Current Trends and Issues in Research on Biodiversity Conservation and Tourism Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I find your article very interesting and well documented. The methods include the use of KH Coder software and the results are useful for the stakeholders in the field. I consider the article should have a more detailed conclusion section and include in the discussion part the results from the content analysis of the Google Scholar papers.  Please find below my suggestions to improve the paper:

1. the sources should be diverse at the beginning of the paper. You have the same source at the beginning of the article (L 30-L55)
2. specify the language of selected papers from Google scholar and if you used selection of exclusion for the papers that didn't meet the selection criteria
3. expand the conclusion section. Please include here the limits of the research and the future research intention

All the best!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your very apt remarks and suggestions. We have fulfilled them all. Please, see the file attached. Kindest regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Interesting text, presenting interesting results, but at the same time very complicated and inconsistent. The key results are somewhat hidden and in my opinion it is worth simplifying the text a bit. Below is a list of my recommendations:

1. At the beginning of the Introduction, theoretical approaches and typologies concerning biodiversity and ecotourism have been presented quite extensively. In my opinion, it is redundant at this point, because the axis of the text is the current research TRENDS, and not biodiversity and ecotourism itself. I think it is worth writing here how the previous trends were shaped or what influences their shaping (e.g. SDG or information from the Discussion chapter), how trends and megatrends are defined, etc.
2. In the introduction, you can also describe the research scenario (sequence of research activities) in which it will be clearly explained that the review of the definitions was necessary. We learn about it only in line 241-242 ("Finally, as mentioned, the results of our content analysis were com-241 pared with the ecotourism definition content analyzes from the century turn [6, 18, 19]".
3. Lines 257-262: the result itself is very interesting, it is worth exposing it. But what dictates the introduction of these categories? Is it an original proposition? I think it is worth giving the percentages for all identified networks and then making the split.
4. Figure 1: No explanation of what the colors mean.
5. I think that at the end of Chapter 3, for consistency, the topics considered "secondary" should be mentioned again and at least briefly discussed.
6. In my opinion, the entire chapter 4 deviates from mainstream research. And the concept of LAC dates back to the early 1980s, so it can hardly be considered a new trend.
7. Line 558: "Last but not least, the most recent research trend on biodiversity conservation and 558 tourism sustainability focus on assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on nature-based tourism in PAs"à

where did this conclusion come from?

8. The observations from the Discussion chapter are quite freely related to the obtained research results. Please indicate clearly which results are commented on, e.g. in lines 460, 471, 499.
9. Change the numbering format of lists in the text (e.g. 105-110, 131-135) - the current numbering corresponds to the numbering of chapters. Change e.g. to a), b) c) or I, II, III ... .
10. Line 568 "Community-based" - should be lowercase

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your very apt remarks and suggestions. We have fulfilled them all. Please, see the file attached. Kindest regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

ok :)