Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The carrying capacity assessment of the Aegean region aims to improve the high standards of the tourist services. The manuscript used carrying capacity indicator based on the PAP/RAC 1997 and WTO. We believe the manuscript should be accepted.

The carrying capacity assessment of the Aegean region aims to improve the high standards of the tourist services. The manuscript used carrying capacity indicator based on the PAP/RAC 1997 and WTO. We believe the manuscript should be accepted.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

1. The carrying capacity assessment of the Aegean region aims to improve the high standards of the tourist services. The manuscript used carrying capacity indicator based on the PAP/RAC 1997 and WTO. We believe the manuscript should be accepted.

R- From the behalf of the authors of this research I would like to thank you for your kind words.

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic presented by the authors is very interesting and important, however:

1. there are typographical errors (e.g. line 102 is not open parenthesis before 1996).

2. Figure 1, I suggest putting the names of the neighbouring countries.

3.            In many of the quantities presented the decimals do not make sense (e.g. line 253, 298603.78 m).

4.            The results section should be rewritten. In the text, the authors simply extend an explanation of the information in Table 3 and 4 and Figure 2. It is too repetitive this section, in theory a table and/or figure is to illustrate and summarise results that are complemented by a text.

5.            Remove the word "legend" from the maps in Figure 2.

6.            Beyond being a new study in Greece, the authors do not highlight what contributions merit a non-Greek reading the paper.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

1. There are typographical errors (e.g. line 102 is not open parenthesis before 1996).

R- The reference was deleted.

2. Figure 1, I suggest putting the names of the neighbouring countries.

R- It is a very useful suggestion the map was changed accordingly.

3. In many of the quantities presented the decimals do not make sense (e.g. line 253, 298603.78 m)

R- The data were represented according to the functions calculations. Many indicators need the data to be in meters.

4. The results section should be rewritten. In the text, the authors simply extend an explanation of the information in Table 3 and 4 and Figure 2. It is too repetitive this section, in theory a table and/or figure is to illustrate and summarise results that are complemented by a text.

R- The results were represented both in tables and in maps to give also the spatial dimension and spread of the CCA in order to have a holistic approach of the problematic and effective solutions of the areas already under threat.

5. Remove the word "legend" from the maps in Figure 2.

R- The word legend should remain in the map in order to separate the data section and help the map to be self-explanatory.

6. Beyond being a new study in Greece, the authors do not highlight what contributions merit a non-Greek reading the paper.

R- The contribution of this research is the selection of the appropriate indicators which can be used in similar areas in the Mediterranean and other similar insular regions.

Reviewer 3 Report

The main objective of the articles covered the physical-ecological, social-demographic and political-financial aspects, describing the present state of the Carrying Capacity for tourism in the South Aegean Region. A set of indicators was proposed in the quantification of the Carrying Capacity which was used in the article. Relevant carrying capacity indicators have been selected and categorised according to global and regional contexts: physical-ecological, social-demographic, and political-financial.

Nevertheless, more attention could be paid to the environmental protection issues and indicators, since the topic is related to carrying capacity, which term is often used in the analysis of environmental components.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

1. The main objective of the articles covered the physical-ecological, social-demographic and political-financial aspects, describing the present state of the Carrying Capacity for tourism in the South Aegean Region. A set of indicators was proposed in the quantification of the Carrying Capacity which was used in the article. Relevant carrying capacity indicators have been selected and categorized according to global and regional contexts: physical-ecological, social-demographic, and political-financial.

Nevertheless, more attention could be paid to the environmental protection issues and indicators, since the topic is related to carrying capacity, which term is often used in the analysis of environmental components.

R- The environmental protection was approached according to data availability/information concerning the local legislation and practices used in similar areas

Reviewer 4 Report

Review of

 “Carrying Capacity and Assessment of the tourism sector of the South Aegean Region, Greece”

By Vandarakis D., Malliouri D , Petra.kis S., Kapsimalis V. , Moraitis V.1 , Hatiris G-A , Panagiotopoulos I.

The article “Carrying Capacity and Assessment of the tourism sector of the South Aegean Region, Greece” by Vandarakis et al. presents a science-based study of the carrying capacity assessment of the South Aegean Region of Greece. The objective of the study is to elucidate the status of the tourism load on 14 major South Aegean Islands in terms of 17 sustainability indicators. This data transparency as well as the raw data analysis  indicating potential origins of overtourism can serve as a basis for future planning and guideline for the sustainable development of tourism within the South Aegean Region, such as limiting tourism on islands above threshold values and redirecting tourism to areas that are identified to have capacity beyond sustainability tourism threshold values.

The authors present a profound study with well-presented data in good quality of English language.

The topics suits the field of the journal and is of high interest, since it contributes to the sustainability development goals.

I recommend publication after solving 4 larger and some minor comments:

Larger comments:

1)      Objective of the article

Abstract: L 17-22:

The abstract emphasizes first on the economical aspects of tourism development:

 

“ to assess and increase tourism attractiveness by offering alternative products like hiking, biking, diving, sportfishing, archaeological, religious, and medical tourism”

The aspect of sustainability is only mentioned ranking third in the motivation of the paper: 1.) improve quality standards, 2.) increase tourism (attractiveness), 3.) .. establish a roadmap for sustainable development for the study area.

However, sustainability is a holistic approach, implicating that long-term economic wealth is only likely when social and ecological values are considered equally. This point is addressed in detail in the article itself. I encourage you to change Line 17-22 of the abstract in such a way that this holistic approach is recognized.

 

2.) data basis – ecological data

The article presents 11 raw data categories applied to 13 islands and derives 17 tourism sustainability indicators. The raw data consist of demographic, physical and economic data. However, there are no direct data on water and waste management or biodiversity, which could serve as additional factors to evaluate the ecological status are be used to cross-check the indication of the other factors on exceeding given threshold.

3.) Data sources of the threshold factors

The data sources of the thresholds given in table 2 for the indicators listed in table 1 are not unambiguously clear. Please indicate in table 2 which and if threshold values are taken from literature or if they are scaled for the local application. For example, add quotation where it applies. Additionally, briefly explain the linkage between the threshold values and the color coding. Since the threshold factors are the basis of your entire evaluation, it is very important to clearly describe the origin for correct interpretation.

4.) contribution to sustainability development goals of the UN.

Please indicate to which of the 17 sustainability goals your study and recommendation to action contributes. In my opinion it addresses several SDGs and this would be good to know for the reader.

Minor comments

L. 103-104:

Please limit the description to science based facts and rephrase. Though the sentences sound good, it goes in direction of advertisement rather than a scientific description.

L. 136: “proposed a five-fold: to”

Noun missing, add policy or intended word to clarify

Table 1:

Please harmonize terminology:

The calculated indicators use the terms:

“total beds”, “beds”, “beds (tourists)”

I assume it all refers to column 4 in table 3. Please use the same wording for formulas as for the raw data table.

Furthermore, indicate at one place which values are annual counts.

L 383: Repeat what V 7 is, for better readability. Same for following variables.

L 412/413: verb missing

P. 18-20: a-q the names of the islands are very low. Can they be enlarged?

L 445-448: repetitive text. Please merge

L 478: Write the variables or indicators TDI … in order to give the context of the abbreviations. Or add number of variable, as these numbers have been used in the discussions before.

 

Publications:

Check if this is relevant for your article:

Overtourism: A Literature Review to Assess Implications and Future Perspectives

Alessandro Capocchi et. Al, University of Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy

Sustainability 2019, 11(12), 3303; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123303, 15 June 2019

The authors present a profound study with well-presented data in good quality of English language.

Author Response

Reviewer 4:

1. Abstract: L 17-22:

The abstract emphasizes first on the economical aspects of tourism development:

“to assess and increase tourism attractiveness by offering alternative products like hiking, biking, diving, sportfishing, archaeological, religious, and medical tourism”

The aspect of sustainability is only mentioned ranking third in the motivation of the paper: 1.) improve quality standards, 2.) increase tourism (attractiveness), 3.) .. establish a roadmap for sustainable development for the study area.

However, sustainability is a holistic approach, implicating that long-term economic wealth is only likely when social and ecological values are considered equally. This point is addressed in detail in the article itself. I encourage you to change Line 17-22 of the abstract in such a way that this holistic approach is recognized.

R- Your suggestion was very accurate so the phrase has been changed accordingly.

2. The article presents 11 raw data categories applied to 13 islands and derives 17 tourism sustainability indicators. The raw data consist of demographic, physical and economic data. However, there are no direct data on water and waste management or biodiversity, which could serve as additional factors to evaluate the ecological status are be used to cross-check the indication of the other factors on exceeding given threshold..

R- Unfortunately such data was not available in most cases so it was excluded.

3. The data sources of the thresholds given in table 2 for the indicators listed in table 1 are not unambiguously clear. Please indicate in table 2 which and if threshold values are taken from literature or if they are scaled for the local application. For example, add quotation where it applies. Additionally, briefly explain the linkage between the threshold values and the color coding. Since the threshold factors are the basis of your entire evaluation, it is very important to clearly describe the origin for correct interpretation.

R- The data was scaled according to various local, regional and global researches of areas with similar characteristics.

4. Contribution to sustainability development goals of the UN Please indicate to which of the 17 sustainability goals your study and recommendation to action contributes. In my opinion it addresses several SDGs and this would be good to know for the reader.

R- Very good suggestion, a phrase was included in the text indicating that these indicators can contribute to the UN goals directly or indirectly in the near future.

3. Minor comments.

R- All the minor comments were included in the text.

4. Check if this is relevant for your article:

Overtourism: A Literature Review to Assess Implications and Future Perspectives

Alessandro Capocchi et. Al, University of Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy

Sustainability 2019, 11(12), 3303; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123303, 15 June 2019.

R- Of course the publication is relevant for our research and it is included in the references.

Reviewer 5 Report

1. Is there a better way to convert each table into another way (such as Table 1, Table 2) because there are 17 indicators so readers can understand better?
2. The references are cited in a consistent format. It is suggested to be consistent.
3. This work can also help the reader to understand the carrying capacity and assessment of the tourism industry services. 
4. The study areas of Figure 1 can be improved to make it easier for readers to understand.

Author Response

Reviewer 5:

1. Is there a better way to convert each table into another way (such as Table 1, Table 2) because there are 17 indicators so readers can understand better?

R- We did many tests and we conclude that is the most appropriate way to illustrate our results.

2. The references are cited in a consistent format. It is suggested to be consistent

R- The references are cited according to the journal’s format. Although in “Literature Review” we should reference both the names and date of the articles for the right grammar sequence of the text.

3. This work can also help the reader to understand the carrying capacity and assessment of the tourism industry services. 

R- We would like to thank you for your kind words.

4. The study areas of Figure 1 can be improved to make it easier for readers to understand.

R- Very good suggestion, the figure 1 has been changed accordingly.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I fully understand that the authors want to present the results in tables, maps and then describe them, but they are extremely repetitive. In fact, for a non-Greek person, the results section is extremely boring. In order to present them, they should complement and not repeat the same information. It is also possible for the authors to move some of the information to "supplementary information in annexes".

The maps are very poorly prepared. The space of the figure is poorly used (from my point of view the word "legend" is too much). If you try to read the small location map (at the bottom after the legends) you will see that it is impossible to read the information.

The reasons why the document may be of interest to other readers should be indicated in a complementary way in the abstract, introduction and conclusions. Furthermore, how it differs and why it is better than other methodologies used in other parts of the world.

Author Response

Response letter

 

Dear Reviewer 2,

1. I fully understand that the authors want to present the results in tables, maps and then describe them, but they are extremely repetitive. In fact, for a non-Greek person, the results section is extremely boring. In order to present them, they should complement and not repeat the same information. It is also possible for the authors to move some of the information to "supplementary information in annexes

R- We did many tests and we conclude that is the most appropriate way to illustrate our results, plus it is self-explanatory if someone wants to run quickly through the paper or he wants only the results. The maps are very poorly prepared. The space of the figure is poorly used (from my point of view the word "legend" is too much). If you try to read the small location map (at the bottom after the legends) you will see that it is impossible to read the information.

R- The maps were designed to give a spatial dimension of the results and to be complementary to the tables. The word legend should remain in the map in order to separate the data section and help the map to be self-explanatory. It is a key element of the presentation of a map.

3. The reasons why the document may be of interest to other readers should be indicated in a complementary way in the abstract, introduction and conclusions. Furthermore, how it differs and why it is better than other methodologies used in other parts of the world.

R-We totally agree, we have added the appropriate explanation in the text. The proposed methodology it is based on the UN directives and it works best on insular areas, specifically in islandic complexes, where significant amounts of visitors were concentrated each year.

 

1. We will be delighted if our answers can cover you. Really, we did our best.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I understand the desperation for the manuscript to be accepted, however: 1) I invite authors to print the paper on A4 and try to read the legends in Figure 2, especially the second panel (from left to right) at the bottom, and b) the tables can go to an annex right after the conclusions.

I remain convinced that the decimals that the authors present in the figures associated with lengths and areas are not representative, unless all the information was obtained on the same date and referenced to the same vertical datum.

Author Response

Response letter

 

Reviewer 2:

1. I understand the desperation for the manuscript to be accepted, however: 1) I invite authors to print the paper on A4 and try to read the legends in Figure 2, especially the second panel (from left to right) at the bottom, and b) the tables can go to an annex right after the conclusions.

R- 1) We changed the maps according to reviewer’s suggestions in order the figures to be readable and the data of each map well presented. 2) We put the tables in Appendix A before the references section, following other similar appendixes in papers from WATER journal.

2. I remain convinced that the decimals that the authors present in the figures associated with lengths and areas are not representative, unless all the information was obtained on the same date and referenced to the same vertical datum.

R- We removed the decimals from both “Coastal Length” and “Area”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf