The Preference Analysis for Hikers’ Choice of Hiking Trail
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have looked into an area of tourism research which is not widely studied. This paper is well written. Readers without a background in tourism can understand the objectives, research methodology and contributions of this paper easily.
Although descriptive statistics and simple statistical methods have been carried out, they help the readers to understand the findings of this paper. Easy to understand is the key of this paper.
The conclusion is also clearly written.
Although this paper has many strengths, it has a key concern which I would like the authors to address. Reading this paper few times, I conclude that this paper does not meet the aims and scope of this journal. The authors should link the findings of this paper to sustainability and sustainable development.
In summary, Introduction, conclusion and other relevant sections have to be rewritten to tackle the aims and scope of this journal.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your time and for any comments that allowed us to improve the quality of our manuscript. We hope that these revisions and improved text are in line with your suggestions and comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is very interesting especially in light of the increasingly stressful and technologically colored way of life.
Publication is proposed as well as further research.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your time and for any comments that allowed us to improve the quality of our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
As the authors state, this research refers to the motivations of hikers and discuss the issue in wider contexts.
First part of the introduction describes the effects of physical activities on human health, which has nothing to do (in my opinion) with the objectives of this article.
A series of descriptions of physical activity can also be found in the introductory part (unnecessary, too)
The reader reaches line 77 to meet the term hiking.
The types of tourism including hiking take up a lot of lines in the article.
Why it is necessary to present many hiking scales of difficulty and which is the link with your questionnaire?
Material and methods
Concerning the aim of the study, what do you want “to verify” referring to motivation?
Do you know if your sample is representative?
Line 278 – You state that “All participants were in good health”. How do you know this?
Results and discussions
Statistical analysis is very poor. You use chi-square test but your cross-tabs is between an ordinal variable and a nominal one. Only p is presented.
You used items like “sex” and “place of residence” and I didn’t find an analyse of these variables in cross tabulation.
Line 304 – You present a hypothesis referring to the Group 3 and you didn’t define the groups.
Conclusions
“Trails with minimal elevation are most preferred by retirees-hikers” and they do not prefer the asphalt,
which is logic, given their joint system at this age.
A rewriting of this article is necessary, focusing especially on literature review, the objectives of the research and a complex statistical analysis, which will probably lead to conclusions that increase the originality of this research.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your time and for any comments that allowed us to improve the quality of our manuscript. We hope that these revisions and improved text are in line with your suggestions and comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The aim of the paper is clear, informative and relevant.
There are very few new references.
The statements made on lines 81-88 are not clearly formulated or the information is not complete. Because I was not able to verify to reference [8] and to understand the context of classification, I only want to stress that are far more types of tourism. For example, cultural tourism, spa & wellness tourism, film-induced tourism etc. Maybe is about the types of tourism related to hiking tourism, but in this case have to be explained.
The definition of groups should be included in the text before hypotheses.
The hypotheses are formulated in a way that gives the impression of being written after obtaining the results.
I suggest the authors to provide the questionnaire as appendix. Is not clear if the questionnaire used some of the scales validated in previous researches.
The authors made clear about what are the statistically significant results.
The study does not state if there are limitations.
The aim of this journal is stated by its name. The article lacks of any reference to sustainability issues even the abstract promise that ” …findings provide important data in the creation of tailor-made tourism products and in planning of the territory development from the tourism point of view”. The above mentioned planning of the territory should be discussed from a sustainable development perspective and the contribution of this type of tourism.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your time and for any comments which help us to improve the manuscript. We hope that the adjustments we have made are in line with your suggestions and comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for addressing my comment. All responses are accepted.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your time and for any comments that allowed us to improve the quality of our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
The article has been improved.
However, a few suggestions are required:
Line 69 – “In addition to these basic types of hiking…” – Which types of hiking?
Line 70 - Among the basic hiking forms author Korvas states
Line 71 - Alpine hiking → alpine hiking
Line 71 – skitouring → ski touring
Line 71 – skialpinism → skialpinism
Line 79 - West Alpine GHM difficulty scale – Is it (Groupe Haute Montagne)?
Lines 79-81 – “The West Alpine GHM difficulty scale is based on a set of factors such as length, danger, difficulties etc. These difficulty scales are based on mountaineering.” – Please put the reference
Line 84 – In Table 1. CAI hiking scale of difficulty you show the hiking scale of this club, but in Source is write “Adapted from. [16].” It belongs to CAI or to Hiking club of Košice?
Line 89 – The same with Table 2
Line 98 - Shengxiang She et al.
Line 151-152 – No reference for Wall- Reinius and Bäck, see “by the work of Wall- Reinius and Ba ̈cka”, reference 21
Ba ̈cka → Bäck
Line 188 – “The aim of this study is to provide…” – put it on a new line
Lines 199-204 – “The concept of long-term sustainable, "soft" or "green" tourism, as the result of growing criticism of the negative impacts of tourism on the environment, is an alternative to today's prevailing mass tourism. The Federation of National Parks and Protected Areas of Europe (FNPPE) considers as sustainable tourism "all forms of tourism development, management and activities that preserve the environmental, social and economic integrity and quality of natural, created and cultural resources on a permanent basis" [54].”
Try to find a place of this paragraph in the text, before the aim of this paper.
Line 207 – “The aim of this study was to use a questionnaire survey to verify the motivation…”
Line 222 – Is your sample representative? “…428 participants living in Slovakia”
Line 224 – “All participants were in good health.” How did you know?
Lines 265-266 – “The results of the public opinion survey were analysed and prepared for publication in a scientific journal.”
Line 299 – “Source: Own processing from own survey (questionnaire)” - Not necessary if it is your own processing
Line 270 - Concerning the Statistical analysis, you speak in your article about Somers´d coefficient, Gamma coefficient, but you don’t use them in the calculations.
Please look which kind of variables do you cross and complete the results.
References
Line 553 – Portugal
Use a style for the references
Congratulations for your work!
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your time and for any comments which helped us to improve our manuscript. We hope that the adjustments we have made are in line with your suggestions and comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors addressed the issues and recommendations provided on the first review. The article can be published in the present form.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your time and for any comments that allowed us to improve the quality of our manuscript.
