Delivering Tourism Sustainability and Competitiveness in Seaside and Marine Resorts with GIS

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well-executed case study about the potential on blue tourism in the area of Karkle. The reader learns a lot about the planning and the problems of the area.

While in general the paper looks OK I’d still suggest to squeeze more out of the material.

1. The introduction could be more to the point. There are topics in the introduction that play no further role in the paper, such as SDGs, IUCN categories of protected areas, some more. Maybe it makes sense to return to the SDGs at least in the discussion and see whether and how your case study helps achieving those. Or, just edit them out.
2. Methods. In general, the methods used are described adequately. However, this part of the paper contains some rather general statements, such as the list of why GIS could be useful. I wonder whether it is possible to either (re)move these to the introduction or delete altogether.
3. Discussion. For the international reader I suspect the most interesting part is the methods. Perhaps you could add in the discussion a paragraph or two of comments about how your methodology worked – what are the pros and cons of your approach, and why someone say in the Philippines should try to replicate this method.
4. Conclusions. This section contains quite a lot of new information never mentioned before in the article. Perhaps it’s better to use this in Discussion.

Good luck with revising!

Author Response

Thank you for your very apt remarks. We have corrected the manuscript taking into account all of them (please, see the attached file). Your remarks have greatly helped to improve the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article under review deals mainly with a study of the application of rules derived from one of the 17 goals set by the UN for sustainable development by 2030. More specifically it focuses on providing tourism sustainability and competitiveness to seaside and seaside resorts in specific seaside areas of the Baltic Sea.

The article presents correctness in its scientific structure with quite rich and recent bibliography, related to the subject under discussion.

However, the main tool whose power it invokes and tries to highlight as the core of the study (GIS), is obviously secondary, as it is used only to map the parameters of the problem under consideration and not as a decision tool, where indeed its use would be catalytic. Formulation of spatial analysis techniques for example, which could make GIS such a tool, is not analyzed anywhere in the body of the text. On the contrary, it is obvious (and probably right) that what plays the "nuclear" role in the study is the application of the Delphi technique, which produces conclusions that lead to some mapping. Therefore there is a contradiction here as to the title of the article itself.

In relation to spatial and environmental data as well, there is a confusion starting initially from the time period of their use (at one point they talk about the period 2010 - 2018, and immediately below for the period 2015-2019), without finally identifying clearly what was the study period and without even mentioning how these heterogeneous time data have been homogenized in some way.

On the other hand, the way in which this data is structured to be used is also nowhere to be seen. For example, was the data integrated into a designed and organized geodatabase? (the software used by the author's supports and even advocates such an action), or they were used as simple structures with all the possible side effects arising from such use;

One can also distinguish ambiguities regarding the data themselves, (by what technique for example the chlorophyll concentrations were detected -lines 239-246- and how the information extracted from the specific image (raster dataset) was homogenized with data from another structure (vector dataset) which were eventually used in the mapping?), or even errors (Google Earth is not directly able to give values ​​for the sloping of nearshore –line 253. Such data is provided by digital terrain models, such as product ASTER GDEM TOPO 30).

Based on the above, I would like to suggest to the honorable authors, because I really recognize the effort behind the study they did, that it would be more logical for them to try to produce two separate articles, wherein one will be the analysis and the results of Delphi technique, and in the second the exclusive use of GIS that acting as a decision tool will be able to give their study an added value, provided the correct reporting and use of data.

Unfortunately, however, as the article is presented in its current form, I am forced to propose its rejection.

Author Response

Thank you for your very apt remarks. We have corrected the manuscript taking into account all of them (please, see the attached file). Your remarks have greatly helped to improve the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript looks much better now. My bigger concerns have been addressed, and the added paragraph discussing the use of the methods might be useful for other researchers doing similar research.

Two minor details still. First, the English might still need some polishing. Second, the general section about usefulness of GIS you moved into the introduction could easily be deleted altogether.

Author Response

Thank you so very much for your kind consent with the revised version of the manuscript

Reviewer 2 Report

The new revised version of the article has indeed been improved and includes the necessary corrections to those points indicated in the 1st revision. With their explanations and revisions, I believe that the honorable authors have greatly improved their article, which essentially meets the purpose for which it was written.
Table 1 they added is quite useful. However, in the "source" column their references are very general and in fact, do not give the source of their data (eg "Remote sensing data" should refer exactly to the data used and the acquisition site).
A similar remark, I have to make in the immediately following paragraph that mentions the general source of the NASA website. This is exactly where the data sets used for the nearshore water temperature and chlorophyll A concentration in water should be. And here, in other words, they must refer exactly to the data they used.
After these small corrections, I believe that the article will be published.

Author Response

Thank you so very much for your kind remarks. They really helped to improve the manuscript even further.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf