Strategies for Creative Tourism Activities in Pandemic Contexts: The Case of the ‘Saídas de Mestre’ Project
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is mainly informative and descriptive, while subprints are theoretical issues. The literature review, as far as the topic concerned is concerned, is rather modest. The research methodology is based solely on the case study. The scientific discussion and conclusion do not contribute much to science. The scientific value of the article is low. Line 16: "mid 2020s" - it should be "mid-2020"
Author Response
Authors appreciate the reviewer comments.
Reviewer comment (1):"The article is mainly informative and descriptive, while subprints are theoretical issues."
Response 1: As it is mentioned at the paper (sections 1 and 3), the adopted research method was a case study, as it is the most suitable method "to explore and understand" how MARCA association developed adaptation strategies for the ´Saídas de Mestre` project within the scope of creative tourism activities in a global pandemic situation "(...) (page 5 - line 195-197). However, we included the word "describe" in order to better understand the descriptive nature of this study.
Reviewer comment (2): "The literature review, as far as the topic concerned is concerned, is rather modest."
Response 2: Section 2 was completed with more 3 authors, in order to emphasize the tourist experience approach based on theoretical assumptions.
Reviewer comment (3): "The research methodology is based solely on the case study".
Response 3: We do not understand what other assumptions the reviewer presupposes. As it is mentioned, this study is a descriptive and exploratory by nature which is based on the arguments presented in the paper.
Reviewer comment (4): "The scientific discussion and conclusion do not contribute much to science. The scientific value of the article is low."
Response 4: Accordingly with the conducted literature review, we do not found any approach with this specific focus (section 2, line 70-71). Since a gap in the literature review was found and the impact of pandemics on tourism activity is assumed as a contemporary phenomenon, it is our aim to understand what effects this pandemic caused on strategic decisions of local tourism activities, specifically in creative tourism context. Besides, the exploratory nature of this study, we believe that at this moment, these results might support new avenues for other similar studies.
Reviewer comment (5): "Line 16: "mid 2020s" - it should be "mid-2020"
Response 5: Change made.
(Please see the attached revised document)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
- The topic of the paper is very interesting and applicable in further research of various types of pandemic impacts on tourism;
- The paper is very well structured according to the rules that apply to case study analyzes;
- However, to be fully ready for publication, it can be slightly improved in the following:
- the paper lacks research hypotheses in the introductory part and the results by which these hypotheses are confirmed or denied;
- In the Materials and Methods section, you should state at the beginning exactly which methods are used. The first paragraph gives a general overview of the methodology. It would be good to state in the same paragraph that the method of holistic experience, Schmitt's model of user experience, etc. will be used in the paper;
- The organization and the project are excellently presented concisely and clearly;
- Activities (Lime Tours, Basketry for Birds, Field Drawing...) should also be mentioned in the Materials and Methods section.
- The results are presented in a correct way;
- the conclusion should be more substantial and describe the confirmation or rejection of the initial hypotheses.
Author Response
Authors appreciate all the comments.
Reviewer comment (1): "the paper lacks research hypotheses in the introductory part and the results by which these hypotheses are confirmed or denied"
Response 1: The methodology adopted for this study is qualitative, based on a exploratory and descriptive approach based on the methodological approach assumptions presented by Veal (2017). Section 1 underline the objectives of this study, but we added the main research question.
Reviewer comment (2): " In the Materials and Methods section, you should state at the beginning exactly which methods are used. The first paragraph gives a general overview of the methodology. It would be good to state in the same paragraph that the method of holistic experience, Schmitt's model of user experience, etc. will be used in the paper".
Response 2: Section 3, lines 216 to 227, all methods and material are described.
Reviewer comment (3): "Activities (Lime Tours, Basketry for Birds, Field Drawing...) should also be mentioned in the Materials and Methods section."
Response 3: It was added.
Reviewer comment (4): "the conclusion should be more substantial and describe the confirmation or rejection of the initial hypotheses."
Response 4: We appreciate your comment, however since this section (conclusion) in not mandatory we opted to add it to the discussion section, as it is mentioned in the template guidelines.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is a decently made case study that can serve as a basis for further generalizations. However, it has several drawbacks and discontinuities that need to be corrected:
1. Part 5 - the discussion seems to be stuck together from the parts. Please standardize the narrative. Please clearly mark the excerpts from the interview with director of the MARCA. Intertwining questions into the narrative is not a bad idea, but it should result from the introduction and methodology.
2. Part 6 is poor.
3. Part 1. I propose to write down the indicated general purpose (64-68) for specific objectives and / or research questions corresponding to the parts of the discussion (part 5) and the questions posed therein.
4. Part 3. I propose to add to the description of the methods used information which data will allow to collect and for which specific objectives (questions) to answer.
There is no explanation why the authors chose these four forms of activity (or omitted the other three).
5. Part 3.1. I propose to add an English reference: Marujo N., to Rosário Borges M., Serra J. (2020) Tourism, Culture and Creativity: The Case of the CREATOUR Project in the Alentejo / Portugal Region. In: Rocha Á., Abreu A., de Carvalho J., Liberato D., González E., Liberato P. (eds) Advances in Tourism, Technology and Smart Systems. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 171. Springer, Singapore.
Author Response
Reviewer comment (1): "Part 5 - the discussion seems to be stuck together from the parts. Please standardize the narrative. Please clearly mark the excerpts from the interview with director of the MARCA. Intertwining questions into the narrative is not a bad idea, but it should result from the introduction and methodology."
Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer comment. In order to improve this section (part 5), we underlined the general objective and the main contribution of this study.
Since the study is based on one in-deph interview, in methodological terms it was adopted a narrative of the interview in the discussion/conclusion (section 5), which was improved as suggested.
Reviewer comment (2): "Part 6 is poor."
Response 2: We appreciate your comment, however since this section (conclusion) in not mandatory we opted to add it to the discussion section, as it is mentioned in the template guidelines.
Reviewer comment (3): "Part 1. I propose to write down the indicated general purpose (64-68) for specific objectives and / or research questions corresponding to the parts of the discussion (part 5) and the questions posed therein."
Response 3: Three specific objectives were added in order to better identified the overall purpose of this study. in part 4, information regarding these suggestions were added, to clarify where results meet objectives.
Reviewer comment (4): "Part 3. I propose to add to the description of the methods used information which data will allow to collect and for which specific objectives (questions) to answer.
There is no explanation why the authors chose these four forms of activity (or omitted the other three)."
Response 4. Concerning the first part of the question, we do not understand the aim of this suggestion.
Regarding the second observation, it was included and justified in the text (section 3).
Reviewer comment (5): "Part 3.1. I propose to add an English reference: Marujo N., to Rosário Borges M., Serra J. (2020) Tourism, Culture and Creativity: The Case of the CREATOUR Project in the Alentejo / Portugal Region. In: Rocha Á., Abreu A., de Carvalho J., Liberato D., González E., Liberato P. (eds) Advances in Tourism, Technology and Smart Systems. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 171. Springer, Singapore."
Response: This reference was previously cited in the submitted paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This is an important study that provides some insightful results regarding organizations’ strategies for adaptation within the scope of creative tourism activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study makes a contribution to the literature, and with minor revisions, it could possibly be considered for publication in Sustainability. My specific comments are intended to assist the author(s) to take the paper forward.
- In the Literature Review section, the contribution of this study would be reinforced if the author(s) could discuss the theoretical and practical contributions of the relationship between COVID-19 and creative tourism behavior/activity in details? It would be necessary for the author(s) to provide further delineation.
- There was no detailed description of the qualitative data analysis techniques used in this study. For example, what were the qualitative methods used to analyze the secondary and primary data collected.?
- In the Results section, it would be much better if the author(s) could provide further highlights in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5.
- The study would be greatly improved if the author(s) discussed the theoretical contribution of this study to the organizational adaptation literature in general and creative tourism activity in particular.
- In the Discussion section, it would be much better if the author(s) could provide more examples regarding the creative tourism activities in times of severe pandemic except the workshops on ‘Field Drawing’.
- The study would be greatly improved if the author(s) discuss the limitations of their study in details—data collection and data analysis.
Author Response
Reviwers comment (1): "In the Literature Review section, the contribution of this study would be reinforced if the author(s) could discuss the theoretical and practical contributions of the relationship between COVID-19 and creative tourism behavior/activity in details? It would be necessary for the author(s) to provide further delineation."
Response 1: Thanks for the comments made to the contribution of this study for the literature review. Considering the suggestion to reinforce, in the literature review section, the contribution of COVID-19 and creative tourism, we've made a specific approach about COVID-19 in the section 2. In this way, as remarked in the literature review, we reinforce the relation between the effect of COVID-19 and Creative Tourism organizations behavior (section 2.2).
Reviwer comment (2): "There was no detailed description of the qualitative data analysis techniques used in this study. For example, what were the qualitative methods used to analyze the secondary and primary data collected.?"
Response 2 - All the qualitative data analysis techniques used in this study is developed in the section 3.
Reviewer comment (3): "In the Results section, it would be much better if the author(s) could provide further highlights in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5."
Response 3: Thanks for the comment. Information included.
Reviewer comment (4): "The study would be greatly improved if the author(s) discussed the theoretical contribution of this study to the organizational adaptation literature in general and creative tourism activity in particular."
Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestion. However, we consider that the suggested approach implies developing a specific domain that was not previously defined for the literature review. The proposal of this study, is to present an exploratory study with a generic overview of how organizations reacted to a recent phenomenon, as recently was suggested by Alessandro Margheritaa and Marikka Heikkiläb (2021) (e.g., “…However, the concepts of business continuity and resilience against emergencies should be extended to small organizations, which face the crisis generated by the pandemic along different and equally significant dimensions.”) . However, this reference will be included in the section 1 (introduction) and section 2.2 (Literature review). In the last section (discussion and conclusion) also a reference for futures studies is made.
Reviewer comment (5): "In the Discussion section, it would be much better if the author(s) could provide more examples regarding the creative tourism activities in times of severe pandemic except the workshops on ‘Field Drawing’."
Response 5: Sorry, but we do not understand what is the scope of other creative tourism activities examples are reviewer requesting...?
Reviewer comment (6): "The study would be greatly improved if the author(s) discuss the limitations of their study in details—data collection and data analysis."
Response 6: Limitation were included in section 5.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you to the authors for responding to the review. I accept the presented arguments with understanding. I still believe that literary studies are quite modest, mainly in the field of - "strategies for creative tourism activities". These issues could be presented more broadly in the context of crises in the tourism industry, and then related to pandemic issues.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thanks once again for the comments, we appreciate the important contributions.
(1) It was improved the literature review concerning the topic about "strategies for creative tourism activities".
(2) Last spelling proofread was conducted by a native english translator.
Attached it follows the last version of our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
