Protected Areas in the Function of Sustainable Tourism Development—A Case of Deliblato Sands Special Nature Reserve, Vojvodina Province

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Dear authors,

Based on the first round of comments, and on my own reading, I am afraid that I cannot accept the manuscript as it stands. The theory and conceptual framework are still missing, and the manuscript's objectives do not have any basis in theory. However, the paper requires restructuring and rewriting to make it a coherent and followable story. The reader of the article on tourism and sustainability in the paper is prepared to go deeper into the content and intent of the story, but the same sentences or phrases appear repeatedly, so making the changes is not difficult.

Anyway, you can find unanswered comments with more details as follows:

Introduction

There is no change in this section, so, I still cannot see what is the main problem that has not been investigated by any existing studies or research within the field of research in SNRs or elsewhere.

 Literature review and theoretical background

The revised manuscript still doesn’t demonstrate a research gap or how the findings add to what is already known. The added contents don’t address the research gap.

Furthermore, the theoretical background has not yet been shown, and no theory was discussed in this section. Moreover, there is no clear statement indicating how research has been conducted to satisfy the objectives.

However, a theoretical framework or conceptual model is required to illustrate the research model that is necessary for a manuscript to be published in a high-ranking journal like Land.

 

Method and materials

While the study used a questionnaire that was compiled according to the questionnaires of Scholtz et al. [42], Cottrell et al. [43], and Asmelash and Kumar [33], but the main issue problem with this manuscript is the lack of a theory-based conceptual model in this section.

 

Results

As I commented, the analysis is so simple that it is not suitable for publication in a high-profile journal such as Land. However, the authors didn’t make any changes to this section, and the issue has not been considered by the authors.

 

Author Response

Respected reviewer,

We thank you for your support of this research and are grateful that your suggestions have significantly improved the quality of our paper.

We would like to inform you that we have acted according to your suggestions concerning the correction of the text.

We made the following changes in the paper:

1. We created a special chapter - Discussion, in which we explained and discussed all the data obtained from the analysis in the Results chapter.
2. We edited the Methods chapter and added the Conceptual model (Figure 2).
3. We have expanded the Results chapter by additional three graphs, in which the obtained average values of the statistical analysis are more clearly shown (Figures 3, 4 and 5).
4. We have expanded the Conclusions chapter for information related to certain limitations in the research and future research in which the data obtained from this research will be used as a basis.

Thank you, once again, for your support.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I have already reviewed the paper title " Protected areas in the function of sustainable tourism development – a case of Deliblato Sands Special Nature Reserve, Vojvodina Province " and the paper is very well written and improved can be accepted into Land journal.

The author used qualitative and quantitative methodologies in the research and main focus of the research is tourism development of protected area. The research question is addressed in an appropriate manner.

The topic is interested in the reader community and cover the research gap in the field of protected areas tourism development.
The methods used in this research is new and comparatively with another research in this field, all the results are presented in the form of tables.

Longitudinal/latitudinal value of the study area map is provided (Grid). 

 

Conclusion is precise and reduced.

Author Response

Respected reviewers,

We thank you for your support of this research and are grateful that your suggestions have significantly improved the quality of our paper.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The paper in this version is improved.

Author Response

Respected reviewers,

We thank you for your support of this research and are grateful that your suggestions have significantly improved the quality of our paper.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

The revision of the contents has made a minimum of effort, especially in the description of the methodological approach.

However, the paper has the minimum requirements to be published

Author Response

Respected reviewer,

We thank you for your support of this research and are grateful that your suggestions have significantly improved the quality of our paper.

We would like to inform you that we have acted according to your suggestions concerning the correction of the text.

 

We made the following changes in the paper:

1. We created a special chapter - Discussion, in which we explained and discussed all the data obtained from the analysis in the Results chapter.
2. We edited the Methods chapter and added the Conceptual model (Figure 2).
3. We have expanded the Results chapter by additional three graphs, in which the obtained average values of the statistical analysis are more clearly shown (Figures 3, 4 and 5).
4. We have expanded the Conclusions chapter for information related to certain limitations in the research and future research in which the data obtained from this research will be used as a basis.

Thank you, once again, for your support.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

As far as my reading indicates, this manuscript does not meet the criteria for publishing in the journal of Land because it fails to address novel theoretical arguments, present a convincing theoretical framework, apply appropriate statistical analysis, and offer empirical implications. 

By highlighting the favorable position of The Deliblato Sands Special Nature Reserve (SNR) and the proximity to large cities with which it has good traffic connections, the study evaluates the function of this area in tourism planning and sustainable tourism development, but the study's focus is unclear. It is required the authors demonstrate which part of sustainable development has been assessed.     

In agreement with the authors, tourism in protected areas can represent a basis for defining goals, outcomes, and competencies for sustainable development, but what is the research gap that the authors wanted to fill the existing knowledge in this manuscript?

Anyway, you can find my comments with more details as follows:

Introduction

Despite the authors' focus on the significant role of SNR in tourism development, I cannot see what is the main problem that has not been investigated by any existing studies or research within the field of research in SNRs or elsewhere. Despite the authors have tried to explain how and to what extent SNR contributes to sustainable tourism development, I believe these questions must be specified in the current research.

Literature review and theoretical background

Throughout this section, tourism development, the role of SNRs, and sustainable tourism development have been discussed, but the barriers and initiatives indicated by past studies have not been clear. Due to this, the manuscript could not demonstrate a research gap or how the findings add to what is already known.

Furthermore, the theoretical background has not been covered, and no theory was discussed in this section. Moreover, there is no clear statement indicating how research has been conducted to satisfy the objectives. Referring to the wide range of sustainable development indicators, the study needs to describe which indicators have been selected and why? 

Furthermore, a theoretical framework or conceptual model is required to illustrate the research design. However, all of these items are necessary for a manuscript to be published in a high-ranking journal like Land.

 

Method and materials

This study employed quantitative and qualitative methods for data collection. Although the author mentions that the study utilized random sampling, it appears that stratified sampling was applied to three sub-groups (residents, visitors, students). While the study used a questionnaire, there is no explanation as to how the questionnaire was designed by the authors. The study failed to conduct reliability and validity tests on the collected data quantitatively.

Furthermore, there is no explanation as to how the authors selected and measured indicators of sustainable tourism development.

As a result of these issues, I conclude that the main problem with this manuscript is the methodology and the lack of a theory-based conceptual model.

Results

The analysis is so simple that it is not suitable for publication in a high-profile journal such as Land.

However, the authors need to clearly indicate that this analysis is strong enough.

To analyze the data and satisfy the research goal, it is strongly recommended that the authors employ legendary software (like PLS-SEM for quantitative data). Due to the different weightage of each criterion, using a legend analysis method enables authors to estimate complex models with many constructs, indicator variables, and structural paths. This is without imposing distributional assumptions on the data.

In order to analyze the qualitative data, I expected to see a detailed analysis process and to see if the findings of the analysis were supported by results from previous studies.

Discussion and conclusion

This part is essential for a high-quality paper. This part needs to be reorganized by the author. The current discussion/conclusion is not comprehensive, and it is not convincing enough to generalize the research findings beyond the local case.

In addition, please make sure the conclusions section underscores the scientific value-added of the paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results from an international perspective as well as any limitations of current research.

However, it is unclear whether this paper offers a significant advancement to the existing literature.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I have reviewed the paper title " Protected areas in the function of sustainable tourism development – a case of Deliblato Sands Special Nature Reserve, Vojvodina Province " and the paper is very well written and can be accepted into Land journal. however, I have following reservations on it and before publishing the paper few minor revisions are required. 

The author used qualitative and quantitative methodologies in the research and main focus of the research is tourism development of protected area. The research question is addressed in an appropriate manner, but more experimental examples are required.

The topic is interested in the reader community and cover the research gap in the field of protected areas tourism development.
The methods used in this research is new and comparatively with another research in this field, but all the results are presented in the form of tables, it would be more interesting for the readers community to provide results in the form of Maps.

It would be a great idea if longitudinal/latitudinal value of the study area map is provided (Grid). 

Conclusion should be precise. try to reduce it and be focused as much as you can.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for the paper

Land-2159132

Title: Protected areas in the function of sustainable tourism development – a case of Deliblato Sands Special Nature Reserve, Vojvodina Province

The Deliblato Sands Special Nature Reserve (SNR) is located in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina (Northern Serbia). The favorable position implies the proximity to large cities with which it has good traffic connections. Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Croatia, and other countries from the region represent a dispersive zone. Their vicinity allows tourists to arrive quickly at this tourist destination. The Deliblato Sands Reserve has extraordinary and rare natural resources. Numerous endemic plant and animal species inhabit the SNR area. Besides, in the area around the reserve, there is a significant cultural and historical heritage. All the mentioned potential represents the basis for the development of specific tourism forms based on the protection of na-ture and the promotion of social values. Such are scientific tourism, bird watching, ecotourism, trips, event tourism, wine tourism, sports, and other forms of nature-based tourism. Sustainable tourism in this area is also realized by ensuring the proper tourism development through ecological, economic, sociocultural, and institutional benefits for SNR. The authors used qualitative and quantitative methodologies in the paper. This research examined the SNR sustainable development by measuring sustainability indicators and surveying 1,884 respondents (714 residents, 620 visitors, and 550 students) about sustainable tourism in SNR. The obtained data were analyzed and presented with the help of SPSS v. 21 software. The research results can be used to create national and international strategies for sustainable tourism development.

My suggestions to the authors for the improvement of the paper relate to the following:

1.     This is an interesting and well-developed work.

2.     The abstract is very extensive and should be reduced. In the abstract, only the most important points of the study should be presented. I advise the authors to be more precise with the paper's subject.

3.     The authors should clearly clarify if and how their approach differs from the previous literature in the Introduction of the paper.

4.     The authors should include in the literature the determinants of tourism. In particular, the determinants of tourism as the following: income and real exchange rates (Balaguer and Cantavella-Jordá, 2002), institutional quality (Zhang et al. 2021), and tourist health (Konstantakopoulou, 2022).

5.     The authors should put more effort and thoroughly discuss point estimates, estimated effects, and the intuition behind the results backed up by the literature.

 

References

 

Balaguer, J., Cantavella-Jordá, M., 2002. Tourism as a long-run economic growth factor: the Spanish case. Applied Economics, 34 (7), 877–884.

 

Konstantakopoulou, I., 2022. Does health quality affect tourism? Evidence from system GMM estimates. Economic Analysis and Policy, 73, 425-440.

 

Zhang, Y.; Jin, X.; Wang, Y.; Liu, R.; Jing, Y. 2021. Characterizing Spatial-Temporal Variation of Cultural Tourism Internet Attention in Western Triangle Economic Zone, China. Land 2022, 11, 2221. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122221

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper describes the analysis of sustainable tourism in the Deliblato Sands Special Nature Reserve. The article is quite interesting.

The following aspects can improve the structure and contents of the paper:

- Abstract: its structure and contents should improve. The structure should better describe the objective of the study, the methodological approach and the results

- The cited bibliography should be increased with more studies on sustainable tourism. This paper could help (also by quoting it in the text): Marinello et al., Indicators for sustainable touristic destinations: a critical review

- Methods: the approach for research and selection of materials used in the study is not well described. This whole paragraph should be improved, even with the support of figures