A Sustainability-Oriented Spatial Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework for Optimizing Recreational Ecological Park Development
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for allowing me to read this article.
(1) This manuscript presents a spatial multi-criteria decision analysis (SMCDA) framework to optimise the assessment of recreational ecological park (REP) development in Mazandaran Province, Iran. The study used effective criteria to map the suitability of REPs. A complex research methodology was applied for this purpose. As a whole, it fits into the issue of spatial analysis in tourism and fills a rather important gap in this field.
(2) In this study, it is valuable to present a framework for optimising the location of REP development based on spatial multi-criteria decision-making models in analysed case study.
(3) Compared to other published material, it is important that the example of Mazandaran Province in Iran demonstrates a research methodology that can be applied to other destinations in terms of the REP development location optimisation framework.
(4) However, in order to be able to apply the proposed spatial research methodology to other destinations, the terms ‘Tourism Potential’, ‘recreational and tourist sites’ and ‘tourist sites’ need to be defined precisely and applied precisely throughout the manuscript.
(5) The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. However, from the ‘Discussion’ section, the text fragments in lines 501-505 should be moved to the end of the ‘Conclusions’ section as limitations and recommendations. Similarly, the fragment in lines 526-541 needs to be moved to the end of the ‘Conclusions’ section as perspectives for further research.
(6) References to literature subjects are appropriate. However, they should be collated according to the requirements of the journal.
(7) Additional comments on tables and figures and data quality.
(a) To the ‘Study area’ section: in the context of the research carried out, the description of the cultural elements is missing, as the following paragraph mentions the potential for tourism and not just ecotourism.
(b) It is necessary to clarify to the reader how the authors understand ‘tourism potential’ and how they understand ‘ecotourism potential’. And then it is necessary to use these terms consistently throughout the manuscript.
Other comments:
(1) In line 163: instead of ‘This study method’ it should read ‘The methology’.
(2) In fig. 2 instead of ‘Mine’ it should read ‘Min’.
In conclusion, the manuscript can be published after taking into account the suggestions indicated.
Author Response
Please see the attached file. Thanks
Best regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have carefully read this manuscript. I have some issues to discuss with authors.
1. Authors should write separate literature review. In this sections, you can clearly introduce the progress regarding the recreational ecological park development. I believe that the gaps in the extant literature is basic for your research.
2. I believe that the literature contribution can be further added. The author only presents that no research has been conducted on the spatial assessment of REP development potential. However, what was your contribution to the relevant theory?
3. The introduction on methods and data is complicate. I hope that authors can further simplify it. For example, the process of standardization can be deleted.
4. I hope that authors can continue to expand the content on Discussion. In this section, A spatial multi-criteria decision analysis framework needs to be compared with the existing methods. What are the advantages of your method? What are the disadvantages of your method?
5. I hold that authors can provide more recommendations for the case area. For example, how to optimize recreational ecological park development.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language can be clearly understood.
Author Response
Please see the attached file. Thanks
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank authors for your revisions. I agree that this article can be accepted.
