Assessing the Effectiveness of Environmental Training for Diving Tourists Using the DEA Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The introduction should provide a strong rationale and background for this study. The authors need to provide an explanation of why this type of study on the research topic is important to the tourism industry.
The authors did not address very important issues in this section. For example, they stated, “The main aim of this study is to develop an approach, which is designed on the basis of data envelopment analysis (DEA), to assess the effectiveness index of environmental training for underwater activities”. However, why does ‘underwater activity’ need to be examined in this study? The authors need to justify this clearly.
In this section, it appears that the authors focus more on academic than practical standpoints. This section should provide more practical and meticulous information about environmental education as well as underwater activities. For example, specific phenomena, statistical data, or news articles related to environmental education and underwater activities need to be described.
A clear introduction section should include a clear justification. In addition, the authors need to indicate the way this study could contribute to the tourism industry at the end.
The literature review needs to be stronger and more concise and provide a sound justification of the importance and necessity of the topics in their study.
Although the methodology section explains the DEA model precisely, the literature review should discuss the model as well, such as efficiency studies in the tourism industry to date, and why the DEA model specifically is needed in this study. To improve the readers’ understanding, such subheadings as ‘Measuring Efficiency’, ‘Efficiency Studies in the Tourism Industry’, or ‘Underwater Activity in Environmental Education’ may help.
The authors stated the definition of variables in the methodology clearly. However, it would be helpful if the literature review explained the way the input and output variables are extracted.
This study performed a survey, but the authors did not present its results. If the study used the results of this survey, the methodology section should provide information related to it (e.g., description of samples, survey method, and examples of questions). Alternatively, the questionnaire could be provided in full in an appendix or table.
The paper lacks a clear conclusion. This may be because the discussion and conclusion sections are combined. If that was the intention, this strategy has diluted the key essence of the conclusion and discussion in relation to the literature. I would recommend separate discussion and conclusion sections.
The study omitted limitations and future studies, which are very important.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The title is precise and appealing. The paper concerns the topical and important research problem. The paper is very good structured and is worth publishing.
I have no significant scientific comments to make. This work adds value to the field. I would like to thank the authors for conducting such a good study. I wish them good luck with their research and wish to read more from them in this area.
I propose to consider a few points:
- In the literature review, a section can be added where the literature on potencial predictors of environmentaly firndly behaviours are identyfied. It is mentioned in the metodology section but can be improved exploring this topic more in-depth in the literarture section.
- The methodology is described detailed but the record of the given formulas should be more precise. It is not known whether the differences in the levels of some of the descriptive formulas are significant. Perhaps this is due to converting the formulas to pdf format.
- The description of input and output variables can be shown in a tabular form to make it more clear. This would allow the reader to interpret the results more easily by finding the relevant information faster. Just to focus on the numbers and information in different tables.
- In my opinion the summary lacks a description of the limitations of the studies performed.
Good luck to the authors for the publication!
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
your paper is good but it needs additional improvements such as: a separate chapter of discussions, comment the results within the highlight of previous findings; explain better how your results can contribute to actual findings, which are the managerial implications of your study?
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper looks much better than the first draft. The paper would be fine to publish after checking minor English language problems such as spelling errors and reference checks. Thanks.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
now I consider that the paper is ok
Author Response
Thank you.
