Assessing the Perception and Value of Marine Biodiversity and Taxonomy Research by the Recreational Diving Tourism Industry in Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines how recreational scuba divers in Thailand perceive marine biodiversity and the value of taxonomic research in their diving experiences. Using survey data, this study found that divers prioritize overall reef beauty over spotting specific large marine animals, some showed interest in newly discovered species. The methodology demonstrates acceptable rigor. This interdisciplinary work touching on environmental economics, marine conservation, and tourism management, provides valuable contributions.

There are, however, minor issues in writing and formatting that should be addressed: the first paragraph in Discussion section is not relevant and can be removed.

Overall, this study offers a fresh, interdisciplinary look at how marine biodiversity research ties into recreational dive tourism. Well-supported by data, it provides useful insights for conservation funding, science communication, and sustainable tourism. I find this manuscript fit for RSEE publication after the minor adjustments.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

This study examines how recreational scuba divers in Thailand perceive marine biodiversity and the value of taxonomic research in their diving experiences. Using survey data, this study found that divers prioritize overall reef beauty over spotting specific large marine animals, some showed interest in newly discovered species. The methodology demonstrates acceptable rigor. This interdisciplinary work touching on environmental economics, marine conservation, and tourism management, provides valuable contributions.

There are, however, minor issues in writing and formatting that should be addressed: the first paragraph in Discussion section is not relevant and can be removed.

Overall, this study offers a fresh, interdisciplinary look at how marine biodiversity research ties into recreational dive tourism. Well-supported by data, it provides useful insights for conservation funding, science communication, and sustainable tourism. I find this manuscript fit for RSEE publication after the minor adjustments.

Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer for their positive comments overall, and in particular pointing out the erroneous inclusion of that first short section into our discussion which was leftover from earlier reformatting! We have removed that section which indeed plays no constructive role, and appreciate the reviewer’s reading of our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Assessing the perception and value of marine biodiversity and taxonomy research by the recreational diving tourism industry in Thailand

Abstract

In the abstract the surveys applied, are presented without explaining any detail about sample method, period of data collections neither of survey construction techniques and it should be added to the abstract.

 

Taxonomic research

 The introductions contextualizes the taxonomy research but not in depth not citing for example

Ernst Mayr, Methods and Strategies in Taxonomic Research, Systematic Biology, Volume 20, Issue 4, December 1971, Pages 426–433, https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/20.4.426

John et al 1988 The lexical approach to personality: a historical review of

trait taxonomic research European Journal of Personality, Vol. 2, 171-203 (I 988)

10. Alan Clark Robert M. May Taxonomic Bias in Conservation Research.Science297,191-192(2002).DOI:10.1126/science.297.5579.191b

 

As these are good examples of several citations

Then scuba diving is not contextualized in tourism terms besides a shallow definition and economic contribution. It should be contextualized in terms of sports/leisure activiite for water activities in tourism context. This is important as the outcomes and goals of the research are linked to tourism purposes. Their recreational and economic value are evaluated and must be connected to tourism.  

Methodology

Here the reader has some information about the survey but for example not about the çliterature review behind each set of questions and that must be included from the dimension of biodiversity and tourism. There is a lack of justification about how the survey was constructed. For example where are the citations about former studies on divers profile in terms of tourism? Has ecotourism been considered?

In terms of the new species presented and taxonomic representation nothing to add.

Section 2.1 does not have a single citation

Section 3.1 for example the sentences: Most of the diving community in Thailand (58.2%) prioritize “seeing beautiful reefs, shipwrecks, or ecosystems” as very important (Figure 2). Other high-priority objectives (rating 4-5) of diving include “seeing lots of fish”, “finding big animals”, “finding rare or cryptic species”, and “visiting a new dive site or location”. Conversely, “finding newly described species” has a relatively equal distribution of importance priority suggesting that it is an existing but niche market.

Where are the references to prior studies following or disputing these findings? No citations again. And the following sections it’s the same just statistical information without any kind of contextualization or justification or even a backed-up reading of the information using prior studies. Have the authors considered the notion of serious leisure here with Likert sentences like I often plan whole dives looking for new/rare species or biodiversity records?

If this study besides the taxonomic approach has to do with profile issues like scuba diver´s motivational factors they must be connected here to tourism studies.

Section 4

Please delete theses sentences “Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the per-spective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their impli-cations should be discussed in the broadest context possible. Future research directions may also be highlighted” we already know these authors do not need to explain what must be said in each section

This sentence from the discussion sections should have been introduced before: The relationship between marine biodiversity and recreational diving tourism has been studied globally especially as it pertains to economic values being one of the key driving forces of marine management, protection, and conservation efforts (Davis & Tisdell, 1996; De Brauwer & Burton, 2018; De Brauwer et al., 2017).

Our findings indicate that a significant proportion of divers, while not the majority, have interests in biodiversity and taxonomy ok but you have to explain which proportion is

Please add sdgs for tourism to this research as they are never mentioned

 

Overall, the paper cannot be published as it is and needs further justification and contextualization’s about literature review, better consistence in linking the research to tourism, sdgs contextualization, survey construction justification and a better interconnected discussion and results clarity.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Assessing the perception and value of marine biodiversity and taxonomy research by the recreational diving tourism industry in Thailand

Abstract

In the abstract the surveys applied, are presented without explaining any detail about sample method, period of data collections neither of survey construction techniques and it should be added to the abstract.

Authors’ Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s concern about the need for further elaboration of survey methodology in the abstract. The abstract however is limited to a 200-word maximum by the MDPI guidelines to authors, and as such we have emphasised the justification for our work and the findings of our work, which are of far greater value to the reader than the period of data collection or survey construction techniques. We have explicitly stated “..conducting surveys of 366 recreational divers from Thailand..” to inform the reader about the methodology employed, based on the abstract restrictions. Given that no other reviewer has highlighted the need for this change, and we have endeavoured to cover all essential bases with the abstract, we have not made any changes.

 

Taxonomic research

The introductions contextualizes the taxonomy research but not in depth not citing for example

Ernst Mayr, Methods and Strategies in Taxonomic Research, Systematic Biology, Volume 20, Issue 4, December 1971, Pages 426–433, https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/20.4.426

John et al 1988 The lexical approach to personality: a historical review of trait taxonomic research European Journal of Personality, Vol. 2, 171-203 (I 988)

1. Alan Clark Robert M. May Taxonomic Bias in Conservation Research.Science297,191-192(2002).DOI:10.1126/science.297.5579.191b

As these are good examples of several citations

Authors’ Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments and recommendations. However, we would like to ask for clarity the justification for all, especially the first two papers. We are sure the author is clearly familiar with these texts, with neither making particular mention on the resource allocation limitations of biodiversity taxonomic research. Indeed, the second paper (John et al., 1988) is specifically about human psychology and personality and makes no statements about zoology or ecology at all. It appears the reviewer has recommended two highly-cited and influential papers with the keyword ‘taxonomy’ as essential, without the context of it’s use. Following this, the reviewer recommends Clark and May’s (2002) well known single-page commentary on the state of taxonomic affairs as an example of ‘in depth’ taxonomy research or exploration of the biases in taxonomic research. We would appreciate more clarity by the reviewer as to how the current introductory paragraph, which includes no less than five long-form papers and in-depth exploration of this issue, as well as eleven further items of explicit taxonomic research, remain insufficient. Based on the current status of this paragraph and poorly contextualised recommendations, we have left this section unchanged.

Then scuba diving is not contextualized in tourism terms besides a shallow definition and economic contribution. It should be contextualized in terms of sports/leisure activiite for water activities in tourism context. This is important as the outcomes and goals of the research are linked to tourism purposes. Their recreational and economic value are evaluated and must be connected to tourism.  

Authors’ Response: Thank you for this recommendation. We have contextualized SCUBA diving as on-reef tourism and as part of the overall tourism industry in Thailand accordingly.

Methodology

Here the reader has some information about the survey but for example not about the literature review behind each set of questions and that must be included from the dimension of biodiversity and tourism. There is a lack of justification about how the survey was constructed. For example where are the citations about former studies on divers profile in terms of tourism? Has ecotourism been considered?

Authors’ Response: We appreciate this comment, and we have added relevant information and citations in the methodology section. We have also increased our references pertaining to the wildlife/tourism interaction in SCUBA.

 

In terms of the new species presented and taxonomic representation nothing to add.

Section 2.1 does not have a single citation

Authors’ Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s valid comment, and we have accordingly made the necessary changes

Section 3.1 for example the sentences: Most of the diving community in Thailand (58.2%) prioritize “seeing beautiful reefs, shipwrecks, or ecosystems” as very important (Figure 2). Other high-priority objectives (rating 4-5) of diving include “seeing lots of fish”, “finding big animals”, “finding rare or cryptic species”, and “visiting a new dive site or location”. Conversely, “finding newly described species” has a relatively equal distribution of importance priority suggesting that it is an existing but niche market.

Where are the references to prior studies following or disputing these findings? No citations again. And the following sections it’s the same just statistical information without any kind of contextualization or justification or even a backed-up reading of the information using prior studies. Have the authors considered the notion of serious leisure here with Likert sentences like I often plan whole dives looking for new/rare species or biodiversity records?

If this study besides the taxonomic approach has to do with profile issues like scuba diver´s motivational factors they must be connected here to tourism studies.

Authors’ Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s valid concern about the justification for these lines of inquiry. Our response points are as follows:

• We have added further literature and references in the Introduction and Discussion sections pertaining to what little research has been done regarding the relationship between ecology, taxonomy, and conservation with SCUBA diving. While by no means do these make specific recommendations to justify the lines of inquiry in our study, we hope the reviewer will recognise our attempt to further improve our manuscript based on this comment.
• The main challenge to address the reviewer’s comment is as mentioned in our Introduction, that being that previous literature on wildlife and ecosystem perspectives to the SCUBA diving community at large is incredibly limited, hence the novelty of our work and approach. Not every piece of original research is done as a response to a series of specific questions, but rather often to address a broader need for baseline information and initial assessment, which is what we have done. However, if the reviewer has specific pieces of literature on this topic that we have not already cited, we would appreciate these recommendations, with a clear and specific justification for their use. We would absolutely welcome specific items of literature that are directly relevant to our work, however at present we find that have largely saturated the most relevant papers. Our methodology therefore combines an entirely subjective experience (value of specific aspects underwater) with highly objective assessments (number of dives, species-specific cases, etc.). Work of this nature has not been conducted and therefore cannot be referenced, however where possible we have justified the need for these lines of inquiry in the dozens of references and citations throughout the introduction and discussion for context.
• Regarding the need for tourism studies, we note that not all tourism studies are relevant to the scope of our work. Assessments for example of hospitality and management in SCUBA diving resorts are, at best, loosely associated with our work. We have endeavoured to carefully review pieces of literature that cover the sustainability and wildlife perspectives aspects of SCUBA diving. Again, if the reviewer has specific recommendations of literature we have not included, we would appreciate these.

 

Section 4

Please delete theses sentences “Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the per-spective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their impli-cations should be discussed in the broadest context possible. Future research directions may also be highlighted” we already know these authors do not need to explain what must be said in each section

Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer pointing out the erroneous inclusion of these sentences into the Discussion. We have removed that section which indeed plays no constructive role, and appreciate the reviewer’s reading of our work.

 

This sentence from the discussion sections should have been introduced before: The relationship between marine biodiversity and recreational diving tourism has been studied globally especially as it pertains to economic values being one of the key driving forces of marine management, protection, and conservation efforts (Davis & Tisdell, 1996; De Brauwer & Burton, 2018; De Brauwer et al., 2017).

Authors’ Response: The reviewer’s comment is noted and we have accordingly moved this sentence to the Introduction and have replaced it with more appropriate points of reference in the Discussion.

 

“Our findings indicate that a significant proportion of divers, while not the majority, have interests in biodiversity and taxonomy” ok but you have to explain which proportion is

Authors’ Response: Thank you very much for pointing this out. We have made reference to results presented in the former section.

 

Please add sdgs for tourism to this research as they are never mentioned

Authors’ Response: We appreciate this comment very much as it adds a broader value to our research paper. We have added relevant information and references pertaining to how this research fits into SDG14: Life Below Water efforts.

 

Overall, the paper cannot be published as it is and needs further justification and contextualization’s about literature review, better consistence in linking the research to tourism, sdgs contextualization, survey construction justification and a better interconnected discussion and results clarity.

Authors’ Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s time in evaluating our work. We have attempted to expand our inclusion of relevant literature throughout our manuscript, as well as to reword and re-arrange aspects of our manuscript accordingly. We have also responded to the reviewer’s comments point-by-point in cases where the recommendation is in need of further clarification or justification to be implemented.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

You have done quality research on demand and lack of knowledge in connection with the economic values of scientific communication from biodiversity and taxonomy research. Researching this problem is extremely important as part of marine conservation policies.

The study of different types of tourism is extremely important for the expansion of the tourist offer of each destination.

Protecting the environment and knowing about its threats is very important. That is why this paper has a special value when it comes to marine biodiversity and its changes. Given that diving and marine tourism is expanding, this kind of research is very important, in order to point out the need to protect certain water areas.

The Methodology used, Tables and Figures are well done and follow the scientific contribution of the paper.

Conclusion

The study's conclusion is insufficient and far too short. The paper's authors should try to relate it to the research and findings.

Their final recommendations regarding this research should be included.

All the issues they ran into while conducting the research should be specifically mentioned. How they overcame them and what they plan to research further in the future.

In conclusion or in a separate part, the problems and difficulties that arose during the research must be discussed.

In what way can they be overcome and whether the authors want to continue with this research.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Dear Authors,

You have done quality research on demand and lack of knowledge in connection with the economic values of scientific communication from biodiversity and taxonomy research. Researching this problem is extremely important as part of marine conservation policies.

The study of different types of tourism is extremely important for the expansion of the tourist offer of each destination.

Protecting the environment and knowing about its threats is very important. That is why this paper has a special value when it comes to marine biodiversity and its changes. Given that diving and marine tourism is expanding, this kind of research is very important, in order to point out the need to protect certain water areas.

The Methodology used, Tables and Figures are well done and follow the scientific contribution of the paper.

Authors’ Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s positive feedback on our work.

Conclusion

The study's conclusion is insufficient and far too short. The paper's authors should try to relate it to the research and findings.

Their final recommendations regarding this research should be included.

All the issues they ran into while conducting the research should be specifically mentioned. How they overcame them and what they plan to research further in the future.

In conclusion or in a separate part, the problems and difficulties that arose during the research must be discussed.

In what way can they be overcome and whether the authors want to continue with this research.

Authors’ Response: We appreciate this feedback. We have expanded the conclusion. We, however, did not point out issues we faced while conducting the research, because the research process was very straightforward.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. At the end of Section 1, a brief introduction concerning the overall structure of this paper is needed.
2. The term “Thai waters” has been continuously mentioned but never defined. What is the scope of the “Thai waters”?
3. 11, “Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses”. This sentence appears at 4. Discussion which is near the end of this paper. The working hypotheses need to appear earlier, at the beginning of the paper, and then tie up the entire paper to prove the working hypotheses.
4. The discussion of findings is marred by inconsistencies and overstatements: The manuscript claims experienced divers prioritize "rare or cryptic species" (Figure 3A–B) but also notes that interest in biodiversity is not statistically correlated with experience. This contradiction is not resolved, leaving readers unclear about the relationship between diver behavior and experience.
5. The section on science communication (4.2) and citizen science (4.3) lacks clear links to the study’s core focus on economic valuation, diluting the narrative. Key findings (e.g., sea slugs as high-value species) are not systematically connected to policy or management implications.
6. Technical Inconsistencies: Figures contain errors (e.g., missing labels in Figure 1, unclear axes in Figure 3), and supplementary materials are referenced but not adequately integrated into the main text. Statistical analyses (e.g., linear regression results) are underreported, with no discussion of p-values or effect sizes.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

1. At the end of Section 1, a brief introduction concerning the overall structure of this paper is needed.
1. Authors’ Response: The end of an introduction (section 1) is indeed the place for authors to state objectives and justifications for the remainder of the paper. However, expectation for an overall structure of each section is atypical and thus we have kept this section broad and brief. We have added a final sentence to this section in accordance with the reviewer’s suggestion in an effort to add more structure to this part.
2. The term “Thai waters” has been continuously mentioned but never defined. What is the scope of the “Thai waters”?
1. Authors’ Response: The reviewer’s confusion is noted, however the concept of a nations waters is a) a very commonly used term and concept in the literature and b) is only typically defined in geospatial zonation analyses, border/boundary investigations, maritime case law etc. To illustrate this point, we conducted an additional investigation by entering "Thai waters" into google scholar and reviewing the first ten items of literature. None of these make any explicit definition of this term, and so as to follow this rich academic tradition, we have equally abstained.
3. 11, “Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses”. This sentence appears at 4. Discussion which is near the end of this paper. The working hypotheses need to appear earlier, at the beginning of the paper, and then tie up the entire paper to prove the working hypotheses.

1. Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer pointing out the erroneous inclusion of these sentences into the Discussion. We have removed that section which indeed plays no constructive role, and appreciate the reviewer’s reading of our work. We have also improved the clarity in the use of study goals and aims in lieu of a hypothesis for a purely investigative and analytical assessment.

1. The discussion of findings is marred by inconsistencies and overstatements: The manuscript claims experienced divers prioritize "rare or cryptic species" (Figure 3A–B) but also notes that interest in biodiversity is not statistically correlated with experience. This contradiction is not resolved, leaving readers unclear about the relationship between diver behavior and experience.
1. Authors’ Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s concern. To clarify the wording of the statement: “…our data shows that divers in Thailand who are interested in marine biodiversity and taxonomy research are not statistically correlated with those with more diving experience”. Our methodology clearly differentiates between aspects of biodiversity in general (rare/cryptic vs. megafauna) and biodiversity research explicitly. However, we understand the possible confusion here, and as such we have developed this section of our manuscript further to provide examples of the differences and contrasts in these, in particular reference to earlier research.
2. The section on science communication (4.2) and citizen science (4.3) lacks clear links to the study’s core focus on economic valuation, diluting the narrative. Key findings (e.g., sea slugs as high-value species) are not systematically connected to policy or management implications.
1. Authors’ Response: We appreciate the reviewers comment and we are hopeful that our amendments to the sections pertaining to SCUBA diver awareness, and citizen science overall, can help strengthen these links. However, unfortunately, the reviewer is mistaken in stating that our study’s core focus is on economic valuation. While economic valuation is certainly a significant theme in our work, it is absolutely not the core, but one of multiple parallel lines of inquiry into differently perceived values. For example, our last paragraph in the introduction states: “We investigate whether taxonomic discoveries can hold value to the recreational diving community, which can be further translated into direct economic value.”. Not only is economics not the first and leading thread of our data, is treated as an emergent concept as part of underlying perceived value. The sentence immediately following the above states: “Furthermore, through the survey, we also seek to understand divers’ interests and understanding of scientific discoveries to see opportunities and challenges in MCS and science communication.” Our methodology investigates not only SCUBA diver preferences, but also diver awareness of specific taxa, several records of which are known (and cited) through citizen science. While is certainly true that economic valuation is a major component of our work, a larger component is evaluating the role of biodiversity and taxonomic research (as opposed to only the biodiversity itself) to the general public. Therefore, the science communication aspects are directly related to our findings based on awareness of not only the taxa, but the research based on which the taxa were first discovered or described in Thai waters.
3. Technical Inconsistencies: Figures contain errors (e.g., missing labels in Figure 1, unclear axes in Figure 3), and supplementary materials are referenced but not adequately integrated into the main text. Statistical analyses (e.g., linear regression results) are underreported, with no discussion of p-values or effect sizes.
1. Authors’ Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s concern however we generally disagree with these and have responded to each individually. We also note that no other reviewer identified these as unclear or erroneous.
1. Figure 1 is a plate of species, with each species accurately identified in the caption. Not only is it not compulsory in the MDPI guidelines for figures to contain labels, but it is also indeed standard practice in most biodiversity imagery in most respected academic journals to have species names and image explanations provided in the caption and explicitly not within the figure. This is indeed the case, for example, in the majority of literature cited in our paper. As such, we have not changed Fig. 1 nor its caption.
2. Figure 3 uses the precise axes that are presented as units of measurement in the questionnaires provided, these being the number of divers and level of subjective importance. Axes labels are clearly labelled and refer directly to the methodology, as such we can find no other area for improvement.
3. We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and have thus increased our mention of regression and further analyses in our Results section. However, as is noted in our methodology, we did not (and cannot) conduct statistical tests of significance, and thus there are no p values to report in our work.
4. Regarding supplementary data, we make three references to these in our methodology and one in our results. Not only is it not typical (nor required) to explicitly discuss supplementary material within a manuscript, the very role of these items are supplementary and not a part of the core study, and are not conventionally explored within the body of a paper. As such we have not changed our use nor reference of these materials.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general, improvements have been made to improve the paper's overall contribution to the field. Some dots have been connected in what concerns tourism related issues.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Final English revision is needed

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer's feedback and comments and are grateful for the time spent to help improve our manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my comments have been fully responded. Accept.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their positive and constructive comments which helped improve our paper.