Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is a quite complete bibliographic review. Perhaps it would be interesting to introduce global data on the importance of cycle tourism in the introduction. It would be necessary to use some more graph or table. The conclusions should be further explored. Some comments have been incorporated in the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank all the reviewers for their comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. The changes in the revised manuscript and answers to queries are highlighted with Blue color.

Response to Comments of Reviewer 1:

The work is a quite complete bibliographic review. Perhaps it would be interesting to introduce global data on the importance of cycle tourism in the introduction. It would be necessary to use some more graph or table. The conclusions should be further explored. Some comments have been incorporated in the attached file.

Answer:

The introduction is revised (see Line 49-54; 63-66; 69-70); ,,the need to implement new equipment to develop cycle tourism,, can be found in the article (see Line 327-329; 338-343); Information on the global importance of cycle tourism has been included in the introduction section (see Line 63-66). Regarding "any nationality" (see Line 105) the term is taken from the research paper by Simonsen et al. (1998, p. 21).

The Methodology and Previous Related Work is revised (please see Line: 122-125; 134-137; 143-151; 158-162).

The data in Figure 1 have been improved. For relevance, compared to the original version, data for 2015-2016 have been introduced and a peer reviewed filter has been introduced in the selection process in the EBSCO Discovery Service search engine. This is why the number of articles has been significantly reduced. The calculations have also been revised.

,,Does not include data from Mediterranean countries,, As space is relatively limited, this section has been completed with some data on bicycles produced in Italy. Cycle tourism is responsible, directly influencing the production of this sector (please see Line 455-456).

Discussion and Future Research have been revised (please see Line 625-627; 658-662; 672-696).

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments

 

Sustainability-Manuscript ID: 1756643

Cycling Tourism: A Literature Review To Assess Implications, 2 Multiple Impacts, Vulnerabilities, and Future Perspectives

 

Cycle tourists are increasingly prominent in the profile of world tourism and, in the light of lit-erature, it is essential, among other things, to examine more closely who they are, what are their concerns and motivations that generate the choice of a cycle tourism product, and, as a priority, the level of economic, social, and environmental impact they cause at destination. In this context, the literature review aims at identifying authors' and publishers' interest in cycle tourism, the positive and negative effects of this form of tourism on the economic environment (direct and indirect), as well as the effects on the social environment (benefits and potential drawbacks for local communities, along with health benefits for practitioners) and last, but not least, the degree of vulnerability to economic crises generated by travel restrictions. The conclusions reported in this article, as they have been drawn from analyses and examples of best practice, based on nat-ural and anthropogenic geographical conditions, will be prioritised as future research directions. The usefulness of this approach lies on the information with a significant applied and novelty aspect, addressed to local, regional, and national authorities, cycling and cycle-tourism associa-tions, and various private interested enterprises, with a view to promoting cycling for recrea-tional purposes and implementing cycling/cycle-tourism infrastructure as a sustainable way of developing small towns and rural areas with tourism potential.

 

1.       This paper is well developed, interesting, and enjoyable to read. Although it is a descriptive article, it does not have a clear added effect on international literature. Some findings come from the evaluation of other papers.

2.       What is the contribution of the paper to the tourism literature?

3.       What is the effect of cycle tourism on economic activity?

 

 

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank all the reviewers for their comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. The changes in the revised manuscript and answers to queries are highlighted with italic letters.

Response to Comments of Reviewer 2:

1. This paper is well developed, interesting, and enjoyable to read. Although it is a descriptive article, it does not have a clear added effect on international literature. Some findings come from the evaluation of other papers.

Answer: With your permission I will merge the answer to this question with the answer to question 2. Thank you.

 

2. What is the contribution of the paper to the tourism literature? (Care este contribuția articolului la literatura de specialitate în domeniul turismului?)

Answer: the Discussion and Conclusions section has been completed and reworded (please see Line 672-696)

 

3. What is the effect of cycle tourism on economic activity?

Answer:  Cycle tourism has a number of economic impacts. Through the multiplier effect: on the cycling industry (production of bicycles, spare parts, accessories, clothing etc.) (please see Line 388-390), creates jobs and contributes to their diversification (see Line 381-383; 406-409), contributes to the development of the local economy (see Line 383-385), positively influences the cycling industry through the implementation of cycling infrastructure (see Line 379-381).

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for taking on the effort to review all this cycle tourism literature.
I think this kind of work could be very valuable for all those interested in cycle tourism. However, there are some weaknesses of the paper which make it difficult for me to recommend publication:

a) the introduction does not contain concise information; in large parts it remains superficial; it is difficult to understand what you are talking about precisely. I would like to cite lines 48 - 51 as an example > quote" after implementation of measures to enhace areas totally unfriendly to humans": What areas are you talking about, and how could the measures look like? This is only one example. The same problem can be found throughout the entire introduction. The chapter needs to be re-written in such a way that main statements are precise and meaningful.

b) Term Definition: here, diverse definitions of the term "cycling tourism" are stringed together incoherently. One definition comes right after the other one. A better approach would be to group definitions according to certain criteria, i.e. according to the importance of cycling as main holiday activity. Also, authors could try to carve out differences or similarities in a more deliberate way. Just to list definitions, however, does not generated valued-added to the reader.

c) Methodology: the information given does not explain to the full how literature analysis was done. How exactly were the key words used (as single words or in combination?, what combination of keywords did generate the greatest amount of papers?); How were papers evaluated after having been chosen a relevant? Did you read only the title or the abstract or even the full paper? How did you extract information from the papers? What, precisely, do mean by "scientometrics-based" analysis > please example each step you did by using this approach.

d) Findings: Figure 1 is misleading;  Web of science seems to have published more papers than EBSCO, better find another way to illustrate open access percentages (maybe based on the sum of papers from EBSCO and WoS?). From may view, Chapter 3.2 does not contain relevant information, or information given is too superficial and unprecise. I would recommend to cancel the chapter. Alternatively, it needs to be re-worked in a way to contain interesting, new and meaningful information.

Chapters 3.3, 3.4., 3.5., 3.6 and 3.7. contain interesting information. However, also here (as in "Term Definition), the information is given in a rather unstructured manner, without an recognizable focus or a planned, dialectic structure. Instead, the papers evaluated for the study are reported each after the other. As a reader, it is hard keeping track of what is said. Too many details stringed together without a any common thread or storyline that might give the chapter some kind of inner logic. Also here, I would like to recommend to structure the information in a better way to render the text more readable. Most importantly it would be valuable to identify research gaps from literature, which is not done currently.

e) Discussion is not a discussion, but a summary. Other that the title implies, there are no clear recommendations for future research.

 

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank all the reviewers for their comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. The changes in the revised manuscript and answers to queries are highlighted with italic letters.

Response to Comments of Reviewer 3:

1. a) the introduction does not contain concise information; in large parts it remains superficial; it is difficult to understand what you are talking about precisely. I would like to cite lines 48 - 51 as an example > quote" after implementation of measures to enhance areas totally unfriendly to humans": What areas are you talking about and how could the measures look like? This is only one example. The same problem can be found throughout the entire introduction. The chapter needs to be re-written in such a way that main statements are precise and meaningful.

Answer:

The introduction is revised (see Line 49-54; 63-66; 69-70)

"after implementation of measures to enhance areas totally unfriendly to humans": What areas are you talking about, and how could the measures look like? The wording has been revised (please see Line 49-54)

1. b) Term Definition: here, diverse definitions of the term "cycling tourism" are stringed together incoherently. One definition comes right after the other one. A better approach would be to group definitions according to certain criteria, i.e. according to the importance of cycling as main holiday activity. Also, authors could try to carve out differences or similarities in a more deliberate way. Just to list definitions, however, does not generated valued-added to the reader.

Answer:

The definition of terms (specifically the definition of cycle tourism), as outlined in the first paragraph of the section, is intended as an introduction to the reader less familiar with this form of tourism. This is also the reason for compiling the usual and generally accepted definitions in the literature, as well as the three types of cycle tourism (depending on the importance attached to recreational cycling on a holiday).

Your suggestion has been introduced (please see Line 95-104)

1. c) Methodology: the information given does not explain to the full how literature analysis was done. How exactly were the key words used (as single words or in combination?, what combination of keywords did generate the greatest amount of papers?); How were papers evaluated after having been chosen a relevant? Did you read only the title or the abstract or even the full paper? How did you extract information from the papers? What, precisely, do mean by "scientometrics-based" analysis > please example each step you did by using this approach.

Answer:

The Methodology and Previous Related Work is revised (please see Line 122-125; 127-128; 129; 134-137; 143-151; 158-162)

 

 

 

 

 

3. d) Findings: Figure 1 is misleading; Web of science seems to have published more papers than EBSCO, better find another way to illustrate open access percentages (maybe based on the sum of papers from EBSCO and WoS?). From may view, Chapter 3.2 does not contain relevant information, or information given is too superficial and unprecise. I would recommend to cancel the chapter. Alternatively, it needs to be re-worked in a way to contain interesting, new and meaningful information.

Answer:

Fig 1 shows the percentage change in the ratio of open access published documents to total published documents. The data in table 3 have been reworked, implicitly the projection in figure 1 has also been modified.

In our opinion, the relevance of the emergence of cycle tourism with other concepts, types and forms of tourism associated with the principles of sustainability are useful, on the one hand, in the design of experiential tourism products and, on the other hand, for prioritizing the efforts of tourism organizers to promote the implementation of sustainable development objectives.

Chapters 3.3, 3.4., 3.5., 3.6 and 3.7. contain interesting information. However, also here (as in "Term Definition), the information is given in a rather unstructured manner, without an recognizable focus or a planned, dialectic structure. Instead, the papers evaluated for the study are reported each after the other. As a reader, it is hard keeping track of what is said. Too many details stringed together without a any common thread or storyline that might give the chapter some kind of inner logic. Also here, I would like to recommend to structure the information in a better way to render the text more readable. Most importantly it would be valuable to identify research gaps from literature, which is not done currently.

Answer:

The Economic and Social Impact of Cycle Tourism section provides an economic and social analysis of cycle tourism and the tourism industry for the period 2010-2019 (before the pandemic). The role of the analysis is to highlight the growing trend of both cycle tourism and the global tourism industry. This results in an upward trend for both areas. Then an economic and social analysis is carried out for the period 2020-2021 (health crisis period). In this case, the results show different situations (the tourism industry shows significant decreases, while cycle tourism shows positive results). With this approach we show that cycle tourism is a form of tourism less sensitive to the challenges of the health crisis and more resilient. This answers question 3 in the introduction section.

,,Most importantly it would be valuable to identify research gaps from literature, which is not done currently,, The recommendations have been recorded in the Discussion and Future Research section, where a number of new research directions have been inserted.

1. e) Discussion is not a discussion, but a summary. Other that the title implies, there are no clear recommendations for future research.

Answer:

Discussions and Future Research have been reviewed (please see Line:625-627; 658-662; 672-696).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made significant changes to the paper. Thus, I accepted the current version of the paper for publication in Sustainability.

Author Response

Thank you for the objectivity of your suggestions and your professionalism!

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The paper has advanced. Especially, the methodology section and the discussion have been re-worked and gained in significance. The other parts, however, are largely the same. The introduction still is rather superficial and suffers from a great number of imprecise and broad statements. The same applies to the term definition. Chapter 3.2 "Emerging Traits" is unchanged. However, I can follow the authors’ reasoning for keeping this section. Overall, the paper remains very weak in its first parts. The last parts of the paper (starting from methodology) are better. In sum, however, the paper does not contribute enough new insights to outweigh its weaknesses in the introductory part.

Author Response

I would like to thank for your comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. The changes in the revised manuscript and answers to queries are highlighted with Blue color.

Response to Comments of Reviewer 3:

The paper has advanced. Especially, the methodology section and the discussion have been re-worked and gained in significance. The other parts, however, are largely the same. The introduction still is rather superficial and suffers from a great number of imprecise and broad statements. The same applies to the term definition. Chapter 3.2 "Emerging Traits" is unchanged. However, I can follow the authors’ reasoning for keeping this section. Overall, the paper remains very weak in its first parts. The last parts of the paper (starting from methodology) are better. In sum, however, the paper does not contribute enough new insights to outweigh its weaknesses in the introductory part.

Answer:

The introduction is revised (please see Line 58-75; 80-88)

Term Definition section is revised (please see Line 111-112; 133-148

Regarding the Term Definition section, your suggestion is welcome, which is why we have resorted to inserting a technical definition, as well as expressing our views on developing a more comprehensive definition of a cycle tourist.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf