Landscape and Tourism as Tools for Local Development in Mid-Mountain Rural Areas in the Southeast of Spain (Castilla-La Mancha)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The treated article deserves a high qualification for the specialization of the subject. The methodological approach meets the minimum requirements usually established and the results obtained are of special interest to science. The bibliography is extensive and sufficiently related. A revision in grammatical forms is suggested. I resolve to positively rate the article presented.
Author Response
We greatly appreciate your revision and suggestions. To improve the final version of the article, we have asked a native English translator to revise and correct the text. The changes are highlighted in different colours in some sentences and in some paragraphs, following the reviewer’s recommendations. We think these are minor changes, but in the authors’ opinion, the current second version has a more appropriate expression.
Best regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear all,
This paper is quite interesting and focuses on the new tendencies of tourism and regional development.
Generally, the work is good. However, some improvements should be made before the acceptance:
- the abstract should contain the main findings of this study
- the study limitations and future research lines about this issue should be added
Best Regards,
Author Response
We appreciate very much your revision and suggestions. In order to improve the final version of the article we have asked ta native English translator to revise and correct the text. In different colours, the changes in grammatical forms in some phrases and in some paragraphs can be checked, following the reviewer’s recommendations. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have included the main findings of the study in the abstract, without exceeding the two hundred word limit. Also, we have added, in Conclusions, some ideas about the main limitations of the survey as a tool to understand people’s behaviour related to landscape. In addition, and following the reviewer’s recommendation, we have included the main ideas for future research. We think these are minor changes, but in authors’ opinion, the current second version includes new ideas that help to correctly understand the paper.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The study analyses the experience and evaluation of the landscape in a rural areas – this task is not explained precisely.
"The aim of this research is to determine the elements that most impact on the structure of tourism in mountain areas and identify the reasons for the recreational use made of such areas" – landscape is not just a collection of elements.
In the introduction, the contents about space and landscape is presented incoherently. They are crossed with the contents of economic problems and social perception. Lack of order logic of argument in the introduction. There is also chaos in the following parts of the work.
There are numerous repetitions in the text, so that the fundamental problem was not clearly emphasized.
The sentences are too long, which makes it difficult to accurately understand the authors' intentions: e.g.:
„Today, the importance of enjoying free time for leisure activities and tourists’ changing preferences, which necessitate alternatives to the well-worn destinations of mass tourism, are elements that have led to rural areas becoming the target for an influx of visitors interested in discovering the natural and cultural values of rural locations, which in the past were considered symbols of backwardness and tradition”
– so long this sentences
Examples of specific comments:
line: 120 – „backwardness” and „tradition” – Is this the same?
There are many a mental shortcuts in this paper.
In Materials and method: „We used a geographic information system (GIS), into which we introduced a series of variables related to landscape as a resource....”: what methods, which data?
In chapter: 2.1 Visitor and tourist survey, is sentence: „The quality of agricultural landscapes has been assessed using different methodologies, such as the interpretation of photographs..” Why in this chapter?
In the same chapter 2.1. there are some conclusions - why?
There is generally a methodological "mess" in all paper.
The are only one block of questions in the survey was related to the landscape.
What was the principle of selecting the research sample in the survey? ... and why this number of respondents (298 adults).
This is not clear.
Author Response
The authors are grateful for the reviewer’s comments and suggestions, which have helped us to improve this latest version of the manuscript. In the authors’ opinion, the current second version includes minor changes that help to correctly understand the paper. The reviewer’s comments are addressed as follows.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
-The study analyses the experience and evaluation of the landscape in a rural areas – this task is not explained precisely.
This refers to visitors’ experience and evaluation of the landscape in the area under study (this has been specified in the new manuscript). To understand these elements, the survey was administered to day-trippers and tourists (explained in Section 3).
-The aim of this research is to determine the elements that most impact on the structure of tourism in mountain areas and identify the reasons for the recreational use made of such areas" – landscape is not just a collection of elements.
The research is based on the premise that tourism is a system (a set of dynamically interacting elements). Consequently, resources have been treated as elements of this system. Landscape is understood to be a tourism resource. The text now includes a reference to “tourism system”.
-In the introduction, the contents about space and landscape is presented incoherently. They are crossed with the contents of economic problems and social perception. Lack of order logic of argument in the introduction. There is also chaos in the following parts of the work.
This research is grounded in the notion of landscape, as understood in the European Landscape Convention, and it was not the authors’ intention to enter into the epistemological debate on the relationships between space and landscape. We have re-organized several paragraphs in the introduction to give it a more logical structure and to clarify the ideas discussed. Other sections have also been revised, such as that on Material and Methods, with the aim of creating a more coherent explanation to summarize the new economic dynamics, the processes of change in mountain rural areas and the role of tourism as a transformative activity.
There are numerous repetitions in the text, so that the fundamental problem was not clearly emphasized.
The text has been revised to eliminate any repetitions. The essential aim of the work has also been given prominence, that of analysing the role of landscape in tourism activity in the case of a disadvantaged rural area.
The sentences are too long, which makes it difficult to accurately understand the authors' intentions: e.g.:
“Today, the importance of enjoying free time for leisure activities and tourists’ changing preferences, which necessitate alternatives to the well-worn destinations of mass tourism, are elements that have led to rural areas becoming the target for an influx of visitors interested in discovering the natural and cultural values of rural locations, which in the past were considered symbols of backwardness and tradition”.
– so long this sentences
In order to improve the final version of the article, a native English translator was asked to revise and correct the text. Changes in sentences and paragraphs are highlighted in different colours. The text has also been reviewed in order to eliminate too long sentences.
Examples of specific comments:
line: 120 – „backwardness” and „tradition” – Is this the same?
Authors use backwardness and tradition like two different concepts interconnected but with different meaning. Many agriculturally oriented rural areas maintain traditions (techniques, lifestyles, customs, or beliefs that has existed for a long time) and, at the same time, have deep backwardness in socioeconomic terms.
There are many a mental shortcuts in this paper.
The authors have checked the text in order to organize properly the methodological proposal, to reduce or eliminate repetitions and mental shortcuts, and to explain the aim of the research and the way it was implemented.
In Materials and method: „We used a geographic information system (GIS), into which we introduced a series of variables related to landscape as a resource....”: what methods, which data?
A paragraph with further information has been added so as to clarify the use of the GIS and the data utilised.
In chapter: 2.1 Visitor and tourist survey, is sentence: „The quality of agricultural landscapes has been assessed using different methodologies, such as the interpretation of photographs..” Why in this chapter?
In the same chapter 2.1. there are some conclusions - why?
This chapter has been revised and some lines have been moved to the conclusions section.
There is generally a methodological "mess" in all paper.
In revising the manuscript, we have made every effort to properly explain the methodology used.
The are only one block of questions in the survey was related to the landscape.
The design of the survey included various blocks so as to contextualize the answers on the interpretation of landscape. The aim of the blocks was to analyse the profile of the visitors and the characteristics and reasons for their trips and stays, as well as their opinion on the information available about the area.
What was the principle of selecting the research sample in the survey? ... and why this number of respondents (298 adults).
This is not clear.
We have attempted to explain all the characteristics of the survey and the sample (582 visitors) in Figure 1. The sample was random.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I accept the article. However, I wanted to point out that my attention was about the landscape as a system, not a tourism system.
We did'nt understand each other.
Landscape as a tourist value is also a system (a set of elements, processes, aesthetic values and stimuli - and in this place correlation with perception, as well as utility tourism). Maybe one day we will be able to discuss these issues.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We appreciate a lot your comments. We share the consideration of the landscape as a system in which the perception and valuation of it is also included.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
