A Global Perspective on Ecotourism Marketing Trends: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

It was an honor and a pleasure to read your research, which is exceptionally well-written and encompasses all the necessary elements. Your study is clearly structured, thoroughly presents the problem you address, and effectively demonstrates how it is tackled through the presentation of research findings.

Here are my comments and minor suggestions:

The abstract is well-crafted, containing all essential components and conveying the core of the research. It enables the reader to understand the purpose of the study, the applied methods, and the need for conducting the research.

The introduction is also comprehensive, placing the topic in a broader context and identifying the key issues that motivated the writing of the paper. The research questions are clearly defined. However, for RQ1, the authors might consider specifying the exact period they are examining (e.g., the past two decades, or from year X to year Y).

The literature review provides a detailed overview of recent and relevant studies that contribute to the scientific understanding of the topic. Similarly, the methodology is well-explained, offering sufficient detail to allow replication of the study by other researchers. One suggestion: for the author “Pritchard,” please include the year of publication and ensure the corresponding reference is listed in the literature review if it is not already (line 124).

The results are excellently organized and presented. I particularly commend the clarity of the figures and graphical representations.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review and add value to our work. We recognise your contribution and are forever grateful. I have attached our response to the provided.

 

Kind Regards 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has a logical and clear structure, with an introduction that contextualises global sustainability challenges and the role of ecotourism, and clearly identifies the study's objectives, research questions, methodology, results and conclusions.
The writing could be improved in some respects, as we found constant repetition of certain terms (ecotourism, ecotourism marketing, etc.), as well as redundant writing, as the same ideas are addressed in different sections. In addition, the transition between sections is sometimes too abrupt, which could be avoided, for example, by including short introductory paragraphs in some sections and closing paragraphs in others. In this regard, for example, the title ‘Review of the research method’ could be changed to ‘Methodology’.
Regarding the methodology, while the use of VOSviewer is well founded, a more detailed description of how the data was analysed in Excel is lacking.
The summary and conclusions are too long and somewhat repetitive; they should be clearer and more concise.
The article has a good solid foundation. I suggest working on a revised version focused on polishing the style, synthesis and clarity of the argument,

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review and add value to our work. We recognise your contribution and are forever grateful. I have attached our response to the provided.

 

Kind Regards 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for allowing me to read this article.

(1) This manuscript explores the evolution of ecotourism marketing in order to identify key concepts and knowledge gaps and to define future directions of exploration. Secondary sources were used - bibliometric data from publications indexed in Web of Science between 2003 and 2025. The results showed that ecotourism marketing covers a wide range of aspects. However, in my opinion, Figure 3 shows clear clusters and connections as far as ecotourism marketing is concerned and this is what the authors should stick to when describing the results. There is a lack of reference/commentary on the timing of the different ecotourism issues. Furthermore, the authors have basically only verified hypothesis RQ3, while the verification of hypothesis RQ2 - is there, but very fuzzy and chaotic, and the authors have not verified hypothesis RQ1. Therefore, the manuscript needs to be rewritten in section 4. Results and Discussion, especially in the context of the highlighted clusters and the problematic nature of the research in relation to the timeline. In addition, hypotheses RQ1and RQ2 need to be verified correctly.

(2) The results of this study indicate that in the works analysed, ecotourism is most often addressed as one form of tourism, conservation, management, biodiversity and sustainability, as well as issues related to motivation and satisfaction. There is therefore a certain evolution in the issues addressed, which should also be noted by the authors of this manuscript.

(3) Compared to other published material, the manuscript analysed Ecotourism Marketing Trends in a broad context, but only articles in academic journals published in English; the authors explained the selection of this research sample well. In contrast, other studies looked at issues related to narrower topics, e.g. green hotels; green purchase intention factors; past, current, and future perspectives on eco-tourism.

(4) The research procedure is correct.

(5) Overall, the conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

(6) References to literature subjects are appropriate.

(7) Additional comments on tables and figures and data quality.

(a) Figure 3 needs to be refined - the cluster marked in red, for example, is not visible. It needs to be explained what the colour scale means, especially the numbers given on it.

Other comments:

(1). It is necessary to compare the colors in Figure 3 with its description. In Fig. 3 I furthermore see a correlation between the issues in the highlighted clusters and the number of publications addressing them.

(2) In lines 190-191: the country of Costa Rica is in Central America!!!!

In conclusion, the manuscript needs to be rewritten in section 4. Results and Discussion, especially in the context of the highlighted clusters and the problematic nature of the research in relation to the timeline. In addition, hypotheses RQ1and RQ2 need to be verified correctly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Kindly find the attached response to your comments. Once again, thank you for your time and consideration. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• An intersting research topic “”A Global Perspective on Ecotourism Marketing Trends: A Review”
• The abstract is well written and open new ventures for more intersting research ideas
• In the introduction you mentioned a lot of reasons that can directly and indirectly linked to the unsustainable way of living, can you elaborate more on its weights or effects size, which one is the most important and so on, then you can allocate the tourism industry including transporatioan and accommodation in its real size of effetcts on the unsustainable way of living, hence the research importance can be arised
• This assumption need strong evidence and references “Despite the increasing importance of ecotourism in addressing climate change and promoting sustainability, there is little understanding of how this field has revolved over the years to gain insights into critical debates in this field.”
• A bibliometric analysis using the VOSviewer method ( mention the version)
• You need to elabirate more on the inclusion and exclusion creteria employed in the bibliometric analysis
• Please discuss this result and give more explanation “The number of publications almost doubled between 2014 and 2019 to approximately 40 publications, shooting up to an all-time high in 2020, when more than 60 publications were recorded before a slight decline in 2021.”
• The several quotation in section Key Thematic Areas on Ecotourism Marketing seems inappropriate, please revise
• The research theortical and practical implications are missing, please elaborate more

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review and add value to our work. We recognise your contribution and are forever grateful. I have attached our response to the provided.

 

Kind Regards 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

fulfill all comments