Exploring the Feasibility of Building Parks for Peace in China: From Global Cases to Localized Solutions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a comprehensive exploration of the "Parks for Peace" concept in the context of China's transboundary ecological protection. It offers valuable insights and practical recommendations, but there are areas that require further refinement.

1. The section of "2. History of Parks for Peace" is expected to be incorporated into the "1. introduction" section.
2. In the materials and methods section, more details could be provided about how the data from different sources were combined and analyzed. Also, when presenting the case studies, some of the descriptions could be more detailed.
3. The paper could explore more similarities and differences between regions, especially in terms of cultural, economic, and political factors that influence the success or failure of "Parks for Peace."
4. Some of the generalizations made could be further supported by data. For example, when stating that multi-species relationships and human habitability have a more profound impact on transboundary cooperation than political factors, more quantitative data or a meta-analysis of relevant studies could be provided to strengthen this argument.
5. The conclusion section is recommended to be shortened. Furthermore, the conclusion section should be corresponded with the major findings in the abstract section.
6. It is recommended to use shorter, more straightforward sentences where possible, especially in areas where the content is dense.
7. I think more quantitative methods and data should be incorporated in the revised paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

It is recommended to use shorter, more straightforward sentences where possible, especially in areas where the content is dense.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research is timely and extremely important at a period when peace is eminent. The trans-European green belt and other cases presented in the article are indeed informative, important and reflect the diversity of boundaries across continents, countries and their specificities. While the content is interesting, recommendations to revisit some parts of the paper are provided in the following.

The term ‘micro-regionalist’ is unclear. If it is maintained in the text, it would require some explanation.

on page 7 “Martinez in his study of border interaction patterns: alienated borderlands, coexisting borderlands, and inter-dependent borderlands” could be first explained prior to applying their interpretation on the case studies.

The methodology can be further explained, to include more than just a list of methods used, rather who were the persons interviewed, what methods for comparative research were applied, what field research and data collection was done – beyond what is included in the figures – and how were reports analysed.

Figure 3 should be clearer, currently is difficult to read.

In presenting the cases under the three boundary interactions as per Martinez, perhaps the aspects being analysed could be ore clearly presented, to understand similarities, differences and particularities of each case and across the cases. The provided figures are illustrative, and good to have for the readers to acquaint themselves with the cases, but insufficient as research objects in analysing the cases.

More background information on China and its borders with neighbouring countries but also a map indicating the areas under discussion regarding transboundary peace parks could support the next section on recommendations.

Prior to the recommendations for the cases along China’s borders, the authors could consider drawing on aspects from the analysed case studies, to indicate which categories of boundary interactions exist, which aspects apply to the Chinese case and why, and which do not apply, prior to proposing approaches or solutions.

In the four recommendations on page 18, the following could be further elaborated:

• who will be involved in establishing the coordinated management system? Who will operate within this system?
• How will communities be involved, and what are possible sources for the designated fund?
• What diverse cultures are identified across borders? What plan could support reinforcing diverse cultural identities, and how does it relate to sustainability in its three pillars?
• Regarding accessibility, while facilitating accessibility from both countries to reach the peace parks is crucial, why should all modes of transport (on foot, by bicycle, car, or boat) be considered? What about environmentally sensitive areas, that perhaps should have the least possible impact or visitation from humans?
• The multilingual signage is indicated as a ‘lesson learned’ from the case studies. However, less is evident regarding other lessons learned that could apply in the cases within China, with a justification for why their implementation would be successful in achieving the peace parks’ goals.

One remark on the language, proof reading and checking the text is needed, example : “Hands Across the Border events are 506 held annually in the border area and includes group recreational activities ….” Should read ‘ … and include …’

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article examines the "Parks for Peace" concept as a means to foster regional identity and cross-border cultural connections, analysing its feasibility, challenges, and benefits while providing strategic recommendations for developing China's border national parks.

The paper is well-organized and engaging; however, some improvements are needed to enhance the research structure.

1. It is recommended to include a clear description of the methodology in the abstract to provide readers with a well-structured and comprehensive understanding of the adopted approach.
2. Briefly summarizing the results in the abstract is also suggested.
3. It is recommended to include a section in the literature review highlighting the existing research gap and explaining how this study aims to address it.
4. Methodology: What is the aim of the research? What are the research questions? The paper appears to be a review study, so adopting a more structured comparative and analytical approach in the methodology section is recommended.
5. The methodology should clearly state how the chosen research approach helps address the identified gaps in the literature review.
6. Does the approach effectively respond to the research questions and bridge the gaps in the literature?
7. The results section should be clearly linked to the research questions, as this connection is currently unclear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides a timely exploration of transboundary "Parks for Peace" and their applicability to China’s national park system. While the topic is relevant and the scope ambitious, the study requires revisions to enhance clarity and integrate theoretical frameworks with empirical findings.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

1. Recent literature on transboundary conservation in non-Western contexts (e.g., Asia, Africa) is underrepresented. Incorporate studies post-2020 to reflect current debates.
2. Explicitly link the "One Belt, One Road" initiative to transboundary conservation goals (e.g., ecological corridors, diplomatic soft power).
3. Clarify the rationale for selecting specific cases (e.g., why Kgalagadi vs. other African parks). Discuss how these cases represent broader typologies.
4. Provide details on data collection (e.g., number of interviews, selection criteria for literature, fieldwork duration).
5. Address potential biases in case selection (e.g., overrepresentation of successful cases vs. failed attempts).
6. Include comparative tables summarizing key features across cases.
7. Enhance quantitative data (e.g., visitor statistics, funding mechanisms) to support qualitative insights.
8. Ensure all figures/tables referenced in the text (e.g., Figure 1) are included and clearly labeled.
9. Strengthen the link between global case findings and China-specific recommendations. How do lessons from Kgalagadi’s community engagement inform China’s approach?

Additional Comments:

• Minor grammatical errors (e.g., "Sinoc-Nepalese" → "Sino-Nepalese") and repetitive phrasing.
• Some sections (e.g., stakeholder barriers) are overly lengthy. Use subheadings to improve readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is recommended that the sections titled “1. Introduction” and “2. History of Parks for Peace” be merged, owing that the history of parks for peace is integral to the introduction.

Line 244-248: It is strongly advised that the authors specify the number of national park rangers, government officials/local animal protection experts involved in the open-ended interviews and informal conversations. Additionally, the topics of these interviews and conversations should be briefly described, or an outline of the interviews should be included as an appendix.

The section “5. Research Focus: The Promise of Sustainable Transfrontier Parks” functions similarly to a results section. Therefore, it should contain more independent analysis. Many references were cited in this section, which need modification.

The conclusion section remains too lengthy; most of its content should be shifted to the results section.

Line 787 should be written in English.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have now read the response to comments and checked them in the text. I confirm that I recommend accepting the revised article without further modifications.

Author Response

We are especially grateful for the time and effort you devoted to reviewing our work, as well as for the insightful comments that have significantly contributed to improving the clarity and quality of our research. Your input has played an important role in shaping the final version of this article, and we deeply appreciate your contribution to the development of our study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks to the authors for improving the papers and addressing the provided comments. A final recommendation for the abstract, to follow the journal requirements: The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript and my previous comments. The authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised in the first review, and the revised manuscript is now significantly improved. The changes made have strengthened the clarity and validity of the research.

Author Response

We are especially grateful for the time and effort you devoted to reviewing our work, as well as for the insightful comments that have significantly contributed to improving the clarity and quality of our research. Your input has played an important role in shaping the final version of this article, and we deeply appreciate your contribution to the development of our study.