Next Article in Journal
The Influence of Farm Characteristics and Feed Compositions on the Environmental Impact of Pig Production in Flanders: Productivity, Energy Use and Protein Choices Are Key
Previous Article in Journal
Women Entrepreneurs’ Adoption of Mobile Applications for Business Sustainability
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Spatio-Temporal Clustering of Sarawak Malaysia Total Protected Area Visitors

Sustainability 2021, 13(21), 11618; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111618
by Abang Zainoren Abang Abdurahman 1, Syerina Azlin Md Nasir 2,*, Wan Fairos Wan Yaacob 2, Serah Jaya 1 and Suhaili Mokhtar 3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2021, 13(21), 11618; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111618
Submission received: 16 September 2021 / Revised: 10 October 2021 / Accepted: 11 October 2021 / Published: 21 October 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper aim’s to describe visitors’ spatial and temporal trends to national parks, nature reserves, and wildlife sanctuaries.

The authors presented interesting research on the spatial and temporal analysis of TPAs visitors. They used the Ward algorithm and the Euclidean distance in their study. The description of the research methodology needs to be improved. Probably, everything is evident to the authors. However, the reader deserves more explanations so that he can follow the authors. In some places, it is unclear what (what variables) precisely the authors analyzed. The presentation of the results, especially on maps, also needs improvement. The authors can find more details below.

In the short introduction, the authors presented the purpose of their research and an outline of the methodology.

In a literature review, the authors described Ward’s algorithm in various applications and justified the choice of Ward’s method for the classification in their analysis.

The authors presented a short description of TPAs. In Figure 2, they showed the distribution of the analyzed areas. This drawing needs improvement. There is a concentration of TPAs in the eastern part of the maps, and the signatures with numbers overlap. The picture becomes unreadable. I suggest you either put the numbers in the callouts or put the enlarged part of the eastern part (on a larger scale) in a separate map frame. The same remark applies to all subsequent maps showing the results of the analysis (Figure 5).

In part: 3.2. Spatial and Temporal Analysis. The authors analyzed data collected from Sarawak Forestry Corporation (SFC). The time analysis consisted of developing charts showing the changing trend in the number of visitors for the entire area and individual TPAs—the spatial analysis created 12 maps for each month presenting the number of visitors (Figure 5). The authors defined the presented values on the map as the concentration of visitors. However, the following text shows that these are numbers of visitors. Did the authors then analyze the concentration? But maybe the authors also analyzed coordinates of TPAs? But there is no information about it. The maps are hardly legible and require a larger-scale east part to present in a different map frame. They interpreted the obtained results, considering the location in relation to larger cities and transport connections. But this analysis is only made descriptively.

In lines 290 - 291, the authors defined centroid point as the sum of all points inside a cluster divided by the number of points in that particular cluster. It is an unclear definition. What does the sum of points mean? When it comes to determining the point, Is the coordinates result of averaging? - this is the definition of the mean point. The centroid is the point that minimizes the sum of the distances to all points in a cluster. It is not always a mean point. It seems that the authors should specify the way of delimiting these points - for example, by providing a formula and a reference to the literature( between 6 and 7 formulas).

The authors presented the results of the application of Ward’s method on dendrograms and cluster plots. Some drawings have become illegible. Based on the dendrogram the authors obtained, they find the number of clusters to determine the flagship of TPAs local visitors ’preference in Sarawak. It is not clear what variables were used by the authors for this analysis. Did the analysis cover only the number of visitors or other variables mentioned by the authors in the introduction? Or maybe the variables were the numbers of visitors in particular months? All of this requires a more detailed description.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to express a general opinion on the article submitted for examination.It is safe to say that the authors of the work managed not only to reveal the topic, but also to draw serious attention to the problem of preserving natural heritage objects in the event of their increased use as tourist display objects. That is, the topic is very relevant. The development of environmental tourism in the world sometimes takes place with the detrimental impact of tourists on nature. In this case, the authors tried to consider this problem and propose a solution, although it is likely that so far the problem cannot be solved.If, according to the analysis carried out in the work, the distribution of the flow of local and foreign tourists who visit the country's national parks during the year becomes more deliberate, the practical importance of the work will be higher.Regarding the theoretical significance of the work, in my opinion, there is not enough in the methodological analysis of serious studies that are carried out by Russian scientists (Russia is the largest country in the world, which has a significant number of national parks in different climatic zones, scientific and practical research has been carried out for many decades), but probably the authors of the article missed this fact. The methodology presents European, Canadian, American, Chinese studies. Of particular note is the significant analytical component of the work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I thank the authors for taking into account most of my comments.

The authors should improve the description of Figures 4 and 5 and the appearance and legibility of those figures. The enlarged fragment makes it easier to read the map's content, but in Figures 4 and 5, the authors also introduced black lines. This idea did not work out well.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop