Tourism Industry Attitudes towards National Parks and Wilderness: A Case Study from the Icelandic Central Highlands
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Introduction
I highlighted the last words in some sentences in the introduction area that need references to support that statement.
According to my understanding, Iceland is going to open a new NP in the highland area. If so, the last paragraph of the introduction section needs or highlights why this study is essential to the country, and what existing challenges have been faced by other NP in the country, through that way, readers can understand the requirements and essentials of the study.
Methodology
Better to explain the consistency of the tourism industry on the island. The study considers only day tour operators and travel agencies and mentioned not reflected others such as the accommodation sector, restaurants, and guides. So give reasons or difficulties to including this study.
In tables must needs to double-check the total sample, in table 1 total numbers did not match with the primary sample which is 382. This error has been checked with other tables and figures also.
Results
Figure 3 mentioned major attraction is nature. So what is the difference b/w nature and pristine nature, and also what does the mean " few tourists" variable in this figure? Therefore, better to reconsider the variable in this figure.
Figure 5 shows a separate bar for the total. It is a very unusual way of presenting figures.
And also, in my understanding, figure 5 try to highlight participants' attitude toward the proposed CHNP. If so have to reconsider the scale of the question, for example, as a scale of Agree - disagree.
Agin figure 7 has the same problem in figure 3.
In figure 9 attitudes NP means proposed NP or existing NP?
It would help if you can revise all the tables and figures topics of this study.
Discussion
The authors rearrange and rewrite the discussion part. Some of the information should be moved to the introduction section or study area.
Conclusion
This section also needs to consider and rewrite the conclusion based on results and discussion to reflect the summary of the whole study.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
see attchment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Editor and Authors
The issue of "Tourism industry attitudes towards national parks and wilderness" is a relevant topic, and also a topic related to sustainability. It is essential in the tourism industry to protect national natural parks and protected areas. It is very important that the academic community develop research on these current issues, which greatly contribute to the improvement of human life. The work is well structured. The summary is objective and balanced. The work clearly defines its purpose. The introduction and literature review are written in a thoughtful and balanced way. The methodology is both quantitative and qualitative, based on a survey and structured interviews. The discussion of the results is presented in a clear and objective way. The bibliography is extensive and current.
Other issues related to the work presented:
1. What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
The paper aims to examine the tourism industry's attitudes towards a proposed national parks in Iceland's Central Highlands, where nature is in the wild and therefore an important part of the area's attraction, as well as its need to conservation. The paper analyzes the conflicting views on nature protection via national parks, their management and rules, which restrict business. The Icelandic tourism industry (according to the authors) is an important stakeholder, highly dependent on the use of the country's wild and untouched nature, and also interested in its protection. In addition, this study is also very important and interesting at an international level, as today many countries have in their concerns the preservation of tourism in national natural parks and also its preservation.
2. How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
The theme is not original, but it is very relevant for the sustainable development of countries that have a strong tourism sector and also for countries that intend to develop this type of tourism. The way the authors approach the topic, using a quantitative and qualitative scientific methodology, and having the work well structured, is an important contribution to knowledge. This is an important work in this area of investigation.
3. Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
Yes, the text is well written, clearly, objectively and precisely. The final bibliography must be standardized, according to the requirements of the Journal.
4. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
The conclusion is the poorest part of the job. It needs to be greatly improved. It needs to be rewritten in an objective, simple and very understandable way. The conclusion of this paper practically does not exist. The conclusion needs to focus on the main observations of the results obtained by the methodology used and present conclusions from the previous observations and discussion of results. The conclusion must be written in a balanced and parsimonious way. Also present implications and guidelines for future work.
5. Is there any current bibliography that can be suggested, with the aim of improving the paper?
No, but the final bibliography must be standardized, according to the requirements of the Journal.
Author Response
see attchemnent
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper Tourism industry attitudes towards national parks and wilderness: A case study from the Icelandic Central Highlands analyzed the attitudes of tourism industry in Iceland, based on a survey among tour operator and travel agencies.
There are several aspects that should be consider before publishing the paper:
1. The abstract is too general. Please focus on the aim, methodology, main results and conclusions. Please mention the methods used for analyzing the data and the number of respondents.
2. The methodology part could be revised and each step of the research should be clearly presented. How was tested the reliability and validity of the questionnaire? How representative are the results for the entire population?
Others:
Please rearrange figure 1. Part of it is out of the page
Author Response
see attchment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The study's total sample is 382. Table 1, the first row mentioned 334. Where is the balance of 48?
Author Response
Since the 382 respondents (the total sample) were not obligated to answer all questions and could skip whichever question they liked, the sum of respondents in table 1 reflects the total of those who responded to each question.
Reviewer 2 Report
The issue of "Tourism industry attitudes towards national parks and wilderness" is a relevant topic, and also a topic related to sustainability. The work has been profoundly improved. Improved its content and readability. Discussion and conclusions have been greatly improved. In my analysis, the paper is at a very good level to be accepted and published.
Author Response
Thank you very much!
