Are Tourists Willing to Pay for a Marine Litter-Free Coastal Attraction to Achieve Tourism Sustainability? Case Study of Libong Island, Thailand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion this paper is very good. The main objective of this study was to estimate tourists' willingness to pay (WTP) for visiting a marine litter-free coastal attraction and examine the factors affecting the WTP. Marine and coastal tourism is one of the fastest-growing areas of the world's tourism industry that is why I think that here is a need to provide such kind of research nowadays. The structure of the article is clear. Materials and methods are adequately described.
Results and discussion - In this section, the authors should comment on the results obtained by referring to previous studies, thus confirming what other research has shown – that was done. Also authors highlight the limitations of the research carried out and propose new lines of research on the object of study. With regard to the conclusions, the authors clearly state the conclusions that have been obtained from the research.
References are few (56) of which more than 50% are actual references from other Authors.
Author Response
Comment: In my opinion this paper is very good. The main objective of this study was to estimate tourists' willingness to pay (WTP) for visiting a marine litter-free coastal attraction and examine the factors affecting the WTP. Marine and coastal tourism is one of the fastest-growing areas of the world's tourism industry that is why I think that here is a need to provide such kind of research nowadays. The structure of the article is clear. Materials and methods are adequately described.
Results and discussion - In this section, the authors should comment on the results obtained by referring to previous studies, thus confirming what other research has shown – that was done. Also authors highlight the limitations of the research carried out and propose new lines of research on the object of study. With regard to the conclusions, the authors clearly state the conclusions that have been obtained from the research.
References are few (56) of which more than 50% are actual references from other Authors.
Response: Thanks for the positive comment. We intend to use this economic tool to balance natural resources and users for maximum sustainability and benefits.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper analyses a preoccupied topic such as the contamination of natural areas by the pressure of tourism and its management by part of public administrations.
It has been designed and applied to a habitual instrument/questionary, as it is an inconvenience to know the elasticity of the demand on the side of a tax. The results can be interesting for the responsible administrators.
However, this reviewer has serious doubts about several aspects.
It is considered an analysis of a very limited local house. The authors do not provide information about the study area: tourist pressure indicators, accommodation characteristics, number of visitors, volume, and type of contamination ... In this sense, the cartography offered is not useful.
The debate, known throughout the world, on the opportunity to apply tourist taxes and their implications is not opened. All visitors must pay? Isn't that a gentrification factor?
There are other policies that should be assessed: environmental education, sanction, application of carrying capacity limits…
In my opinion, scientific research must go beyond the local sphere and be comparable. This work has a high importance for the management of the place. But there is no significant progress of any kind in the scientific field.
Can authors go beyond simple case analysis? I think so. But for this they must place their study in a broader framework. Explain what the Libong Island study can contribute to the general analysis of this problem. For this, it may be useful to make a comparison with other cases with the same problem.
I think that an improvement in these aspects could collaborate in giving prestige to their work.
I wish the best to the authors
Author Response
Comment 1: It is considered an analysis of a very limited local house. The authors do not provide information about the study area: tourist pressure indicators, accommodation characteristics, number of visitors, volume, and type of contamination ... In this sense, the cartography offered is not useful.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised 3.1 Study area on page number 4, paragraph 1 and 2, line 184 – 203. In addition, we modified Figure 1 on page number 5 by adding the legends of seagrass beds and dugongs.
Comment 2: The debate, known throughout the world, on the opportunity to apply tourist taxes and their implications is not opened. All visitors must pay? Isn't that a gentrification factor?
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. It would have been interesting to explore this aspect. However, within the scope of our study, we highlighted the benefit of a tourism user fee mechanism where the entrance fee is one of all. In practice, entrance fees are used to create a mechanism for environmental conservation in connection with the payment of environmental stewardship. Recreation users and site managers (local authority) therefore jointly determine a reasonable and acceptable rate for the entrance fee. For equity as well as honoring the user pays principle, all tourists can be charged an entrance fee to access a marine litter-free coastal destination. As indicated and inspired by the reviewer’s comment, we have modified 5.2 Implications on page number 14, paragraph 1, line 534 – 550 by elaborating more on two points (“marine litter derived from anthropogenic activities" and "user pays) to justify that it is fair and reasonable for tourists to bear the cost of managing pollution.
Comment 3: There are other policies that should be assessed: environmental education, sanction, application of carrying capacity limits…
Response: Thanks for this comment, which inspires more potential and significant issues that can be dwelled on in the future studies. For this, we have modified future studies in Conclusions to emphasize this point on page number 15, line 625 – 627.
Comment 4: In my opinion, scientific research must go beyond the local sphere and be comparable. This work has a high importance for the management of the place. But there is no significant progress of any kind in the scientific field.
Can authors go beyond simple case analysis? I think so. But for this they must place their study in a broader framework. Explain what the Libong Island study can contribute to the general analysis of this problem. For this, it may be useful to make a comparison with other cases with the same problem.
Response: Thanks for pointing this out. While our research focuses on site-level fees, we have further elaborated more on the benefits of the study of willingness to pay. With this, this study gets to be placed in a broader framework and go beyond the simple case analysis. Specifically, the gathering of economic assessments and insights derived from the determinants is helpful in providing important information and decision-making for good solutions for not only tackling marine litter but also other pollutants within the Blue Economic Framework. The revision was made in Conclusions on page number 15, paragraph 2, line 628 – 636.
Reviewer 3 Report
The structure of the work meets the necessary requirements for its publication. It focuses on the investigation of the problems related to maritime contamination with garbage that affects a specific area, with the possibility that it leaves open that it can focus on the investigation of the specific cases of different tourist maritime areas to which measures taken in the case of Libon Island may help.
Author Response
Comment: The structure of the work meets the necessary requirements for its publication. It focuses on the investigation of the problems related to maritime contamination with garbage that affects a specific area, with the possibility that it leaves open that it can focus on the investigation of the specific cases of different tourist maritime areas to which measures taken in the case of Libong Island may help.
Response: Thanks for the positive comment. We are pleased to hear that the reviewer acknowledges the implications of our study for other tourist areas. With this, we emphasize that this study could serve as a model for other tourist destinations facing budget constraints and marine litter and other pollution issues. Moreover, we add research contributions in Conclusions on page number 15, paragraph 2, line 628 – 636.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion the paper has improved enough for publication.
Congratulations
