Drivers for Sustainability Awareness Development in Tourism Curricula: The Case of Spanish Universities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper offers an insight into an interesting topic;  the paper is suitably structured, providing the necessary references and conceptualizations.
However, the description of the sample used (and people interviewed) could be further explained, both from a qualitative and a quantitative point of view. Although the table "Table 5. Indicators classified in each driver" highlights the results obtained and is very useful, more specifications and information on the sample used could further clarify the methodology. These specifications can be easily entered by adding a short paragraph about it.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The paper offers an insight into an interesting topic;  the paper is suitably structured, providing the necessary references and conceptualizations. However, the description of the sample used (and people interviewed) could be further explained, both from a qualitative and a quantitative point of view. Although the table "Table 5. Indicators classified in each driver" highlights the results obtained and is very useful, more specifications and information on the sample used could further clarify the methodology. These specifications can be easily entered by adding a short paragraph about it.

 

First of all, we want to express our gratitude for having the patience to read the manuscript. Your insightful suggestions and constructive feedback have helped us to come back to the paper to improve the sections you have pointed out.

 

Table 3 shows the number of Deans and lecturers in charge of academic commissions in tourism degree interviewed per Spanish regions. Only three Deans were directly involved in the research; one from the Andalucia, Asturias and Cantabria regions.

Table 3. Spanish tourism degree programs´ type of involvement per regions

Regions	Tourism	Tourism	Dean involved in the research	Academic commissions involved in the research
	Degree	Degree
	programs	involved
Andalucía	8	7	1	6
Comunidad de Madrid	7	5	0	5
Castilla y León	5	3	0	3
Cataluña	7	2	0	2
Comunidad Valenciana	4	4	0	4
Canarias	3	3	0	3
Región de Murcia	3	3	0	3
Aragón	1	1	0	1
Asturias	1	1	1	0
Islas baleares	1	0	0	0
Universidad (UNED)	1	1	0	1
Cantabria	1	1	1	0
Castilla la Mancha	0	0	0	0
Extremadura	1	1	0	1
Galicia	2	1	0	1
La Rioja	1	1	0	1
Comunidad Foral de Navarra	0	0	0	0
País Vasco	2	1	0	1
TOTAL	48	35	3	32

 

 

Table 4 shows that 57% of the in charge of academic commissions in tourism degree interviewed were male and 43% female. Most of them are between 46-55 year (40%) and 56-65 (29%).

Table 4. Sample composition           

Gender	N=35	%
Male	20	57
Female	15	43
No responded	0	00
Total	35	100
Age	N=35	%
25-35	2	06
36-45	8	23
46-55	14	40
56-65	10	29
More than 66	1	03
No responded	0	00
Total	35	100
Total	N=35	%

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

First of all, we want to express our gratitude for having the patience to read the manuscript. Your insightful suggestions and constructive feedback have helped us to come back to the paper to improve the sections you have pointed out.

 

• Tables and figures

The presentation of data in the tables is a little unclear at present and there are inconsistencies between the figures contained therein and those reported in the main body of the text. For example, on p. 5, lines 226-227 you state that ‘sustainability is present only in 57% of the tourism degrees’, yet Table 2 shows that sustainability is present in nearly 73% of tourism degrees at regional universities. Similarly, on p. 6, line 230 the figure 60% is mentioned. Again, on p. 13 you mention that 40% of public universities teach tourism sustainability but this does not match the figures in Table 1. And you say that the Canary Islands and Balearic Islands do not teach tourism sustainability, whereas Table 2 indicates that in these regions 100% of the tourism degrees teach sustainability. These are glaring inconsistencies that massively undermine the paper’s credibility. Furthermore, Figure 1 is very difficult to interpret with all of the codes. I recommend including some sort of key to help readers interpret this diagram and there should also be some basic explanation provided of what it shows over and above what has already been discussed in the paper.

 

• The authors agree fully with the observations of the reviewer, information on page 5 was deleted, as found 57% as a calculation mistake. On p. 13 percentage about public universities was corrected and rewritten following the indications made by the reviewer in the further section called “Sustainability”. Small information mistake about the Canary Islands and Balears was deleted. A small description to the model was also added, considering that table 4 and 5 are right above the Figure 1, containing details and information. Also, a more detailed description, would make the key too big from our point of view.

 

• Methodology

 

At present, the paper lacks a methodology section. Instead, the methods are explained at various points throughout section 3. I would recommend bringing this information together under a single section as the way that the methods are currently described leads to some confusion.

 

• We found this recommendation very reasonable and useful, and a Methodology section was created in order to give a better and clearer structure to the paper.

 

Some points of methodological clarification include:

 

1. 6, line 260: ‘Then, four drivers were proposed’ – proposed by whom? The researchers? The participants? Were these drivers derived from the literature or did they emerge through the course of the discussion?

 

• Information in this line has been clarified “four drivers were proposed by the authors according to the literature review”.

 

1. 9, lines 368-373: How were these six universities, and the staff and student participants within them, selected for the focus groups?

 

• There were 6 universities involved: three from Andalucía, one from Alicante, one from Castilla-León and one from Madrid, based on a participatory procedure. Students and lecturers were involved in the design of the indicators based on these two focus groups (Sánchez-Oro Sánchez, and Robina-Ramírez, 2020).

 

References:

Sánchez-Oro Sánchez, M., and Robina-Ramírez, R. (2020). Los grupos focales (" focus group") como herramienta de investigación turística. Universidad de Extremadura.

 

1. 11, lines 376-378: Which lecturers were involved in this ranking? There seem to be two groups of participants described in the paper – those representing the 35 tourism degree programmes (p. 6) and the 26 lecturers, and 30 students involved in the (separate?) focus groups.

 

• Yes, those focus groups were organized separately. It has been indicated in p. 10.

 

 

• Sustainability

 

It is not clear why there is such a strong focus on social sustainability in section 2.1 given that this focus is not carried through in the rest of the paper. This subsection is also a bit general, and I think it would be made stronger through a clearer focus on sustainable tourism development specifically. On p. 5, a distinction is drawn between ‘sustainable tourism’ and ‘environmental tourism’, but the difference between the two is not explained. In the conclusions, it is not clear whether the proportion of Spanish universities teaching ‘sustainability’ in their tourism degrees includes both ‘sustainable’ and ‘environmental’ tourism programmes.

 

• Section 2.1 was modified as suggested, focusing on sustainable tourism development specifically. On p. 5, a little description about both terms has been added “sustainable tourism”, which involves a more general term, including the three main pillars of sustainable development, and “environmental tourism”, which refers mainly to the environmental issues related to tourism.” In the conclusion, the proportion of Spanish universities teaching sustainable tourism and environmental tourism has been specified.

 

• Spanish university system

 

The Spanish university system needs to be more clearly explained for readers from other countries. On p. 5, Table 1 shows data about ‘public’ and ‘private’ universities. Table 2 then shows data about ‘regional’ universities; are these public or private or a separate category? It is not clear. Also, whereas Table 1 provides dates for the data, Table 2 does not, making the data hard to interpret. There is also no distinction made between undergraduate and postgraduate tourism degrees, which also makes the data difficult to interpret. Please make it clear which degrees you are talking about.

 

• A detailed description about the content of Table 2 has been made on p.5: “Table 2 compares the presence of sustainability in tourism degree programs in public and private universities per region”. Also, in this description, the year of the information given was specified. This paper works only with information about undergraduate tourism degrees, following the reviewer’s recommendation, it has been specified in the Abstract, in the Introduction section and also in Table 1.

 

• COVID-19

 

The paper currently reads as if the COVID-19 pandemic has not happened. There is an overreliance on pre-2020 data from the tourism industry, e.g. ‘In fact, in 2018, international tourist arrivals grew 5%, reaching 1.4 billion world-wide, and it is estimated that it will continue to grow approximately 3% annually until 2030’ (p. 2). Are these figures still valid? Are these up-to-date projections? The enormous impacts of COVID-19 on the global tourism industry needs to be at the very least acknowledged in this paper. The pandemic will not last forever; mass travel will resume at some point and so the need for tourism sustainability education is still very much needed. In other words, acknowledging the impact of COVID-19 does not undermine your paper’s central argument.

 

• Brief information about how COVID-19 has affected the tourism sector in Spain has been added in the introduction section, as well as in the new section for sustainable tourism 2.1.

 

• Key reference missing

 

Teruel-Serrano, M. D., & Vinals, M. J. (2020). Teaching environmental sustainability and responsibility in the Anthropocene: Overview of Tourism Studies in Spain. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 20(3), 216-231. This paper, published last year, presents a similar analysis of sustainability education in Spanish tourism degrees. So, how does your paper relate to this other study? There are potentially interesting connections to be made here, which should be discussed.

 

• As we have found this article recommendation very useful, we have added some ideas to our paper.

 

• Writing style

 

Overall, I found the paper well written. However, the paragraphs are extremely short throughout, which makes the paper feel fragmented and flow of the argument difficult to follow. I would recommend joining together some sentences so that most of the paragraphs are within the accepted 100–200 words range. The paper also needs a very thorough proof-read in order to improve the written English, as there are parts of the text where the meaning is lost or unclear.

 

• Paragraphs now are restructured, and the paper was sent to proof-read by a native speaker in order to improve the writing.

 

• Other queries:

 

2. 4: The first paragraph of subsection 2.3 does not make sense. What ‘platform’? ‘33’ of what were analyzed? What ‘results’?

 

• According to the reviewer, paragraphs has been restructured and information has been clarified.

 

1. 6, lines 230-232: The meaning is very unclear here and so the sentence should be rephrased.

 

• A closer look to the writing was done taking into consideration the observations from the reviewer and information has been clarified.
•  

1. 8: The explanation of the difference between CSC and TM needs to be clearer. There is clearly some overlap between the two (e.g. promotion of critical thinking), so greater distinction is needed.

 

• Distinction about both items has been added to the text.

 

“CSC” - about implementing subjects, skills and competences about sustainable development

Integrate skills and competences in sustainability (CSC1)

Professional competences amongst students (CSC2)

Student’s skills and competences in tourism degree (CSC3)

 

“TM” - refers to different methodologies to teach sustainability

Innovative pedagogical practices (TM1)
Collaborative processes between teachers and stakeholders (TM2)
Awake students about the real challenges they need to face (TM3)
Reduce negative impacts into the social and environment (TM4)
Activities to positively impact on campus (TM5)

 

3. 9: The first paragraph of subsection 3.5 does not make sense. ‘Indicators’ of/for what? ‘...indicators have been drawn in order to set up indicators’ – what is the meaning here? ‘...second

stage’ of what?

 

• Agreeing to the reviewer, first paragraph has been rewritten as some expressions were too redundant and were making the text difficult to understand: “According to the literature review conveyed in the previous sections several indicators have been drawn. Subsequently, these indicators, see Table 3, have been contrasted with managers to ascertain the accurateness of everyone based on its meaning for teacher and students.”

 

1. 12, lines 399-401: The meaning is very unclear here and so the sentence should be rephrased.

 

• Having a second read and identifying some typing errors that were making the sentence complicated to read, text has been modified to a more comprehensive writing:

 

“According to the literature review a theoretical model is presented to be used as a tool for universities. From the theoretical section a model has been drawn to study, in a second research work, what motivates academics and students to be sustainable, to develop drivers in order to raise environmental awareness at tourism degrees.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see attached review document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments to Reviewer 2

COVID-19

I still feel that your consideration of COVID-19 in the paper is lacking. For example, the first two paragraphs of section 2.3 still read as if no change to the industry have occurred. Similarly, on the first page you talk about the environmental impacts of the global tourism industry (pre-COVID-19) but then only mention the effect that the pandemic has had on the Spanish tourism industry, with no mention of the knock-on effects on the environment or sustainability more broadly.

RESPONSE:

We understand the limitations of this section, as highlighted by REVIEWER2, so we thought it appropriate to add a more extensive reference to our previous work [29], which more adequately contextualizes the problem addressed in the article. We have added the following to the manuscript:

In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, most research focused on the medical and health aspects of the pandemic [1], but immediately raised concerns about the social, economic and environmental aspects of this health crisis and how it could affect sustainable development. sostenible  The environmental effects of the measures adopted by governments against the pandemic have had an impact on the environment. By restricting human activities in most countries, reductions of more than 50% in air pollutant emissions have been observed in some cities, improving air quality and contributing to better public health in countries such as France, Germany, Italy or Spain. [2]. From the point of view of economic repercussions, this pandemic is unprecedented, given its evolution from an initial health crisis to a humanitarian and development crisis on a global scale. Both the health and economic effects are pushing large sections of society into poverty in many parts of the world.

 

As we pointed out in our article published in this magazine last February [29], the consequences of the pandemic outbreak have led to negative growth of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and have increased inequality and poverty. Millions of people have lost their jobs at the height of the crisis. But the sectors with the greatest increase in unemployment have been the hotel and catering industry, where demand for these services has ceased to exist for many months [3-34]. This has affected less qualified workers the most, since their work situation does not allow the possibility of working remotely, with a higher probability of unemployment and exposure to the virus

 

Key reference missing

My recommendation to discuss your findings in relation to the Teruel-Serrano and Vinals (2020) study has not been followed. While the paper now appears in your reference list, there is no meaningful discussion of the study. Given the similarity in the papers’ aims and topic, I do not find this to be sufficient.

RESPONSE:

In the previous version of our article we referred to the work of Teruel-Serrano and Vinals (2020), on pages 3 and 5.

Pg. 3, “…contributing not only to stop deterioration of the planet, but also to economic benefits for locals [25]”

Pg. 3. “This can only be achieved through continuous educational work and the commitment of universities and academics as well as in companies [43-25]”.

Pg.5. “Hence, sustainability in the tourism industry relates the use of natural and cultural destinations to the residents’ quality of life while providing a high-quality experience for visitors, promoting ethical touristic consumption [25-63- 64]”

However, we consider that it is necessary to expand these references, since, as the reviewer indicates, “there is no meaningful discussion of the study”. For this reason, and given the interest that this work has for our article, we have added new references in the text in relation to this work. These additions are explained below:

Introduction:

According to Teruel-Serrano and Vinals [29-30], the problem of environmental sustainability in the case of tourism is crucial because it is a global phenomenon based on the use of the territory and its resources, which can have negative consequences for the population and the environment. In line with these authors [29], this article presents an overview of education for sustainable development in tourism degree programs in Spanish universities, with two objectives: 1. To propose an interactive methodology to define the main drivers to introduce education for sustainability in the tourism curriculum; 2. According to the main drivers established, the paper ranks a list of seventeen indicators to guide tourism degrees to implement sustainability in the curricula.

 

Conclusions:

Although Teruel-Serrano and Vinals (2020) [29] consider that in the curricula of Tourism Degrees in Spain, more than 30 of the optional subjects are related to topics related to the environment, sustainability and resources related to tourism, and that practically all universities offer at least one subject with these characteristics, shortcomings are evident, for example, that few universities address 'Tourism and Transport', which deals with some environmental issues that are explored in order to establish the relationship between the sector and the sustainability of tourism activity, although there are subjects such as 'Territory, Sustainable Tourism and Development' that have included aspects related to the awareness of the tourism sector and the sustainability of tourism activity, although there are subjects such as 'Territory, Sustainable Tourism and Development' that have included aspects related to the awareness of the tourism sector.

the sector and the sustainability of tourism activity, although there are topics such as "Territory, Sustainable Tourism and Development" which have included aspects related to the awareness of the impacts: "Regulation of Territory, Sustainable Tourism and Development", "Tourism and Transport", "Tourism and Transport", "Tourism and Transport", "Tourism and Transport", and "Tourism and Transport". Impacts: "Regulation of Territory and Sustainable Tourism". In any case, these authors [29] point out that the study and application of sustainable management tools such as recreational carrying capacity, the inventory and assessment of tourism potential and the management of visitor flows are included.

The study and application of sustainable management tools such as recreational carrying capacity, inventory and assessment of tourism potential and visitor flow management are included in one way or another in the development of the programmes. Some universities have also included optional subjects that deal with aspects related to new forms of tourism consumption more in line with the principles of environmental and social responsibility. These are often referred to as "Ecotourism", or "Environmental Sustainability and Ecotourism". Following this line of research, in our work, we have looked in depth at the offer of universities, which in relative terms is, in our opinion, low in these subjects. In addition, we consider that private or public dependence on universities is, among other factors, an important factor in the weight of these subjects.

 

Methodology

1. 6-7 Tables 3 and 4 are describing your research participants, so these tables need to appear in the Methodology section. Also, I’m not clear on what you mean by ‘academic commissions’

RESPONSE:

We have proceeded to implement the proposed change, as we believe it is appropriate to

Also, I’m not clear on what you mean by ‘academic commissions’

RESPONSE:

This was indeed a confusing concept, so we have replaced the term "academic commissions" with "Undergraduate Quality Commission", which corresponds to the expression used by the Quality Agency (ANECA) in the verification reports of these undergraduate degrees.

Your methodology section currently has subsections reporting your findings; the findings need to be in a separate section.

RESPONSE:

We understand that these are paragraphs such as the following "To start with, 90% of the participants agreed to highlight barriers to teach sustainability as a way to express their....".

We have proceeded to change its location as proposed by the reviewer, in this case it is inserted at the beginning of the "conclusions" section.

There is still not a cohesive methodology section. On p. 11, lines 383-389 still describe part of your methodology separately.

RESPONSE:

Indeed, we consider this consideration to be very timely. We have proceeded to modify it.

My previous comment regarding the selection process for these universities and participants has not been addressed. The same goes for my comment regarding Table 7 and the ranking procedure. The methodology section needs to more clearly explain every step of the research process as it is currently difficult to follow

RESPONSE:

We explain at the beginning of the methodological section the process of university selection: (P.7) "A letter of invitation was addressed to the Dean of each tourism degree. Forty of them responded favourably to the research; thirty-one from public university and nine from private ones. Amongst those five eventually step down. Thirty-five degrees in Tourism were eventually involved in the research".

Regarding Table 7, we have added a reference to the process of constructing indicators based on the Likert scale (González Blázquez, 2010; 343), which we consider justifies the procedure used in this case.

We have proceeded to rearrange the location of some paragraphs and tried to write more precisely to make the research process more understandable.

Other queries:

1. 2, lines 69-71 The paper structure needs updating as it does not include the methodology section.

RESPONSE:

We have proceeded to correct this deficiency. Thank you.

1. 2 There are some issues with the English here so I’ve offered some suggestions in red:

RESPONSE:

We welcome corrections. We include all of them. Thank you

What are the ‘three dimensions of sustainable development’ that you mention above?

RESPONSE:

We explain that these are the social, economic and environmental dimensions, following Scott, J. and Marshall, G. (2005).

1. 5 Good clarification that the data shown in the tables relates only to undergraduate degrees. Note that ‘undergraduate’ is not hyphenated. Also, it would be prudent to add ‘undergraduate’ to the title of all of your tables.

RESPONSE:

We have proceeded to correct this deficiency. Thank you.

2019. 5 In the paragraph below, you state that the highlighted regions both teach tourism in every university and that tourism degrees don’t play an important role. They are in the second list erroneously. Also, what does the 60% in the final sentence of this paragraph relate to? This appears to be unaddressed from my previous review: Table 2 compares the presence of sustainability in tourism degree programs in public and private universities per region in 2019. Whereas in regions such as Canarias, Region de Murcia, Asturias, Islas Baleares, Cantabria and Extremadura tourism curricula is taught in every university, in those regions where tourism has a high impact, such as Andalusia, Comunidad de Madrid, Castilla León, Cataluña, Comunidad Valenciana, Canarias and Region de Murcia, tourism degrees do not play such an important role. Even though sustainability is present in the 60% of the tourism curricula the impact on environmental policies at the university as well as the lecturing staff and students is scarce [55].

RESPONSE:

We have proceeded to improve the explanation of this paragraph, in the following terms:

Table 2 compares the presence of sustainability in tourism degree programs in public and private universities per region in 2019. Whereas in regions such as Canarias, Region de Murcia, Asturias, Islas Baleares, Cantabria and Extremadura tourism curricula is taught in every university, in those regions where tourism has a high impact, such as Andalusia, Comunidad de Madrid, Castilla León, Cataluña, Comunidad Valenciana, Canarias and Region de Murcia, tourism degrees doesn’t play such an important role. Even though sustainability is present in the 60% of the tourism curricula the impact on environmental policies at the university as well as the lecturing staff and students is scarce [55].

 

1. 9: The explanation of the difference between CSC and TM needs to be clearer. There is clearly some overlap between the two (e.g. promotion of critical thinking), so greater distinction is needed. I am still unclear on the distinction between these two sections

RESPONSE:

Additional explanations have been added to both concepts, in order to avoid the conflict pointed out by revisior-2. Thus, for example, in the case of CSC, we add “New concepts and values are mixed with tools and new procedures implemented to introduce subjects, skills and competences about sustainable development in the university.” And in the case of TM, the existing explanation is completed with: “In relation to the proper training, the third issue discussed amongst lectures was the innovative pedagogical practices to teach sustainability based on critical and creative thinking as well as responsible decision making [80]”.

1. 9: The highlighted part still does not make sense and I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say: “According to the literature review conveyed in the previous sections several indicators have been drawn. Subsequently, these indicators, see Table 3, have been contrasted with managers to ascertain the accurateness of everyone based on its meaning for teacher and students.”

RESPONSE:

This is to explain that the indicators used in the model we propose have been obtained from the existing literature, although in the process of developing them, in order to narrow their scope and meaning, we have taken into account the opinions of the participants in the focus groups and the results of the student surveys. In order to make the paragraph more intelligible, we have reworded it in the sense we have indicated.

1. 14, líneas 446-447 Usted dice que "Sólo el 4% de las universidades privadas han implantado asignaturas relacionadas con el turismo sostenible o con el medio ambiente y el turismo". Sin embargo, la Tabla 1 indica que la cifra correcta cifra correcta es el 8% en total.

RESPONSE:

This is indeed a typo. We apologize and thank you for the correction.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx