Sustainable Tourism Development in the Protected Areas of Maramureș, Romania: Destinations with High Authenticity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In fact, its focus is oriented on tourism rather than on sustainability.  

Introduction: it is very long, although informative; table 1 could be transformed in text. The same should be done with table 3, that is a long list of references, that could be better appreciated if discussed in text. Figure 1 and 4 are in fact useless, as their content could be expressed in a few lines of text. In Figure 3, a clear explanation of the differences among Municipia, Towns and Communes should be given.

In the Results paragraph, a large space is devoted to a description of Maramures county and to a long list of protected areas; I doubt that this could be considered as a result of a scientific paper. On the other hand, the application of the proposed model yields results that are scarcely discussed, while much more could be done by comparing the real presence of tourist in the different locations, with the existing resources.

 

Author Response

Dear Review-er ,1

 

Thank you for your kind observation and proper suggestions, were beneficial to help us order/direct our scientific paper work.

 

So we re-organized our paper, more logically as you recommended us, in the following we will mention the main changes:

• We consider valuable your suggestion regarding the introduction part, lines 53-144, we have transform table 1 in text, lines 86-93;
• Also we have transform table 3 in text, lines 198-232, starting from your suggestion that they could be better appreciated if discussed in text;
• We follow you suggestion regarding figure 1 and 4 and they are expressed in a few lines in text. We have restructured the figures, and we have explain the figures, so for the figure 3 (now figure 2) we have add some comments in order to a clear the differences among Municipia, Towns and Communes lines 453-465;
• Regarding figure 4 we have transform it in text, as you proper suggested, lines 469-477;
• As far as concerning the Results paragraph we make the mention that during the study, the emphasis is on the relationship between sustainability and sustainable tourism and sustainable rural development, so the aim was to group the natural resources by areas and localities, the direct implications of the study and the possible benefits being useful to the socio-economic environment. Following the analyzes and field research, we synthesized the main resources, that can be, in each locality, factors of sustainable development, the concrete result of the research being the possibility of systematically dividing Maramureș County in to four areas, as we explain in the paper at the lines 558-563; . The purpose of this scientific papers is to identify, synthesise, process, and interpret data about the tourist qualification of the localities in the protected areas of Maramureş, so the tourists be properly informed about the natural tourism potential of the area and its conservation, the localities considered “tourist destinations”, tourist attractions, as well as tourism forms currently practiced (and) possibly practicable in the future.
• Regarding your suggestion about the real presence of tourist in the different locations, with the existing resources, we must respond that has not been the subject of our research. The tourists have the quality of visitors - in most cases they set up sightseeing tours, they don't spend the night in a location. Is this fact favored by the relative short distances even between localities
• We apologize for the translation errors that appeared, in terms of grammar or spelling mistakes, we have improved the English from the text.

 

So in the end we hope we've been able to implement all your requirements. Thank you for your valuable suggestions and the time dedicated to reviewing our paper. You help us to direct our study on a better and much improved line.

 

The authors

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

This research paper describes the actual topic – Sustainable Tourism Development in the Protected Areas of Maramureș, Romania: Destinations with High Authenticity. In their article authors notice, that sustainable tourism is not “a fashion”; it is a way of thinking and acting with long-term implications. Thus, at national level, authors believe that Maramureş County, Romania, is one of the most gifted natural and socio-economic geographic areas in the Oriental Carpathians of Romania, in which the conditions of sustainable tourism can be met and supported on a term long. Authors notice, that the purpose of this scientific papers is to identify, synthesise, process, and interpret data about the tourist qualification of the localities in the protected areas of Maramureş, so the tourists be properly informed about the natural tourism potential of the area and its conservation, the localities considered “tourist destinations”, tourist attractions, as well as tourism forms currently practiced (and) possibly practicable in the future.

And I would like to share with authors some doubts and remarks too: it seems important to notice, that it would be needed to concentrate on the abstract of the article, as it seems too general and not very clear now. As well, it seems important to notice, that it would be needed to pay attention to the structural sections of the paper, as the section of materials and methods seems too long and not very clearly structured, as well the sections of results and discussion are missing here. Thus, while revealing authenticity and developing seperate sections of "Results", "Discussion" and "Conclusions", it would be needed to concentrate on the clarity and specificity of the topic, as well as to include to the debate more newest future oriented theoretical implications, thus accessing deeper discussion and concluding insights.

Author Response

Dear Review-er ,2

 

Thank you for your kind observation and proper suggestions, were beneficial to help us order/direct our scientific paper work.

So we re-organized our paper, more logically as you recommended us, in the following we will mention the main changes:

• We consider valuable your suggestion regarding the need to concentrate on the abstract of the article, so we implement your request. Also we made more comprehensive and maybe more clear, line12;
• As far as concerning the structural sections of the paper, we revise all the section lines 50-950. The Material and Method section presents the way in which we organized the research and the constructive way of the mathematical model - absolutely necessary, therefore we try to arrange it in only one page and a half, lines 388-442;
• We took into consideration your suggestion regarding the clarity and specificity of the topic of the paper in results part so we have mention that the aim was to group the natural resources by areas and localities, the direct implications of the study and the possible benefits being useful to the socio-economic environment. Following the analyzes and field research, we synthesized the main resources, that can be, in each locality, factors of sustainable development, the concrete result of the research being the possibility of systematically dividing Maramureș County into four areas, as we explain in the paper at the lines 556-561;
• Regarding the remark about sections of "Results", "Discussion" we mention that the results and discussions are included in the same paragraph for fluency and ease of detaching the discussions during the paragraph;
• For accessing deeper discussion we have improve the conclusions, lines 739-772;
• We have improved the debate to be more new oriented theoretical implications, so we add new references.

So in the end we hope we've been able to implement all your requirements. Thank you for your valuable suggestions and the time dedicated to reviewing our paper. You help us to direct our study on a better and much improved line.

The authors

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Some comments:

1) Structure:

The Introduction should not include a sub-section 1.1 with the literature review. The literature review should be a separate section. 

2) Method:

Is this a scientific paper? What research gap or research questions are the authors trying to answer?

The authors state:

"The purpose of the paper is to identify the types of tourism that can be carried out in the protected areas of Maramureş, depending on the available natural and anthropogenic resources and the tourist objectives of the area."

This purpose is more appropriate to a tour guide publication rather than to a scientific paper.

Furthermore:

"The specific objectives of present research are subordinated to the aim pursued: Objective 1: Highlighting the Maramureş area as a unique tourist destination in Romania and the world; Objective 2: Identifying localities in protected areas and natural and anthropogenic resources of Maramureş as important tourist destinations with high authenticity; Objective 3: Identi- fying types of tourism that can be practiced in the (selected) locations in the protected areas of Maramureş County, in order to attract a growing number of tourists in the area."

These objectives are more appropriate to a tour guide publication / marketing media piece - rather than to a scientific paper.

3) Hence, I see the paper as potentially being a case study. However, currently, primary data collection - following a scientific method - is missing. 

4) The conclusion reads as a set of bullet points. What is the original contribution to the literature and why should scientists be interested in reading the paper?

5) In sum, as a holiday goer or tourist I might be interested in reading the manuscript - but not as a scientist. The article also reads like a report to get funding for the development of a specific geographic area. 

No doubt the region is very important and prominent and I would like to visit it - but I am unable to see the scientific value in the argument.

6) It would be useful to translate to English the references which are solely currently in Romanian.

E.g., 

Otiman I.P., et. al., Dezvoltarea rurală durabilă în România, Editura Academiei Române, Bucureşti, 2006.

And 

Ivaniuc T., Ghidul turistic al Țării Maramureșului, Editura Limes, Cluj- Napoca, 2006.

AndOtiman, P.I.; Florian, V.; Ionescu C. Conservarea geo-și biodiversității și dezvotarea durabilă în Țara Hațegului – Retezat, Volumul 2, Editura Academiei Române, 2010, pp.67-68.

Author Response

Dear Review-er , 3

 

Thank you for your kind observation and proper suggestions, were beneficial to help us order/direct our scientific paper work.

So we re-organized our paper, more logically as you recommended us, in the following we will mention the main changes:

• We consider valuable your suggestion regarding the Introduction part, which should not include a sub-section 1.1 with the literature review. The literature review should be a separate section you suggested, so we have implement your request starting with line 144. We have made some improvements here, lines 156-159, 165-176, 195-229, 238-256, 326-346;
• We took into consideration your question regarding the purpose or objectives of the paper, so we mention that the emphasis is on the relationship between sustainability and sustainable tourism and sustainable rural development, so the aim was to group the natural resources by areas and localities, the direct implications of the study and the possible benefits being useful to the socio-economic environment. Following the analyzes and field research, we synthesized the main resources, that can be, in each locality, factors of sustainable development, the concrete result of the research being the possibility of systematically dividing Maramureș County into four areas, as we explain in the paper at the lines 558-563; The purpose of this scientific papers is to identify, synthesize, process, and interpret data about the tourist qualification of the localities in the protected areas of Maramureş, so the tourists be properly informed about the natural tourism potential of the area and its conservation, the localities considered “tourist destinations”, tourist attractions, as well as tourism forms currently practiced (and) possibly practicable in the future.
• As regards the research methodology, the paper starts with research of secondary sources that includes several methods and techniques specific to the proposed objectives. The first part presents a bibliographic study based on literature. In this respect, several steps were taken: information in terms of sources, data collection, analysis of documentation sources and their grouping, in-depth assessment and study in order to achieve the proposed objectives. The last stage of scientific documentation consisted in using sources to prepare studies and analyses needed for research. The main method used is the content analysis, as well as the comparative method, used to highlight the issues, concepts, or notions, lines 389-399, lines 537-538. In conducting the field research we used the method of partial observation (based on surveys), carried out with the support of local authorities. Indirect observation was also used, based on derived sources, lines 403-406;
• We took into consideration your suggestion about the conclusion, so we have improve them so to be able to highlight the original contribution to the literature and why should scientists be interested in reading the paper, lines 721-772;
• Regarding the translations, where this aspect was possible, this was done, and where the materials appear in Romanian, their translation was not done, because if they are searched, they will not be found at all, only in the version in which they appeared.

So in the end we hope we've been able to implement all your requirements. Thank you for your valuable suggestions and the time dedicated to reviewing our paper. You help us to direct our study on a better and much improved line.

The authors

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Although not very valuable from a scientific point of view, the paper is clear and can be of interest for those working on tourism, in particular on tourism planning. In comparison to the first version, the paper has been significantly improved and the Authors have replied to all the observations. I would suggest to control again the English form, with the help of a mothertongue, and to control the consecution of sentences (although in some points, where corrections are introduced, some flaws can be ascribed to typing mistakes). 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1 ,

Thank you for your kind observation and proper suggestions, were beneficial to help us order/direct our scientific paper work.

So we re-organized our paper, more logically as you recommended us, in the following we will mention the main changes:

- We apologize for the mistyping or syntax errors that appeared, we take in consideration your proper suggestion, and we correct spelling mistakes, lines 47, 103, 199,202,209, 476, 537, 606,608, 637,640.

Thank you for your valuable suggestions and the time dedicated to reviewing our paper. You help us to direct our study on a better and much improved line. We hope we've been able to implement all your requirements.

 

The authors

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations for your efforts to review the article. It's seems better now.

Author Response

Thank you for your kind feedback and proper suggestions, they have help us to   order / direct our scientific work.

The authors

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The article has improved.

My suggestions for further improvement are as follows:

1) There is a typo in the first line of the introduction ("Word" should read "World"):

"The Word Tourism Organization (WOT) has supported this year’s..."

2) Please provide data on the surveys performed. I.e., you state:

"In conducting the field research we used the method of partial observation (based on surveys)..."

- how were the surveys developed and pre-tested, what questions did you ask, when were they applied, who applied them, how many answers did they have, etc.

3) What do you mean by "durable", in this passage in the conclusion?:

"The durability of the study is given by the following aspects:"

4) The English needs revising:

a) "labour fource" on p.2 should read "labour force".    b) "In this sense we built  a model for the evaluation of the tourism potential in the research area was built..." - this passage on p.10 uses "built" twice. Please correct the sentence.    c) "Tabel 6" written instead of "Table 6" (this should actually be table 4).   Etc. These are just examples.    5) The tables need renumbering. Table 1 then jumps to table 4. Where are tables 2 and 3?    6) The tables need to be called out in the text (e.g., please see table 1... please see table 2...).   7) Were did the data come from which is in table 6? (should be table 4...). Please use one or more references. Or state "(own elaboration)".   8) The article is now very long at 30 pages and over 11 thousand words. Has similar work been done for other geographical and tourist areas? Please add references if this is the case.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3 ,

Thank you for your kind observation and proper suggestions, were beneficial to help us order/direct our scientific paper work.

So we re-organized our paper, more logically as you recommended us, in the following we will mention the main changes:

- Regarding your observation on the word World, thank you for observing, we have make the correction, line 47;

- We tried to explain as better as we can the research methods, at lines 402-416, 421-423,448, table 3. The direct survey (oral, face to face) was conducted in the town halls of the identified localities, due to the multiple advantages of the method: it provides results in a shorter time because the survey is more operational; the volume of material, human and financial resources involved is low, creates a facility for data collection, control and processing and recording errors are easier to identify and research in the validation phase of primary data, has the lowest rate of partial non-responses due to this operator. The questions addressed to the competent persons were simple and clearly structured, with reference to the existence of resources and tourist objectives in each of the 25 localities investigated. Each question was provided with three answers: 1) no, 2) one, 3) several. The oral survey was conducted during 2021, by one of the co-authors of this study, in accordance with the experience gained in doctoral studies and who, in addition, knows the area, being his area of ​​residence. In this sense we built  a model for the evaluation of the tourism potential in the research, based on which a number of rural localities. The way of centralizing the information is presented in table no. 3.

- As far as concerning your remark regarding the mean of "durable" word, we refer to the relevance of the study, we made the clarification, line 650 and lines 668-675;

- As far as concerning your remark regarding the English translation we apologize for the mistyping or syntax errors that appeared, we take in consideration your proper suggestion, and we correct:

- we correct "labour fource" on p.2 should read "labour force", lines 81-82;

- we made the modification on "In this sense we built  a model for the evaluation of the tourism potential in the research area was built..." - this passage on p.10 uses "built" twice, line 421;

- "Tabel 6" written instead of "Table 6", line 623, line 494;

- we correct spelling mistakes, lines 47, 103, 199,202,209, 476, 537, 606,608, 637,640.

- As far as concerning your remark regarding the numeration of the tables, we have made a proper one, all of the table have sources, all of them are mentioned in the text, table 1- table 8;

We hope we've been able to implement all your requirements. Thank you for your valuable suggestions and the time dedicated to reviewing our paper. You help us to direct our study on a better and much improved line.

 

The authors