Qualitative Impact Analysis of International Tourists and Residents’ Perceptions of Málaga-Costa Del Sol Airport
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this interesting article. It addresses a topic of great importance related to airports and the impacts of this infrastructure on perceptions from the point of view of two important perspectives, of residents and tourists.
Overall, the article is well-written and presents an interesting case study. Current, relevant and timely theme for the improvement of scientific area knowledge. The chosen methods are appropriate and correspond to the research questions.
However, I would recommend the following:
1- Overall, the literature review is comprehensive and written with sufficient support. (even though will need some minor corrections concerning quotations and references);
2- improve the quality of some of the graphics;
3- some of the figures appear as tables, it is suggested that it be changed to a figure (table 8 to table 13);
4- review the sequence of tables, figures and graphs, as well as their denomination;
5- in relation to the sample, did not the analysis of its significance increase and in relation to tourists, how was it done in the distribution, by line by country of origin? seriously pertinent to study if there are differences between the results of tourists by country of origin
6- in the literature review it is suggested to include a summary of other studies, compiling the applied methodology and the main conclusions;
7- the methods should be more detailed from a statistical point of view and suggested a greater support in the applied methodology, although agreeing, it suggested that its foundation be improved;
8- it is suggested that in the discussion of the results a comparison be made with other studies presented in the state of the art, carrying out a comparative discussion with the literature review;
9- The final part should present the conclusions and also the utility of the findings. There is no reference to managerial / policy implications and this lack shuld be addressed.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for the thoughtful and constructive feedback you provided regarding our manuscript, Qualitative Impact Analysis of International Tourists and Residents’ Perceptions of Málaga Costa del Sol Airport. We agree with you that some changes must be done in order to improve the quality of the paper. In this sense, all graphics have been edited. Some tables have been eliminated and other has been changed to figures. A comprehensive review has been done to clarify the denominations and sequences of tables and figures.
Additionally, we have clarified why international tourists were chosen and about the distribution by country of origin, we have not provided the results distributed by the country of origin because we did not find differences so we did not appreciate that this fact was relevant. The aim of the study was also not to differentiate between international tourists because we had already made a difference between the different groups of tourists. The international tourists were chosen because in the last five years the city is striving to change the sun and beach for culture and quality services. In this sense, a new five-star hotel has been opened, others have been renovated and it is interesting that tourism development policies take into account the potential future clients of these products.
As for the literature review, we have expanded the number of studies but could not find studies that measure impact from the perspective of residents and with a qualitative approach. In case you have any date in relation to this, please do not hesitate to show them us.
With regard to methodology, we have not exactly understood the sentence: "should be more detailed from a statistical point of view". We tried to make the study as descriptive as possible because we believe that the most important thing is not the statistical level but the descriptive one. In this sense, we believe that the most relevant aspects are the answers and how the results can be used to benefit the city of Malaga and the residents. We hope you understand our rationale for this decision.
Just as in the literature we have not been able to include more studies because there is an absence of them, the discussion follows the same path. Impact studies focus on economic aspects and those that include a qualitative methodology focus on other aspects such as the profile of the tourist visiting a city, the quality of services, loyalty to a destination...
We have reviewed every section of the manuscript and we have modified the introduction, discussion, and conclusions so we are certain that you will find this most recent version of the paper clears up the main issues you indicated in your response.
With all of these changes to our final manuscript, we hereby resubmit our manuscript for a secondary evaluation. Thank you once again for your consideration of our paper.
Sincerely,
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, I would like to thank Sustainability for inviting me to review this manuscript about international tourists and residents’ perceptions of Airports.
The introduction has some sentences that should be rewritten, for example in line 50:
“In fact, while the world is experiencing one of the worst crises in its history, airports are being one of the most important drivers of growth in the globalized world.”
Which crises? the authors should explain it better. When the reader arrives to the following section, he/she realizes that the authors are talking about the COVID-19.
In this sense, line 107 says: Millions of people around the world are affected by the COVID-19 virus, and airports are playing a crucial role.
Why do the airports are playing a crucial role, please explain.
The aim of this study is not explained properly. I don’t agree that the goal of this study is “The overall goal is to fill in the existing quantitative impact studies with the interviews to begin work on the development of new tourist policies in Andalusia” because “to begin work on the development of new tourist policies in Andalusia” should be an implication from the conclusions of this study but not the overall goal. Moreover, the authors should answer the question what ‘s for? When they say “the knowledge level about the airport.”
Section 3.2. I would like to ask the authors to explain better who were the participants of the pilot study and how do the authors choose the respondents on the pilot study?
In Table 5, I would suggest to write genre instead of sex.
I think that, in general, the paper would benefit from English proofreading. For example, in the abstract the authors say “The findings indicate that the resident values the ease of travel and employment, however”.
I think the authors want to talk about the residents in general and not about one resident and I don’t really understand what do they want to say with “is concern about the environment and its effects, and mass tourism.”
Moreover, the city Málaga is written in Spanish and in English Malaga without the accent mark.
Thank you for the opportunity and good luck to the authors.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for the thoughtful and constructive feedback you provided regarding our manuscript, Qualitative Impact Analysis of International Tourists and Residents’ Perceptions of Málaga Costa del Sol Airport. We agree with you that some changes must be done in order to improve the quality of the paper. In this sense we have rewritten the introduction section in order to clarify the background.
Additionally, we have clarified the goals and we have explained in further detail how the pilot study was conducted. The interviews and questionnaires to the international tourists were very difficult and it took us about two months to complete the 271 responses:
To ensure the suitability and relevance of the questionnaire, a pilot study was carried out during the last week of May and the first week of June. It involved changes hitherto unexpected. The sample of international tourists (21 tourists) was carried out through stratified random sampling. This pre-test was carried out by selecting the days when there were international arrival flights at Malaga airport. To obtain 21 surveys of international tourists, the researchers had to carry out a total of 7. It should be emphasized that not all passengers were relevant to this study since only attention was given to those passengers who had arrived in Malaga for tourist purposes and came from an international destination.
We have tried to explain more clearly what the role of airports is and how the use of these infrastructures has developed over time.
Sex was modified by gender.
In relation to your comment:
I think that, in general, the paper would benefit from English proofreading. For example, in the abstract the authors say “The findings indicate that the resident values the ease of travel and employment, however”.
I think the authors want to talk about the residents in general and not about one resident and I don’t really understand what do they want to say with “is concern about the environment and its effects, and mass tourism.”
The results of the research have shown us that residents and tourists perceive the impacts generated by the airport differently. While residents are concerned about the impacts on the environment or mass tourism, tourists do not believe that the airport generates significant negative aspects.
In relation to your comment:
Moreover, the city Málaga is written in Spanish and in English Malaga without the accent mark.
The Royal Academy of Spanish Language (2010: 2.3) points out that when an anthroponym belongs to a foreign language, it must be translated into Spanish respecting the accents it has in the language it comes from: Donald (not Dónald) Trump sent […]; Angela (not Ángela) Merkel criticized the comments that […]. Similarly, when translating from Spanish to English or another language, it is recommended that the accents on the word in the source language be respected; therefore, García, López, and Sánchez should be written with their corresponding accents. Following this rule, Málaga Airport and the City Council maintain the accent when translating their contents. Attached is a screenshot. Similarly, if you have more information, please let us know and we will proceed to remove the checkmark. We do hope you understand our rationale for this decision.
We have reviewed, improved, and edited every section of the manuscript so we are certain that you will find this most recent version of the paper clears up the main issues you indicated in your response.
With these changes to our final manuscript, we hereby resubmit our manuscript for a secondary evaluation. Thank you once again for your consideration of our paper.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
The paper submitted is of real interest to the academic community, but it needs several changes in order to improve the presentation of the research.
- I would modify the title. Since it directly refers to Malaga-Costa del Sol Airport, I would use „Qualitative Impact Analysis of International Tourists' and Residents' Perceptions of Malaga - Costa del Sol Airport.”
- The readability of the text must be improved in several respects.
- The figures - certain figures have low quality and are difficult to read (graph2)
- There are tables that would be more useful if presented as charts (for example, you could transform table 3 into a chart that shows the evolution; tables 14-20 could be merged into either a single, comparative table or in a chart or in a figure - otherwise it breaks the text, and it makes it difficult to read)
- I would not have a subchapter called „Detailed qualitative study about impacts” but rather a generic chapter that deals with impacts with several subtopics.
- Some of the graphs inserted are not relevant to the text since they just double the information (e.g. table 9)
- Some chapters contain too much information that becomes redundant (rows 195-203) - there is no need to present the questions in the questionnaire, the essential is how you interpret the answers.
- English language improvements are needed - there are lots of phrases difficult to understand due to poor English.
- Data accuracy
- Some of the categories of the tables are not clear enough. What do all the airports in Table 4 represent? Are they the source of the arrivals? The source of the data is also not clear; please provide the specific link - the one in the bibliography takes us to a rather general page.
- Data interpretation and presentation
- The titles of the charts should be more descriptive, not just inserted from NVivo
- There is a general lack of insightful connection between the results of the research and other academic literature; the way the results are presented is too descriptive - the paper needs a deeper understanding of the causes and the effects of the results.
- Some of the affirmations are too general and somehow „harsh” (e.g. row 321-322: An infrastructure [...] about which they know nothing.”) or rather simplistic - row 448 - „they conceptualise that tourism as the one who lives no profit in the city but uses public services and infrastructure.”
- the presentation of the results should be better structured, with more subchapters.
- conclusions could be more insightful, not just reproducing the information presented above.
There are, of course, strengths of the article (the topic, the presentation of the evolution and adaptation of research tools, etc.) and I think after revising the issues above the paper could become a reference one in its field.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Hope this email finds you well. Thank you for the thoughtful and constructive feedback you provided regarding our manuscript, Qualitative Impact Analysis of International Tourists and Residents’ Perceptions of Málaga Costa del Sol Airport. We agree with you that some changes must be done in order to improve the quality of the paper. In this sense, all graphics have been edited. Some tables have been removed and others has been changed to figures. A comprehensive review has been done to clarify the denominations and sequences of tables and figures.
Additionally, we have changed the title.
We have changed the title of the subchapter “detailed qualitative study about impacts”
4.4. Specific study about impacts.
4.4.1. Employment impact
4.4.2. Impact on the tourist sector
4.4.3. Economic impact
4.4.4. Environmental impact
Although some of the claims may be a bit "harsh" or "simplistic", this research describes what residents and tourists perceive and those are the results. However, we agree that some statements needed to be rewritten. We have tried to follow your advice, for which we thank you. In the end anything that can help us improve this article is welcome.
Discussion and conclusions have been modified in order to create the connection between the literature and the findings. We have not been able to carry out a comparison with other territories because there are no studies with this methodology and from this perspective. However, we have tried to develop a connection between the results and other previous studies.
We have reviewed every section of the manuscript so we are certain that you will find this most recent version of the paper clears up the main issues you indicated in your response.
With all of these changes to our final manuscript, we hereby resubmit our manuscript for a secondary evaluation. Thank you once again for your consideration of our paper.
Sincerely,
Authors
Reviewer 4 Report
- The initial summary is unclear as to what is intended with this article.
- Introduction: It does not clearly show what the objectives of the study are.
Justification of the study and contributions: It is unclear why the study is needed and what it brings to the academic literature. The justification needs to be stronger and more explicit.
- Objectives: They are not clear; they must be concise and focused.
- Literature review: the literature review should be improved, as should the concepts and conceptual scheme that supports the research that is not even referred to. At the end of this section it raises questions that are related to the methodology/objectives???
- Methodology: the methodology must be clear because the way it is presented is confusing and too interspersed by tables and graphs. The tables are poorly numbered. Table 5 is presented twice and one of them does not even have the elements. Equally the lack of quality of most graphics means that they have no reading which should be substantially improved or removed.
The proposed study is interesting because it addresses an interesting topic such as the qualitative study regarding the understanding of residents and tourists regarding the impacts of the airport in the beautiful city of Malaga. However, the unfolding, fluidity of the article is confusing and the discussion and conclusions do not help to clarify, since the reader does not realize what was actually demonstrated and concluded with this study or what importance it really has for the sustainability of tourism in the region, frankly affected at this time.
- Editing the text: the editing of the text should be revised as well as the text itself to the extent is very confusing for potential readers. In short, English and the graphics structure need to be substantially improved.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I hope this email finds you well. Thank you for the thoughtful and constructive feedback you provided regarding our manuscript, Qualitative Impact Analysis of International Tourists and Residents’ Perceptions of Málaga Costa del Sol Airport. We agree with you that some changes must be done in order to improve the quality of the paper. In this sense, all graphics have been edited. Some tables have been removed and others have been changed to figures. A comprehensive review has been done to clarify the denominations and sequences of tables and figures.
The introduction has been modified in order to clarify the aim of the paper.
As for the literature review, we have expanded the number of studies but could not find studies that measure impact from the perspective of residents with a qualitative approach. In case you have any date in relation to this, please do not hesitate to show them us.
Discussion and conclusions have been modified in order to create a connection between the literature and the findings. We have not been able to carry out a comparison with other territories because there are no studies with this methodology and from this perspective. However, we have tried to develop a connection between the results and other previous studies.
We have reviewed and edited every section of the manuscript so we are certain that you will find this most recent version of the paper clears up the main issues you indicated in your response.
With all of these changes to our final manuscript, we hereby resubmit our manuscript for a secondary evaluation. Thank you once again for your consideration of our paper.
Sincerely,
Authors
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you very much for the new version of the article that has been improved substantially.
I don't have any other suggestions apart from reviewing the references, there is one at the end of the references in capital letters.
Congratulations,
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
First of all, we would like to thank you for your excellent comments. For us, the review process is very important. As you know, a manuscript becomes relevant to literature when many eyes have read it. That is why even if we do not know each other, we want you to know that your contributions have been very valuable. For our part, we have reviewed all the references. To improve the English edition, two native colleagues from the University have read and modified some parts of the manuscript. Some spelling errors have been corrected and some sentences have been modified.
We hope that with this modification the article will be ready for publication.
Thanks for everything.
We wish you all the best.
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
First of all, congratulations on your work. I found all the changes really useful.
There are minor changes to be done, but otherwise, I think your article brings a significant contribution to the academic literature.
I would change the title of Fig 6(row 378) from question to affirmation and I would proofread the article again since it needs minor English revision.
Good luck with your further research!
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
First of all, we would like to thank you for your excellent comments. For us, the review process is very important. As you know, a manuscript becomes relevant to literature when many eyes have read it. That is why even if we do not know each other, we want you to know that your contributions have been very valuable. For our part, we have reviewed all the references. To improve the English edition, two native colleagues from the University have read and modified some parts of the manuscript. Some spelling errors have been corrected and some sentences have been modified. We have also changed the title of Figure 6 (row 378) from question to affirmation.
We hope that with this modification the article will be ready for publication.
Thanks for everything.
We wish you all the best.
Authors
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you very much for the explanations and for have accepted the suggestions for improvement that I proposed to your article.
I believe that the changes made to the article are significant, both in terms of content and graphics, now much more accessible to the whole community.
I wish the best of the authors.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
First of all, we would like to thank you for your excellent comments. For us, the review process is very important. Sometimes authors are not able to accept comments but we are sure that each comment has substantially improved this manuscript. As you may know, an investigation becomes relevant to the literature when many eyes have read it. That is why even if we do not know each other, we want you to know that your contributions have been very valuable. For our part, we have checked all the references again because there were two in capital letters. To improve the English edition, two native colleagues from the University have read and modified some parts of the manuscript. Some spelling errors have been corrected and some sentences have been modified. We have also changed the title of Fig 6(row 378) from question to affirmation.
We hope that with this modification the article will be ready for publication.
Thanks for everything.
We wish you all the best.
Authors
