Analysis of Influencing Factors of the Energy Transition Process in Sustainable Nautical Tourism: Case Study—The Netherlands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend supplementing the Introduction of the article's objectives chapter (lines 66-80) with a comment about the research questions related to the objectives.

Figure 5 (298) should be corrected. Without 3D style, it will be more readable in the normal version, just like the others, e.g. Figure 2 (258).

Provide the most important observation(s) in the summary.

The subject of the research presented in the article concerns the energy transformation in the area of maritime tourism.

I believe that the issue of energy transformation discussed is important. The identified research gaps result from the selection of a niche area. They are described in general terms. I suggest supplementing the description with justification of the importance of the industry for the economy or the amount of energy consumed.

In my opinion, the description of the research methodology should be simplified. As I understand it, research questions were formulated and answered based on the analysis of semi-structured interview responses. Interviews consisting of 12 questions were conducted among 8 identified stakeholders. I find the description of the research method too extensive, which creates the impression that form prevails over content. The article is not about the theory of research methods but about the method and the presentation of research results.

Therefore, it recommends a more extensive presentation of research results, interpretation and discussion. In particular, to try to answer the question of what should be done.

In my opinion, the description of the methodology is too detailed in relation to the presented results. I suggest presenting the results in greater detail. For example, the drawing depicting the methodology shows complex relationships, but there is no certainty that the research process was equally complex.

I recommend supplementing the presentation and discussion of the results in the chapters in such a way that the article is consistent with the described methodological approach.

The conclusions are general and quite obvious, they can be described as "it's good, but it could be better", and "the cause is right and there is willingness, but the costs do not allow for more". I strongly encourage Authors to formulate more specific conclusions, not just "potential help in defining the optimal approach, opening research horizons, etc." Quite a large group of authors announces the study in such a promising way that adequately significant results should be expected.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the valuable suggestions sent to improve the quality of our article.

We followed your recommendations point by point.

Thanks a lot for everything!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please enrich your literature review. There are only 5 to 6 articles that have been studied meaning that the literature review is not completed.

Improve Fig. 3 as letters are not distinguishable in the actual size of A4.

What is the main question addressed by the research?

The main question addressed by this research is the analysis of the influencing factors affecting the process of sustainable energy transition applied to nautical tourism, regarding renewable solar energy. The factors refer to four different levels: technological, government policies, economic and user preferences.

The novelty, according to the authors, is about:

• the highlighting of the favorable factors and the inhibiting factors for the implementation of sustainable solutions in nautical tourism and
• the interviews that bring into discussion concrete topics that operators in this field are currently facing.

 

Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.

The topic is relevant in the field and original, according to the literature review, which as I have already mentioned must be improved.

 

What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

• the highlighting of the favorable factors and the inhibiting factors for the implementation of sustainable solutions in nautical tourism and
• the interviews that bring into discussion concrete topics that operators in this field are currently facing.

 

What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

In my opinion, the methodology is complete and well-presented.

 

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.

Yes.

 

Are the references appropriate?

Yes.

 

Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

I have no additional comments on tables and figures. As I have already commented Fig. 3 must be improved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of the manuscript is good, however, there are a few grammatical and typo errors to be corrected, i.e.,

·         line 15: consists of

·         line 34: of sustainability, the energy supplied must be produced

·         line 69: grouped into

·         line 131: [13,17]-remove space

·         line 146: is increasingly

·         line 149: policies,-remove space

etc.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions sent to improve the quality of our article.
We followed your recommendations point by point.
Thanks a lot for everything!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an interesting effort that discusses a contemporary topic in the relevant literature. The paper reads well and catches the reader’s interest. Nautical tourism always remains a topic for thorough research.

In my opinion, the following major revisions are required:

 

Introduction

The authors should add some references from relevant literature to further support the purpose of the study. Also, they name the study’s objectives (4 objectives), which can be transferred to the Literature section.

Study of Literature

The authors should state where the contribution of their study lies. The study's Objectives (those named in the Introduction section) offer such an opportunity. Also, they should create two or three sentences that make clear the gap or contribution to literature. In addition, authors should add references to strengthen their research effort and the topic they discuss.

Methodology

The authors should present potential mathematical equations or models for data analysis and methodology followed regarding their research. This can be included in the Research Methodology section should. Every research should be supported by the relevant methodology presented in the main text as an integrated part.

Discussion of results

Authors should create a separate section discussing their findings and how they can be integrated into relevant decision-making models or used to stimulate further research.

 

Some editing in the English language is required.

I suggest resubmission of the paper based on the above major improvements.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some revisions are required 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions sent to improve the quality of our article.
We followed your recommendations point by point.
Thanks a lot for everything!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept