Unsustainable Tourism Approaches in Touristic Destinations: A Case Study in Turkey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author pointed out in the manuscript the serious problems faced by certain destinations due to tourism development. The examples considered are interesting because some are more widely known and some are not. As the author himself mentioned in the conclusion, some future research can go in the direction of comparing similar examples in the world and how the problems were overcome.

Suggestions for the manuscript are as follows:

Spellchecking

The word keyword was duplicated.  Delete number 1,2,3 in the keyword

The line 41-author can use the WTTC report for 2022 

The line 106-overtouism-should overtourism

In the table 1-the word anger is mentioned twice

Graph 2 is not clear enough 

The line 410-empty bracket

some photos are not of good resolution

I would suggest that in the discussion it should be written whether Turkey or the regions where the described destinations are located have taken any steps to solve the problem and whether there are any long-term plans.

 

Author Response

First of all, thank you very much for your reviews.

I apologize for delaying the corrections due to being one of the victims in the earthquake region in Turkey.

With your valuable contributions, the research has become more qualified. Internet is limited due to the earthquake zone. I ask for your understanding for the delay.

My Depest Regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Auther, 

The research topic of the article "Unsustainable Tourism Approaches in Touristic Destinations: A Case of Study in Turkey" is interesting because it deals with sustainable development in the tourism economy. Tourism is a very important branch of the economy , which generates income, however, it can contribute to the devastation of the natural environment. Therefore, a very thorough study on the subject can help improve the tourism industry. 

After reading the paper, I have the following comments and suggestions for improving the paper:    

Abstract    

I propose to improve it by making it more readable.  I suggest improving the abstract according to the Journal "Sustainability" guidelines. No information about the methods used and the purpose of the study.    

In the Introduction    

In my opinion, it should be expanded to include the following news: why was this study undertaken?  What research has been done so far, where? What conclusions have been drawn from this research? Is this article a continuation of those conclusions, or is it based on your own observations?  

There should be research questions at the end of this subsection.

In the material and methods    

A diagram of the research procedure is missing.   

Result.    

The results are presented and described in a good way, and are very interesting and important for the development of the tourism industry in the direction of tourism.  

Conclussion

I suggest presenting a recommendation.

Technical errors to be removed:  

[24] Keywords: keyword 1; tourism destination 2; unsustainable approach 3; tourism policy.

[242, 266, 311, 323, ] is Picture - should be Figure.

[330, 361] is Graph - should be Figure

[342, 368, 395, 405] is Picture - should be Figure

Correct the literature according to the journal's rules.  

In conclusion, I recommend this paper for publication in the Journal "Sustainability " after minor significant changes.  

Kind regards, 

 

Reviewer

Author Response

First of all, thank you very much for your reviews.

I apologize for delaying the corrections due to being one of the victims in the earthquake region in Turkey.

With your valuable contributions, the research has become more qualified. Internet is limited due to the earthquake zone. I ask for your understanding for the delay.

Depest Regards

Reviewer 3 Report

The researched topic is very interesting and the authors have put a lot of work into preparing it. It is an quite unique but valuable and original approach to sustainability in tourism by analyzing the unsustainable practices – a quite valuable and necessary input into the sustainable tourism discussion.

Nevertheless, the paper needs to be proofread by a native speaker, because for now it contains many language errors and poor wording choices.

The most concerning part of this paper are the figures included, most of them are of bad quality, distorted or don’t carry any significant value. In sustainability, there are only 3 types of objects that can be inserted into an article: figures, tables or schemes. The authors however, try to distinguish between  figures, pictures and graphs – all those elements should be named “figure”. To provide more detail:

·        Figure 1 – it’s unnecessary, it lists the same elements that appear in text in the same paragraph where the figure is referred. It does not contain any additional information (i.e. the relation between the approaches), and the selected colors have no meaning.

·        Picture 1- should be named Figure, not picture – the quality is low, and the proportions are distorted.

·        Picture 2 – should be named Figure. Additionally, the name should refer and explain all parts of the figure – a,b,c and d in this case.

·        Picture 3 – should be named Figure.

·        Picture 4 – should be named Figure.

·        Graph 1 – rename it to figure – the scale is a bit odd, the intervals are unequal, additionally, what is “buildings process”?

·        Picture 5 – rename to figure, mark parts of the figure as A and B, and contain the same division in the description.

·        Table 1 – what is the source of it? I’m sure noise above 140dB are harmful and can cause hearing loss but I have doubts about the “Serious brain damage”, and source 52 does not name such an effect. Also, you should rather name it “noise pollution” instead of sound pollution. The table should be referred directly in text.

·        Graph 2 – is totally unreadable.

·        Picture 6 – rename to figure, the proportions and resolution are bad.

·        Picture 7 – rename to figure and divide into panels A and B- the proportions are distorted.

·        Picture 8 – rename to figure, and the figure description should refer both panels, also the description should be consistent with previous ones and start with a capital letter.

·        Picture 9 – same as previously. Additionally, in my opinion this figure is unnecessary, a figure of a long que does not provide any scientific insight into the described context.

Line 410 starts with an empty “()” – should a source be referred here?

 

Materials and methods – this section should be supplemented by a detailed description of the research process, because as for now it only describes the selected subjects and an argumentation for case study benefits.

Author Response

First of all, thank you very much for your reviews.

I apologize for delaying the corrections due to being one of the victims in the earthquake region in Turkey.

With your valuable contributions, the research has become more qualified. Internet is limited due to the earthquake zone. I ask for your understanding for the delay.

Depest Regards

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I recently reviewed your article and have some constructive feedback that I would like to share with you. Firstly, in section 3 of your article, you included a diagram that should also be marked as a figure for better clarity and organization. Secondly, I noticed that the source of Figure 4 is anonymous, which is not an ideal practice. After conducting a quick search, I found the image on dailysabah.com and Pixabay, and I suggest that you name these sources in your article.

Similarly, the source for Panel A of Figure 8 was found on Facebook, and it would be appropriate to name this source as well. Moreover, most of the figures that contain photographs are distorted and of low quality, and Figure 7 is still unreadable. I recommend improving the quality of these images for better visibility and clarity.

Lastly, I noticed that some of your references to internet sources lack an access date and a direct link to the source, making it difficult for non-Turkish speakers to access the source material. Please ensure that you provide a direct link and an access date for all your internet sources in your references.

I hope that my feedback will be helpful to you, and I look forward to reading more of your work in the future.

Best regards,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
I am grateful to you for your valuable time and for the very important contributions you have repeatedly made to research.
All the adjustments you have specified have been made.
I hope that after the earthquake disaster we experienced, it is my greatest desire to present to you much better works.
With my deepest regards