Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas—Application of the Prism of Sustainability Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Thank you for revising your manuscript.
Author Response
Once again, we would like to thank you for your trust and suggestions that contributed to the quality of this research.
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The paper is well written and the topic is interesting and deeply investigated.
Author Response
Once again, we would like to thank you for your trust and suggestions that contributed to the quality of this research.
The authors
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The paper has improved a lot. Go ahead!
Author Response
Once again, we would like to thank you for your trust and suggestions that contributed to the quality of this research.
The authors
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
The paper is very interesting and authors made important efforts to improve it from previous reviews. The paper is almost ready for pulbication. I would suggest the authors to explore scientific, managerial and public policy implications. This is a crucial section that makes the paper sound and relevant.
Author Response
Thank you for all constructive suggestions. They will significantly contribute to the scientific and research quality of our paper. During the research, new knowledge and ideas related to management, environmental and public policy implications appeared to us. In the research, we also consulted important strategic documents for protected areas. They plan the environmental, economic, management and implications of public policies. In this regard, the respondents were asked questions. We have included their answers in the text (the new of Paragraph 5. Results – last text.We have no insight into the number of lines, but it is page 11).
Since this is a very interesting field of research, we decided to address it in our next paper. Our future research will include different methods and techniques. In order to obtain reliable results regarding the implications, future thorough research will include various data sources, field investigations, and surveys of all interested parties, including legislators and state representatives.
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
Dear authors,
Here are some comments for your work an dI suggest the following improvements:
1. At the end of the abstract kindly add the important results in a specific way
2. I do not believe that name of places in the keywords will add some value. They will not help in the citation of your work, kindly add specific items, like the last two which are fine.
3. The discussion section is missing, you can either add a seperate section before the conclusion or include it in the conclusion section (e.g. Discussion and results). The main purpose of the discussion is to compare your study with other similar ones.
Thank you
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madam,
We would like to thank you for the constructive comments which we have accepted to a significant extent and implemented in the work. They will definitely improve this research and make a significant scientific contribution.
- We add the important results at the end of the Abstract.
- The key words are changed.
- We added separate Discussion section
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic proposed is current and deserving of attention. The different sections of the paper are well organized. The objectives and methodology are clearly explained and the quantitative analysis is supported by maps and tables that allow for a comprehensive reading of the data. The literature review is updated, exhaustive and relevant.
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you very much for your review, which is a great support for our work. Your support will benefit us in future research.
The authors are grateful to you
Reviewer 3 Report
The proposal about “Sustainable tourism development in protected areas – a case of Serbia and Croatia” sounds well. Nevertheless, to optimize, you have to improve the next topics:
-Title. It is right.
-Abstract. It is clearly improvable. You have to add a clear conclusion, and to change or delete this expression: “The research that this paper deals with is very important”.
-Theoretical framework. Check if some references can be updated. To be prudent, try to update some new references if you find.
-Methods. The used Method is right. Moreover, I suggest to complete the paper with qualitative sources, for example in-deep interviews (from responsible of Kopački Rit Nature Park - in Croatia and Gornje Podunavlje Special Nature Reserve in Vojvodina Province, in Northern Serbia), or a Delphi. It means it is positive to do a triangulation to support the obtained data. Perhaps in-deep interviews are not possible in this moment, but expert brief interviews (a Delphi) can allow an added value. It is a recommendation.
-Results. Results are improvable for the explained reasons.
-Conclusion and discussion. You can adapt conclusion (and discussion) if you include another method.
Author Response
We would like to thank you for the constructive comments which we have accepted to a significant extent and implemented in the work.
- We delete expression at the and of the Abstract and change the key words. We also changed the key words.
- We updated some references.
- During our research we made interviews were conducted with the managers of natural assets and experts in their tourist development. We wanted to use that in our next paper but we accepted your suggestion, which significantly contributed to the quality of the work. The results of the conversation are presented in this paper (Delphi).
- Results where improved
- Conclusion and discussion were adapted.
Most of your suggestions will benefit us in future research on sustainable development of tourism.
Thank you very much
Authors
