Nature Interpretation and Visitor Management Objectives: A Survey of Tourist Attitudes at Maasai Mara National Reserve, Kenya

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewed paper concerns a very important problem of the strategy of tourism management in naturally valuable areas, and in particular, the importance of the interpretation of nature at this point. Knowledge on this topic can contribute not only to the improvement of the comfort of exploring, better perception, but most of all, raise of tourists’ awareness, and, as a result, to build responsible tourism. It corresponds very well with the observed trends in contemporary tourism. Therefore, it is all the more important to take this type of research. The obtained results are assumed to be a confirmation of empirically observed regularities made by other researchers. Hence, perhaps in this paper it is worth paying a little more attention to the relevance and original contribution of this specific research.

The methodology of the conducted research is correct, but as the authors rightly noticed, it is worth undertaking further research during high season (in effect, some conclusions should be made carefully). I am also wondering if the positive reception of the majority of the respondents did not result from the comfort of their visits beyond the season’s peak. It could be postponed also on the approach of staff (guides), their involvement, which is especially important for the tool like the interpretation of nature. In my opinion there is lack a certain context on the value of this technique in the specific conditions of the reserve of Maasi Mara. The examined relationship between attitudes created by NI and visitor’s satisfaction or the perception of natural resources’ protection depends on the effectiveness of the working tool. I think this point simply requires better explanation.

It is also worth considering adding some practical tips resulting from the conducted research.

Moreover, there are a few repetitions in the text that I consider unnecessary.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for finding time to review our work

kindly find the attached tabulated response (SEE ATTACHMENT0 to the issues raised about the paper

Faithfully

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article deals with the nature interpretation (NI) as visitor management strategy employed for the achieving of preservation objectives and enhance tourist satisfaction of visiting conservation areas such as national parks. The topic is interesting and current.

However, in my opinion, the article has serious shortcoming. The most strikingly, and requiring much deeper explanation, is the research object - an attitude. What attitudes are object of this study: "the attitudes created by NI" (line 19-20) or "attitudes on NI" (line 22)? What did authors study? (the attitudes towards NI or the attitudes towards supporting nature protection). It is the crucial and basic deficiency of presented paper. The objective of a study is important, and the authors fail to introduce the objective of the study adequately and to make it clear what they want to achieve.

Other shortcomings:

(1) too wide title of paper in compared to research problem
(2) weakly underlined research gaps (why research problem and article aim are important?) and theoretical framework (inadequately defined and discussed the nature interpretation strategy and its forms. What the authors mean by an attitude towards forms of NI?)
(3) vaguely desribed research methodology (In the methodology there are three fundamental issues: the design of the research, data collection and data analysis. Methodology should be presented in detail, also questionnaire should be add to the paper. Authors used very simply method to verify hypothesises. This method is not adequate to complicated research problem. There is lack of justification of the research method choice).
(4) authors should much more clearly identify: What is the theoretical underpining of this current study? What are the theoretical contributions? How does it add to the current knowledge? What is the particular stream(s) of literature that this paper aims to contribute to.
(5) In section of conclusion there is lack of theoretical, empirical and practical implications of the study. Authors didn't also indicate limitations of the study and proposals of further research.

There are severe conceptual, methodological and empirical shortcomings that led me to recommend the reconsider of the manuscript after major revision.

Author Response

Reviewers comments	Authors’ responses
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	improved
Is the research design appropriate?	improved
Are the methods adequately described?	improved
Are the results clearly presented?	improved
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	improved
i. What attitudes are object of this study: "the attitudes created by NI" (line 19-20) or "attitudes on NI" (line 22)? t is the crucial and basic deficiency of presented paper	Corrected throughout the document for consistency to read, ‘attitudes created by’
ii. too wide title of paper in compared to research problem	Research title has been revised
iii. weakly underlined research gaps (why research problem and article aim are important?)	Research gap clarified
iv. theoretical framework (inadequately defined and discussed the nature interpretation strategy and its forms. What the authors mean by an attitude towards forms of NI?)	The conceptual framework was revised and elaborated
v. vaguely described research methodology (In the methodology there are three fundamental issues: the design of the research, data collection and data analysis. Methodology should be presented in detail, also questionnaire should be add to the paper.	The methodology was described in more detail
vi. Authors used very simply method to verify hypothesises.	The study sought to establish the strength of the correlation and thus used spearman’s correlation
vii. This method is not adequate to complicated research problem. There is lack of justification of the research method choice).	Research method justified
viii. What is the theoretical underpinning of this current study? What are the theoretical contributions? How does it add to the current knowledge? What is the particular stream(s) of literature that this paper aims to contribute to.	This was also revised as per the attached document
ix. In section of conclusion there is lack of theoretical, empirical and practical implications of the study. Authors didn't also indicate limitations of the study and proposals of further research.	Implications of the research underscored, proposals for further research made and limitations

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors:

The paper "Nature Interpretation and Visitor Management in Conservation Areas: Perspectives from Game Drive Participants at Maasai Mara National Reserve, Kenya" makes a valuable contribution to extant scholarship by using analysis in Nvivo techniques, to investigate visitor management and nature interpretation.

INTRODUCTION: In the introduction section, on the lines 49, 50,51 and 52, the author argues without theoretical grounds the following: "This happens while concurrently supporting the realisation of a destination area’s aggregate conservation objectives. This definition evokes three essential elements about visitor management that is; to safeguard and augment the resource; to help guests enjoy their visit, and; to sustain and expand the economic benefits which tourism can bring."

Consider the progression of the argument in the introduction. Introduction needs to be restructured as there are many overlaps about tourism sustainability, bibliometric and visualization. Describe knowledge gaps. Make clear in which tradition you position your study and the debate you like to contribute to.

LITERATURE REVIEW: Please give more strategic implications on this issue and also make more clear distinctions on your topic (e.g., nature interpretation, visitor codes, visitor management).

L143. "On the other hand, Sharpley [37], [38] asserts that visitor management is a necessary evil in a  sense. That is, in as much as tourists enjoy the liberties and impulsiveness that holiday affords them to an extent, visitor management imposes some restrictions on that freedom."More explanations are necessary!

L179"In this regard, therefore, nature interpretation educates the visitor about his new environment and enhances the experience thereof." Justify!!

Discuss more recent studies and significant work conducted. Justify the mixed framework and provide additional information for describing the research .

MATERIAL AND METHODS

L316" On the other hand, content analysis in Nvivo (version 7) was used to analyse the  qualitative data for open-ended questionnaire items to establish themes. Eventually, the research employed tables and charts to present study findings." Why Nvivo??? More explanations are necessary.

RESULTS

Sometimes it is difficult to follow the major argumentative line, but the attached tables solve this flaw to a large extent.

L 327. "Table 2. Main Purpose of Visiting MMNR (where n=351) [77]": Please clearly explain the meanings of each result.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Fom my point of view, more discussion of the results is needed. The conclusions given explain managerial implications in very general terms. A more detailed discussion of specific results would improve the paper.

Very limited findings and discussion section relating to the literature (nature interpretation, visitor codes, visitor management

Could more text on the findings be added? The managerial implications need to be less routine and more interesting and relevant to your findings about nature interpretation.

LANGUAGE: The language could be improved. Generally it is OK but often lacking “flow" and abrupt

Author Response

Reviewers comments	Authors’ responses
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	improved
Is the research design appropriate?	improved
Are the methods adequately described?	improved
Are the results clearly presented?	improved
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	improved
i. INTRODUCTION: In the introduction section, on the lines 49, 50,51 and 52, the author argues without theoretical grounds the following: "This happens while concurrently supporting the realisation of a destination area’s aggregate conservation objectives.	Revisions made accordingly
ii. This definition evokes three essential elements about visitor management that is; to safeguard and augment the resource; to help guests enjoy their visit, and; to sustain and expand the economic benefits which tourism can bring."	Revised accordingly, by elaboration and citation
iii. Introduction needs to be restructured as there are many overlaps about tourism sustainability, bibliometric and visualization. Describe knowledge gaps. Make clear in which tradition you position your study and the debate you like to contribute to.	Introduction revised as guided
iv. Literature review; Please give more strategic implications on this issue and also make more clear distinctions on your topic (e.g., nature interpretation, visitor codes, visitor management).	The title of the article revices, to reflect the contents, Nature interpretation used consistently. However nature interpretation is a visitor management strategy, and visitor codes are nature interpretation techniques, clarification made in the literature
v. L143. "On the other hand, Sharpley [37], [38] asserts that visitor management is a necessary evil in a  sense. That is, in as much as tourists enjoy the liberties and impulsiveness that holiday affords them to an extent, visitor management imposes some restrictions on that freedom. "More explanations are necessary!	Elaboration made and relevant citations made
vi. L179"In this regard, therefore, nature interpretation educates the visitor about his new environment and enhances the experience thereof." Justify!	Elaboration made and citations given where appropriate
vii. Discuss more recent studies and significant work conducted. Justify the mixed framework and provide additional information for describing the research	More recent studies included
Methods: L316" On the other hand, content analysis in Nvivo (version 7) was used to analyse the  qualitative data for open-ended questionnaire items to establish themes. Eventually, the research employed tables and charts to present study findings." Why Nvivo??? More explanations are necessary	for more content analysis results presented, discussed, and conclusions made thereon. Reasons why Nvivo provided.
viii. Sometimes it is difficult to follow the major argumentative line, but the attached tables solve this flaw to a large extent.	Tables, referenced correctly in the text to facilitate the flow and understanding of the argument
ix. L 327. "Table 2. Main Purpose of Visiting MMNR (where n=351) [77]": Please clearly explain the meanings of each result.	Elaborations made, under discusssions
x. more discussion of the results is needed	More discussions of the results make
xi. The conclusions given explain managerial implications in very general terms. A more detailed discussion of specific results would improve the paper	More discussions of the results make and conclusions are drawn thereof.
Very limited findings and discussion section relating to the literature (nature interpretation, visitor codes, visitor management	Discussion enhanced
xii. Could more text on the findings be added? The managerial implications need to be less routine and more interesting and relevant to your findings about nature interpretation.	More text on findings added

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the revised manuscript and your answers to my comments. After becoming familiar with the amendments, I conclude that the paper Nature Interpretation and Visitor Management in Conservation Areas: "Perspectives from Game Drive Participants at Maasai Mara National Reserve, Kenya" was revised according to the reviewer’ suggestions. Well done. Congratulations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors:

"Nature Interpretation and Visitor Management in Conservation Areas: Perspectives from Game Drive Participants at Maasai Mara National Reserve, Kenya"

Suggestions for future research: additional managerial implications in line with the findings of the present study

Moderate English changes required

Accept after minor revision (corrections to minor methodological errors and text editing)