Assessing the Multiplier Effect of National Parks: A Case Study of Buiratau State National Nature Park in Kazakhstan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for taking into consideration my suggetions. Good luck with the publication

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your positive feedback and kind wishes. We appreciate your support and acknowledgment of the efforts made to improve the manuscript. We remain committed to refining the article and ensuring that it meets the highest standards for publication.

 

 

Sincerely,

On behalf of all the co-authors

Mr. Meirzhan Yessenov

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this research paper “Assessing the Multiplier Effect of National Parks: A Case Study of Buiratau State National Nature Park in Kazakhstan”. I have outlined some suggestions below that may help enhance the study.

·        In the abstract, we don’t need to define the Economic Multiplier Effect. I recommend removing it (lines 12-16).

·        Lines (17-18), the objective is repeated.

·        Findings of the study do not appear in the abstract.

·        Lines (18-19), While the abstract mentions "several variables and datasets," it does not specify what these variables are.

·        Regarding in-text citations, Use Sustainability journal citation rules.

·        What is the primary research question explored in this study? How does this research add to the current body of knowledge? What new insights do the findings provide to the public?

·        What is the methodological framework introduced by the study?

·        Part 3.1: The research area needs to be summarized.

·        The overall income in Tables 3, 4, and 5 is unlogic. The revenue breakdown for tourist and recreational activities at Buiratau State National Natural Park in 2023 is 8981$ ????? Is it logic? How is the source of data in the Tables?

·        Line 351, As previously mentioned, private business within the Buiratau SNNP consists of guest houses, it doesn’t appear before.

·         A huge amount of information is placed in Section (3.2 Data Synthesis and Analysis). Be more specific on the aim of the study.

·        What is the theoretical implications of this study?

·        How does the multiplier effect in Buiratau State National Nature Park compare with similar effects in well-established national parks in developed countries?

·        Based on the contribution of the study (lines 19-26)

1.      How does the multiplier effect in Buiratau State National Nature Park compare with similar effects in well-established national parks in developed countries?

 

2.      What are the distinct problems and opportunities that Buiratau State National Nature Park presents in comparison to more established national parks?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

moderate editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for detailed comments and feedback according our research paper. Please find here updated version with our answers to your questions in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting research on how to price cultural/natural heritage. We know that in order to preserve natural/cultural inheritance, this has to have a use. The article makes a good point on how the Buiratau National Park helps the region's local economy as a tourist attraction. However, the authors give the impression that they are more focused/interested in how to increment the tourist activity rather than illustrating the dangers the cultural/natural heritage suffers with much more pressure on it. The article does not mention anything about the "load capacity" of the NP. Only how the area can grow on tourist activity. 

In other issues, the authors mention that there are private investors inside the NP. Is not this contradictory to the objective of the conservation of an NP? how does the NP benefit from it? how many resources do they represent for the NP administration?

A long the article the authors used mostly local currency; we recommend changing it into dollars to provide a better idea to nonlocals of the real impact of the data.

It is mentioned in the conclusion that the data used was difficult to acquire. However, some of the figures on tourist activities expenses in the region look more speculative rather than hard data, so the final results seem less accurate, resting credibility to the final figures.

In the final analysis, they mention that they do not have data on how many resources the NP generated, information that is crucial to understanding the importance of the NP in the local economy.  Does the NP generate enough resources to run? how much resources the local or national state put to the NP to run? 

 

Tables and images ok.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English fine. No errors detected.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your detailed and insightful feedback. We have carefully considered each of your comments and offer the following responses, addressing all of your concerns with specific details and clarifications.

 

1. Interesting research on how to price cultural/natural heritage. We know that in order to preserve natural/cultural inheritance, this has to have a use. The article makes a good point on how the Buiratau National Park helps the region's local economy as a tourist attraction. However, the authors give the impression that they are more focused/interested in how to increment the tourist activity rather than illustrating the dangers the cultural/natural heritage suffers with much more pressure on it. The article does not mention anything about the "load capacity" of the NP. Only how the area can grow on tourist activity.

 

Response: We acknowledge your concern that the manuscript may appear focused primarily on expanding tourism activities, potentially overlooking the conservation objectives of the national park. It is important to clarify that while tourism is a critical economic driver for Buiratau NP, the preservation of natural/cultural heritage remains a fundamental priority.

 

At present, the number of visitors to Buiratau is relatively low, and the park hasn’t yet reached its tourism carrying capacity. In fact, the infrastructure is designed to accommodate sustainable growth without endangering the park’s ecosystems. Each tourist route in the park is governed by a specific management plan, including a “route passport” that outlines the carrying capacity of each area. These capacities are calculated to prevent ecological degradation, and routes are closed for ecological recovery once visitor thresholds are met. This is similar to practices in other Kazakhstani NPs, such as Kolsai Kolderi, where routes are closed temporarily when tourist numbers exceed the ecological limits to allow time for natural restoration.

 

Our study emphasizes that Buiratau NP has significant potential for increasing tourism without compromising its ecological integrity. This is particularly important given the park’s vast area, which allows for the careful redistribution of tourists across different routes. The carrying capacity has been pre-determined for all major routes, ensuring that any future increase in visitors can be managed sustainably.

 

2. In other issues, the authors mention that there are private investors inside the NP. Is not this contradictory to the objective of the conservation of an NP? how does the NP benefit from it? how many resources do they represent for the NP administration?

 

Response: You raised a valid concern regarding the role of private investors in the NP and whether their involvement could conflict with conservation objectives. We fully understand that this issue requires clear clarification.

 

In accordance with the Law on Specially Protected Natural Areas (SPNAs), national parks in Kazakhstan are divided into functional zones with distinct purposes, as outlined in Article 20 of the law (“4) functional zoning of especially protected natural area, type of protection regime and conditions of regulated tourist, recreation and restrictive economic use of natural complexes within the established functional zones with determining the standards of recreation loads;”). These zones include areas reserved for strict conservation, as well as zones designated for tourism, recreation, and limited economic activity. Tourism and recreation are only permitted within clearly defined zones, which are designed to minimize any environmental impact. This zoning system ensures that tourism and private investments are confined to areas where they can operate without threatening the ecological integrity of the park.

 

Private investors contribute to the development of tourism infrastructure, such as roads, shelters, signage, picnic areas, and viewing platforms. These resources are critical for improving the overall tourist experience, making the park more attractive to both local and international visitors. However, it is important to note that these investments are carefully regulated and must adhere to environmental guidelines set by the park administration. The legal framework ensures that private sector activities support, rather than undermine, the park’s conservation efforts.

 

Currently, the revenue generated by private investments in Buiratau NP is relatively modest due to the limited number of visitors. This means the park continues to rely on state funding for its core operations, including ecological monitoring and conservation. However, we aim to increase the park’s self-sufficiency over time by expanding sustainable tourism activities and leveraging private investment, in full compliance with the conservation objectives outlined in the management plan.

 

Furthermore, according to Article 8-1 of the SPNA law, one of the key functions of the central government is to encourage investments in tourism infrastructure and recreation (“3) attracting investments in the development of tourism and recreation infrastructure;”), ensuring that these investments contribute positively to both the park’s sustainability and local economic development. This legal framework provides a solid foundation for balancing tourism growth and ecological preservation. The relevant sections of the law can be accessed here: https://adilet.zan.kz/eng/docs/Z060000175_.

 

Regarding the contribution of private companies. Regarding the contributions of private companies, although we weren't provided with specific financial figures due to confidentiality, our research includes qualitative data on the types of resources provided by private sector investments. These include guest houses, picnic areas, informational signage, roads, and other facilities that improve the park’s tourism infrastructure.

 

While the current revenue from tourism is modest, the private sector’s contributions are essential for enhancing the park’s attractiveness to visitors, laying the groundwork for sustainable tourism growth. The infrastructure provided by private companies helps support the park’s operational needs and improves the overall visitor experience, aligning with the park’s goals for both economic development and ecological preservation.

 

To give you a clearer understanding of how these investments are geographically confined to specific zones, we are providing a reference to the functional zoning map of Buiratau NP. This map delineates areas designated for tourism and recreational activities, ensuring that private investments remain within their designated areas. The map is accessible here for your reference: https://gnpp-buiratau.kz/page/karta-shema-funkczionalnogo-zonirovaniya-rgu-gosudarstvenny-j-naczionalny-j-prirodny-j-park-bujratau-komiteta-lesnogo-hozyajstva-i-zhivotnogo-mira-ministerstva-e-kologii-geologii-i-prirodny-h-resursov-respubliki-kazahstan.

 

3. A long the article the authors used mostly local currency; we recommend changing it into dollars to provide a better idea to nonlocals of the real impact of the data.

 

Response: To enhance the accessibility of the financial data in our study for an international audience, we have converted all monetary figures from Kazakhstani tenge (KZT) to US dollars. The exchange rate used is 480.55 KZT per USD, based on the official rate provided by the National Bank of Kazakhstan as of September 7, 2024.

 

4. It is mentioned in the conclusion that the data used was difficult to acquire. However, some of the figures on tourist activities expenses in the region look more speculative rather than hard data, so the final results seem less accurate, resting credibility to the final figures.

 

Response: We understand the concern regarding the challenges of data collection and the perception that some figures may appear speculative. Indeed, collecting reliable data in contexts like this can be difficult, particularly for precise figures on tourist expenditures. However, we made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the data used. This involved fieldwork, discussions with key stakeholders, and on-site inspections of facilities. The park administration, particularly Senior Research Fellow Firuza Makhmudovna Ismailova, provided access to relevant records, and we had discussions with private sector representatives involved in tourism.

 

While exact figures from private investors were not disclosed due to confidentiality, we cross-referenced the available data with multiple sources, including oral surveys and observations, to ensure its reliability. Although some financial figures required estimates, these were based on well-founded calculations from the data we gathered. We remain confident that the final results are credible and supported by reliable data.

 

5. In the final analysis, they mention that they do not have data on how many resources the NP generated, information that is crucial to understanding the importance of the NP in the local economy. Does the NP generate enough resources to run? how much resources the local or national state put to the NP to run?

 

Response: We acknowledge the concern regarding the absence of detailed revenue data for Buiratau NP. While specific financial figures were not included in the manuscript due to confidentiality, the park’s financial planning, including projected revenues and expenditures, is available in the Management Plan for 2024–2028. This document provides insights into the park’s budgetary goals and strategies to achieve financial sustainability through a combination of state funding, tourism revenues, and private investments. For further reference, the management plan can be accessed here: https://ecoportal.kz/Disscusion/DisHearings/LoadFile/75843.

 

We hope that these responses adequately address your concerns and provide clarity on the points raised in your review. We greatly appreciate your feedback, which has helped improve the depth and clarity of our manuscript. Should you have any further questions or require additional clarification, we are happy to provide further details.

 

 

Sincerely,

On behalf of all the co-authors

Mr. Meirzhan Yessenov

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an article on a very interesting theme, with practical relevance, but it is very poorly organized. I advise the authors to consult a good book on the presentation of empirical papers and case studies, and proceed accordingly. Because of the poor presentation, the reading of the article is difficult and the arguments are hard to follow, even though the methodology is not particularly sophisticated. I would like to give some small contributions to the improvement of the paper, which are the following:

1. In the abstract, the content of lines 12 to 18 is irrelevant. The authors should have used this space to present the features of the data, the methodology employed, and the main conclusions.
   
   
2. There are several ideas that are repeated throughout the paper, sometimes consecutively. Lines 67 to 73 are OK, and there is no need to repeat the aspects of these ideas in lines 74 to 79. These lines could be instead used to present the structure of the paper.
   
   
3. There should be a specific section for the detailed presentation of the methodology in a step-by-step manner, and the presentation of the results should follow the same exact sequence.
   
   
4. The research question and the specific objectives of the paper should be presented in the introduction, and those aspects should be directly answered, one by one, in the conclusion.
   
   
5. The figures presented should be explicitly dealt with in the main text, or removed. I'm not sure how the maps help in the understanding of the purpose of the paper. I understand the relevance of that information, but it should be clearly connected to the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and the constructive comments provided. We have carefully addressed all the points you raised to enhance the quality of the manuscript and improve its organization. Please find below our responses to your suggestions:

 

1. We have completely rewritten the abstract to focus on the presentation of the data features, employed methodology, and main conclusions. The previous content that was deemed irrelevant has been removed.
2. The introduction has been revised, and the redundant lines (74 to 79) have been eliminated as per your suggestion. This space has been utilized to present the structure of the paper more clearly.
3. We have reorganized the methodology section to provide a clear, step-by-step presentation, ensuring the sequence aligns with the presentation of the results, as per your recommendation.
4. The research question and specific objectives are now clearly presented in the introduction, and each of these aspects is directly addressed in the conclusion, following your advice.
5. The figures and maps have been explicitly integrated into the main text, with clear connections drawn to the paper's purpose. All figures now directly contribute to the reader's understanding and support the arguments made in the manuscript.

 

We hope these changes align with your expectations, and we once again thank you for your insightful feedback, which has greatly contributed to the improvement of the paper.

 

 

Sincerely,

On behalf of all the co-authors

Mr. Meirzhan Yessenov

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     The author must clarify the mission of national parks and the significance of establishing them. National parks refer to specific land or marine areas approved and managed by the state, with clear boundaries and the main purpose of protecting representative large-scale natural ecosystems, achieving scientific protection and rational utilization of natural resources. The International Union for Conservation of Nature defines it as a large natural or near natural area used to protect large-scale ecological processes and the species and ecosystem characteristics of the area, while providing opportunities for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational, and recreational activities that are compatible with its environment and culture. It can be seen that tourism is not the main function of national parks, its main function is ecosystem protection. So the topic of discussing the multiplier effect of national parks due to tourism is not valid.

2.     The role of tourism in economic development is limited, and even world-renowned tourist destinations have a relatively high level of economic development. For example, the island tourism in Maldives is very developed, but it has not solved its real economic development problem. And a certain industrial manufacturing industry that can truly drive the economic development of a region or country. So the significance of studying the multiplier of the tourism industry still needs to be considered.

3.     The writing format and layout of the article are not standardized. What does the red text mean in the text?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed feedback. We have carefully considered each of your points and provide the following responses.

 

1. The author must clarify the mission of national parks and the significance of establishing them. National parks refer to specific land or marine areas approved and managed by the state, with clear boundaries and the main purpose of protecting representative large-scale natural ecosystems, achieving scientific protection and rational utilization of natural resources. The International Union for Conservation of Nature defines it as a large natural or near natural area used to protect large-scale ecological processes and the species and ecosystem characteristics of the area, while providing opportunities for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational, and recreational activities that are compatible with its environment and culture. It can be seen that tourism is not the main function of national parks, its main function is ecosystem protection. So the topic of discussing the multiplier effect of national parks due to tourism is not valid.

 

Response: We agree that the primary function of national parks, as defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), is ecosystem protection. National parks are established to protect large-scale natural ecosystems and ensure the conservation of biodiversity. According to the IUCN’s Category II guidelines, these areas are indeed primarily designated for conservation, but they also provide opportunities for compatible human activities, such as education, recreation, and tourism, when managed appropriately (https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/PAG-021.pdf).

 

While tourism is not the primary function of national parks, it plays a complementary role in promoting conservation through public engagement, education, and the generation of funds that can be reinvested into park management and preservation efforts. In many cases, tourism provides vital financial resources that allow national parks to pursue their conservation goals while contributing to the well-being of local communities. In our study, we focused on assessing how the economic activity generated by tourism contributes to the sustainability of Buiratau National Park and the local economy, which aligns with the concept of sustainable use of natural resources.

 

We don’t suggest that tourism supersedes the park’s mission of ecosystem protection; rather, we explore how tourism, when managed properly within designated zones, can support this mission. Buiratau NP’s functional zoning, as per the Law on Specially Protected Natural Areas (https://adilet.zan.kz/eng/docs/Z060000175_), ensures that tourism is limited to specific zones where it doesn’t compromise the park’s ecological integrity. The revenue generated through such activities can be reinvested into conservation programs, infrastructure maintenance, and education, thereby supporting the park’s long-term sustainability.

 

It is also important to note that the topic of tourism’s economic impact on national parks is widely discussed in academic literature, and numerous studies support the idea that, when properly managed, tourism can coexist with conservation efforts. Therefore, the study of the multiplier effect of tourism within national parks is a relevant and valid topic, particularly in regions where alternative forms of economic development are limited. The significance of this research lies in understanding how tourism can contribute to both conservation and local economic development, which aligns with the broader goals of sustainable development.

 

2. The role of tourism in economic development is limited, and even world-renowned tourist destinations have a relatively high level of economic development. For example, the island tourism in Maldives is very developed, but it has not solved its real economic development problem. And a certain industrial manufacturing industry that can truly drive the economic development of a region or country. So the significance of studying the multiplier of the tourism industry still needs to be considered.

 

Response: We understand the concern regarding the limited role of tourism in broader economic development and the example of the Maldives illustrates this well. However, in the case of Buiratau National Park, the local context differs significantly. While the tourism industry may not be the sole driver of economic development, it plays an important role in the livelihood of local communities, especially in remote areas where industrial development is not feasible. Tourism can have a significant multiplier effect in such areas, supporting local businesses, creating jobs, and promoting regional development, while still adhering to strict environmental guidelines.

 

We recognize that tourism alone cannot resolve larger economic challenges, but in regions like Buiratau, where large-scale industrial development is not suitable due to ecological constraints, tourism offers a more sustainable alternative for economic contribution. Our study highlights the measured economic benefits from tourism, with a focus on sustainability, ensuring that any growth does not come at the expense of the natural environment. The study of the multiplier effect in this context aims to understand how tourism, as one of several economic activities, can support both conservation and local development goals.

 

3. The writing format and layout of the article are not standardized. What does the red text mean in the text?

 

Response: We appreciate your feedback on the format. We have thoroughly revised the structure and content of the manuscript and hope that the implemented changes have improved it to meet the required standards and expectations. The red text was used to highlight sections that were revised based on feedback from the first round of comments from other reviewers. This was done to ensure transparency in showing the changes made. In the final version of the manuscript, these highlights will be removed to present a clean, cohesive document.

 

We hope this response clarifies our position and addresses your concerns regarding the manuscript.

 

 

Sincerely,

On behalf of all the co-authors

Mr. Meirzhan Yessenov

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have satisfactorily addressed all the recommendations from the previous round of revisions. The changes made have enhanced the clarity and strength of the work, and I have no further significant comments. 

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I don't think this article is suitable for publication in this journal.

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 and Suggestions for Authors

This paper empirically analyses the multiplier effect of national parks on the example of national nature parks in Kazakhstan, forming rich research results. This paper is a good example of tourism for economic development. However, the article still has the following problems:

1. The introduction of the problem is not clear in the introductory section. The link between the economic benefits of tourism created by national parks and the multiplier effect is not introduced at the beginning of the article. It is recommended that the link between the two be described by introducing the real-world context and the research literature appropriately.

2. Pay attention to the conciseness of the literature review, especially in part 2.3, the overly complicated narrative rather reduces the readability of the article.

3. A clear research question or theoretical gap should be identified in the literature review. This is not expressed in the article.

4. The article introduces a wealth of content in the 3.1 Research area, but not much of it is related to the topic of this article. The research region should be introduced around the research theme of this article. And, it needs to be expressed concisely.

5. How representative is Kazakhstan's national nature park as a case study in the article? The article needs to further illustrate the typicality of the case, which is important for the generalisability and innovation of the results.

6. the conclusion section should be in simple language. It is suggested to divide the conclusion and discussion into two parts.

7. what is the theoretical contribution of this paper? It should be clearly stated in the text, which is important for the generalisability of the article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough and insightful feedback on our manuscript titled “Assessing the Multiplier Effect of National Parks: A Case Study of Buiratau State National Nature Park in Kazakhstan”. Your comments and suggestions have been invaluable in enhancing the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of our work. We have carefully considered each of your recommendations and have made the necessary revisions to address the points you raised. In the following document, we provide a detailed account of the changes implemented in the manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author, please double-check and update the references to provide additional support for your review of sources on the topic of the manuscript. Now, out of 38 links, only 6 are earlier than 2018. I am sure there is more literature available on the topic discussed in the article, including in the journal Sustainability (there is currently none).

It is not very clear from the context why the author in the Methods describes various models  for calculating the multiplicative effect, but he relies specifically on The model of Maynard Keynes. It would be useful if you pay some attention  to explain the case.  

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough and insightful feedback on our manuscript titled “Assessing the Multiplier Effect of National Parks: A Case Study of Buiratau State National Nature Park in Kazakhstan”. Your comments and suggestions have been invaluable in enhancing the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of our work. We have carefully considered each of your recommendations and have made the necessary revisions to address the points you raised. In the following document, we provide a detailed account of the changes implemented in the manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I apologize for not being able to review this study. While I see you did a good job, I have a serious ethical concern regarding the possible massive use of generative AI models, such as ChatGPT in creating this article.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough and insightful feedback on our manuscript titled “Assessing the Multiplier Effect of National Parks: A Case Study of Buiratau State National Nature Park in Kazakhstan”. Your comments and suggestions have been invaluable in enhancing the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of our work. We have carefully considered each of your recommendations and have made the necessary revisions to address the points you raised. In the following document, we provide a detailed account of the changes implemented in the manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors do a good job of addressing my questions and concerns, and I recommend publication of this version of the paper.