Employing Ecotourism Opportunities for Sustainability in the Aral Sea Region: Prospects and Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work "Employing Ecotourism Opportunities for Sustainability in the Aral Sea Region: Prospects and Challenges" is of relatively considerable interest (”Key findings from the 25 study show stakeholders are aware of ecotourism’s value and motivated to implement ecotourism 26 in the region, but they have limited experience, competence, and international networks to 27 promote and market ecotourism products and services…”).

In general, the paper approaches the standards of scientific publications.

I appreciate it is well structured (work).

Question: Is the number "86 travel agents" enough to draw relevant conclusions?  (”Using data gathered from a quantitative, explorative survey of 86 travel agents and tour operators in Uzbekistan, this paper confirms that nature-based tourism activities form a small but promising part of the local tourism industry and argues that local stakeholders are highly aware of ecotourism’s non-monetary benefits.”)

However, it would be better to publish "Conclusion" separately.

I notice several negligences in writing the paper.

Upon careful re-reading, the authors may discover these negligences on their own.

I recommend a higher degree of figure elaboration.

The system of bibliographic references must be arranged according to the rules of publication (Sustainability ISSN 2071-1050).

Also, the documentation of the work is done appropriately. However, the number of bibliographic references is relatively low (61). I recommend expanding them with several recent articles (2018-2020), published in WoS journals.

”References” present some negligence in the writing.

All in all, eventually, it may be seen by an English teacher (native).

Author Response

Dear honourable Reviewer,

Many thanks for your constructive and supportive approach to the paper. The authors worked on the comments and providing the following responses below. We highly appreciate your friendly approach to the paper. 

We hope to publish at this Special Issue of Sustainability. If any questions, we remain at your disposal.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This article discusses a study about eco-tourism in Uzbekistan, which is important. The paper is generally well-written.  However, there are some minor changes that I would recommend, as indicated below.

1. Line 19 of the abstract may be missing a comma after the word “region”.
2. Line 20 should state “exploratory survey of travel agents and tour operators” instead of just “explorative survey of tour operators” because that is what is stated on Line 70. is now shorter and more concise than the previous version; however, it is missing the pertinent details such as the methods.  I would recommend reinserting a brief statement about methods for example, “Methods: This paper uses a trend analysis from data available from the government of Pakistan’s official web portal”.   
3. Line 56 should state “For these reasons,” instead of “For that reason,”
4. Line 186: why is environmental disaster in quotation marks?
5. Line 230: why is environmental disaster in quotation marks?
6. Line 260-261 should state “An established tour agency in Khiva Islambek Travel includes a travel route to the Aral Sea and its surrounding areas.” Instead of “Established tour agency in Khiva Islambek Travel is practicing a travel route to the Aral Sea and its surrounding areas.”
7. Line 266-267 should state the name of the sea and the duration of the ‘long’ drive e.g. “Tourists arriving in Khiva drive to the Aral Sea while passing through the 5 to 10 ancient fortresses during their [___-hour] journey (Figure 2).” Instead of “Tourists arriving in Khiva drive to the Sea while passing through the 5 to 10 ancient fortresses on the long drive (figure 2).
8. There are duplicate page numbers in the upper right-hand corner of each page of the manuscript and these need to be removed.

Please upload the revised manuscript with a tracked changes version so that the reviewer may see the changes clearly.

Author Response

Dear honourable Reviewer,

Many thanks for your constructive and supportive approach to the paper. The authors worked on the comments and providing the following responses below.

We highly appreciate your friendly approach to the paper. If any questions, we remain at your disposal.

Hoping to publish at the Special Issue of Sustainability.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx