Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Taking Nature Park 'Rusanda' (NPR) as an example, this article evaluated the current status of sustainable tourism in the study area and the satisfaction of residents and tourists in the park through a questionnaire survey based on the Prism of Sustainability Model (PoS) model. At the same time, this article also studied the relationship between the current status of sustainable tourism and satisfaction. The theme of this article is interesting, but there are still some issues.

 

1. In the literature review section of this article, the authors listed a large number of studies, but the content is rather extensive. It is recommended that the authors refine the content of this section and highlight the relationships between the cited research and THIS study.

 

2. The two important variables involved in this article, namely satisfaction and sustainable tourism status, were obtained using the Likert scale. This has led to subjective evaluation results in this article, which may further affect the regression analysis in the next step. In this study, it is not a problem to obtain satisfaction using the Likert scale method, but why didn’t the authors use objective indicators to evaluate the current situation of sustainable tourism?

 

3. The method of regression analysis in this paper is not specific enough. Is it simple linear regression or multiple linear regression?

 

4. Meanwhile, the definition of independent variable and dependent variable in this paper is not clear enough. From the expression of the paper, the dependent variable of this paper is satisfaction, and the independent variables are the sustainable status of the four dimensions of the research area. In this study, the sustainability status of the four dimensions is evaluated by several sub-indicators. However, these sub-indicators are not found in Table 4, and the relationships between these sub-indicators and the independent variables in Table 4 are not clearly explained in the paper.

 

5. In this paper, the respondents are divided into residents and visitors. It's very interesting. However, on the one hand, the authors did not further compare the analysis results of the two groups of people in the subsequent analysis, especially when doing the regression analysis. On the other hand, if the views and conclusions of residents and visitors are consistent, then the significance of dividing the two groups of people into separate surveys is insufficient.

 

6. Some conclusions in the discussion part are mainly qualitative analysis and lack of research data support.

 

7. The conclusion part of this paper is rather lengthy, so it is suggested to simplify it.

 

To sum up, there are some deficiencies in the research design of this paper. The expression of this paper is not clear enough. Meanwhile, the analysis content lacks further data support. It is suggested that the authors make further modification.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The research being analysed is of great importance today.

The work is well structured and developed.

However, in section 2 the authors should already point out which indicators are used to assess the 4 dimensions under study. Hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 are not described in this section, nor in the rest of the article (see lines 165-168).

In section 3, some photos of the park could help us understand the need of its protection.

In section 4, following on from figure 2, the parameters to be assessed for each dimension should be indicated/ introduced in paper, since there are two questionnaires (residents and visitors). That can clarify the sections 5, 6 and 7.

In addition, the method: Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient, should be explained, to better understand the table 1. Because that, and in my opinion, in Section 5 it is not clear how the means presented are arrived at. In my opinion, the method justification could help support Section 6, which is still unclear. Since it is necessary to highlight the main contribution made by the interviews to solving the prism presented in section 2 (i.e., to arrive to a sustainable tourism).

The conclusions (section 7) should discuss or underline some outcomes related with the exposed in the section 2 between lines 118and 121.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presentation and layout of the article are properly formatted and clear.

The methodology, discussion section, and conclusion sections are also clear.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Compared with the previous draft, the quality of this draft has been significantly improved. I have no other comments.