Happiness and Cultural Tourism: The Perspective of Civil Participation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your submission. The article proposes an interesting take on pilgrimage trails and happiness, as well as an understudied case study. However, I have a few points to comment on which I believe would improve the article’s quality:

1. On the Introduction (page 2, line 72), the authors introduce concepts related to new spirituality in the post-modern world and their relationship to QOL and wellness. I agree on the general idea but also suggest this discussion to be expanded. The authors may consider some of the following bibliography: Luckmann, 1967; Hanegraaff, 2000; Houtman & Manscini, 2002; Heelas, 2006; Timothy & Conover, 2006; Zinnbauer et al, 1997; Attix, 2015.

2. Regarding sampling, there are a great number of participants from Huesca Cuna de San Lorenzo in comparison to the other groups. Is there any reason for this?

3. In methodology, it would be helpful if the authors can describe in detail how participant observation was carried out and its approach.

4. Further explanation on the construction of the Decalogue.
5. On page 10, line 351, the self-help book “The Power of Now” is used as a reference for Buddhism and happiness. I would suggest the authors to instead refer to academic sources.

6. Adding a map of the Holy Grail route will help the readers to better visualize the case study. If possible, one or two photographs may be included as well.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Please, see below our explanations and all the work done following your interesting recommendations.

Your say: On the Introduction (page 2, line 72), the authors introduce concepts related to new spirituality in the post-modern world and their relationship to QOL and wellness. I agree on the general idea but also suggest this discussion to be expanded. The authors may consider some of the following bibliography: Luckmann, 1967; Hanegraaff, 2000; Houtman & Manscini, 2002; Heelas, 2006; Timothy & Conover, 2006; Zinnbauer et al, 1997; Attix, 2015.

First of all, we want to thank you very much because all the authors you said have given us a very deep, specific and clear thoughts; they are very good references for our research. So, thank you so much.

So, regarding this point, we have made a deeper bibliographic review including all the cited references and some other more in relation to the main topic of our research. They appear from line 72 and the following lines till line 139.

You said: Regarding sampling, there are a great number of participants from Huesca Cuna de San Lorenzo in comparison to the other groups. Is there any reason for this?

In lines 264-268, we explained that one of the authors belongs to this association and she has been participating during a lot of time and gathering knowledge. Also, this association was participating from the very beginning in the Project development and the route design.

You said: In methodology, it would be helpful if the authors can describe in detail how participant observation was carried out and its approach.

In line 247-259, we have developed a description of the participant observation done, also the approach and all the events, encounters and outputs obtained from this.

You said: Further explanation on the construction of the Decalogue.

Further explanation was given in lines 410-412.

You sadis: On page 10, line 351, the self-help book “The Power of Now” is used as a reference for Buddhism and happiness. I would suggest the authors to instead refer to academic sources.

On page 13, line 427, we add Marvine Levine with his book The positive psychology of Buddhism and yoga: Paths to a mature happiness, we have eliminated Eckart Tolle from there.

You recommend: Adding a map of the Holy Grail route will help the readers to better visualize the case study. If possible, one or two photographs may be included as well.

We have added some images, in lines 122, 139, 259, giving to the study more contextualization and graphic data.

Also, a map in line 164 a Map of the designed Holy Grail Route in Spain.

So, thank you very much for your deep and improving orientation in relation to the research,

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is improved and the English language editing has also improved the clarity of the expression. This could be further improved as there are still some minor errors with expression and punctuation. One issue that needs to be more clearly explained is where the items from the Decalogue of cultural tourism originated from. Are the items taken from a pre-existing list or have they been created by the authors for the purposes of this study? 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

First of all, thank you for your recommendations. We have follow all of them.

You said: The paper is improved and the English language editing has also improved the clarity of the expression. This could be further improved as there are still some minor errors with expression and punctuation.

We have corrected the errors through all the paper.

You said: One issue that needs to be more clearly explained is where the items from the Decalogue of cultural tourism originated from. Are the items taken from a pre-existing list or have they been created by the authors for the purposes of this study?

As we explain in the paper, line 410-412, the items were created by us from several documents referring other kind of tourist experiences and products.

Thank you very much for your interesting orientation in relation to our research and paper,

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The study provides a valuable perspective-civil participation, exploring the subtle relationship among cultural tourism, social cohesion, and happiness. It also provides many valuable interviews to summarize, which is worthy of recognition. However, from the title to the text and the conclusion, it seems that the expected research contribution has not been clearly presented.
2. It is suggested that the title of the thesis could be changed to: Happiness and Cultural Tourism- the perspective of civil participation, directly point out the main research perspective of the thesis, which is also convenient for readers to see at a glance.
3. Th study seems to attach great importance to the role of civic organizations and also included it in semi-structured interview questions. However, in the Introduction, only the relationship between cultural tourism and happiness is pointed out. It does not emphasize the importance of civic organizations participating in the promotion of cultural tourism and related literature.
4. In “2.The Holy Grail Route”, more descriptions should be added to the participation situation of civic organizations.
5. This is a cultural tourism route with cultural, historical and religious characteristics, so it attracts three different types of citizen groups to participate. They should have the same or different cognition of the happiness brought by cultural tourism, and they can do valuable comparative research. This may be also the highlight of this study. However, the author seems to have taken it lightly. It is recommended to consider the reorganization and discovery of the interview content.
6. The main research of this study asks two questions: How can cultural tourism promote social cohesion? What kind of happiness does this social cohesion bring to tourists and residents? Readers will expect a clear "dynamic pattern or model" to be proposed in the conclusion, but we only see a few tables in p.6-9. It is recommended that the author try to use an structure diagram to present this dynamic model and the resulting different types of happiness.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We have been working into the paper following your interesting suggestions and recommendations, yours appear in black and our answers and explanations appear in red.

1. The study provides a valuable perspective-civil participation, exploring the subtle relationship among cultural tourism, social cohesion, and happiness. It also provides many valuable interviews to summarize, which is worthy of recognition. However, from the title to the text and the conclusion, it seems that the expected research contribution has not been clearly presented.

We have explained in depth the relationship between the researchers and the cultural associations, some of them which are relevant to the study. Also, we have included a dynamic model as a conclusion which generates a new knowledge and sense in relation to the interactions among this type of organizations and the objective of our study. In lines 247-259 we have give new explanations about the importance of civil participation in the design of the Holy Grail Route, also some explanations about the importance of cultural tourism in relation to the objectives of the research, lines 264-269.

2. It is suggested that the title of the thesis could be changed to: Happiness and Cultural Tourism- the perspective of civil participation, directly point out the main research perspective of the thesis, which is also convenient for readers to see at a glance.

We have changed the title as the reviewer proposes. It is much more descriptive of the content of the study.

3. The study seems to attach great importance to the role of civic organizations and also included it in semi-structured interview questions. However, in the Introduction, only the relationship between cultural tourism and happiness is pointed out. It does not emphasize the importance of civic organizations participating in the promotion of cultural tourism and related literature.

We have added an explanation about this, in lines 132-134, with an interesting reference by Greg Richards who explains the importance of this type of associations, events, etc. in relation to the cultural tourism. And specifically in the design and promotion of this route.

4. In “2. The Holy Grail Route”, more descriptions should be added to the participation situation of civic organizations.

We have added some explanations in this sense, it can be seen in line 129-139.

5. This is a cultural tourism route with cultural, historical and religious characteristics, so it attracts three different types of citizen groups to participate. They should have the same or different cognition of the happiness brought by cultural tourism, and they can do valuable comparative research. This may be also the highlight of this study. However, the author seems to have taken it lightly. It is recommended to consider the reorganization and discovery of the interview content.

We have included much more comparative work with interviews following the advice of the reviewer, it can be seen in lines 492-497. In lines 370-377 it is presented the reflection about the similar cognition and feelings of the happiness among the three types of cultural tourists.

6. The main research of this study asks two questions: How can cultural tourism promote social cohesion? What kind of happiness does this social cohesion bring to tourists and residents? Readers will expect a clear "dynamic pattern or model" to be proposed in the conclusion, but we only see a few tables in p.6-9. It is recommended that the author try to use an structure diagram to present this dynamic model and the resulting different types of happiness.

Yes, in the conclusion we have included a dynamic model with the structure diagram in which appears all the elements of the research in a way of interactions, social actors, environment, etc. (lines 534-545).

Thank you very much, we hope the answers and corrections make the paper suitable for the Journal.

Best regards,

The authors

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made quite enough adjustments to the revised opinions, and the context of the paper has been more clear, providing quite good empirical research and theoretical contributions. It is recommended to agree to publish.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is written very poorly in terms of its expression in English. There are multiple errors, including errors of expression, spelling and unnecessarily long sentences.  It appears to have been translated, but this translation is extremely poor and it is therefore difficult to properly assess its academic qualities and merits. There are other potential problems with the paper, but before it can be adequately assessed, it should be proofread and edited by and native English speaker to ensure that it can be clearly understood prior to review.

Reviewer 2 Report

The current manuscript is aiming to provide a linkage between cultural heritage tourism (Holy Grail Route) and individual happiness (tourists and hosts). The main idea comes from a past EU project on creating a holy Grail route across Europe. Below are some of my comments regarding this paper. 

The manuscript needs a serious and extensive editing as far as the English language is concerned. Section 2 ('The Holy Grail Route as an Emergent Cultural Tourist Product') is not very well written. For example, there are a number of cases, that the manuscript does not makes sense (p.2, line 93 what does the word 'leitmotiv' means? Also, on p. 4, lines 174 - 187, the whole paragraph is an exaggeration). The same applies to the rest of the manuscript (p. 10, line 359: 'associationist' | p. 10, line 367: 'needings' | p.1, line 13-14: '...take it as a research Camp'). Overall, the style, grammar and syntax of the manuscript require a lot of attention. 

Another observation relates to the research methodology. The authors mention that they have used a participant observation process. However, this is not really discussed or presented in the paper. They mention the semi - structured interviews with the cultural associations, but not much regarding the participant observation process. They also talk aboout it on p. 10 (lines 371 - 373) when they constructed the 'decalogue' but not much info is shared in the manuscript about that process. I would argue that the presentation of the process is of critical nature for the manuscript. What is more, this participant process is so important that one additional paper could be constructed with respect to its application in the current setting (how the 'decalogue' haw emerged).

Another point relevant to the methodology being followed, relates to the semi - structured interviews. The authors should identify the sample size, as well as provide some info on the sampling (how did they go about selecting individual organisations).