Integration of Community-Based Tourism (CBT) Index and Biophysical Assessment for Sustainable Ecotourism Mangrove: A Case Study of Karangsong, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a very interesting paper, covering a relatively little discussed topic, that of ecotourism in mangrove areas, and a very interesting area.

General aspects:
1. There is a need for a review of English...

2. The relationship between ecotourism and sun and sea tourism must be clarified, if this occurs in the same study area...

3. In lines 132-133 and 273-281, the calculation of the Carrying Capacity Region (CCR) must be better justified and explained. The values contained in the formula, particularly the constant K, deserve a better explanation... The value found will have meaning for a constant and uniform flow of tourists, but we know that these visits are often made in groups, so there must also be a calculation of the carrying capacity on a punctual basis and per unit of time...

Specific or detailed aspects:
Line 43 - Border perpendicular to the coastline: what is it and what does it correspond to?

Line 47 - Give an idea of the local importance and types of marine tourism...

Lines 50-59 - What is the economic, social and cultural importance of Mangrove for local populations and communities?

Line 63 - Missing a "." after parenthesis

Lines 89-90 - If the mangrove is degraded, will it be ideal for ecotourism? Please explain...

Fig. 1 - The upper portion of the figure has no definition; the numerical scale is meaningless and does not agree with the graphic scale (just keep this one, but simplify it); Is the latitude value correct?

Fig. 2 (lines 111-112) - In my opinion this figure needs to be improved to be more easily understood. It should be drawn to scale. For example: if A = 1m X 1m = 1 m2, B should be 2m 10m x 10 m = 100 m2; and C would be 2m x 4m = 8 m2 and not 10m x 10 m = 100 m2.

Line 115 - Substrate analysis or just granulometric analysis of the substrate?

Line 158 - The title included within the figure can be deleted, especially because there is an error in the word "species";

Line 167 - Missing a dot "." after the word "Oxygen)";

Lines 186-187 - Will this difference between 27 and 29% in salinity be significant?

line 200-201 - So do new collections and analyzes have to be carried out in the same places, but at different times (e.g.: 2 pm and 6 pm)?

line 217: muddy or mud? What are the best soil particle size conditions for mangrove development?

Line 245-246 - The maximum value for this index should be 100. The lowest value found may naturally be lower, but here it is 82... Where does this value of 98 come from? Table 5 - In the substrate criterion, what is meant by common sand and why does it have a lower value than fine sand and medium sand? Whose table is this? From the authors of this paper? From other authors? Has it been tested elsewhere?

Line 250 - What is the "Mangrove Ecotourism Index"? And how was it calculated?

Lines 449-350 - In fact, tourism carried out in Mangrove, with the support of communities, can be thought of and analyzed as ecological tourism or ecotourism, but will the tourists in question not be mainly sun and sea tourists (coastal beach tourism) who take the opportunity to do a little ecotourism, taking advantage of the sun and sea tourism infrastructures?

Lines 359-360 - What activities are carried out by local communities for ecotourism? 

Line 384 - How many visitors (tourists) are there, on average, in the area under study? Is the carrying capacity exceeded many times?

Line 390 - I think that tourist activity (especially when it comes to ecotourism) should not be treated as an "industry"...

Lines 394-395 - At this stage of the study, it would be good to know whether tourist taxes and/or the benefits of expenses by tourists reach the populations and communities of the mangrove...

Line 447 - Authors' contributions should not be included in the "acknowledgments", but in a separate section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

My English literacy is not enough to detect all the imperfections in the text; However, it is enough to understand that there are some detail errors  that could be corrected by a more careful reading of the text...

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript deals with an important topic, but there have also been several recent publications on the subject.

The territorial delimitation of the study is appropriate. The research is actual. The research methodology and the methods of investigation used are appropriate.

The theoretical literature processing is adequate, with sufficient depth and quality of the secondary background.

The study is primarily descriptive, the tables and descriptions are adequate, but the presentation of cause-and-effect relationships could use further work.

The presentation of the results is clear and meets expectations.

In the final part of the manuscript, the elaboration of the conclusion section should be improved, summarising the main findings and the practical usefulness of the research, as well as possible directions for further research.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some spelling and stylistic mistakes, typos and misspellings are found in some places and need to be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The document presents a significant and relevant contribution for Sustainability journal.

However, we recommend:

a)      A background section is necessary (or one that expands in the introduction) based on the criteria (variables) selected for the construction of the indicators and then the indices. The importance of using indices as a tool for making and guiding decisions should be highlighted.

b)      It is necessary that the methodology be explicit. The variables that make up each index, the techniques applied for data collection and laboratory treatments must be specifically stated.

c)      It is necessary to explain the variables and explicit statistical methods to be used for the construction of each index that is presented in the results.

d)      For example, in the results section, criteria 9 and 10 of table 5 are not described in detail in the methodology, so they are not verifiable or replicable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the recommendations and expanded the observation on the document with arguments.