Groundwater and Tourism: Analysis of Research Topics and Trends

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

After careful consideration, I must convey that the article, in its current form, does not appear to contribute significantly to the existing body of knowledge in the field. The narrative presented is overly simplistic, and the conclusions drawn seem to be rather obvious and do not provide new insights or meaningful advancements.

Furthermore, the overall presentation and depth of the discussion do not meet the rigorous standards required for publication in a scholarly journal. The content requires substantial revision and enhancement to introduce novel perspectives or significant research findings.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your thorough review and insightful feedback on our manuscript. We greatly value the expertise and timeyou have dedicated to helping us improve our work. Your comments are essential for enhancing the quality of our research and ensuring it meets the high standards of the journal.

After careful consideration, We must convey that the article, in its current form, does not appear to contribute significantly to the existing body of knowledge in the field. The narrative presented is overly simplistic, and the conclusions drawn seem to be rather obvious and do not provide new insights or meaningful advancements.

Furthermore, the overall presentation and depth of the discussion do not meet the rigorous standards required for publication in a scholarly journal. The content requires substantial revision and enhancement to introduce novel perspectives or significant research findings.

In response to your valuable feedback, we wish to highlight the innovative nature of our study which intertwines the crucial variables of groundwater resources and tourism, particularly in arid zones suffering from excessive water exploitation, a critical issue for developing countries. For instance, Morocco, a country with a strong touristic vocation, has recognized water scarcity as a primary challenge. The tourism sector in Morocco has launched numerous water-saving initiatives, including the reuse of treated wastewater for irrigating golf courses and green spaces. Notably, in Marrakech, purified wastewater totaling 7 million cubic meters is currently used to irrigate nine golf courses. Similar practices are adopted in Agadir, Nador, Essaouira, and the greening belt around Ouarzazate. In addition, there are concerted efforts toward tourist awareness, green certification of tourism establishments, and encouraging the use of drought-resistant plants within hotel premises.

The contrast in water consumption is stark; the average daily water use per person in Morocco ranges from 50 to 100 liters, whereas a tourist's consumption can surge to 600 to 1000 liters. These facts underscore the pressing need for studies like ours, which not only shed light on the environmental impact of tourism on water resources but also on potential conservation strategies. Our research, therefore, aims to contribute substantially to the discourse on sustainable tourism and water resource management in regions where this balance is crucial for the socio-economic and environmental health of the community.

This research bridges a significant gap by employing a bibliometric analysis to delve into the relationship between "tourism" and "groundwater," particularly in areas where the two are critically intertwined. Our approach serves as a pioneering effort in charting the evolution of tourism's impact on groundwater, emphasizing the importance of water conservation and management in ensuring the sustainable development of tourism in arid zones. It is our conviction that this study provides a valuable addition to the existing body of knowledge, offering a new dimension of analysis and practical implications for countries where tourism and water resource management are inherently linked.

We understand that the narrative may have appeared simplistic and the conclusions obvious. To address these concerns, We have undertaken a substantial revision of the article to deepen the analysis and discussion. We have incorporated more sophisticated theoretical frameworks to interpret the findings, providing new insights into the intricate relationship between groundwater and tourism. (line 457-478).

Moreover, we have expanded the literature review to include a broader range of studies, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. This has also enabled us to identify and discuss emerging trends and gaps in the current research, highlighting potential avenues for future inquiry. (lines 484-566)

We have endeavored to improve the manuscript significantly to meet the publication's rigorous standards. The revised version offers novel perspectives and contributes meaningful advancements to the field, particularly in areas where previous research is scant or has yielded conflicting results. (lines 569-594)

Following your insightful remarks, we have refined our abstract to acknowledge the scope and potential confines of our inquiry transparently. This amendment aims to offer readers a clearer perspective on the study's framework and the contextual limitations, ensuring a thorough understanding of our research's breadth and depth. (line 27-line 32)

We concur with your observation regarding the profound impact of the pandemic on tourism and groundwater management, recognizing it as a pivotal aspect of our study. In response, we have expanded our discussion to consider how the shifts in travel patterns and tourism density have influenced groundwater demand. We propose strategies for sustainable resource management within the context of recovery, emphasizing adaptive management practices that address the fluctuating tourism activities and the attendant shifts in groundwater usage induced by pandemic constraints (line 399-414).

Your recommendation to reflect on the methodologies employed in previous bibliometric studies has been invaluable. It prompted us to integrate a meta-analysis that examines how these foundational studies have paved the way for our exploration. This approach has not only informed our methodology but also reinforced the novelty of our contribution to the existing literature, as we endeavor to provide a comprehensive review that is both current and relevant in the face of global changes affecting tourism and groundwater resources. (Line 88-106) & (line 312-331).

We believe these revisions have significantly enhanced the manuscript, aligning it with the rigorous standards of academic discourse and the publication criteria of the journal. We hope that our efforts now reflect a manuscript worthy of publication and look forward to your further guidance and assessment.

Bests regards,

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Vell done!

Author Response

Vell done!

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work.

We look forward to potentially engaging with you again in the future, as we continue our endeavors in this field.

Bests regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Sir,

THank you for inviting me to review this paper. After reading this paper, I think that this topic can merit the standard of the general paper. The topic is quite interesting, and has some major findings on the relationship between Groundwater and tourism. Further, the methodology is well-clarified, discussed and qualified.

I have some comments for better quality of the paper as follows:

1/ Some limitations or the gap should be discussed on the abstract.

2/ The pandemic has seriously affected toursism and this industry. I know that there are many topics related this relationship. Please further discussion this point and suggestions.

3/ The main techniques that have been conducted in previous studies, this paper should discuss on some main points.

Thank you

A minor revision

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for inviting me to review this paper. After reading this paper, I think that this topic can merit the standard of the general paper. The topic is quite interesting and has some major findings on the relationship between Groundwater and tourism. Further, the methodology is well-clarified, discussed, and qualified.

We thank you for the thoughtful review, the mention of the main topic and the clarified methodology in our paper devoted to the interconnection between groundwater and tourism. Thank you for the chance to improve our solutions to make them even better. Our revised manuscript has been strengthened by addressing the gaps and improving the quality of the discussions for the findings to have a more substantial contribution to the field. We are pleased to move forward with the discussion and we have high hopes that we draw your attention with our amended paper.

I have some comments for better quality of the paper as follows:

1/ Some limitations or the gap should be discussed on the abstract.

Thank you for your astute observation. In alignment with your suggestion, we have revised the abstract to explicitly address the limitations and potential gaps within our study. We believe this enhancement will provide readers with a more transparent and comprehensive understanding of the research scope and its contextual boundaries. (line 27-line 32)

2/ The pandemic has seriously affected toursism and this industry. I know that there are many topics related this relationship. Please further discussion this point and suggestions.

Thank you for highlighting the profound impact of the pandemic on the tourism industry as a topic of significant relevance to our study. Your comment accentuates the dynamic nature of tourism and groundwater management, especially in light of recent global events that have reshaped industry practices and resource utilization.

We have further delved into this critical aspect by expanding our discussion on the ramifications of the pandemic on both tourism and groundwater resources. We have added a paragraph that explores how shifts in travel patterns and tourism density have altered groundwater demand, with a nuanced look at how recovery strategies might integrate sustainable resource management. Additionally, we provide suggestions on adaptive management practices to ensure the resilience of groundwater resources amidst fluctuating tourism activities influenced by pandemic-related restrictions and changes.  (line 399-414).

Taking into account your suggestions on the link between groundwater, tourism and the COVID-19 pandemic, our revised manuscript now incorporates a more nuanced discussion of the transformative effects of the pandemic on water consumption patterns in tourist areas. Drawing on recent research findings, we explain how reducing water consumption by the tourism sector during closed periods offers an unprecedented opportunity for sustainable Groundwater resource management and strategic planning. We address the vulnerabilities and potential for industry reconfiguration, as suggested by Garcia et al. (2023), and highlight the role of ecological resource development in promoting economic resilience, as noted by Hu et al. (2022). This heightened focus enriches our study with a deeper analysis of the dual role of the pandemic as a disruptor and catalyst for the re-evaluation of environmental management in the tourism sector, aligning our research with the critical need for comprehensive and adaptive water management strategies in a post-pandemic landscape [1]–[5].

This valuable commentary has indeed enhanced the depth of our research, prompting a comprehensive consideration of pandemic-induced changes and their implications for future research directions. We believe this discussion not only broadens the scope of our review but also underscores the necessity for adaptable and resilient strategies in the ongoing management of groundwater resources within the tourism sector.

3/ The main techniques that have been conducted in previous studies; this paper should discuss on some main points.  (Line 88-106) & (line 312-331)

We appreciate the insightful feedback regarding the incorporation techniques that have been conducted in previous bibliometrics studies into our discussion. Your suggestion has led us to integrate a reflective analysis on how these studies have set the stage for our current investigation.

Bests regards,

References :

[1]      C. Garcia, B. Deyà-Tortella, J. Lorenzo-Lacruz, E. Morán-Tejeda, P. Rodríguez-Lozano, and D. Tirado, “Zero tourism due to COVID-19: an opportunity to assess water consumption associated to tourism,” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 1869–1884, 2023, doi: 10.1080/09669582.2022.2079652.

[2]      M. S. Herazo et al., “A Review of the Presence of SARS-CoV-2 in Wastewater: Transmission Risks in Mexico,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2022, Vol. 19, Page 8354, vol. 19, no. 14, p. 8354, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.3390/IJERPH19148354.

[3]      D. Hu et al., “Significantly correlation between tourism and COVID-19: evidence from 178 countries and territories,” The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries, vol. 16, no. 02, pp. 283–290, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.3855/jidc.14929.

[4]      G. A. Alamineh, “The Nexus between coronavirus and tourism: Tourism as peace sensitive industry,” Cogent Arts & Humanities, vol. 9, no. 1, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1080/23311983.2021.2014110.

[5]      M. R. Farzanegan, H. F. Gholipour, M. Feizi, R. Nunkoo, and A. E. Andargoli, “International Tourism and Outbreak of Coronavirus (COVID-19): A Cross-Country Analysis,” Journal of Travel Research, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 687–692, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1177/0047287520931593/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_0047287520931593-FIG2.JPEG.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The manuscript could benefit from a more comprehensive analysis that includes a wider range of databases beyond Scopus to enrich the bibliometric study and provide a more global perspective on the research trends. Additionally, enhancing the methodological diversity and including a critical review of the literature could add depth to your findings.

Lack of legend: Line 307: Figure 4. Geographic map of international cooperation generated by Bibliometrix R Studio.

Figure 5 is unreadable and it makes no sense to present it in the article. Figure 5. A three-field plot or Sankey diagram generated by Bibliometrix R Studio.

Figure 6 is unreadable and it makes no sense to include it in the article Figure 6. Network analysis illustrating the co-occurrence of keywords on the relationship between groundwater and tourism generated by the VOS viewer software.

Lack of a detailed description of the results obtained from the figures.

The manuscript could benefit from a more comprehensive analysis that includes a wider range of databases beyond Scopus to enrich the bibliometric study and provide a more global perspective on the research trends. Additionally, enhancing the methodological diversity and including a critical review of the literature could add depth to your findings.

Lack of legend: Line 307: Figure 4. Geographic map of international cooperation generated by Bibliometrix R Studio.

Figure 5 is unreadable and it makes no sense to present it in the article. Figure 5. A three-field plot or Sankey diagram generated by Bibliometrix R Studio.

Figure 6 is unreadable and it makes no sense to include it in the article Figure 6. Network analysis illustrating the co-occurrence of keywords on the relationship between groundwater and tourism generated by the VOS viewer software.

Lack of a detailed description of the results obtained from the figures.

Author Response

Dear Rewiever,

Thank you for your insightful feedback. We concur that extending our bibliometric analysis to encompass additional databases could offer a broader scope of research trends. We wish to underscore the rationale behind our focused use of Scopus, which aligns with established precedents in bibliometric studies.

More detailed comments are provided in the attachment.

Kind regards authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Professor,

This revised paper is much better the previous one. However, I think that the font size of Figure 5 should be larger.

Thank you

A typos should be corrected

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript and for acknowledging the improvements made in this revision. We appreciate your suggestion regarding the font size of Figure 5, which is indeed crucial for ensuring readability and effective communication of the data presented.

More detailed comments are provided in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Accept.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Congratulations on taking up a niche topic regarding the use of groundwater in tourism. The conducted research provides interesting information regarding the frequency, research trends and scope of the mentioned issues in scientific reports. The authors based their analyzes on the recommendations of the PRISMA 2020 standard. The article was prepared carefully, maintaining methodological requirements and academic standards. Detailed comments are provided below:

- Line 59-72 - in the paragraph the authors cited several articles related to groundwater and tourism. Is this perhaps a substitute for a literature review? There is no information according to what key (time frame, publishing house, territorial scope?) the authors cited these titles, which makes them seem a bit random. Please add 2-3 sentences of explanation.

- Line 131 - please specify what was the cause and how the "manual filtering process" was carried out. Did this filtering procedure affect the final results?

- Line 171 – I suggest replacing "Summary information" with "Introductory information" or "Introductory information".

- Standardize the writing of subheadings throughout the text - uppercase or lowercase letters at the beginning of words (e.g. Line 171, 216).

Please consider changing the title. The current title may be slightly misleading, as it does not fully correspond to the issues discussed in the article. I suggest, for example, "Groundwater and tourism: analysis of research topics and trends."

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback on our article. We are pleased to receive your positive comments on our choice of a niche topic related to the use of groundwater in tourism. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the conducted research, especially in terms of providing interesting information about the frequency, research trends, and scope of the issues mentioned in scientific reports. It is gratifying to know that our efforts to align with the PRISMA 2020 standard have been recognized, and we are committed to upholding methodological requirements and academic standards in our work.

Point 1: Line 59-72 - in the paragraph the authors cited several articles related to groundwater and tourism. Is this perhaps a substitute for a literature review? There is no information according to what key (time frame, publishing house, territorial scope?) the authors cited these titles, which makes them seem a bit random. Please add 2-3 sentences of explanation.

Thank you for your valuable comments. We appreciate the opportunity to improve the clarity of our manuscript. The articles cited in the specified paragraph (lines 59-72) were selected based on their relevance to the intersection of groundwater and tourism.

To address this concern, we have revised the paragraph to clarify the purpose of citing these articles. The aim is to present the main studies conducted in this area and their objectives. This change is intended to give readers a better understanding of the reasoning behind the selected citations.

We believe these additions will address the concern raised by the reviewer and improve the overall quality of the manuscript. Please let us know if further adjustments are required.

Point 2: Line 131 - please specify what was the cause and how the "manual filtering process" was carried out. Did this filtering procedure affect the final results?

We appreciate the opportunity to provide additional clarity regarding the "manual filtering process" mentioned on Line 131. Manual filtering was implemented to refine the dataset and enhance the accuracy of our analysis. During this process, irrelevant or duplicate data points were carefully removed, ensuring that only the most pertinent information was included in our study.

To address your concern, we have now included a brief explanation of the specific criteria used for the manual filtering process. Additionally, we clarify that this procedure was carried out to eliminate any potential biases or inaccuracies in the dataset, ultimately aiming to improve the robustness of our results. (Line 131-138)

Point 3: Line 171 – I suggest replacing "Summary information" with "Introductory information" or "Introductory information".

Thank you for your suggestion. We have replaced "Summary information" with "Introductory information" on Line 171 as recommended. We believe this adjustment enhances the clarity of our manuscript. Please let us know if you have any further feedback or suggestions.

Point 4:  Standardize the writing of subheadings throughout the text - uppercase or lowercase letters at the beginning of words (e.g. Line 171, 216).

We sincerely apologize for any inconsistency in the writing of subheadings. Thank you for highlighting this issue, and we appreciate your valuable feedback. We have now standardized the writing of subheadings throughout the text, ensuring uniformity in the use of uppercase and lowercase letters at the beginning of words. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience

Point 5:  Please consider changing the title. The current title may be slightly misleading, as it does not fully correspond to the issues discussed in the article. I suggest, for example, "Groundwater and tourism: analysis of research topics and trends." Good luck!

we appreciate the suggestion. The title has been updated to "Groundwater and tourism: analysis of research topics and trends."

Thank you for your valuable input, and we believe this modification enhances the overall alignment between the title and the issues discussed in the article.

Please let us know if you have any further recommendations or if additional adjustments are needed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author/s,

the paper looks well organized and written, however I recommend to emphasize more the contribution the existing literature.

Good luck!

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments:

Dear author/s,

Point 1: The paper looks well organized and written, however I recommend to emphasize more the contribution the existing literature. Good luck

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your positive feedback and constructive suggestions. We revised the manuscript to more prominently emphasize our contribution to the existing literature in lines (649-671). Your well wishes were appreciated, and we were committed to enhancing the clarity and impact of our work.

If you have any specific recommendations on how to highlight the contribution more effectively, we welcome your guidance.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The type of this publication should be review not article.

Add some information about future studies.

In what way  integrating scientific  knowledge into water management in the tourism sector will help to support the development of policies and mitigation measures, to maintain the sustainability of water resources as well as the promotion of responsible and environmentally friendly tourism Line 603.

What essential information on trends, gaps and challenges in the scientific literature this reaseach brings?  What you mean by providing a basis for future research?

While the paper provides an insightful bibliometric analysis, it would be beneficial to delve deeper into the specific methodologies employed by the analyzed studies. Are there common research methods or data collection techniques used across these publications, and how might variations in methodology impact the reliability of the findings?

The paper mentions a lack of literature review articles in the field, but it would be interesting to explore why this gap exists. Are there inherent challenges in conducting comprehensive reviews in the context of tourism and groundwater research, or is it a result of the research community's focus on empirical studies?

The international collaboration index is mentioned as 30.77%, indicating a moderate level of collaboration. What factors might be influencing the relatively low level of international cooperation in this specific area of research, and how could increased collaboration enhance the comprehensiveness of studies?

The clusters identified in the keyword network provide valuable insights into the major themes, but the paper could benefit from discussing potential interdisciplinary connections. Are there areas where tourism and groundwater research intersects with disciplines such as environmental science, economics, or sociology?

The identified hot topics focus on the impact of tourism on groundwater. Considering the increasing importance of sustainable tourism, how are researchers addressing the potential solutions and innovations that could mitigate the negative effects on groundwater resources in tourist destinations?

The paper mentions the need for broader and collaborative research. What specific challenges or barriers exist in fostering international collaboration in this field, and how can the research community overcome these challenges?

The geographical distribution of research contributions is discussed, but the paper could explore if there are specific reasons or trends behind the varying levels of research output from different countries. Are there policy frameworks or regional characteristics influencing research priorities?

Add some information about future studies.

In what way  integrating scientific  knowledge into water management in the tourism sector will help to support the development of policies and mitigation measures, to maintain the sustainability of water resources as well as the promotion of responsible and environmentally friendly tourism Line 603.

What essential information on trends, gaps and challenges in the scientific literature this reaseach brings?  What you mean by providing a basis for future research?

While the paper provides an insightful bibliometric analysis, it would be beneficial to delve deeper into the specific methodologies employed by the analyzed studies. Are there common research methods or data collection techniques used across these publications, and how might variations in methodology impact the reliability of the findings?

The paper mentions a lack of literature review articles in the field, but it would be interesting to explore why this gap exists. Are there inherent challenges in conducting comprehensive reviews in the context of tourism and groundwater research, or is it a result of the research community's focus on empirical studies?

The international collaboration index is mentioned as 30.77%, indicating a moderate level of collaboration. What factors might be influencing the relatively low level of international cooperation in this specific area of research, and how could increased collaboration enhance the comprehensiveness of studies?

The clusters identified in the keyword network provide valuable insights into the major themes, but the paper could benefit from discussing potential interdisciplinary connections. Are there areas where tourism and groundwater research intersects with disciplines such as environmental science, economics, or sociology?

The identified hot topics focus on the impact of tourism on groundwater. Considering the increasing importance of sustainable tourism, how are researchers addressing the potential solutions and innovations that could mitigate the negative effects on groundwater resources in tourist destinations?

The paper mentions the need for broader and collaborative research. What specific challenges or barriers exist in fostering international collaboration in this field, and how can the research community overcome these challenges?

The geographical distribution of research contributions is discussed, but the paper could explore if there are specific reasons or trends behind the varying levels of research output from different countries. Are there policy frameworks or regional characteristics influencing research priorities?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments:

.

Point 1: The type of this publication should be a review not an article.

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your observation. We appreciate your feedback and have reconsidered the classification of the publication.

We agree with your suggestion. The publication has been updated to reflect its nature as a review rather than an article. We value your input and thank you for helping to improve the accuracy of our publication categorization. If you have any further recommendations or concerns, please feel free to let us know.

Point 2: In what way integrating scientific knowledge into water management in the tourism sector will help to support the development of policies and mitigation measures, to maintain the sustainability of water resources as well as the promotion of responsible and environmentally friendly tourism Line 603?

Thank you for your insightful comment. In response to your suggestion, we have added a more detailed explanation to Line 603, providing a clearer understanding of how integrating scientific knowledge into water management supports the development of policies, and mitigation measures, and contributes to the sustainability of water resources. We appreciate your guidance, and we believe this addition enhances the overall clarity and impact of our manuscript. If you have any further recommendations or concerns, please feel free to let us know (Line 656 – Line 668).

Point 3: What essential information on trends, gaps, and challenges in the scientific literature this research brings?  What do you mean by providing a basis for future research?

We appreciate your insightful question and value the opportunity to provide further clarity on our research. Our study brings forth essential information on prevailing trends, identified gaps, and existing challenges within the scientific literature about the intersection of tourism and groundwater. By conducting a comprehensive review, we have highlighted emerging themes, unresolved questions, and current obstacles in this field.

When we refer to "providing a basis for future research," we intend to establish a comprehensive knowledge foundation. This foundation not only synthesizes existing knowledge but also points out areas that require deeper exploration. It encompasses emerging trends, unresolved questions, and challenges, thereby offering clear guidance for future researchers. In essence, we aim to create a roadmap that not only consolidates current understanding but also directs future investigations toward areas that hold the most promise for advancing our knowledge. we have added a more detailed explanation (line 649- line 658)

We trust that this explanation addresses your inquiry, and we remain open to any further suggestions aimed at enhancing the value of our research.

Point 4: While the paper provides an insightful bibliometric analysis, it would be beneficial to delve deeper into the specific methodologies employed by the analyzed studies. Are there common research methods or data collection techniques used across these publications, and how might variations in methodology impact the reliability of the findings?

We very much appreciate your pertinent suggestion. It is essential to stress that our main objective in this study is to explore trends through a bibliometric approach. While we recognize the importance of your proposal to deepen the methodologies of the studies analyzed, our current framework focuses on synthesizing and understanding general trends.

However, to address this important concern, we plan to consider this suggestion as part of future work. We could undertake a more in-depth study with a specific focus on the methodologies of studies in the field of tourism and water resources.

Your comment guides us toward potential improvements, and we are open to other suggestions to strengthen the quality of our research. We are also aware of the importance of methodology in scientific research and will consider your recommendation in future work.

Point 5: The paper mentions a lack of literature review articles in the field, but it would be interesting to explore why this gap exists. Are there inherent challenges in conducting comprehensive reviews in the context of tourism and groundwater research, or is it a result of the research community's focus on empirical studies?

We very much appreciate your insightful comment. The observation that there are a limited number of journal articles in the field of tourism and groundwater is a pertinent observation that we acknowledge.

Following your suggestion, we have included a paragraph dedicated to exploring the underlying reasons for this gap. We have taken a closer look at the challenges inherent in conducting comprehensive analyses in the context of tourism and groundwater research. In addition, we considered the research community's emphasis on empirical studies, which may influence the availability of review articles (line 542- line 558)

This modification will provide a deeper understanding of the research dynamics in this specific field while taking into account possible methodological difficulties and the preferred orientation of the scientific community. We are grateful for this constructive suggestion, which will help strengthen the quality and relevance of our article.

Point 6: The international collaboration index is mentioned as 30.77%, indicating a moderate level of collaboration. What factors might be influencing the relatively low level of international cooperation in this specific area of research, and how could increased collaboration enhance the comprehensiveness of studies?

We would like to inform you that we have taken into account your comments on the International Collaboration Index and the factors that could influence the level of cooperation in our research field. A dedicated paragraph has been added to explore these aspects in detail, highlighting potential challenges such as language barriers, financial constraints, and prevailing institutional ties that could explain the moderate level of international collaboration. We have also highlighted the importance of increased collaboration to improve the comprehensiveness of studies in the field of tourism and groundwater. These additions are intended to provide a deeper understanding of the dynamics of collaboration in our specific field of research. We hope these changes meet your expectations, and we remain open to any further suggestions or clarifications you may have. Thank you for contributing to the continuous improvement of our article (line 183- line 196).

Point 7: The clusters identified in the keyword network provide valuable insights into the major themes, but the paper could benefit from discussing potential interdisciplinary connections. Are there areas where tourism and groundwater research intersects with disciplines such as environmental science, economics, or sociology?

We greatly appreciate your comment and recognize the importance of considering interdisciplinary connections in our research on tourism and groundwater. As part of our revision, we have developed a dedicated explanation to thoroughly explore the intersections between our field of study and key disciplines such as environmental science, economics, and sociology. This analysis aims to provide more comprehensive insights into the multidisciplinary implications of our subject, broadening the scope of our understanding (line 213-line 225).

Point 8: The identified hot topics focus on the impact of tourism on groundwater. Considering the increasing importance of sustainable tourism, how are researchers addressing the potential solutions and innovations that could mitigate the negative effects on groundwater resources in tourist destinations?

We appreciate the reviewer's insightful comment on the increasing importance of sustainable tourism and the need for researchers to address potential solutions and innovations to mitigate negative effects on groundwater resources in tourist destinations. In light of this valuable feedback, we acknowledge the significance of incorporating these themes into our article.

Sustainability And Groundwater Resource Management In Tourism Destinations:

To address the concerns raised by the reviewer, we will devote a paragraph of our article to examining the innovative solutions and sustainable practices that researchers are actively pursuing in the field of groundwater management in tourist destinations. Building on the examples presented, such as the hydrological-economic model for sustainable groundwater use in arid zones and the low-tech actions proposed to mitigate groundwater degradation, we will explore further case studies and initiatives. This section aims to highlight the evolving landscape of sustainable practices, including the use of technology, conservation policies and stakeholder commitments, promoting a holistic understanding of sustainable groundwater management.

Groundwater Resources in Tourist Destinations:

Expanding on the theme of groundwater resources in tourist destinations, our revised article will emphasize the pivotal role that groundwater plays in the development of tourist destinations. We will delve into strategic solutions, such as conservation, recycling, and reuse, to ensure a sustainable and reliable water supply. The section will further explore how researchers analyze the physicochemical characteristics of groundwater, comparing them with international standards for various uses. Case studies, including investigations into nitrates in karst aquifers, delineation of physicochemical processes in hydrogeological units, and assessments of groundwater quality in tourist towns, will be highlighted to provide a comprehensive overview of current research efforts.

Assessing the Environmental Impact of Tourism Activities on Groundwater:

To address the environmental impact of tourism activities on groundwater, our revised article will include a dedicated section examining the multifaceted effects of tourism on water resources. Drawing on examples such as the assessment of contaminant concentrations in the Riviera Maya region and the unsustainable use of freshwater resources on the Zanzibar coast, we will explore the broader implications of tourism-induced changes in hydrological balance and contamination risks. This paragraph aims to provide a nuanced understanding of the challenges posed by tourism to groundwater quality and quantity.

By incorporating these themes, we aim to enrich the article with a more comprehensive exploration of sustainable groundwater management practices, the role of groundwater in tourist destinations, and the environmental impact of tourism activities on groundwater. We believe that these additions will enhance the relevance and depth of our article, aligning it more closely with the evolving landscape of sustainable tourism and groundwater management.

Point 9: The paper mentions the need for broader and collaborative research. What specific challenges or barriers exist in fostering international collaboration in this field, and how can the research community overcome these challenges?

We appreciate your insightful comment about the need for broader, collaborative research in our document. The landscape of international collaboration in the field of groundwater and tourism does indeed present its share of challenges. Notable obstacles include language diversity, which can hinder smooth communication and collaboration between researchers from different regions. Funding constraints can also be a challenge, as it can be complex to secure resources for cross-border collaborative projects. In addition, differences in research priorities and methodologies between countries and institutions can create obstacles to the alignment of objectives and approaches (line 190_202).

To foster international collaboration in this field, the research community can consider several strategies. Firstly, initiatives that promote linguistic inclusion, such as translation services or standardized communication protocols, can facilitate smoother collaboration. Establishing international funding mechanisms and encouraging joint research proposals could help overcome financial constraints. In addition, fostering a culture of knowledge exchange through conferences, workshops, and collaborative platforms can encourage researchers to share their views and overcome differences in research priorities and methodologies. A paragraph has been added to explain how international collaboration can be fostered (line 572-line 579)

Point 10: The geographical distribution of research contributions is discussed, but the paper could explore if there are specific reasons or trends behind the varying levels of research output from different countries. Are there policy frameworks or regional characteristics influencing research priorities?

We appreciate your insightful comment regarding the geographical distribution of research contributions in our paper. Indeed, the varying levels of research output from different countries reflect distinct orientations and priorities influenced by a combination of policy frameworks and regional characteristics (line 271- line 290).

‘Spanish researchers, with a focus on sustainable groundwater management in arid regions, are likely influenced by the aridity challenges prevalent in the country, emphasizing practical solutions to mitigate anthropogenic impacts on water resources. This aligns with Spain's commitment to addressing water scarcity issues.

The American research community's emphasis on dynamic processes in karst flow systems is likely influenced by the country's abundant karst landscapes, underscoring the significance of understanding how tourism affects these complex groundwater systems. The United States' geographical features and environmental concerns likely guide their research priorities.

Chinese researchers, with a multi-dimensional approach to groundwater issues in tourist destinations, might be influenced by the sheer diversity and scale of tourist areas in China. The country's policy focus on sustainable development likely shapes its emphasis on comprehensive assessments of groundwater dynamics.

The Mexican research community's concentration on water quality in karst systems aligns with the country's karst-rich landscapes. Their focus on nitrate migration and transformation reflects a concern for the potential environmental consequences of groundwater contamination in these specific terrains’

This analysis aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of the factors guiding research priorities in the complex relationship between groundwater and tourism.

Thank you for your positive feedback and constructive suggestion

If you have any specific recommendations on how to highlight the contribution more effectively, we welcome your guidance.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is categorized as a review, yet it fails to introduce novel insights or perspectives into the existing body of literature. A critical element of a review article is to synthesize existing research in a way that offers new interpretations or identifies future directions. This manuscript does not meet this fundamental criterion.

There is a noticeable amount of repetition throughout the text. Such redundancy not only detracts from the readability of the article but also suggests a lack of depth in the analysis of the subject matter.

The presence of tautology, or 'stating the obvious', indicates a superficial treatment of the topic. A review should critically analyze and discuss complex ideas, rather than merely stating what is already widely known or self-evident.

The conclusions drawn in the manuscript are very evident and do not provide a deeper understanding or a comprehensive synthesis of the reviewed literature. This superficiality diminishes the academic value of the work.

The review encompasses only 104 items, neglecting other significant databases and sources. Such a limited scope restricts the comprehensiveness of the review and potentially overlooks important contributions to the field.

Certain sections, particularly those highlighted in red, do not add any new information but rather repeat what has already been stated. This redundancy questions the editorial rigor of the manuscript.

The figures included in the manuscript are of suboptimal quality. High-quality figures are essential in a review article for effectively summarizing and illustrating key concepts and data.

Given these substantial shortcomings, the manuscript does not meet the publication standards of a scholarly review article. It lacks the depth, rigor, and originality required for contributing meaningfully to the academic discourse in its field.

The manuscript is categorized as a review, yet it fails to introduce novel insights or perspectives into the existing body of literature. A critical element of a review article is to synthesize existing research in a way that offers new interpretations or identifies future directions. This manuscript does not meet this fundamental criterion.

There is a noticeable amount of repetition throughout the text. Such redundancy not only detracts from the readability of the article but also suggests a lack of depth in the analysis of the subject matter.

The presence of tautology, or 'stating the obvious', indicates a superficial treatment of the topic. A review should critically analyze and discuss complex ideas, rather than merely stating what is already widely known or self-evident.

The conclusions drawn in the manuscript are very evident and do not provide a deeper understanding or a comprehensive synthesis of the reviewed literature. This superficiality diminishes the academic value of the work.

The review encompasses only 104 items, neglecting other significant databases and sources. Such a limited scope restricts the comprehensiveness of the review and potentially overlooks important contributions to the field.

Certain sections, particularly those highlighted in red, do not add any new information but rather repeat what has already been stated. This redundancy questions the editorial rigor of the manuscript.

The figures included in the manuscript are of suboptimal quality. High-quality figures are essential in a review article for effectively summarizing and illustrating key concepts and data.

Given these substantial shortcomings, the manuscript does not meet the publication standards of a scholarly review article. It lacks the depth, rigor, and originality required for contributing meaningfully to the academic discourse in its field.