Diversification of Municipalities Located in the Impact Area of National Parks in Terms of Environmental Requirements of Sustainable Tourism
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper tries to show the way in which the national parks in Poland are implementing sustainable tourism activities, by describing and analyzing: green areas management, environmental risk associated with the waste and wastewater management, forest and agricultural land protection measures. An element of originality of the paper is that the authors have created their own indicators for data analysis. Overall, the paper is interesting, tackling a subject of high interest for the scientific community in the field. The paper could be significantly improved by presenting similar studies in the field, the introduction of literature review section and also by extending the discussion and conclusions part. Some editing of the English language and style are required.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
An interesting topic and approach. The paper suffers rather from unclear English in parts, particularly int he abstract, so a detailed and complete proof editing is needed to make sure meanings are clear and precise. The overall literature on National Parks and tourism discussed here is very small and should be enlarged. There is a large amount of research on the impacts of tourism on protected areas and the attitudes and behaviour of municipalities within or adjacent to parks. 'Impact area' is not defined and it is not clear what this means or how extensive such areas may be. This should be clarified. Some more justification is needed for accepting the view that attractiveness can be expressed in terms of utilisation level, the two measures can be completely unrelated. What is meant by attractiveness should be defined, is this in the sense of natural areas? For example, using utilisation levels, Las Vegas would be one of the most attractive places in the world, which is hardly the case except for gamblers.
Following Figure 4 there is a statement that 'real examples' do not show a specific relationship. What are real examples, and why is the relationship not tested statistically?
In respect to conclusions, one area that has not been examined is the relative funding and wealth of the municipaities studied. One might expect richer ones, or ones with more support, to come out of the survey well and poorer ones less well. Is funding and wealth important in this regard? What other factors might explain the patterns found. Finding patterns alone is interesting, but it is more relevant to explain them, and in this regard the paper is rather weak.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am satisfied with the answers to the comments I had in the review from 28th of May 2020. I believe that the authors managed to improve the manuscript significantly, in such a way that the paper can be accepted for publishing.
