Expansion and Specification of Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes and Practices Survey Model for Community-Based Tourism Development
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript Expansion and Specification of Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes and Practices Survey Model for Community-based Tourism Development presents a conceptual idea for assessing CBT. However, I doubt how much a conceptual assessment can contribute in a tourism development context. CBT is a practical tool for enhancing tourism, as the authors noted in length – it has its advantage and disadvantages. As a result, local communities, authorities, and DMOs need practical tools to measure and assess its impacts and cannot be satisfied by conceptual ideas alone. I would like to recommend the authors elaborate further on their exciting ideas, develop a detailed survey (or even a pilot survey) and test its reliability and validity in the field. Obviously, many leading journals will welcome such a manuscript. As the authors noted (lines 79-81), there is a lack of primary data in CBT studies. The present manuscript does not provide primary data but offers an idea of collecting this type of data in future research. I’m not sure the “Sustainability” journal is the proper forum to share ideas for future research without basic research. Yet, I wish the authors good luck in gathering their own primary data best on a methodological elaboration of their conceptual offer.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Your paper entitled Expansion and Specification of Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes and Practices Survey Model for Community-based Tourism Development is an interesting study. However, before it is publishable your paper needs some revision in order to bring more clarity to your paper.
First, the abstract should be organized on the following aspects - what this paper is about, to what theories it brings value, the method used and the findings.
Second, the aims of your study need to be better highlighted in the introduction. Also, the contribution of this paper in the international literature or what this paper brings new in current theories should be better highlighted in the introduction.
Third, the literature review is good, but it can be expanded. See for instance the broader study of Urry on tourism gaze as well as Duncan Light et al study on urban tourism in Central and Eastern Europe (2020) and even Light studies on educational tourism, empathy and impact around visiting memorial museums and other tourist objectives.
Fourth, the results are well presented, but I feel that a discussion section is needed. In this section you can present a connection between your findings and the literature review.
Finally, the conclusions are too short - they are made of only one paragraph. You have many innovative findings which could be presented and also some limitations of this study could be mentioned too.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I read the article with interest. The most significant advantage of the article is a proposal for improvements in applying the KAP survey. It is convincing, and I think it is worth promoting.
However, I have a few comments on the article. They are related to the layout of the text, and some lack explanation.
First, it would be advisable to enter the chapter numbering.
The second point is developing the abbreviations KAP, KSAP, and CBT in the title of the chapter. It sounds too laconic now. In this chapter, one should also distinguish the calculated attributes (a, b, c, or others).
However, my most serious objection to the submitted article is the lack of a chapter: Discussion. The authors have a good understanding of the subject, as can be seen, for example, in the chapter Literature Review. It would be highly advisable to include a Discussion chapter in the article in which:
- a) the assumptions and results of the article will be discussed with previous findings (mainly those from the Literature Review chapter),
- b) indicated weaknesses and strengths of the Authors' findings of the own vision of KAP and KSAP.
Finally, I suggest developing the Conclusions. Considering the authors' new interesting findings, it would be worth summarizing them with a complete ending.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
x
The article “Expansion and specification of Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes and Practices survey model for community-based tourism development” under review presents high scholarly standards of conceptual paper by using secondary data. I consider the paper as a valuable research which contribute to the community based tourism development. Provided research methodology is clearly explained. This paper provides a good base and implicatons for future research in this area.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is now much improved. Just some minor revisions are required.
In terms of what I suggested in my previous review, mentioning museums as community-based tourism and the political work of domestic tourism is important. So there is a recent article by Light Duncan et al. in journal Current Issues in Tourism (2021) and by the same author on educational tourism (in journal Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 2019) which shows that tourism (which could include community-based tourism) is an important driver of education and even transitional justice for the younger generation.
On the other hand, authors can say that in some underdeveloped and even in developing countries corruption among communities members and mainly among their elites could be a limit in developing tourism and other economic developments (see Thomas O' Brien's study on corruption, published in journal Urban Geography, 2020).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
