Strategic Issues in Portuguese Tourism Plans: An Analysis of National Strategic Plans since 2000
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Title:
Strategic issues in Portuguese tourism plans: an analysis of national strategic plans since 2000
Authors: Maria Lúcia Pato, Ana Sofia Duque
The paper deal with a very actual subject of nowadays: tourism planning in Portugal, important pillar of the Portuguese economy, generating wealth and creating various job openings. This study aims to analyse the content and structure of national tourism plans implemented in Portugal, since 2000.
Abstract
Please structure the abstract as:
Introduction-Aims
Method
Results and interpretation
Introduction:
Literature review is missing.
Please develop the literature review and update to 2023
Please analyses critically the findings of the articles and the limitations.
Please indicate also at least tree similar article to your research published recently (last 5 years).
Aim of the study is not clear indicated
Methodology
Flowchart of the methodology steps to be inserted
Please eliminate the red written parts. E.g. see page 9
Figure 3. Some international trends that impact tourism. Line 256: please clarify which is the role of the authors
The paragraph starts at line 291 is underlined in blue. Why?
Figure 5 and 6: please clarify which is the role of the authors
The paragraph starts at line 502 is underlined in blue. Why?
Idem figs 8, 9, 10. Please insert the datasources
What is the main question addressed by the research?
The main question addressed. The subject to which the paper address is very actual one, especially in Post pandemic period. The paper review of wide range of articles (but must develop and internationalize the list and update to 2023) in this research domain; their advantages and disadvantages etc are not enough exploited in a special subchapter of literature review.
Is it relevant and
interesting?
The paper is relevant especially nowadays in Post-pandemic in the complex environment of Portugal, taking into consideration that tourism and tourism planning is an import pillar of Portugal economy.
How original is the topic?
Is an actual topic with medium degree of originality; but it is important subject especially in nowadays period, authors findings can contribute successfully to investigate the combined factors involved in tourism of Portugal.
What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
The paper is not very well documented because the authors cited over 51 scientific published articles; we suggested to develop and to be updated to 2023.
We consider useful for the paper also the following published article. Please see and cite it:
Ilieş Marin, Ilieş Dorina, Josan Ioana, Ilieş Alexandru, Ilieş Gabriela, (2010), The Gateway of Maramureş Land. Geostrategical Implications in Space and Time, in Annales. Annals for Istrian and Mediteranian Studies, Series Historia et Sociologia, ISSN 1408-5348, 20, 2010, 2, Zalozba Annales, Koper, Slovenia, pag. 469-480, (http://www.culture.si/en/Annales_Journal)
Is the paper well written?
The paper is well written. The quality of English translation is good.
Is the text clear and easy to read?
The text is not very well structured. Methodology and discussions sections must be seriously revised.
Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
Yes, The results and discussions subchapters are concluding and consistent
Best regards,
February, 2023
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and valuable contributions. Here are our answer to your suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Dear Authors,
Your article looks good enough to be accepted. Acceptance depends now on the editors.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, Thank you for your comments and valuable contributions.
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
As I explained in the previous review round, the content of the paper does not present any relevant contribution to the literature. It is very context specific and the analysed strategies are only relevant for Portugal.
Although some minor changes have been made to the original version, it is still not enough to justify publication since no new knowledge is obtained from the paper.
Author Response
Thank you.
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
First I would like to congratulate the author(s) in the work developed. I is very important to achieve such conclusions about the Portuguese cases of tourism plans and promotion strategies, even in the light of recent covid and ongoing inflation, war in Europe and other disruptive phenomena.
So In order to improve your research I suggest some changes or improvements.
As the paper has almost no literary review, I recommend that a small paragraph should be added into the introduction to contextualize the evolution of tourism planning throughout the XX century and authors might use:
Costa, C. (2014) ‘Gestão estratégica do turismo: Evolução Epistemológica dos modelos e paradigmas, e tendências para o futuro’, in Costa, C. et al. (eds) Turismo nos países Lusófonos: conhecimento, estratégia e territórios. 1st edn. Escolar Editora, pp. 19–40.
Because introduction mentions sustainability issues rather superficially the models present in the suggested paper can be mentioned to let the reader know how tourism planning evolved and the paradigms behind it. Even in the sense com complement what the authors have done and very well to the case of Portugal. This will improve the paper.
Line 34 change tourists to visitors because as you know it is a broader concept and is better in this situation.
Methodology
In general I like the methodology as everything is explained and justified for this type of analysis. The plans are very well analysed and compared even using the several phases of a plan. So very good.
Line 123 Alves is not the reference 20 but 22
I suggest table 3 improves in the 3 column as it needs clarity. The text is not well centred.
Discussion is good and justified
And conclusions are very good.
I think that it is not mentioned that the paradigm of tourism promotion in Portugal changed with the SET Adolfo Mesquita Nunes. That should be emphasized as a complement to the discussion section. Because the national tourism board choose not to be present only in international tourism events for international promotion but to invite influencers, travel bloggers among others, develop fam trips, the consolidation of DMCs in promoting tourism destinations in Portugal. So mention that in a small sentence, even indirectly is important for the nature of these plans to provide the reader with this fact also.
While analysing plans and secondary data we can also help to provide the reader with info about the changes in promotion strategies that happened in Portugal in the recent years.
Congratulations
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and valuable contributions. Here are our answer to your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title:
Strategic issues in Portuguese tourism plans: an analysis of national strategic plans since 2000
Maria Lúcia Pato, Ana Sofia Duque
The paper consists of the analysis of strategic documents, implemented since the beginning of the 21st century, in Portugal. A qualitative methodology consist of documents analysis was used, combined with the presentation of a case study, related to tourism planning.
Abstract
Please structure the abstract as:
Introduction-Aims
Method
Results and interpretation
Introduction:
Please develop the literature review and update to 2022
Please analyses critically the findings of the articles and the limitations.
Please indicate also at least tree-five similar articles to your research published recently (last 5 years).
Aim of the study is not clear indicated
Methodology
Flowchart of your research should be inserted
Chapter Results should be transformed in Results and Discussion
The data obtained as consequence of your study should be represented graphic as much as possible for much visibility for the article, journal`s readers.
For the figures, please insert and update the datasource to 2022
References.
The references doesn’t fully meet the publication requirements
Please cite some recent high-ranking journals (WoS, Scopus), GTG
Double check if all citations are listed in the references list and viceversa.
Please check and please cite also the following papers which can add some value and internationalization to the presented paper.
- Ilieş Alexandru, Dehoorne Olivier, Ilieş Dorina Camelia, (2012), The cross-border territorial system in Romanian-Ukrainian Carpathian Area. Elements, mechanisms and structures generating premises for an integrated cross-border territorial system with tourist function, in Carpathian Journal of Environmental Sciences, vol 7,no.1, 2012, pp. 27-38; (www.ubm.ro/sites/CJEES
- Ilieş Marin, Ilieş Dorina, Josan Ioana, Ilieş Alexandru, Ilieş Gabriela, (2010), The Gateway of Maramureş Land. Geostrategical Implications in Space and Time, in Annales. Annals for Istrian and Mediteranian Studies, Series Historia et Sociologia, ISSN 1408-5348, 20, 2010, 2, Zalozba Annales, Koper, Slovenia, pag. 469-480, (http://www.culture.si/en/Annales_Journal)
What is the main question addressed by the research?
The main question addressed. The subject to which the paper address is very actual one and very important for Portugal. The paper don’t review of wide range of articles etc. The methodology adopted was the documental analysis, based in the exploration of the different strategic planning instruments developed and implemented in Portugal in the last decades etc.
Is it relevant and
interesting?
The paper is relevant especially nowadays in the complex environment of
Portugal. It synthetizes the actual available literature data. The methodology is adequated to this paper. The results are satisfactory presented and discussed.
How original is the topic?
Is an actual topic with low-medium degree of originality; but it is important subject especially in nowadays period, authors findings confirmed that proposed management models can successfully contribute to tourism development for wellbeing of individuals related Portugal.
What does it add to the subject
area compared with other published material?
The paper should be better documented because the authors cited cca 40 scientific published articles and other type of documents; we suggested to develop and to be updated to 2022.
Is the paper well written?
The paper is well written. The quality of English translation is good.
Is the text clear and easy to read?
The text is well structured. Introduction-literature review section must be revised.
Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
The conclusions are consistent and relevant for the paper.
Best regards,
November 2022
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The work includes a detailed, systematic analysis of Portugal's strategic plans in the field of tourism, clearly reflecting the pluses and deficiencies identified over time. However, I consider that the work is insufficiently substantiated by the complete lack of statistical and econometric content, of the economic impact of the implemented plans, of input-output elements. From these considerations, the conclusions and points of view of the authors are not pertinent and relevant from the perspective of the sustainable development of tourism.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Let me congratulate you on writing on such an interesting topic.
However, I think your article is too theoretical to be accepted as it is in a reputed journal like Sustainability.
1. Your keywords are too vague. How do you explain Portugal, Sustainability, National level, etc. as keywords? Please change them.
2. On line 25, you cited Bailoa and Cravo, where they state that tourism is an export economic activity? Please explain how tourism helps exports. What is the relation? Tourism basically brings in people and foreign currency to Portugal. How does tourism aid in exports?
3. Your text requires extensive English language review by a native English speaker. For example, line 40: Williams refer (or Williams refers)?, line 49: to capable to? (what does it mean?), line 55: them impacts (or their impacts?). I could go on and on... Please correct the entire text!
4. Your table 3 mentions information of 2007 onwards. I suggest you add data of actual performance to it. It is too theoretical.
5. I think your article does not add anything to the body of knowledge, the way it is. It is too theoretical and does not have any research, nor any hypotheses. It looks more like a newspaper article on Portugal 2020. Please add data, define some hypotheses for your study and then do a proper analysis, using some statistical tools to justify the hypotheses.
6. You ought to add a section on Managerial Applications, before the conclusions.
7. Your conclusions and discussion should be improved after data analysis and be based on the hypotheses.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The conducted analysis can be valuable to practitioners and DMOs but, in my opinion, the academic merit of this paper is very low, since it is exclusively based on secondary data (i.e. revision of existing tourism plans). How does the analysis of the tourism planning strategies of Portugal advance the current state of the literature? How is this paper relevant to any other destination or tourism scholar out of the context of Portugal as a travel destination? Are not the conclusions too destination-specific? Once again, I think the paper has merit in discussing the evolution of the tourism planning strategies in Portugal, which undoubtedly is useful to DMOs and other tourism institutions, but I fail to see any significant research contribution that can be extended to the wider context of tourism destination planning and sustainability (after all, the topic of this journal).
Reviewer 5 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper. Your work has potential but there are several areas that need revisions before this is ready for publication. I know you will be disappointed with my review but I hope you take them in the constructive manner they are meant as they are here to help you make this into a stronger piece of research.
1. I would suggest a re-writing of your abstract to remove all of the questions. This should be a succinct summary of the entire research.
2. You need to make the motivation for this paper clearer in the introduction. In this section, you talked about what is strategy and planning but there was little connection to critical importance. In this section, you said there was a lack of knowledge about the importance of tourism planning but you did not show this lack of knowledge in the literature or the importance. I was also unclear about what theoretical lens you used in this research for your analysis. You mention strategy and planning but did not elaborate.
3. A greater justification for case study research is needed. What type of case study was this? Why did you only focus on document analysis? Some useful information would have been obtained from interviews/focus groups with key stakeholders in tourism planning in Portugal.
4. You have presented a good summary of the findings and I note the framework used to analyze the tourism plans. However, what is missing, is the link back to the theoretical contribution. See my point 1. What do all of these findings mean in the broader context of tourism strategic planning? This needs more critical analysis to provide a more meaningful discussion and conclusion.
5. Your policy and managerial implications should be what the industry can learn from what you found and how in very specific ways they can use it
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Unfortunately, the authors failed to revise the article according to the specific requirements of the publication. There are no research hypotheses, there is no practical approach to the theme, there is no econometric research, it is only a theoretical presentation of tourism development plans. These are the main reasons why the article in its present form cannot be published.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment and the time consumed in analyzing our article. However, with all the consideration, see our response in the attachement file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your revised version. I went through it and I still have a few issues that I would like you to address:
1. While a theoretical study is acceptable, it should add something to the body of knowledge. Even if you do not have any hypotheses to analyze, you ought to add at least the actual data of the past (between 2000 and 2021) and try to make a comparison between what the plans aimed at and what they achieved. Or in other words, for example, tourism 2020 (2014-2020), what was aimed in figures and what was achieved. Let us say: the government expected an inflow of 3 billion euro in 2014 and the actual inflow was only 1.5 billion. The reasons for the shortfall were: .... This can be just a paragraph or two in the analysis section and then in the conclusion.
2. You still claim inbound tourism is exports. The article from UNWTO clearly mentions outbound tourism from France and Germany. In case you want to maintain this, I suggest you add one paragraph explaining clearly how inbound tourism is equivalent to export of services or goods and the foreign funds flow in to the country, as in the case of export of services and goods. You may even get this from Moreira and Santos article, in their literature review section.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for the suggestions made to our article. We now submit the paper for your consideration, with all the changes shaded in blue. You can also see our response in the attachement file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
As I stated in previous reports, the work does not correspond from the point of view of scientific content. It is a narrative work, it does not involve econometric analysis, it does not bring any contribution to the in-depth knowledge of the tourism field in Portugal.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I think your article now looks good and all the issues have been well addressed. I would like to advise you to get it reviewed one final time by a native English speaker (or English teacher).
