Sustainable Tourism Assessment in Urban Green Spaces: The Case of Khung BangKachao, Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The author should identify existing research gaps, particularly in the field of sustainable tourism in urban green spaces, based on a literature review, in order to highlight the value of this study.
2. Suggest providing a detailed explanation of the representativeness of the research area (Khung Bang Kachaois).
3. I am not sure how the sample data used for analysis was obtained? Does its representativeness and quantity meet the research needs? Is the method of information collection through questionnaires, surveys, interviews, or other means? It seems that there is no detailed disclosure in the article.
4. The experience and feelings of tourists should be very important evaluation indicators, but it is not mentioned in this article.
5. The characteristics of urban "green space" are not well reflected, and the evaluation is based on the tourism sustainability of the city or a certain region.
6. The conclusion and discussion should be separated.
7. Suggest strengthening the policy implications of this research case for other similar regions internationally.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, it is acceptable, but the language in some areas needs polishing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful evaluation of our manuscript “Sustainable Tourism Assessment in Urban Green Spaces: The Case of Khung Bang Kachao, Thailand.” We are deeply grateful for the insightful and constructive feedback provided by you and the reviewer, which has been instrumental in refining our work. We are also pleased to have received a positive evaluation and would like to express our appreciation for the thoughtful comments and helpful suggestions.
In response to the reviewer’s comments, we fundamentally agree with all the comments, and we have carefully revised the manuscript incorporating all necessary modifications to enhance its clarity, coherence, and scholarly contribution.. Furthermore, we have prepared a comprehensive , point by point response, (as attached file).
We believe that these refinements have significantly strengthened the manuscript, and we hope it now meet the standard of your esteemed journal and is deemed suitable for publication.
We would like to thank you once again for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.


Sincerely,

Onanong Cheablam, Ph.D.

School of Management,

Walailak University, Thasala, Nakhon Si Thammarat

Thailand, 80161

+66-8 6476-9364

 conanong64@gmail.com; conanong@mail.wu.ac.th


Response to reviewer 1

Thank you very much for understanding our work. All comments and suggestions have been responded and made the revision as highlighted in yellow.

Comments	Response to reviewer 1
1. The author should identify existing research gaps, particularly in the field of sustainable tourism in urban green spaces, based on a literature review, in order to highlight the value of this study.	Amended and rephrased as reviewer comment. Line 61-80 Khung Bang Kachao is an absence of empirical research assessing its sustainability performance, stakeholder involvement, and the efficacy of current conservation and tourism management strategies. Furthermore, studies examining the equilibrium be-tween tourism development and ecological conservation in Khung Bang Kachao are limited, resulting in ambiguities regarding optimal strategies for promoting sustainability while preserving the integrity of this essential green space. In addition, although sustainability remains a prominent focus for researchers, entrepreneurs, and policy-makers, the tourism sector continues to lag in the adoption of sustainable practices[11]. One of the primary challenges is balancing tourism development with the conservation of natural and cultural resources. Sustainable tourism strategies must address this challenge by promoting responsible tourism practices and ensuring that development does not compromise environmental integrity or local culture  [12,13]. Improving standards and practices within the tourism industry is crucial, given the sector’s significant potential for economic growth in Khung Bang Kachao.
2. Suggest providing a detailed explanation of the representativeness of the research area (Khung Bang Kachao).	Amended and rephrased as reviewer comment as “subtopic 2.3 Study area” Line 172-188
3. I am not sure how the sample data used for analysis was obtained? Does its representativeness and quantity meet the research needs? Is the method of information collection through questionnaires, surveys, interviews, or other means? It seems that there is no detailed disclosure in the article.	Amended and rephrased as reviewer comment. In topic 3. Materials and Methods and 3.13.1 Stakeholder Analysis Line 203-229 “To reflect on how tourism evaluation in Khung Bang Kachao can be managed for sustainability, this study used an exploratory research design to understand the level of tourism potential under GSTC criteria. The study employed qualitative research to gather data from stakeholders in Thailand's tourism industry, thereby bringing together multiple perspectives on the tourism potential. The sustainability assessment of Khung Bang Kachao's tourist attractions, based on the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) criteria, involved analyzing documentary and empirical evidence through field observations and 33 in-depth interviews with local tourism stakeholders (Table 1). Typically, in-depth interviews engage between 5 and 25 participants [30,31].”
4.The experience and feelings of tourists should be very important evaluation indicators, but it is not mentioned in this article.	The applied instrument, the GSTC criteria, is designed to assess sustainable tourism activities within a destination, structured around four pillars of sustainable tourism and comprising 41 indicators. The indicator addressing tourist experiences falls under Criteria C (C3) and Criteria A (A8, A12, A14).
5. The characteristics of urban "green space" are not well reflected, and the evaluation is based on the tourism sustainability of the city or a certain region.	In the case of Khung Bang Kachao, evaluating its tourism capacity helps prevent over-exploitation of natural resources, maintain ecological balance, and preserve its cultural heritage. Moreover, tourism generates significant revenue for local communities; a sustainable approach ensures that economic benefits are equitably distributed while minimizing negative impacts on the environment. Therefore, Khung Bang Kachao needs to conduct thorough assessments in accordance with international standards. As a re-sult, policymakers and stakeholders can implement strategies that enhance visitor experiences, support conservation efforts, and foster community well-being, ultimately securing the role of Khung Bang Kachao as a sustainable urban green tourism destination.
6. The conclusion and discussion should be separated.	Amended and rephrased as reviewer comment in Topic 6. Conclusion
7. Suggest strengthening the policy implications of this research case for other similar regions internationally.	Amended and rephrased as reviewer comment in Subtopic 5.3 Implementing GSTC standards for sustainable urban green space.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study innovatively evaluated sustainable tourism activities in the 14 area using four criteria and 41 indicators from the Global Sustainable Tourism Council 15 (GSTC).However, there is still much room for improvement in the rigor and standardization of this paper. The comments are as follows:

1.The research gap and significance of this paper should be mentioned in Abstract.

2.It is suggested that the conclusion and discussion be written separately.

3.To strengthen the analytical rigor, it is recommended to incorporate quantitative methods such as weight analysis of the 41 GSTC indicators. This could involve evaluating how variations in indicator prioritizationinfluence assessment outcomes, while systematically examining interdependencies between criteriausing correlation matrices or structural equation modeling.

4.Why there are two table with name 'Table 3'

5.What does the picture on line 346 mean？

6.Is line 39 grammatically correct?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language needs to be refined by avoiding repetitive phrasing and streamlining redundant content, thereby improving overall conciseness.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful evaluation of our manuscript “Sustainable Tourism Assessment in Urban Green Spaces: The Case of Khung Bang Kachao, Thailand.” We are deeply grateful for the insightful and constructive feedback provided by you and the reviewer, which has been instrumental in refining our work. We are also pleased to have received a positive evaluation and would like to express our appreciation for the thoughtful comments and helpful suggestions.
In response to the reviewer’s comments, we fundamentally agree with all the comments, and we have carefully revised the manuscript incorporating all necessary modifications to enhance its clarity, coherence, and scholarly contribution. Furthermore, we have prepared a comprehensive , point by point response, (as attached file).
We believe that these refinements have significantly strengthened the manuscript, and we hope it now meet the standard of your esteemed journal and is deemed suitable for publication.
We would like to thank you once again for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.



Sincerely, Onanong Cheablam, Ph.D.
School of Management,
Walailak University, Thasala, Nakhon Si Thammarat
Thailand, 80161
+66-8 6476-9364

 conanong64@gmail.com; conanong@mail.wu.ac.th


Response to reviewer 2

Thank you very much for understanding our work. All comments and suggestions have been responded and made the revision as highlighted in blue.

 

Comments	Response to reviewer 2
1.The research gap and significance of this paper should be mentioned in Abstract.	Amended and rephrased as reviewer comment Line 10-15 Sustainable tourism planning is essential for understanding an area’s potential for sustainable development. However, the tourism sector struggles with adopting sustainable practices due to limited research on practical implementation of sustainability criteria, as seen in Thailand. Khung Bang Kachao, a vital green space near Bangkok, serves as a recreational area for urban residents. However, increasing urbanization, environmental degradation, overpopulation, and loss of traditional lifestyles threaten  its sustainability.
2.It is suggested that the conclusion and discussion be written separately.	Amended and rephrased as reviewer comment As follow: 5. Discussion 6. Conclusion
3.To strengthen the analytical rigor, it is recommended to incorporate quantitative methods such as weight analysis of the 41 GSTC indicators. This could involve evaluating how variations in indicator prioritizationinfluence assessment outcomes, while systematically examining interdependencies between criteriausing correlation matrices or structural equation modeling.	To reflect on how tourism evaluation in Khung Bang Kachao can be managed for sustainability, this study used an exploratory research design to understand the level of tourism potential under GSTC criteria. The study employed qualitative research to gather data from stakeholders in Thailand's tourism industry, thereby bringing together multiple perspectives on the tourism potential. The sustainability assessment of Khung Bang Kachao's tourist attractions, based on the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) criteria, involved analyzing documentary and empirical evidence through field observations and 33 in-depth interviews with local tourism stakeholders (Table 1). Typically, in-depth interviews engage between 5 and 25 participants
4.Why there are two table with name 'Table 3'	Amended and rephrased as reviewer comment The table order has been revised.
5.What does the picture on line 346 mean？	Amended and rephrased The picture has been removed.
6.Is line 39 grammatically correct?	Amended and rephrased as reviewer comment Line 37-40 Sustainable tourism planning must be comprehensive, considering long-term impacts on the environment, economy, and society [4,5]. Additionally, emphasize that the involvement and empowerment of local communities in tourism planning and decision-making processes are key principles of sustainable tourism planning [2,6].

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract: The abstract should include a description of the methodology used and a summary of the main conclusions of the study.

Introduction: In the introduction, the objectives should be clearly identified, and the process of the research plan designed to analyze and respond to the two main questions (lines 74-76) should be specified.

Lines 104-125: When referring to the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) criteria, these criteria should be clearly identified and explained to ensure a thorough understanding of what is being discussed.

2.3 Study Area: In lines 138-150, please explain why the Khung Bang Kachao area, an urban green space located in Phra Pradaeng District, Samut Prakan Province, was selected for this study. What were the specific reasons and criteria for choosing this location? Elaborate on the relevance and significance of this area in the context of your research.

Materials and Methods: In lines 154-164, please explain the methodological process used for field observations and interviews. Additionally, provide a detailed explanation of the "document mapping tool" and the "stakeholder mapping tool" and how they were utilized in your research. This will help readers understand the methodology more comprehensively. In the same way provide a detailed description of the interview process.

Line 167: Please explain what is meant by "Stakeholder mapping" and describe the specific methodological process the authors followed in this study.

Additionally, when mentioning that "The GSTC categorized stakeholders into five groups," provide a detailed explanation of this categorization. What are these five groups? How were they identified, and what criteria were used in this categorization process? Elaborate on how these criteria were established to ensure a clear understanding.

Detail the Qualitative Analysis: In line 194, provide a comprehensive description of the qualitative analysis used to examine the data. This should include the specific techniques employed. Explain how these methods were applied to identify the insights from the collected data.

Methods for Charts and Photographs: In line 195, outline the methods that were considered for creating charts and taking photographs. Explain the rationale behind their exclusion from the study, including any constraints or methodological decisions that led to this choice. While these visual elements were not ultimately utilized, describe how their potential integration was evaluated and how the findings were effectively communicated without them.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text is clear and no issues were detected.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful evaluation of our manuscript “Sustainable Tourism Assessment in Urban Green Spaces: The Case of Khung Bang Kachao, Thailand.” We are deeply grateful for the insightful and constructive feedback provided by you and the reviewer, which has been instrumental in refining our work. We are also pleased to have received a positive evaluation and would like to express our appreciation for the thoughtful comments and helpful suggestions. In response to the reviewer’s comments, we fundamentally agree with all the comments, and we have carefully revised the manuscript incorporating all necessary modifications to enhance its clarity, coherence, and scholarly contribution. Furthermore, we have prepared a comprehensive , point by point response, (as attached files).

We believe that these refinements have significantly strengthened the manuscript, and we hope it now meet the standard of your esteemed journal and is deemed suitable for publication.
We would like to thank you once again for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.



Sincerely,
Onanong Cheablam, Ph.D.
School of Management,
Walailak University, Thasala, Nakhon Si Thammarat
Thailand, 80161
+66-8 6476-9364
conanong64@gmail.com; conanong@mail.wu.ac.th

Response to reviewer 3

Thank you very much for understanding our work. All comments and suggestions have been responded and made the revision as highlighted in green.

 

Comments	Response to reviewer 3
Abstract: The abstract should include a description of the methodology used and a summary of the main conclusions of the study.	Amended and rephrased as reviewer comment in abstract Line 16-19 . This study evaluated sustainable tourism activities in the area using four criteria and 41 indicators from the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC). A qualitative survey method was employed, incorporating content analysis and interpretation based on 33 in-depth interviews, and observations. Line 28-33 Therefore, tourism planning and development in Khung Bang Kachao should prioritize regular monitoring and evaluation, alongside the design of a tourism management plan that actively involves the local community to minimize environmental damage. More-over, Khung Bang Kachao's tourism requires a multifaceted approach and improved standards and practices. In addition, increasing awareness and ensuring strong gov-ernment support.
Introduction: In the introduction, the objectives should be clearly identified, and the process of the research plan designed to analyze and respond to the two main questions (lines 74-76) should be specified.	Amended and rephrased as reviewer comment in Introduction Line 76-81 The study's goal is to fix these problems by using a thorough evaluation framework based on GSTC standards to look at the sustainability of tourism and find the most important problems and chances for putting GSTC-compliant sustainable tourism practices into action in Khung Bang Kachao. The findings will provide insights into the strengths and challenges of current practices, offering recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders to enhance the sustainability of urban green space tourism
Lines 104-125: When referring to the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) criteria, these criteria should be clearly identified and explained to ensure a thorough understanding of what is being discussed.	Amended and rephrased as reviewer comment as subtopic “Key Components of the Global Sustainable Tourism Council's Criteria” Line 145-172
2.3 Study Area: In lines 138-150, please explain why the Khung Bang Kachao area, an urban green space located in Phra Pradaeng District, Samut Prakan Province, was selected for this study. What were the specific reasons and criteria for choosing this location? Elaborate on the relevance and significance of this area in the context of your research.	Amended and rephrased as reviewer comment Line 183-190
Materials and Methods: In lines 154-164, please explain the methodological process used for field observations and interviews. Additionally, provide a detailed explanation of the "document mapping tool" and the "stakeholder mapping tool" and how they were utilized in your research. This will help readers understand the methodology more comprehensively. In the same way provide a detailed description of the interview process.	Materials and Methods: In lines 224-262, Amended and rephrased as reviewer comment in Topics 3.1 Stakeholder Analysis and 3.2 Document Analysis
Line 167: Please explain what is meant by "Stakeholder mapping" and describe the specific methodological process the authors followed in this study.	Amended and rephrased as Stakeholder Analysis in Topic 3.1 Stakeholder Analysis The five groups’ are corrected and the details of the GSTC criteria are provided in Table 3. • Key Components of the Global Sustainable Tourism Council's Criteria’ have been added to enhance understanding of the GSTC framework Line 148-179
Additionally, when mentioning that "The GSTC categorized stakeholders into five groups," provide a detailed explanation of this categorization. What are these five groups? How were they identified, and what criteria were used in this categorization process? Elaborate on how these criteria were established to ensure a clear understanding.	Amended and rephrased as the topic 3.3 Instrumentation for Assessment and Table 1. List of key informants interviewed   Based on the GSTC criteria and insights gathered from structured interviews and field observations, the data evaluation process is conducted as outlined in Figure 2.
Detail the Qualitative Analysis: In line 194, provide a comprehensive description of the qualitative analysis used to examine the data. This should include the specific techniques employed. Explain how these methods were applied to identify the insights from the collected data.	Amended and rephrased as Line 251-262 The collected data were analyzed using qualitative analysis. Thematic analysis was utilized for data analysis and interpretation through an iterative process [32].  Interview data from 33 key informants and document analyses were transcribed and formatted into a transcript.  Furthermore, practitioner perspectives were incorporated into the data analysis process to enhance comprehension of the data from an insider's viewpoint.  Codes were allocated and reviewed to eliminate duplicate cates.  Moreover, all themes were reevaluated until the iterative procedure was finalized.   In addition, the data were subsequently utilized for discussions to amalgamate the data with the GSTC cri-teria across four pillars (41 criteria).  Data analysis was conducted using practitioner viewpoints and current management and corporate tour-ism status in the sustainable context. Findings were presented through charts, photographs, and tables, showcasing information on tourism characteristics and management practices in Khung Bang Kachao.
Methods for Charts and Photographs: In line 195, outline the methods that were considered for creating charts and taking photographs. Explain the rationale behind their exclusion from the study, including any constraints or methodological decisions that led to this choice. While these visual elements were not ultimately utilized, describe how their potential integration was evaluated and how the findings were effectively communicated without them.	Amended and rephrased as Line 260-262 Findings were presented through tables, showcasing information on tourism characteristics and management practices in Khung Bang Kachao.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has responded to my concerns. I suggest the author make minor revisions before accepting publication.

1. The author should analyze the research gaps in existing studies with a broader perspective, rather than just focusing on the research area.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful evaluation of our manuscript “Sustainable Tourism Assessment in Urban Green Spaces: The Case of Khung Bang Kachao, Thailand.” We are deeply grateful for the insightful and constructive feedback provided by you and the reviewer, which has been instrumental in refining our work. We are also pleased to have received a positive evaluation and would like to express our appreciation for the thoughtful comments and helpful suggestions.
In response to the reviewer’s comments, we fundamentally agree with all the comments, and we have carefully revised the manuscript incorporating all necessary modifications to enhance its clarity, coherence, and scholarly contribution. Furthermore, we have prepared a comprehensive, point by point response, (as attached files).
We believe that these refinements have significantly strengthened the manuscript, and we hope it now meet the standard of your esteemed journal and is deemed suitable for publication.
We would like to thank you once again for your time and consideration.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Onanong Cheablam, Ph.D.

School of Management,

Walailak University, Thasala, Nakhon Si Thammarat

Thailand, 80161

+66-8 6476-9364

 conanong64@gmail.com; conanong@mail.wu.ac.th

 

 

 

Response to reviewer 1

Thank you very much for understanding our work. All comments and suggestions have been responded and made the revision as highlighted in yellow.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has responded to my concerns. I suggest the author make minor revisions before accepting publication.

Comments	Response to reviewer 1
The author should analyze the research gaps in existing studies with a broader perspective, rather than just focusing on the research area.	Amended and rephrased as reviewer comment. Line 37-63

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.Abstracts need to be more concise and highlight innovations.

2.Explain the limitations of using only qualitative methods in this paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful evaluation of our manuscript “Sustainable Tourism Assessment in Urban Green Spaces: The Case of Khung Bang Kachao, Thailand.” We are deeply grateful for the insightful and constructive feedback provided by you and the reviewer, which has been instrumental in refining our work. We are also pleased to have received a positive evaluation and would like to express our appreciation for the thoughtful comments and helpful suggestions.
In response to the reviewer’s comments, we fundamentally agree with all the comments, and we have carefully revised the manuscript incorporating all necessary modifications to enhance its clarity, coherence, and scholarly contribution. Furthermore, we have prepared a comprehensive, point by point response, (as attached files).
We believe that these refinements have significantly strengthened the manuscript, and we hope it now meet the standard of your esteemed journal and is deemed suitable for publication.
We would like to thank you once again for your time and consideration.
We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Onanong Cheablam, Ph.D.

School of Management,

Walailak University, Thasala, Nakhon Si Thammarat

Thailand, 80161

+66-8 6476-9364

 conanong64@gmail.com; conanong@mail.wu.ac.th

Response to reviewer 2

Thank you very much for understanding our work. All comments and suggestions have been responded and made the revision as highlighted in blue.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments	Response to reviewer 2
1.Abstracts need to be more concise and highlight innovations.	Amended and rephrased as reviewer comment. Abstracts Sustainable tourism planning is essential for understanding an area’s potential for sustainable development. However, the tourism sector struggles with adopting sustainable practices due to limited research on practical implementation, particularly in Thailand. Khung Bang Kachao, a vital green space near Bangkok, provide recreation for urban residents, but faces threats from urbanization, environmental degradation, and loss of traditional lifestyles. This study applied all four criteria and 41 indicators from the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC), a rare and rigorous approach in sustainability research that offers a model for other regions. A qualitative method was used, with content analysis based on 33 in-depth interviews and observations. Results show Category A is effective due to seasonal tourism management and legal adherence, though monitoring is weak. Category B demonstrates positive economic and social impacts. Categories C and D reveal gaps in tourism standards and environmental reporting. Tourism planning in Khung Bang Kachao should prioritize monitoring, community involvement, and structured management to support long-term sustainability.
2. Explain the limitations of using only qualitative methods in this paper.	Amended and rephrased as reviewer comment. Page 21 7. Limitations While qualitative methods provided rich, in-depth insights into stakeholder’s perceptions, values, and practices related to sustainable tourism in Khung Bang Kachao, this approach also presents some limitations. Qualitative data relies on interpretation, it can be influenced by the researcher's personal views, and without numerical evidence, it's difficult to assess wider effects or back up policy choices with statistics. Additionally, qualitative methods are time-intensive and may not capture temporal or seasonal variations in tourism activity. These limitations suggest that future research could benefit from incorporating mixed methods to provide a more comprehensive and balanced assessment of sustainability outcomes.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' improvement was fundamental, resulting in greater clarity and stronger support for their argument.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful evaluation of our manuscript “Sustainable Tourism Assessment in Urban Green Spaces: The Case of Khung Bang Kachao, Thailand.”
We would like to thank you once again for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Onanong Cheablam, Ph.D.
School of Management,
Walailak University, Thasala, Nakhon Si Thammarat
Thailand, 80161
+66-8 6476-9364
conanong64@gmail.com; conanong@mail.wu.ac.th