The Impact of Visitor Profile on Effective Management of Protected Areas: A Case of Atatürk Arboretum

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Given the author's continued progress and further editing, I believe that this manuscript is ready for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. Many thanks for your motivating thoughts.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The work is overall good, although the contribution of the authors should be further strengthened (for example, in the results part). The conclusions must be more personal, in line with what was previously indicated, and a combination of current and classic bibliography must be included.

Author Response

Point 1: The work is overall good, although the contribution of the authors should be further strengthened (for example, in the results part).

Response 1: Thank you for your opinion. We strengthened the results part.

Point 2: The conclusions must be more personal, in line with what was previously indicated, and a combination of current and classic bibliography must be included.

Response 2: The conclusions were made more personal. The combination of current and classic bibliography was made.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Although the issue studied in this paper is of interest, this paper needs some improvements, especially in terms of literature review, methodology and interpretation of results.

1.     In the theoretical framework, the authors link protected areas to the theoretical context of nature-based tourism/outdoor recreation, which is possible. However, the literature review section is rather weak and insufficient, despite the fact that the authors refer to the studies of some well-known nature-based tourism authors. Therefore, this part should therefore be somewhat augmented.

2.     The section on methodology is also weak and needs more elaboration on how many interviews were conducted, the design of the questionnaire, etc. In addition, the link between the results and the factor analysis is very much needed (i.e., discussion of the results).

3.     Third, the authors should link the results of the Factor Analysis to the activities undertaken to date by each activity stakeholder as a means of improving the visitor experience.

4.     Finally, apart from the fact that some threats presented in Factor Analysis are rather weaknesses, the author should somewhat polish the text in terms of spelling and clarity.

 

5.     The author(s) need(s) to discuss the limitation of the study.

Author Response

Point 1: Although the issue studied in this paper is of interest, this paper needs some improvements, especially in terms of literature review, methodology and interpretation of results. In the theoretical framework, the authors link protected areas to the theoretical context of nature-based tourism/outdoor recreation, which is possible. However, the literature review section is rather weak and insufficient, despite the fact that the authors refer to the studies of some well-known nature-based tourism authors. Therefore, this part should therefore be somewhat augmented.

Response 1: Thank you for suggestions. We have strengthened the literature review adding 13 references related to the subject.

Point 2: The section on methodology is also weak and needs more elaboration on how many interviews were conducted, the design of the questionnaire, etc. In addition, the link between the results and the factor analysis is very much needed (i.e., discussion of the results).

Response 2: The paragraph was added in to the text: “The sample size consists of 383 visitors aged 16 (we started at the age of 16 because of the arboretum is mainly for educational and scientific purpose and we want to include at least high school students) and over who visited the arboretum between 20 November 2017 and 20 April 2018 season. In this study, the quantitative data collection method was a structured questionnaire. Before the main survey, pilot surveys were conducted with 30 people who visited the arboretum. Factor analysis and reliability analysis were made to test the validity of the questionnaire and its reliability. As a result of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and its significance value in factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha result in reliability analysis, some variables in the questionnaire were removed and modified the questionnaire to collect reliable and valid data.”(Line 206-218). The necessary explanations with the results of Cluster analysis were done in the title of Results and Discussion.

Point 3: The authors should link the results of the Factor Analysis to the activities undertaken to date by each activity stakeholder as a means of improving the visitor experience.

Response 3: We used the Cluster analysis, not Factor analysis in the study. The necessary explanations with the results of Cluster analysis were done in the title of Results and Discussion.

Point 4: Finally, apart from the fact that some threats presented in Factor Analysis are rather weaknesses, the author should somewhat polish the text in terms of spelling and clarity.

Response 4: We said before, Cluster analysis was used in the study, not Factor analysis. We've improved the text even more.

Point 5: The author(s) need(s) to discuss the limitation of the study.

Response 5: Many thanks. The phrase was added :”There are two limitations of the study. First, we only considered the number of visitors between 2015 and 2017 when accounting the sample size. Second, the survey was conducted in fall, winter, and spring seasons due to time constraint.”(Line: 206-208)

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this manuscript. The paper is relevant and well-written. It has an interesting topic. Just need some revisions.

1. Literature review section could be expanded. I couldnt see literature review separately. Authors can be write a literature review section. When  I checked the references lists (all of them 23). It is not enough. Please expand this references lists.

2. Method and results sections are adequate sections.

Good luck

Author Response

Thank you for your good opinions and suggestions. Literature review part was expanded with 13 references. We gave the literature review in Introduction part. We did not give a separete part.

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

I applaud the authors' efforts but this paper should be improved in several areas.

Specific focus on the background, methods, results, and discussion and implications. It was difficult to determine exactly what the study could contribute to the arboretum in terms of specific managerial implications and actionable strategies that the managers could implement to improve arboretum management.

Studies of this kind should offer clear implications for managers that will help them conserve/protect natural resources, improve visitor experience, and provide educational and research opportunities. As currently written, it is unclear if the arboretum managers would find this study useful. 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for your corrections and contributions. We have corrected the parts you pointed out on the text. Please find them at the table below and as a highlighted by yellow in the text.

Best Regards

Tuğba Deniz

 

Comments from reviewer and answers from authors

(Sustainability-2170165)

Reviewers	Reviewer’s Comments and Questions in the texts	Authors’Answers
Reviewer 1	I applaud the authors' efforts but this paper should be improved in several areas. Specific focus on the background, methods, results, and discussion and implications. It was difficult to determine exactly what the study could contribute to the arboretum in terms of specific managerial implications and actionable strategies that the managers could implement to improve arboretum management. Studies of this kind should offer clear implications for managers that will help them conserve/protect natural resources, improve visitor experience, and provide educational and research opportunities. As currently written, it is unclear if the arboretum managers would find this study useful.	The authors thank the reviewer. We pointed out managerial results including implications and actionable strategies concerning the marketing mix.In addition, we suggested the managers clear implications  in conclusion part.
	Repeat of previous sentence – lines 29-31.	Deleted.
	“The protected area approach is the most important internationally recognized instrument for the protection of ecosystems and species, that meet a range of essential services and needs, such as watersheds and fertile soils for human well-being, as well as the protection of wild areas that contain natural resources and important cultural values, including forest products that local communities depend on to live [2].” Should be broken into multiple sentences for readability.	You are right. We shorttened the sentence.
	Who or what is “they?”	“They”is changed as “Protected areas”
	Word choice – obtain, experience, achieve, access, etc.	“access” choiced.
	Need citation(s)	Barić et al 2016 added.
	Consider a citation for this sentence	Lupp et al 2016 added.
	What is the exact season? Dates? Date range?	“November 2017 - April 2018 season” Added.
	How was it prepared, i.e. what was it based on, who provided input, theoretical underpinnings, constructs of interest, etc.?	“Before the main survey, pilot surveys were conducted with 30 people who visited the arboretum. Factor analysis to test the validity of this questionnaire and reliability analysis and its reliability were made. As a result of analyzes, some variables in the questionnaire were removed. The questionnaire asked visitors to rate the importance of activities in which they actually participated at the arboretum, and thereafter to indicate the importance of desired benefits as a reason for their choice to visit the arboretum. Both ratings were operationalized using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from one (1–not at all important) to five (5–very important). Also, the questionnaire generated information about behavioral and socio-demographic characteristics of visitors, such as the time they spent, the desired benefit they obtained, occupation, age, gender, level of education, and income”. Added.
	Which activities? The ones included in the survey? Clarify.	“The activities such as photographing, nature photography, film/advertising, walking, education, scientific research, bird-watching, spend leisure time are the most common ones performed by visitors based on our previous observations, which are allowed by the arboretum managers” Added.
	What does this mean? Arboretum managers only allow certain activities? Clarify.	“the recreation services are limited to some activities such as walking, bird-watching, feeling refreshed, etc. For example, picnicking is not allowed in the arboretum” Added.
	The questions could not be “close-ended” if there were actually some open-ended questions. Clarify.	Although all the questions asked were closed-ended, some questions were asked to answer open-ended, in case the visitors did not have an answer among the options, "other" was included (only in 3 questions).
	How was the random selection made?	“Research data were collected by random sampling through a face-to-face approach using the self-administered questionnaire. As for the location, the survey was implemented near the entrance door of the arboretum and was applied to the visitors who completed a visit. After approaching the first visitor then the sixth arriving visitor was asked to participate in the survey. When groups were approached, only one visitor among them was randomly selected. The survey was conducted daily from 11.30 to 16.30, including weekends and holidays at the arboretum (except Monday, which is closed to clean the arboretum). The sampling location and period were recommended by the arboretum managers as the most appropriate due to the highest visitor flow”. Added.
	What is “leisure time evaluation?”	“leisure time evaluation” changed as “spend leisure time”
	A useful result but seems out of place here. Consider a different location in the results section.	It was moved to Conclusion part.
	Provide percentage.	39.7%, added.
	Some of these findings are potentially useful for the arboretum managers but do not seem to meaningfully tie back to the cluster analysis.	Thank you very much. Some questions of the questionnaire form are already related to the marketing mix components. For example, How do you know about the presence of the arboretum? What was bothering you during your visit? What are the reasons that prevent you from visiting the arboretum more often? Etc. In addition, the marketing strategies include market segmentation and marketing mix. So, we considered segmentation and marketing mix together. here is more information for practical applications in marketing mix.
	Extensive editing of English language and style required	English editing service has been received.
	The references must be improved.	Some references* were added, some references** are removed.

 

 

*Added References

1. Ballantyne, R.; Packer, J.; Hughes, K. Environmental awareness, interests, and motives of botanic gardens visitors: Implications for interpretive practice. Tourism Management, 2008, 29, 439-444. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2007.05.006.
2. Lupp, G.; Förster, B.; Kantelberg, V.; Markmann, T.; Naumann, J.; Honert, C.; Koch, M.; Pauleit, S. Assessing the Recreation Value of Urban Woodland Using the Ecosystem Service Approach in Two Forests in the Munich Metropolitan Region, Sustainability, 2016, 8, 1156; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111156.
3. Şat, B. Doğa koruma ve çevre eğitimleri açısından arboretumların işlevleri ve Atatürk Arboretumu, Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University, 2006, Seri A, 56:2.
4. Beh, A.; Bruyere B. L. Segmentation by visitor motivation in three Kenyan national reserves. Tourism Management, 28, 2007, pp.1464–1471, DOI: 1016/j.tourman.2007.01.010.
5. Jenkins, O.; McArthur, S., Marketing protected areas, Australian Parks and Recreation, 1996, 32(4): 10-15.

 

**Deleted References

1. Kotler, P.; Keller, K.L. Marketing management, 14th ed., Pearson Education, Inc. publishing, New Jersey, USA, 2012, 33 p.
2. Marangoz, M., 2007, Kâr Amacı Gütmeyen Kuruluşlarda Sosyal Pazarlama ve Çevre Gönüllü Kuruluşlara Yönelik Bir Araştırma, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt:9, Sayı 1, Sayfa: 275-297.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is clearly written, with a good introduction to the researched issue and a clearly written methodology. Research results are locally relevant to arboretum management rather than universally applicable. However, the focus of the article is not suitable for publication in the magazine Sustainability, it does not develop the concept of sustainability. I recommend submitting it to the journal "Tourism and Hospitality".

The following formal inaccuracies should be corrected:

should only be used e.g., or etc., not both at once: Geographical (e.g., country, region, population climate, etc.), Demographic (e.g., gender, age, income, race, socioeconomic status, and family structure, etc.) Psychographic (e.g., personality, travel motivations, etc.), Behavioral (e.g., activities, benefits, frequency of use, and loyalty, etc.) 

The authors did not explain why they equate visitor activities with services. They may have meant the ecosystem services provided to visitors in the arboretum, but this concept is not clearly defined in the article: "For example, activities such as recreation, water production, and landscape beauty, etc. can be given as an example of services."

it should be "on": They mapped the forest visitor’s pathways and asked them no their perceptions of forest benefits.

In the "Total sample" column in Table 2, the units (%) are missing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for your corrections and contributions. We have answered the parts you pointed out at the table below as a highlighted in the text.

Best Regards

Tuğba Deniz       

Comments from reviewer and answers from authors

(Sustainability-2170165)

Reviewers	Reviewer’s Comments and Questions	Authors’Answers
Reviewer 2	The article is clearly written, with a good introduction to the researched issue and a clearly written methodology. Research results are locally relevant to arboretum management rather than universally applicable. However, the focus of the article is not suitable for publication in the magazine Sustainability, it does not develop the concept of sustainability. I recommend submitting it to the journal "Tourism and Hospitality".	We thank you. When we chose the journal, we aimed to emphasize both the conservation and sustainable use of the arboretum as a natural resources in our study. In addition, we choiced “Resources and Utilization” sub-category of Sustainability. Also,we need SCI-Expended. We had to submit it to a journal scanned as SCI Expended Because of our academical obligations. Toursim and Hospitality is scanned as ESCI.
	The following formal inaccuracies should be corrected: should only be used e.g., or etc., not both at once: Geographical (e.g., country, region, population climate, etc.), Demographic (e.g., gender, age, income, race, socioeconomic status, and family structure, etc.) Psychographic (e.g., personality, travel motivations, etc.), Behavioral (e.g., activities, benefits, frequency of use, and loyalty, etc.)	We thank you. The formal inaccuracies were corrected as “e.g”
	The authors did not explain why they equate visitor activities with services. They may have meant the ecosystem services provided to visitors in the arboretum, but this concept is not clearly defined in the article: "For example, activities such as recreation, water production, and landscape beauty, etc. can be given as an example of services."	These activities were changed as “functions”.Arboretum actually it is not a forest, but it willynilly contribute some functions scuh as recreation, carbon sequestration, landscape beauty, etc. The arboretum already is related to rerecreation function. This this is highlighted in the text already.
	It should be "on": They mapped the forest visitor’s pathways and asked them no their perceptions of forest benefits.	“no” was corrected as“on”.   “They mapped the forest visitor’s pathways and asked them on their perceptions of forest benefits”.
	In the "Total sample" column in Table 2, the units (%) are missing.	“%” added into the Table 2.
	Moderate English changes required	English editing service has been received.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The work is original, but somewhat messy.
In this sense, the structure must be improved,
so that the main results are presented in the applied part
and that the true added value -the most original part of the work-
is shown in the conclusions section.Likewise, the search criteria
for bibliographical references must also be explained and current
sources combined with more classic ones. This will allow the work
to have a more topical and historical basis, which is also essential.
In line with the above, the results must be presented in a clearer way,
which allows a more agile reading.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for your comments. We have answered the parts you pointed out at the table below. In addition, English editing service has been received.

Best Regards

Tuğba Deniz       

 

Comments from reviewer and answers from authors

(Sustainability-2170165)

Reviewers	Reviewer’s Comments	Authors’Answers
Reviewer 3	The work is original, but somewhat messy. In this sense, the structure must be improved, so that the main results are presented in the applied part and that the true added value -the most original part of the work-is shown in the conclusions section. Likewise, the search criteria for bibliographical references must also be explained and current sources combined with more classic ones. This will allow the work to have a more topical and historical basis, which is also essential. In line with the above, the results must be presented in a clearer way, which allows a more agile reading.	We thank you. Major edits were made to the text. In particular, the results were presented more clearly.   New references* were added. Some of the references** were removed from the text.

 

*Added References

1. Ballantyne, R.; Packer, J.; Hughes, K. Environmental awareness, interests, and motives of botanic gardens visitors: Implications for interpretive practice. Tourism Management, 2008, 29, 439-444. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2007.05.006.
2. Lupp, G.; Förster, B.; Kantelberg, V.; Markmann, T.; Naumann, J.; Honert, C.; Koch, M.; Pauleit, S. Assessing the Recreation Value of Urban Woodland Using the Ecosystem Service Approach in Two Forests in the Munich Metropolitan Region, Sustainability, 2016, 8, 1156; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111156.
3. Şat, B. Doğa koruma ve çevre eğitimleri açısından arboretumların işlevleri ve Atatürk Arboretumu, Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University, 2006, Seri A, 56:2.
4. Beh, A.; Bruyere B. L. Segmentation by visitor motivation in three Kenyan national reserves. Tourism Management, 28, 2007, pp.1464–1471, DOI: 1016/j.tourman.2007.01.010.
5. Jenkins, O.; McArthur, S., Marketing protected areas, Australian Parks and Recreation, 1996, 32(4): 10-15.

**Deleted References

1. Kotler, P.; Keller, K.L. Marketing management, 14th ed., Pearson Education, Inc. publishing, New Jersey, USA, 2012, 33 p.
2. Marangoz, M., 2007, Kâr Amacı Gütmeyen Kuruluşlarda Sosyal Pazarlama ve Çevre Gönüllü Kuruluşlara Yönelik Bir Araştırma, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt:9, Sayı 1, Sayfa: 275-297.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Line 57: To overcome these problems, market segmentation studies should be conducted.

Market segmentation studies are not the only strategy that can be utilized to help over come the problems referenced in the preceding paragraph. Consider, "One strategy to help overcome such problems is the use of market segmentation strategies." 

Line 79: "identify" demand or "understand" demand? 

Line 96: The majority of the studies on segmentation mainly relate to visitor activities at a protected area or a national park. The majority of what studies? Segmentation studies in protected areas, in national parks, in Europe, in the US - This needs clarification and a specific citation to make this claim. 

Line 123: It can be seen that segmentation studies generally focus on dividing tourists into sub groups (nature tourists, cultural tourists, etc.). Should read, "These examples demonstrate how segmentation studies have generally focused on dividing..."

Also, the term "tourists" is used here when "visitors" is used extensively in previous sections. Use consistent terminology. 

Line 165: "Have come to the forefront..."

Line 305: What is meant by, "which could be used as a promotion"? Needs clarification. 

Lines 365-367: What is meant by, "...specific interpretations tightly associated..."?? 

Lines 390-392: Needs English writing clarification. 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for your constructive criticism and corrections. We believe that the article has come to a much better place thanks to you. Please find the responses to your comments following.

Sincerely

Tuğba Deniz

 

Point 1: Line 57: To overcome these problems, market segmentation studies should be conducted.

Market segmentation studies are not the only strategy that can be utilized to help over come the problems referenced in the preceding paragraph. Consider, "One strategy to help overcome such problems is the use of market segmentation strategies." 

Response 1: The relevant sentence has been corrected in the text as "One strategy to help overcome such problems is the use of market segmentation strategies" (Line 58-59).

 

Point 2: Line 79: "identify" demand or "understand" demand? 

Response 2: The word you pointed was corrected as "understand" (Line 81).

 

Point 3: Line 96: The majority of the studies on segmentation mainly relate to visitor activities at a protected area or a national park. The majority of what studies? Segmentation studies in protected areas, in national parks, in Europe, in the US - This needs clarification and a specific citation to make this claim. 

Response 3: The relevant sentence was corected as “Segmentation studies in protected areas mainly relate to visitor activities” (Line 102).

 

Point 4: Line 123: It can be seen that segmentation studies generally focus on dividing tourists into sub groups (nature tourists, cultural tourists, etc.). Should read, "These examples demonstrate how segmentation studies have generally focused on dividing..."

Also, the term "tourists" is used here when "visitors" is used extensively in previous sections. Use consistent terminology. 

Response 4: The sentence was corrected as “These examples demonstrate how segmentation studies generally focus on dividing visitors into subgroups (nature visitors, cultural visitors, etc.) (Line 128-129).

Also, the term “visitors” was used instead of the word “tourists” throughout the text.

 

Point 5: Line 165: "Have come to the forefront..."

Response 5: The term was corrected as “forefront” (Line 181).

 

Point 6: Line 305: What is meant by, "which could be used as a promotion"? Needs clarification. 

Response 6: “which could be used as a promotion” was deleted from the sentence.

 

Point 7: Lines 365-367: What is meant by, "...specific interpretations tightly associated..."?? 

Response 7: The phrase “Therefore, by the findings obtained, a key management priority should be to focus on formulating and promoting specific interpretations tightly associated with the specific interests of the identified target activity groups” was removed from the text (Line 382).

 

Point 8: Lines 390-392: Needs English writing clarification. 

Response 8: The sentence you pointed was corrected and shortenned as “The entrance fees may be increased for certain services or activities, such as movie shooting/advertising or wedding/engagement photos”. The phrase “Based on these, the managers should keep and take into account the visitors’ comments regarding price” was deleted (Line 408-409).

 

In addition to your comments;

the sentence (Line 415) was corrected as following:

“Strategies and tactics for promoting the arboretum should be developed”. Thus, “Some tactics and strategies should be developed to promote the arboretum and its services” was deleted.