Assessment of Mountain Tourism Sustainability Using Integrated Fuzzy MCDM Model
, Anđelka Štilić 4 and Željko Stević 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all, I would like to thank you very much for choosing our journal for your article. It is a very successful and meticulously prepared article. I would like to read the article again if you answer the questions I asked and make the additions I requested.
- Can you provide a justification for selecting only six mountain lodges out of the identified 40 for this research?
- How were the primary and auxiliary criteria determined, and were they based on literature or previous research?
- How were the elevations of each lodge verified? Was it based on lodge reports, or was an independent assessment conducted?
- How can the findings of this research be applied in real-world settings for enhancing mountain tourism?
- Can you elaborate on the advantages of using the IMF SWARA method over the traditional fuzzy SWARA method, and why it was considered more suitable for this research?
- How was the sensitivity analysis conducted, and what were its main findings?
- Do you believe the IMF SWARA method, combined with the fuzzy CRADIS method and other analytical tools employed, can be generalized and applied to other sectors beyond mountain tourism?
- Given the findings and methodologies used in this study, what potential avenues for future research do you envision in the domain of mountain tourism or broader tourism studies?
- Can you further elaborate on the decision function used to translate linguistic expressions into fuzzy numbers?
- How was the specific range of each fuzzy number (e.g., (1, 1, 2) for "Absolutely bad") derived? Was it based on a theoretical foundation, empirical data, or a combination of both?
- Was there a specific reason to opt for an arithmetic mean in the harmonization process, considering the qualitative nature of linguistic expressions?
- Once the aggregated fuzzy decision matrix was established, were there any immediate patterns or trends evident in the evaluations of the lodges?
- Maybe the subject is different but method is nearly same. Please also use this study in your introduction methods. You can use some information about MCDM from this study.
Polymeric Materials Selection for Flexible Pulsating Heat Pipe Manufacturing Using a Comparative Hybrid MCDM Approach
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15132933
- The choice to utilize linguistic expressions, which are qualitative, and then to transition them into fuzzy numbers, which are quantitative, is intriguing. Can you delve into the advantages and potential drawbacks of combining these methodologies?
- How did you decide on using the maximum value for normalization? Were alternative normalization methods considered? If so, what influenced the decision to choose this method?
- The transition from fuzzy numbers to crisp numerical values through defuzzification is crucial. What methods were used for this defuzzification process?
- Were there any checks performed to validate the robustness of the fuzzy CRADIS method? If so, how were these checks carried out?
Author Response
First of all, I would like to thank you very much for choosing our journal for your article. It is a very successful and meticulously prepared article. I would like to read the article again if you answer the questions I asked and make the additions I requested.
- Can you provide a justification for selecting only six mountain lodges out of the identified 40 for this research?
The paper provides an explanation for the selection of only six out of the 40 identified mountain lodges, as suggested.
- How were the primary and auxiliary criteria determined, and were they based on literature or previous research?
It is well-explained in the paper why these main criteria were chosen and how the auxiliary criteria were determined, in line with recommended practices.
- How were the elevations of each lodge verified? Was it based on lodge reports, or was an independent assessment conducted?
The method of determining the elevations of these mountain lodges is detailed in accordance with the suggested approach.
- How can the findings of this research be applied in real-world settings for enhancing mountain tourism?
In the discussion section, the paper effectively outlines how these results can be instrumental in enhancing mountain tourism, as per our findings.
- Can you elaborate on the advantages of using the IMF SWARA method over the traditional fuzzy SWARA method, and why it was considered more suitable for this research?
The paper not only enumerates the distinctions between the classic fuzzy SWARA method and the IMF SWARA method but also elucidates the reasons for adopting the IMF SWARA method, as recommended.
- How was the sensitivity analysis conducted, and what were its main findings?
In the original text, the paper elucidates the procedure for determining the scenarios in the results section and provides supplementary insights into the outcomes of this analysis, in line with your guidance.
- Do you believe the IMF SWARA method, combined with the fuzzy CRADIS method and other analytical tools employed, can be generalized and applied to other sectors beyond mountain tourism?
In conclusion, the paper unequivocally affirms that the approach based on the IMF SWARA and fuzzy CRADIS method demonstrates simplicity and flexibility, making it applicable in future research endeavors, as suggested.
- Given the findings and methodologies used in this study, what potential avenues for future research do you envision in the domain of mountain tourism or broader tourism studies?
The paper offers a comprehensive list of guidelines for mountain lodges to enhance the quality of mountain tourism, in accordance with our suggested approach.
- Can you further elaborate on the decision function used to translate linguistic expressions into fuzzy numbers?
A detailed explanation is provided on how linguistic values are transformed into fuzzy numbers, following recommended practices.
- How was the specific range of each fuzzy number (e.g., (1, 1, 2) for "Absolutely bad") derived? Was it based on a theoretical foundation, empirical data, or a combination of both?
The paper effectively expounds on the determination of value scales and membership functions, in accordance with best practices.
- Was there a specific reason to opt for an arithmetic mean in the harmonization process, considering the qualitative nature of linguistic expressions?
The paper elucidates the rationale behind using the arithmetic mean for creating the aggregate fuzzy decision matrix, as suggested.
- Once the aggregated fuzzy decision matrix was established, were there any immediate patterns or trends evident in the evaluations of the lodges?
After the formation of the aggregated fuzzy decision matrix, the paper systematically delineates the steps of the fuzzy CRADIS method used for ranking the observed lodges, complete with illustrative examples, as per your guidance.
- Maybe the subject is different but method is nearly same. Please also use this study in your introduction methods. You can use some information about MCDM from this study. Polymeric Materials Selection for Flexible Pulsating Heat Pipe Manufacturing Using a Comparative Hybrid MCDM Approach https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15132933
A pertinent reference has been incorporated into the paper, in line with your suggestion.
- The choice to utilize linguistic expressions, which are qualitative, and then to transition them into fuzzy numbers, which are quantitative, is intriguing. Can you delve into the advantages and potential drawbacks of combining these methodologies?
The paper cogently articulates the advantages and disadvantages of using linguistic values, providing valuable insights into this approach, as recommended.
- How did you decide on using the maximum value for normalization? Were alternative normalization methods considered? If so, what influenced the decision to choose this method?
The rationale for employing linguistic values is thoughtfully explained, along with the assertion that the fuzzy CRADIS method can be adapted for various types of normalization, as suggested.
- The transition from fuzzy numbers to crisp numerical values through defuzzification is crucial. What methods were used for this defuzzification process?
The choice of defuzzification method is clarified, along with an explanation of why this particular defuzzification was chosen, in accordance with your guidance.
- Were there any checks performed to validate the robustness of the fuzzy CRADIS method? If so, how were these checks carried out?
During the validation of the results, the paper meticulously scrutinizes the robustness of the fuzzy CRADIS method, following your suggestion.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is of high quality and conduct comprehensive and detailed research on the sustainability of mountain tourism. Moreover, this paper is highly consistent with the scope of the journal, and I suggest "ACCEPT after minor revisions". Here are some suggestions:
- It is best not to directly abbreviate some words when they first appear in the paper, such as MCDM.
- Suggest modifying the literature review section.
(1) Although the author listed the literature for indicators in the Section 3, I am confused about that "what are the advantages of your indicator system compared to them"? If existing research fully considers sustainable indicators, does the author's work only change another method?
(2) The advantages of the model seem not obvious enough. The author emphasizes the importance of fuzzy MCDM, but readers may not be clear about the methods used in other studies.
I suggest that the author try using a table format to list the indicators, models, and contributions (or limitations) of each literature. This more clearly reflects the innovation of this paper.
- Unify the format of the formula. Some use mathtype, while others come with Word's built-in formula editor.
- Line 342. The decision results of all experts have been arithmetic averaged. In fact, I have some concerns about this result because the author did not consider the role of group decision-making. In recent years, some scholars have also conducted research on group decision-making, introducing Bayesian theory into models and proposing methods such as Bayesian BWM and Bayesian TOPSIS.
However, considering that the focus of this paper is on MCDM model applications, it is not necessary to consider the issue of group decision-making, but it can serve as the author's future research direction.
- Is it necessary to compare weighting methods?
Author Response
This paper is of high quality and conduct comprehensive and detailed research on the sustainability of mountain tourism. Moreover, this paper is highly consistent with the scope of the journal, and I suggest "ACCEPT after minor revisions". Here are some suggestions:
- It is best not to directly abbreviate some words when they first appear in the paper, such as MCDM.
The necessary corrections have been made in the paper, addressing the identified issues.
- Suggest modifying the literature review section.
The reviewer's feedback on refining the literature review has been considered, and the relevant sections have been updated in accordance with the reviewer's recommendations.
(1) Although the author listed the literature for indicators in the Section 3, I am confused about that "what are the advantages of your indicator system compared to them"? If existing research fully considers sustainable indicators, does the author's work only change another method?
It has been elaborated in the paper that some criteria were drawn from existing research while others were adapted for this study. This innovative approach in the evaluation of the sustainability of mountain tourism has been pointed.
(2) The advantages of the model seem not obvious enough. The author emphasizes the importance of fuzzy MCDM, but readers may not be clear about the methods used in other studies.
It has been suggested that other fuzzy methods can be explored in future research, as the validation of the results indicates that the outcomes of alternative fuzzy methods align closely with those of the fuzzy CRADIS method, with the exception of the fuzzy TOPSIS method, which exhibits significant deviation.
I suggest that the author try using a table format to list the indicators, models, and contributions (or limitations) of each literature. This more clearly reflects the innovation of this paper.
- Unify the format of the formula. Some use mathtype, while others come with Word's built-in formula editor.
All mathematical formulas have been reconfigured using word processing tools for enhanced clarity and readability.
- Line 342. The decision results of all experts have been arithmetic averaged. In fact, I have some concerns about this result because the author did not consider the role of group decision-making. In recent years, some scholars have also conducted research on group decision-making, introducing Bayesian theory into models and proposing methods such as Bayesian BWM and Bayesian TOPSIS.
However, considering that the focus of this paper is on MCDM model applications, it is not necessary to consider the issue of group decision-making, but it can serve as the author's future research direction.
- Is it necessary to compare weighting methods?
The conclusion emphasizes the need for further exploration of this topic in future research papers, aligning with the suggestion.
Reviewer 3 Report
This research contributes by providing insights into the current state of mountain tourism and offering guidelines for enhancing the overall mountain tourism experience. I recommend a major revision of the manuscript. Here is a list of my comments.
1. In section 1, introduction should more clearly point out the purpose, object and methods of the research. The structure of the paper should be presented in the last paragraph of the introduction.
2. In section 2, insufficient literature review. The authors should be extended literature review. The literature review must be including the relationship between tourism and sustainability, MCDM, Fuzzy MCDM and IMF SWARA.
3. In section 3, authors should explain how the criteria are determined, whether using qualitative or quantitative methods. I think this is significant.
4. In section 3, Table 1 must be carefully revised and improved, e.g., the definitions of parameters and criteria.
5. In line 153, how the panel of experts were chosen and how the panel’s expertise was determined. The authors should provide a clear explanation.
6. All adopted methods should clearly be mentioned within methodology sections and the reasons behind adoption with authentic references.
7. Report the reliability and validity of these criteria.
8. Tables 2 and 3 are not clearly explained. In Table 2, TNF values were determined from 8 experts or an expert, and how questionnaire was disseminated. In Table 3, sj, kj, qj and wj are unclear. The authors should provide a clear explanation.
9. In section 4, “Results" should be “Results and discussions”. The authors must be add explanations in two separate parts.
10. In section 5, managerial implications must be consistent with the findings of the previous studies. Also provide the comparison of your results with other related studies conducted on how this study is different than others in contribution. How your study is unique than rest of the related studies?
Author Response
This research contributes by providing insights into the current state of mountain tourism and offering guidelines for enhancing the overall mountain tourism experience. I recommend a major revision of the manuscript. Here is a list of my comments.
In section 1, introduction should more clearly point out the purpose, object and methods of the research.
The structure of the paper should be presented in the last paragraph of the introduction.
The paper has been revised in accordance with your comments, addressing the concerns you raised.
In section 2, insufficient literature review. The authors should be extended literature review. The literature review must be including the relationship between tourism and sustainability, MCDM, Fuzzy MCDM and IMF SWARA.
In response to your request, new papers have been incorporated into this selection to enhance the comprehensiveness of the literature review.
In section 3, authors should explain how the criteria are determined, whether using qualitative or quantitative methods. I think this is significant.
The paper provides an explanation regarding the formation of these criteria, offering a transparent account of the process.
In section 3, Table 1 must be carefully revised and improved, e.g., the definitions of parameters and criteria.
All sub-criteria have been meticulously redefined to ensure precision and clarity.
In line 153, how the panel of experts were chosen and how the panel’s expertise was determined. The authors should provide a clear explanation.
The rationale behind the selection of these experts has been clarified in the paper, aligning with your query.
All adopted methods should clearly be mentioned within methodology sections and the reasons behind adoption with authentic references.
The paper has been updated to rectify the identified concerns.
Report the reliability and validity of these criteria.
The paper has been updated to rectify the identified concerns.
Tables 2 and 3 are not clearly explained. In Table 2, TNF values were determined from 8 experts or an expert, and how questionnaire was disseminated. In Table 3, sj, kj, qj and wj are unclear. The authors should provide a clear explanation.
The details of how the results of the IMF SWARA method were obtained have been elaborated upon in the paper, providing a comprehensive understanding of the methodology.
In section 4, “Results" should be “Results and discussions”. The authors must be add explanations in two separate parts.
The paper has been revised based on your comments, incorporating the suggested changes.
In section 5, managerial implications must be consistent with the findings of the previous studies. Also provide the comparison of your results with other related studies conducted on how this study is different than others in contribution. How your study is unique than rest of the related studies?
It is important to note that comparing the results was not possible since mountain lodges were not evaluated in this manner, and these specific criteria were not utilized. This research serves as an initial exploration and lays the foundation for further development in future research endeavors.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
According to my comments, the manuscript has clearly improved and become much clearer. Therefore, I recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication.
Sincerely,
Reviewer
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Greetings
Your recommendation for acceptance is greatly appreciated. We also appreciate your feedback regarding the need for moderate editing of the English language. We have made the necessary language corrections, and the changes are visible through the track changes option. Kind regards,
