The Effects of Tourism on Local Development in Protected Nature Areas: The Case of Three Nature Parks of the Sierra Morena (Andalusia, Spain)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with the very current issue of the importance of tourism in protected areas and its relationship to rural development at the local level. At the same time, it is trying to deal with myths that prefer the development of tourism as almost the only alternative to the transition to a post-material society. Perhaps it would be appropriate to compare regional findings with findings from other European regions.

However, I believe that the authors' view of the peripheral countryside is too pessimistic. Peripheral (mountain) countryside has some advantages. For example, it is likely to be less affected by climate change, specifically drought. It is suitable for the development of organic agriculture, which is supported at European and national levels. Its landscape is more attractive than that of the more accessible fertile plains.

The authors rightly dispute the idea that the development of tourism could replace the decline in involvement in agriculture. By the way, agriculture and tourism have common attributes: low qualification of workers, low wages, low prestige, seasonal nature.

The findings of the authors are very valuable. They destroy certain myths and ideas about the role of tourism in the development of (peripheral) countryside. At the same time, they draw attention to possible problems of over-tourism.

The paper seems too long. However, this is mainly thanks to the rich cartographic and graphic appendices, which illustrate the established facts well. A better term than informant is respondent. However, given that this term is also found in map legends, it is probably not realistic to make changes.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the reviewer's comments, which are enriching in any case.
It is true that the article may seem pessimistic in some terms, but the research tried to capture the contrast between expectations, perception and results, which indicate that the scope (with some exceptions) is not as desired.
The excessive extension of the work did not allow making direct references to the effects of climate change in this specific space, which is especially affected at a productive level in the pasture, with repercussions on the main attraction: the landscape. This issue is addressed by the authors in another article, which is in progress.
It is true that the similarities between agriculture and tourism make it possible to move from one activity to the other. But the authors have wanted to highlight that agrarian uncertainty (self-employment) is limited in tourism (employment), and the hardness of the work causes there to be a gravitation between sectors, which affects the conservation of the environment.
The role is long, too long, no doubt. However, at the time of writing, we considered that incorporating results and discussion and providing graphic support allowed a full understanding of the problems addressed and the territorial differences.

Reviewer 2 Report

I think this is an interesting paper and a good contribution to carry on the tourism dynamic’s knowledge of rural Southern Spain. Authors tried to explain international readers the geographical background of this area. Nevertheless, I think that some of the information contained in the beginning of section 3 Results and Discussion (line 241 to line 282) could be a part of the geographical presentation showed in Section 2.2 Case Study. In a detailed analysis, I think that in Figure 2 authors must change the micro toponym “Iron Hill” to vernacular name (Cerro del Hierro). Moreover, it would be useful that authors indicate the referred date of the statistics showed on Figure 5. 

Related with the results and the discussion section this paper shows a big amount of interesting information that could be very useful to local and regional stakeholders. The results are shown in a clear and grateful way. The three sections described (the environmental dimension, the economic dimension and the sociocultural dimension of local development) reach the purpose of this work and, in addition, the fourth section (territorial dimension) provides to reader new and broader dimension of the regional complexity. In that sense, authors could substitute the term “territorial” by the concept of “areal” or “spatial”. The term “Territory” uses to be referred to a geographical subject defined and limited by political borders.

Author Response

The authors appreciate all the reviewer's comments, which contribute to the improvement of the text.
It is true that the first part of the results, from a geographical analysis perspective, would be more accurate in section 2.2. The authors decided to place it here to avoid repetition in an excessively long text, since by showing these data a part of the informants' perception and the corresponding discussion is being included. In this sense, they wanted to show: “this is the tourist reality, that is how it has been valued, these are the consequences”. Changing the location is not a problem, but it would lead to having to repeat information. For this reason, we consider that it is preferable to keep it in its current form.
Figure 2 is replaced as indicated by the reviewer, it is a problem of "translating everything". The date of the data is added to Figure 5 (May 2021).
It is true that the name of subsection 3.4 could be changed, but the authors wanted to highlight, precisely, the geographical criterion, to insist on the fact that territories (in the political/administrative sense) perceived from the outside as units (each of the parks natural, GDR and regions) reflect different territorial situations (municipalities and regions), thus insisting that territorial cohesion (as a desire and objective of development policies) is a challenge at the local level. For this reason, we prefer to keep the term “territorial”.