Application of Natural-Resource-Based View to Nature-Based Tourism Destinations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author
Thank you for the opportunity to read your research. Here a coulpe of suggestions to help you to improve your work:
In your abstract you missed the methods of your work
Your introduction is too big, The last paragraph should highlight te structure of the work.
I did not find the reason or the explanaition of your decision about US beaches.
Where are your objectives? And its connection with hipothesis?
Literature review
Your articles are older. The majority of them are before 2020. I dont´believe that in 4 years others researchers did not working on this area.
Further research. I think that you should devellope it.
One more thing, your results are very interesting, but quite obviously. In my perspective you should do a second paper explaining the reason why. Thats the most important thing to know for academics and also for practitioners.
Congrats about your research.
Author Response
The authors are very thankful for the review team’s comments on this paper. The paper has been amended as follows based on the reviewers’ suggestions. In the revised manuscript, the blue color was used to indicate the authors’ response to the reviewer’s comments.
Comment 1: Thank you for the opportunity to read your research. Here a coulpe of suggestions to help you to improve your work.
Response: We truly appreciate your constructive comments and suggestions. Please find more details in the responses we provided below and the revised manuscript.
Comment 2: In your abstract you missed the methods of your work
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The method has been added to the abstract. Please refer to p1 line 7-11.
Comment 3: Your introduction is too big, The last paragraph should highlight the structure of the work.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. The overall structure has been added to the last section of the introduction. Please refer to p2-3.
Comment 4: I did not find the reason or the explanation of your decision about US beaches.
Response: Thanks for your concern. Please refer to p1 37-40 and p8 line 11-13 for the selection of the US beach destination.
Comment 5: Where are your objectives? And its connection with hypothesis?
Response: Thanks for your concern. Please refer to p2 line 30-37 for the specific research purpose.
Comment 6: Literature review. Your articles are older. The majority of them are before 2020. I don’t believe that in 4 years others researchers did not working on this area. Further research. I think that you should developed it.
Response: Thank you for your feedback, we have updated some latest references. Please refer to both the introduction and literature review sections.
Comment 7: One more thing, your results are very interesting, but quite obviously. In my perspective you should do a second paper explaining the reason why. Thats the most important thing to know for academics and also for practitioners.
Response: Thank you for your feedback. I agree that understanding why the results occurred is essential for both academics and practitioners. We will consider your suggestion to conduct further investigations on the findings. This additional research could help us gain a deeper understanding of the topic and provide practical insights.
Comment 8: Congrats about your research.
Response: Thank you very much for your kind words and encouragement regarding our research. We truly appreciate your support and acknowledgment of our work.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFirst of all, there are several editing issues that made the review process hard. For example, there are is no line numbering and others. Anyway, the attached pdf shows annotation with comments that can benefit the submission of a new version of manuscript.
Title is ok. It is straightforward and tells about content and findings of paper.
Abstract is not bad but it needs some critical modifications as shown in the annotated pdf. From the linguistic point of view, it is recommended to phrase sentences here in the present tense form instead of the past simple form.
Keywords can be also improved. Try to avoid using long words and splitting is need for some accordingly.
Affiliation(s) of authors is/are missing. It should be considered in the revision and before acceptance.
References should be prepared according to the style of MDPI journal either in the main body of text and the reference list. Accordingly, the references should be numbered starting from Deng et al. (2002) in the first paragraph of introduction.
Page 2: In the beginning of the third paragraph in introduction, the sentence is unclear, so please rephrase to indicate the actual meaning for international readers.
Also in page 2, aims of study needs some minor modifications.
Page 3, paragraph about nature-based (NBT) tourism review, the authors are asked to define the accurate meaning of extraordinary resources.
Also in page 3: Authors can safely use the abbreviated for all expressions, e.g. NBT and others all over the entire paper. In addition, in the last paragraph, us “to evaluate and to develop”. Alternatively, the authors can use: so they help in evaluation and development.
Page 4: In the third paragraph, please use "Previous studies focused on ..." instead of "Prior studies highlighting".
Five lines before the end of last paragraph in page 5, please check for the given reference. It seems something is missing here. (Further et al., 2009 ?!).
Page 6: Please use the sub-title in its plural form, i.e. "Methods".
Page 6, caption of Table 6 should be changed into "Key to variables".
Page 10: The second paragraph should be agglomerated with the previous one.
One of the critical issues is the combination of implications and conclusions (pages 11 to 13). The authors are asked to separate them into two sections. Also, please use "Conclusions" instead of "Conclusion" and present them in the form of 4-5 bullets that focus on the major findings of research.
Pages 13 to 15: References need accurate re-editing.
Reference #37 (King, 2002): The authors should determine accurately the type of this document, e.g. dissertation (MSc, PhD), Internal Report, or so what.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
It is not bad and needs fine polishing only.
Author Response
The authors are very thankful for the review team’s comments on this paper. The paper has been amended as follows based on the reviewers’ suggestions. In the revised manuscript, the blue color was used to indicate the authors’ response to the reviewer’s comments.
Comment 1: First of all, there are several editing issues that made the review process hard. For example, there are is no line numbering and others. Anyway, the attached pdf shows annotation with comments that can benefit the submission of a new version of manuscript.
Response: Thank you for your feedback and for providing annotations with comments. We apologize for any editing issues that made the review process challenging. And we will cooperate with the editor office to handle these editing issues.
Comment 2: Title is ok. It is straightforward and tells about content and findings of paper.
Response: Thank you for your feedback on the title of our paper. We aimed to create a title that clearly reflects the content and findings of the paper, and we are glad to hear that it achieved this goal.
Comment 3: Abstract is not bad but it needs some critical modifications as shown in the annotated pdf. From the linguistic point of view, it is recommended to phrase sentences here in the present tense form instead of the past simple form.
Response: Thank you for your feedback on the abstract of our paper. We appreciate your insights and suggestions for improvements, especially regarding the linguistic aspects and tense usage. And this issue has been updated. Please refer to 5-16.
Comment 4: Keywords can be also improved. Try to avoid using long words and splitting is need for some accordingly.
Response: Thank you for your feedback regarding the keywords. We appreciate your suggestion to simplify and possibly split some of the longer words to improve readability and accessibility. The keywords have bend adjusted to effectively capture the essence of our research. Please refer to p1 line 17.
Comment 5: Affiliation(s) of authors is/are missing. It should be considered in the revision and before acceptance.
Response: Thank you for your feedback, and we will cooperate with the editor office to handle these editing issues
Comment 6: References should be prepared according to the style of MDPI journal either in the main body of text and the reference list. Accordingly, the references should be numbered starting from Deng et al. (2002) in the first paragraph of introduction.
Response: Thank you for your feedback, and we will cooperate with the editor office to handle the reference format.
Comment 7: Page 2: In the beginning of the third paragraph in introduction, the sentence is unclear, so please rephrase to indicate the actual meaning for international readers.
Response: Thank you for your feedback regarding the clarity of the sentence. We’ve revised the sentence to ensure that it effectively communicates. Please refer to p2 line 8-9.
Comment 8: Also in page 2, aims of study needs some minor modifications.
Response: Thank you for your feedback regarding the aims of the study. We’ve revised this section and make the necessary modifications to improve the aims of study. Please refer to p3 line 30-33.
Comment 9: Page 3, paragraph about nature-based (NBT) tourism review, the authors are asked to define the accurate meaning of extraordinary resources.
Response: Thanks for the suggestion, this part has been updated. Please refer to p3 line 35-37.
Comment 10: Also in page 3: Authors can safely use the abbreviated for all expressions, e.g. NBT and others all over the entire paper. In addition, in the last paragraph, us “to evaluate and to develop”. Alternatively, the authors can use: so they help in evaluation and development.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have made updates regarding the use of abbreviations throughout the paper. Thank you for your suggestion, we have made updates regarding the use of language in this sentence. Please refer to p4 line 14.
Comment 11: Page 4: In the third paragraph, please use "Previous studies focused on ..." instead of "Prior studies highlighting".
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have made updates regarding the use of language in this sentence. Please refer to p4 line 41.
Comment 12: Five lines before the end of last paragraph in page 5, please check for the given reference. It seems something is missing here. (Further et al., 2009 ?!).
Response: Thank you for your careful checking, the reference has been added.
Comment 13: Page 6: Please use the sub-title in its plural form, i.e. "Methods".
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have made updates to it. Please refer to p6 line 41.
Comment 14: Page 6, caption of Table 1 should be changed into "Key to variables".
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have made updates to it. Please refer to p7 line 4-6.
Comment 15: Page 10: The second paragraph should be agglomerated with the previous one.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, these two groups have been put together. Please refer to p10 line 3-27.
Comment 16: One of the critical issues is the combination of implications and conclusions (pages 11 to 13). The authors are asked to separate them into two sections. Also, please use "Conclusions" instead of "Conclusion" and present them in the form of 4-5 bullets that focus on the major findings of research.
Response: Thanks for the suggestion. The two issues were revised.
Comment 17: Pages 13 to 15: References need accurate re-editing.
Response: Thank you for your feedback, and we will cooperate with the editor office to handle on these editing issues
Comment 18: Reference #37 (King, 2002): The authors should determine accurately the type of this document, e.g. dissertation (MSc, PhD), Internal Report, or so what.
Response: Thanks for the suggestion. This reference was replaced.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review this interesting paper! However, there are some aspects that need to be improved/clarified and which I detail in the following. They are constructive remarks and not criticisms of the authors' work.
The novelty of the study and its original contribution to the literature must be better and more convincingly argued in the Introduction (for example, there are few cited studies and those are not very recent ones).
The paper only mentions very late (section 3.2) that it refers to the hotel industry in the USA. Nor does the analyzed literature refer to this market. It is a very important aspect, which gives a specific context to the research, which is missing from an important part of the paper. Only one sentence in the first paragraph of the Introduction refers to locations in the USA. The statistical figures provided in the following paragraph are not geographically located. It is also not clear if there are no similar studies only in the case of the USA or in any other country in the world ("To the best of our knowledge, Pompe and Rinehart (1995) is the only study that showed a glimpse of financial impacts of beaches." ). Shouldn't comparisons be made with other countries with important coastal tourism?
In section 2, my understanding is that the authors are trying to develop the literature and formulate hypotheses based on the three key strategic capabilities of the NRBV: product stewardship, pollution prevention, and sustainable development. It is not clear where is the connection with sustainable development. In addition, in subsection 2.2.2. "Pollution prevention perspective" there is no hypothesis formulated, unlike all other subsections (2.2.1., 2.2.3., 2.2.4, 2.2.5). Is pollution included in the hypotheses from 2.2.5? If so, maybe the sections should be reorganized.
The authors do not argue why the time horizon stops at 2017, considering that 6 years have passed and in these last 6 years a multitude of economic, social, sanitary, and climatic events have occurred that might have had a significant influence on the results of the study, affecting their credibility and relevance. Is this time horizon chosen due to data availability or other considerations?
The descriptive statistics are not sufficiently analyzed to provide a clearer picture of the economic, climatic, and environmental background of the analyzed coastal regions (comparison with other regions in the USA, the national average of some of the indicators, etc.), in order to better understand the results.
In the conclusions, the authors state that "Hotels with location-specific advantages are expected to outperform their competitors" which ultimately raises questions about the purpose of their paper. If the results are expected, what is the contribution of the study to the literature? In addition, the limits of the paper, mentioned by the authors in the final paragraph, point towards the same question.
Author Response
The authors are very thankful for the review team’s comments on this paper. The paper has been amended as follows based on the reviewers’ suggestions. In the revised manuscript, the blue color was used to indicate the authors’ response to the reviewer’s comments.
Comment 1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting paper! However, there are some aspects that need to be improved/clarified and which I detail in the following. They are constructive remarks and not criticisms of the authors' work.
Response: We truly appreciate your constructive comments and suggestions. Please find more details in the responses we provided below and the revised manuscript.
Comment 2: The novelty of the study and its original contribution to the literature must be better and more convincingly argued in the Introduction (for example, there are few cited studies and those are not very recent ones).
Response: Thank you for the feedback. As suggested, we have revised the Introduction by adding new references or replacing old references with recent ones (introduction section on p1-p3).
Comment 3:
The paper only mentions very late (section 3.2) that it refers to the hotel industry in the USA. Nor does the analyzed literature refer to this market. It is a very important aspect, which gives a specific context to the research, which is missing from an important part of the paper. Only one sentence in the first paragraph of the Introduction refers to locations in the USA.
The statistical figures provided in the following paragraph are not geographically located. It is also not clear if there are no similar studies only in the case of the USA or in any other country in the world ("To the best of our knowledge, Pompe and Rinehart (1995) is the only study that showed a glimpse of financial impacts of beaches." ). Shouldn't comparisons be made with other countries with important coastal tourism?
Response:
We appreciate your attention to the investigation of US destinations. To clarify our rationale for the selection of the US market, we have added a discussion to the Introduction section (p1, line 35-41).
Our intent was to highlight the absence of studies on the financial impact of beaches not only in the US, but also on an international level. To eliminate any confusion, we have revised the part explicitly (p2, line 8-29).
We also believe that the analysis of a comprehensive dataset including multiple countries would be beneficial. However, it would be very challenging due to data availability. This point has been noted as a suggestion for future research (Section 7.2, p 12).
Comment 4: In section 2, my understanding is that the authors are trying to develop the literature and formulate hypotheses based on the three key strategic capabilities of the NRBV: product stewardship, pollution prevention, and sustainable development. It is not clear where is the connection with sustainable development.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comment on the three aspects of NRBV. As suggested, substantial revisions have been made to the LR section to integrate sustainable development from three perspectives including product stewardship, sustainability development, and pollution prevention. (LR section 2.2, p4-6)
Comment 5: In addition, in subsection 2.2.2. "Pollution prevention perspective" there is no hypothesis formulated, unlike all other subsections (2.2.1., 2.2.3., 2.2.4, 2.2.5). Is pollution included in the hypotheses from 2.2.5? If so, maybe the sections should be reorganized.
Response: Thank you for your insightful suggestion. To address your concern, we have combined and made improvements of the sub- sections in 2.2 (p.4-6, subtitles can content under section 2.2).
Comment 6: The authors do not argue why the time horizon stops at 2017, considering that 6 years have passed and in these last 6 years a multitude of economic, social, sanitary, and climatic events have occurred that might have had a significant influence on the results of the study, affecting their credibility and relevance. Is this time horizon chosen due to data availability or other considerations?
Response: Thank you for the comments. There is a couple key consideration for the selection the 10-year time frame. Most importantly, as you rightly pointed, our focus on the selected time frame was driven by the availability of data. Additionally, to maintain the integrity of the data analysis, the period post-2019 was not included due to too many confounding factors on tourism patterns and business operations resulting from the onset of the pandemic in 2020. This approach ensures that our findings are relevant and robust within the defined timeframe.
Comment 7: The descriptive statistics are not sufficiently analyzed to provide a clearer picture of the economic, climatic, and environmental background of the analyzed coastal regions (comparison with other regions in the USA, the national average of some of the indicators, etc.), in order to better understand the results.
Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We agree that the comparison of the coastal areas with non-coastal areas could give deeper insights into the impact of natural and environmental factors on tourism destinations. However, the main purpose of this research was to investigate how the accessibility to natural resources and changes in environmental factors affect local tourism businesses in coastal destinations. Hence, the suggestion to compare with non-coastal areas is beyond the scope of this study. We have included this as a suggestion for future research in the Implications and Conclusion section (Section 7.2, p12-13).
Comment 8: In the conclusions, the authors state that "Hotels with location-specific advantages are expected to outperform their competitors" which ultimately raises questions about the purpose of their paper. If the results are expected, what is the contribution of the study to the literature? In addition, the limits of the paper, mentioned by the authors in the final paragraph, point towards the same question.
Response: Thank you for the comment on the conclusion. To address the concern, we have revised the sentence to clarify the findings of this study (p12 line 38-40). In terms of “the limits of the paper”, we are unsure of the specific parts we should focus on. If you provide a more detailed location, we can effectively address your point.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I would like to thank the authors for the improvement that made the manuscript much better from the scientific point of view.
Only very few comments can be summarized as follows:
Abstract is ok now and compatible with title and content.
Introduction is ended with a straightforward statements about aim of study and its structure. It is ok anyway.
Conclusion section is improved but I still believe that converting 1-2 paragraphs into 4-6 bullets is more convenient.
Thanks for the addition of new references though the reference list still needs some editing effort and source of information in case of literature that do not belong to periodicals, journals, conference proceedings or theses. For example, resources from internet sites should be documented in a better way. Please insert number of each reference in its proper place among the text following the style of MDPI journals.
The required corrections are very minor and can be done in few hours. Good luck for the authors and hope to see the paper in “Sustainability” soonest.
Author Response
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and suggestions. We appreciate you taking the time to provide feedback, as it helps us further improve the quality of our manuscript.
Regarding your suggestion to convert the 1-2 paragraphs in the conclusion section into 4-6 bullet points, we will certainly consider this approach. Bullet points can indeed make the key takeaways more concise and easier to follow, so we will evaluate the best way to present the conclusion in a clear and effective manner. (Please refer to page 11 line 16-32)
Thank you for the feedback on the reference list. We appreciate you pointing out the need for further editing and proper documentation of sources, especially for non-traditional references such as internet sites. We will carefully review the reference list and ensure that all sources are cited correctly following the style guidelines of MDPI journals. Additionally, we will insert the reference numbers in their appropriate places throughout the text.
We are grateful for your guidance and the opportunity to address these minor corrections. Thank you once again for your constructive comments and for your commitment to upholding high academic standards.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have followed most of the recommendations and improved the paper.
I think that the explanation related to the period analysed, which stops at 2017, should be included in the text of the paper. In addition, the authors have diplomatically avoided answering some concerns by including them in the limits of the paper (comparisons with other countries or other tourist areas in the U.S.) I still think that not making these comparisons reduces the quality of the paper.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. I appreciate you taking the time to provide constructive insights, as it helps us improve the quality of our work.
We acknowledge the concern raised about the period analyzed stopping at 2017. This time frame was determined by the availability of the data we could obtain for this study. Due to restrictions in data access from STR (Smith Travel Research), we were only able to collect and analyze information up until the year 2017. While we recognize that more recent data would have been preferable, we were bound by the constraints of the data providers. (please refer to updated page 8 line 16-20 for the explanation)
Regarding the lack of comparisons with other countries or tourist areas in the U.S., this decision was also influenced by the data accessibility limitations we faced. Our study was focused on a specific region within the United States, and we did not have access to comprehensive datasets from other countries or domestic tourist destinations that would allow for meaningful comparisons.
We understand that these comparisons could have provided valuable insights and added depth to our analysis. However, given the challenges in obtaining reliable and consistent data from external sources, we made the difficult choice to concentrate our efforts on a thorough examination of the region under study, rather than attempting incomplete or potentially inaccurate cross-comparisons.
While we recognize the limitations imposed by the data availability, we believe that our study still offers valuable contributions within its defined scope. We have endeavored to conduct a rigorous analysis and present our findings transparently, acknowledging the boundaries of our research.
Moving forward, we will continue to explore avenues for expanding our data sources and collaborations, with the goal of enabling more comprehensive analyses and cross-comparisons in future studies.
Thank you again for your thoughtful comments. We appreciate the feedback, as it highlights areas where additional research efforts could yield fruitful insights and strengthen the overall quality of our work.
