Cross the Border: Participative Integrated Approach to Sustainable Tourism Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is very informative and provides a perspective of cross border cooperation in tourism.

Please consider the following two remarks for potential improvements:

1. ICT platform is good solution and the text should stress its significance from the perspective of language barrier. Hungarian and Croatian very distinct group of languages and ICT tools can prove to be crucial in motivateing travel.

2. Positive political climate with relatively long standing history of solid relations between two countries provide additional rationale for Hu_CRO cross border cooperation. 

Author Response

Point 1: ICT platform is good solution and the text should stress its significance from the perspective of language barrier. Hungarian and Croatian very distinct group of languages and ICT tools can prove to be crucial in motivateing travel.


Response 1: The significance of the ICT platform from the perspective of language barriers has been singled out as can be seen in the submitted revised text in the Track Changes mark up.

Point 2: Positive political climate with relatively long standing history of solid relations between two countries provide additional rationale for Hu_CRO cross border cooperation

Response 2: Positive political climate between the two countries as additional rationale for Croatian-Hungarian cross-border cooperation has been stressed as can be seen in the submitted revised text in Track Changes mark up.

Minor revisions of English language and style have also been provided.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the article the relevance of the studied problem is poorly spelled out. Also, the authors make little reference to similar studies by scientists from other countries. In addition, the article is replete with Imperial examples that are not systematized, and the impression of a formal statement of the authors of this problem. The tables are not sufficiently described, without specific conclusions. The article lacks clear recommendations on the proposed topic.

Author Response

Point 1: In the article the relevance of the studied problem is poorly spelled out. Also, the authors make little reference to similar studies by scientists from other countries. In addition, the article is replete with Imperial examples that are not systematized, and the impression of a formal statement of the authors of this problem. The tables are not sufficiently described, without specific conclusions. The article lacks clear recommendations on the proposed topic.

Response 1: The relevance of the studies problem has been stated. Reference to further similar studies by scientists from other countries has been made, although the relevant studies have already been elaborated in the article (e.g. Vietze, 2012; Kosnan, Ismail and Kaliappan, 2013; Butter, Chasapopoulos and Mihaylov, 2014, etc.). The tables have been additionally described as to systematize the examples with added conclusions. Recommendations have been.  This can be seen in the submitted revised text in the Track Changes mark up.

Minor revisions of English language and style have also been provided.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx