Coastal Sceneries of Albania, An Emerging 3S Destination: Analysis of Physical Characteristics and Human Activity Impacts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is very interesting, especially in the context of the importance of the coastal area. Beaches, as part of the coastal area, have a multiple function and a special value in the natural, ecological and economic sense.

It is suggested to supplement the literature with more recent research before publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much.  The following references were added (see red colour, "2. Study Area" section):

1. Gjyli, L.; Vlachogianni, T.; Kolitari, J.; Matta, G.; Metalla, O.; Gjyli, S. Marine litter on the Albanian coastline: Baseline information for improved management. Ocean & Coastal Management 2020, 187, 105108; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105108
2. Balance, A.; Ryan, P.G.; Turpie, J. How much is a clean beach worth? The impact of litter on beach users in the Cape Peninsula, South Africa. South African Journal of Science 2000, 96(5), 210-213.
3. Mejjad, N. ; Rossi, A. ; Pavel, A. B. The coastal tourism industry in the Mediterranean: A critical review of the socio-economic and environmental pressures & impacts. Tourism Management Perspectives 2022, 44, 101007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2022.101007

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I'd like to congrat your effor in this paper. I just recommend to improve the quality of the main map because is too general and it would be nice if you use another base.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The main map (Figure 2) was revised. Thank you very much!

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Table 1 has physical and human parameters weights, but the sum of physical is 0.99, and the sum of human is 1.01. What is the reason for this? Was there a set weight for these two parameters originally?

2. Compared with physical parameters, which are less affected by sampling time, human parameters such as noise or litter may be affected by the actual sampling environment, which may indirectly affect the sampling quality (their weight is relatively high), such as sampling during peak hours or the sampling is done when litter has not been processed. How is the research sampling design carried out? Is there an appropriate processing plan?

3. Can the questionnaire's sampling ensure the respondents' understanding and cognition? For example, the respondents may not notice the rating 5 of the access type.

4. The D value plays an important role in the research process. However, the manuscript does not explain how to calculate the D value (such as the equation) and the range of the D value, such as why there are negative values ​​and the range of its maximum and minimum values.

5. As stated in the manuscript, there is a conflict between tourism benefits and natural landscapes. Based on the framework of CSES, if we all pursue upgrading scenic spots to Class I, can we drive economic benefits to tourism? What is the author's opinion?

6. The main contribution of the study is to classify tourist attractions. However, more than the suggestions are needed if they are only proposed through cleaning or reducing beach facilities. It is recommended that the author make more specific suggestions to enhance the academic contribution.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Please, see attached file. Thank you very much,

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks a lot for your observations. All your corrections were applied (see attached file).

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting work, but I found some writing problems that make me suggest a second round, after an English style proofreader. Some suggestions are included in the attached file, please take care of them, for final acceptance. Keep up the good work!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggest to check with a proofreader your manuscript, as I found some sentences that were not very easy to understand, some of these corrections were suggested in the attached file, but I recommend to check with an English specialist.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks a lot for your observations. All your corrections/suggestions were applied and the full manuscript was revised by an English specialist (see red colour in the manuscript) —we just decided to keep the initial structure with the two sections “2. Study Area” and “3. Method" separated (we guess easier to read..).

 Thanks again, best regards