Pathways toward the Transformation of Sustainable Rural Tourism Management in Central Java, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the presented article, the authors analyze the development of rural tourism in one of the regions of Indonesia. The topic of the article is relevant and may be of interest to specialists and researchers in the fields of agriculture, tourism and sustainable development. The article provides an interesting study of the feasibility of introducing various scenarios for the development of rural tourism in the region, the authors have done a certain search and analysis of sources, however, as comments and recommendations, several points should be noted:

1. Can the use and implementation of renewable energy sources, agrovoltaics and modern sustainable development technologies be present and contribute to the development of rural tourism considered by the authors?

2. The authors should disclose and describe the "Multipol" method in more detail.

3. What determines the weight of the criteria in Tables 1, 2 and 3?

4. Apparently there are typos in Table 1 "Reduce population", "Alternatif" in Table 4.

5. The authors should add the section "Directions for further research" and indicate where and how it is planned to implement the results of the work carried out.

In general, the presented article leaves a positive impression, however, it is not without minor shortcomings. After elimination of these remarks and taking into account the recommendations made, the presented article can be recommended for publication in the journal "Sustainability".

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the paper is very promising and the author makes a good effort in providing an interesting contribution to the literature on the transformation pathways toward sustainable rural tourism management in the context of developing countries, including determining policy options, programs, and scenarios but these effects depend upon other capabilities like value creation, value delivery, value management. However, I suggest that the following amendments to be made before the paper can be considered for publication.

 First, the introduction is comprehensive, but it needs to lay out more clearly what the gap in the literature is and what platform does it refer to? This gap can be articulated by proposing a clear research question. The contributions have been laid out in a pretty general manner. Each contribution can be justified using past literature, such as how it is extending this line of research.

 Second, it seems the paper has relied a lot on academic research papers, which is understandable considering the emergence of platforms. A few more articles related to the industry and policy could be added.

 Third, research methods have been well explained. However, the arguments on Multipol Method (Multicriteria-Policy) are not clear to me and the explanation is not adequate. Please elaborate on this.

 Fourth, the choice of the data analysis techniques in general and Alternative Scenarios is particular could be elaborated further.

Fifth, please justify theoretical contributions using relevant references and clearly showing how they are extending theories. Study findings could be used to back them up. Similarly, practical findings can use industry example to validate research findings.

Finally, proper proofreading can improve the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is interesting and actual. It aims to discuss the pathways towards a sustainable transformation of rural tourism (in Indonesia). The assumption is that an integrated tourism sustainable planning and management enhances social, economic and environmental development in Kedung Ombo tourism villages (Indonesia).

Suggestions:

» English language and style must be improved. some grammatical, format and spelling corrections are needed. Please, check the entire manuscript. For instance: Lines 17-18: please clarify (English problems); Lines 32 and 40: "Mean" : Not "means"; Line 54: "Indonesia is a beautiful country in tourism potential" (it's not clear); Line 133: "policy support, suported (repetition); Line: 430: "managing the complexity of rural tourism management" (repetition: managing and management)

 

» Abstract and Introduction should better present general and specific objectives, in order to highlight what author expects to achieve from this research. The objectives should be aligned with the overall problem being researched and objectives should be enunciated in logical sequence.

» 'Multipol method' and 'tourism planning' can be included among keywords

» Line 69: Author says: "villages are categorized as a pilot, developing, developed and independent villages" Source typology? Bibliographical reference?

» In the context of section "Literature review" see: Lines 160-166: Author gives 2 examples (Hungary and Indonesia). More examples should be given in order to promote discussion./Lines: 189-190: "... One method commonly used in ...is to use SWOt" (attention to "use" repetition)

» Regarding section "3. Material and Methods", the methods are well chosen. Author says that "Data collection was carried out  ..." (lines 226-230). However, the date, number of participants, type of stakeholders [categorised by public/private, community, village (how many stakeholders from each village (author identified 8 villages:)?) ...] and place should also be indicated. Additionally, author presents a set of tables and figures (e.g. table 3. and 4, / and Figure 2) that are a result of FGD. It could be important to be better clarified what is a result (in order to enhance the discussion in the section "4. Results").

» See Table 1, line "Pollution" Description: Reduce pollution (and not "population")

» Table 2. The scenario alternatives (leapfrogging) are based in which Bibliographical reference 

» Clarify table 5 title: "against"? |Source: "Multiple" or "Multipol"?

» Line 348: "terrible". Please, consider other classification.

» Figure 9. Source:?

» The conclusion should be improved (for instance paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are not clear). 

» Line 447: "developed coordinated manner"? (English language)

» Author should add the study limits and future implications. 

» References: Corect reference nº 7, 47

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have done a significant number of improvemets to the paper. I appreciate the work they have done to address the comments of the first round.