The conclusion provides a good summary, but it could be strengthened by reiterating the novel contributions of the study. Emphasize how the findings contribute to the field of ecotourism beyond just applying TPB and try to separate conclusion and future work section.

Future Work: The future work section is somewhat brief. It would be beneficial to explore more specific directions for future research, such as investigating longitudinal impacts of environmental education or testing the model in different cultural contexts. Also if needed, Discuss how cybersecurity can complement or protect the systems or methods used in the research. In your case, if the research is related to sustainable technologies, emphasize the need for secure systems. Find this paper for refrencing: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2542660523002500

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

8. Writing Style:

 

English Language: The manuscript requires moderate editing for grammar and syntax. Some sentences are overly complex, and simplifying them will improve readability. Additionally, the use of passive voice is frequent; converting some of these sentences into active voice can make the text more engaging.

 

 

 

Citation Variety: While the references are mostly relevant, they could benefit from including more diverse sources, especially recent international studies on ecotourism. This will strengthen the global applicability of the research findings.

Author Response

1. Abstract:

 

Comments 1: Clarity: The abstract is generally informative, but it could be more concise. Consider condensing the background and focusing more on key findings and contributions of the study.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the abstract to be more concise, reducing background information and placing greater emphasis on the key findings and contributions of the study.

 

Comments 2: Key Terms: The abstract introduces important concepts like ecotourism, human-land coordination, and self-mastery, but these terms should be shortly explained for better clarity to a broader audience.

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the abstract to include brief explanations of key terms like ecotourism, human-land coordination, and self-mastery, ensuring that the concepts are clear and accessible to a broader audience.

 

Comments 3: Research Gap: The identified research gap is clear, but it could be articulated more strongly. The manuscript could benefit from emphasizing how this study uniquely extends the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) with additional variables like human-land coordination.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the research gap section to more strongly emphasize how this study uniquely extends the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) by incorporating additional variables such as human-land coordination and self-mastery, highlighting the novel contribution of our research.

 

3. Literature Review:

 

Comments 4: Add Last para of section - Novel Contributions: While the review covers significant topics like ecotourism tendency and human-land coordination, it would benefit from discussing how these elements have been explored in previous studies. This would clarify the novelty of the current study’s approach. Also describe clear research gap and solution to it.

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a final paragraph to the Novel Contributions, discussing how ecotourism tendency and human-land coordination have been explored in previous studies and highlighting our study's unique approach. We have also clarified the research gap by explaining the limited integration of these variables into the TPB framework and presented our solution, which extends TPB to provide a more comprehensive understanding of ecotourism behavior.

 

4. Methods:

 

Comments 5: Data Collection: The section on data collection mentions the use of questionnaires from 847 participants. While this is a robust sample size, more details could be provided about how the sample was recruited (e.g., online, in person) and any efforts made to reduce sampling bias.

Response 5: Thank you for the feedback. We have revised the Data Collection section to include details on the recruitment process, specifying that participants were recruited through a combination of online platforms (social media and travel forums) and targeted outreach. We have also described efforts to reduce sampling bias by ensuring diverse representation across different regions and demographics.

 

Comments 6: Analysis Techniques: The use of reliability testing, descriptive statistics, and regression analysis is appropriate, but the methods could be explained in more detail. For instance, provide more justification for why specific statistical techniques were chosen and how they relate to the hypotheses being tested.

Response 6: Thank you for your feedback. We have expanded the "Analysis Techniques" section to provide more justification for the use of reliability testing, descriptive statistics, and regression analysis, explaining how these techniques were selected to validate the measurement scales, describe the sample characteristics, and test the relationships between variables in alignment with the study’s hypotheses.

 

5. Results:

 

Comments 7: Presentation of Data: The results are well-organized, but some tables and figures could benefit from clearer labeling and explanations. For instance, Figure 6 and Figure 7 would be more informative if there was a brief description of what each graph shows and how it relates to the research questions.

Response 7: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the labels and added brief descriptions for Figures 6 and 7 to clarify what each graph represents and how they relate to the research questions, enhancing the overall understanding and alignment with the study’s objectives.

 

Comments 8: Deeper Analysis: The regression models presented are useful, but they could be expanded with a more in-depth interpretation of the statistical significance. It is recommended to add a comparison of the explanatory power of each model and discuss why some variables (like self-control) play a larger role than others.

Response 8: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the "Results and Discussion" section to include a deeper interpretation of the statistical significance of the regression models. We have also compared the explanatory power of each model and discussed why certain variables, such as self-control, have a more significant impact on ecotourism behavior than others.

 

7. Conclusion and Future Work:

 

Comments 9: Conclusion: The conclusion provides a good summary, but it could be strengthened by reiterating the novel contributions of the study. Emphasize how the findings contribute to the field of ecotourism beyond just applying TPB and try to separate conclusion and future work section.

Response 9: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the "Conclusion" section to reiterate the study's novel contributions, emphasizing how integrating human-land coordination and self-mastery into the TPB framework advances the understanding of ecotourism behavior. We have also separated the conclusion and future work sections for clearer distinction and focus.

 

Comments 10: Future Work: The future work section is somewhat brief. It would be beneficial to explore more specific directions for future research, such as investigating the longitudinal impacts of environmental education or testing the model in different cultural contexts. Also, if needed, Discuss how cybersecurity can complement or protect the systems or methods used in the research. In your case, if the research is related to sustainable technologies, emphasize the need for secure systems. Find this paper for refrencing: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2542660523002500

Response 10: Thank you for the suggestion. We have expanded the "Future Work" section to include specific directions, such as investigating the longitudinal impacts of environmental education and testing the model in different cultural contexts. Additionally, we have discussed how cybersecurity can protect the data integrity and confidentiality of ecotourism research systems, ensuring the secure implementation of digital tools used in this study. We also added a reference to support the cybersecurity aspect of the research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

8. Writing Style:

 

Comments 11: English Language: The manuscript requires moderate editing for grammar and syntax. Some sentences are overly complex, and simplifying them will improve readability. Additionally, the use of passive voice is frequent; converting some of these sentences into active voice can make the text more engaging.

Response 11: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the manuscript to simplify complex sentences and reduce the use of passive voice, improving readability and overall flow. Additionally, we have conducted a thorough grammar and syntax check to enhance clarity and engagement throughout the text.

 

Comments 12: Citation Variety: While the references are mostly relevant, they could benefit from including more diverse sources, especially recent international studies on ecotourism. This will strengthen the global applicability of the research findings.

Response 12: Thank you for the suggestion. We have updated the reference list to include more diverse and recent international studies on ecotourism, enhancing our research findings' global applicability and relevance.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please add theoretical focus and contributions

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Comments 1: Please add theoretical focus and contributions

Response 1: In response to the reviewer's comment, we have added a section to clearly articulate the theoretical contributions of our study. Our research extends the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) by integrating human-land coordination and self-mastery, offering a novel approach to understanding ecotourism behavior.

 

Comments 2:Minor editing of English language required.

Response 2: Thank you for your feedback. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and corrected all minor grammatical errors to ensure clarity and readability. This includes revising sentence structures, improving word choice, and addressing punctuation issues. The updated version reflects these improvements.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the revisions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please review minor grammar mistakes.

Author Response

Comments :Please review minor grammar mistakes.

Response :Thank you for your feedback. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and corrected all minor grammatical errors to ensure clarity and readability. This includes revising sentence structures, improving word choice, and addressing punctuation issues. The updated version reflects these improvements.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Please add the "Literature Review", which mainly includes: Ecotourism; Ecotourism tendency; Ecotourism behavior; Human-land coordination View; Theory of planned behavior

2. Does this study have a research structure?

3. Please provide an additional explanation of the theoretical and practical implications of this research.

4. Please add research limitations and future suggestions.

5. Please add specific methods on how to collect 847 respondents.

6. Please explain the definitions and citation sources of each aspect of the questionnaire.

7. Why does "Error! Reference source not found" appear many times in Chapter 3?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with ecotourism issues that has great significance in relation to sustainable development. The paper has a clear logical frame, it is easy to understand. The results, recommendations, conclusions are based on the primary research, they are well justified.

Regarding the format, in line 135 punctuation is missing. Figure 1 is missing, thus there are missing resources notes in lines 280 and 285. Necessary information must be added. The key term ecotourism is written in different ways (eco-tourism, ecotourism), its spelling must be coherent over the text.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need proof-reading, I found it is difficult to understand the language. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The rationale for the research reported on in this paper is clearly stated, and for the most part, results are clearly presented.  I have several minor suggestions and one substantive one. 1) The meaning of the sentence beginning "Sustainable tourism" on page 2, line 81 isn't clear, why would sustainable tourism "stop"  "tourism based on environmental conservation...? 2) There is a problem with the appearance and numbering of Figures. Figure 1 on page 4 is missing. There is another Figure 1 on page 9, and there are two Figure 2s on pages 8 and 9 respectively. I suggest numbering figures consecutively so that there is no repetition.  3) Some sources are missing on page 7, lines 280 and 284 - an error message appears. 4) Please give examples of "previous studies" on page 11, line 358.  5) On page 17, line 525, the meaning of the sentence "Also, the vacation activities will weaken tourists' perception and effectiveness..." is unclear: why would activities weaken perception and effectiveness of eco-tourism? 6) Now, for the substantive suggestion: it seems that since the authors recommend a "comprehensive analysis of regional eco-tourism"when looking at the concerns eco-tourists have and the reasons why tourists chose eco-tourism, that the distance of tourists from places associated with eco-tourism in each region could be considered. That is, tourists living in different regions might have different degrees of access to such places, such that access could be a cause for concern and also a reason for visiting eco-touristic sites. That said, it would be helpful to provide the reader with a rough estimate of how many eco-touristic sites can be found in each province, or perhaps the country as a whole. Finally, I'd like to ask if the authors believe that this study provides a model for conducting similar such studies outside of China?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The word "habitations" on page 2, line 84 should be "habitats."  I think on page 7, line 274 that the author(s) mean "Internet platform" instead of "network platform.  On page 5, "man-land coordination" in lines 181 and 182 should be corrected to read "human-land coordination."