Tourists’ Perception of Tourist Destinations: The Case Study of Nazaré (Portugal)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article studies the perception of a tourist destination, the town of Nazaré, based on comments made on Trip Advisor. The use of social networks as tourism prescribers is a very relevant topic that deserves attention by researchers of the tourism phenomenon.

However, the study is not very relevant, since it refers to a single locality and the number of comments (565) is too low to be able to extrapolate conclusions. Similarly, too many categories and subcategories have been established, to the point that several of them have only one comment, which makes it difficult to establish valid conclusions, as they are poorly represented.

For future studies, it is recommended to look for a social network with more comments (Instagram or Facebook) or perhaps compare it with another tourist destination associated with surfing (for example, Tarifa), to establish parallels and differences.

The geographic information section is not very relevant and should be summarized, as well as the statistical section, which is not very relevant to the topic.

The conclusions should be further elaborated. The low number of comments probably makes it difficult to draw conclusions of high value that can be applied in other contexts.

Finally, the citation on lines 288 and 298 should be well written. Also cite following the indications of the journal on lines 175 and 296.

The idea about the importance of the Nazaré canyon is repeated in lines 244 and 305.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for reading, analysing and commenting on the article.

We would like to emphasize that this is an exploratory study and therefore served to understand the main aspects that visitors express, in cognitive, emotional and conative terms and to determine which are the most used. The reason for considering too many categories and subcategories is due to the exploratory nature, which aims to obtain the greatest number of categorizable aspects in order to better understand the phenomenon. From this perspective, the results should be seen as an initial approach to the problem that needs further investigation, whether using other social networks or through comparative studies with tourist destinations with similar attraction capacity. We recognize this limitation and as such we add it to the conclusions of the article. There is also a degree of innovation to consider because the territory – Nazaré village – has never been the subject of a study of tourist perceptions.

For future studies, we accept the recommendations and add them to the conclusions.

We also follow the other recommendations and suggestions:

- We summarize geographic and statistical information;

- We improve conclusions;

- We corrected citations with errors;

- We removed the repeated information from line 305.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the author's contribution. The paper is written with adequate clarity and presents the contributions to the literature but technically, the methodology it is poor. The methodology needs to be more sophisticated.

Besides these, I have some recommendations: the paper should present in the Conclusions the policy implications of research, practice, and society, and some recommendations to regulators should be added to explain how they can benefit from the findings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for reading, analysing and commenting on the article.

As for the methodology developed, it is exploratory and therefore served to understand the main aspects that visitors express, in cognitive, emotional and conative terms and determine which are the most used. From this perspective, the results should be seen as an initial approach to the problem that needs further investigation, whether using other social networks or through comparative studies with tourist destinations with similar attraction capacity. We recognize this limitation and as such we add it to the conclusions of the article.

We appreciate your valuable recommendations and seek to implement them through additions to the conclusions and in the analysis and discussion of results.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a good piece that fills a gap in the literature. It is well-written and well-organized, fulfilling all requirements of a scientific paper. However, I have only two concerns. First, the authors should have discussed the limitations of their study, especially considering their use of a somewhat novel methodology which may not be familiar to those interested in the paper's theme. Secondly, the paper would benefit from a section detailing the managerial implications of its findings.

Author Response

Thank you for reading, analysing and commenting on the article.

Relatively to the 2 concerns:

1. As for the methodology developed, it is exploratory and therefore served to understand the main aspects that visitors express, in cognitive, emotional and conative terms and determine which are the most used. From this perspective, the results should be seen as an initial approach to the problem that needs further investigation, whether using other social networks or through comparative studies with tourist destinations with similar attraction capacity. We recognize this limitation and as such we add it to the conclusions of the article.
2. We would like to thank you for noticing the lack of a section that refers to the managerial implications of the study. We recognize the same and hence references were added in the Analysis and Discussion of Results and in the Conclusions of the article. The results are important for destination management entities to better understand the experience carried out by tourists and understand how it is described, allowing conclusions to be drawn about what is most valued. As such, it allows to reinforce and maintain the key aspects of the experience and fill in those less mentioned. In the case of Nazaré, the reduced number of references about the emotional experience may be an indication of a possible lack of recommendation or even revisitation, which invites the development of more immersive experiences.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 What research problem do the authors solve?
There is a lack of hypotheses.
What is the contribution to science of this research?
No reference to other authors' research. Please isolate the "discussion" section.
The link between the research results and the thematic profile of the journal is questionable. The authors should clearly indicate this connection.
I suggest separating a section with theoretical, practical and methodological implications. There should be a section with indications for further research. Research limitations should be a section in the conclusion.

Author Response

Thank you for reading, analysing and commenting on the article.

We would like to emphasize that this is an exploratory study and therefore served to understand the main aspects that visitors express, in cognitive, emotional and conative terms and to determine which are the most used, so it was decided not to formulate hypotheses. The study has an innovative character for the territory under analysis – Nazaré village – as it has never been the subject of a study of tourist perceptions.

It is considered that there is an interesting contribution to the current state of knowledge, as the bibliography consulted points to a prevalence of the experience component, but the results of this case study point to its secondary status compared to the aesthetic dimension.

Regarding the framing of the research within the scope of the journal, this aspect was reinforced by adding information in 2.1. noting that sustainability issues are even more pressing in coastal destinations, as is the case, and that visitors' perceptions allow us to understand how much they value sustainability aspects.

As for suggestions on reconfiguring sections, we tried to make the best adjustment while maintaining the basic structure of the article.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors reply and modify the paper according to reviewers suggestions