The Challenges of Sustainable Tourism Development in Special Environmental Protected Areas: Local Resident Perceptions in Datça-Bozburun
Sisira Kumara Naradda Gamage
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The paper submitted for review is, in my opinion, well prepared and in this form can be published in the journal Sustainability.
The Authors have made corrections and additions in accordance with my earlier suggestions.
Author Response
We want to thank the 1st reviewer for the constructive and inspiring comments. We also want to thank the 1st reviewer for accepting our paper to be published.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments to Authors
When I carefully checked the Authors’ point-to-point replies to my suggestions, I noticed that the Authors had addressed my recommendations in my review.
#01 Authors' response to the first comment: I am satisfied with the Author's response.
#02 Authors' response to the second comment: The authors have added a conceptual framework at my suggestion, and Figure 1 presents the proposed research model. It is more appropriate to name the conceptual model for quantitative analysis.
#03 Authors' response to the third comment: I am satisfied with the Author's response.
#04 Authors' response to the fourth comment: I am happy with the Author's response.
#05 Authors' response to the fifth comment: I am satisfied with the Author's response.
#06 Authors' response to the seventh comment (6): I agreed with the Authors.
#07 Authors' response to the eighth comment: It is better to add an interpretation under Table 4’s description.
#08 Authors' response to the ninth comment: I am satisfied with the Author's response.
#09 Authors' response to the tenth comment: I am satisfied with the Author's response.
#10 Authors' response to the 11th comment: I suggested the authors further improve the paper's readability. The revised version still has some issues. Hence, I further encourage the Authors to enhance the paper's readability, mainly by discussing the qualitative findings section. Authors may examine the critical point in sub-sections
Further comments to Authors
1. According to the journal guidelines, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets in the text. Authors are highly encouraged to follow the journal guidelines in manuscript preparation.
2. The column heading of Table 1 should be corrected.
3. Discussing the normality of items is preferred before proceeding with the measurement model. The normality of data is essential for this parametric analysis. Providing a short description of correlations among the latent variables is suitable before summarizing hypothesis testing.
Overall, I am happy with the Authors' point-to-point replies to my suggestions. I recommend this research paper for publication with minor corrections.
All the best!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We want to thank the reviewer for the constructive and inspiring comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments to Author/s
I believe this research paper is an innovative study of The Challenges of Sustainable Tourism Development in Special Environmental Protected Areas Datca - Bozburun Case. The topic is contemporary and exciting, and I observed that the paper provides quantitative and qualitative examples to understand the challenges and opportunities of sustainable tourism development in Datca - Bozburun. The topic reasonably fits the issues in sustainable tourism scope. I initially recommend this article for publication in the Journal with minor revisions.
To ensure that the paper suitably fits Sustainability Journal guidelines, I wish to offer a few suggestions to the Author (s):
1. I suggest author/s further improve the abstract by incorporating the critical findings of the qualitative and quantitative study.
2. This paper lacks a clear conceptual or theoretical framework based on this study. Hence, it would be highly appreciated if the authors could include a separate section on the theoretical mechanism in the social exchange theory of sustainable tourism development after the literature review section of the manuscript that serves as this study’s foundation.
3. The methodology is somewhat flawed because it does not provide adequate information about the investigation method.
3.1 What was the data saturation point in the study, and why did you choose only 28 respondents for Qualitative analysis?
3.2 Might the interviews have been conducted in the local language? How did you transcribe and translate the information gathered from the interviews?
3.3 The disclosure of statistical tools and software used may be helpful for future research in replication of the study.
- The study hypotheses H2, H3, and H4, are developed with direction (positive relationship). Hence the test type should be one-tailed, while H1 is no direction. The Author/s should confirm that.
- It would be more appropriate for the Author/s to include the total descriptive statistics table in the first section of the qualitative and quantitative findings.
- Corrections are due in Table 1 (column headings, frequency values, and percentages).
- I believe it would be more appropriate for the Author to describe the qualitative findings after the quantitative results and discussion with supporting quantitative findings.
- R-square (in the structural model assessment) is 0.206, which is weak. Please try to justify the value with past literature.
- H1, H3, and H4 are supported according to the research findings. Hence, theatrically and/or empirically show how economic, social, and cultural impacts become critical determinants of the sustainable tourism development process. Please further discuss past research findings in the literature in the discussion or conclusion sections of the manuscript.
- The authors have made recommendations that can be considered at the macro level. Thus, authors are suggested to make a few recommendations that can be considered in local settings.
- I believe that the paper is not well-structured, so I suggest the author/s further improve the paper's readability; especially, qualitative findings discussion needs to be presented more clearly.
I hope the Author/s will address these issues and provide a better scientific contribution to the development literature.
All the best!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank you, the reviewers, for their constructive comments and suggestions. We hope we have successfully addressed their concerns and incorporated their suggestions into our revised paper in our revised efforts.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The theme "The Challenges of Sustainable Tourism Development in Special Protected Areas" is an exciting and current topic for tourism. The authors manage to demonstrate this relevance and relevance in the introduction. There is also a correct definition of the study objectives.
However, some aspects should be improved, such as the ones I indicate below.
Authors must justify each of the hypotheses they present individually. Thus, they should rewrite the literature review part.
Should authors specify the study's unit of measurement?
Also, why not use tourists in the study? This fact must be evidenced in the title, abstract, and introduction.
Authors should include a figure with the conceptual model and preferably another with the results obtained. It is much more difficult to understand the proposed model and its results without having a figure.
Table 3.1. the authors must include a description of what each value represents. Otherwise, it is not clear what each number there represents.
In the appendix, a table should be included with each variable's designation, the construct's name, and the respective reference in the literature.
The paper's conclusions must be reformulated, taking into account the individual justification of the hypotheses and the variables of each construct.
Author Response
We thank you, the reviewers, for their constructive comments and suggestions. We hope we have successfully addressed their concerns and incorporated their suggestions into our revised paper in our revised efforts.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Many thanks to the authors for an interesting article.
Sustainability is one of the main challenges for tourism. As tourism involves transport to destinations, it leads to an increase in COâ‚‚ emissions. Mass tourism can also lead to deterioration of natural resources, destruction of biodiversity or noise pollution, etc. as the authors write about.
I have two questions/observations:
1/ There are different challenges at the local/regional level in terms of strategic planning and management of the side effects of tourism. Local and regional authorities have to perform various tasks such as ensuring waste collection, dealing with the impacts of increasing mass tourism and protecting areas of natural beauty.
Can the authors give examples of measures implemented by local authorities?
2/ One of the characteristics of sustainable tourism is the active involvement of local people in the protection of nature. Examples of such activities could be the creation of environmentally friendly agro-tourism farms and activities aimed at developing a sustainable tourist base.
Can the authors give such examples in the area described?
Author Response
We thank you, the reviewers, for their constructive comments and suggestions. We hope we have successfully addressed their concerns and incorporated their suggestions into our revised paper in our revised efforts.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors improve the paper, but they did not answer those suggestions:
- Authors must justify each of the hypotheses they present individually. Thus, they should rewrite the literature review part; the justification must be individual to each hypothesis;
- In section 3, I cannot find the unity of measure of the study.
Additionally, the name of figure 1 must be "the conceptual model";
Author Response
|
We thank you, the reviewers, for their constructive comments and suggestions. We hope we have successfully addressed their concerns and incorporated their suggestions into our revised paper in our revised efforts. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors did not justify the hypothesis individually.
I do not understand what they wrote on page 6 about the hypothesis.
