The Impact of Forest Usage and Accessibility on the Perceptions of its Users and Surrounding Residents
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study investigates how access impacts the perceived value of a forest and compared two forests by conducting a survey. It demonstrated the frequency of visitation and community location could have impacts on the perceived value of forests. In general, it contributes to the forest ecosystem field as the restriction of human access to the forests limits the cultural services and may reduce the public’s perceived value of the forest.
Author Response
Response: We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments on the manuscript. We believe the manuscript has been greatly improved in terms of clarity due to these revisions. We have addressed the reviewers comments individually below.
This article assesses an important question in urban social ecology, whether access to a protected area influences its perceived value to visitors and nearby residents. The authors implemented a mail survey, targeting residents living near two protected forests, one accessible and one inaccessible to visitors. The major results were that respondents living near accessible and inaccessible protected forests did not believe that protected status limited the ability to enjoy a forest, and both groups agreed that the forest was valuable to the community and the environment.
There are some major limitations of this study. Out of 48 responses analyzed, only 13 were received from residents living near the inaccessible forest. As the authors note, in such a small case study of only two locations and less than 50 responses, a qualitative approach (i.e., open-ended questions) would help to explore the study themes in more depth. The description of the study methods and results needs significant revision in order to clarify how the questions were asked and what statistical comparisons were conducted.
Abstract
Seems like the response rate should be 48 if that is the number of surveys used in the analysis.
Response: Fixed
Introduction
Overall, this section covers the relevant literature and sets up the importance of the study questions. However, there are a few places where the writing could use editing for clarity.
Line 28: “most of the world’s population”
Response: Fixed
Line 30-33: It is very hard to follow the meaning of this sentence—particularly how the second part follows logically from the first part. Maybe split into two sentences?
Response: Separated the two sentences and clarified that we mean specifically the exacerbated impacts of environmental injustices frequently being disproportionately impacting minority communities.
Line 45-46: “geographical spaces” is redundant
Response: Removed
Line 67-68: “however, this result was not clear across the study measures” – what does that mean?
Response: This was an error in original manuscript, has been removed
Line 91-94: This sentence is too long and should be split into two for clarity.
Response: Made this into two sentences.
Materials and Methods
This section has several typos and in many places the writing could be improved to enhance clarity. Inclusion of the survey instrument in supplemental materials would simplify the description of methods and clear up some of the confusion.
Line 103: Northeast is generally one word in this context I believe
Response: Fixed
Line 104: Cite this as you would any other source, no need for “according to”
Response: Corrected to mixture
Line 107: Why “admixture” and not “mixture”?
Response: Corrected to mixture
Line 114: It is not clear what “strict accessibility” means. “Restricted access”?
Response: Clarified what we mean by strict accessibility in the context of this work.
Line 120: Typo – “by primarily by”
Response: Fixed
Line 128: Typo – parameter should be perimeter
Response: Fixed
Line 131: Typo – “by a research” ?
Response: Fixed
Line 148: why a range of 250-300? Can it just be described a 300-meter band?
Response: Clarified that we mean a 300m band
Line 151: Explain what you mean by multistage sampling.
Response: Have removed this language to better clarify as that was not the actual method used.
Line 159: It seems that there is an error in formatting here. Should “Forest Perception Variables” be a section within “Questionnaire Design”? Perhaps this and the following sections (Environmental Identity and Socio-Demographic Variables) should be 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3.
Response: Fixed formatting to clarify that these three sections are intended to be a subsection of Survey Design and Implementation.
Line 160-164: Split this into two sentences, it is difficult to follow as written. Also, this approach is more conventionally described as a Likert-type scale.
Response: Clarified that we mean Likert-type scale questions
Line 168: Why is there so much detail about the preceding questions and not about the response options for this question? The way this is worded makes it sound like it was an open-ended question. Perhaps this issue could be solved by inclusion of the survey instrument in Supplemental Materials.
Response: The survey has been included in the supplementary materials
Line 169: It would help to call these questions either “environmental identity” or “environmental orientation” and be consistent throughout the manuscripit. I think the latter is probably more appropriate.
Response: Changed to orientation throughout the manuscript to more accurately represent what was measured.
Line 176-178: This sentence could simply be written “Age was clustered on a scale from 1 to 5 including the categories: 18-24, 25-32, 33-40, 40-50, and 50+.”
Response: Changed to reviewer suggestion
Line 190: Typo – respondents’ response
Response: Fixed
Line 195: delete comma
Response: Fixed
Results
Why did the authors not include a table with model results? This would make it much easier to follow exactly which statistical comparisons were conducted and what the results were.
Response: We included two additional tables to display the results in a more concise fashion.
Line 207: It is not clear what “two groups” refers to. Be very specific if you mean respondents living in proximity to the accessible and inaccessible protected areas.
Response: That was our intention and have clarified in text
Line 210-211: What does “ethnic diversity” mean given the limited ethnicity data collected? Be specific.
Response: We have changed the language to more directly address what we compared.
Line 215: “not a result of surveying different respondents” – what does this mean?
Response: Clarified that we mean differences in population between HMF and RUEP
Line 216-217: This is not written as a grammatically correct sentence.
Response: Removed sentence
Line 220: Again, define what the “two groups” are, at least once in the beginning of each new section.
Response: Clarified in text
Line 222: I think this is written incorrectly as a double negative, though without the model results linked to specific survey questions, it is difficult to interpret. Shouldn’t it be that the respondents disagreed that protecting forest limits an individual’s freedom?
Response: Yes, the double negative was incorrect and the language has been changed to reflect this.
Line 232-233: Significant difference between what and what?
Response: The language here may have been unclear and was changed to be clearer that we are noting that there are only two significant variables in the model. We also included table 3 to clarify the model results.
Conclusions
The conclusions are well-written and compelling. It will be easier to evaluate their relevance once the Methods and Results are revised.
Response: Thank you for the kind comment.
Figures
Figure 1 / Supplemental Figure 1: These figures could easily be combined by adding a locator map to Figure 1 showing where the state of NJ is located within the eastern US. The county map is not necessary.
Response: We have included the location of New Jersey in the supplementary material to accommodate a review request.
Figures 3-4: Include statistically significant results in these figures.
Response: We removed these figures as it was communicating the same information as the table.
Reviewer 2 Report
This article assesses an important question in urban social ecology, whether access to a protected area influences its perceived value to visitors and nearby residents. The authors implemented a mail survey, targeting residents living near two protected forests, one accessible and one inaccessible to visitors. The major results were that respondents living near accessible and inaccessible protected forests did not believe that protected status limited the ability to enjoy a forest, and both groups agreed that the forest was valuable to the community and the environment.
There are some major limitations of this study. Out of 48 responses analyzed, only 13 were received from residents living near the inaccessible forest. As the authors note, in such a small case study of only two locations and less than 50 responses, a qualitative approach (i.e., open-ended questions) would help to explore the study themes in more depth. The description of the study methods and results needs significant revision in order to clarify how the questions were asked and what statistical comparisons were conducted.
Abstract
Seems like the response rate should be 48 if that is the number of surveys used in the analysis.
Introduction
Overall, this section covers the relevant literature and sets up the importance of the study questions. However, there are a few places where the writing could use editing for clarity.
Line 28: “most of the world’s population”
Line 30-33: It is very hard to follow the meaning of this sentence—particularly how the second part follows logically from the first part. Maybe split into two sentences?
Line 45-46: “geographical spaces” is redundant
Line 67-68: “however, this result was not clear across the study measures” – what does that mean?
Line 91-94: This sentence is too long and should be split into two for clarity.
Materials and Methods
This section has several typos and in many places the writing could be improved to enhance clarity. Inclusion of the survey instrument in supplemental materials would simplify the description of methods and clear up some of the confusion.
Line 103: Northeast is generally one word in this context I believe
Line 104: Cite this as you would any other source, no need for “according to”
Line 107: Why “admixture” and not “mixture”?
Line 114: It is not clear what “strict accessibility” means. “Restricted access”?
Line 120: Typo – “by primarily by”
Line 128: Typo – parameter should be perimeter
Line 131: Typo – “by a research” ?
Line 148: why a range of 250-300? Can it just be described a 300-meter band?
Line 151: Explain what you mean by multistage sampling.
Line 159: It seems that there is an error in formatting here. Should “Forest Perception Variables” be a section within “Questionnaire Design”? Perhaps this and the following sections (Environmental Identity and Socio-Demographic Variables) should be 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3.
Line 160-164: Split this into two sentences, it is difficult to follow as written. Also, this approach is more conventionally described as a Likert-type scale.
Line 168: Why is there so much detail about the preceding questions and not about the response options for this question? The way this is worded makes it sound like it was an open-ended question. Perhaps this issue could be solved by inclusion of the survey instrument in Supplemental Materials.
Line 169: It would help to call these questions either “environmental identity” or “environmental orientation” and be consistent throughout the manuscripit. I think the latter is probably more appropriate.
Line 176-178: This sentence could simply be written “Age was clustered on a scale from 1 to 5 including the categories: 18-24, 25-32, 33-40, 40-50, and 50+.”
Line 190: Typo – respondents’ response
Line 195: delete comma
Results
Why did the authors not include a table with model results? This would make it much easier to follow exactly which statistical comparisons were conducted and what the results were.
Line 207: It is not clear what “two groups” refers to. Be very specific if you mean respondents living in proximity to the accessible and inaccessible protected areas.
Line 210-211: What does “ethnic diversity” mean given the limited ethnicity data collected? Be specific.
Line 215: “not a result of surveying different respondents” – what does this mean?
Line 216-217: This is not written as a grammatically correct sentence.
Line 220: Again, define what the “two groups” are, at least once in the beginning of each new section.
Line 222: I think this is written incorrectly as a double negative, though without the model results linked to specific survey questions, it is difficult to interpret. Shouldn’t it be that the respondents disagreed that protecting forest limits an individual’s freedom?
Line 232-233: Significant difference between what and what?
Conclusions
The conclusions are well-written and compelling. It will be easier to evaluate their relevance once the Methods and Results are revised.
Figures
Figure 1 / Supplemental Figure 1: These figures could easily be combined by adding a locator map to Figure 1 showing where the state of NJ is located within the eastern US. The county map is not necessary.
Figures 3-4: Include statistically significant results in these figures.
Author Response
Response: We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments on the manuscript. We believe the manuscript has been greatly improved in terms of clarity due to these revisions. We have addressed the reviewer comments individually below.
This article assesses an important question in urban social ecology, whether access to a protected area influences its perceived value to visitors and nearby residents. The authors implemented a mail survey, targeting residents living near two protected forests, one accessible and one inaccessible to visitors. The major results were that respondents living near accessible and inaccessible protected forests did not believe that protected status limited the ability to enjoy a forest, and both groups agreed that the forest was valuable to the community and the environment.
There are some major limitations of this study. Out of 48 responses analyzed, only 13 were received from residents living near the inaccessible forest. As the authors note, in such a small case study of only two locations and less than 50 responses, a qualitative approach (i.e., open-ended questions) would help to explore the study themes in more depth. The description of the study methods and results needs significant revision in order to clarify how the questions were asked and what statistical comparisons were conducted.
Abstract
Seems like the response rate should be 48 if that is the number of surveys used in the analysis.
Response: Fixed
Introduction
Overall, this section covers the relevant literature and sets up the importance of the study questions. However, there are a few places where the writing could use editing for clarity.
Line 28: “most of the world’s population”
Response: Fixed
Line 30-33: It is very hard to follow the meaning of this sentence—particularly how the second part follows logically from the first part. Maybe split into two sentences?
Response: Separated the two sentences and clarified that we mean specifically the exacerbated impacts of environmental injustices frequently being disproportionately impacting minority communities.
Line 45-46: “geographical spaces” is redundant
Response: Removed
Line 67-68: “however, this result was not clear across the study measures” – what does that mean?
Response: This was an error in original manuscript, has been removed
Line 91-94: This sentence is too long and should be split into two for clarity.
Response: Made this into two sentences.
Materials and Methods
This section has several typos and in many places the writing could be improved to enhance clarity. Inclusion of the survey instrument in supplemental materials would simplify the description of methods and clear up some of the confusion.
Line 103: Northeast is generally one word in this context I believe
Response: Fixed
Line 104: Cite this as you would any other source, no need for “according to”
Response: Corrected to mixture
Line 107: Why “admixture” and not “mixture”?
Response: Corrected to mixture
Line 114: It is not clear what “strict accessibility” means. “Restricted access”?
Response: Clarified what we mean by strict accessibility in the context of this work.
Line 120: Typo – “by primarily by”
Response: Fixed
Line 128: Typo – parameter should be perimeter
Response: Fixed
Line 131: Typo – “by a research” ?
Response: Fixed
Line 148: why a range of 250-300? Can it just be described a 300-meter band?
Response: Clarified that we mean a 300m band
Line 151: Explain what you mean by multistage sampling.
Response: Have removed this language to better clarify as that was not the actual method used.
Line 159: It seems that there is an error in formatting here. Should “Forest Perception Variables” be a section within “Questionnaire Design”? Perhaps this and the following sections (Environmental Identity and Socio-Demographic Variables) should be 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3.
Response: Fixed formatting to clarify that these three sections are intended to be a subsection of Survey Design and Implementation.
Line 160-164: Split this into two sentences, it is difficult to follow as written. Also, this approach is more conventionally described as a Likert-type scale.
Response: Clarified that we mean Likert-type scale questions
Line 168: Why is there so much detail about the preceding questions and not about the response options for this question? The way this is worded makes it sound like it was an open-ended question. Perhaps this issue could be solved by inclusion of the survey instrument in Supplemental Materials.
Response: The survey has been included in the supplementary materials
Line 169: It would help to call these questions either “environmental identity” or “environmental orientation” and be consistent throughout the manuscripit. I think the latter is probably more appropriate.
Response: Changed to orientation throughout the manuscript to more accurately represent what was measured.
Line 176-178: This sentence could simply be written “Age was clustered on a scale from 1 to 5 including the categories: 18-24, 25-32, 33-40, 40-50, and 50+.”
Response: Changed to reviewer suggestion
Line 190: Typo – respondents’ response
Response: Fixed
Line 195: delete comma
Response: Fixed
Results
Why did the authors not include a table with model results? This would make it much easier to follow exactly which statistical comparisons were conducted and what the results were.
Response: We included two additional tables to display the results in a more concise fashion.
Line 207: It is not clear what “two groups” refers to. Be very specific if you mean respondents living in proximity to the accessible and inaccessible protected areas.
Response: That was our intention and have clarified in text
Line 210-211: What does “ethnic diversity” mean given the limited ethnicity data collected? Be specific.
Response: We have changed the language to more directly address what we compared.
Line 215: “not a result of surveying different respondents” – what does this mean?
Response: Clarified that we mean differences in population between HMF and RUEP
Line 216-217: This is not written as a grammatically correct sentence.
Response: Removed sentence
Line 220: Again, define what the “two groups” are, at least once in the beginning of each new section.
Response: Clarified in text
Line 222: I think this is written incorrectly as a double negative, though without the model results linked to specific survey questions, it is difficult to interpret. Shouldn’t it be that the respondents disagreed that protecting forest limits an individual’s freedom?
Response: Yes, the double negative was incorrect and the language has been changed to reflect this.
Line 232-233: Significant difference between what and what?
Response: The language here may have been unclear and was changed to be clearer that we are noting that there are only two significant variables in the model. We also included table 3 to clarify the model results.
Conclusions
The conclusions are well-written and compelling. It will be easier to evaluate their relevance once the Methods and Results are revised.
Response: Thank you for the kind comment.
Figures
Figure 1 / Supplemental Figure 1: These figures could easily be combined by adding a locator map to Figure 1 showing where the state of NJ is located within the eastern US. The county map is not necessary.
Response: We have included the location of New Jersey in the supplementary material to accommodate a review request.
Figures 3-4: Include statistically significant results in these figures.
Response: We removed these figures as it was communicating the same information as the table.
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a great start on this important topic, and I would like to see it as a foundational study to further investigation. National Forests are muli-use and may be good study areas.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for their kind comments. We have made individual revisions in response to reviewers comments listed below.
Response: We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments on the manuscript. We believe the manuscript has been greatly improved in terms of clarity due to these revisions. We have addressed the reviewer comments individually below.
This article assesses an important question in urban social ecology, whether access to a protected area influences its perceived value to visitors and nearby residents. The authors implemented a mail survey, targeting residents living near two protected forests, one accessible and one inaccessible to visitors. The major results were that respondents living near accessible and inaccessible protected forests did not believe that protected status limited the ability to enjoy a forest, and both groups agreed that the forest was valuable to the community and the environment.
There are some major limitations of this study. Out of 48 responses analyzed, only 13 were received from residents living near the inaccessible forest. As the authors note, in such a small case study of only two locations and less than 50 responses, a qualitative approach (i.e., open-ended questions) would help to explore the study themes in more depth. The description of the study methods and results needs significant revision in order to clarify how the questions were asked and what statistical comparisons were conducted.
Abstract
Seems like the response rate should be 48 if that is the number of surveys used in the analysis.
Response: Fixed
Introduction
Overall, this section covers the relevant literature and sets up the importance of the study questions. However, there are a few places where the writing could use editing for clarity.
Line 28: “most of the world’s population”
Response: Fixed
Line 30-33: It is very hard to follow the meaning of this sentence—particularly how the second part follows logically from the first part. Maybe split into two sentences?
Response: Separated the two sentences and clarified that we mean specifically the exacerbated impacts of environmental injustices frequently being disproportionately impacting minority communities.
Line 45-46: “geographical spaces” is redundant
Response: Removed
Line 67-68: “however, this result was not clear across the study measures” – what does that mean?
Response: This was an error in original manuscript, has been removed
Line 91-94: This sentence is too long and should be split into two for clarity.
Response: Made this into two sentences.
Materials and Methods
This section has several typos and in many places the writing could be improved to enhance clarity. Inclusion of the survey instrument in supplemental materials would simplify the description of methods and clear up some of the confusion.
Line 103: Northeast is generally one word in this context I believe
Response: Fixed
Line 104: Cite this as you would any other source, no need for “according to”
Response: Corrected to mixture
Line 107: Why “admixture” and not “mixture”?
Response: Corrected to mixture
Line 114: It is not clear what “strict accessibility” means. “Restricted access”?
Response: Clarified what we mean by strict accessibility in the context of this work.
Line 120: Typo – “by primarily by”
Response: Fixed
Line 128: Typo – parameter should be perimeter
Response: Fixed
Line 131: Typo – “by a research” ?
Response: Fixed
Line 148: why a range of 250-300? Can it just be described a 300-meter band?
Response: Clarified that we mean a 300m band
Line 151: Explain what you mean by multistage sampling.
Response: Have removed this language to better clarify as that was not the actual method used.
Line 159: It seems that there is an error in formatting here. Should “Forest Perception Variables” be a section within “Questionnaire Design”? Perhaps this and the following sections (Environmental Identity and Socio-Demographic Variables) should be 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3.
Response: Fixed formatting to clarify that these three sections are intended to be a subsection of Survey Design and Implementation.
Line 160-164: Split this into two sentences, it is difficult to follow as written. Also, this approach is more conventionally described as a Likert-type scale.
Response: Clarified that we mean Likert-type scale questions
Line 168: Why is there so much detail about the preceding questions and not about the response options for this question? The way this is worded makes it sound like it was an open-ended question. Perhaps this issue could be solved by inclusion of the survey instrument in Supplemental Materials.
Response: The survey has been included in the supplementary materials
Line 169: It would help to call these questions either “environmental identity” or “environmental orientation” and be consistent throughout the manuscripit. I think the latter is probably more appropriate.
Response: Changed to orientation throughout the manuscript to more accurately represent what was measured.
Line 176-178: This sentence could simply be written “Age was clustered on a scale from 1 to 5 including the categories: 18-24, 25-32, 33-40, 40-50, and 50+.”
Response: Changed to reviewer suggestion
Line 190: Typo – respondents’ response
Response: Fixed
Line 195: delete comma
Response: Fixed
Results
Why did the authors not include a table with model results? This would make it much easier to follow exactly which statistical comparisons were conducted and what the results were.
Response: We included two additional tables to display the results in a more concise fashion.
Line 207: It is not clear what “two groups” refers to. Be very specific if you mean respondents living in proximity to the accessible and inaccessible protected areas.
Response: That was our intention and have clarified in text
Line 210-211: What does “ethnic diversity” mean given the limited ethnicity data collected? Be specific.
Response: We have changed the language to more directly address what we compared.
Line 215: “not a result of surveying different respondents” – what does this mean?
Response: Clarified that we mean differences in population between HMF and RUEP
Line 216-217: This is not written as a grammatically correct sentence.
Response: Removed sentence
Line 220: Again, define what the “two groups” are, at least once in the beginning of each new section.
Response: Clarified in text
Line 222: I think this is written incorrectly as a double negative, though without the model results linked to specific survey questions, it is difficult to interpret. Shouldn’t it be that the respondents disagreed that protecting forest limits an individual’s freedom?
Response: Yes, the double negative was incorrect and the language has been changed to reflect this.
Line 232-233: Significant difference between what and what?
Response: The language here may have been unclear and was changed to be clearer that we are noting that there are only two significant variables in the model. We also included table 3 to clarify the model results.
Conclusions
The conclusions are well-written and compelling. It will be easier to evaluate their relevance once the Methods and Results are revised.
Response: Thank you for the kind comment.
Figures
Figure 1 / Supplemental Figure 1: These figures could easily be combined by adding a locator map to Figure 1 showing where the state of NJ is located within the eastern US. The county map is not necessary.
Response: We have included the location of New Jersey in the supplementary material to accommodate a review request.
Figures 3-4: Include statistically significant results in these figures.
Response: We removed these figures as it was communicating the same information as the table.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript has been significantly improved and the methods and results sections are much easier to follow and evaluate. There are still some typos (some that were not addressed despite the authors claiming to do so in their letter) and minor issues that need to be addressed, outlined below.
Line 136: Typo - "parameter" should be "perimeter"
Line 168: The formatting still needs fixing for "Forest Perception Variables"
Line 173-174: From the supplemental materials it appears that this question asked about the "purpose and/or history" of the forest and was open-ended. The methods should match the actual question and the authors should explain if they coded an open-ended question to Y/N.
Line 188: Not necessary to report (1) and (2).
Line 202: Typo - "perceived" value
Line 203: Comma should go before "except"
Line 234: "whether protected status..." would sound less awkward
Line 244: As per my comments before, please clarify -- a statistically significant difference between which groups?
Line 254: Usually a "Discussion" section would precede a "Conclusions" section. It seems that this section should be renamed. In general, this section still needs careful copyediting (many misplaced or missing commas that make the text harder to follow) and attention to vague language.
Line 255: Comma needed before "in general"
Line 257: Comma needed before "as those"
Line 258: Should it be "freedom of individuals..."?
Line 259: Comma needed before "as increased"
Lines 258-260: There is no interpretation or discussion of why this might be the case.
Line 264: Feeling "strongly" is a vague statement -- perhaps "negatively" would be more accurate?
Line 265: What is meant by "the RUEP development"?
Line 270: Comma needed before "as perceived"
Line 273: Delete comma before "may"
Line 274: Typo -- should be "benefit from proximity..."
Line 277: This sentence is confusing; isn't it the point to have "differences in access" between the forests? Isn't that the subject of the paper? It's confusing to claim that as a major limitation of the study.
Line 279-281: This is a long sentence that would be easier to follow if split into two.
Line 281: The "implications" of using Likert-type questions might be a better word choice than the "effect"
Line 283: Typo -- "more work is needed"
Line 284-285: What is the difference between "by" and "for" in this context? Seems like one or the other would suffice.
Line 285-287: Briefly characterize the types of values if you are going to mention them.
Line 286: Comma needed before "as these spaces"
Line 294: Grammatically I believe this should be "mode by which"
Line 296: Motivating factor for what?
Line 299: Buy-in to do what?
Author Response
This manuscript has been significantly improved and the methods and results sections are much easier to follow and evaluate. There are still some typos (some that were not addressed despite the authors claiming to do so in their letter) and minor issues that need to be addressed, outlined below.
Thanks so much for your continued review of this paper. We so appreciate the time you've taken to improve our work. Responses are indented below.
Line 136: Typo - "parameter" should be "perimeter"
Done
Line 168: The formatting still needs fixing for "Forest Perception Variables"
Done
Line 173-174: From the supplemental materials it appears that this question asked about the "purpose and/or history" of the forest and was open-ended. The methods should match the actual question and the authors should explain if they coded an open-ended question to Y/N.
Yes, this is correct and clarified in the text.
Line 188: Not necessary to report (1) and (2).
Done
Line 202: Typo - "perceived" value
Done
Line 203: Comma should go before "except"
Done.
Line 234: "whether protected status..." would sound less awkward
Done
Line 244: As per my comments before, please clarify -- a statistically significant difference between which groups?
Between the residents surrounding each parcel of land; this was clarified.
Line 254: Usually a "Discussion" section would precede a "Conclusions" section. It seems that this section should be renamed. In general, this section still needs careful copyediting (many misplaced or missing commas that make the text harder to follow) and attention to vague language.
This was renamed.
Line 255: Comma needed before "in general"
Done
Line 257: Comma needed before "as those"
Done
Line 258: Should it be "freedom of individuals..."?
Done
Line 259: Comma needed before "as increased"
Done
Lines 258-260: There is no interpretation or discussion of why this might be the case.
Line 264: Feeling "strongly" is a vague statement -- perhaps "negatively" would be more accurate?
Done.
Line 265: What is meant by "the RUEP development"?
We added “recent housing development” to clarify.
Line 270: Comma needed before "as perceived"
Done
Line 273: Delete comma before "may"
Done
Line 274: Typo -- should be "benefit from proximity..."
Done
Line 277: This sentence is confusing; isn't it the point to have "differences in access" between the forests? Isn't that the subject of the paper? It's confusing to claim that as a major limitation of the study.
This has been changed.
Line 279-281: This is a long sentence that would be easier to follow if split into two.
Done.
Line 281: The "implications" of using Likert-type questions might be a better word choice than the "effect"
Done.
Line 283: Typo -- "more work is needed"
Done.
Line 284-285: What is the difference between "by" and "for" in this context? Seems like one or the other would suffice.
Done.
Line 285-287: Briefly characterize the types of values if you are going to mention them.
This sentence was changed for clarity.
Line 286: Comma needed before "as these spaces"
This was changed.
Line 294: Grammatically I believe this should be "mode by which"
Done.
Line 296: Motivating factor for what?
We mean motivation to support these protected areas—this was changed.
Line 299: Buy-in to do what?
To support protected space preservation—this was changed.
