Review Reports - The Potential and Function of Natural Attractions in Tunisia in the Context of Sustainable Tourism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The academic logic chain of the introduction lacks coherence, and the information hierarchy is not well-structured. This may hinder readers from effectively identifying the core elements of the study, specifically its significance and the research problems it intends to address. The introduction opens by discussing "research trends in sustainable tourism" but does not promptly anchor this discussion to the unique contextual challenges of Tunisia’s tourism industry. This approach may leave readers with unresolved questions:

a.What are the key characteristics of Tunisia’s tourism sector? The "reliance on 3S products" is only introduced in Line 68, and critical context—such as the inherent limitations of this model (e.g., over-concentration of resources, environmental strain)—is not provided beforehand.

b.For Tunisia, sustainable tourism is not merely a "trend" but an urgent "necessity." However, the introduction does not first elaborate on the "specific issues already emerging from the 3S model" (e.g., coastal overcapacity, resource degradation). As a result, the subsequent discussion on "sustainability" lacks the necessary sense of practical urgency.

B. The literature review tends toward a descriptive "listing" of sources rather than focusing on identifying the research gap.While the introduction cites works by scholars such as Chemli, Halioui, and Widz, it primarily summarizes "what these studies have covered" without addressing two critical questions:

a.What common gap or unaddressed area exists across these existing studies?

b.What justifies the need for the current research to fill this gap?

For Section 2 titled "Natural Resources as the Basis for Tourism Development in Tunisia," the core issue lies in confusing the fundamental difference between "resource listing" and "academic analysis." It only provides an encyclopedia-style description of "what the resources are," but fails to fulfill the argumentative tasks that "resource introduction" in an academic paper must undertake—namely explaining "why these resources are important" and "how they relate to the current research." This is why the section appears to lack logic and focus.

The conclusion presented in Lines 285-286 lacks logical support.

The methodology mentions that "weight assignment is the most subjective part," but only glosses over it with the claim that "a large number of included features can offset biases." It fails to specify any concrete operations for reducing subjectivity.

There is obvious information redundancy in the Results section: it repeatedly mentions that the indicators of 8 regions are below the average and 2 regions are at high risk, but fails to conduct a deeper comparison of the differences between different high-risk regions. It only points out that excessive coastal tourism leads to environmental problems, but does not analyze why the 3S model continues to dominate or whether there are historical reasons at the policy level. Although it mentions that alternative tourism has potential, it does not combine the results of this study to explain which regions are suitable for developing blue diving and how the infrastructure gaps for Sahara tourism can be addressed through the potential indicators of this study. As a result, the discussion remains at the level of common-sense judgments and fails to reflect the unique contributions of this research. Suggestions such as monitoring tourist flow and diverting tourists to surrounding areas for alternative tourism development are put forward, but no specific operation plans are provided. There is even no targeted advice based on the underdeveloped regions identified in the research results, leading to a disconnect between suggestions and results and a lack of application guidance that academic research should provide.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable and insightful comments.

Comment:

The academic logic chain of the introduction lacks coherence, and the information hierarchy is not well-structured. This may hinder readers from effectively identifying the core elements of the study, specifically its significance and the research problems it intends to address.

Response:
We appreciate this valuable comment. We agree that the previous version of the introduction required a clearer logical structure. In the revised manuscript, the Introduction section has been entirely reorganized and condensed to enhance coherence and readability. It now follows a clear and progressive structure:

a general overview of sustainable tourism research and its global relevance;
a discussion of emerging socio-economic and environmental challenges;
the specific context of Tunisia and its dependence on the 3S (Sea–Sun–Sand) tourism model;
a precise formulation of the study’s objectives and justification.

This reorganization provides a consistent logical flow and enables readers to easily identify the significance, rationale, and research questions of the study.

Comment:

The introduction opens by discussing "research trends in sustainable tourism" but does not promptly anchor this discussion to the unique contextual challenges of Tunisia’s tourism industry. This approach may leave readers with unresolved questions:

Response:
We acknowledge the reviewer’s insightful observation. In the revised version, the context of Tunisia has been introduced much earlier in the Introduction. The updated third paragraph explicitly presents the historical development and structural characteristics of the Tunisian tourism sector, emphasizing the long-standing dominance of the 3S model and its inherent limitations, such as spatial concentration, environmental pressure, and regional imbalance.

By integrating these details earlier, the discussion now seamlessly connects global sustainability trends with Tunisia’s specific challenges, providing readers with the necessary background to understand the research context.

Comment:

Response:
We fully agree with this important point. The revised introduction explicitly states that for Tunisia, sustainable tourism represents an urgent necessity rather than a global trend. The paragraph discussing the 3S model has been expanded to include its main negative implications—such as coastal overcapacity, environmental degradation, and social inequality. These revisions provide the introduction with a stronger sense of practical urgency and clarify the direct link between the identified problems and the study’s objectives.

Comment:

The literature review tends toward a descriptive ‘listing’ of sources rather than focusing on identifying the research gap. While the introduction cites works by scholars such as Chemli, Halioui, and Widz, it primarily summarizes ‘what these studies have covered’ without addressing two critical questions:
a. What common gap or unaddressed area exists across these existing studies?
b. What justifies the need for the current research to fill this gap?

Response:

We sincerely appreciate this insightful comment. In the revised version, the former literature section has been completely rewritten to move beyond a descriptive summary toward a critical and analytical synthesis of existing research. The updated text now outlines the dominant methodological approaches to sustainable tourism—both globally and within the Tunisian context—and highlights the main theoretical and empirical gaps in prior studies. A newly developed subsection titled „Literature review” explicitly identifies that existing studies on Tunisia are predominantly qualitative and conceptual, with an evident lack of quantitative and spatial analyses assessing the relationship between natural potential and tourism functions. The present research addresses this deficiency by applying Multidimensional Comparative Analysis (MCA) to quantitatively identify regional disparities and assess sustainability levels across Tunisia’s tourism regions.

Comment:

Response:

We are very grateful for this comment. The description of Tunisia's natural potential has been radically improved.

Comment:

The conclusion presented in Lines 285-286 lacks logical support.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation and agree with this comment. The paragraph in question has been removed from the revised version of the manuscript

Comment:

The methodology mentions that "weight assignment is the most subjective part," but only glosses over it with the claim that "a large number of included features can offset biases." It fails to specify any concrete operations for reducing subjectivity.

Response:

We are grateful for this comment. In order to eliminate subjectivity, we tried to give all characteristics an equal chance by assigning them relatively equal weights. This has been added to the manuscript.

Comment:

Response:

We are very grateful for this comment. We have added an in-depth analysis in the appropriate place in the manuscript.

Comment:

Although it mentions that alternative tourism has potential, it does not combine the results of this study to explain which regions are suitable for developing blue diving and how the infrastructure gaps for Sahara tourism can be addressed through the potential indicators of this study. As a result, the discussion remains at the level of common-sense judgments and fails to reflect the unique contributions of this research.

Response:

We fully agree with the reviewer’s insightful comment. The Discussion section has been substantially revised (lines 557-589) to establish a clear link between the results of the Multidimensional Comparative Analysis (MCA) and the regional potential for specific forms of alternative tourism.

In the revised version, the discussion explicitly identifies Bizerte–Beja and Gabes as regions with high natural potential (SINAP, SITP) and moderate tourism intensity, making them suitable for the development of blue diving within the framework of the blue economy. Connects Gabes, Jerba–Zarzis, and Kasserine with Sahara tourism, showing that targeted improvements in infrastructure (as indicated by SIAP and SIAF values) could enhance their tourism functions and support sustainable regional diversification.

Comment:

Suggestions such as monitoring tourist flow and diverting tourists to surrounding areas for alternative tourism development are put forward, but no specific operation plans are provided. There is even no targeted advice based on the underdeveloped regions identified in the research results, leading to a disconnect between suggestions and results and a lack of application guidance that academic research should provide.

Response:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable and insightful comment. We agree that the initial version of the manuscript presented general recommendations that were not sufficiently linked to the empirical results and regional differentiation identified in the study. In response, the Conclusions and Implications section has been substantially revised to include region-specific operational plans directly linked to the study results. The recommendations are now structured into three categories: (1) coastal regions dominated by the 3S model, (2) desert and oasis regions with high natural potential, and (3) inland regions with underdeveloped tourism functions. For each group, concrete actions have been proposed—such as off-season tourism programs, visitor limits, thalassotherapy and balneotherapy development, blue diving, birdwatching, and low-impact desert tourism. These modifications establish a clear connection between empirical findings and applied recommendations, strengthening the practical and policy relevance of the study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Tourism sustainability is a major challenge, and, thus, its analysis with original methodological tools in the particular countries, especially the quickly rising tourist destinations, should be welcomed. Your manuscript explores tourism sustainability in Tunisia, and this is really interesting to the international research audience. The topic fits the scope of “Sustainability”. The objective is clear and reasonable. What is most important is that you apply a fresh, but already tested methodology, which is explained very well. The results are notable, and they are of both conceptual and practical importance. The interpretations are also rich and useful. The conclusions follow from the study, and they are argued as necessary. I appreciate the statement of the limitations. Your manuscript is written clearly, structured well, and adequately referenced. The number of tables and figures is ok for this kind of paper. Generally, I like your work and give several recommendations below.

Line 11: what is 3S? Please, explain all non-common abbreviations in the first place of their use, but in the abstract and the main text.
Lines 143-150: please, add geoheritage because geoparks are mentioned below.
Lines 164-165: not necessary because colors, panoramic views, etc. also matter – moreover, scenic values depend on visitors (e.g., some visitors prefer mountains, and the other prefer plains).
Lines 266-267: what is the source of these data?
Section 3: can you distinguish tourists interested in natural sites and those interested in historical/cultural sites? To me, Tunisia is more about historical/cultural heritage than natural heritage.
The methodological section is very detailed and clear. But it bears numerous tables and figures that are outcomes (!) of your analysis, and, thus, they have to be presented (with accompanying texts) in Results. Please, consider to make the related re-organization.
Subsection 5.2 is too short, and I recommend to include this information to the end of the section 5 and without splitting it into subsections.
Discussion: which country-scale socio-economical peculiarities and trends may influence on your findings and/or implementation of your recommendations? Please, try to thick and write.
The writing is clear, although additional polishing would help. I do not understand the need in so many words given in bold.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the very positive and constructive evaluation of our manuscript.

Response:

We greatly appreciate the recognition of the originality of our methodological approach, the clarity of our research objectives, and the importance of our findings for studies on sustainable tourism. Below, we provide detailed responses to all comments.

The abbreviation 3S (Sea–Sun–Sand) has been explained at its first occurrence in the abstract.
The term geoheritage has been added in the section discussing geoparks. This improvement enhances the conceptual consistency of the text and more accurately reflects the diversity of Tunisia’s natural assets.
In the revised version of the manuscript, the data source has been clearly indicated and supplemented with appropriate bibliographic references to ensure transparency and verifiability of the research process.
We fully agree that Tunisia possesses an exceptionally rich cultural and historical heritage that significantly contributes to its tourism image. However, this study deliberately focuses on the natural dimension of sustainable tourism development, presenting the full analytical process and methodological challenges related to assessing natural features of the study area. We would like to emphasize that in our next paper we plan to analyze Tunisia’s cultural and historical potential, which will constitute a natural continuation of the present research.
Thank you for this suggestion. The three resulting figures (models) have been moved to the ‘Results’ section. The tables with stage calculations have remained in the ‘Methods’ section, in accordance with the editorial guidelines.
The content of Subsection 5.2 has been merged with Section 5 to improve the logical and narrative coherence of the text.
The Discussion section has been expanded to include an analysis of Tunisia’s socio-economic context, including issues such as regional disparities, the dominance of the coastal tourism model, water resource shortages, and the limited participation of local communities in tourism-related economic benefits. These factors are presented as key determinants affecting the implementation of sustainable tourism strategies.

The manuscript has undergone linguistic and stylistic revision. Unnecessary bold formatting has been removed, and the text has been standardized to improve readability and the professional appearance of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity of reading and reviewing your interesting manuscript.

The paper addresses a relevant and important topic, falling under the scope of the journal, i.e. assessing the sustainability of tourism in Tunisia by analyzing regional natural potential and tourism functions to prevent overtourism and providing model for tourism development in a sustainable way.

The authors focus on the case of Tunisia, a country that since the 1970s, has attracted tourists due to its diverse natural environment and recreational offerings, especially along its eastern Mediterranean coast. However, this concentration of tourism poses a risk of overtourism. To address this, researchers used multidimensional comparative analysis to evaluate 23 characteristics of Tunisia’s tourist regions, focusing on nature-based attractions and accommodation capacity. The analysis revealed that the regions of Nabeul–Hammamet, Yasmine–Hammamet, and Monastir–Skanes face the greatest threats to sustainable tourism—due to either high visitor numbers at natural sites or excessive use of accommodations. Monitoring and strategic interventions are needed to reduce pressure on these areas.

The research has numerous implications for sustainable tourism development in Tunisia, acting like a road map for that.

Regarding the paper, I notice that a section on Literature lacks. I suggest to address this issue, by inserting afer the Introduction a dedicated section. Moreover, in the section Materials and methods, there are many tables and information which I consider better fit in the Results section. Anyway, the Materials and method section is too long, and the Results too short. The final section should be renamed Conclusions, implications and limitations to better reflect its content. Moreover, the implications and policy recomendations should be more clearly presented, as they are really important.

Overall, I consider the research valuable and with many implications for future policies.

Good luck!

Author Response

We would like to thank you very much for your very positive and constructive assessment of our manuscript.

Comment:

Regarding the paper, I notice that a section on Literature lacks. I suggest to address this issue, by inserting after the Introduction a dedicated section.

Response:
We fully agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. In the revised version of the manuscript, a dedicated literature section has been added immediately after the Introduction. This part, titled „Literature Review”, presents a concise synthesis of existing studies on sustainable tourism – both globally and in the Tunisian context – and explicitly identifies the main research gap that the current study aims to address.

Comment:

Moreover, in the section Materials and methods, there are many tables and information which I consider better fit in the Results section. Anyway, the Materials and method section is too long, and the Results too short.

Response:

Thank you for this suggestion. The three resulting figures (models) have been moved to the ‘Results’ section. The tables with stage calculations have remained in the ‘Methods’ section, in accordance with the editorial guidelines.

Comment:

The final section should be renamed Conclusions, implications and limitations to better reflect its content. Moreover, the implications and policy recomendations should be more clearly presented, as they are really important.

Response:

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. The final section has been substantially expanded and restructured to include a clear presentation of both the theoretical implications and the policy-oriented recommendations derived from the study.

The revised version now:

introduces regionally differentiated policy measures, tailored to three types of regions (coastal, desert–oasis, and inland),
outlines specific strategies such as off-season product development, diversification of nature-based tourism, blue and green economy integration, and sustainable use of thermal and marine resources,
and concludes with a Limitations subsection highlighting the constraints of spatial data availability and proposing directions for future research.

These changes significantly strengthen the practical and policy relevance of the study, aligning it with the expectations of applied research in sustainable tourism.