Modeling Tourism Demand in Turkey (2008–2024): Time-Series Approaches for Sustainable Growth

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper ‘Modelling Tourism Demand in Turkey (2008-2024): Time-Series Approaches for Sustainable Growth' Confers an interesting research topic. The author focused on the tourism sector in the selected region. The author took as the aim of the study the analysis of tourism demand dynamics over the long term, taking into account seasonality, long-term trends and the accuracy of predictive modelling. In addition, time series data were analysed and the dimension of economic indicators and digital search trends were assessed using the SARIMA and SARIMAX models. The results of the research enabled inference in terms of the adopted objective.

The executive summary indicates the purpose and scope of the research. The abstract indicates the methodology used and the main results of the findings. The only observation concerns the precise identification of the research gap to which the paper responds and in this respect the abstract should be improved.

The introduction presents an explanation of the rationale for the author's research in the field undertaken. Already from the sentences of the introduction the author strongly focuses attention on the purpose of the paper, without a stronger discussion of the general background of the research. I believe that it would have been valuable to highlight the importance of tourism in the world and the research in terms of social perception of the development of this economic field. A generalisation of this theme, i.e. an indication of the role of tourism in the global dimension and tourism preferences, will create a reference for the analysis of this theme at the local level - in the area adopted for the study. There is recent literature in this area - it is worth studying e.g. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51038-0_52. To this extent, I suggest this section be supplemented, in particular because it provides a kind of literature review. There is no separate literature review section in the structure of the paper, and the literature of the paper needs to be significantly strengthened - 24 reference items is a modest resource.  For the remainder, I make no observations on the introduction.

The next part of the paper was oriented towards a discussion of ‘Materials and Methods’, which was done in two problem threads, broken down into detailed sections. The scope and sources of data were presented, and the models used in the study were discussed. The above was done correctly, with reference to the literature. I make no observations in this regard.

Section 3 ‘Results’ presented with scientific diligence. Results presented clearly, supported by visualisations. Only the discussion between Table 1 and Figure 3 (lines 205-206) needs to be completed. Other than that, I make no observations.

Section 4 is discussion-oriented. This section is valuable, developed with reference to a number of alternative studies. In this respect, I make no observations.

In the summary, the significance (theoretical and practical) of the author's findings is worthy of stronger emphasis. In this respect, the summary is worth supplementing. 

Literature well selected but very narrow - should be expanded, especially in the area of introductory content (as suggested).

In summary, this is an original paper, but it needs refinement in the area of the comments indicated above. The introduction should be improved, the discussion in the results presentation section should be completed and the literature should be strengthened. In addition, the implications are worth strengthening.

Author Response

Dear Referee,

I sincerely appreciate the valuable feedback provided by the reviewer. Below, I address each comment point by point, detailing the revisions made to the manuscript.

Reviewer Comment:
The abstract should indicate the precise identification of the research gap to which the paper responds and be improved accordingly.

Response:
I have revised the abstract to clearly articulate the specific research gap addressed by this study. The updated abstract also highlights the theoretical and practical contributions of the research

Reviewer Comment:
The introduction should include a stronger discussion of the general background of the research, highlighting the importance of tourism globally and its societal implications. A generalization of this theme would provide a reference for the local analysis. It is suggested to refer to recent literature (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51038-0_52).

Response:
I have expanded the introduction to include a broader discussion on the global significance of tourism and its societal impact. Recent literature, including the suggested source, has been incorporated to provide a comprehensive context for the study.

Reviewer Comment:
The literature of the paper is limited with 24 references. This needs to be significantly strengthened, especially in the introduction.

Response:
The manuscript’s references have been expanded significantly, particularly in the introduction, to ensure a robust theoretical foundation. Additional sources relevant to global and local tourism contexts have been included.

 

Reviewer Comment:
The discussion between Table 1 and Figure 3 (lines 205–206) needs to be completed.

I have revisited this section and completed the missing discussion. The revised text provides a more detailed and coherent explanation of the results presented in Table 1 and Figure 3.

 

Reviewer Comment:
The significance (theoretical and practical) of the author’s findings is worthy of stronger emphasis in the summary.

Response:
The summary section has been revised to emphasize the theoretical and practical implications of my findings more effectively. This includes a discussion of how the results contribute to the broader literature and practical applications.

Reviewer Comment:
The literature should be expanded, especially in the area of introductory content.

Response:
As noted earlier, the literature has been significantly expanded throughout the manuscript, particularly in the introduction. This ensures a more comprehensive coverage of the relevant studies and strengthens the paper’s theoretical underpinnings.

Final Note:
I am grateful for the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which has greatly contributed to the improvement of my manuscript. I have carefully addressed all comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. I hope the changes meet the reviewer’s expectations and look forward to any additional feedback.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is very good in every respect, i.e. substantive, methodological and editorial. As a scientific publication, it meets the conditions qualifying it for publication.

However, I see one caveat. If it is to be published in the journal Sustainability, it is necessary to develop this aspect. I propose to embed the issue of tourism (tourism economy) in the concept of sustainable development. I propose to explain what is the relationship between tourism and the creation of sustainable development, what are the relations between these categories, whether and to what extent the seasonality of tourism determines sustainable development or vice versa. And then use the results of the research to justify or falsify these assumptions. Therefore, it is crucial to link the context of tourism seasonality with the essence of sustainable development in this study. I believe that this should be done on the basis of a review of the scientific literature and the adoption of author's assumptions.

Without this aspect, the article can be published, but in another journal.

However, I leave the final decision to the editors of the journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive evaluation of the manuscript and for highlighting its strengths. I also greatly appreciate your constructive feedback. Below, I address your comments in detail:

I agree that embedding tourism within the concept of sustainable development will significantly enhance the manuscript. A new section has been added to discuss the relationship between tourism and sustainable development. This includes an explanation of how tourism contributes to or challenges the goals of sustainability.

As per your suggestion, I have included a detailed analysis of the relationship between tourism seasonality and sustainable development. This section discusses whether seasonality determines sustainable development or vice versa, supported by a review of relevant scientific literature.

The results of the study have been revisited and linked to the broader context of sustainable development. This ensures that the findings are used to justify or challenge the assumptions about the role of seasonality in sustainability.

A comprehensive review of the scientific literature has been conducted to strengthen the discussion. This literature review forms the basis for connecting the study’s results with the broader sustainable development framework.

I appreciate the opportunity to enhance the manuscript further. The revisions aim to align the study more closely with the scope of Sustainability. I hope the updated manuscript meets the expectations of both the reviewers and the journal.

Kind regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction lacks a robust background to anchor the research. I recommend adding a more thorough justification of the study and explicitly linking it to relevant previously conducted research to establish a solid context.

 

For the section on Google Trends, the explanation of the data collection process should be expanded. Clarify the methodology and discuss how the data was sourced and processed to ensure transparency and replicability.

 

It would be beneficial to include additional data, such as arrival statistics from UNWTO, to provide a more comprehensive overview and strengthen the analysis.

 

For the SARIMA and SARIMAX models, it is important to cite studies or researchers who have previously applied these models to process time series data in tourism. This will demonstrate the validity and relevance of your approach.

 

Lastly, the conclusion should better articulate the contribution of the research to both practice and academic discourse. Emphasize how the findings can be applied and what implications they have for future studies or industry practices.

Author Response

Dear Referee,

I sincerely appreciate the valuable feedback provided by the reviewer. Below, I address each comment point by point, detailing the revisions made to the manuscript.

Reviewer Comment:
The abstract should indicate the precise identification of the research gap to which the paper responds and be improved accordingly.

Response:
I have revised the abstract to clearly articulate the specific research gap addressed by this study. The updated abstract also highlights the theoretical and practical contributions of the research.

Reviewer Comment:
The introduction should include a stronger discussion of the general background of the research, highlighting the importance of tourism globally and its societal implications. A generalization of this theme would provide a reference for the local analysis. It is suggested to refer to recent literature (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51038-0_52).

Response:
I have expanded the introduction to include a broader discussion on the global significance of tourism and its societal impact. Recent literature, including the suggested source, has been incorporated to provide a comprehensive context for the study.

Reviewer Comment:
The literature of the paper is limited with 24 references. This needs to be significantly strengthened, especially in the introduction.

Response:
The manuscript’s references have been expanded significantly, particularly in the introduction, to ensure a robust theoretical foundation. Additional sources relevant to global and local tourism contexts have been included.

Reviewer Comment:
The discussion between Table 1 and Figure 3 (lines 205–206) needs to be completed.

Response:
I have revisited this section and completed the missing discussion. The revised text provides a more detailed and coherent explanation of the results presented in Table 1 and Figure 3.

Reviewer Comment:
The significance (theoretical and practical) of the author’s findings is worthy of stronger emphasis in the summary.

Response:
The summary section has been revised to emphasize the theoretical and practical implications of my findings more effectively. This includes a discussion of how the results contribute to the broader literature and practical applications.

Reviewer Comment:
The literature should be expanded, especially in the area of introductory content.

As noted earlier, the literature has been significantly expanded throughout the manuscript, particularly in the introduction. This ensures a more comprehensive coverage of the relevant studies and strengthens the paper’s theoretical underpinnings.

Reviewer Comment:
The introduction lacks a robust background to anchor the research. I recommend adding a more thorough justification of the study and explicitly linking it to relevant previously conducted research to establish a solid context.

Response:
I have revised the introduction to include a more detailed justification for the study. Relevant prior research has been explicitly cited to provide a solid background and anchor the research within the existing body of knowledge.

Reviewer Comment:
For the section on Google Trends, the explanation of the data collection process should be expanded. Clarify the methodology and discuss how the data was sourced and processed to ensure transparency and replicability.

Response:
I have expanded the section on Google Trends, providing a detailed explanation of the data collection process, including how the data was sourced, processed, and analyzed. These additions aim to enhance transparency and replicability.

 

Reviewer Comment:
For the SARIMA and SARIMAX models, it is important to cite studies or researchers who have previously applied these models to process time series data in tourism. This will demonstrate the validity and relevance of your approach.

Response:
I have included references to studies that have successfully applied SARIMA and SARIMAX models in the context of tourism time series data. This demonstrates the validity and relevance of the methodological approach used in the study.

Reviewer Comment:
Lastly, the conclusion should better articulate the contribution of the research to both practice and academic discourse. Emphasize how the findings can be applied and what implications they have for future studies or industry practices.

Response:
The conclusion has been revised to clearly articulate the contributions of the research to both practice and academic discourse. I have emphasized the practical applications of the findings and their implications for future research and industry practices.

 

I am grateful for the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which has greatly contributed to the improvement of my manuscript. I have carefully addressed all comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. I hope the changes meet the reviewer’s expectations and look forward to any additional feedback.

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I greatly appreciate your work analyzing the tourism trend in Turkey.

However, I have a some of recommendations to improve the manuscript:

1. The citations are not in order (citation 15 is after 18, and 16 is missing). Also, 21 and 22 are not in order.

2. The bibliography needs to be updated; there aren't enough recent works.

3. In the conclusion, the results of the study and the future possibilities of the research are mentioned very correctly, but the limitations are not mentioned.

4. In the introduction chapter, the purpose of the study should be reinforced.

5. The uses as well as the limitations of the two models should be presented more clearly.

6. Maybe a flow chart would be useful for both models.

7.Figure 2 could be further explored in the article.

8. Please interpret figure 4, the data included is very interesting.

9. For the 6 countries under analysis, a destination-based analysis might also be interesting. Perhaps a series of conclusions can be drawn regarding neighborhood and geopolitical considerations.

10. Lines 382-391- What other factors do you consider should be taken into account besides those listed?

Author Response

Dear Referee,

I sincerely appreciate the valuable feedback provided by the reviewer. Below, I address each comment point by point, detailing the revisions made to the manuscript.

 

Reviewer Comment:
The abstract should indicate the precise identification of the research gap to which the paper responds and be improved accordingly.

Response:
I have revised the abstract to clearly articulate the specific research gap addressed by this study. The updated abstract also highlights the theoretical and practical contributions of the research.

Reviewer Comment:
The introduction should include a stronger discussion of the general background of the research, highlighting the importance of tourism globally and its societal implications. A generalization of this theme would provide a reference for the local analysis. It is suggested to refer to recent literature (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51038-0_52).

Response:
I have expanded the introduction to include a broader discussion on the global significance of tourism and its societal impact. Recent literature, including the suggested source, has been incorporated to provide a comprehensive context for the study. Additionally, the purpose of the study has been reinforced as suggested.

Reviewer Comment:
The citations are not in order (citation 15 is after 18, and 16 is missing). Also, 21 and 22 are not in order. The bibliography needs to be updated; there aren't enough recent works.

Response:
I have corrected the citation order to ensure consistency throughout the manuscript. Missing citations have been addressed, and recent works have been added to strengthen the bibliography.

Reviewer Comment:
In the conclusion, the results of the study and the future possibilities of the research are mentioned very correctly, but the limitations are not mentioned.

Response:
I have revised the conclusion to include a discussion of the study’s limitations. This section now outlines potential challenges and areas for improvement in future research.

Reviewer Comment:
The uses as well as the limitations of the two models should be presented more clearly. Maybe a flow chart would be useful for both models.

Response:
I have elaborated on the uses and limitations of the SARIMA and SARIMAX models in the methodology section. Additionally, a flow chart illustrating the process for both models has been included to enhance clarity.

Reviewer Comment:
Figure 2 could be further explored in the article.

Response:
The discussion of Figure 2 has been expanded to provide a deeper analysis and interpretation of its data.

Reviewer Comment:
Please interpret Figure 4, the data included is very interesting.

Response:
A detailed interpretation of Figure 4 has been added to the results section, highlighting its significance and insights derived from the data.

Reviewer Comment:
For the 6 countries under analysis, a destination-based analysis might also be interesting. Perhaps a series of conclusions can be drawn regarding neighborhood and geopolitical considerations.

Response:
A destination-based analysis has been added for the six countries under consideration. This section explores neighborhood and geopolitical factors and their potential influence on tourism trends.

Reviewer Comment:
Lines 382-391 - What other factors do you consider should be taken into account besides those listed?

Response:
I have expanded the discussion in lines 382-391 to include additional factors that could impact tourism trends, such as political stability, technological advancements, and global economic shifts.

 

 

 

 

I am grateful for the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which has greatly contributed to the improvement of my manuscript. I have carefully addressed all comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. I hope the changes meet the reviewer’s expectations and look forward to any additional feedback.

Sincerely yours,

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has partially improved the article. However, I still stand by my opinion from the first review that the literature is well selected but very narrow - it should be expanded, especially in terms of introductory content. The author has linked the literature to the content, but the scope of the literature is still narrow. The above should be improved.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer Comment: The author has partially improved the article. However, I still stand by my opinion from the first review that the literature is well selected but very narrow - it should be expanded, especially in terms of introductory content. The author has linked the literature to the content, but the scope of the literature is still narrow. The above should be improved.

Response: 

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and for your thorough review of our manuscript. We appreciate your insights and have made the necessary revisions based on your suggestions.

In response to your concern regarding the narrow scope of the literature, we have expanded both the Introduction and Discussion sections by incorporating additional references. These new references provide a broader theoretical and empirical foundation, offering a more comprehensive perspective on tourism demand modeling, forecasting methodologies, and the role of macroeconomic indicators. By integrating these additional sources, we aim to strengthen the contextualization of our study and enhance the depth of our discussion.

We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback and believe that these improvements have further enhanced the quality of our manuscript.

Sincerely yours,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You have properly followed the recommendations

Author Response

Comment: You have properly followed the recommendations

Response: 

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive feedback. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and are pleased to hear that the revisions align with your recommendations.

Your insights have been invaluable in refining our study, and we are grateful for the opportunity to improve the manuscript based on your suggestions.

Sincerely yours

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the article. It may be considered for publication.