Circles of Connection: Visualizing Human–Nature–Animal Bonds Through Participatory Art in Wildlife Tourism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

thank you for a very interesting manuscript. I have some suggestions for improving the manuscript. 

1. Introduction - The introduction would benefit from a clearer and earlier articulation of the core research problem, along with explicitly stated research questions or hypotheses. Also, the opening narrative section could be condensed to transition more quickly from the rhetorical framing to the scientific focus of the study.
2. The introductory section is not yet fully structured as a scientific research introduction. The use of subheadings and the current organization give the impression of a review-style narrative rather than a tightly focused empirical study. The sections should be more clearly integrated and logically connected.
3. Material and Methods - This section is overly descriptive and occasionally reads more like a fieldwork report than a structured scientific methods section. The organization would benefit from clearer alignment with standard methodological components (sample, instruments, procedure, measures, data analysis), along with a more concise presentation of contextual details. In addition, there is insufficient information regarding the statistical analysis.
4. Results - The Results section should present clear and concise findings only, without integrating elements of the Materials and Methods or discussion.
5. Conclusions - The conclusion is overly long and reads more like a condensed continuation of the Discussion rather than a focused closing section. It reintroduces interpretation, contextual reflections, and future research directions in a way that extends the analytical narrative instead of synthesizing the core findings. A stronger conclusion should be more concise, clearly restate the main contributions of the study, briefly acknowledge limitations, and highlight practical implications without reiterating detailed arguments already presented in the Discussion. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted paper presents an innovative study exploring human-nature-animal relationships using participatory drawing methods. Overall, the paper addresses an important gap in environmental psychology and wildlife tourism research - the reliance on language-based surveys that may exclude diverse demographic groups. The use of drawing as a participatory method represents a valuable methodological contribution. The dataset is large, and the analytical approach is generally appropriate.  The study offers practical implications for conservation communication and visitor engagement.

I have several recommendations or comments: 

The manuscript should more explicitly explain whether the circle-drawing method should be interpreted as a measurement tool, participatory engagement technique or exploratory qualitative method. 

The Introduction notes the limitations of language-based surveys but stops short of explaining what new conceptual insights visual methods reveal about human-animal relationships. 

In the Literature Review sections 2.1 and 2.2, both discuss the Connection to Nature Index and related measurement tools. These should be integrated to improve coherence. 

 Table 1 appears to be an empty template table. The authors should remove it or replace it with the intended content. 

The Ethical Statement is appropriate. However, it may be helpful to briefly state whether children required parental consent, given that participants under 18 were included. 

The manuscript alternates between the terms "Connect to Nature Index" and "Connection to Nature Index". This should be standardized. 

I also recommend not using references in the Conclusion section. Instead, any literature-based information should be placed in the Discussion section. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read this original and novel study. I like the idea of understanding the interconnections between humans, nature, and animals through visuals, as well as the introduction’s discussion of human history. I truly believe you are onto something here but I have some serious questions about the deductions from the results as well as some methodological questions.

Introduction

• Maybe you could brielfy clarify (already in the introduction)what the Connect to Nature Index actually measures and especially how this is done. Throughout the introduction, the unfamiliar reader struggles to follow or imagine how this index works.

Method

• Pet = only dog? From the text, I understand that the dog pictogram is meant to illustrate any type of pet and the love and devotion pet owners hold toward them. Was this adequately explained to respondents? Would it have been an option to provide, for example, a survey option with the five most common pets in China to make this more relatable to non-dog owners (e.g., cat/rabbit/bird owners)? One argument for this is that— for reasons I personally do not share - many people are afraid of dogs and prefer cats. This may have distorted your results.

• Were children part of the sample? This would make sense to me, given that the aim was to provide an alternative for participants who were previously not accessible for surveys. Did children really understand from the very simple instructions that the circle represents themselves? Do we assume that children have this sense of “identity” at all ages?

• The final survey contained 15 questions. In the case of children, who answered them? Given that most children only learn reading and writing from a certain age, it would be interesting to know who filled in the answers for them (I am assuming parents/guardians). Still, how can we know that these were always answered in cooperation with the child and not simply assumed by their guardian?

• P. 7: “Section 3 contained three 5-point Likert scale questions that sought information on visitors' recycling attitudes, willingness to participate in giant panda conservation programs, and self-evaluation of happiness.” - How were these measurement instruments chosen? Why recycling? Why self-evaluation of happiness? This (1) needs stronger justification and (2) should be checked against more established scales. I would argue that simply asking participants “How happy are you right now?” is not a sufficient instrument to assess affective tendencies.

• Why are support for recycling and feelings of happiness relevant for this study? I find that this is not well motivated or explained. Is support for recycling meant to be indicative of concern for the environment? There are plenty of studies showing that recycling is not a particularly strong lever for addressing the climate crisis. In that sense, I do not understand why so many studies still use it as a proxy for pro-environmental behavior or attitudes.

• Are there any empirical findings confirming that drawing a circle in a certain way, position, or size is empirically connected to a specific form of connection with the object? I feel that this relationship is hypothesized (and I like the idea and intuitively would agree) but not sufficiently motivated or demonstrated empirically.

Coding

• I understand the challenges the research team faced in interpreting and coding this large number of drawings. It is only logical that they reverted to developing coding categories. However, I would like more information on how these categories were developed and what literature was used to support their development. Only later in the discussion, this is motivated a bit more.

• For instance, how do we know that encircling something means x, overlapping means y, and circle size means z? Please provide supporting evidence for these interpretations.

• If there is no evidence in the literature for this, I would argue that it would make sense to provide own empirical evidence. For instance, interviews with a small sample of participants could establish a relationship between what they draw, what meaning they give the specifics of the drawing, and how they themselves interpret their circle or drawing.

• How was it determined what circle size is considered “small,” “medium,” or “large”? This categorization seems somewhat arbitrary.

• Are Figures 3–5 actual drawings produced by participants, or are they merely illustrations? It would be interesting to know whether all of these options of circle size and position were actually used by participants.

• Probably a technical issue: There are two tables labeled “Table 1.”

  • The first Table 1 is entirely empty. It is titled: “Table 1. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited.”

  • The second Table 1 (p. 11) seems to be cut off on the right side (not all words are readable).

Results

• Table 2: The majority of respondents come from a place of residence labeled “Other.” Given that this represents the majority of your sample, would it make sense to provide more information about their background and the importance or meaning of “first-tier cities” for non-Chinese readers?

• I am having a hard time interpreting Figure 6, both in terms of resolution and meaning. Could you please provide an interpretation or legend for this figure?

• Visitation seems to be a significant predictor of connection to nature, pandas, and pets. Would this not imply that circle size and position are merely consequences of visiting the zoo rather than indicators of an actual connection to nature? Similar to scales such as the Attitude to Animals Scale, I would expect that connection to nature (and aspects of identity) are relatively stable over time.

• P. 20: “Table 4 explains the Chi-square and Cramér's V values calculated to evaluate the associations between dimensions of circles in nature, pet, and panda. It shows that the spatial relationship, orientation, and circle size of circle drawings in nature, pet and panda were significantly similar across groups. This means that a participant's circle drawing of nature can be a useful predictor of one’s circle drawings with a pet or a panda. Notably, Cramer's V in the panda–pet group is higher than in the nature–panda and nature–pet groups, suggesting a higher similarity between pet and panda drawings.”

  Playing devil’s advocate here: could it also mean that some people generally prefer to draw larger or smaller circles than others? Similar to how people have different handwriting in size, style, orientation... I do not find convincing evidence that pro-environmental attitudes (which were measured using only one single item!) are empirically connected to circle drawings.

Conclusion

Pp. 24–25:
“We demonstrate that the circle drawings are linked to participants' pro-environmental attitudes and feelings of well-being, shedding light on conceiving pro-environmental zones and happy zones around animals.”

Again, based on my comments above, I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to support this claim.

I thank the authors for their interesting work and wish them all the best for the revision of this article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has improved compared to its previous version; however, there are still several important issues that prevent it from being suitable for publication in its current form.

First and most importantly, the references are not cited within the text according to the journal’s guidelines. This needs to be carefully checked and corrected throughout the manuscript.

Abbreviations should be defined at their first occurrence (with the full term), and only then used consistently in their abbreviated form.

Additionally, the title of Table 4 appears twice and should be corrected.

There are still sections within the Results that extend into discussion, which should be avoided. The Results section should present findings only, without interpretation.

There is also noticeable repetition within the Results, and overall, the text is too long and difficult to follow. The manuscript would benefit from significant condensation and improved clarity.

Part of the current Conclusion could be moved to the Discussion section. The Conclusion itself should be more direct and clearly highlight the main messages and contributions of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for revising their work. I see no reason why their article could not be published in this outlet in current format.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time.