Forest Tourism and the Use of AI Technologies Towards Clean and Safe Environments: The Cases of Turkey, Lithuania, and Morocco

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “Forest Tourism and the use of IA Technologies Towards Clean and Safe Environments: The Cases of Turkey, Lithuania and Marocco” is an attempt to comprehensively analyze the potential use of artificial intelligence technology to achieve clean and safe environmental goals in forest tourism areas. Analyses are presented for three countries (Lithuania, Turkey, Morocco) located in distinct geographic, cultural, and economic conditions. The manuscript's strengths lie in the obtained results and discussion. The manuscript's content is chaotically arranged. Numerous omissions and a lack of description of the research areas impede its understanding. The content should be improved according to the recommendations. This will allow for a better understanding of the presented research.

 

Comments for authors

 

Language

Changes required mainly concerning the length of sentences. Some sentences should be shortened and the text will be more cohesive. You should review the text for grammar.

 

Subject

It is consistent with the content.

 

Keywords

Most keywords repeat the article title. Choose keywords that complement the title and inform the content..

 

Abstract

The abstract is correct.

 

1. Introduction

The section is well-organized. It includes a literature review. This is sufficient. The purpose of the work is well-defined. The section titled "Theoretical Framework" is part of the methodology. It should not be included here.

 

2. Materials and Methods

I understand the choice of experts from three countries in equal numbers (24 experts from each). However, these countries are incomparable in terms of size and population. They are culturally diverse. Why 24 experts? Why this particular number? There is no logical justification for this choice.

A serious mistake is the lack of characterization of the selected countries for research. What are the determinants of this type of tourism in each country? Why were these particular countries studied? Or was it just a coincidence? Perhaps it stems from the fact that the authors are from Morocco, Turkey, and Lithuania and have known each other for a long time? This would not be a good justification for selecting the research areas.

 

3. Results

Please review the text carefully. There's too much discussion of the results. This is unacceptable, as there's a Discussion section later in the text. This creates unnecessary repetition in the two sections, even if the repetitions aren't exactly the same.

 

4. Discussion

The discussion is well-researched. References to available literature and similar studies have been made. The structure and content of the discussion reinforce my belief that the introduction should include characteristics of individual countries. The discussion addresses these distinctions.

Furthermore, the number of citations and references to similar studies is very high. I feel a certain dissonance, as the number of references in the introduction is usually the largest. This may indicate an overly concise introduction and the need to describe the countries in terms of the research being conducted.

Despite these criticisms, I definitely rate this section of the manuscript the best.

 

5. Conclusions

The conclusions are correct. They apply to countries with different geographic locations, cultures, and social structures (first paragraph). Therefore, a structured description of the research areas is an essential element of the manuscript.

This manuscript is a case study. A case study requires detailed conclusions and recommendations for the research areas. These recommendations, which are included in the discussion section, should be supplemented. These recommendations should be detailed.

The conclusions should summarize the results and discussion. It should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains a sufficient contribution to new knowledge from an international perspective. What new developments (new theories, new methods, or new policies) can contribute to the development of international literature?

A brief description of how the presented research could translate into good governance in other parts of the world should be provided. These conditions are partially met, but this section is chaotic. A "general (world) to specific (region studied)" approach should be used.

 

Literature

Correct selection of literature. The set contains 123 literature items. However, it may be supplemented after taking into account the amendments proposed in the review.

 

Overall conclusion

The manuscript requires significant revisions. The results are interesting and valuable, so I accept the manuscript for correction. However, the layout of the manuscript and its content does not help in understanding the essence of the research. The international context of the research should be emphasized.

​

Conclusion from the review – the manuscript requires major changes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Changes required mainly concerning the length of sentences. Some sentences should be shortened and the text will be more cohesive. You should review the text for grammar.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have carefully reviewed your report. The revisions and improvements you recommended have been meticulously implemented. In addition, all tables have been re-examined. Finally, the entire manuscript has been reviewed, and language checks have been completed.

We sincerely thank you for your attention and valuable contributions to our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well structured and well written.

However, there are some issues that should be taken into account prior to publication.

In the introduction, please explain why you chose Turkey, Morocco, and Lithuania for comparison.

Clearly state what is the gap of knowledge, and why this study is crucial.

Objective number 3, you don’t compare the countries, don’t you? Please formulate better that you compare the use of AI in the forestry sector of tourism.

The theoretical framework should be linked to results and discussion. Please fix it.

Table 2, Which are opportunities, and which are challenges? Fix it.

Table 4, can you generalize based on 24 interviews for the whole country? 

In the discussion, please add recent similar studies.

In the conclusion, state how decision-makers can use your results.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have carefully reviewed your report. The revisions and improvements you recommended have been meticulously implemented. In addition, all tables have been re-examined. Finally, the entire manuscript has been reviewed, and language checks have been completed.

We sincerely thank you for your attention and valuable contributions to our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The initial differences should be clarified prior to making the comparison, considering that these countries have very distinct characteristics such as: total land area, forest cover, proportion of protected areas, annual number of tourists, demographics, and the contribution of tourism to GDP. In other words, under what criteria are they considered comparable?

The conclusions are not supported by the results and are too general. The limitations of the study should be included

Citations and bibliographic references provide sufficient contextual information for the introduction and the discussion.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have carefully reviewed your report. The revisions and improvements you recommended have been meticulously implemented. In addition, all tables have been re-examined. Finally, the entire manuscript has been reviewed, and language checks have been completed.

We sincerely thank you for your attention and valuable contributions to our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall assessment. This manuscript offers a timely, well-structured, and clearly written comparative study of how AI technologies are being mobilized to achieve clean and safe environmental goals in forest-tourism settings across Turkey, Lithuania, and Morocco. The design—purposeful sampling of 72 multi-stakeholder experts, semi-structured interviews analyzed in NVivo 14, and a cross-country comparative lens—aligns well with the research questions and yields policy-relevant insights. The theoretical framing integrates technology adoption dynamics, institutional mechanisms, resource dependence, and SDGs, and the study meets core ethics and transparency standards (IRB approval, informed consent, and data-availability statement).

1. The paper squarely addresses a global governance problem—how to leverage AI for environmental cleanliness and visitor safety in rapidly growing forest-tourism areas—using a three-country comparative case design and a deliberately multi-stakeholder sample (forest-area managers, nature-tourism managers, AI/tech experts, academics). The sampling logic and composition are described with sufficient precision, enabling readers to assess transferability across contexts.
2. The manuscript is fluent and disciplined: the Abstract clearly conveys the comparative positioning (Turkey’s fire-risk focus, Lithuania’s EU-aligned systems approach, Morocco’s infrastructure/technology-transfer emphasis), and the body text consistently signposts findings to figures/tables. The presentation of Figure 3—future strategies by country—helps readers move from empirical themes to actionable roadmaps.
3. Conceptually, the paper’s integrated framework—anchored in technology adoption, institutional mechanisms, resource dependency, and SDGs—is a distinctive contribution that goes beyond single-theory narratives often found in this domain. Empirically, the cross-country contrasts are argued with concrete, context-aware detail rather than slogans, e.g., Lithuania’s robust institutional platform, Turkey’s high potential but planning/data constraints, and Morocco’s water/desertification priorities under fiscal/infrastructure limits.
4. The discussion translates themes into country-specific strategies: Turkey’s emphasis on early-warning systems for forested areas and visitor-flow monitoring, coupled with a national data platform and university–industry collaboration; Lithuania’s alignment of AI integration with EU policy frameworks; Morocco’s focus on water management and combating desertification, given resource constraints. These are not generic exhortations; they are grounded in expert testimony and mapped to governance capacities.
5. Methodological choices are documented with care: purposeful sampling criteria for defining “experts,” multilingual instrument development with linguistic checks, and content validity (CVI) assessment with an explicit 78 threshold for item retention. Research ethics are fully addressed, including IRB approval (institution, date, approval number), informed consent, and a data-availability statement indicating access on reasonable request. These elements collectively support rigor and reproducibility.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable and insightful comments and contributions. The necessary revisions have been made and clearly indicated within the text.

We sincerely thank you for your attention and valuable contributions to our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept the revised version of the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please avoid overly long sentences that contain stylistic errors and ambiguities.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. The language and grammar of the manuscript have been carefully reviewed, and the necessary improvements have been made. The manuscript has also undergone a language check by a native English-speaking academic.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I don't understand what different colors of the text mean? the yellow one? And green? Generally speaking, the manuscript was improved. Did you use an AI for writing the text?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. The sections marked in yellow, green, blue, and other colors indicate the revisions and improvements made in line with the reviewers’ comments. These color highlights were added to clearly show the changes made by the authors in response to the review reports.

Additionally, no AI tool was used during the preparation and completion of the manuscript.