Review Reports - Exploring Community Residents’ Intentions to Support for Tourism in China’s National Park: A Two-Stage Structural Equation Modeling–Artificial Neural Network Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the paper is very interesting and relevant and I believe it could attract attention of a wider scientific community. Although the paper is well structured, I would like to point to some minor issues that authors should try to resolve. Those are:

Introduction - Consider expanding the discussion on gaps in existing research and how this study specifically addresses them. Also, a clearer articulation of how the study advances theoretical understanding beyond existing models (e.g., novelty of SEM–ANN integration) would be helpful.
Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses – Consider adding a conceptual framework figure.
Methodology - More information on the questionnaire translation and validation process would improve transparency. Also, clarify why certain demographic factors were not included as control variables in the model (e.g., age, education, income) — or discuss their potential influence in the limitations.
Results - Include a brief explanation of how ANN results complement SEM findings directly in the discussion, not just in the results section.
Discussion - The discussion could better highlight the broader implications for sustainable tourism policy and community engagement strategies. A dedicated subsection explicitly addressing theoretical contributions versus practical implications would enhance clarity.
Conclusions - Limitations and future research directions are not sufficiently emphasized. Expanding this section would strengthen the paper and demonstrate critical reflection.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers，

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “ Exploring Community Residents' Intentions to Support For Tourism in China’s National Park: A Two-Stage Structural Equation Modeling-Artificial Neural Network Approach” (ID: land-3936669). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made the correction which we hope meet with approval. The revised portion is marked in red in

the paper. The corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as following:

Reviewer #1:

1.Introduction

Consider expanding the discussion on gaps in existing research and how this study specifically addresses them. Also, a clearer articulation of how the study advances theoretical understanding beyond existing models (e.g., novelty of SEM–ANN integration) would be helpful.

Response:

We have expanded the discussion to explicitly identify gaps in existing research regarding the simultaneous influence of three justice dimensions on community empowerment in national parks' governance context. We have also clarified how this study advances theoretical understanding by integrating S-O-R theory with organizational justice frameworks to reveal the psychological mechanism of fairness perception transformation. Additionally, we have articulated the methodological novelty of SEM-ANN integration in combining causal hypothesis testing with non-linear dynamics discovery. We have made revisions in the introduction section and highlighted them in red.

2.Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses

Consider adding a conceptual framework figure.

Response:

Following your suggestion, we have added Figure 3.1 at the end of Section 3. The new figure is highlighted in red.

3.Methodology

More information on the questionnaire translation and validation process would improve transparency. Also, clarify why certain demographic factors were not included as control variables in the model (e.g., age, education, income) — or discuss their potential influence in the limitations.

Response:

We have made two revisions in response: First, we have added information about the questionnaire translation and validation process in Section 4.2 "Research Instrument." Second, in the newly added section "Limitations and Future Research," we have provided a rationale for why certain demographic variables (e.g., age, education, income) were not included as control variables in the model, along with a discussion of their potential effects. We have made revisions in the introduction section and highlighted them in red.

4.Results

Include a brief explanation of how ANN results complement SEM findings directly in the discussion, not just in the results section.

Response:

Following your recommendation, we have added a paragraph in Section 6.1 to briefly explain and

illustrate how the ANN results complement the SEM findings. The added paragraph is highlighted in blue.

5.Discussion

The discussion could better highlight the broader implications for sustainable tourism policy and community engagement strategies. A dedicated subsection explicitly addressing theoretical contributions versus practical implications would enhance clarity.

Response:

We have added two new subsections: 6.2.1 Theoretical Implications and 6.2.2 Practical Implications, to clearly distinguish theoretical contributions from practical significance, thereby highlighting the important impacts on sustainable tourism policies and community engagement strategies. The new subsections are highlighted in red.

6.Conclusions

Limitations and future research directions are not sufficiently emphasized. Expanding this section would strengthen the paper and demonstrate critical reflection.

Response:

We have dedicated a subsection in the conclusion, titled "Limitations and Future Research," to more systematically and critically discuss the limitations of this study and future research opportunities. The added paragraph is highlighted in blue.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours Sincerely,

Yantong Liu

E-mail: yantongl9835@bjfu.edu.cn

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors explore an actual and interesting topic related to the in-depth analysis of Community Residents' willingness to support for tourism development in relation with perceived justice in Wuyishan National Park (Fujian section) in China. The methodology is complex: the authors applied a questionnaire to three types of members community and analyzed the data using a dual-stage approach by combining Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN).

Introduction

The authors can add after the formulation of the aim of the study and the main research questions.

Methods

4.1. Data collection and sample

The authors included in this subsection a short description of case study.

The description of the case study should be a distinct subsection of methods section.

The authors should justify the relevance of the case study and present its particular characteristics.

The authors can specify the average duration of the questionnaires.

4.3. Data analysis method

The authors can include a methodological diagram might to reflect syntheticaly the stages of the study.

Discussion

The discussion lacks engagement with previous empirical studies. The discussion section requires greater critical depth, as it should engage more directly with comparable international studies.

First part of discussion section is more a theoretical part. The authors should reflect more critically the results obtained. Several comparisons should be made referring to the similar studies that were elaborated in different countries focused on similar methodology to highlight similarities or differences. Comparing findings with earlier literature would strengthen the contribution and contextual understanding. Although there is a solid bibliographical base, some references are inserted without being sufficiently contextualized in the discussion.

At the end of discussion the authors should highlight what are the innovative aspects of their research.

Moreover, although it is a complex study, the authors must mention the study's limitations and future research. Community is as an important stakeholder, as it is already mentioned in the study. Also, local entrepreneurs should be considered as key actors for the future development of the tourism in Wuyishan National Park. This might be an issue to be considered for the future investigation.

Conclusions

Even the manuscript is large, the main conclusions can be formulated connected with the research questions.

Minor comment:

-First part of the literature review should be written without bold words.

-to correct the spelling perceived jusitce in the diagram 6.1.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers，

Reviewer #2:

Introduction

The authors can add after the formulation of the aim of the study and the main research questions.

Response:

We have added the main research question of this study at the end of paragraph 5 in the Introduction section. The added content is highlighted in blue.

Methods

4.1. Data collection and sample

The authors included in this subsection a short description of case study.

The description of the case study should be a distinct subsection of methods section.

The authors should justify the relevance of the case study and present its particular characteristics.

Response:

We have added a new subsection, 4.1. Case Study Area, to provide a brief description of the case study and highlight the uniqueness of our study site. The new subsection is highlighted in blue.

The authors can specify the average duration of the questionnaires.

Response:

We have added a time restriction in the questionnaire section to indicate the average completion time of the questionnaire. The added content is highlighted in blue.

4.3. Data analysis method

The authors can include a methodological diagram might to reflect syntheticaly the stages of the study.

Following your suggestion, we have added Figure 4.1 (Methodological Diagram) in the current Section 4.4. The new figure is highlighted in blue.

Discussion

The discussion lacks engagement with previous empirical studies. The discussion section requires greater critical depth, as it should engage more directly with comparable international studies.

Response:

We have added an empirical comparison paragraph at the beginning of Section 6.1 to address the gap in comparison with empirical studies. The added paragraph is highlighted in blue.

Response:

Based on your suggestions,we have revised the Discussion section to balance the initial theoretical emphasis with a more critical reflection on the obtained results, including discussions of potential alternative explanations and contextual influences. We have also incorporated comparative analyses with similar studies from other countries using analogous methodologies, such as those on community empowerment in protected areas. For instance, we now highlight how our findings align with Wang et al. (2022), who demonstrated justice's positive impact on tourism support in Chinese contexts, yet extend their work by revealing empowerment's mediating role. In contrast, we compare our results with Western studies (e.g., Boley & McGehee, 2014), where economic empowerment often dominates, noting that in the Wuyishan context, procedural justice emerged as the strongest predictor, reflecting China's institutional environment where transparent governance is particularly salient for historically excluded communities. These comparisons strengthen the study's contributions and deepen contextual understanding by explicitly contrasting with earlier literature. Additionally, we have ensured that all references are more meaningfully contextualized within the discussion rather than merely inserted. These revisions are highlighted in the revised manuscript for clarity.

At the end of discussion the authors should highlight what are the innovative aspects of their research.

Response:

We have added a paragraph highlighting the innovations of this study at the end of Section 6.1. The added paragraph is highlighted in blue.

Response:

We have added a new section titled “Limitations and Future Directions” and included a new paragraph in this section to discuss the limitations of the study and future research directions (including the role of entrepreneurs). The new section and paragraph are highlighted in blue.

Conclusions

Even the manuscript is large, the main conclusions can be formulated connected with the research questions.

Response:

We have added a new Section 7 titled “Conclusions” to ensure that the conclusions directly correspond to the research questions. The new section is highlighted in blue.

Minor comment:

First part of the literature review should be written without bold words.

Response:

We have reviewed the literature review section and removed the bold words.

To correct the spelling perceived justice in the diagram 6.1.

Response:

We have checked and corrected the spelling errors in Figure 6.1.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours Sincerely,

Yantong Liu

E-mail: yantongl9835@bjfu.edu.cn

Author Response File: Author Response.docx