Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The theoretical  results are good. However, there are no experimental results to show the special advantages of the proposed method. 

2. Novelty of the paper is minimal.

3. The discussion part is not adequate.  It should be enhanced especially on the validation of results.

1. Check for typo errors and fonts. Overall English grammar need to checked. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We would like to thank the reviewer for carefully reading our manuscript and sharing valuable comments, and your comments are great to help improve the quality of our work. The point-by-point responses to the comments are presented in the attached file.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2390270

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Assessment of tourism recovery strategies after covid-19 using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making approach

 

 

Dear Editors/researchers,

The topic of the article argues an important aspect of contemporary society that requires recovery strategies after COVID-19. For a sustainable economic future and the well-being of society, it is extremely important to assess the recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic.

The scientific work presented in the paper is current and brings out the tourism recovery strategy on the case study of Vietnam. The special value of the approach presented in the article is not only aspects of human health but also the benefit for the local economy and society.

 

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR AUTHORS

In the paper covid-19, Covid-19, COVID-19 is written in different ways. I suggest the authors systematize their writing and, I recommend that they use the abbreviation of the World Health Organization that uses COVID-19.

 

The strategies for post-COVID-19 tourism recovery started in many tourist destinations immediately and the various countries confronting the pandemic are using different approaches even today. I think that it is important to distinguish the specific tourism attractive areas, as beaches where the people are crowded which is often not in line with COVID-19 measures. Many worldwide tourist destinations (like the Mediterranean) have distinctive tourism based on the beach summer season. Modelling the carrying capacity of beaches as primarily used areas for tourism is worth mentioning in the paper that argues recovery strategies after COVID-19.

The paper worth considering in this light is Grofelnik, H. (2020). Assessment of acceptable tourism beach carrying capacity in both normal and COVID-19 pandemic conditions–Case study of the Town of Mali Lošinj. Hrvatski geografski glasnik, 82(2), 131-152. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/361931

The paper argues ways of modelling tourism beach carrying capacity in post-COVID-19 tourism summer season in Mediterranean destinations (a case study of Croatia). Above abovementioned paper is also worth mentioning because in Table 1. There are only two European tourism countries (but European tourism makes up about half of international world tourism).

 

Scientific contribution

The paper presents theoretically valuable work that provides insight into the development of the framework, which strengthens the steps in recovery strategies after COVID-19.

 

I think the work is worth publishing (with mentioned minor modifications and additions).

Kind regards

In the paper covid-19, Covid-19, COVID-19 is written in different ways. I suggest the authors systematize their writing and, I recommend that they use the abbreviation of the World Health Organization that uses COVID-19.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank the reviewer for carefully reading our manuscript and sharing valuable comments, and your comments are great to help improve the quality of our work. The point-by-point responses to the comments are presented in the attached file.

Best Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

authors may require addressing the following concerns, 1. Authors may revise the abstract to elaborate more on the problem statement, their findings, and contributions. 2. Authors may elaborate more on the novelty of their work. How it contributes to the literature, in the second last paragraph in the introduction. 3. Authors need to be specific about their problem statement, and the scope of their research. 4. Overall paper presentation requires improvement. 5. Results sections need more elaborations. 6. Thorough proofreading is recommended. 7. The conclusion is not clear and needs revision and clarity and alignment with the abstract and title.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank the reviewer for carefully reading our manuscript and sharing valuable comments, and your comments are great to help improve the quality of our work. The point-by-point responses to the comments are presented in the attached file.

Best Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Requested corrections have been made, Accept in present form