Validating the Community Forest Intention Model: Exploring Tourist Experience, Satisfaction, and Sustainable Intentions in Community-Based Ecotourism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments attached 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 Comment 1: The abstract needs to be edited a little bit. You need to add implications to this section. How study contributes theoretically and practically.
 
Response 1: Agree. We have revised the abstract to enhance clarity, reduce repetition, and explicitly include the theoretical and practical implications of the study. The revised abstract now emphasizes the studys contribution to ecotourism scholarship by integrating experience, satisfaction, and sustainable intention within a self-regulatory framework (Line 24, page 1) , and highlights practical guidance for ecotourism managers to prioritize educational programs and service quality (Line 26-29, page 1).
 
 
Comment 2: The introduction effectively contextualizes the study but lacks in explaining the relevance of study and the research gaps. Needs major revision. 
Response 2: Agree. We have significantly revised the introduction to clearly articulate the research gaps and the study’s relevance. We explain the research gaps from several dimensions. In terms of theory, we show that there is a lack of behavior models in ecotourism grounded in self-regulation theory (Line 65-66, page 2). In terms of empirical evidence, few studies validate how distinct experience dimensions affect satisfaction and sustainability. In terms of methodology, most prior work uses reflective constructs; few use formative constructs or apply PLS-SEM rigorously. In terms of context, there is limited evidence from community forests, especially in Southeast Asia (Thailand) (Line 78-81, page 2)
Comment 3: And listing objectives in the bullet points is not an acceptable standard format in research writing. Same pattern is identified in the literature review section too. 
 
Response 3: Agree: The research objectives (Line 85-94, page 2), literature review (Page 3) do not use bullet points.
 
Comment 4: The major issue which I find in this research is the sample size. With 128 samples, you can generalize the study. Did you use any sampling formula to decide the minimum requirement for the study population. More demographic diversity could improve generalizability. This should be discussed and added to the study limitation section which is a required thing.
Response 4: Agree. We acknowledge the concern regarding the sample size and its implications for generalizability. The sample size of 128 was determined based on G*Power analysis for PLS-SEM, targeting a minimum statistical power of 0.80 with a medium effect size (f² = 0.15) and three predictors, which suggested a minimum sample size of approximately 119 This has been clarified in the revised methodology section (Line 191-194, page 5).  To address generalizability, we also highlight the demographic diversity (e.g., 57.8% female, 39.84% Thai, 32% Asian, 28.12% Western) but acknowledge that increasing diversity in future studies could enhance generalizability (Line 416-417, p.12).
 
Comment 5: The usage of the Smart PLS was robust model assessment and suited for the study. On the other side I found that the Cronbachs alpha for Learning and Satisfaction is low and below the accepted threshold. You need to address this in limitations The items or construct needs to be arranged on the table which will enhance the appeal of the paper. 
 
Response 5: Agree. We have addressed the low Cronbach’s alpha values (0.547 for Learning, 0.541 for Satisfaction) in the limitations section (Line 419-423, page 12), explaining that these are likely due to the small number of items per construct (two items each). We clarify that in PLS-SEM, composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) are more critical, and both constructs met acceptable thresholds (CR > 0.80, AVE > 0.68). This is now discussed to provide transparency and justify the model’s validity.
 
Comment 6: Table 2 is not formatted according to the journal template. The discussion part is good but need to address and revise the section of limitations.
 
Response 6: Agree. We have reformatted all tables, including Table 2 (page 6), to align with the journal’s template. Constructs and items in Table 2 have been reorganized for clarity, with consistent borders, spacing, clear labels, and percentages rounded to two decimal places.
 
Comment 7: Overall, the paper requires substantial revisions, particularly in the introduction, literature and limitation sections.
Response 7: Agree. Paragraph structuring has been improved throughout, particularly in the introduction and discussion to enhance clarity and flow. The manuscript has been proofread to correct grammatical and typographical errors, ensuring a polished presentation.
 
 
Comment 8: Overall comments include - References overlapped. Need to check. The journal template is not followed in some areas. The references are not edited according to the journal
specification. Paragraph structuring needs to be taken care of and proof reading to be done.
 
Response 8: Agree. We have thoroughly reviewed the references to eliminate overlaps and ensure compliance with the journal’s citation style. Duplicate references have been removed, and citations have been formatted consistently.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. There are a few comments that could have made the paper clearer and more in-depth.

• Abstract: The abstract needs to be reworded to reduce repetition and improve flow. It also needs to add a more explicit sentence about the originality and contribution of the paper, and to highlight the significance of the applied findings at the end of the abstract.
• Introduction: The theoretical and practical research gaps were not clearly and concisely explained before the objectives, in addition to the lack of clarity regarding the contributions and the expected impact of the study on local policymakers. The introduction needs to highlight the research gap(s) in depth, as well as the contributions and broader impact of the study on local policymakers. The references should also be updated and recent references reviewed over the past three years to support the claims of recent trends.
• Objectives and Importance: The two parts should be merged with the introduction.
• Literature Review: This part is very descriptive. This title could be changed to Literature Review and Hypothesis Development. I suggest that this part begin by presenting the theory adopted by the paper and its relationship to the variables of the paper, followed by a detailed review and justification of the hypotheses in light of previous studies and theory. It is sufficient to simply define each variable when it is mentioned for the first time in this section, and omit all descriptive information mentioned, as it does not provide anything new.
• Methodology: Although the PLS SEM method is suitable for relatively small sample sizes, the sample size (128) is close to the minimum. It is advisable to discuss the statistical power tests. The procedures for verifying the validity of the translation between Thai and English of the instrument should be clarified. It is also preferable to explain why TE is modeled as a formative rather than a reflective construct.
• Results and Analysis: The statistical report is thorough and clearly presents the R² and f² effects. This section requires attaching confidence intervals for the model paths to increase rigor. There is also a need to discuss the effect size (f²) practically, not just numerically.
• The Discussion links the results to the literature well, but requires a deeper critical analysis of unexpected or small-effect results (such as the role of availability). I also suggest including a comparison with studies on community forests in other developing countries to highlight generalities or specificities.
• Conclusion: This section needs to be shortened with the discussion section and focus on the main messages only. There is also a need to add recommendations for future research that address the study's limitations (e.g., longitudinal studies or field experiments).

Author Response

Comment 1: The abstract needs to be reworded to reduce repetition and improve flow. It also needs to add a more explicit sentence about the originality and contribution of the paper, and to highlight the significance of the applied findings at the end of the abstract.

Response 1: Agree. The abstract has been reworded to eliminate repetition, improve flow, and explicitly highlight the originality of the CFIM and its practical significance for fostering sustainable behaviors through enhanced educational programs and service quality, highlighting its unique contribution to ecotourism scholarship (Line 16-18, page 1). Additionally, we included “local policymakers” alongside ecotourism managers in the practical implications to broaden the applied significance (Line 27, page 1). Finally, we incorporated the phrase “for sustainable tourism development” to reinforce the broader impact of the findings, underscoring their relevance to sustainable tourism goals (Line 29, page 1).

Comment 2 :  Introduction- The theoretical and practical research gaps were not clearly and concisely explained before the objectives, in addition to the lack of clarity regarding the contributions and the expected impact of the study on local policymakers. The introduction needs to highlight the research gap(s) in depth, as well as the contributions and broader impact of the study on local policymakers. The references should also be updated and recent references reviewed over the past three years to support the claims of recent trends.

Response 2 : We have revised the introduction to clearly delineate research gaps, particularly the lack of studies on experiential dimensions in community forest ecotourism and the limited application of self-regulatory frameworks in such contexts (Line 68–71, page 2). The contributions and impact on local policymakers are now emphasized, focusing on actionable strategies for sustainable tourism (Line 83-83, page 2). References from the past three years have been added to support recent trends (e.g., Fischer et al., 2023; Qiu et al., 2025; Line 37, Line 74).

Comment 3 : Objectives and Importance: The two parts should be merged with the introduction.

Response 3: Agree. The “Research Objectives” and “Research Significance” sections have been integrated into the introduction as a cohesive narrative, eliminating the separate subsections and bullet points. The revised introduction now flows logically from context to gaps, objectives, and significance (Line 85-94, page 2).

Comment 4: Literature Review- This part is very descriptive. This title could be changed to Literature Review and Hypothesis Development. I suggest that this part begin by presenting the theory adopted by the paper and its relationship to the variables of the paper, followed by a detailed review and justification of the hypotheses in light of previous studies and theory. It is sufficient to simply define each variable when it is mentioned for the first time in this section, and omit all descriptive information mentioned, as it does not provide anything new.

Response 4:Agree. We have renamed the section to “Literature Review and Hypothesis Development” (line 95, page 3) and restructured it to begin with the Self-Regulation Theory, linking it to the study’s variables (Line 106-135, page 3). Descriptive content has been minimized, and the section now focuses on justifying hypotheses through theoretical and empirical connections to prior studies, with variable definitions provided concisely upon first mention.

Comment 5: Methodology- Although the PLS SEM method is suitable for relatively small sample sizes, the sample size (128) is close to the minimum. It is advisable to discuss the statistical power tests.

Response 5: Agree. We acknowledge the concern regarding the sample size and its implications for generalizability. The sample size of 128 was determined based on G*Power analysis for PLS-SEM, targeting a minimum statistical power of 0.80 with a medium effect size (f² = 0.15) and three predictors, which suggested a minimum sample size of approximately 119 This has been clarified in the revised methodology section (Line 191-194, page 5).  To address generalizability, we also highlight the demographic diversity (e.g., 57.8% female, 39.84% Thai, 32% Asian, 28.12% Western) but acknowledge that increasing diversity in future studies could enhance generalizability (Line 398-400, p.11).

Comment 6: The procedures for verifying the validity of the translation between Thai and English of the instrument should be clarified. It is also preferable to explain why TE is modeled as a formative rather than a reflective construct.

Response 6: Agree. The translation validation process has been clarified, detailing Brislin’s back-translation method with two bilingual experts resolving discrepancies (Line 172–178, page 4). The rationale for modeling TE as a formative construct is explained, emphasizing that service quality, accessibility, and learning engagement are theoretically distinct and collectively form TE (Line 175-177, page 4).

Comment 7: Results and Analysis: The statistical report is thorough and clearly presents the R² and f² effects. This section requires attaching confidence intervals for the model paths to increase rigor. There is also a need to discuss the effect size (f²) practically, not just numerically.

Response 7: Agree. To address the need for a practical discussion of effect sizes (f²), we have revised section 4.3.2 (lines 303–323, page 8-9) to include a detailed interpretation of the f² values, linking them to actionable implications for ecotourism management at the site.

Comment 8: The Discussion links the results to the literature well, but requires a deeper critical analysis of unexpected or small-effect results (such as the role of availability). I also suggest including a comparison with studies on community forests in other developing countries to highlight generalities or specificities.

Response 8: Agree. The revised Discussion section now critically examines why Accessibility’s effect size (f² = 0.069) is smaller compared to Learning Engagement (f² = 0.368) and Service Quality (f² = 0.148). We attribute this to site-specific factors, such as Suan Pa Ket Nom Klao’s urban proximity, which likely ensures convenient access and well-developed infrastructure, reducing Accessibility’s relative influence on tourist satisfaction. This is contrasted with findings from rural community forest settings, such as Effendi et al. (2022) [8] on mangrove ecotourism in Indonesia and Thompson (2022) [9] on Philippine mangrove ecotourism, where infrastructure limitations amplify Accessibility’s role (Line 424-429, page  12).

Comment 9: Conclusion- This section needs to be shortened with the discussion section and focus on the main messages only. There is also a need to add recommendations for future research that address the study's limitations (e.g., longitudinal studies or field experiments).

Response 9: Agree. We have revised the Conclusion as a subsection titled “Conclusion and Future Directions”, highlighting the CFIM’s validation, its contribution to ecotourism scholarship via a self-regulatory framework, and practical guidance for enhancing educational programs and service quality (Line 431-436, page 12). To address the study’s limitations (Line 436-445, page 12), we expanded recommendations to include larger, multi-site samples, longitudinal studies, field experiments (e.g., conservation workshops), and exploration of additional experiential dimensions like cultural immersion to improve the CFIM’s applicability.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of the comments were well-addressed.
One final comment: Regarding the discussion, the numbers should be removed from the discussion and the main findings should be highlighted and discussed in light of previous studies.
Good luck.

Author Response

Comments : One final comment: Regarding the discussion, the numbers should be removed from the discussion and the main findings should be highlighted and discussed in light of previous studies.

Response : Thank you for your valuable suggestion to refine the Discussion section by removing numerical details and emphasizing the main findings in the context of prior studies (Page 11, Lines 360-398). We have revised the Discussion section to eliminate statistical values (e.g., path coefficients, R², effect sizes) and focus on the core findings: the pivotal role of Learning Engagement, Service Quality, and Accessibility in driving Tourist Satisfaction, which mediates Sustainable Intention within the Community Forest Intention Model (CFIM). The revised section strengthens the qualitative interpretation, linking these findings to the Self-Regulation Theory and prior ecotourism research (e.g., Kang & Gretzel [25], Chen & Tsai [15], Biswas et al. [16]), and retains relevant citations, including Shmueli et al. [23], to support the model’s predictive relevance. This revision enhances the section’s focus on theoretical contributions and practical implications for Suan Pa Ket Nom Klao, aligning with your recommendation.