Satisfaction with Sustainable Tourism—A Case of the Special Nature Reserve “Meadows of Great Bustard”, Vojvodina Province

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

The paper is interesting but there are some weaknesses. Here are some commentaries and recommendations for  the authors improve the article:

a)     The title is too vague, so, the authors should change the title of the article to be more focused on residents ‘perceptions or  satisfaction with sustainable tourism, for example;

b)     Line 22 - In the abstract it is assumed that “The objective of the research in this work is to determine the state and potential for sustainable tourism  development in MGB aimed at improving ecological values”? the  authors need to reformulate this goal. It is assumed in the text that the goal is  “to determine whether sustainable tourism of the MGB affects residents' satisfaction”, keep this in mind; In the abstract, authors have to formulate better the conclusions;

c)     Lines 191 and 192 “During the last count, it was recorded that their number decreased from 37 to approximately ten individuals”. When was the last count?  This situation is very worrying because it is an indicator of the lack of ecological integrity of this ecosystem (one of the parameters that measure ecological sustainability). The insistence on developing tourism, even if it is ecotourism, is strange. When there is strong decline of biodiversity, the better is “do nothing”;

d)     Literature Review is too generic, authors have to focalize on the developed topic.

e)     The paper requires a better state of the art about what the specific measures to implement in natural parks to achieve sustainable tourism and sustainable natural reserves and then, what are the perceptions of locals. It is important to show the writer's understanding of the literature, what has been studied / discovered, and to contribute to this article to enrich scientific discussion. Give more emphasis to carrying capacity;

a)     The authors have to present in point 3 the sustainable tourism practices that occur in this nature reserve. They are presented in a scattered manner or are missing; Authors have to list the ecological principles that are applied in this natural reserve, for the understanding of the state of sustainable tourism in that geographical area. What are the measures “to gain ecological… benefits”? Are tourism activities closed  in mating times? Etc.

b)     Considering the items/parameters listed in Table 1, how did they be developed? The “ecological dimension” is not well addressed because this is related with ecological integrity, conservation of biodiversity, etc.  and the items should express how tourism activity can contribute for these goals.   This is the biggest weakness of the paper;

c)     Lines 59 and 60 “The  objective of tourism development is to promote such destinations as environmentally  friendly, which is in the interest of sustainable tourism [10,11]”. Environmental sustainability (air, energy, water issues) is not enough;

d)     In the discussion, there are general comments that are not related to the results of the surveys.

e)     Avoid acronyms in the beginning of the text/abstract. Ex. The first time the term PoS research model (in the abstract) appears, assume “Prism of Sustainability”;

f)      Consider the template in references.

Cordial regards

ok.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions and we would like to inform you that we have accepted all suggestions and adapted the research to your recommendation. We are grateful for the suggestions because they contributed to the quality of this research. We inform you of the following:

1. The title is too vague, so, the authors should change the title of the article to be more focused on residents‘ perceptions or  satisfaction with sustainable tourism, for example;

In accordance with your suggestion, we have changed the title.

2. Line 22 - In the abstract it is assumed that “The objective of the research in this work is to determine the state and potential for sustainable tourism  development in MGB aimed at improving ecological values”? the  authors need to reformulate this goal. It is assumed in the text that the goal is  “to determine whether sustainable tourism of the MGB affects residents' satisfaction”, keep this in mind; In the abstract, authors have to formulate better the conclusions

We have changed the abstarct, lines: 24-27; 40-43.

3. Lines 191 and 192 “During the last count, it was recorded that their number decreased from 37 to approximately ten individuals”. When was the last count?  This situation is very worrying because it is an indicator of the lack of ecological integrity of this ecosystem (one of the parameters that measure ecological sustainability). The insistence on developing tourism, even if it is ecotourism, is strange. When there is strong decline of biodiversity, the better is “do nothing”;

We fully appreciated your suggestion. Accordingly, we have modified the text. Lines: 284-289.

4. Literature Review is too generic, authors have to focalize on the developed topic

We adapted the literature review chapter according to your suggestion. Lines: 149-170; 205-266.

5. The paper requires a better state of the art about what the specific measures to implement in natural parks to achieve sustainable tourism and sustainable natural reserves and then, what are the perceptions of locals. It is important to show the writer's understanding of the literature, what has been studied / discovered, and to contribute to this article to enrich scientific discussion. Give more emphasis to carrying capacity.

We fully appreciated your suggestion. Accordingly, we have modified the text (Literature Review). Lines: 239-266.

6. The authors have to present in point 3 the sustainable tourism practices that occur in this nature reserve. They are presented in a scattered manner or are missing; Authors have to list the ecological principles that are applied in this natural reserve, for the understanding of the state of sustainable tourism in that geographical area. What are the measures “to gain ecological… benefits”? Are tourism activities closed  in mating times? Etc.

We have accepted this suggestion and have provided detailed explanations in the text so that all readers can understand. Lines: 291-319.

7. Considering the items/parameters listed in Table 1, how did they be developed? The “ecological dimension” is not well addressed because this is related with ecological integrity, conservation of biodiversity, etc.  and the items should express how tourism activity can contribute for these goals. This is the biggest weakness of the paper;

The authors have written an anex of text. Lines: 387-400; 470-474; 476-497.

8. Lines 59 and 60 “The  objective of tourism development is to promote such destinations as environmentally  friendly, which is in the interest of sustainable tourism [10,11]”. Environmental sustainability (air, energy, water issues) is not enough;

In accordance with your suggestion, we have changed the misspelled sentence. Lines: 66-68.

9. In the discussion, there are general comments that are not related to the results of the surveys.

We fully appreciated your suggestion. Accordingly, we have modified the text. Lines: 526-534; 564-574; 579-588; 600-609; 610-627.

10. Avoid acronyms in the beginning of the text/abstract. Ex. The first time the term PoS research model (in the abstract) appears, assume “Prism of Sustainability”;

We have changed the abstarct, line 26.

11. Consider the template in references.

We adapted the list of references according to the template.

Once again, we thank you for all the useful suggestions and trust!

Best regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciated the article, the approach to the topic, the clarity of the exposition and the organisation. All the themes seem well argued and contextualised with previous research, conclusions, and future research goals.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

We appreciate your exceptional expertise and thank you for recognizing the quality in this research.

Thank you for your trust!

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

It was with a great interest that I read the article “Sustainable Tourism of the Special Nature Reserve "Meadows of Great Bustard“– a case of Vojvodina Province”. In general terms, the topic addressed is interesting, relevant and fits into the current discussions about sustainable tourist destinations, especially in protected areas.

The manuscript complies with almost all the established norms for the articles of this publication in organization and extension. However, please note the followings:

1.      Abstract: “to what extent sustainable tourism affects residents' satisfaction” - satisfaction with what? This should be clarified. What is PoS research model? Not all readers are familiar with this acronym. Methodology is not properly presented. Abstract needs to outline more main findings.

2.      Literature Review: from my point of view this section should be improved.

3.      Methods: the PoS model should be further developed. The source of figure 2 is missing.

4.      Results: a suggestion – in table 1 the standard deviation could be indicated.

5.      Discussion: this section is fragile and not very consistent. There's a real discussion missing that provides a bridge between literature review and these results.  Authors refers “"results are compared with the results of earlier research" but then they don't materialise, what research are they talking about? I suggest that this section be further developed. Line 339:  correct “these results relatively were relatively consistent”.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. It is our pleasure to inform you that we have accepted all suggestions and adapted the research to your recommendation. We are grateful for the suggestions because they contributed to the quality of this research. Your professional review was useful for us.

We inform you of the following:

1. Abstract: “to what extent sustainable tourism affects residents' satisfaction” - satisfaction with what? This should be clarified. What is PoS research model? Not all readers are familiar with this acronym. Methodology is not properly presented. Abstract needs to outline more main findings.

In accordance with your suggestion, we have changed the abstact.

2. Literature Review: from my point of view this section should be improved.

We adapted the literature review chapter according to your suggestion. Lines: 149-170; 205-266.

3. Methods: the PoS model should be further developed. The source of figure 2 is missing.

We fully appreciated your suggestion. Accordingly, we have modified the text. Line 372.

4. Results: a suggestion – in table 1 the standard deviation could be indicated..

We expanded table 1 according to your suggestion.

5. Discussion: this section is fragile and not very consistent. There's a real discussion missing that provides a bridge between literature review and these results.  Authors refers “"results are compared with the results of earlier research" but then they don't materialise, what research are they talking about? I suggest that this section be further developed. Line 339:  correct “these results relatively were relatively consistent”.;

The authors have written an anex of text. Lines: 579-595; 600-627.

Once again, we thank you for all the useful suggestions and trust!

Best regards,

The Authorsx

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations!

regards

Author Response

Respected,

we thank you for the expert evaluation of this research.

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your paper. Although i cannot readly visualise what has been changed because the authors have not flagged up, the work done  improveved the manuscript. Congratulations on that. Regarding this new version I would point that in the abstract i still not fully understand the satisfaction of residents issue. "Satisfaction of the residents" with what?

Author Response

Respected,

once again, we thank you for taking the time to read our article. 

We revised the abstract. Now the goal of the research is better explained and what the residents are satisfied with. Changes in the text are marked in red. The changes are at the end of the abstract. 

Best regards