Ecolodge Tourism Dynamics: A Village-Level Analysis of Marketing and Policy Indicators in Iran’s Hawraman Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting an article. It is generally well-written although I have a few suggestions for you to consider.

Please review author names and make sure they are consistent with capitalization.

The abstract does not indicate why this paper is important. The gap is identified in the introduction but it should also appear in the abstract.

Although correct, the introduction does not flow due to the choice of words as it appears that you are trying to be more complex than necessary. From Page 2- study area, is written by another author and is more consistent with the overall paper. I would consider re-writing the introduction to make it more reader friendly.

Page 4 - line 150: Capitalize 'The'.

The methods section is well written however data is missing.

When was the data collected? How did you identify the 25 individuals? How did you know they were going to provide quality information? How did you collect quantitative data? At this point, I cannot replicate this study.

The village names should be capitalized in Table 1 and check consistency of titles in all Tables and Figures as they all require attention.

The results, implications and future directions all appear to be consistent with the findings.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although correct, the introduction needs to be re-written to be consistent with the rest of the paper and more readable for the audience.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough review and valuable suggestions for improving our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your time and effort in providing constructive feedback.

We have carefully considered your comments and made the necessary revisions to address your concerns. To facilitate your re-evaluation, we have highlighted the changes in yellow throughout the revised manuscript.

Please find the updated version of the manuscript attached to this response. The incorporated changes have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of our work.

Thank you once again for your guidance and expertise. We look forward to your further insights and recommendations.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides very significant research and results, but I will point out some corrections for the quality of the manuscript.

I ask the authors to separate the introduction and literature review chapters. In the introductory part, more attention should be paid to the goal, the motive of the research, the gaps that need to be filled, as well as the innovation and importance of the results of their research. In the review of the literature, it is necessary to cite a lot more similar researches and the results that speak about the given topic of research. Regarding the methodology, I think they should explain more about the method they used. Correct the subtitles so that they are not repeated: Study Area: Study Area. After the results, elaborate a discussion, where we would see the results and a comparison with similar ones that confirm the initial hypotheses or research questions. Work out the conclusion. Boost references, there are very few of them. Suggest: 

Tourists’ Willingness to Adopt AI in Hospitality—Assumption of Sustainability in Developing Countries. Sustainability 2024, 16(9), 3663; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093663

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough review and valuable suggestions for improving our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your time and effort in providing constructive feedback.

We have carefully considered your comments and made the necessary revisions to address your concerns. To facilitate your re-evaluation, we have highlighted the changes in yellow throughout the revised manuscript.

Please find the updated version of the manuscript attached to this response. The incorporated changes have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of our work.

Thank you once again for your guidance and expertise. We look forward to your further insights and recommendations.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.         The methods used in this study are diverse and rigorous, including mixed methodologies, including statistical testing, GIS spatial analysis, surveys, and interviews. The combination of these methods can provide a comprehensive and in-depth analysis.

2.         This study is specific and focused in its approach, delves into the impact of marketing strategies, policy frameworks, and local governance on the success of ecolodges, and highlights the need for localized planning tailored to the specific circumstances of different villages.

3.         Although this study mentioned the use of multiple research methods, the specific data were not compared and explained in the abstract and introduction, which may weaken the persuasiveness of the results and conclusions of this study. More literature or other studies can be proposed, as well as data to support the results of this study.

4.         Although this study mentioned various influencing factors, there needed to be a more in-depth discussion of the relationships and interactions between these factors in terms of the theoretical framework, and the theoretical framework needed to be more apparent.

 

5.         This study proposes interventions that need to be localized but need more specific policy recommendations and implementation plans, which may limit its application value.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The study uses many professional terms, showing the author's in-depth understanding of the research field.  The entire article's grammar and spelling are correct, and the expression is fluent.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough review and valuable suggestions for improving our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your time and effort in providing constructive feedback.

We have carefully considered your comments and made the necessary revisions to address your concerns. To facilitate your re-evaluation, we have highlighted the changes in yellow throughout the revised manuscript.

Please find the updated version of the manuscript attached to this response. The incorporated changes have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of our work.

Thank you once again for your guidance and expertise. We look forward to your further insights and recommendations.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for making the adjustments. The paper is improved and I am recommending publication.

Author Response

Thanks a lot. Your suggestions helped us a lot to improve the manuscript.