Adapting Methods and Tools for Participatory Heritage-Based Tourism Planning to Embrace the Four Pillars of Sustainability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting article, which discusses the strategy for determining sustainability criteria according to stakeholders using Sustainable Development Participatory Process (SDPP).
The main method used is through an FGD, in several stages carried out to gather inspiration about the parameters "to develop a sustainable destination development strategy."
However, in the stages carried out, the results of the FGDs at each stage were not explained. The authors need to explain the criteria determined to determine the sources in the FGD. Perhaps the method used will be easier to understand if the process diagram presented in Figure 1 can be explained more clearly. Each stage needs to be explained what the inputs are, what the interventions of the resource persons are, and what the results are. In each stage it is also necessary to explain the role of researchers (authors). More importantly, the authors must be able to explain the difference between the SDPP and the Delphi Method.
Furthermore, there are still some things that need attention to be repaired. For example the writing on "Data Availability Statement" (lines 640-645), should have been edited and written according to the actual situation.
The two pictures in the manuscript are both written as figure 1.
Attachments should be written after the bibliography.
The numbers on the appendices should be Appendix A and Appendix B.
There are several other minor errors that need to be corrected.
There are several citation errors, written outside the sentences (in lines 55, 255, and 326).
In the abstract line 43, there are too many punctuation spaces before the punctuation periods.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 1
This is an interesting article, which discusses the strategy for determining sustainability criteria according to stakeholders using Sustainable Development Participatory Process (SDPP).
The main method used is through an FGD, in several stages carried out to gather inspiration about the parameters "to develop a sustainable destination development strategy."
POINT 1 However, in the stages carried out, the results of the FGDs at each stage were not explained. The authors need to explain the criteria determined to determine the sources in the FGD. Perhaps the method used will be easier to understand if the process diagram presented in Figure 1 can be explained more clearly. Each stage needs to be explained what the inputs are, what the interventions of the resource persons are, and what the results are. In each stage it is also necessary to explain the role of researchers (authors). More importantly, the authors must be able to explain the difference between the SDPP and the Delphi Method.
ANSWER 1 Thank you very much for this comment, it is very relevant for our paper and it helped clarify some points that were still unclear. Specifically, the results of each step of the SDPP are explained in the in what is now table 2 which is to be considered a zoom up on the Figure 1 focusing on the different steps explaining activities and outcomes of the three workshops comprised in the SDPP. Moreover, we appreciated having the chance to refresh our knowledge on the delphi method but we would rather not include the differences in the paper as they do not share the core feature to the Delphi method, which is , in our understanding,the iteration of both the questions and the pool of experts interviewed, whereas the SDPP is open to new participants at each step since it can be extrapolated and acted autonomously. Moreover, Delphi Method stressed the importance of anonymity whereas the SDPP do not request anonymity and instead encourages open interactions between participants to influence each other to reach a consensus. FInally, the delphi method seems to be successfully applied in the quest for quantitative or rather close ended questions, whereas the SDPP method aims at open the discussion to qualitative and open ended questions.
POINT 2 Furthermore, there are still some things that need attention to be repaired. For example the writing on "Data Availability Statement" (lines 640-645), should have been edited and written according to the actual situation.
ANSWER 2 The Data availability Statement has been edited according to current research situation.
POINT 3 The two pictures in the manuscript are both written as figure 1.
ANSWER 3 The picture number 2 has been redacted accordingly.
POINT 4 Attachments should be written after the bibliography.
ANSWER 4 the appendixes have been moved after the bibliography
POINT 5 The numbers on the appendices should be Appendix A and Appendix B.
ANSWER 5 The numbers on the appendices have been redacted
POINT 6 There are several other minor errors that need to be corrected.
ANSWER 6 thank you very much for this comment, all the minor errors found have been corrected
POINT 7 There are several citation errors, written outside the sentences (in lines 55, 255, and 326).
ANSWER 7 Corrected, thank you for pointing them out
POINT 8 In the abstract line 43, there are too many punctuation spaces before the punctuation periods.
ANSWER 8 Corrected
Reviewer 2 Report
I appreciate the opportunity to read and review this interesting article on methods and tools for pariticpatory heritage-based tourism planning. It is a theoretical, methodological and practical work of great interest and that adapts perfectly to the aims & scope of Sustainability. The article will make a notable contribution and I recommend its publication. I would highlight its rigorous foundation, its logical structure and the methodological contributions made by the authors.
There are certain problems in the editing of the text (numbers in the keywords; punctuation marks that are repeated; the bibliographical citations do not fully comply with the journal's standards and some are missing, such as that of Osterwalder and Pigneur (p.12); uses the acronym SDBMC for the first time in line 591, without saying what it is, and then talks about "Sustainability Driven Business Model Canvas" again in line 598; mismatches in the layout of the appendices) which is surely a rereading by the authors and editorial work could solve.
Of more importance are the following recommendations that I consider can improve certain aspects of the article:
- The authors should better explain their area of study, that is, the 8 case studies. Which are? Why specifically were they chosen? Who participated in each of them (number and communities-groups-stakeholders in each case)? This information should also be collected in a table.
- The results and discussion section should be improved.
o A general introductory text would be needed.
o The authors present two results: first, the description of the methods and second, the results obtained in the workshops, which are presented as a discussion section, but are the empirical results obtained by the research. Therefore, the results should be organized into two sections: methods and workshops.
- It would be interesting if the authors added a real discussion section where the authors point out the originality/scientific novelty of their work. It must be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective. What new things can the article contribute to the existing international literature? This point should be fully discussed in Discussion Section.
- The limitations of the work should be added in the conclusions.
- The Data Ability Statement section has not been completed.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
I appreciate the opportunity to read and review this interesting article on methods and tools for pariticpatory heritage-based tourism planning. It is a theoretical, methodological and practical work of great interest and that adapts perfectly to the aims & scope of Sustainability. The article will make a notable contribution and I recommend its publication. I would highlight its rigorous foundation, its logical structure and the methodological contributions made by the authors.
POINT 1 There are certain problems in the editing of the text (numbers in the keywords; punctuation marks that are repeated; the bibliographical citations do not fully comply with the journal's standards and some are missing, such as that of Osterwalder and Pigneur (p.12); uses the acronym SDBMC for the first time in line 591, without saying what it is, and then talks about "Sustainability Driven Business Model Canvas" again in line 598; mismatches in the layout of the appendices) which is surely a rereading by the authors and editorial work could solve.
ANSWER 1 thank you very much for this comment: Bibliographical citations corrected. Acronyms explained and corrected. Keywords corrected, punctuation marks corrected.
Of more importance are the following recommendations that I consider can improve certain aspects of the article:
POINT 2 - The authors should better explain their area of study, that is, the 8 case studies. Which are? Why specifically were they chosen? Who participated in each of them (number and communities-groups-stakeholders in each case)? This information should also be collected in a table.
ANSWER 2 Thank you very much for this comment. The list of the case studies, their countries of interest, the number of participants and the kind of stakeholders involved and communities participating to the workshops have been explicated in the newly added Table 1 (line 329) and within the text (LL 323-328)
POINT 3 - The results and discussion section should be improved.
o A general introductory text would be needed.
o The authors present two results: first, the description of the methods and second, the results obtained in the workshops, which are presented as a discussion section, but are the empirical results obtained by the research. Therefore, the results should be organized into two sections: methods and workshops.
ANSWER 3 Thank you very much for these comments, we are aware that the results and the discussion could have been the most complex due to the dual reality of methodological and empirical effort of the study. your feedback helps us understand how to better frame these sections. An introductory paragraph has been added to the results which explains how we are going to present in the following subsections both the methodological results and the empirical results of the first round of workshops. The susection s have been divided into empirical and methodological subsections and 4 more appendices documents have been added to clarify the empirical results of the methodology.
POINT 4 - It would be interesting if the authors added a real discussion section where the authors point out the originality/scientific novelty of their work. It must be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective. What new things can the article contribute to the existing international literature? This point should be fully discussed in Discussion Section.
ANSWER 4 Thank you very much for this note: The discussion section has been edited to point out the originality of the work as a whole and the single steps of the SDPP referring to the international body of knowledge about this matter.
POINT 5 - The limitations of the work should be added in the conclusions.
ANSWER 5 Limitations of the work have been added to the conclusions
POINT 6 - The Data Ability Statement section has not been completed.
ANSWER 6 The Data Availability Statement section has been redacted
