Driving Sustainable Tourism Villages: Evaluating Stakeholder Commitment, Attitude, and Performance: Evidence from West Sumatra, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Authors:

 

Dear authors, first I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review your article. After a thorough analysis of tour article, I would like to provide some constructive suggestions to enhance the clarity and impact of your work:

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Reviewer: Authors should review statements such as those highlighted below, these types of arguments need to be confirmed by previous literature. Expressions such as "Previous studies" should always refer to which study or studies the authors are referring to. On the other hand, the introduction needs to be clearer and more objective. The authors should state which gap in the literature is being answered in this study, which previous studies point to it and how the study will answer that gap. In addition, the authors need to provide arguments for the need to carry out this study, i.e. they need to justify the importance of carrying out this study on the basis of the literature.

I therefore feel that the literature review lacks depth and seems superficial. The citations are limited and there is no in-depth analysis of previous contributions on the subject. Some contextualization of the study is lacking, there is still no proper contextualization on the importance of tourism in villages, especially in the West Sumatra region. There is a shortage of empirical evidence to support the various claims. It would be useful to include specific data or case studies to illustrate the challenges faced.

 

“This deliberate engagement is pivotal for exerting a substantial impact on the sustainability of the tourist village under examination.

Previous studies have used the Penta-helix concept to determine the role of stakeholders.”

 

 

Reviewer: Several problems? Which ones? Authors need to cite previous literature to justify their claims throughout the manuscript.

 

“Various problems faced by tourist villages began to emerge. The management system of tourist villages in West Sumatra is mostly based on community groups. The most frequently discussed thing is the application of the concept of tourism awareness related to the support and role of the community as a host in an effort to create a conducive environment and atmosphere that is able to encourage the growth and development of the tourism industry through the embodiment of elements of safety, orderliness, cleanliness, coolness, beauty, friendliness, and memorable that exist in tourist villages, but there are still many shortcomings that should be of particular concern to stakeholders.”

 

 

LITERATURE REVIEW

 

Reviewer: The literature review and the hypothesis setting are well done, however this section should present a brief initial review on sustainability and what has been done in this field in tourism. For example, including recent studies such as Sousa et al., 2023 - (https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118725) or Jorge et al., 2023 (https://doi.org/10.34624/rtd.v43i0.32992) which reinforce the importance of developing new, innovative, and sustainable tourism offers to meet new tourism demand, contributing to the tourism sustainability of destinations. This initial reflection by the authors can contribute greatly to the scientific contribution of the study and for the reader to understand what has been done in tourism and destinations in a sustainable way.

 

METHODOLOGY

 

Reviewer: In the methodology, the authors should be clearer about the method and data collection. It is important to know how the authors collected the sample and how they ensured that the process was properly applied. With regard to the instruments used, the authors need to explain how the questionnaire was developed and whether it was adapted from the literature and how this adaptation was made, i.e. which studies underpinned the items used in the questionnaire. In addition, the authors need to justify the type of methodology used in this study, for which they should refer to studies that suggest this type of approach in this context.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Reviewer: The final part of the study is the weakest. The authors do not present a real discussion of the results. After the authors highlight the results obtained in this study, it is necessary to compare these results with the existing literature, i.e. discuss the results with those obtained by previous literature, only in this way is it possible to understand the scientific contribution of the study. In addition, it would be important for the authors to add a new section after the discussion of the results, dedicated to the theoretical and practical implications of the study, so that the study's true contributions can be highlighted. On the other hand, there is no conclusion, the authors should include this final section, highlighting the conclusions they draw from the study after comparing the results with the existing literature. In the conclusions, they should also mention which gap or gaps in the literature were answered in this study and whether the objectives of the study were achieved. They should also mention the limitations of the study and suggest new lines of research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language just needs a minor revision.

Author Response

Thank you for the review

Point 1: Authors should review statements such as those highlighted below, these types of arguments need to be confirmed by previous literature. 

Answer: We couldn't find the previous studies that support the sentences we stated previously. Therefore, we decided to exclude the statement in our revised article.

Point 2: Several problems? Which ones? Authors need to cite previous literature to justify their claims throughout the manuscript.

Answer: For the issues, we have mentioned it clearly and supported by the previous study.

Point 3: The literature review and the hypothesis setting are well done, however this section should present a brief initial review on sustainability and what has been done in this field in tourism.

Answer: We have added the literature review related to sustainability and what has been done in tourism field.

Point 4: In the methodology, the authors should be clearer about the method and data collection.

The method and data collection have already stated in the methodology as well as the research process has explained well.

Point 5: The final part of the study is the weakest. The authors do not present a real discussion of the results.

The authors have explained the deep discussion in the article.


Hereby I send you the document for your perusal

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dears authors,

The research on the factors contributing to the sustainability of tourist destinations in villages is current and relevant, mainly due to the environmental and social challenges we face today. In this sense, all stakeholders are fundamental, despite playing a different but crucial role. Only with the cooperation of all stakeholders will it be possible to overcome the challenges and develop tourism and the well-being of communities, thus guaranteeing the sustainability of tourist villages.

After a thorough review, it was possible to verify that although the paper presents clear language, it does not always have a scientific character (in the case of presenting results). On the other hand, the paper also presents several significant deficiencies during the review process. There is a lack of conclusions, implications, delimitations, and future lines of investigation. The lack of a theoretical foundation could be resolved by using the most recent bibliography. Another aspect is that the mentioned bibliographic references sometimes contain errors or are not found in the text. Using referencing software, such as Mendeley, could be a solution for correctly presenting the bibliography. The issue of formatting the paper, in terms of font and size, must also be considered for uniformity. I think that addressing and adding the points indicated it will strengthen your manuscript's quality and coherence.

 

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the review

Related to the comments, we have deepened the conclusions, implications, delimitations, and future lines of investigation in our article.

Hereby I send you the document for your perusal

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

TITLE:  “EMPOWERING SUSTAINABLE TOURISM VILLAGES: A STAKEHOLDER-CENTRIC FRAMEWORK”

-        This paper correspond for scope of journal.

-        The title corresponds to the content of the paper.

-        This study represents significant contribution  for the development of sustainability of tourist villages of the base of estimation the (positive) role of stakeholders and characteristics, role  of the cultural Community and environmental factors in the  tourism village destinations and estimation of the effect of their interaction on the performance of tourist village sustainability.

-        This study have importance for improving knowledge of effect of  synergistic and sustainable interactions between government, industry, universities, society, the environment to improve the welfare of the tourist village community and the sustainability of tourism in tourist villages.

-        The main objective of this research is to investigate the impact of community culture and environmental sustainability performance in moderating the effects of stakeholder performance, commitment, and attitudes on the sustainability of tourism villages in West Sumatra.

-        The main question of paper addressed to study determinant factors that contribute to the sustainability of tourism village destinations in the province of West Sumatra, Indonesia.

-        The aim of research  is clear. However should be modify sentence from line 98 to 100 “However this study use commitment, attitude and performance of stakeholder to sustainability of tourist villages with the moderating effect of  community culture and the performance of tourist village sustainability” instead of which you could write. I sugest: The main objectives of this study were to investigate the contributing determinants sustainability of rural tourist destinations: (i) study of  commitment, attitudeand  performance  of the stakeholders to  sustainability of tourist villages (ii) study of moderating effect of community culture and the performance of tourist village sustainability“

-        The aim of research should be write according to previous suggestion at the end  of  the introduction.!!!!*

-        Key words are appropriately chosen!

-        Scientific methodology is applied correctly.

-        Results are clearly presented and discussed. Tables, figures, pictures are clear.

-        The conclusion chapter is missing! Conclusions should be written on the basis of research results.

-        Manuscript is acceptable after minor corrections.

Sugestion:

From line 310 to 312 should be delete. This sentence “The main objective of this research is to investigate the impact of community culture and  environmental sustainability performance in moderating the effects of stakeholder performance,commitment, and attitudes on the sustainability of tourism villages in West Sumatra.” Don’t belong to chapter material and Methods.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the review of our article

The sentence from line 98 to 100 has been modified based on your comment.

 The aim of research has been written according to previous suggestion at the end of the introduction.

The conclusions have been explained on the conclusion part and written on the basis of research results.

Hereby I send you the document for your perusal

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper needs to be clarified in many parts.

Line 26

 

First the full name and then the abbreviation PLS-SEM. Keywords insufficient 

Line 37

It is necessary to expand the introductory part more using the cited literature. The theoretical part of the paper is missing.

Line 97/100

Write the text according to the instructions of the magazine.

Line 102

In Literature review  the methodology is also mixed up, so this part needs to be rearranged. The parts for the methodology should be separated.

Line 302

The Methodology chapter is incomplete and needs to be rewritten.

Line 342

In Table 1, it is not clear what the numbers in the first column (Measurement Item) mean? Numbers that start somewhere from number 1, somewhere from number 2, etc. There should be an explanation before or after the table.

Line 343

Explanations are needed after table number 1. Only after writing these explanations, you continue with the next table.

Line 347

Insufficient explanation of table 3, and therefore inadequately text written.

Line 349

Table No. 3 does not make it clear what the marks in the first column represent. It needs to be explained.

Authors are encouraged to consider improving critical discussion on the issue. Deeper and more synthetic conclusions are missing.

Conclusion is missing.

Authors should write, maybe in a new chapter, an overview of the obstacles that existed during the research, as well as future considerations.

Better use of literature.

The purpose of the articles is to reach as many readers as possible. That is why this type of paper, apart from narrow expert explanations, should also have broader notes that can be understood by a larger number of readers.

Author Response

Thank you for the review of our article

Line 26

After seeing the review, we have already mentioned the full name of PLS-SEM in the abstract.

Line 37

We have supported the introduction with the cited literature 

Line 97/100

We have edited the text in those parts

Line 102

The literature review has already edited and the parts for the methodology has already separated.

Line 302

The methodology part has already revised.

Line 342

The table has already revised in order number code

Line 343

The explanation has already added

Line 347

The explanation of the table has already added

Line 349

The authors have deepened the explanation

Conclusion has already added to the article.

Hereby I attach the document for your perusal

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the case of the reviewed article, hypotheses H 1 to H 3 were formulated in accordance with the requirements of scientific work, but they were not preceded by research questions, the main research question was not indicated, and no auxiliary research questions were indicated because they allow for the creation of hypotheses and the verification of these hypotheses throughout the article and at the same time answering the questions research question posed.

A similar situation occurs in subsequent hypotheses: H 4 H9, there are still no research questions

At the end of the article, there is too little reference to the hypotheses and confirmation of their verification, there is also no indication of future research issues and the posing of a wide range of further research questions and possible hypotheses

Author Response

Thank you for the review

Related to the hypotheses, we have already added the research questions to our article

Furthermore, we have already added the references.

 

Hereby, I send you the document for your perusal

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper seems interesting but rather confusing.

 

The hypotheses are also confusing.

Defining terms used in the hypotheses are missing (such as: stakeholder performance, stakeholder commitment and stakeholder attitudes).

It is also not clear on the basis of which questions from the questionnaire the authors gathered the necessary information to prove the hypotheses.

The authors are not consistent in the use of basic terms either. For example: tourism village is used in the tittle and also as one of the keywords. But in the introduction, authors explain village tourism (Line 38). There is also term tourist village.

The text needs to be proofread. For example: (Line 49) „In the development of sustainable tourism in village tourism, the role of stakeholders is very important.“

Line 59: „Therefore, this study uses a new concept called Hexa-helix to determine the support of...“ Suggestion: „Therefore, this study uses an extended concept called Hexa-helix to determine the support of...“

The sentence: „The influence of stakeholder performance on the sustainability of tourist villages is a complex relationship that is moderated by environmental sustainability performance (lines 235-237)“ is also very confusing.

To sum up, this work looks like a pioneering attempt, which needs a lot of refinement.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper seems interesting but rather confusing.

 

The hypotheses are also confusing.

Defining terms used in the hypotheses are missing (such as: stakeholder performance, stakeholder commitment and stakeholder attitudes).

It is also not clear on the basis of which questions from the questionnaire the authors gathered the necessary information to prove the hypotheses.

The authors are not consistent in the use of basic terms either. For example: tourism village is used in the tittle and also as one of the keywords. But in the introduction, authors explain village tourism (Line 38). There is also term tourist village.

The text needs to be proofread. For example: (Line 49) „In the development of sustainable tourism in village tourism, the role of stakeholders is very important.“

Line 59: „Therefore, this study uses a new concept called Hexa-helix to determine the support of...“ Suggestion: „Therefore, this study uses an extended concept called Hexa-helix to determine the support of...“

The sentence: „The influence of stakeholder performance on the sustainability of tourist villages is a complex relationship that is moderated by environmental sustainability performance (lines 235-237)“ is also very confusing.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for the review

Related to the hypotheses, we have already edited them to make it clear.

The questionnaire has been revised.

Related to the terminology, we have revised it into the same term and use it consistently.

The article has been proofread by proofreader.

Hereby I send the document for your perusal

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Authors:

 

Dear authors, first I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review your article. After a thorough analysis of tour article, I would like to provide some constructive suggestions to enhance the clarity and impact of your work:

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Reviewer: The authors continue to argue based on their own convictions. Starting with the very first sentence of the introduction: “The booming worldwide tourism industry has profoundly altered the economic landscape of many countries, delivered an enormous advantage and stimulated development.” Who said that? What study or studies have concluded this? What data do the authors have to back up this claim?

 

Other examples:

 

“The establishment of tourism villages is a key component of the West Sumatera region's growth strategy, with 384 settlements identified so far.” What data or studies did the authors base this argument on?

“The success of tourism villages, however, is dependent on the commitment, attitude, and performance of a variety of stakeholders, including local communities, government authorities, academic institutions, local businesses, media, private sector participants, and tourists.” Does it depend? How do you know for sure? What studies have proven this? “Despite this, some issues arose in West Sumatra's tourist settlements.” What problems? What studies have identified them?

 

Reviewer: “This notion highlights the community's support and role as hosts in creating a favorable environment for the growth and development of  the tourism sector. In tourism villages, important qualities include safety, orderliness, cleanliness, coolness, attractiveness, friendliness, and memorability. As a result, there are still many deficiencies in these areas that stakeholders must address. In this view, the question arises if the commitment, attitude, and performance of various stakeholders, including local communities, government entities, and the commercial sector, are at an ideal level for the long-term development of tourism villages in West Sumatra. The current situation needs a thorough empirical analysis of these elements. As a result, the primary goal of the study is to assess the commitment, attitude, and performance of various stakeholders, including government organizations, academic institutions, and the commercial sector, in the sustainable development of tourism villages from the perspective of tourism awareness group leaders.” For me, the research question and the identification of the gap that motivates the study remains the main problem in the study. The authors try to frame the problem of the study, but they only base this on their own convictions and do not present any study that has suggested or identified a research need. This issue needs to be properly clarified and discussed in the introduction to the study, because so far, it is not clear why or how important it is to carry out this study.

 

 

LITERATURE REVIEW

 

Reviewer: The authors have chosen not to include recent studies suggested to reinforce the relevance of their study and its scientific contribution. This makes it more difficult for the reader to circumscribe the scope of the subject under analysis and the potential of the tourism offer in practical terms of sustainable tourism. Equally problematic, there is still a lack of studies to back up the claims made by the authors throughout the literature review, such as:

 

“The basic notion of sustainable tourism development is striking a balance between economic growth, environmental conservation, and social responsibility.”

 

“Commitment, attitude, and performance are three linked qualities with substantial implications across multiple disciplines.”

 

“In contrast, attitude serves as a prelude to behavior and has a significant impact on how people respond to difficulties and opportunities.”

 

“In organizational settings, performance is frequently assessed using indicators such as productivity, quality, and efficiency.”

 

 

“Collaboration and innovation are increasingly being recognized as key components in addressing environmental, social, and economic issues. A positive attitude among stakeholders is an important aspect in fostering collaboration and innovation.”

 

“A positive attitude toward sustainability programs motivates stakeholders to collaborate, share resources, and exchange knowledge and best practices.”

 

“Stakeholder performance is commonly measured using key indicators such as resource efficiency, waste reduction, carbon emissions, social equality, and economic viability. Tracking these KPIs allows stakeholders to analyze their progress towards sustainability goals and identify areas for improvement.”

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Reviewer: The authors still don't present a real discussion of the results. In this section, the authors are expected to try to reflect on the results obtained, contrasting them with the results obtained in the previous literature. Furthermore, I continue to stress the importance of the authors creating an independent section of the discussion, dedicated to the theoretical and practical implications of the study, to clarify the real implications of the study. On the other hand, the suggestions to the sector should be even more evident.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Reviewer: The conclusions of the study are still very superficial. The authors should clearly point out what their study results in practice, mentioning how their conclusions add to what is already known in the literature. In addition, they should explain which of the gaps in the literature were answered with this study and which of the objectives initially set were achieved. On the other hand, as I mentioned in the previous round, the authors should state the limitations of the study and include suggestions for future lines of research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language just needs a minor revision.

Author Response

Comment 1: The authors continue to argue based on their own convictions. Starting with the very first sentence of the introduction: “The booming worldwide tourism industry has profoundly altered the economic landscape of many countries, delivered an enormous advantage and stimulated development. ” Who said that? What study or studies have concluded this? What data do the authors have to back up this claim?
Response 1: Yes, we agree with your comment, as our arguments or statements are based on popular beliefs and observation rather than provide any evidence or citation. Trying to find evidence to support our notion but could find it. Thus, we decided to omit the statement. 

Comment 2: “The establishment of tourism villages is a key component of the West Sumatera region's growth strategy, with 384 settlements identified so far.” What data or studies did the authors base this argument on?“
Response 2: There is evidence for this statement, thus citation is included in the text to support the statement. 

Comment 3: The success of tourism villages, however, is dependent on the commitment, attitude, and performance of a variety of stakeholders, including local communities, government authorities, academic institutions, local businesses, media, private sector participants, and tourists.” Does it depend? How do you know for sure? What studies have proven this? “Despite this, some issues arose in West Sumatra's tourist settlements.” What problems? What studies have identified them?
Response 3: This statement based suggestion made by Azwar, et al. (2023) whose study on Community-Based Tourism (CBT) moving forward: Penta helix development strategy through community local wisdom empowerment in Agam Regency in West Sumatra. The Penta Helix is a collaborative framework involving five key sectors: government, academia, business, civil society, and media. It promotes innovation, sustainable development and supporting the development of Community Based Tourism and tourism villages. 

Comment 4: “This notion highlights the community's support and role as hosts in creating a favorable environment for the growth and development of the tourism sector. In tourism villages, important qualities include safety, orderliness, cleanliness, coolness, attractiveness, friendliness, and memorability. As a result, there are still many deficiencies in these areas that stakeholders must address. In this view, the question arises if the commitment, attitude, and performance of various stakeholders, including local communities, government entities, and the commercial sector, are at an ideal level for the long-term development of tourism villages in West Sumatra. The current situation needs a thorough empirical analysis of these elements. As a result, the primary goal of the study is to assess the commitment, attitude, and performance of various stakeholders, including government organizations, academic institutions, and the commercial sector, in the sustainable development of tourism villages from the perspective of tourism awareness group leaders.” For me, the research question and the identification of the gap that motivates the study remains the main problem in the study. The authors try to frame the problem of the study, but they only base this on their own convictions and do not present any study that has suggested or identified a research need. This issue needs to be properly clarified and discussed in the introduction to the study, because so far, it is not clear why or how important it is to carry out this study.
Response 4: Thank you for constructive comments. In responding to your comment, study found that the community awareness on Community Based Tourism and tourism villages in many Indonesia provinces remains low, necessitating cooperation and assistance among the stakeholders (Iqbal, 2019). According to Yasir et al (2021), the existing stakeholder’s role either the local government authorities, academic institutions, local businesses, media, private sectors are more confined toward each individual entity rather than a solid, comprehensive, and collective on general key role of the synergy itself.   The cooperation entails optimizing the roles of academics, businesses, the government, the community, and the media to orchestrate and ensure better tourism growth and sustainability at both the provincial and regency levels (Yasir et al. 2021).  We have added these statement in the text.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your revised article, ""Driving Sustainable Tourism Villages: Evaluating Stakeholders Commitment, attitude, and Performance: Evidence From west Sumatra, Indonesia". I appreciate the substantial improvements you have made to the paper. It was evident that you have made a significant effort to consider the previously presented recommendations.

However, while there has been a significant enhancement, aspects still need to be addressed to strengthen your work further. I encourage you to consider these points for further refinement.

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Abstract
- The authors mention “various stakeholders”. The reader should not be left with any doubts, so they should indicate who these stakeholders are.
Response 1: The main stakeholders, particularly the local government authorities, academic institutions, local businesses, media and private sector have been included in the abstract.

Comment 2: They removed the sample number, which should be included in the abstract.
Response 2:  Yes, 384 tourism awareness group leaders have been added in the abstract

Comment 3: Introduction
The introduction presents sentences without a bibliographical basis. This aspect must becorrected.
Response 3: Thank you, multiple citations have been added 

Comment 4: Literature Review
- The authors did a good job in the literature review. It is more structured and provides a better basis for the study they intend to do.
Response 4: Thank you.

Comment 5: The authors refer to line 118 as “Many countries and regions around the world have led the development of various sets of indicators”. Which indicators are the authors referring to?
Response 5:  This is referred to tourism indicators dealing with the environmental, economic, and social impacts. Many countries and regions around the world have led the development of various sets of tourism indicators deal with the environmental, economic, and social impacts, ensuring that tourism development is sustainable and benefits local communities in the hope of being able to quantify sustainability and observe tourism areas in a triangular relationship between host areas and their peoples, habitats, and holidaymakers (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2020).

Comment 6: In lines 141 and 153, some authors are incorrectly referenced. This aspect should be corrected.
Response 6:  Correction made

Comment 7: - In lines 166 and 170, full stops are missing in the sentences.
- There are still sentences without bibliographical references
- Mediation is different from moderation. If what the authors intend to analyze is the moderating effect (which I think is what they intend), then hypotheses H4, H5 and H6 are poorly formalized because they speak of mediation and not moderation.
Response 7: Correction made and citations added
Thank you for the comment. In actual fact, community culture is a mediation as  previous researcher argued that community culture plays a crucial role in bridging the gap between stakeholder dedication and the execution of sustainable tourism strategies that achieve a harmonious blend of economic growth, social and environmental responsibility (Nguyen et al., 2024).  

Comment 8: - In the introduction, the authors state, “As a result, the primary objective of the study is to assess the commitment, attitude, and performance of various stakeholders, including government organizations, academic institutions, and the commercial sector, in the sustainable development of tourism villages from the perspective of tourism awareness group leaders.”; in the methodology, they state, “The study's target population comprised 384 managers of tourism villages or popularly known as heads of tourism awareness groups in the province of West Sumatra, Indonesia.”. The study's objective, the definition of the research hypotheses, and the methodology are not in tune. The methodology that was used should be presented in the introduction. This way, readers will have no doubts.
Response 8: Thank you very much for the comment. Yes, that was our mistake. We have changed into tourism awareness group leaders

Comment 9: Results and Discussion
- It is impossible to analyze table 1 because it is incomplete. The table must be formatted so that all data can be analyzed.
Response 9:  Thank you. Due it important and providing a comprehensive overview of the reflective measurement model on the outer loadings, indicator reliability, composite reliability, Average Variance Extracted (AVE) scores, and Cronbach Alpha values, we insist to remain Table 1 but amended  the format. 

Comment 10: - The authors refer to “Item Removed SP11” and “Item Removed SA1, SA2, SA7, SA14, SA16, SA17”, the reason for removing these variables should be explained in the text.
- Figure 1 is not legible.
- Tables 2, 3, and 4 should also be reformatted.
Response 10: Reason of items removed is made in NOTE under the reflective measurement model. Some items are removed due to outer loading <0.70  (Hair Jr et al., 2021)

Comment 11: Discussion and Implications
- At the point of discussion, the authors must present a comparison between the results obtained and what the literature presents. That aspect was faded.
Response 11: We have supported the statements made in the discussion with few citations although a direct comparison could not be made. 

Comment 12: Conclusions
- The conclusion should begin with the study's objective and then give a corresponding answer.
Response 12: The main objective of the study has been addressed in the conclusion section.

Comment 13:- Limitations and future lines of investigation should also be added, as the authors do not mention them.
Response 13: The obvious limitation of the study is addressed in the conclusion section

Comment 14: References
- Although there has been a substantial improvement, there are still some authors who are poorly referenced in the text.
Response 14: We have checked all references and attend to the comments made 

Comment 15: Figures and tables
- Figure 1 and all the tables must be improved so readers can interpret and analyze them
Response 15: Figure and tables are improved 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

According to the text currently in circulation, there are several doubts:

1. Why is the entire text written in red letters?

2. Why the entire text was not done according to the magazine's requirements 3. Incomprehensibly written hypotheses (Lines 177 and 205)

4. Table 1 cannot be read because it goes out of the frame of the page

5. Fig 1 is completely illegible

6. Table 2 - it is unclear why Cells were inserted

7. Arrange Table 3 to make it understandable

8. Conclusion needs to be expanded with the obtained conclusions, because it does not reflect the conclusions of this work

Author Response

Comment 1: Why is the entire text written in red letters?
Response 1: Sorry, that is our mistake. The red bolded text is in fact for our editing work. Correction made

Comment 2: Why the entire text was not done according to the magazine's requirements
Response 2: From the initial review, we have made substantial number of amendments to the text and followed the journal formats in term of arguments, justifications and citations

Comment 3: Incomprehensibly written hypotheses (Lines 177 and 205)
Response 3: Thank you for the comment. Little amendments have been made in certain parts. After referring to other researchers and many established SCOPUS journals, we decided to retain some of the existing hypotheses. 

Comment 4: Table 1 cannot be read because it goes out of the frame of the page
Response 4: Thank you. Adjustment has been made 

Comment 5: Fig 1 is completely illegible
Response 5: Thank you. We would like to retain Figure 1 as it showed a measurement model. This is kind of evident. But if all reviewers agreed to omit. We will do that.   

Comment 6: Arrange Table 3 to make it understandable
Response 6: Honestly, the presentation of the Table is following other researchers work.

Comment 7: Conclusion needs to be expanded with the obtained conclusions, because it does not reflect the conclusions of this work
Response 7: Few additional information made in the conclusion. 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Authors:

 

Dear authors, after reviewing your manuscript, I would like to provide some constructive suggestions to enhance the clarity and impact of your work:

 

 Introduction

 

Reviewer: “In tourism villages, besides training, marketing and promotion, the communal services, safety, orderliness, cleanliness, coolness, attractiveness, friendliness, and memorability are the important elements.” Why are they important elements? What studies suggest they are important elements?

 

Reviewer: “With lack of study, the current situation needs a thorough empirical investigation.” With the lack of study? How do they know? What study has been carried out to find out that there is a lack of studies, or what previous studies report that there is a lack of studies? For me, this remains the main problem with this study. The authors need to justify the development of this study based on existing literature, rather than just based on their own convictions.  From a scientific point of view, the need and justification for carrying out this study do not have sufficient validity. The development of a study should always start with the identification of a gap in the literature and once this has been clearly identified, the authors should prove that there is a need to develop new research, with the aim of adding something to what already exists. As previously suggested, the authors need literature to justify carrying out the study, for example, recent studies that propose future research agendas, such as the study by Bernardo et al., 2023 (https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.29.2.10), which clearly points to the existence of few studies on sustainable practices in tourism, recommending new research that seeks to explain the concept of sustainability in the tourism sector. This is the kind of argument that is considered valid in the scientific community to justify the development of new scientific studies.

 

Commitment, Attitude, and Performance

 

Reviewer: “In contrast, attitude serves as a prelude to behavior and has a significant impact on how people respond to difficulties and opportunities.” What study has proven this effect of attitude?

 

 

Reviewer: “In organizational settings, performance is frequently assessed using indicators such as productivity, quality, and efficiency.” Which study confirms that performance is evaluated in this way?

 

Reviewer: “Collaboration and innovation are increasingly being recognized as key components in addressing environmental, social, and economic issues. A positive attitude among stakeholders is an important aspect in fostering collaboration and innovation.” How can you be so sure? What studies prove this?

 

Reviewer: “A positive attitude toward sustainability programs motivates stakeholders to collaborate, share resources, and exchange knowledge and best practices.” What study proves that a positive attitude towards sustainability programs motivates stakeholders to collaborate?

 

Reviewer: “Stakeholder performance is commonly measured using key indicators such as resource efficiency, waste reduction, carbon emissions, social equality, and economic viability. Tracking these KPIs allows stakeholders to analyze their progress towards sustainability goals and identify areas for improvement.” Which study measured stakeholder performance using these indicators?

 

Discussion and Implication

 

 Reviewer: From my point of view, the authors still have a poor discussion of the results with the existing literature. This exercise is essential to really understand what the study really contributes, the reader doesn't know what this study adds to what already exists. On the other hand, the implications of the study are very vague, and the authors should mention what advances have been made in theoretical terms with this study. In addition, they should objectively detail the practical implications of this study, i.e. what contribution this study makes to the tourism sector.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language just needs a minor revision.

Author Response

Comments 1: “In tourism villages, besides training, marketing and promotion, the communal services, safety, orderliness, cleanliness, coolness, attractiveness, friendliness, and memorability are the important elements.” Why are they important elements? What studies suggest they are important elements?
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We have added the citations. Hope, this is sufficient to support the statement. 

Comments 2: “With lack of study, the current situation needs a thorough empirical investigation.” With the lack of study? How do they know? What study has been carried out to find out that there is a lack of studies, or what previous studies report that there is a lack of studies? For me, this remains the main problem with this study. The authors need to justify the development of this study based on existing literature, rather than just based on their own convictions.  From a scientific point of view, the need and justification for carrying out this study do not have sufficient validity. The development of a study should always start with the identification of a gap in the literature and once this has been clearly identified, the authors should prove that there is a need to develop new research, with the aim of adding something to what already exists. As previously suggested, the authors need literature to justify carrying out the study, for example, recent studies that propose future research agendas, such as the study by Bernardo et al., 2023 (https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.29.2.10), which clearly points to the existence of few studies on sustainable practices in tourism, recommending new research that seeks to explain the concept of sustainability in the tourism sector. This is the kind of argument that is considered valid in the scientific community to justify the development of new scientific studies.
Response 2: Yes, we agree that the development the study should be based on the existing literature. Honestly, we are not simply based it on our presumption in which it will look back on our study.   However, we are missed to support the notion with citations or suggestion from the previous studies.  Align with that, we are really appreciating your comments and admit our mistake.   Thus, correction have been made by addressing the gaps and suggestion from the previous researchers. 

Comments 3: In contrast, attitude serves as a prelude to behavior and has a significant impact on how people respond to difficulties and opportunities.” What study has proven this effect of attitude?
Response 3: Citations have added aligned with statement made by the previous researchers.

Comments 4: “In organizational settings, performance is frequently assessed using indicators such as productivity, quality, and efficiency.” Which study confirms that performance is evaluated in this way?
Response 4:  Citations have added aligned with statement made by the previous researchers.

Comments 5: “Collaboration and innovation are increasingly being recognized as key components in addressing environmental, social, and economic issues. A positive attitude among stakeholders is an important aspect in fostering collaboration and innovation.” How can you be so sure? What studies prove this
Response 5: Citations have added aligned with statement made by the previous researchers

Comments 6: “A positive attitude toward sustainability programs motivates stakeholders to collaborate, share resources, and exchange knowledge and best practices.” What study proves that a positive attitude towards sustainability programs motivates stakeholders to collaborate?
Response 6: Citations have added aligned with statement made by the previous researchers

Comments 7: “Stakeholder performance is commonly measured using key indicators such as resource efficiency, waste reduction, carbon emissions, social equality, and economic viability. Tracking these KPIs allows stakeholders to analyze their progress towards sustainability goals and identify areas for improvement.” Which study measured stakeholder performance using these indicators?
Response 7: Citations have added aligned with statement made by the previous researchers

Comments 8: Discussion and Implication From my point of view, the authors still have a poor discussion of the results with the existing literature. This exercise is essential to really understand what the study really contributes, the reader doesn't know what this study adds to what already exists. On the other hand, the implications of the study are very vague, and the authors should mention what advances have been made in theoretical terms with this study. In addition, they should objectively detail the practical implications of this study, i.e. what contribution this study makes to the tourism sector
Response 8: We have reiterated the results and support with relevant previous studies. However, some practical statements are remained to address how the results of this study manifestly implicate the relevant stakeholders that is associated with the development and sustainability of tourism villages particularly in West Sumatra. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your revised article, "Driving Sustainable Tourism Villages: Evaluating Stakeholder Commitment, Attitude, and Performance: Evidence From West Sumatra, Indonesia". I appreciate the substantial improvements you have made to the article, considering the recommendations presented.

However, there are still some flaws that I would like to see corrected before the article is accepted. This improvement will further improve your work. I encourage you to consider the following points:

- In lines 71 and 98, there are incorrectly referenced authors;

- In lines 104 and 180, there are missing periods;

- In the introduction, the last paragraph should refer to the structure of the article;

- In line 149, a parenthesis is missing before the authors presented;

- Table 1 is complex to read because it is spread over many pages. It would be beneficial if you could eventually make the font smaller and the table horizontal;

- In the research hypotheses, the authors have already justified this as a mediating effect, but the results refer to moderation. This aspect should be corrected.

- In the conclusion, the authors should add future lines of research.

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: In lines 71 and 98, there are incorrectly referenced authors
Response 1: Yes, that is our mistake. Thank you for your sharp eyes. Amendment made

Comments 2: In lines 104 and 180, there are missing periods
Response 2: We have changed the word “long term” into sustainable tourism development

Comments 3: In the introduction, the last paragraph should refer to the structure of the article
Response 3: Yes, we have amended the statement

Comments 4: In line 149, a parenthesis is missing before the authors presented
Response 4: Correction has been made 

Comments 5: Table 1 is complex to read because it is spread over many pages. It would be beneficial if you could eventually make the font smaller and the table horizontal
Response 5: Yes, we have changed it into a smaller font 

Comments 6: In the research hypotheses, the authors have already justified this as a mediating effect, but the results refer to moderation. This aspect should be corrected.
Response 6: We are really appreciate your value comments. That’s our mistake. Thus, we have changed it into mediating variable as well amended the contents. 

Comments 7: In the conclusion, the authors should add future lines of research. 
Response 7: Future line research has been added in the conclusion. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article was not written according to the Instructions for authors. Therefore, the paper must be in the manuscript format according to the journal guidelines.

Literature citations are not up to journal standards.

References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including citations in tables and legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript.

Author Response

Comments 1:  The article was not written according to the Instructions for authors. Therefore, the paper must be in the manuscript format according to the journal guidelines.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments. Yes, we have formatted the paper into journal guidelines

Comments 2: Literature citations are not up to journal standards.
Response 2: Yes, we have changed citations into journal format

Comments 3: References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including citations in tables and legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript.
Response 3:  Yes, we have numbered the references 

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, after reviewing your manuscript again, I acknowledge your efforts to improve it. Considering the changes made, I only suggest a brief revision of the English language. 

 

Good luck.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language just needs a brief revision.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. Regarding to the comment, we have checked back the paper with our proofreader and make a necessary correction on the sentence structures, tenses, typo errors and the references. Hopefully, this is the final revised paper and the paper could be published soon. Thank you

Best Regards