From Pets to Wildlife: An Ecological-Phenomenological Approach to Multispecies Tourism
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled From Pets to Wildlife: Exploring Multispecies Interactions Through an Ecological-Phenomenological Perspective after Major revision
Abstract
In this section, the authors should add at least one more sentence to provide a clearer and more detailed explanation of the main methodology used in this research. This section can be extended with the one sentence too.
Introduction
The authors should expand on the various definitions of wild tourism by incorporating additional perspectives from different sources
The landscape or Natural attractiveness tourism has the more definitions so authors need to add more definitions. In accordance of this that I labeled I highly recommended to the authors to read and cite one valuable reference. The natural tourism has very big potential as very specific type of tourism.
The recommended reference is
- Valjarević, A., Vukoičić, D., & Valjarević, D. (2017). Evaluation of the tourist potential and natural attractivity of the Lukovska Spa. Tourism management perspectives, 22, 7-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2016.12.004.
The authors should provide more detailed explanations of animal classifications within their natural and specific habitats in this section of the manuscript.
Literature Review
In this section of the manuscript, the authors are encouraged to elaborate further on previously published studies and incorporate references to literature that discuss similar or closely related research.
From pets to wildlife
The relationships between humans and wildlife can also be understood through the following concepts: Coexistence, Conservation and Stewardship, Utilization and Exploitation, Habitat Loss, Climate Change, and Biodiversity Decline. Please incorporate these explanations into the text
Materials and Methods
Demographic profile and visitation summary
Could the authors provide additional details about the tests and statistical methods used in this research?
Pet ownership and wildlife encounter as independent variables
The authors should ensure that all equations are written using appropriate software, such as MathType or a similar tool. Additionally, they should provide more information about statistical errors, if applicable, and discuss the limitations of the research, if any.
Discussion
The references should be thoroughly integrated with the manuscript’s main conclusions and key observations.
Conclusion
In this section, the authors should address the following questions:
Why is this research important?
Are there any new findings or insights derived from this research?
Overall, the paper is well written. I now recommend a Major Revision.
Good luck to the authors!
Reviewer #2
Author Response
Abstract In this section, the authors should add at least one more sentence to provide a clearer and more detailed explanation of the main methodology used in this research. This section can be extended with the one sentence too.
Yes, we have added this explanation. Please see our Abstract.
Introduction The authors should expand on the various definitions of wild tourism by incorporating additional perspectives from different sources The landscape or Natural attractiveness tourism has the more definitions so authors need to add more definitions. In accordance of this that I labeled I highly recommended to the authors to read and cite one valuable reference. The natural tourism has very big potential as very specific type of tourism. The recommended reference is - Valjarević, A., Vukoičić, D., & Valjarević, D. (2017). Evaluation of the tourist potential and natural attractivity of the Lukovska Spa. Tourism management perspectives, 22, 7-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2016.12.004. The authors should provide more detailed explanations of animal classifications within their natural and specific habitats in this section of the manuscript.
Thanks very much for this valuable input! This revision sees to the various definitions of wildlife tourism to incorporate additional perspectives. This reference is very important and we have included it in Introduction.
Literature Review In this section of the manuscript, the authors are encouraged to elaborate further on previously published studies and incorporate references to literature that discuss similar or closely related research.
Yes, please see our additions in Section 2.3 and 2.4.
From pets to wildlife The relationships between humans and wildlife can also be understood through the following concepts: Coexistence, Conservation and Stewardship, Utilization and Exploitation, Habitat Loss, Climate Change, and Biodiversity Decline. Please incorporate these explanations into the text
Thanks. We have added these critical concepts into our manuscript. Please find these in Section 2.4. Materials and Methods
Demographic profile and visitation summary Could the authors provide additional details about the tests and statistical methods used in this research?
Thank you. We have mentioned about the use of statistical methods for each section in the first paragraph in Section 4. An additional explanation is added to 4.1.
Pet ownership and wildlife encounter as independent variables The authors should ensure that all equations are written using appropriate software, such as MathType or a similar tool. Additionally, they should provide more information about statistical errors, if applicable, and discuss the limitations of the research, if any.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful suggestions. We appreciate your attention to the clarity and presentation of the manuscript. Regarding the equations, we believe that, given their simplicity, the current formatting is sufficient and does not require the use of specialized tools such as MathType. However, we will carefully review the equations to ensure they are clear and consistently presented. Please see the first paragraph in Section 4 where we provided more information about statistical errors. We have provided post-hoc tests to reduce the statistical error. Please see Table 6.
Discussion
The references should be thoroughly integrated with the manuscript’s main conclusions and key observations.
Done. We have added references to the first paragraph in Discussion.
Conclusion In this section, the authors should address the following questions: Why is this research important?
Thank you. We have better clarified this.
Are there any new findings or insights derived from this research?
We have highlighted our new findings in Conclusion
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript provided for review did not conform to the journal’s template with several sections missing. The format for the citations did not follow the MDPI style. The tables were not correctly anchored in the text and overlapped descriptive text. Figure 1 was missing. Not withstanding the authors’ lackadaisical approach to their submission, the study has some merit if the manuscript is extensively revised.
The concept for the study is relatively simple. Does the ownership of one or more pets inform the reaction to a wildlife tourism experience? The experience is at the Panda Center in Chengdu, China. However, the focus in not on the Panda experience but that with other fauna in the grounds of the reserve. In this respect, it is like studying the responses of tourists to seabirds on a whale-watching tour. At lines 54-55, there is some confusion as to what this other fauna comprises. The authors refer to ‘free-roaming animals’ and ‘wildlife’ which are also animals under zoological nomenclature. In the results and discussion there is only reference to ‘wildlife’ in the analysis of the tourists’ responses to the authors’ questionnaire. This confusion needs to be resolved. The study is rooted in ‘an ecological-phenomenological perspective’. This perspective is somewhat burdened by a ponderous definition through an introduction and literature review. Even so these were enlightening, but some of elements were confusing. At lines 37-38, the authors state “all agents (pets, wildlife, and humans) can synchronize with the environment”. Later they make it clear that the pets do not accompany the humans (tourists) at the Panda Center so what is ‘the environment’. Obviously, it is not a shared landscape but perhaps something anthropocentric? In line 37, the authors state these actors “achieve a degree of shared experience” but fail to say how. At line 134-5, the authors provide a rather odd explanation of work. Should it read ‘consciously expended”? Why a “foreman at the construction site” (my emphasis)?
Some minor errors for correction follow:
Line 265: conservation
Line 295: to satisfy
Line 329: What are the dimensions of the Lickert scale – 1 to 5? The mean values presented in later tables are meaningless without this.
Line 338: What version of SPSS was used?
Line 359: Table 1, column 3 has a heading % but the first entry is age presumably in years. ‘Third-tier region’ requires an explanation.
Line 512: ‘non-owners’ presumably have not types of pets by definition?
Useful to add the questionnaire as an Appendix.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
The manuscript provided for review did not conform to the journal’s template with several sections missing. The format for the citations did not follow the MDPI style. The tables were not correctly anchored in the text and overlapped descriptive text. Figure 1 was missing. Not withstanding the authors’ lackadaisical approach to their submission, the study has some merit if the manuscript is extensively revised.
Thank you for your careful observation. We have used the MDPI template to submit this new version of our manuscript and substantial formal changes are made.
The concept for the study is relatively simple. Does the ownership of one or more pets inform the reaction to a wildlife tourism experience?
Yes, this question is the purpose of this study. Section 2.3 addresses this question in further detail.
The experience is at the Panda Center in Chengdu, China. However, the focus in not on the Panda experience but that with other fauna in the grounds of the reserve. In this respect, it is like studying the responses of tourists to seabirds on a whale-watching tour. At lines 54-55, there is some confusion as to what this other fauna comprises. The authors refer to ‘free-roaming animals’ and ‘wildlife’ which are also animals under zoological nomenclature.
Thanks! We have clarified what we mean by free-roaming animals and wild animals in these words: However, in this study, we specifically limit the wildlife encounter to free-roaming animals that are bred and live within the Panda Base (e.g. red pandas, swans, peafowls), as well as to wild animals (e.g. other birds, insects, and vertebrates) that naturally come to and inhabit the Panda Base but are not bred or managed by it.
In the results and discussion there is only reference to ‘wildlife’ in the analysis of the tourists’ responses to the authors’ questionnaire. This confusion needs to be resolved. The study is rooted in ‘an ecological-phenomenological perspective’.
Thank you for your helpful comment. We have clarified our conceptual approach to "wildlife" in the revised Introduction, aligning it more closely with the ecological-phenomenological perspective. We have also made efforts to address the role of wildlife encounters more explicitly in the Discussion section. Additionally, we would like to note that the limited appearance of the term "wildlife" in the analysis may be partly due to our use of shorthand labels such as “WE” (wildlife encounter) and “NE” (no wildlife encounter) in that section. We hope these revisions resolve the confusion.
This perspective is somewhat burdened by a ponderous definition through an introduction and literature review. Even so these were enlightening, but some of elements were confusing.
Thank you again for your valuable feedback. We have thoroughly revisited the Literature Review section and made substantial revisions to more clearly articulate our viewpoints in this study. Additional references have been incorporated to strengthen the theoretical grounding, and we have introduced new sub-section titles to help guide readers more effectively through the argument.
At lines 37-38, the authors state “all agents (pets, wildlife, and humans) can synchronize with the environment”. Later they make it clear that the pets do not accompany the humans (tourists) at the Panda Center so what is ‘the environment’. Obviously, it is not a shared landscape but perhaps something anthropocentric?
Thank you for this insightful remark. We believe this is precisely why we introduced the ecological-phenomenological framework. Although pets did not physically accompany the visitors in this context, their presence was felt through their affordances—shaping how owners perceived and engaged with the environment. Conversely, their physical absence also served as a constraint, highlighting a relational dynamic central to our analysis. Pet ownership, therefore, becomes a meaningful lens through which to understand differentiated experiences of wildlife tourism. We have clarified this point more explicitly in the revised Discussion section.
In line 37, the authors state these actors “achieve a degree of shared experience” but fail to say how.
Thanks. Revised. We think Morton’s idea, “solidarity”, can sufficiently explain our idea here.
At line 134-5, the authors provide a rather odd explanation of work. Should it read ‘consciously expended”? Why a “foreman at the construction site” (my emphasis)?
We have reconsidered the relevance of this statement to our paper and have it deleted in this version.
Some minor errors for correction follow:
Line 265: conservation
Done
Line 295: to satisfy
Done
Line 329: What are the dimensions of the Lickert scale – 1 to 5? The mean values presented in later tables are meaningless without this.
Revised
Line 338: What version of SPSS was used?
Revised
Line 359: Table 1, column 3 has a heading % but the first entry is age presumably in years. ‘Third-tier region’ requires an explanation.
Thanks. As we did not use age range in Table 1, statistical measures were used in this column.
We added “other regions” to explain the “Third-tier region”.
Line 512: ‘non-owners’ presumably have not types of pets by definition?
Yes! They don’t even have pets.
Useful to add the questionnaire as an Appendix.
Thanks, we have done so.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript titled From pets to wildlife: An ecological-phenomenological approach to multispecies tourism is suitable for acceptance in its current form.
The paper now is total suitable for acceptance
The section Abstract now is much better written and now is acceptable
The main reasons because I accepted this paper are
Because of all listed before advances of the paper that I labeled I accepted paper in current form.
I have accepted the manuscript in full
Sincerely,
Reviewer#4
Author Response
Thank you very much for supporting our study.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have generally addressed my suggestions for improvement of the manuscript to an adequate level. A few minor suggestions remain as follows:
Line 28: non-parametric tests were not exclusively used as several tables present results from t-tests.
Line 28: that were analysed
Line 92, 99, 114: revise citation format to MDPI as in rest of text
Line 143: free-roaming and wild animals - inconsistent use of wildlife in this paragraph.
Line 302: Several research what? Papers?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA few improvements as above and some inconsistencies with US English like 'behaviour'
Author Response
Thank you very much for your careful read. We have gone through this list in the manuscript and corrected the British spelling. Thank you again for your time.
