Balancing Nature and Visitors for Sustainable Development: Assessing the Tourism Carrying Capacities of Katon-Karagay National Park, Kazakhstan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is focusing on the tourism carrying capacity (TCC) of the Katon-Karagay National Park (KKNP).

There are a few recommendations to consider for revising the article.

 

Firstly, the article would benefit from a conventional IMRaD structure. I suggest describing a research area in the methodology section, while delivering the literature review right after (or combined with) the introduction.

 

Secondly, table 3 presents the synthesized Insights on TCC for sustainable tourism. Please provide a clear indication of using these findings in the research methodology. Overall, the materials and methods section need to be more precise, indicating specific indicators used and analytical steps taken. Including the indicators mentioned in table 6.

 

Thirdly, the text should be more concise and focused on the research question.

 

Also, considering the stable annual number of tourists visiting the national park (table 2), is there a problem of balancing nature and visitors for sustainable development?

 

Finally, the literature used covers studies from Kazakhstan and China. Considering the location of the Katon-Karagay National Park, it seems logical to add some findings on the bordering Katunsky State Nature Reserve in Russia.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor proofreading is required to make the text more concise, focused and easy to read

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are immensely grateful for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and for your constructive comments, which have significantly contributed to the enhancement of our paper. Your insights have been invaluable in refining our study and ensuring the clarity and rigor of our research.

Addressing your first point regarding the IMRaD structure, we have restructured our manuscript to align with this conventional format. The Research Area is now clearly delineated within the methodology section, and the Literature Review is presented immediately following the introduction. This reorganization has improved the logical flow and coherence of our paper.

In response to your second suggestion, we have meticulously revised the Materials and Methods section to be more precise. We have explicitly indicated the use of synthesized insights on TCC for sustainable tourism as presented in what is now Table 1. The specific indicators and analytical steps, including those mentioned in Table 6, are now clearly outlined, providing a clearer understanding of our research methodology.

Regarding the conciseness and focus of the text, we have carefully considered the feedback from all reviewers. While we have endeavored to be as concise as possible, we have also aimed to address the complexity of the topic comprehensively. We believe that the revisions made have struck a balance between brevity and the need to provide sufficient detail as requested by other reviewers.

Regarding the question of whether there is a problem in balancing nature and visitors for sustainable development, despite the apparent stability in visitor numbers as shown in Table 2 (now Table 3), our study delves into the complexities beyond these figures. We have articulated in the revised manuscript that a stable number of visitors can still exert cumulative ecological impacts over time, particularly in sensitive areas of the park. The distribution of visitors across different routes and the temporal concentration during peak seasons can lead to localized overuse and degradation of natural resources. Our findings indicate that some tourist routes in KKNP are experiencing recreational loads that exceed sustainable levels during peak seasons, which necessitates immediate and strategic management interventions to ensure the park's ecological integrity and the quality of visitor experiences are maintained.

Furthermore, we have expanded our literature review to include pertinent studies from the Katunsky State Nature Reserve in Russia, which shares ecological characteristics with KKNP. This addition enriches our comparative analysis and contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of TCC strategies in the Central Altai region.

Lastly, we have undertaken a thorough proofreading of the text to enhance its readability and focus. While ensuring the text remains comprehensive, we have made every effort to streamline the content for ease of reading.

We appreciate the opportunity to refine our manuscript based on your feedback and believe that these revisions have substantially improved the quality and contribution of our research. We look forward to your further suggestions and hope that our manuscript now meets the high standards.


Warm regards,
Yeldar Nuruly
(On behalf of all co-authors)
----------------------------------------------
Ph.D. Candidate, Research Fellow,
Department of Recreational Geography & Tourism,
Faculty of Geography & Environmental Sciences,
Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan
[email protected]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The title and the aim of the paper are informative and relevant. The abstract is concise and informative. The Introduction is concise and explanatory. Reference list have to be improved together with the Literature review. The Table 3 is highly appreciated. It seems that Table 3 holds key insights that can enhance the structure of the literature review. Currently, the literature review lacks a cohesive structure, and it seems like the authors jump from one idea to another in each paragraph. It might be beneficial to organize the literature review into sub-chapters, some of which can be titled in accordance with the aspects outlined in Table 3. For example, Sustainable Tourism Models, Methodologies in TCC, TCC in Specialized Contexts and Community Engagement are very important topics that deserve a broader and a more structured reflection in the literature review section together with a more extensive collection of pertinent references. Other suggestions for expanding the literature review is toward topics related to satisfaction with sustainable tourism or even de-marketing strategies designed for nature reserve parks. Given the extensive nature of the Sustainable Tourism Models category, it is advisable to consider incorporating more references and encompassing themes like the Prism of Sustainability Model.

The authors mentioned on the lines 362-363 the Laveri and Stanevi formula, but the reference is missing.

Tables 4 and 5 lack sufficient clarification. For instance, Table 5 pertains to biological norms, but it is unclear whether these norms are derived from Kazakhstan's legal framework or extrapolated from findings in other pertinent studies.

The authors do not presented any limitation of theirs study. They need to provide greater clarity regarding whether their conclusions are substantiated by references or their results. This absence of clarity may stem from the insufficient articulation of the research hypotheses.

The paper have to be reconsidered after major revision, but it have a big potential for being published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We extend our sincerest gratitude for your comprehensive review and the valuable insights provided. Your expert feedback has been pivotal in refining our manuscript to meet the high standards of academic rigor and coherence.

In line with your suggestions, we have enriched the reference list with pertinent studies, thereby fortifying the foundation of our research. The literature review has been meticulously restructured, ensuring a seamless narrative that integrates the key insights from Table 1, enhancing both the depth and breadth of our review.

We have carefully addressed the previously overlooked reference to the Lavery and Stanev formula, thus fortifying the methodological integrity of our study.

With regard to Tables 4 and 5, we have now included explicit references that delineate the provenance of the biological norms. This clarification provides the necessary transparency and reinforces the empirical basis of our findings.

Furthermore, we have introduced a dedicated section that candidly discusses the limitations of our study and proposes future research directions. This critical self-assessment serves to contextualize our findings within the broader research landscape and charts a course for ongoing inquiry.

In terms of research articulation, we have refined the manuscript to ensure that our objectives and the systematic progression of our study are unequivocally presented. Although our research design does not hinge on traditional hypothesis testing, the revised text now clearly delineates our investigative framework, offering a lucid guide through the intricacies of our research journey.

We trust that these revisions have successfully addressed your concerns and have substantially elevated the quality of our work. We are immensely thankful for the guidance provided and eagerly anticipate any further recommendations you may have.

Once again, we express our deepest appreciation for your feedback.

Kind regards,

Yeldar Nuruly
(On behalf of all co-authors)
----------------------------------------------
Ph.D. Candidate, Research Fellow,
Department of Recreational Geography & Tourism,
Faculty of Geography & Environmental Sciences,
Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan
[email protected]

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to get acquainted with this interesting research.

The article aims to assess and calculate the tourism carrying capacity for sustainable tourism development in protected areas. The authors considered approaches to studying the tourism carrying capacity and proposed their own approach. The proposed approach is based on both a theoretical review and empirical data collected during the fieldwork in the Katon-Karagay National Park. Based on the results of the assessment of the tourism carrying capacity of National Park, the authors proposed solutions for the development of tourist destinations considering natural, social and economic factors.

To improve the article I could recommend explaining the using of the SWOT analysis in the Discussion section. This method was not presented in the Methods section and the purpose of its use is not clear.

In addition, some of the conclusions in Conclusions section do not describe the results of the study but the stages of the study. I believe that the authors could have formulated the final conclusions of the article more rigorously and presented their contribution to the development of the theoretical field.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are truly thankful for your encouraging remarks and the constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your thoughtful suggestions have been instrumental in enhancing the clarity and depth of our research.

Addressing your first point, we have now included a detailed explanation of the SWOT analysis within the Methods section. This addition elucidates the rationale behind employing SWOT as a strategic analytical tool, its integration into our research design, and its relevance in interpreting the empirical data from Katon-Karagay National Park. We believe this clarification will provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of how the SWOT analysis contributes to our assessment of tourism carrying capacity and the development of sustainable tourism strategies.

Furthermore, we have taken your insightful comments into consideration and have revised the Conclusions section to more accurately reflect the study's findings. We have removed references to the procedural stages of our study and instead focused on presenting our substantive contributions to the field. The revised Conclusions section now offers a more precise articulation of how our research advances the theoretical understanding of tourism carrying capacity in protected areas and its implications for sustainable tourism development.

We are confident that these revisions have addressed your concerns and have strengthened the manuscript significantly. Your feedback has been invaluable in guiding these improvements, and we are grateful for the opportunity to refine our work under your expert scrutiny.

Thank you once again for your recommendations and for recognizing the potential of our research.


Sincerely,
Yeldar Nuruly
(On behalf of all co-authors)
----------------------------------------------
Ph.D. Candidate, Research Fellow,
Department of Recreational Geography & Tourism,
Faculty of Geography & Environmental Sciences,
Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan
[email protected]

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is sufficiently revised and can be published as it is.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive evaluation and endorsement of our revised manuscript. We are grateful for your support and the constructive feedback provided during the review process, which has been invaluable in enhancing the quality of our study.

We are pleased to know that the revisions have met your expectations and that the manuscript is now deemed suitable for publication. It has been an enriching experience to engage with your insightful comments, and we are honored to have our work recognized in this manner.

Thank you once again for your time and expertise in reviewing our work.

 

Mr. Yeldar Nuruly (On behalf of all co-authors) ---------------------------------------------- Ph.D. Candidate, Research Fellow, Department of Recreational Geography & Tourism, Faculty of Geography & Environmental Sciences, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan [email protected]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version was significantly improved. The main part in which significant revisions were recommended, the literature review, has been meticulously restructured. However, there remain some areas in need of further improvement. For example, while the authors referenced the Prism of Sustainability in the sub-section on 2.1 Sustainable Tourism Models in Protected Areas, it appears that reference 12 may not be pertinent, as it does not appear to relate to the Prism of Sustainability within the context of sustainable tourism. In this regard, it may be advisable to consider alternative sources, such as the following two or other related works that could be more relevant in the context of sustainable tourism:

Khan, I. U., Khan, S. U., & Khan, S. (2022). Residents’ satisfaction with sustainable tourism: The moderating role of environmental awareness. Tourism Critiques: Practice and Theory, 3(1), 72-87.

Cottrell, S. P., Vaske, J. J., & Roemer, J. M. (2013). Resident satisfaction with sustainable tourism: The case of Frankenwald Nature Park, Germany. Tourism Management Perspectives, 8, 42-48.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our revised manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the improvements made, particularly in the literature review section.

Regarding your specific comments:

1. Regarding your concern about reference 12 (J. H. Spangenberg and O. Bonniot, 1998), we acknowledge that its direct relevance to the Prism of Sustainability in the context of sustainable tourism might not have been immediately apparent. This reference was initially included to provide a broader conceptual background on sustainability indicators, which indirectly supports our discussion on sustainable tourism models. However, we understand the need for more directly pertinent literature in this specific context.

2. We regret the oversight of not including Spangenberg's 2002 work (reference 13), which is indeed a seminal piece in the field. This reference has now been added to our manuscript to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the Prism of Sustainability model in the context of sustainable tourism.

3. We are grateful for your suggestions of alternative sources. We have carefully reviewed and incorporated the recommended articles by Khan et al. (2022) and Cottrell et al. (2013), which offer more direct insights into residents' satisfaction within sustainable tourism, aligning closely with our research focus.

4. Additionally, we have referenced the recent study by Trišić et al. (2023), which applies the Prism of Sustainability Model specifically to protected areas. This inclusion further strengthens our discussion and aligns closely with the focus of our research.

We believe these adjustments and additions to our references and discussion significantly enhance the manuscript's alignment with current research in sustainable tourism, particularly in the context of protected areas.

Thank you once again for your constructive suggestions, which have been instrumental in refining our manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mr. Yeldar Nuruly (On behalf of all co-authors) ---------------------------------------------- Ph.D. Candidate, Research Fellow, Department of Recreational Geography & Tourism, Faculty of Geography & Environmental Sciences, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan [email protected]