Development Perspectives on Wellness and Spa Tourism in the Context of Tourism Business Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Development Perspectives of Wellness and Spa Tourism in the Context of the Tourism Business Sustainability" explores how wellness and spa tourism contribute to the sustainability of tourism businesses. It needs several improvements to be considered for publishing. The article does not have a distinct literature review section. The paper implies research questions through the introduction but does not explicitly state them. The hypotheses are stated in the introduction but not clearly reiterated in the methods or discussion sections.

In particular,

The abstract mentions the goal to show the advantages of wellness and spa tourism but doesn’t specify the research problem or objectives. While the abstract notes the number of respondents and locations, it doesn’t describe the methodology or how the data was collected and analyzed. It does not summarize the key findings or results of the study. It mentions the conclusion but doesn’t provide any details on the specific advantages or insights gained from the research. It doesn’t discuss the implications of the findings for the destinations studied or for the field of wellness and spa tourism more broadly. The statement about wellness and spa tourism being a “sustainable, desirable way of life” is vague. It doesn’t provide concrete examples or evidence to support this claim. The abstract repeats the idea that wellness and spa tourism is beneficial without adding new information. For instance, the statement that Serbia has great potential is mentioned but not elaborated on. The abstract includes some grammatical and punctuation issues, such as inconsistent use of commas and the term "beter" instead of "better." These issues affect readability. The abstract lacks context about the significance of comparing Sokobanja and Bad Gastein and why these particular destinations were chosen for the study.

Introduction. It mentions the benefits of wellness tourism without critically engaging with challenges or downsides (e.g., over-tourism, environmental degradation). While it emphasizes the positive aspects of wellness and spa tourism, it overlooks the challenges of adapting traditional spa destinations to modern trends. A reading of Brand and competitiveness in health and wellness tourism might help to put matters into perspective. The lengthy historical references about wellness distract from the paper's main argument. More focus on present-day relevance and development in wellness tourism would be beneficial.  Terms like "lethal triad" and "new philosophy of life" are unclear without further elaboration. The use of jargon might alienate readers unfamiliar with the terminology.

Materials and Methods. The survey process is only vaguely described, without mentioning the specific questions asked or the rationale behind their design. Additionally, the data analysis methods (e.g., Pearson Chi-Square Test) are not well explained. The research is heavily reliant on the perspectives of residents from only two destinations (Sokobanja and Bad Gastein). This limits the generalizability of the findings and excludes other relevant spa tourism regions. Although the study aims to explore sustainability indicators (economic, sociological, ecological), the description of how these are assessed is not detailed enough to provide a clear understanding of the approach. The comparison between Sokobanja and Bad Gastein is mentioned, but the methodology lacks depth regarding how the responses from both locations are compared in a structured, systematic way.

Results and Discussion. The results are presented in a very high-level manner, without breaking down the specific impacts of wellness tourism on each sustainability indicator. The paper notes that there were differences between the respondents from Sokobanja and Bad Gastein, but it doesn't delve deeply into why these differences exist or their implications for broader wellness tourism development. The discussion does not acknowledge potential limitations of the study, such as sample size, the scope of the research, or potential biases. The recommendations, such as adapting to modern trends, lack concrete, actionable steps for how Sokobanja could implement these changes. More specificity in the action plan would make the discussion stronger. There is a heavy reliance on tourism for the local economy, which might be risky if tourism trends change. This can lead to economic instability if the tourist flow decreases. There are significant differences in opinions between respondents from Sokobanja and Bad Gastein regarding several aspects of tourism's impact, such as productivity, employment opportunities, and transportation infrastructure. This indicates a lack of consensus on the benefits and drawbacks of tourism. While Bad Gastein perceives a positive impact on infrastructure development, Sokobanja has a divided opinion. This inconsistency could reflect differing levels of infrastructure investment and development, potentially affecting the overall attractiveness of the destinations. There is a notable difference in the perception of job creation due to tourism between the two locations. Sokobanja respondents are less optimistic about tourism creating new employment opportunities compared to Bad Gastein. A discussion on this would increase the interest of the paper, the impact of foreign participation in outdoor tourism activities on job creation might help. Tourism appears to have mixed effects on interpersonal and family relationships, with some respondents feeling negatively affected. This highlights potential social tensions within the community that could be exacerbated by increased tourism. Although both locations report a decrease in crime and homelessness, there is concern about the potential for increased social issues such as drug addiction and gambling. The perception of a rise in these issues could indicate underlying social challenges that tourism might aggravate. There is a disparity in views on how tourism affects population growth, with Bad Gastein respondents generally seeing an increase, while Sokobanja respondents are more skeptical. This difference may impact planning and resource allocation. Despite high approval of tourism’s influence on female entrepreneurship, gender equality in the business world remains a concern, indicating that while tourism may provide opportunities, broader structural issues persist. The analysis of environmental issues such as air, water, land, noise pollution, and garbage relies heavily on perceptions without presenting objective data or thorough analysis. This lack of detailed context and exploration of contributing factors limits the understanding of the actual environmental impacts and effectiveness of local management practices.

 

Conclusion. The conclusion summarizes the findings but lacks specific recommendations for future tourism development and sustainability. There is a missed opportunity to connect the findings with practical implications for local policies and tourism management. While suggesting further research, the conclusion does not specify areas needing investigation or the design of future studies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article "Development Perspectives of Wellness and Spa Tourism in the Context of the Tourism Business Sustainability" explores how wellness and spa tourism contribute to the sustainability of tourism businesses. It needs several improvements to be considered for publishing. The article does not have a distinct literature review section. The paper implies research questions through the introduction but does not explicitly state them. The hypotheses are stated in the introduction but not clearly reiterated in the methods or discussion sections.

In particular,

The abstract mentions the goal to show the advantages of wellness and spa tourism but doesn’t specify the research problem or objectives. While the abstract notes the number of respondents and locations, it doesn’t describe the methodology or how the data was collected and analyzed. It does not summarize the key findings or results of the study. It mentions the conclusion but doesn’t provide any details on the specific advantages or insights gained from the research. It doesn’t discuss the implications of the findings for the destinations studied or for the field of wellness and spa tourism more broadly. The statement about wellness and spa tourism being a “sustainable, desirable way of life” is vague. It doesn’t provide concrete examples or evidence to support this claim. The abstract repeats the idea that wellness and spa tourism is beneficial without adding new information. For instance, the statement that Serbia has great potential is mentioned but not elaborated on. The abstract includes some grammatical and punctuation issues, such as inconsistent use of commas and the term "beter" instead of "better." These issues affect readability. The abstract lacks context about the significance of comparing Sokobanja and Bad Gastein and why these particular destinations were chosen for the study.

Introduction. It mentions the benefits of wellness tourism without critically engaging with challenges or downsides (e.g., over-tourism, environmental degradation). While it emphasizes the positive aspects of wellness and spa tourism, it overlooks the challenges of adapting traditional spa destinations to modern trends. A reading of Brand and competitiveness in health and wellness tourism might help to put matters into perspective. The lengthy historical references about wellness distract from the paper's main argument. More focus on present-day relevance and development in wellness tourism would be beneficial.  Terms like "lethal triad" and "new philosophy of life" are unclear without further elaboration. The use of jargon might alienate readers unfamiliar with the terminology.

Materials and Methods. The survey process is only vaguely described, without mentioning the specific questions asked or the rationale behind their design. Additionally, the data analysis methods (e.g., Pearson Chi-Square Test) are not well explained. The research is heavily reliant on the perspectives of residents from only two destinations (Sokobanja and Bad Gastein). This limits the generalizability of the findings and excludes other relevant spa tourism regions. Although the study aims to explore sustainability indicators (economic, sociological, ecological), the description of how these are assessed is not detailed enough to provide a clear understanding of the approach. The comparison between Sokobanja and Bad Gastein is mentioned, but the methodology lacks depth regarding how the responses from both locations are compared in a structured, systematic way.

Results and Discussion. The results are presented in a very high-level manner, without breaking down the specific impacts of wellness tourism on each sustainability indicator. The paper notes that there were differences between the respondents from Sokobanja and Bad Gastein, but it doesn't delve deeply into why these differences exist or their implications for broader wellness tourism development. The discussion does not acknowledge potential limitations of the study, such as sample size, the scope of the research, or potential biases. The recommendations, such as adapting to modern trends, lack concrete, actionable steps for how Sokobanja could implement these changes. More specificity in the action plan would make the discussion stronger. There is a heavy reliance on tourism for the local economy, which might be risky if tourism trends change. This can lead to economic instability if the tourist flow decreases. There are significant differences in opinions between respondents from Sokobanja and Bad Gastein regarding several aspects of tourism's impact, such as productivity, employment opportunities, and transportation infrastructure. This indicates a lack of consensus on the benefits and drawbacks of tourism. While Bad Gastein perceives a positive impact on infrastructure development, Sokobanja has a divided opinion. This inconsistency could reflect differing levels of infrastructure investment and development, potentially affecting the overall attractiveness of the destinations. There is a notable difference in the perception of job creation due to tourism between the two locations. Sokobanja respondents are less optimistic about tourism creating new employment opportunities compared to Bad Gastein. A discussion on this would increase the interest of the paper, the impact of foreign participation in outdoor tourism activities on job creation might help. Tourism appears to have mixed effects on interpersonal and family relationships, with some respondents feeling negatively affected. This highlights potential social tensions within the community that could be exacerbated by increased tourism. Although both locations report a decrease in crime and homelessness, there is concern about the potential for increased social issues such as drug addiction and gambling. The perception of a rise in these issues could indicate underlying social challenges that tourism might aggravate. There is a disparity in views on how tourism affects population growth, with Bad Gastein respondents generally seeing an increase, while Sokobanja respondents are more skeptical. This difference may impact planning and resource allocation. Despite high approval of tourism’s influence on female entrepreneurship, gender equality in the business world remains a concern, indicating that while tourism may provide opportunities, broader structural issues persist. The analysis of environmental issues such as air, water, land, noise pollution, and garbage relies heavily on perceptions without presenting objective data or thorough analysis. This lack of detailed context and exploration of contributing factors limits the understanding of the actual environmental impacts and effectiveness of local management practices.

 

Conclusion. The conclusion summarizes the findings but lacks specific recommendations for future tourism development and sustainability. There is a missed opportunity to connect the findings with practical implications for local policies and tourism management. While suggesting further research, the conclusion does not specify areas needing investigation or the design of future studies.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you very much for each of your comments. These are constructive comments that help our work to be better and to find its place in the scientific literature. Everything you told and pointed out for us is of great importance. We hope that we have understood everything well and that we will meet your expectations with this version of our work.

Best regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to have a few comments, questions or recommendations for improvement regarding the mentioned manuscript:

The theoretical background of the studied issue are in some parts laims weakly supported by relevant literature or contradictory. For example it would be helpful to clarify whether, according to the authors and other scientific studies, wellness is a new or old concept. What is the difference between wellness and spa tourism? The statement in lines 92–97 seems ambiguous and insufficient. Which area is the broader term and encompasses the other? And is one part even a subset of the other?

On Based on what research do you assess the importance of wellness for sustainable tourism? I would recommend elaborating on this area.

Material and Methods

1. In this part (and in the entire manuscript) there is a lack of clear determination of the research objective, research questions and tested hypotheses.

2. The initial hypothesis of the paper should be supplemented with a statistically defined hypothesis.

3. Which Pearson chi-square test did you use? Goodness of fit or of independence? The manuscript also lacks the mention and justification for the method's choice . The manuscript also lacks the mention and justification for the method's choice. Does the final assessment of the selected test present differences in the frequency distribution of the categorical variable separately for each spa company, or together?

4. What questionnaire survey did you use? What were the questions? – there is no detailed specification of the research tool. Did the respondents not have the option of a negative rating in the questionnaire?

5. When it comes to data collection, it is unclear how the authors selected the respondents of the study. Were there any selection criteria applied? How was the survey administered? What was the response rate? Did you apply the back translation method or some kind of pre-testing?

6. When describing the individual spa regions, I would recommend focusing more on the sustainability indicators and limiting the theoretical historical information. I would also be more interested in a description of the studied population from which the respondents were selected.

7. Table 2 and 4 present the reasons for visiting the studied facilities, but I don’t know the source of this data. You do not provide the source of data for any of the tables.

8. Lines 168-175 evaluate the number of overnight stays, mentioning the 1970s and 1980s and the year 1986. But then you skip directly to the year 2018. Do you not have data for this period? What was the assumed (or actual) reason for the decline in overnight stays? Why are the data on overnight stays in 2023 (line 174) not listed with the other data in the table but rather in the text?

"We can conclude that Sokobanja has a stable business, without major fluctuations in the number of tourists" – Is this statement consistent with the submitted data (the year 2023 is at the level of the pandemic crisis, with a drop of 100,000 compared to the previous year)?

Results and Discussion

1.     When describing the respondents, the age composition in individual destinations is not clear to me, nor is the mentioned difference (line 212)

2.     Some tables in the text have the same name and differ only in numbering (eg table 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18...) - this increases the lack of transparency.

3.     The presented results should be strengthened in the context of the title of the paper, especially when discussing development perspectives.

4.     The discussion should be separated from the results. The authors need to place more emphasis on how the study contributes to the current literature, meaning that the theoretical and practical implications of this study should be highlighted and supported by results from other studies.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you very much for each of your comments. These are constructive comments that help our work to be better and to find its place in the scientific literature. Everything you told and pointed out for us is of great importance. We hope that we have understood everything well and that we will meet your expectations with this version of our work.

Best regards,

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides a very interesting study on residents' perceptions and it is excellent to see the comparison of the results of the two surveys. There is limited research on sustainability at spa destinations, therefore the article could be a valueable contribution to the topic.

 There are some points I would like to address after reading the manuscript, and I would suggest the following revisions:

1. The title does not properly cover the topic of the article. The title implies a discussion on tourism business sustainability, however the research is about residents’ perceptions on the impacts of tourism at two spa destinations. I suggest that the title should be modified according to the main topic of the study.

2. The abstract would benefit from restructuring to better align with the manuscript's structure and the results of the surveys. The objectives of the research should be clearly stated to help the reader.

3. The literature review is robust and comprehensively addresses key issues related to the topic of spa and wellness tourism. However, the use of relevant and up-to-date sources for concepts related to sustainability could be expanded, especially the link between health tourism and sustainablity should receive greater emphasis. For example, the statement „Wellness and spa tourism has stood out as a sustainable form of tourism” (line 11) lacks supporting citations. Including references would strengthen the credibility of the information presented in the article. There are general statements in the „Results and Discussion” part, which lack references, e.g., lines 233-236, 327-329., 393-397, etc. Some of the statements are debatable, e.g., „The goal of every tourist destination is to support artisans and artists in recognizing the tourist and commercial potential of the traditional handicrafts they make…” (line 233).

At the same time, the description of the history of Sokobanja and Bad Gastein is not necessary (famous writers, etc.) in the subchapters 3.1 and 3.2.

 

4. Results and discussion: The analysis of the questionnaire results is mostly descriptive and would benefit from a more sophisticated statistical analysis. The distribution of the sample in terms of gender and age should be revisited: the numbers do not add up to 100%, furthermore the statements are controversial („In Sokobanja, 68% of respondents were under 18” – line 213, „The age structure of Sokobanja and Bad Gastein is dominated by respondents between the ages of 36 and 49” – line 210).

The indicators investigated are not comprehensive. The authors could explain the reasons why these indicators have been chosen for the empirical research at the spa destinations. Clarification on the sampling approach is also necessary.

5. Conclusions: The conclusion should highlight the key findings of the study, identified literature gaps, and contributions to the field, in both theoretical and practical terms. It would be important to use references used to support the conclusions drawn.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript generally uses appropriate language. Rephrasing the objectives would help the reader and improve the quality of the article (lines 13 – 15).

The use of English needs to be reconsidered as it may cause misunderstanding, for example „wellness and spa tourism as popular trend” (line 25).

 

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you very much for each of your comments. These are constructive comments that help our work to be better and to find its place in the scientific literature. Everything you told and pointed out for us is of great importance. We hope that we have understood everything well and that we will meet your expectations with this version of our work.

Best regards,

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Development Perspectives of Wellness and Spa Tourism in the context of the tourism business sustainability

 

This paper investigates the impact of Wellness and Spa in the context of the tourism business sustainability. For the empirical analysis, a total of 462 respondents participated, of which 227 were residents of Sokobanja (Serbia), while 235 were from the Bad Gastein Spa (Austria). The local population of these two destinations was asked a series of questions regarding the impact of tourism on their lives and destinations. It can be concluded that Sokobanja should position itself on the tourist market by creating its own identity through the development of wellness and spa tourism. It is necessary to create a tourist offer that will merge the traditional spa resort and the modern concept of wellness.

 

 Comments

·         The overall format, style, and structure of the manuscript are far below the standard of the journal.

·         The abstract of this paper fails to clearly and concisely present the research question. The first four sentences are overly conversational and do not effectively introduce the reader to the core subject of the study. In summary, the authors should clearly define the topic they are investigating in the abstract. I recommend that they provide a more precise and focused explanation of the paper's subject.

·         The paper has to address that the significant value, unique/new contribution, and aims of the study in the Introduction section. They are not clearly presented in the current form.

·         The article does not have a literature review; this should be changed, and there should be a separate section for the article's literature review. In addition, in the article there is no theoretical foundation and no connection between Wellness and Spa Tourism and tourism.

·         The article explores how Wellness and Spa Tourism can attract more tourists; however, it lacks a theoretical foundation, including even basic tourism theories. I recommend referring to the relevant work of Konstantakopoulou (2022) to strengthen this aspect.

 

References

Konstantakopoulou, I., 2022. Does health quality affect tourism? Evidence from system GMM estimates. Economic Analysis and Policy, 73, 425-440.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you very much for each of your comments. These are constructive comments that help our work to be better and to find its place in the scientific literature. Everything you told and pointed out for us is of great importance. We hope that we have understood everything well and that we will meet your expectations with this version of our work.

Best regards,

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the manuscript has improved. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper in this version is improved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.