Climatic Elements as Development Factors of Health Tourism in South Serbia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for allowing me to review this study. I read this study with interest. My opinion is as follows.

 

The purpose of this study in the Abstract is not clear.

 

Research on the climate role in the proposed tourism development is outdated as of 2022. Please refer to recent research related to this. And make a difference from previous studies. The researchers embodied the purpose of this study, but the ultimate purpose, according to the results of this study, was not presented.

 

In the discussion of this study, theoretical and practical implications should be presented separately.

 

This study did not present limitations and future research directions.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer comments for the manuscript titled ''Climatic Elements as Development Factors of Health Tourism in South Serbia'' (ID: sustainability-2026424)

 Brief summary

The authors mainly discuss the climatic suitability of several tourist destinations for health tourism in South Serbia by using the tourism climate comfort index. The work is original with an interesting topic and its main contribution is the knowledge gained on the best time to visit these destinations from a climatological perspective. However, I have several concerns on both layout/structure and scientific content of the manuscript as can be seen below.

 General concept comments

The section of 'Introduction' lacks important information and needs improvement in order to be more comprehensive. Specifically, the authors focus on analyzing health tourism but not tourism climate comfort index, a basic tool for their research. In this regard, the incorporation of a part of 'Methodology' into 'Introduction' seems appropriate.

There are several issues in 'Results and discussion'. 'Table 2', 'Figure 2' and 'Figure 3' are basically the same. Repetition of the data included in tables and figures should be avoided and the respective text should be rewritten. The results of linear regression (Figure 5) are not supported by the respective equations and appropriate statistical measures, for example, coefficients of determination, which are missing. The significance (or not) of regression is another important issue and missing from the manuscript. Also, in both 'Results and discussion' and 'Conclusions' there is text which does not correspond to the results. An example is in lines 407-408 (TCCI values for...between 20 and 30...June, July and August). A can be seen in 'Table 2', the value of TCCI for 'Suva Mountain' and July is 31.38 (>30). Another example is in lines 537-538 (spa tourist destinations...(TCCI between 20 and 30) during May, June and September. From 'Table 2', the TCCI value for 'Vranjska banja spa' and June is 33.36.

In addition, authors should discuss their results with more details, making an attempt to relate them with the results of other pertinent works. A more detailed review of literature is required in 'Results and discussion'.

 Specific comments

1.      Line 112. 1968?

2. Lines 399-401. It can be observed that the TCCI...This is expected...these two months. Are these two sentences correct? Can the TCCI peak values in July and August result from the vacation of most people during these months? If yes, why?

3.  Lines 440-446. Geostatistical CoKriging analysis...of 30 years. This should be moved to 'Methodology'.

      4. Figure 5. Figures should be self-explanatory. For example, what are the blue        circles? This should be mentioned in the caption of the figure (and not in the              text, line 470). The various images of Figure 5 should be marked with 'a', 'b' etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer comments for the manuscript titled ''Climatic Elements as Development Factors of Health Tourism in South Serbia'' (ID: sustainability-2026424) - revised version

 The manuscript is a new revised version and mainly discuss the climatic suitability of several tourist destinations for health tourism in South Serbia by using the tourism climate comfort index. The authors have responded satisfactorily to my initial concerns, however, there are still some minor issues that need to be addressed for the improvement of the quality of the manuscript. The authors must consider the following:

      1.  Lines 325-331. Mieczkowski [19The...activities [] defined...temperate             climates. Rewrite.

2. Lines 396-398. Schmude et al. point out that...tourist flows. The reference number is missing. Add it in square brackets.

3.   Table 3. 9.048e+05 ? Check for similar cases.

4. Lines 659-662. According to...TCCI values. Is this sentence correct? Check for similar cases.

       5.  Line 759. 1. Cao, K.; Gao, J. Assessment... Is this correct?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf