Leveraging Local Value in a Post-Smart Tourism Village to Encourage Sustainable Tourism
, Mila Viendyasari 3, Mohamad Sattar Rasul 4 and Sri Sarjana 5,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I believe that your article needs some additions/clarifications to be considered for publication:
- Specify the meaning of ICT when using the abbreviation for the first time
-In the first part of the Abstract, introduce some theoretical aspects of framing the theme of the article.
-A more detailed presentation of Kenderan and local spirituality would be useful, possibly even in the Introduction part of the article
-Line 129: What does IoT mean?
-Lines 177: maybe find a more appropriate wording (more impersonal than glue)
-Line 178: before inserting the table, present its contents
-Line 214: likewise, before inserting the table, show what it contains
-Lines 282, 342, 454, 532: the same
-There is a need for a more detailed presentation of the concept of "post smart tourism", which appears in the formulation of hypotheses, especially regarding its relationship with smart tourism
-Line 289: specify the meaning of DC the first time the abbreviation is used
-Line 209: what is WTCF?
-Line 352: Hypothesis 4 is unclear: The relationship between digital skills and the creative event does not emerge from the presentation of the hypothesis. Please clarify this aspect.
-In Table 5: an operationalization of the concept of post smart tourism is also necessary, because it appears in the hypotheses
-In Table 6: what do PMD and SME mean? Specify the meaning the first time you use the abbreviation
-Line 456: Table 6 instead of Table 5?
-Line 486: what does BE stand for?
-Line 486: before Figure 3, please explain what this will be about
-Line 632: what does UMKM stand for?
I wish you success!
Author Response
Revised paper file according to suggestions for improvements from Reviewer 1
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe abstract lacks a clear articulation of the paper's objective, possibly due to issues in the English translation. For example, the initial phrase of the abstract needs to be rephrased. Furthermore, certain statements in English, such as "This research is applied research conducted with..." and "... by circulating questionnaires to tourists..." are ambiguous and require clarification.
Reference number 8 is currently unavailable, prompting the authors to consider providing an accessible link. The authors indicated that both reference 8 (unavailable) and reference 9 introduced the concept of smart sustainable tourism destination (SSTD) as a novel approach to tourism development. However, upon reviewing reference 9, there is no mention of SSTD. It is suggested that an alternative article, such as Ribes, J. F. P., & Baidal, J. I. (2018). "Smart sustainability: A new perspective in the sustainable tourism debate" from Investigaciones Regionales-Journal of Regional Research, (42), 151-170, listed in the references of reference 9, might be more suitable to support the authors' assertion.
The literature review was conducted through an extensive exploration of relevant references, and the Table 1 and Table 2 is very appreciated. While the article adeptly introduces creative events and festivals, the literature review section could be enhanced by an in-depth examination of the creative tourism concept. Originating in the late 1990s, this concept has experienced rapid development and being linked to the creation of authentic experiences, and active engagement with local cultures and communities, ideas that are present in this article.
As the authors mentioned community in different contexts throughout the article, it is strongly recommended that the authors to expand the discussion in the literature review section about community-based tourism. This recommendation is motivated by the acknowledgment of community-based tourism as a developmental strategy that seeks to address the social, environmental, and economic requirements of local communities by fostering sustainable tourism practices. Since local culture and values are specifically mentioned on page 12, there is an opportunity to explore in the literature review the role of intangible heritage and its impact on sustainable and smart tourism in rural destinations by adding few relevant references.
Residents’ and visitors’ satisfaction with sustainable tourism is another direction that can be explored in the broader discussion about sustainability. To what extent is this concept elucidated by the content depicted in Figure 4, which illustrates the model of post-smart tourism?
Figure 2 explained clearly the methodology, but English expression, as exemplified by ”Interviews were conducted data and information from sources in-depth” (rows 398-399) made again the text challenging to comprehend.
In the Conclusion section, it is imperative to explicitly state whether the conclusions effectively address the study's objectives. Authors should also inquire in this section whether the results offer sufficient detail for the replication of the study. Additionally, it is crucial for authors to acknowledge and present the limitations of the study.
Author Response
Revised paper file according to suggestions for improvements from Reviewer 2
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. In the Introduction, the author focuses on describing the current research status of sustainable tourism, but there is less description of the realistic background. It is recommended that the author supplement this. In addition, there is a lack of scientific problems to be solved, research innovations, contributions and significance in this manuscript.
2. In the Literature Review, although the author reviewed related concepts of smart tourism destinations, he did not give a definition of the key concept post smart tourism. It is recommended that the author add what post smart tourism refers to in this manuscript and its specific manifestations and characteristics. At the same time, in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4, the content describing related concepts is too long and not concise enough. It is recommended that the author only describes key concepts.
3. In Materials and Methods, the author only briefly introduces the implementation steps of mixed method research (MMR), and lacks a discussion of the applicability of the research method to this manuscript. When summarizing operating variables and indicators in Table 5, the authors are advised to add a column to indicate the source of each indicator.
4. In the results, the quality of Tables 7 and 8 is very poor, and it is recommended that the author optimize them. Key descriptions of figures and tables are required in the main text, and the author is advised to add them. In addition, CE3 appears in the Digital Competence part in Figure 4. The author is advised to check carefully.
5. In addition, some important research in the field of structural equation modelling is missing.
e.g.,
Ashfaq, M., Tandon, A., Zhang, Q., Jabeen, F., & Dhir, A. (2023). Doing good for society! How purchasing green technology stimulates consumers toward green behavior: A structural equation modeling–artificial neural network approach. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(4), 1274-1291.
Li, X., Dai, J., Zhu, X., Li, J., He, J., Huang, Y., ... & Shen, Q. (2023). Mechanism of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control influence the green development behavior of construction enterprises. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 266.
Yesberg, J., Brunton-Smith, I., & Bradford, B. (2023). Police visibility, trust in police fairness, and collective efficacy: A multilevel Structural Equation Model. European journal of criminology, 20(2), 712-737.
etc.
6. This manuscript lacks a discussion section. The author only drew the important results of this manuscript, and did not discuss and analyze the results of this manuscript with the results of existing similar studies. This is not convincing enough. It is recommended that the author add a discussion section.
7. In the conclusion, the author did not summarize the main research purpose, content and methods of this manuscript. Moreover, the conclusions are not rich and profound enough. It is recommended that the author further refine the research conclusions based on the results obtained in this manuscript and list the important research conclusions in points. Finally, the authors should give the research limitations of this manuscript and indicate the next research directions.
In summary, the authors are advised to carefully revise this manuscript in light of the above comments. I sincerely look forward to receiving the revised version.
Author Response
Revised paper file according to suggestions for improvements from Reviewer 3
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I appreciate the effort to modify the article in accordance with the suggestions of all the reviewers. Success!
Author Response
Revisions to the paper have been carried out according to suggestions for improvements from the reviewers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe new version significantly improved. I suggest the authors to provide at least one reference for readers that wanted to find more about Tri Hita Karana.
The rest of the issues from the first phase of the review was addressed.
Author Response
Revisions to the paper have been carried out according to suggestions for improvements from the reviewers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have carefully revised the manuscript in light of their comments, and the current version is acceptable.
Author Response
Revisions to the paper have been carried out according to suggestions for improvements from the reviewers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
