Importance of the Ramsar Site Labudovo Okno for Sustainable Tourism—Evidence from Vojvodina Province

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' selection of topics has certain practical significance for local sustainable tourism. However, the paper does have some problems. The details are as follows:

1.The title expression of the paper is not clear, because the content of the paper is based on the perception of tourists and residents to evaluate the sustainability of local tourism. The stakeholders involved in tourism sustainability include not only tourists and residents, but also government employees, employees of tourism companies, etc. Why are they not considered? It needs to be explained in the paper. In addition, does the satisfaction of tourists and residents need to be reflected in the title? It needs to be considered by the authors.

2.The conceptual model established in the paper (Figure 4) makes the reader very confused about what the author is trying to express. This also objectively shows that the authors' logical thinking is not very clear, and the main line of research is not very clear.

3.Abstract of the paper is too redundant, it is recommended to simplify. Suggestions on The location and transportation of The Ramsar Site Labudovo Okno (LO) are included in the introduction, and its importance to sustainable tourism can be summarized in one sentence.

4.The introduction should clearly state what the research questions are. The research questions, research objectives and methods are organized according to certain logic.

5.The current research gap is not pointed out in the literature review. In fact, the research gap should be related to and corresponding to the innovation of this research.

6.The production of Figure 1 is irregular, such as the lack of legends. It is recommended to delete or redraw with professional ARCGIS software.

7.The discussion lacks dialogue with previous research, i.e., with whom does the research agree or disagree? Why? What are the new finds?

8.The references of the paper are old, and it is suggested to add new references in the past three years.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Sir or Madam,

we are grateful for all the recommendations for improving the manuscript. The changes made our article gain scientific quality.

We inform you that we have taken into account all the recommendations and have changed the text accordingly.

According to your suggestions, we made the following corrections in the text:

• The title expression of the paper is not clear, because the content of the paper is based on the perception of tourists and residents to evaluate the sustainability of local tourism. The stakeholders involved in tourism sustainability include not only tourists and residents, but also government employees, employees of tourism companies, etc. Why are they not considered? It needs to be explained in the paper. In addition, does the satisfaction of tourists and residents need to be reflected in the title? It needs to be considered by the authors.

The answer: In this research, the authors applied the PoS model, which contains a standardized questionnaire, intended exclusively for residents and visitors. In the next research, the authors plan to expand the research area, the sample, as well as its structure, which would mean that all subjects will be included in the survey. So, we stated in the text. Lines: 336-342.

• The conceptual model established in the paper (Figure 4) makes the reader very confused about what the author is trying to express. This also objectively shows that the authors' logical thinking is not very clear, and the main line of research is not very clear.

The answer: Thank you for this comment and suggestion. The authors have changed the structure in the conceptual model (Figure 4), so that it is now extremely clear.

• Abstract of the paper is too redundant, it is recommended to simplify. Suggestions on The location and transportation of The Ramsar Site Labudovo Okno (LO) are included in the introduction, and its importance to sustainable tourism can be summarized in one sentence.

The answer:  We appreciate your advice and let you know that the abstract has been greatly condensed. Lines: 18-27.

• The introduction should clearly state what the research questions are. The research questions, research objectives and methods are organized according to certain logic.

The answer:  In the Introduction chapter, we defined the research questions. Also, we tied research questions to a clearly described research goal. Now readers can perceive this research more clearly. Lines: 56-66.

• The current research gap is not pointed out in the literature review. In fact, the research gap should be related to and corresponding to the innovation of this research.

The answer: The authors described the research gap in the Literature review chapter. Lines: 201-217.

• The production of Figure 1 is irregular, such as the lack of legends. It is recommended to delete or redraw with professional ARCGIS software.

The answer: The authors have re-digitized Figure 1, in which the legend has now been inserted.

• The discussion lacks dialogue with previous research, i.e., with whom does the research agree or disagree? Why? What are the new finds?

The answer: We appreciate your suggestion and would like to let you know that we have added more material to the Discussion section. Lines: 506-530.

• The references of the paper are old, and it is suggested to add new references in the past three years.

The answer: We inform you that we have expanded the article with new references (references from 61 to 70).

Best wishes,

authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript deals with a topical issue. The study is well defined in terms of territory. The research questions and lines of inquiry are clearly defined. The methodological procedures chosen are appropriate to answer the research questions addressed.

The literature review is adequate in terms of both quantity and quality.

The presentation of the results is adequate and the figures used illustrate the results and the relationships. The conclusions drawn are appropriate.

The future research directions outlined by the authors are relevant.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful that you recognize the significance of this research from a scientific point of view as well as the findings that have been presented. We inform you that we have expanded the article by highlighting more important research questions, which resulted in a scientific contribution.

Furthermore, we have updated the Discussion chapter with additional analysis based on earlier findings.

Kind Regards,

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very well researched and excellently structured scientific article, which presents a little known area with a very interesting study case, presented in such a way that even a reader unfamiliar with the area can develop a clear picture of the situation. Each section of the article is well structured and provides the necessary content in a timely and coherent manner. The article contains a comprehensive literature review, a clearly outlined research problem, which has been explored and discussed in a clear and straightforward manner. The conclusions are very well developed and, as an added bonus, there is an outlined plan for further research which the authors intend to undertake next and which they wish to draw to the attention of other researchers.

In congratulating the authors of this text, I have only two comments to make: 

- there seems to be a typo in line 227 (m+arsh instead of marsh)

- the article would benefit even more from clarity if a few words or sentences were added about the approximate number of tourists visiting the study area in general and about the available infrastructure, which is described later in the text as leaving something to be desired - as revealed by the empirical research. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We appreciate your support of our work and your acknowledgment of the significance of the research for science as well as the reliability of the findings that were presented.

We would like to inform you that the paper has been extended by emphasizing additional significant research questions, which has led to a rise in the scientific contribution. Thus, the discussion was extended to include an analysis of the preliminary results.

According to your suggestions, we made the following corrections in the text:

• there seems to be a typo in line 227 (m+arsh instead of marsh).

Answer: We thank you for the indicated error and inform you that we have removed it.

• the article would benefit even more from clarity if a few words or sentences were added about the approximate number of tourists visiting the study area in general and about the available infrastructure, which is described later in the text as leaving something to be desired - as revealed by the empirical research.

Answer: We respect your input and let you know that the article has been updated with more details about the number of guests and available accommodations. Lines: 250-260.

Best Regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to get acquainted with this interesting manuscript. The turn of human needs towards getting impressions, rather than consuming goods, can radically change the structure of the economy and the authors quite rightly believe that the development of tourism will become one of the factors ensuring the sustainable development of the region. The authors provide a very interesting and detailed system for assessing the possibilities of sustainable development of the region, which could be very useful for other specialists. The article can certainly make a significant contribution to the development of ideas about the mechanisms of sustainable development.

In my opinion, there are minor flaws in the manuscript:

The justification for choosing regression analysis as a statistical method looks somewhat artificial. In lines 326-330, the authors explain that this method of analysis allows us to identify the relationship between the question and the answer. For those questions in which a point score is used as an answer, it is not entirely clear how the content of the question is expressed in numbers in order to calculate statistical parameters. It is necessary to include the questionnaire questions in the appendix to the article.

When mentioning rare species of plants and animals, it is necessary to indicate their protected status in regional and international red books, as well as provide brief information about habitats and vulnerability factors, so that the reader has an objective idea of the uniqueness of the biota of the region.

The article can be published after minor changes.

Author Response

Respected reviewer,

We thank you for your support and for recognizing the scientific importance of this research and supporting the presented results.

According to your suggestions, we made the following corrections in the text:

• The justification for choosing regression analysis as a statistical method looks somewhat artificial. In lines 326-330, the authors explain that this method of analysis allows us to identify the relationship between the question and the answer. For those questions in which a point score is used as an answer, it is not entirely clear how the content of the question is expressed in numbers in order to calculate statistical parameters. It is necessary to include the questionnaire questions in the appendix to the article.

Answer: We thank you for your suggestion and inform you that we have expanded the research to explain the statements in the questionnaire and the respondents' answers to the questions (statements). Lines: 370-376; 401-404; 412.

We also let you know that Tables 2 and 3 display the questionnaire's content. The above statements are actually parts of the survey questionnaire, which we have now stated in the text.

When mentioning rare species of plants and animals, it is necessary to indicate their protected status in regional and international red books, as well as provide brief information about habitats and vulnerability factors, so that the reader has an objective idea of the uniqueness of the biota of the region.

Answer: We thank you for this suggestion and inform you that we have expanded the article for information on the IUCN endangered status of species and habitats. Lines: 266-295.

Best Regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' answers and the changes they make are enough.