Integrating Generative AI and IoT for Sustainable Smart Tourism Destinations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Manuscript is very interesting but is to long.

1. The authors must shorten the Abstract. In the Abstract the authors must write purpose and aim of Manuscript, Methodology, Findings and Contributions

1. Introduction part must have purpose and aim of Manuscript, research questions and Hypothesis.

2. Literature Review is to long. Authors must explain only main constructs and their dimensions on few pages.

3. There must be a new paragraph Research hypothesis with arguments anf hypothesis.

4. Research methodology must be written on one or two pages. It is very long.

5. Findings must be written at maximum five pages with less Figures and Tables. But explained in detail.

6. Discussion - in this part, the results should be compared with other results from previous articles

7. In conclusion authors should give an overview of theoretical and practical implications. Why are the results important? 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English Language requires minor editing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

The author expresses profound gratitude to the reviewers for their kindness, valuable suggestions, and constructive comments, which have greatly contributed to the improvement of our paper. In response to your recommendations and recommendations, we have revised and amended the manuscript accordingly. The changes are highlighted in blue, with additional information marked in red within the blue highlights.

 

1. The paper introduces the integration of Generative AI, IoT, and NLP technologies to enhance the tourism experience. To strengthen this section, it would be beneficial to provide a more nuanced explanation of why the current tourism landscape necessitates such innovation and how exactly these technologies fill existing gaps in the industry.

Answer:  Thank you so much for your valuable recommendation to add information about the benefits of providing a more nuanced explanation of the interaction of Gen AI and NLP in the current tourism landscape. The research gap necessitates this technology as an innovation to increase tourism business competitiveness and achieve sustainability. (Lines 55-59, 74-101)

 

2. Methodology and System Development (around lines 665-699):

The description of the system's architecture and its development stages is commendable. However, there is room to elaborate further on the challenges encountered during the Agile methodology adoption and how they were overcome. Providing specific instances of iterations, user feedback incorporation, and any adjustments made would enrich the practical understanding of your methodology.

Answer:  We would like to express our gratitude for the Reviewer’s comment on adding information about the Agile methodology adoption. In response, we have provided more details on the Agile development methodology of the proposed system, which adopts an iterative and incremental approach to software development. This methodology includes System Requirements Analysis, System Design, System Development, System Evaluation, and Deployment, enriching the practical understanding of the research methodology. (Lines 669-696)

3. Experimental Results and User Evaluation:

While the user evaluation results are mentioned, the review lacks detailed statistical analyses and specific findings that support the claimed robustness of the causal relationship model. Including more granular data, such as statistical significance tests and effect sizes for each variable, would significantly strengthen the validity of your conclusions.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable recommendation to provide information about the conclusion of the user evaluation of the system. We have included detailed statistical analyses and specific findings that support the robustness of the causal relationship model resulting from the integration of Gen AI, NLP, and IoT systems. Additionally, we have presented the results of hypothesis significance tests in the conclusion of this section. (Lines 1115-1140)

 

4.Integration of NLP and IoT:

The integration of NLP in the system, especially in the context of the Smart Kiosk Interface, is a crucial aspect. It would be beneficial to clarify how the NLP module handles diverse tourist inquiries and how it ensures accurate and culturally sensitive responses, considering the complexity and diversity of natural language.

Answer: Finally, we would like to thank you for your beneficial suggestion to add more information about how the NLP module handles diverse tourist inquiries and ensures accurate and culturally sensitive responses, considering the complexity and diversity of natural language. We have explained and provided more detail on these aspects. The NLP integration within the Smart Kiosk Interface enhances user experience by providing reliable, contextually appropriate information tailored to the needs of diverse tourists (Lines 730-757).

 

Overall, your work presents a compelling case for the application of advanced technologies in tourism. Enhancements in the areas mentioned above will solidify the scientific rigor and practical significance of your research.

 

Answer: The authors would like to extend their sincere gratitude to Reviewer for the invaluable suggestions to enhance the quality of this paper further. We also deeply appreciate the encouragement provided to the authors in presenting research on the application of advanced technologies in tourism. The suggested enhancements in the aforementioned areas will strengthen the scientific rigor and practical significance of our research. ?❤️?

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Sustainability for review. I have carefully evaluated your work, and  provide the following feedback aimed at enhancing the quality and impact of your research. I will outline areas for improvement based on the segments discussed.

1.The paper introduces the integration of Generative AI, IoT, and NLP technologies to enhance the tourism experience. To strengthen this section, it would be beneficial to provide a more nuanced explanation of why the current tourism landscape necessitates such innovation and how exactly these technologies fill existing gaps in the industry.

2.Methodology and System Development (around lines 665-699):

The description of the system's architecture and its development stages is commendable. However, there is room to elaborate further on the challenges encountered during the Agile methodology adoption and how they were overcome. Providing specific instances of iterations, user feedback incorporation, and any adjustments made would enrich the practical understanding of your methodology.

3.Experimental Results and User Evaluation:

While the user evaluation results are mentioned, the review lacks detailed statistical analyses and specific findings that support the claimed robustness of the causal relationship model. Including more granular data, such as statistical significance tests and effect sizes for each variable, would significantly strengthen the validity of your conclusions.

4.Integration of NLP and IoT :

The integration of NLP in the system, especially in the context of the Smart Kiosk Interface, is a crucial aspect. It would be beneficial to clarify how the NLP module handles diverse tourist inquiries and how it ensures accurate and culturally sensitive responses, considering the complexity and diversity of natural language.

Overall, your work presents a compelling case for the application of advanced technologies in tourism. Enhancements in the areas mentioned above will solidify the scientific rigor and practical significance of your research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

The author expresses profound gratitude to the reviewers for their kindness, valuable suggestions, and constructive comments, which have greatly contributed to the improvement of our paper. In response to your recommendations and recommendations, we have revised and amended the manuscript accordingly. The changes are highlighted in blue, with additional information marked in red within the blue highlights.

 

1. The paper introduces the integration of Generative AI, IoT, and NLP technologies to enhance the tourism experience. To strengthen this section, it would be beneficial to provide a more nuanced explanation of why the current tourism landscape necessitates such innovation and how exactly these technologies fill existing gaps in the industry.

Answer:  Thank you so much for your valuable recommendation to add information about the benefits of providing a more nuanced explanation of the interaction of Gen AI and NLP in the current tourism landscape. The research gap necessitates this technology as an innovation to increase tourism business competitiveness and achieve sustainability. (Lines 55-59, 74-101)

 

2. Methodology and System Development (around lines 665-699):

The description of the system's architecture and its development stages is commendable. However, there is room to elaborate further on the challenges encountered during the Agile methodology adoption and how they were overcome. Providing specific instances of iterations, user feedback incorporation, and any adjustments made would enrich the practical understanding of your methodology.

Answer:  We would like to express our gratitude for the Reviewer’s comment on adding information about the Agile methodology adoption. In response, we have provided more details on the Agile development methodology of the proposed system, which adopts an iterative and incremental approach to software development. This methodology includes System Requirements Analysis, System Design, System Development, System Evaluation, and Deployment, enriching the practical understanding of the research methodology. (Lines 669-696)

3. Experimental Results and User Evaluation:

While the user evaluation results are mentioned, the review lacks detailed statistical analyses and specific findings that support the claimed robustness of the causal relationship model. Including more granular data, such as statistical significance tests and effect sizes for each variable, would significantly strengthen the validity of your conclusions.

Answer: Thank you for your valuable recommendation to provide information about the conclusion of the user evaluation of the system. We have included detailed statistical analyses and specific findings that support the robustness of the causal relationship model resulting from the integration of Gen AI, NLP, and IoT systems. Additionally, we have presented the results of hypothesis significance tests in the conclusion of this section. (Lines 1115-1140)

 

4.Integration of NLP and IoT:

The integration of NLP in the system, especially in the context of the Smart Kiosk Interface, is a crucial aspect. It would be beneficial to clarify how the NLP module handles diverse tourist inquiries and how it ensures accurate and culturally sensitive responses, considering the complexity and diversity of natural language.

Answer: Finally, we would like to thank you for your beneficial suggestion to add more information about how the NLP module handles diverse tourist inquiries and ensures accurate and culturally sensitive responses, considering the complexity and diversity of natural language. We have explained and provided more detail on these aspects. The NLP integration within the Smart Kiosk Interface enhances user experience by providing reliable, contextually appropriate information tailored to the needs of diverse tourists (Lines 730-757).

 

Overall, your work presents a compelling case for the application of advanced technologies in tourism. Enhancements in the areas mentioned above will solidify the scientific rigor and practical significance of your research.

 

Answer: The authors would like to extend their sincere gratitude to Reviewer for the invaluable suggestions to enhance the quality of this paper further. We also deeply appreciate the encouragement provided to the authors in presenting research on the application of advanced technologies in tourism. The suggested enhancements in the aforementioned areas will strengthen the scientific rigor and practical significance of our research. ?❤️?

Reviewer 3 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 the manuscript, I would like to provide some constructive suggestions to enhance the clarity and impact of your work:

 

 

1. Introduction

 

 

“Gen AI plays a crucial role in predictive analytics within the tourism industry. By analyzing large datasets, AI systems can forecast trends, demand patterns, and customer behavior with high accuracy.”

 

Reviewer: These kinds of statements by authors need to be backed up with scientific literature. Authors should not present information based on their own convictions; instead, they should cite studies that back up their arguments.

 

“IoT technology in the tourism sector is transforming visitor experiences through en hanced interconnectivity and smart automation.”

 

Reviewer: This is the key point of the introduction, the authors should clarify the gap in the literature that justifies this study. In addition, the authors should refer to studies that suggest new studies should be carried out on this subject, such as the study by Bernardo et al., 2023 - (https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.29.2.10) which states: "it is necessary to study new tourism services or management attributes, particularly those not included in most conceptual frameworks, such as technical applications and gamification activities, like Virtual Reality". On the other hand, the authors should provide the reader with knowledge about what has been done in practical terms in the introduction of new technologies in tourism, for example the study by Sousa et al., 2024 - (https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.30.2.10) recently proved that the inclusion of immersive virtual experiences for tourism purposes increases tourists' satisfaction during their stay in destinations.

 

3. Research Methodology

 

3.1 Problem Statement

 

 

“Key Assumptions: The research team made several assumptions about the information tourists seek and their interaction patterns with the system. Based on these assumptions and a review of relevant literature, the team developed questions to guide system development:”

 

Reviewer: The authors need to justify the research problem with existing literature. In addition, the methodological approach adopted in this study must be reinforced with studies that recommend it or have used it previously and at the same time guarantee the reliability of the results obtained.

 

5. Discussion

 

Reviewer: Although the discussion of the results is well presented, with a discussion of the results with previous literature, the authors should be more concrete and present practical implications of their study with suggestions for players in the sector. The hope is that the reader will clearly understand the results and what this study adds to what is already known and what its real contribution is.

 

6. Conclusion

 

Reviewer: At this point, the authors should mention which gaps in the literature have been answered and which of the objectives initially proposed have been achieved. Although the authors present their main conclusions, they should reinforce the originality of the study, i.e. what the study offers that others have not done so far. In addition, the authors are expected to present the limitations of the study and future lines of research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language just needs a minor revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

The author expresses profound gratitude to the reviewers for their kindness, valuable suggestions, and constructive comments, which have greatly contributed to the improvement of our paper. In response to your recommendations and recommendations, we have revised and amended the manuscript accordingly. The changes are highlighted in yellow, with additional information marked in red within the yellow highlights.

 

1. Introduction

  “Gen AI plays a crucial role in predictive analytics within the tourism industry. By analyzing large datasets, AI systems can forecast trends, demand patterns, and customer behavior with high accuracy”

 Reviewer: These kinds of statements by authors need to be backed up with scientific literature. Authors should not present information based on their own convictions; instead, they should cite studies that back up their arguments.

Answer: Thank you very much for your recommendation to find related literature to support our statements. We have added more relevant literature to substantiate the assertion that "Gen AI plays a crucial role in predictive analytics within the tourism industry. By analyzing large datasets, AI systems can forecast trends, demand patterns, and customer behavior with high accuracy." Specifically, we have included the following studies:

• Buhalis and Leung (2018) highlight the transformative potential of AI in tourism, particularly in enhancing predictive capabilities. They emphasize that AI can analyze multiple data sources to provide actionable insights, which can be used for strategic planning and improving customer experiences
• Tussyadiah (2020) explores how AI-driven customer behavior analysis can lead to personalized tourism experiences. The research indicates that understanding customer preferences through AI can significantly enhance satisfaction and loyalty (Lines 61-73).

 

 “IoT technology in the tourism sector is transforming visitor experiences through enhanced interconnectivity and smart automation.”

 Reviewer: This is the key point of the introduction, the authors should clarify the gap in the literature that justifies this study. In addition, the authors should refer to studies that suggest new studies should be carried out on this subject, such as the study by Bernardo et al., 2023 - (https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.29.2.10) which states: "it is necessary to study new tourism services or management attributes, particularly those not included in most conceptual frameworks, such as technical applications and gamification activities, like Virtual Reality". On the other hand, the authors should provide the reader with knowledge about what has been done in practical terms in the introduction of new technologies in tourism, for example the study by Sousa et al., 2024 - (https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.30.2.10) recently proved that the inclusion of immersive virtual experiences for tourism purposes increases tourists' satisfaction during their stay in destinations.

Answer:  Thank you so much for your recommendation to add the related study of Bernardo et al., 2023 and Sousa et al., 2024 that make the research gap of our study to more clear. We already summary and added their study in paper.

• The study of Bernardo et al. [23] have studied new tourism services and management attributes, particularly those not commonly included in most conceptual frameworks. These include innovative technical applications and gamification activities, such as Virtual Reality (VR), to enhance the tourism experience.
• The study by Sousa et al. [26] demonstrated that the inclusion of immersive virtual experiences for tourism purposes significantly increases tourists' satisfaction during their stay at destinations (Lines 100-105, 110-112).

3. Research Methodology

 3.1 Problem Statement

 “Key Assumptions: The research team made several assumptions about the information tourists seek and their interaction patterns with the system. Based on these assumptions and a review of relevant literature, the team developed questions to guide system development:”

 Reviewer: The authors need to justify the research problem with existing literature. In addition, the methodological approach adopted in this study must be reinforced with studies that recommend it or have used it previously and at the same time guarantee the reliability of the results obtained.

Answer: Thank you for your recommendation to find related literature to support our study's statement on the problem. It is crucial that this study is reinforced with previous studies that recommend or have used similar approaches to ensure the reliability of the results obtained. We have added information and literature that support the assumptions about the information tourists seek, their interaction patterns with the system, and their satisfaction with using a Gen AI system [99][105][109]. Based on these assumptions and a review of relevant literature [99][101-106][108,109], the team developed questions to guide system development. (Lines  633-637)

 

5. Discussion

 Reviewer: Although the discussion of the results is well presented, with a discussion of the results with previous literature, the authors should be more concrete and present practical implications of their study with suggestions for players in the sector. The hope is that the reader will clearly understand the results and what this study adds to what is already known and what its real contribution is.

Answer:  According to your suggestion, we have added a new section, '5.3 Tourism Business Implications,' to discuss the practical implications of our study's results for the tourism industry. This section focuses on how implementing our findings can help tourism businesses gain a competitive advantage and move towards sustainability. (Lines 1241-1273)

 

 

 

6. Conclusion

 Reviewer: At this point, the authors should mention which gaps in the literature have been answered and which of the objectives initially proposed have been achieved. Although the authors present their main conclusions, they should reinforce the originality of the study, i.e. what the study offers that others have not done so far. In addition, the authors are expected to present the limitations of the study and future lines of research.

Answer:  Thank you so much for your recommendation to add information about the research gap in the literature that has been addressed and which of the initially proposed objectives have been achieved in the main conclusion. We have highlighted the main contributions and reinforced the originality of the study that has not been accomplished by other research so far (Lines 1278-1289, 1295-1380). Lastly, we present the limitations of our study and the future research directions that other researchers can apply and build upon to further develop new innovations. These innovations aim to promote the use of Generative AI in enhancing tourism. (Lines 1314-1320)

The authors would like to extend their sincere gratitude to Reviewer for the invaluable suggestions to enhance the quality of this paper further. We also deeply appreciate the encouragement provided to the authors in presenting research on the application of advanced technologies in tourism. The suggested enhancements in the aforementioned areas will strengthen the scientific rigor and practical significance of our research. ?❤️?

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Manuscript is to large. Authors must shorten the Abstract, Introduction part and specially theoretical part of the Manuscript. There is too many information in one Manuscript. 

The authors can write two or more articles from this Manuscript.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, the author extends sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their kindness, valuable suggestions, and constructive feedback, which have significantly enhanced the quality of our paper. In response to your recommendations, we have thoroughly revised and amended the manuscript. The changes are highlighted in grey, with additional information indicated in red within these highlights.

Reviewer: The Manuscript is too large. Authors must shorten the Abstract, Introduction part and especially theoretical part of the Manuscript. There is too many information in one Manuscript.  The authors can write two or more articles from this Manuscript.

Answer:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your thorough review of our manuscript. We understand that the manuscript currently contains a substantial amount of information, which may make it appear extensive. In response to your comments, we will take the following steps:

1. Streamline and Eliminate Unnecessary Information:

• Reduce the total page count from 39 to 35 pages.
• Retain only Appendix A, and remove Appendices B-D, including any unnecessary source code from the appendix.
• Eliminate one non-essential figure.
• Decrease the word count from 17,599 to 16,812 words.

2. Abstract: We revised and condensed the abstract to focus more on the key findings and contributions of the study, ensuring that it remains concise and to the point. We kept the length of Abstract to 255 words. (Lines 10-28)
3. Introduction: We will refine the introduction by eliminating redundant or non-essential information and focusing on highlighting the primary research questions and objectives (Lines 144-182).
4. Theoretical Part: We have revised the theoretical and methodological sections to be more concise, removing any unnecessary information (Lines 662-714).
5. Manuscript Splitting: We appreciate your suggestion to consider splitting the manuscript into two or more articles. However, we believe that dividing the current manuscript might result in a loss of essential information and significant insights. Instead, we will focus on revising the entire paper to ensure it is concise, cohesive, and comprehensive enough to be published in the Sustainability journal. Our goal is to maintain the integrity and depth of the research while adhering to the publication's standards.

 

We appreciate your insights and are committed to improving the manuscript based on your recommendations. We believe these revisions will significantly enhance the manuscript's focus and overall quality. Thank you for your constructive comments. ?❤️?

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.Insufficiently in-depth analysis of experimental results: The article shows the results of user evaluations, but lacks a more in-depth analysis and explanation of the results. It is recommended to analyze the differences in the evaluation of the system by different user groups (e.g., different ages, genders, and occupations) and explore the reasons behind these differences.

2.There is a  problem with the formatting of Table 1, so please check it carefully

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, the author extends sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their kindness, valuable suggestions, and constructive feedback, which have significantly enhanced the quality of our paper. In response to your recommendations, we have thoroughly revised and amended the manuscript. The changes are highlighted in grey, with additional information indicated in red within these highlights.

Reviewer:  Insufficiently in-depth analysis of experimental results: The article shows the results of user evaluations but lacks a more in-depth analysis and explanation of the results. It is recommended to analyze the differences in the evaluation of the system by different user groups (e.g., different ages, genders, and occupations) and explore the reasons behind these differences.

Answer

Thank you for your insightful feedback. We recognize the need for a more in-depth analysis of the experimental results and will address this in the revised manuscript. Specifically, we will conduct a detailed examination of user evaluations, focusing on variations across different user groups, including age, gender, and occupation. We will provide a comprehensive analysis of the demographic information for both experts and users (tourists), utilizing cross-tabulations of occupation and education levels to identify how these factors influence system evaluations. Additionally, we will move the demographic results from the appendix into the main content under section 4.2, "User Evaluation," further dividing it into 4.2.1 "Expert Evaluation" and 4.2.2 "User Evaluation" to offer a more detailed analysis. This approach will allow us to better explore the reasons behind the observed differences and provide a more thorough understanding of the system's impact on diverse demographic groups, thereby enhancing the overall depth and robustness of our discussion (Lines 744-824).

Reviewer:  There is a problem with the formatting of Table 1, so please check it carefully

Answer

Thank you for highlighting this issue. We have thoroughly rechecked the formatting of Table 1 to ensure it aligns with the required standards. Any discrepancies have been addressed to ensure clarity and consistency throughout the manuscript. We appreciate your meticulous review and will incorporate these corrections in the revised version. (Lines 801-802)

The authors would like to extend their sincere gratitude to Reviewer for the invaluable suggestions to enhance the quality of this paper further. We also deeply appreciate the encouragement provided to the authors in presenting research on the application of advanced technologies. ?❤️?

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for accepting the reviewer's suggestions, as this has significantly improved the scientific contribution of the manuscript and I recommend its publication.

Author Response

Reviewer:  Dear authors, thank you for accepting the reviewer's suggestions, as this has significantly improved the scientific contribution of the manuscript and I recommend its publication.

Answer

The authors would like to extend their sincere gratitude to Reviewer for the invaluable suggestions to enhance the quality of this paper further. We also deeply appreciate the encouragement provided to the authors in presenting research on the application of advanced technologies. ?❤️?