Development of Cross-Border Tourism in Accordance with the Principles of Sustainable Development on the Kazakhstan-Uzbekistan Border

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work consists of a balanced structure that allows dimensioning the objectives and their fulfillment. In addition, it is an innovative and necessary research, dealing with issues related to tourism in an area of ​​great geographical importance.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer! Thank you very much for suggestions and comments to the article. We hope that we were able to correct the article according to your suggestions. We are sending the corrected version of the article. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is important research on cross border tourism, and great to see attention placed on work from Central Asia, as this makes an important contribution to our understanding of cross border tourism from this geographical region. The authors make a clear justification for the case of the work, and the work is well linked to the literature. While there are good connections to the literature, I feel that authors could address some of the important sustainability theory and add emphasis here, and perhaps also show how this aligns with the UN SDGs.

Methods and geographical framing is clear

The results need some more explanation and critique, points seem descriptive, saying a place has potential and adding some insights is context, but what do the results say about the potential of the destination

Table 5 is nicely outlined

Was Figure 5 composed by the authors?

Discussion could address more implications, please align this work more with either theoretical, practical, and/or policy implications. 

What is next regarding research from this region, how can you further develop this study and expand to study other border regions in Central Asia. Maybe consider Political Geography as a journal for a future study

 

Page 2 lines 71-84 (indent or add dot points before each one here, like you do on pages 10 and 11)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer! Thank you for your helpful and kind review of manuscript. We hope that we were able to correct the manuscript according to your suggestions. We are sending the corrected version of the manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

according to the paper content the general opinion would be that the article will be more suitable for the MDPI journal Tourism. 

further I recognize the intention of the authors and the part of the text relating sustainability and therefore sent to this journal.

According to the content of the paper it would be a case study of two cross border countries.

the abstract should be changed:

- it should be a bit shorter

 - now it is very broad and too general

- it is too descriptive

- it should focus more strictly on main goals, methodology and main results/findings

I suggest the first half of the abstract should be erased and re-made in one sentence, while the other half of the abstract is much better and in this way it should be written.

In introduction starting from the first sentence some literature should be given (line 42)

- for natural

-for socio.-economic

-for mental factors

then explain how these 3 factors are basis for ... (in line 45)

Explain why boreders are a barrier and what are different categories of people (line 50-52) and state some literature

In line 54 explain the statement high tourism potential of border region, from where you draw this hypotheses, where are the proofs for this?

again this sentence is in line 333 of results

 

in line 64 where are the proofs - literature that "otherness" and "exoticism" is something attractive for tourists

the par from line 80-83 about central asia does not fit here

it may be mentioned in the bewgining of introduction

onwards from line 84-100 should be put in the section about sustainability on page 13

on page 4 lines 116-120 are not necesary here because they refer only to oine part and in table you have 11

if you want to use this sentence then you should describe each and every of 11 parts of the border regions and ist natural landscape and then describe why less or more crossings are available

the part from line 154 comes from no where and describes rural tourism  and then after natural parks in line 160 onward

I suggest erase text from line 153 to 174

otherwise anew sgment should be set

1.1. rural tourism in cross border K-U regions

1.2. protected natural areas in cross border K-U regions

1.3. eco tourism

1.4. cultural tourism

1.5. niche tourism e.g. integtated touris (line 373 - what is this - explain)

in line 167 - where is the evidence for self heal of nature hypothesis ?

evidence for K-U regions ?

the section of methodolgy is fine, while the results should be somehow presented in a more clear and densed way.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer! Thank you for your helpful and kind review of manuscript. We hope that we were able to correct the manuscript according to your suggestions. We are sending the corrected version of the manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for  upgrading the article,

especcially explaining the cross border situation bewtween two countries

that is familiar to you but unknown to the other readers of the journal 

in the abstract you may write some concrete findings and reccomendations for the future instead of the last five rows (from .....Methodology for assessing the tourism lines 27-28 ....
potential of border regions is proposed. The results of the border regions rating assessment 28)

best regards

the reviewer

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer! We hope that we corrected it according to your recommendations. We are submitting the corrected version of our manuscript. Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf