The Tourist and Recreational Potential of Cross-Border Regions of Russia and Kazakhstan during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Estimation of the Current State and Possible Risks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

As a reader, I realize that the paper demonstrates no new contribution to the existing literature because the authors failed to present the significant contribution to the literature as well as concrete research gap. Results that have no theoretical, or practical implications.

The quality of the figures and charts is also not at all up to publishable standards.

 

In general, the paper looks like a report paper rather than an academic paper. It is not a scientific paper. After reviewing this work carefully, I saw that it is not significant enough to merit publication.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: As a reader, I realize that the paper demonstrates no new contribution to the existing literature because the authors failed to present the significant contribution to the literature as well as concrete research gap. Results that have no theoretical, or practical implications.

 

Response 1: The authors reworked all sections of the article, changed the structure. The abstract was concreted in addition to the clarifications made, a section was added on the application of the results of the research in the management of the tourism policy of cross-border regions. The Introduction section was divided into 2 independent sections: “Introduction” and “Literature Review”, each of which is worked out in detail. Stages have been added to the “Results” section of the research, according to the proposed author's methodology for assessing the tourist and recreational potential of the transboundary territories of Russia and Kazakhstan. Also, in the “Results” section, the text relating to the description of the regions of Russia and Kazakhstan is presented in tabular form for a more convenient acquaintance with the presented material. The sections “Discussion” and “Conclusion” have been completely changed. Recommendations on the implementation of tourism policy in cross-border regions, considering the levels of tourism potential and global risks, have been added to the “Conclusion” section. Sources have been added, changes have been made regarding the design of links to them, in accordance with the requirements of the journal. A proofreading procedure was carried out to improve the quality of the English language of the article.

 

Point 2: The quality of the figures and charts is also not at all up to publishable standards.

 

Response 2: 1. Figure 1 was created in the specialized graphics editor CorelDraw Essentials 2021, which also does not contradict the requirements of the editorial and publication policies of the journal. The use of the CorelDraw Essentials 2021 graphic editor was due to the specifics of the developed author's methodology, for the construction of which, according to the authors of the article, the basic standard features of the Microsoft Word text editor were not enough.

2. To create Figure 2, a specialized mapping program, Q-GIS, was used. The .shp-files “Russia” and “Kazakhstan” served as a cartographic basis and the projection EPSG:5940 was used. The results of the assessment of the tourist and recreational potential were converted from the xsl format to csv, which allowed them to be “attached” to the spatial data from the shp file. Subsequently, the “Data Analysis” tool was used, as well as the “Style” tool to implement the zoning procedure with dasimetric differentiation. Elements of cartographic semiotics were added to the resulting cartoid: a scale bar, a legend, a schematic compass. In this connection, figure 1 was created in accordance with the global practice of creating cartographic drawings of this kind, as well as in accordance with all the requirements for figures, from the publication requirements of the journal.

 

In general, we would like to once again note that the figures presented in the article (Figures 1 and 2) do not contradict the publication policy of the journal, are created in specialized programs, and comply with global standards adopted for the publication of materials of this kind.

 

Point 3: In general, the paper looks like a report paper rather than an academic paper. It is not a scientific paper. After reviewing this work carefully, I saw that it is not significant enough to merit publication.

 

Response 3: As part of the response to previous comments, it was noted that the article has been completely corrected. The sections were revised in detail, the main points were corrected, and the English language was corrected too.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript titled “The tourist and recreation potential of cross-border regions of Russia and Kazakhstan during the COVID-19 pandemic: Estimation of the current state and possible risks.” The topic of the paper is interesting, however it has some shortcomings that I present in comments below.

1.     It should have a better description for the conclusion in the abstract. It’s too vague and general to get the specific information.

2.     Please re-organize the Introduction section. There are too many short paragraphs with only 1-2 sentences. They have to be clustered into 2-3 sub-sections.

3.     Literature review section is missing. Please add the related context to state clearly the research findings and their methods in existing literature and then may identify the research gaps and possible contributions of your study.

4.     I can’t figure out how to come up with the 9 key stages for the analysis.

5.     Please specify the data source used in this study and explain the indicator used.

6.     In Figure 1, why employ 4 clusters? Any reason?

7.     In the Result section, there was a long text regarding the description of the regions. I would like to suggest the author(s) making a table listed the highlights.

8.     Further, I would suggest the research results presented by the stages (or have the sub-sections to illustrate the analytical results stage by stage).

9.     Apart from the literal description, I was curious how to quantify the risks of the regions or their measurement. The text is too abstract to understand.

10.  As to the Discussion section, it was quite long. I would suggest making several sub-sections with the title to help readers to follow.

11.  It was unusual to see the short conclusion (less than a half page) without theoretical implications, and managerial implications. The research limitations and directions for future research should be addressed and discussed deeply.

12.  Last, but not the least, the manuscript did not flow as well as it could have for me. It needs proof-reading by a professional editor for careful reexamination in language expression and the structure of the documents.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: It should have a better description for the conclusion in the abstract. It’s too vague and general to get the specific information.

 

Response 1: A section on the application of the results of the research in the management of the tourism policy of cross-border regions has been added to the annotation.

In particular, the following text was added: “The results of the research can be used by the authorities of cross-border regions to adjust tourism policy under the current restrictions and increase global risks. The application of mechanisms and methods of territorial planning and management will depend on the level of tourist and recreational potential. For regions with high and above average potential, it is recommended to participate in federal projects, develop cluster initiatives and apply a diversification strategy. Regions with medium potential and low potential should focus on the domestic tourist flow, develop inter-regional cooperation, and focus on the strategy of gaining a competitive advantage”.

 

Point 2: Please re-organize the Introduction section. There are too many short paragraphs with only 1-2 sentences. They have to be clustered into 2-3 sub-sections.

 

Response 2: The “Introduction” has been completely revised; added text about the features of tourism development in cross-border regions in the first paragraph. The second paragraph substantiates the use of modeling in tourism research. The third paragraph is devoted to risks in tourism.

 

Point 3: Literature review section is missing. Please add the related context to state clearly the research findings and their methods in existing literature and then may identify the research gaps and possible contributions of your study.

 

Response 3: The literature review is separated from the introduction. Added a paragraph about the features of cross-border tourism based on the analysis of 11 sources. Approaches to the analysis of risks that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic for the realization of the tourist potential of the territories have been studied. Existing research concerns either certain aspects of cross-border tourism (the impact on the implementation of sustainable development goals, tourism management features, the impact of the pandemic on tourist flows) or the impact of the pandemic in terms of increasing the risks of tourism. Currently, no studies have been published on the impact of the pandemic on the realization of the tourism potential of the cross-border regions of Russia and Kazakhstan.

 

Point 4: I can’t figure out how to come up with the 9 key stages for the analysis.

 

Response 4: This remark was partially taken into account (stages 1 to 7 are not presented in detail), since this technique was previously developed by the authors of the article (Mamrayeva D.G. and Tashenova L.V.), described in detail and tested in the framework of the scientific work “Methodological Tools for Assessing the Region's Tourist and Recreation Potential”, published in the Q2 journal of the Scopus “Economy of region” database (https://doi.org/10.17059/2020-1-10), in connection with which, in this scientific article, the authors do not consider it necessary to describe in detail the step-by-step intermediate steps, considering the final calculation of the tourist and recreational potential of the cross-border regions of Russia and Kazakhstan to be more important. There is a link to a previously published work with the author's methodology in the article.

 

Point 5: Please specify the data source used in this study and explain the indicator used.

 

Response 5: This comment has been taken into account. All data sources used to obtain the final integral assessment of the tourist and recreational potential of the transboundary territories of Russia and Kazakhstan are presented in detail in Annexes A, B (section - “Note”).

To calculate the tourist and recreational potential according to secondary data, the methodology for a comprehensive assessment of the tourist and recreational potential proposed by D.A. Dirin, E.P. Krupochkin and E.I. Golyadkina. In our interpretation, the methodology is supplemented by socio-economic, cultural-historical factors and sub-factors, as well as a set of parameters for the “tourist infrastructure security” factor. This technique was previously developed by the co-authors of this scientific article - Mamrayeva D.G. and Tashenova L.V. and presented as part of the scientific article “Methodological Tools for Assessing the Region’s Tourist and Recreation Potential”, published in the Q2 journal of the Scopus “Economy of region” database (https://doi.org/10.17059/2020-1-10). All data for calculations were obtained from statistical sources of information for each of the cross-border regions of Russia and Kazakhstan; they are presented in appendices A and B to this article. Further, the obtained values were distributed among groups of factors, for each of which an integral indicator was calculated, after which, based on the application of the arithmetic weighted average, the final integral assessment of the tourist and recreational potential was obtained for each of the considered regions of Russia and Kazakhstan. All steps are presented in detail in Figure 1 (Section “Materials and Methods”).

 

Point 6:  In Figure 1, why employ 4 clusters? Any reason?

 

Response 6: the author's methodology for assessing the tourist and recreational potential of transboundary territories provided for obtaining values for parameters distributed over 4 key groups - clusters (in Figure 1) - “natural factors”, “cultural and historical factors”, “socio-economic factors”, “infrastructural support of tourism”. Each of the clusters (groups of parameters) included: 11, 11, 4 and 10 factors, respectively. Further, according to the grouped parameters, the integral value was calculated, on the basis of which the final integral indicator for the region was further determined.

 

Point 7: In the Result section, there was a long text regarding the description of the regions. I would like to suggest the author(s) making a table listed the highlights.

 

Response 7: this remark is taken into account; the description of the regions in Russia and Kazakhstan is presented in the form of tables.

 

Point 8: Further, I would suggest the research results presented by the stages (or have the sub-sections to illustrate the analytical results stage by stage).

 

Response 8: this remark is taken into account; in the “Results” section, the stages of the research are presented, according to the author's methodology (steps 1-7; steps 8-9).

 

Point 9: Apart from the literal description, I was curious how to quantify the risks of the regions or their measurement. The text is too abstract to understand.

 

Response 9: Unfortunately, in the Russian and Kazakhstani systems of statistical accounting there are no data that allow obtaining a quantitative objective assessment of risks in tourism. Another research by the same authors, “State Support Measures For The Tourism Industry During The Covid-19 Pandemic: Digital Solutions” (the article was presented at the DTMIS 2022 conference and is being prepared for publication), shows a comparative analysis of state support for the tourism industry in the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan during the pandemic .

 

Point 10: As to the Discussion section, it was quite long. I would suggest making several sub-sections with the title to help readers to follow.

Response 10: Added text to the section with possible discussion questions. Individual areas for discussion are numbered (from 1 to 4). The authors believe that the allocation of subsections will complicate the structure of the work.

 

Point 11: It was unusual to see the short conclusion (less than a half page) without theoretical implications, and managerial implications. The research limitations and directions for future research should be addressed and discussed deeply.

 

Response 11: Recommendations on the implementation of tourism policy in cross-border regions, considering the levels of tourism potential and global risks, have been added to the “Conclusion” section. Limitations of the study and directions for future research are reviewed and discussed.

 

Point 12:  Last, but not the least, the manuscript did not flow as well as it could have for me. It needs proof-reading by a professional editor for careful reexamination in language expression and the structure of the documents.

 

Response 12: the text of the article was corrected by a professional editor and the language expressions and structure used in the scientific work were revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Your ideas are clearly presented in the paper. To be considered a scientific paper, however, some structural elements are missing. Threfore, the paper needs the following improvements:

1. All in-text references must be completed, because they present only authors, not the year of publication. Please read the journal guidelines, or download a few paper from the journal and see how it is done.

2. Also, all references in the list of references must be adapted to the style used in the journal.

3. This paper has a short Introduction and no Literature Review section. When a Social Sciences paper has no Literature Review section, the Introduction should be long enough to include the most relevant studies in the topic in order to make it clear what has been done and what is the research gap that the paper is addressing. Including the relevant literature in the Introduction or in the Literature Review, also allows to compare and discuss your results in the Discussion section.

The best solution for this paper, in my view, is top include a Literature Review section with two subsections: a) Cross-border tourism; b) COVID-19 and tourism.

4- The Conclusion section could be Conclusions and Implications and have subsections on Theoretical and Practical Implications (what was the contribution of your paper to the topic? and which practical implication can be drawn for the tourism industy?), as well as Limitations, and Recommendations for future Research. 

Good luck with your research!

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: All in-text references must be completed, because they present only authors, not the year of publication. Please read the journal guidelines or download a few paper from the journal and see how it is done.

 

Response 1: All intertext references have been redone and corrected in accordance with the requirements of the journal.

 

Point 2: Also, all references in the list of references must be adapted to the style used in the journal.

 

Response 2: Link style corrected throughout the article.

 

Point 3: This paper has a short Introduction and no Literature Review section. When a Social Sciences paper has no Literature Review section, the Introduction should be long enough to include the most relevant studies in the topic to make it clear what has been done and what is the research gap that the paper is addressing. Including the relevant literature in the Introduction or in the Literature Review, also allows to compare and discuss your results in the Discussion section.

The best solution for this paper, in my view, is top include a Literature Review section with two subsections: a) Cross-border tourism; b) COVID-19 and tourism.

 

Response 3: The introduction has been redone; text has been added about the features of tourism development in cross-border regions in the first paragraph. The second paragraph substantiates the use of modeling in tourism research. The third paragraph is devoted to risks in tourism.

 

Point 4: The Conclusion section could be Conclusions and Implications and have subsections on Theoretical and Practical Implications (what was the contribution of your paper to the topic? and which practical implication can be drawn for the tourism industry?), as well as Limitations, and Recommendations for future Research.

 

Response 4: Conclusions and recommendations on the implementation of tourism policy in cross-border regions, considering the levels of tourism potential and global risks, have been added to the “Conclusion” section. Limitations of the research and recommendations for future research are reviewed and discussed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be a referee for your journal.

 

I have been carefully analyzing your manuscript after the changes proposed by the reviewers. I think the revised version is quite good and can be considered for publication in its current form.    

Author Response

Point 1: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be a referee for your journal. I have been carefully analyzing your manuscript after the changes proposed by the reviewers. I think the revised version is quite good and can be considered for publication in its current form.

 

Response 1: Thank you very much for the review and the high rating of our article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The author(s) had responded the comments and suggestions regarding the first version of the manuscript. I see the efforts. The following minor corrections would make a better presentation of the whole article.

1.     I would like to suggest the author(s) adding the context regarding Response 4 & 5 into the new version of the manuscript, instead of providing them to my review. The readers need such information as well.

2.     As for the Response 9, the quantitative assessment of risks in tourism would be a research direction for future study. I suggest the author(s) referring the related information in the section of future study.

Author Response

Point 1: I would like to suggest the author(s) adding the context regarding Response 4 & 5 into the new version of the manuscript, instead of providing them to my review. The readers need such information as well.

 

Response 1: These comments were considered and included in the text of the article.

 

Point 2: As for the Response 9, the quantitative assessment of risks in tourism would be a research direction for future study. I suggest the author(s) referring the related information in the section of future study.

 

Response 2: Issues related to risk assessment in tourism were reflected as directions for future research by the authors in the “Conclusion” section of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Your paper improved significantly and in my view can be published.

Best regards.

Author Response

Point 1: Dear authors,

Your paper improved significantly and in my view can be published.

Best regards.

 

Response 1: Dear reviewer! The team of authors would like to thank you for your appreciation of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf