Heritage Education as a Basis for Sustainable Development. The Case of Trujillo, Monfragüe National Park and Villuercas-Ibores-Jara Geopark (Extremadura, Spain)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This research paper present some deficiences.

1 the review of international literature is incomplete and partial. Not include tje main authors and journals.

2. The use of delphi. Only one iteration??   and consensus. Or need omre iterations for an adequete consensus.

3. Please differenciate in the analysis between natural herirage and cultural heritage. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
We thank you for your comments and suggestions. They have been very enriching and we believe that they serve to significantly improve the content of the article. Thank you for your time and dedication.

Below are the changes that have been made, which you can see in more detail in the text.

Point 1: In the introductory section, the text has been reduced and an attempt has been made to bring the literature reviewed into line with the aims of the research. An attempt has been made to simplify all the information to facilitate its comprehension.

A review of the bibliography has been carried out, incorporating some other international references. However, heritage education, cultural heritage and tourism are widely developed topics, so collecting all the existing bibliography on these topics is very complicated. In fact, the number of bibliographical references presented are very numerous for articles such as this one.

Point 2: Due to the complexity and diversity of Delphi variants, we have chosen to use a single iteration, in line with what the literature calls modified or real-time Delphi. In this sense, the aim is to have a clear idea of the experts' opinion, not consensus, in which case it would have been necessary to carry out one or two more iterations. [Fernández-Ávila, D.G.; Rojas, M.X.; Roselli, D. El método Delphi en la investigación en reumatología: ¿lo estamos haciendo bien?. Revista Colombiana de Reumatología, 27(3) 177-189. 10.1016/j.rcreu.2019.04.001].  Steurer, J. The Delphi method: an efficient procedure to generate knowledge. Skeletal Radiol 40, 959–961 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-011-1145-z

Point 3: It has been explained in the text that the selection of alternatives has been made following the criteria that make reference to the opinions expressed by the demand on the activities developed during the visit. Specifically, activities linked to pure cultural tourism include visits to historical-artistic heritage and museums, to which have been added participation in congresses or seminars and, of course, gastronomy and oenology as cultural expressions. On the other hand, pure nature tourism has been associated with visits to rural heritage linked to its use as a means of enjoying nature or practicing sports, as in the case of livestock trails or greenways. Along with this activity, other activities have been included, such as bird watching or sky watching, visits to geological formations, tourism in rivers and reservoirs, or the practice of sports in addition to hunting and fishing. This group also includes participation in work camps, nature classrooms or educational workshops, and visits to nature interpretation centers. Although these groups are clearly defined, it has also been decided to include two other alternatives, referring to a mixed type of demand, which enjoys all the natural and cultural attractions available in the territory. In this case, the predominant set of activities has been given prevalence in the nomenclature. Thus, the alternative mixed cultural tourism encompasses the responses of those who select more cultural than natural criteria.

Reviewer 2 Report

A report for:  land-1812804. Heritage education as a basis for sustainable development. The case of Trujillo, Monfragüe National Park and Villuercas-Ibores-Jara Geopark (Extremadura, Spain).

 

 

I have reviewed the manuscript that under the premise of a panorama of vulnerability, heritage education stands as a primary strategy to resolve the tensions between heritage and tourism, aimed at stimulating tourism activity committed to education and sustainability.  I consider this paper is interesting enough, but I recommend reduce the length. Although the study is interesting and could be useful for a certain group of scientific fartenity, I would suggest improving the manuscript substantially.

 

-I propose to the authors to be more specific, explanatory and simplified in order to be easily understandable from the readers. The manuscript has a proper structure and should accommodate a classical model. In my opinion it is rather a methodological proposal or a book chapter that a research mannuscript.

 

- I suggest to reduce the length of their papers by at least 20% if possible. If your paper includes large tables or datasets, it is preferred that these be published as supplementary material in Science Direct rather than in print.

 

-The introduction is not cohesive. It is just a compilation of information gathered from literatures. Some parts of the introduction can be moved to the discussion, and backwards.

 

-The authors tend to over rely on generalities and to over interpret their data. Results should be clear and concise. 

 

-Please improve some figures

 

-The conclusions are very long, please summarize and improve

 

-A last question: What is the message of your research for researchers from other countries?

 

Present paper fully cover all important tasks of the work and can be considered for publication after major revision.

 

I wish those changes will contribute to improve your paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
We thank you for your comments and suggestions. They have been very enriching and we believe that they serve to significantly improve the content of the article. Thank you for your time and dedication.

Below are the changes that have been made, which you can see in more detail in the text.

Point 1: The introduction has been made more specific, including new bibliographical references. The typical IMRD structure is used, as indicated by the journal itself in its publication standards. From our perspective, this research addresses different aspects that allow us to conclude that heritage education is needed to improve tourist experiences. This is based on the opinion of experts, tourists and trainers.

Point 2: The length of the article has been reduced to what we consider essential. Too many issues are addressed that contribute to the uniformity of the discourse and require some development to be understandable.

Point 3: The interpretation of results has been improved, being more concise in its development, as can be seen in the text.

Point 4: The resolution and legibility of the figures have been improved. Some of the less significant ones have been deleted.

Point 5: The conclusions have been summarized.

Point 6: Although it is true that the results obtained are based on the analysis of specific territories, the proposals for action gathered can be extrapolated to other geographic areas. In fact, it would be interesting to carry out similar research in other destinations in demand by tourists and to identify whether heritage education is more widespread in the tourist experiences of other countries. Other future lines of work are also pro-posed that consider a greater number of surveys, that collect the opinion of the local population, that select a different sample and that use different instruments, tech-niques or procedures of analysis.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The second version not include solutions for the key problem od the psper. Main journals and authors and probably the delphi with one iteration is only a panel of expert.

Please include the changes in red or green in the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:
We thank you for your comments, which serve to improve the work we have done.
The changes introduced can be seen in the final document, although I will summarize them.
Firstly, the introduction has been reduced and unified into a single point. New international references have been introduced. However, given the enormous variety, it is impossible to cover all possible cases. From our perspective, we have included references from experts in the subject under analysis. If the reviewer considers that any specific reference is missing, he/she may indicate it and we will include it.
On the other hand, at the methodological level, the application of DELPHI has been eliminated. We agree with the reviewers that the objective of this technique is to seek consensus. Nevertheless, there are applications in the literature that argue for the use of a single iteration when convergence among experts is impossible. Although not mentioned in the article, a second round was performed which did not allow conclusive results to be drawn. In fact, only a certain consensus was observed between the two major typologies of experts selected. This was the reason for including Delphi with only one iteration. In this sense, as already mentioned, its use has been eliminated and only the most significant results extracted from the in-depth interviews are interpreted.
In addition, the discussion and conclusions have been specified.
Thank you very much for your collaboration.
Regards

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Although the authors try to answer the questions raised, some remain pending. In addition, text written in Spanish is observed, for example lines 516-522, or line 661.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:
We thank you for your comments, which serve to improve the work we have done.
The changes introduced can be seen in the final document, although I will summarize them.
Firstly, the introduction has been reduced and unified into a single point. New international references have been introduced. However, given the enormous variety, it is impossible to cover all possible cases. From our perspective, we have included references from experts in the subject under analysis. If the reviewer considers that any specific reference is missing, he/she may indicate it and we will include it.
On the other hand, at the methodological level, the application of DELPHI has been eliminated. We agree with the reviewers that the objective of this technique is to seek consensus. Nevertheless, there are applications in the literature that argue for the use of a single iteration when convergence among experts is impossible. Although not mentioned in the article, a second round was performed which did not allow conclusive results to be drawn. In fact, only a certain consensus was observed between the two major typologies of experts selected. This was the reason for including Delphi with only one iteration. In this sense, as already mentioned, its use has been eliminated and only the most significant results extracted from the in-depth interviews are interpreted.
In addition, the discussion and conclusions have been specified.
Thank you very much for your collaboration.
Regards

The authors