Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Comparative Governance and Lessons from Tara and Triglav National Parks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to get acquainted with your manuscript. Despite its many advantages, there are certain shortcomings that I suggest improving. There is a significant discrepancy between the title and the content presented in the introduction; it is unclear what comparative lessons are being discussed. The introduction mentions residents, but perhaps I would recommend that you rely on additional scientific literature on this issue and use this source: Burksiene, V., & Dvorak, J. (2020). Performance Management In Protected Areas: Localizing Governance Of The Curonian Spit National Park, Lithuania. Public administration issues, (5), 105-124.. It is also unclear what the purpose and questions of the study are, because they are not in the introduction. The literature analysis has been done, but it would be useful to make subsections, because now such a complete text is not attractive, because much less has been written about protected area governance, so it is necessary to discuss how it happens, what obstacles to tourism are, and what international experience is. It is not clear from the methodology why the authors chose to examine those protected areas. Clear selection criteria need to be provided. It is interesting from the methods section whether Serbian law is somehow related to EU law in this area. It is not very clear from the results section why sustainability indicators were chosen for the comparison, what determined their choice, if any, from the literature analysis. To compare economic sustainability, serious economic indicators are needed, and now there are none. The choice of SWOT analysis for social sustainability is unclear, as the suitability of this method is not explained. The discussion is a bit too broad, and the conclusions lack a contribution to the development of theory and practice, future research, and policy implications. The literature needs to be reviewed, especially online sources and their formatting. English needs to be improved.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageDear Editors,
Major.
All the best
Author Response
Comment 1: There is a significant discrepancy between the title and the content presented in the introduction; it is unclear what comparative lessons are being discussed.
Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. Revisions and additions have been made to the penultimate paragraph of the Introduction section.
Comment 2: The introduction mentions residents, but perhaps I would recommend that you rely on additional scientific literature on this issue and use this source: Burksiene, V., & Dvorak, J. (2020). Performance Management In Protected Areas: Localizing Governance Of The Curonian Spit National Park, Lithuania. Public administration issues, (5), 105-124.
Response 2: The reference recommended by Reviewer 1 has been incorporated into the relevant section of the manuscript, as suggested.
Comment 3: It is also unclear what the purpose and questions of the study are, because they are not in the introduction.
Response 3: Following your comment, we revised the penultimate paragraph of the Introduction to elaborate more explicitly on the purpose and research questions of the study. These revisions aim to improve clarity and alignment with the overall focus of the manuscript.
Comment 4: The literature analysis has been done, but it would be useful to make subsections, because now such a complete text is not attractive, because much less has been written about protected area governance, so it is necessary to discuss how it happens, what obstacles to tourism are, and what international experience is.
Response 4: In line with this comment, as well as the suggestion from Reviewer 3, we have reorganized the Literature Review section by introducing clear subsections. This structural revision has made the chapter more coherent, fluid, and accessible for the reader. Also, a literature showing comparative protected area governance, along with good practices and challenges, in other countries have been added.
Comment 5: It is not clear from the methodology why the authors chose to examine those protected areas. Clear selection criteria need to be provided. It is interesting from the methods section whether Serbian law is somehow related to EU law in this area.
Response 5: The manuscript now clearly explains the rationale behind the comparative selection of Tara and Triglav National Parks. Both are mountainous, transboundary protected areas categorized under IUCN Category II, which ensures a comparable management framework centered on ecosystem protection and sustainable visitation. Their shared ecological typology and positioning within the Dinaric-Alpine region further support the relevance of comparative analysis. Additionally, a sentence has been added in the methodology section to acknowledge Serbia’s alignment with EU environmental directives as a candidate country, establishing a valid basis for policy comparison with an EU member state such as Slovenia.
Comment 6: It is not very clear from the results section why sustainability indicators were chosen for the comparison, what determined their choice, if any, from the literature analysis. To compare economic sustainability, serious economic indicators are needed, and now there are none. The choice of SWOT analysis for social sustainability is unclear, as the suitability of this method is not explained.
Response 6: Thank you for this valuable observation. The revised version of the manuscript offers greater clarity regarding the rationale behind the selection of sustainability indicators. In Section 3.2 (Methodology), an explanation has been added to clarify that the selected indicators reflect the ecological, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability, as broadly defined in protected area management literature, and were selected based on the availability of comparable, reliable, and up-to-date data for both national parks. The indicator categories were also aligned with international sustainability frameworks such as the SDGs. Regarding the economic dimension, we acknowledge that more detailed economic indicators (e.g., financial flows, park revenues, visitor spending) would offer deeper insight. However, due to data limitations (particularly in the Serbian context) proxy indicators such as overnight stays per capita, tourism-related employment, and population trends were used. These reflect available official statistics and are suitable for a regional-scale comparative assessment. This limitation is explicitly acknowledged in the conclusion section, along with a recommendation for future studies to incorporate more granular economic data where possible. With respect to the use of SWOT analysis for social sustainability, the manuscript clarifies that SWOT was used as a qualitative synthesis tool to interpret policy and governance-related aspects that are not easily captured through quantitative indicators. It was not intended as a stand-alone evaluation framework, but rather as a supplementary tool to contextualize institutional conditions and stakeholder engagement based on available documentation. Given the lack of primary stakeholder interviews, the use of SWOT was considered an appropriate and transparent method for highlighting structural social dynamics.
Comment 7: The discussion is a bit too broad, and the conclusions lack a contribution to the development of theory and practice, future research, and policy implications. The literature needs to be reviewed, especially online sources and their formatting. English needs to be improved.
Response 7: The discussion and conclusion sections have been revised to sharpen the theoretical contribution, highlight practical and policy implications, and outline directions for future research. The language has been thoroughly edited for clarity and academic tone. All references, including online sources, have been reviewed and reformatted to comply with the MDPI citation style.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
A comparative study of national parks across nations is always fascinating. The study you conducted requires modifications and additions to the paper in order to retain its quality.
The shortcoming of this work is the lack of primary empirical insights from local stakeholders.
Introduction:
Additional information about the national parks Tara and Triglav should be included in the Introduction. Writing a few sentences on it is not enough.
Literature review
There is not enough existing, relevant and accessible literature about Tara National Park in the literature review area. Some parts of this chapter could be moved to the Introduction.
Line 418/423
The indicators' calculation formulas are not included in the publication.
Line 426/427
Citations are required.
Line 440
References are necessary.
Conclusions
Rather than being addressed precisely, the conclusion is more general. Considering the study that was conducted, the conclusion needs to be expanded.
The study's conclusions restate its findings without offering any helpful suggestions.
The most important findings from the research should be added to the conclusion.
Author Response
Comment 1: Introduction: Additional information about the national parks Tara and Triglav should be included in the Introduction. Writing a few sentences on it is not enough.
Response 1: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. Additional information on Tara and Triglav National Parks has been incorporated into the Introduction section to provide better context. More detailed descriptions are included in the Study Area section. As Reviewer 3 noted that the Introduction was overly long, we aimed to strike a balance by avoiding excessive expansion in that part of the manuscript.
Comment 2: Literature review: There is not enough existing, relevant and accessible literature about Tara National Park in the literature review area. Some parts of this chapter could be moved to the Introduction.
Response 2: We appreciate your observation. Tara National Park has recently become the focus of increased scholarly attention. While it shares many features with Triglav NP, the limited presence of Tara in the academic literature was a key reason for selecting it as a case study in this research. Its inclusion allows for a more balanced comparison and contributes new empirical insights.
Comment 3: Line 418/423
The indicators' calculation formulas are not included in the publication.
Response 3: The authors adopted this suggestion for ecologic, but also for economic indicators.
Comment 4: Line 426/427
Citations are required.
Response 4: The authors corrected this. Thank you.
Comment 5: Line 440
References are necessary.
Response 5: The authors corrected this. Thank you.
Comment 6: Conclusions
Rather than being addressed precisely, the conclusion is more general. Considering the study that was conducted, the conclusion needs to be expanded. The study's conclusions restate its findings without offering any helpful suggestions. The most important findings from the research should be added to the conclusion.
Response 6: Thank you for the insightful comment. The conclusion has been expanded to go beyond a summary of findings, offering clearer theoretical contributions, practical recommendations, and future research directions. Key actionable insights have been explicitly added to highlight the most important results of the study.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsStrengths:
There is a strong alignment of the study with the SDGs, hence apt for the Sustainability scope. The literature review is comprehensive and closely linked to the underpinning SDG goals and highlighted exemplary cases of two mountain parks. The study findings (well written with supporting Table 1 and Table 2) are undertaken in Tara NP (Serbia) and Triglav (Slovenia) which is interesting since these areas remained under-researched. The literature review is up to date till 2025. A novel method to perform SWOT analysis to identify internal and external factors affecting sustainability and comparative study between two destinations, so it is commendable. The conclusions had clearly shown the links to the list of SGDs, therefore suitable for this journal.
Recommendations:
Introduction: This section is lengthy. For the content in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, consider shifting to the literature review section. For the last paragraph, carefully indicate who will benefit from this study findings accompanied by theoretical contributions to relevant research arms.
Literature Review: Consider including sub-headers to clearly indicate the main topics. Example of sub-headers, to start with (1) Sustainable tourism management and SDGs – combine the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs from Introduction and the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of the present Literature Review section (2) Cases of Tourism, Nature conservation, and Local development to cover the 3rd to 7th paragraphs of the present Literature review section (3) Stakeholders of Sustainable Tourism Management and the Macroenvironmental Impacts for the rest of the paragraphs in present Literature Review section.
Method: Please clearly specify the other publicly available sources that were referred to and explain why it is recommended, example due to the data validity rationale. The data primarily referred to the 2022/2023 period. Do justify why the data in 2022/2023 would be still relevant despite that we are in July 2025 and useful for the intended target audience such as Park Councils and residents. This part has been explicit in the data sources, though the data phase (timeline) from initiation such as gathered published/secondary data and direct data request from the national parks management and operationalization of the sustainability indicators (referring to Table 1) requires more clarity. More clarification on how the thematic (data) analysis was performed to reveal the themes as this would help to offer empirical evidence.
Conclusion: Please indicate clearly the theoretical contribution to which “growing body of literature” that this study offers.
Author Response
Comment 1: Introduction: This section is lengthy. For the content in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, consider shifting to the literature review section. For the last paragraph, carefully indicate who will benefit from this study findings accompanied by theoretical contributions to relevant research arms.
Response 1: Thank you for your constructive feedback aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript. The penultimate paragraph of the Introduction has been revised in response to another Reviewer’s comment, and also expanded to address your point regarding the practical and theoretical contributions of this study. We now clearly outline the beneficiaries of the research and its added value to both policy and academic discourse. Also, the second and third paragraphs have been transferred to the literature review section.
Comment 2: Literature Review: Consider including sub-headers to clearly indicate the main topics. Example of sub-headers, to start with (1) Sustainable tourism management and SDGs – combine the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs from Introduction and the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of the present Literature Review section (2) Cases of Tourism, Nature conservation, and Local development to cover the 3rd to 7th paragraphs of the present Literature review section (3) Stakeholders of Sustainable Tourism Management and the Macroenvironmental Impacts for the rest of the paragraphs in present Literature Review section.
Response 2: Subsections have been introduced within the Literature Review section to enhance readability and improve the overall structure of the chapter. In addition, some of the suggested subsection titles have been adopted to better reflect the content.
Comment 3: Method: Please clearly specify the other publicly available sources that were referred to and explain why it is recommended, example due to the data validity rationale. The data primarily referred to the 2022/2023 period. Do justify why the data in 2022/2023 would be still relevant despite that we are in July 2025 and useful for the intended target audience such as Park Councils and residents. This part has been explicit in the data sources, though the data phase (timeline) from initiation such as gathered published/secondary data and direct data request from the national parks management and operationalization of the sustainability indicators (referring to Table 1) requires more clarity. More clarification on how the thematic (data) analysis was performed to reveal the themes as this would help to offer empirical evidence.
Response 3: Thank you for this detailed and constructive comment. The methodology section has been revised to more clearly specify that the data sources included publicly available national statistics, census data, official tourism reports, and national park management plans, as well as information obtained upon request from Tara NP authorities. The 2022/2023 data were selected because they represent the most recent, complete, and comparable datasets across both parks at the time of analysis, and remain relevant in mid-2025 due to the slow-changing nature of institutional structures and the ongoing validity of current management plans (e.g., Tara NP 2020–2029; Triglav NP 2016–2025). Furthermore, a clarifying sentence was added to explain the timeline of data collection (Q3 2023–Q1 2024) and the operationalization of sustainability indicators in Table 1.
Comment 4: Conclusion: Please indicate clearly the theoretical contribution to which “growing body of literature” that this study offers.
Response 4: Thank you for this observation. The revised conclusion now clearly specifies the theoretical contribution of the study by positioning it within the growing body of literature on participatory governance, institutional maturity, and sustainability outcomes in protected areas (particularly in post-socialist and transitional contexts). A new sentence has been added to highlight how the study extends comparative frameworks by illustrating the potential of hybrid governance models that combine legal structure with participatory flexibility.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
While your comparative study on two national parks is quite interesting, I wonder how it can be qualified as a research article.
In order to overcome this limitation, please add at least 3 hypotheses to the study and then apply your discussion to answer or to justify each hypothesis.
The limitations section should be expanded to LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH and separated from the conclusions.
Before the conclusions, please add a MANAGERIAL APPLICATIONS section before the concluions, where you must demonstrate how your research study can help the business community in the region under study.
Author Response
Comment 1: In order to overcome this limitation, please add at least 3 hypotheses to the study and then apply your discussion to answer or to justify each hypothesis.
Response 1: Thank you for this helpful recommendation. In response, we have formulated and added three research hypotheses at the end of the Introduction section, which now more clearly guide the analytical direction of the study.
Comment 2: The limitations section should be expanded to LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH and separated from the conclusions.
Before the conclusions, please add a MANAGERIAL APPLICATIONS section before the concluions, where you must demonstrate how your research study can help the business community in the region under study.
Response 2: Thank you for this helpful recommendation. In response, the conclusion section has been restructured and retitled as "Implications, Limitations, and Future Directions" to integrate the requested elements in a coherent and thematically connected way. The limitations and suggestions for further research have been expanded to include data availability constraints, the absence of stakeholder input, and recommendations for mixed-method approaches. To avoid presenting managerial applications as an isolated paragraph, the practical implications for park managers, local authorities, and regional policymakers have been integrated into the broader implications section, emphasizing how the findings can inform governance improvements and sustainability planning in comparable protected areas.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the updated manuscript. You should improve the list of references as now something going wrong with it.
all the best
Author Response
Comment 1: You should improve the list of references as now something going wrong with it.
Response 1. Thank you for your suggestion. You were absolutely right — the reference Cigale, D.; Lampič, B. Aspects of tourism sustainability on organic farms in Slovenia. J. Geogr. Inst. “Jovan Cvijić” SASA 2023, 73(2), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.2298/IJGI2302251C, which should be listed as number 26, was omitted. As a result, all subsequent references were shifted by one. We sincerely appreciate you pointing this out.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I can see that the manuscript has major improvements and that you took care to include the recommendations of the reviewers.
While the three hypotheses look good and well structured, please remember that the DISCUSSION and/or CONCLUSIONS section must always include the discussion on the hypotheses, one by one, where you prove that the hypotheses are satisfied or not and the reasons for the same.
I suggest you try to add the discussions on the hypotheses in the text where you discuss the parks.
Author Response
Comment 1: While the three hypotheses look good and well structured, please remember that the DISCUSSION and/or CONCLUSIONS section must always include the discussion on the hypotheses, one by one, where you prove that the hypotheses are satisfied or not and the reasons for the same. I suggest you try to add the discussions on the hypotheses in the text where you discuss the parks.
Response 1: The suggestion to discuss each hypothesis individually has been fully accepted. A separate subsection (4.5 Discussion of Hypotheses) has been added, where all three hypotheses are addressed and evaluated based on the study's findings.
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The manuscript looks ok now.
