Territorial Marketing Based on Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) to Enhance Sustainable Tourism in Rural Areas: A Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript is a systematic review and meta-analysis of territorial marketing and how it can be applied to NWFPs for rural economic development. While the methodology outlined is sound, I wonder if there is benefit in providing a better description of communities that could potentially benefit from the territorial marketing model for rural development? What is the burden/need? In other words, do we know how many such rural communities depend partly on NTFPs for livelihoods? And what would be the impact of applying this model? Do rural NTFP dependent communities currently do some other form of marketing? Has there a need been identified by communities to find a better model? I do think justifying the need for the study and applying the new model would provide some clarity. Surely many NTFPs in your part of the world have been commercialized and these communities would likely not benefit from such territorial marketing so there would be a distinction. Medicinals, berries, truffles, nuts are all mentioned - in the U.S. many of these NTFPs are highly commercialized and they typically do not 'create an image' to attract tourists. My recommendations for improving upon your work are:
1. Provide more detail as to the size and economic impact of NWFPs to rural communities in your part of the world.
2. Providing more detail in recommendation #1 will further justify the burden/need for studying and applying such a model for rural development and increasing tourism
3. Provide more detail as to what, if any, marketing is currently used in NWFPs by some of your rural communities
4. Distinguish and describe NWFPs that have been commercialized - this is likely not the end goal for all NWFP communities that are seeking to improve their rural economies and increase tourism.
I believe adding these details will add some context to your manuscript. I appreciate the opportunity to review.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Territorial marketing based on Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) to enhance sustainable tourism in rural areas: a literature review
Firstly, thank you, editor and authors, for providing me an opportunity to review this paper. The paper aims to review the literature on using NWFPs for prompting a territory. In my opinion, the paper is well-written, conducted an extensive systematic literature review, and presented in a stuructured way. However, a few things must be considered.
Comments:
1. The paper limits the linkage between NWFPs and sustainable tourism. I suggest authors link the NWFPs to sustainable tourism. How NWFPs sustainably sustain tourism?
2. The authors listed five different objectives of this paper. However, objective number 5- “to analyze the role that NWFPs are playing……..” is not clearly presented the finding in the result section.
3. I would suggest adding a conclusion section to summarize the paper.
4. The review paper is important for policymakers. I, therefore, suggest incorporating the policy recommendation of each of the previous articles, if available. This helps to enhance sustainable tourism through NWFPs.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Territorial marketing is a common practice and non-wood forest products (NWFPs) are good examples of territorial identity. Considering the use of NWFPs for promoting a territory has not been analyzed well, this study investigates the territorial marketing methods the associated factors. Motivation, research value, and methodology are well described, but some details need to be added for clarity. Detailed comments are shown as follows.
1. In Introduction, the critical roles of the NWFPs in the fields of territorial marketing should be clarified. For example, why the NWFPs are special in the territorial marketing? What are the features/differences of NWFPs in territorial marketing?
2. For Fig. 2, please add more elaborations about how the topics are selected so that the credibility of the methodology can be verified.
3. In Fig. 2, please describe the meaning of the group with the same color. Also, some of the topics are not listed in the Figure.
4. In Section 3.1, please add more discussions on how the classification of the selected papers is conducted. Also, information about the publication year and the regions are suggested to add.
5. In Table 2, brief descriptions, including main purposes, and findings, of each topic should be added. Aggregated explanation in relation of territorial marketing of NWFPs tourism should be described in the text.
6. In Section 3.4, please add results on cross comparison and the show the linkages between NWFPs.
7. A section of Conclusions, including suggestions and perspectives, should be added.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am satisfied with the changes made based on my critique. I believe the paper is much improved as it now gives a broader overview of the importance on NTFPs to rural economies as well as the economic implications of NTFPs, tourism and marketing.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been revised according to the comments. I suggest it can be accepted for the publication of Forests.
