Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, I want to say to the authors that this work present interesting ideas that are potentially of interest to both academics and practitioners. And this is well designed, carefully conducted empirical research for the field of Sustainability Journal.

I find this work interesting and honest. But I would like to suggest some ideas to further improve the manuscript. The included comments must be seen as recommendations to improve the quality of the presented work.

This paper seeks to analyze visitor satisfaction patterns and determinants in Banff National Park in different seasons.

The introduction of the paper delves adequately into the specific research methodology and sample issues. The review of literature it seems so enough and updated.

The research questions are not well developed. It would be necessary to clarify the objectives and argued. A case study is developed (but is so local) and it is focused on the peculiarities on the one specific country, Canada. It would be interesting analyse if cultural differences can affect the results.

The methodology used can be deemed appropriate, and the authors’ presentation of the results is clear and concise, thus facilitating the reader’s understanding, but it would be necessary to deepen in the limitations of the chosen methodology. It would be interesting to know whether the results presented differ from previous studies. This would add value to the findings.

Finally, in the discussion and conclusion section it would be interesting deep in limitations and future research lines. It is only mentioned that weather has not been included in the analysis

Author Response

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript titled “Seasonal Variation of Visitor Satisfaction and Management Implications in Banff National Park”. We appreciate your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable feedback. Below is a point-by-point response to your comments, suggestions and questions.

[General Comment] First of all, I want to say to the authors that this work present interesting ideas that are potentially of interest to both academics and practitioners. And this is well designed, carefully conducted empirical research for the field of Sustainability Journal.

I find this work interesting and honest. But I would like to suggest some ideas to further improve the manuscript. The included comments must be seen as recommendations to improve the quality of the presented work. This paper seeks to analyze visitor satisfaction patterns and determinants in Banff National Park in different seasons. The introduction of the paper delves adequately into the specific research methodology and sample issues. The review of literature it seems so enough and updated.

Response: Thank you very much for your kindly and encouraging comments.

[Comment 1] The research questions are not well developed. It would be necessary to clarify the objectives and argued. A case study is developed (but is so local) and it is focused on the peculiarities on the one specific country, Canada. It would be interesting analyse if cultural differences can affect the results.

Response: Thank you very much for your pointing it out. We have clarified the objectives and the scope based on your comment (line 185-191). Also, the analysis of impacts of cultural differences on visitor satisfaction level is a very interesting topic. In the manuscript, we have analyzed the impacts of different visitor demographic characteristics on their satisfaction level. More specific cultural differences impacts on visitor satisfaction will be further explored in our future study (line 590-597).

[Comment 2] The methodology used can be deemed appropriate, and the authors’ presentation of the results is clear and concise, thus facilitating the reader’s understanding, but it would be necessary to deepen in the limitations of the chosen methodology. It would be interesting to know whether the results presented differ from previous studies. This would add value to the findings.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. The contents of whether the results presented differ from previous studies have been presented in line 360-367, line 374-377, line 420-425, and line 459-472.

[Comment 3] Finally, in the discussion and conclusion section it would be interesting deep in limitations and future research lines. It is only mentioned that weather has not been included in the analysis.

Response: Thank you a lot for pointing out this problem. We have added multiple future research lines to make it specific and comprehensive (see line 590-597).

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,
With all my respect to your work, these are my comments. Please I encourage you to improve the work. This research work, although interesting, needs to incorporate a series of recommendations so that it can be published.

I found the paper to be well-written it was not so clear in terms of the theoretical contribution or the methods used. With some reworking to enhance the engagement with theory to show how this work contributes and with more methodological rigor, and a more refined analysis this paper could be published. For this reason, I can make some specific improvement suggestions:

I would recommend not to mention keywords (i.e. visitor satisfaction) which are already present in the title. Please use different keywords thinking terms that will help someone locate your work at the top of the search engine.

Write a more focused, purposeful abstract that covers the key points as suggested in this example. Your abstract could have been more detailed on the contribution to knowledge and the process of data collection.

The content of the introduction is very complete and adequate. But, the paper needs to address more clearly the novelty of the research. In addition, in the introduction section, I recommend to insert the structure of the paper.

The literature review presented by the author does not show any conclusions regarding the existing research gap.

You need a deeper level of analysis of the key issues, and a more balanced account of the literature that takes us beyond the description of this reference said this and that reference said that. Focus on the meaning that those references, collectively, allow you make of the arguments that you are developing.

While I suggest these relatively minor revisions of the article, I remain excited about the manuscript’s contribution to sustainability. I hope the authors receive this review and strengthen the manuscript, and I look forward to seeing it in publication.

Author Response

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript titled “Seasonal Variation of Visitor Satisfaction and Management Implications in Banff National Park”. We appreciate your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable feedback. Below is a point-by-point response to your comments, suggestions and questions. 

[General Comment] Dear authors,With all my respect to your work, these are my comments. Please I encourage you to improve the work. This research work, although interesting, needs to incorporate a series of recommendations so that it can be published.

I found the paper to be well-written it was not so clear in terms of the theoretical contribution or the methods used. With some reworking to enhance the engagement with theory to show how this work contributes and with more methodological rigor, and a more refined analysis this paper could be published. For this reason, I can make some specific improvement suggestions

Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have modified the manuscript based on your comments step by step (see below response).

[Comment 1] I would recommend not to mention keywords (i.e. visitor satisfaction) which are already present in the title. Please use different keywords thinking terms that will help someone locate your work at the top of the search engine.

Response: Thank you very much for your great recommendation. We have replaced “visitor satisfaction” with “visitor experience” (line 27). We believe that “visitor experience” is a good keyword that can help more people locate our work at the top of the search engine results. Inspired by your comments, we added “tourism management” as our keyword to help more people locate our work (line 28).

[Comment 2] Write a more focused, purposeful abstract that covers the key points as suggested in this example. Your abstract could have been more detailed on the contribution to knowledge and the process of data collection.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have added more detail on the contribution to the knowledge (line 21-24) and the process of data collection (line 13-14) to make the abstract more focused, purposeful and meaningful.

[Comment 3] The content of the introduction is very complete and adequate. But, the paper needs to address more clearly the novelty of the research.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have added the content of the research novelty (see line 82-86).

[Comment 4] In addition, in the introduction section, I recommend to insert the structure of the paper.

Response: Thank you for pointing it out. We have inserted the structure of the paper in our manuscript (see line 194-195).

[Comment 5] The literature review presented by the author does not show any conclusions regarding the existing research gap.

Response: Thank you for your comments. The conclusions in terms of the existing research gap are presented in line 70-76).

[Comment 6] You need a deeper level of analysis of the key issues, and a more balanced account of the literature that takes us beyond the description of this reference said this and that reference said that. Focus on the meaning that those references, collectively, allow you make of the arguments that you are developing.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We developed some meaningful reference reviews by comparing our results with previous studies and analyzing the differences ( line 360-367, line 374-377, line 420-425, and line 459-472). We also incorporated the references with our results to provide more management recommendations and implications for park managers (line 505-558).

[Comment 7] While I suggest these relatively minor revisions of the article, I remain excited about the manuscript’s contribution to sustainability. I hope the authors receive this review and strengthen the manuscript, and I look forward to seeing it in publication.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments and approval.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review an interesting text, but I have some important comments.

I think that, study area (3.1) should be brought to  2.          Tourism Seasonality and Visitor Satisfaction in National Parks as (2.1) to properly frame the present study from the start.

It would be nice for the author to present the research area on a map (with geographic coordinates) and to present a brief geographic characteristics of the park. The reader does not need to know the natural values of this place.

The author wrote: “The most important component in the high-season was the natural characteristics, encompassing flora, fauna, landscape view and trip maps”.  Please mention this in the description of the research area. Also: Park infrastructure,  Parc service, Parc Activity (table 3)

Also (360):  “During the high-season, the activities provided by the park are more diverse and include more environmental education and interpretation programs”. what activities does the author write about?

The survey procedure seems appropriate but the authors did not describe the structure of the respondents (they refer to it in Table 4).

The author wrote (357): “First, according to the socio-demographic  characteristics of visitors,….” but the reader knows nothing of this characteristic

The reviewer would also like to see the questionnaire asked.

I have a question. Does this conclusion come from research or literature? “whereas international visitors generally hold a satisfied or neutral attitude towards the reasonableness of process”

At the end, the author postulated that “Therefore, future research is needed on how to reduce the impact of weather on the generality of theresults”.

I believe that there was not enough information about the geographic environment in the test to meet this conclusion.

Author Response

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript titled “Seasonal Variation of Visitor Satisfaction and Management Implications in Banff National Park”. We appreciate your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable feedback. Below is a point-by-point response to your comments, suggestions and questions.

[General Comment] Thank you for the opportunity to review an interesting text, but I have some important comments.

Response: Thank you very much for your precious time in reviewing our paper and

providing valuable and insightful comments. We appreciate all your comments, questions and suggestions.

[Comment 1] I think that, study area (3.1) should be brought to  2.Tourism Seasonality and Visitor Satisfaction in National Parks as (2.1) to properly frame the present study from the start.

Response: Thank you very much for your recommendation. The thing is 2. Tourism Seasonality and Visitor Satisfaction in National Parks more focuses on visitor seasonality in national parks instead of specifically for our study area in Banff National Park. Study area in 3.1. Section seems to have more connection with the next part in terms of the survey procedure. Thank you for your suggestion and we really appreciate it.

[Comment 2] It would be nice for the author to present the research area on a map (with geographic coordinates) and to present a brief geographic characteristics of the park. The reader does not need to know the natural values of this place.

Response: Thank you a lot for your great suggestions. We have added the content in terms of the geographic characteristics of the park in line 202-206 to provide natural values of this place to readers.

[Comment 3] The author wrote: “The most important component in the high-season was the natural characteristics, encompassing flora, fauna, landscape view and trip maps”.  Please mention this in the description of the research area. Also: Park infrastructure,  Parc service, Parc Activity (table 3).

Response: Thank you for your comments. In terms of “The most important component in the high-season was the natural characteristics, encompassing flora, fauna, landscape view and trip maps”, this is a result generated from the Principal component analysis (PCA) by SPSS 26.0. As well as the park infrastructure, services and activities.

[Comment 4] Also (360):  “During the high-season, the activities provided by the park are more diverse and include more environmental education and interpretation programs”. what activities does the author write about?

Response: Thank you for pointing out the activities. We have added the specific activities in our manuscript (see line 387-389).

[Comment 5] The survey procedure seems appropriate but the authors did not describe the structure of the respondents (they refer to it in Table 4).

Response: Thank you for your comments. The structure of the respondents has been added and shown in the Appendix (line 605).

[Comment 6] The author wrote (357): “First, according to the socio-demographic  characteristics of visitors,….” but the reader knows nothing of this characteristic

Response: Thank you for pointing out the socio-demographic characteristics of visitors. We have added the table of visitor demographic characteristics in the Appendix (line 605).

[Comment 7] I have a question. Does this conclusion come from research or literature? “whereas international visitors generally hold a satisfied or neutral attitude towards the reasonableness of process”

Response: Thank you very much for your great question. The conclusion comes from our research data and analysis.

[Comment 8] At the end, the author postulated that “Therefore, future research is needed on how to reduce the impact of weather on the generality of theresults”.

I believe that there was not enough information about the geographic environment in the test to meet this conclusion.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing out this problem. We have refined our future research in line 590-591 to make it feasible, specific and comprehensive.