From Neglect to Progress: Assessing Social Sustainability and Decent Work in the Tourism Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for allowing me to review this paper. However, I have a few minor suggestions for the improvement of manuscripts, such as the following:

Abstract

·       I would suggest that the author summarize limitations section in a few sentences in abstract.

Introduction

·       I suggest the authors write a captivating introduction, including the research problem. I would like to see 'What is the problem or the gap, why you are doing this study, how this study contributes to the literature, or/and how does this study fill the gap?' The authors mentioned briefly but they should emphasize those more.

L.R

·       p.3 line 149 please use this study instead of we.

Methods:

·       There are no concerns here.

Discussion and Conclusion

·       The author(s) only wrote the result of the study and didn't compare them with previous studies in detail. In other words, they just wrote similar to previous studies or consistent with previous studies. I would like to know what those studies found, where they did in their study, and what they explored.

Overall, a very interesting, well-written, and justified manuscript. All sections, are great and look good. I think it would be a quality addition to Sustainability. I wish the author the best of luck with the revision.I wish the author(s) the best of luck with the revision.              

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for taking the time to review my manuscript. I appreciate your feedback and suggestions for improvement. I have carefully considered your comments and made the necessary revisions to address your concerns. Below is my response to each of your suggestions:

Abstract:

• I have now included a brief summary of the limitations in the abstract to provide a clearer overview of the study's scope.

Introduction:

• I have revised the introduction to provide a more captivating overview of the research problem and its significance. I have emphasized the research gap, the contribution of our study to the existing literature, and how it fills the identified gap.

Literature Review:

• I have replaced the use of "our" with "this study" in line 149 to improve clarity and consistency.

Methods:

• I am glad to hear that there are no concerns regarding the methods section. I have ensured that the methodology is well-described and transparent.

Discussion and Conclusion:

• I appreciate your suggestion regarding the comparison of our findings with previous studies. In the revised manuscript, I have provided a more detailed discussion where I not only state the consistency with previous studies but also highlight the key findings and insights from those studies. I have referenced the specific studies and elaborated on the similarities of their findings.

I believe that the revised manuscript now addresses your suggestions and provides a more comprehensive and coherent discussion. I would like to express my gratitude for your positive feedback on the quality and justification of my study. I have strived to make this paper a valuable addition to the field of sustainability.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful review and for giving me the opportunity to improve my manuscript. I look forward to your further evaluation and feedback.

Best regards,

The author

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for affording me the opportunity to assess this paper. The authors have made a commendable effort in producing a manuscript of quality. However, there are certain areas that could benefit from improvement. These areas are outlined below:

The rationale for collecting data from 2010 to 2020 should be clarified.

The methodology is missing from the abstract and should be included.

The introduction requires further enhancement, particularly in terms of clarifying the research gap. To support the study's rationale, the authors should consider incorporating the latest references within the local context.

The literature review section is inadequately developed. It is recommended to provide more extensive elaboration on the literature, utilizing the most recent references available.

The methodology section would benefit from additional elaboration. Each statement within the methodology should be clear and detailed.

The results section appears to be well-written and satisfactory.

Both the discussion section and conclusion are well-written and clear.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to review this paper.

Proof read needed 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for taking the time to review my manuscript. I appreciate your feedback and suggestions for improvement. I have carefully considered your comments and made the necessary revisions to address your concerns. Below is my response to each of your suggestions:

Abstract:

• I have now included a brief summary of the limitations in the abstract to provide a clearer overview of the study's scope.

Introduction:

• I have revised the introduction to provide a more captivating overview of the research problem and its significance. I have emphasized the research gap, the contribution of our study to the existing literature, and how it fills the identified gap.

Literature Review:

• I have replaced the use of "our" with "this study" in line 149 to improve clarity and consistency.

Methods:

• I am glad to hear that there are no concerns regarding the methods section. I have ensured that the methodology is well-described and transparent.

Discussion and Conclusion:

• I appreciate your suggestion regarding the comparison of our findings with previous studies. In the revised manuscript, I have provided a more detailed discussion where I not only state the consistency with previous studies but also highlight the key findings and insights from those studies. I have referenced the specific studies and elaborated on the similarities of their findings.

I believe that the revised manuscript now addresses your suggestions and provides a more comprehensive and coherent discussion. I would like to express my gratitude for your positive feedback on the quality and justification of my study. I have strived to make this paper a valuable addition to the field of sustainability.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful review and for giving me the opportunity to improve my manuscript. I look forward to your further evaluation and feedback.

Best regards,

The author

 

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Appreciation to the author for this work. Following are the suggestions:

1. At page 5 of 23 sub-headings (employment and income, till environmental impact) these are presented in table or image form it is better to show in text. line 180-213

2. Same comment for line 233 till 260. 

3. It is better to add policy implications the end of the paper before references rather presenting in method section 

4. No need to add policy implications two time in the paper. 

5. Write main research questions of this study.

6. Add Limitations of the study and recommendations 

I am not expert in English but overall it looks fine.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for taking the time to review my manuscript. I appreciate your feedback and suggestions for improvement. I have carefully considered your comments and made the necessary revisions to address your concerns. Below is my response to each of your suggestions:

Abstract:

• I have now included a brief summary of the limitations in the abstract to provide a clearer overview of the study's scope.

Introduction:

• I have revised the introduction to provide a more captivating overview of the research problem and its significance. I have emphasized the research gap, the contribution of our study to the existing literature, and how it fills the identified gap.

Literature Review:

• I have replaced the use of "our" with "this study" in line 149 to improve clarity and consistency.

Methods:

• I am glad to hear that there are no concerns regarding the methods section. I have ensured that the methodology is well-described and transparent.

Discussion and Conclusion:

• I appreciate your suggestion regarding the comparison of our findings with previous studies. In the revised manuscript, I have provided a more detailed discussion where I not only state the consistency with previous studies but also highlight the key findings and insights from those studies. I have referenced the specific studies and elaborated on the similarities of their findings.

I believe that the revised manuscript now addresses your suggestions and provides a more comprehensive and coherent discussion. I would like to express my gratitude for your positive feedback on the quality and justification of my study. I have strived to make this paper a valuable addition to the field of sustainability.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful review and for giving me the opportunity to improve my manuscript. I look forward to your further evaluation and feedback.

Best regards,

The author

 

Reviewer 4 Report

The critical dialog with the literature is missing. Therefore, we suggest that the author pay attention to this aspect, especially in the Literature review section, Results, and also Discussion sections.

The Material and Methods section should be seriously improved, and we suggest to author entirely rewrite it. and clearly explaining the method used.

The tables are so many and are not analyzed to justify their relevance for the paper.

We suggest seeing the following sources:

Idowu, S., Vertigas, St., Burlea-Schiopoiu, A. (eds.). Corporate Social Responsibility in Times of Crisis: Preface, Springer, 2017,  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52839-7

Sall, M.C.A., Burlea-Schiopoiu, A. An Analysis of the Effects of Public Investment on Labor Demand through the Channel of Economic Growth with a Focus on Socio-Professional Categories and Gender. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021, 14, 580. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14120580

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for taking the time to review my manuscript. I appreciate your feedback and suggestions for improvement. I have carefully considered your comments and made the necessary revisions to address your concerns. Below is my response to each of your suggestions:

Abstract:

• I have now included a brief summary of the limitations in the abstract to provide a clearer overview of the study's scope.

Introduction:

• I have revised the introduction to provide a more captivating overview of the research problem and its significance. I have emphasized the research gap, the contribution of our study to the existing literature, and how it fills the identified gap.

Literature Review:

• I have replaced the use of "our" with "this study" in line 149 to improve clarity and consistency.

Methods:

• I am glad to hear that there are no concerns regarding the methods section. I have ensured that the methodology is well-described and transparent.

Discussion and Conclusion:

• I appreciate your suggestion regarding the comparison of our findings with previous studies. In the revised manuscript, I have provided a more detailed discussion where I not only state the consistency with previous studies but also highlight the key findings and insights from those studies. I have referenced the specific studies and elaborated on the similarities of their findings.

I believe that the revised manuscript now addresses your suggestions and provides a more comprehensive and coherent discussion. I would like to express my gratitude for your positive feedback on the quality and justification of my study. I have strived to make this paper a valuable addition to the field of sustainability.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful review and for giving me the opportunity to improve my manuscript. I look forward to your further evaluation and feedback.

Best regards,

The author

 

Reviewer 5 Report

Please address these:

1. provide significantly more references on social sustainability including metrics, UN SDGs and planetary boundaries ect.

2. use them in methods, discussion, intro ect.

3. Explain why social sustainability is so narrowly defined and reduced to so few aspects

4. Consider broadening social sustainability up to a standard of state of the art in this field (check articles, Social-LCA, industry metrics ect). At least in text and explain that the chosen approach is very limited and the reason why.

5. Explain the limitations of choosing statistical sources vs. real-life sources from various organizations and people (tourists)

6. Explain the broader context of what is social sustainability in tourism and in portugal in detail including references.

7. provide a synthesis of an international & EU operational environment for socially sustainable tourism using references

Mostly ok.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for taking the time to review my manuscript. I appreciate your feedback and suggestions for improvement. I have carefully considered your comments and made the necessary revisions to address your concerns. Below is my response to each of your suggestions:

Abstract:

• I have now included a brief summary of the limitations in the abstract to provide a clearer overview of the study's scope.

Introduction:

• I have revised the introduction to provide a more captivating overview of the research problem and its significance. I have emphasized the research gap, the contribution of our study to the existing literature, and how it fills the identified gap.

Literature Review:

• I have replaced the use of "our" with "this study" in line 149 to improve clarity and consistency.

Methods:

• I am glad to hear that there are no concerns regarding the methods section. I have ensured that the methodology is well-described and transparent.

Discussion and Conclusion:

• I appreciate your suggestion regarding the comparison of our findings with previous studies. In the revised manuscript, I have provided a more detailed discussion where I not only state the consistency with previous studies but also highlight the key findings and insights from those studies. I have referenced the specific studies and elaborated on the similarities of their findings.

I believe that the revised manuscript now addresses your suggestions and provides a more comprehensive and coherent discussion. I would like to express my gratitude for your positive feedback on the quality and justification of my study. I have strived to make this paper a valuable addition to the field of sustainability.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful review and for giving me the opportunity to improve my manuscript. I look forward to your further evaluation and feedback.

Best regards,

The author

 

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Good luck!