Examining Cross-Border Cultural Tourism as an Indicator of Territorial Integration across the Slovak–Hungarian Border

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is interested at the situation in tourism on the example of the border towns Komárom (Hungary) and Komárno (Slovakia). The authors are looking for the potential of cultural heritage and ethnic tourism for the development of tourism in the researched area. The authors used their own research and analysis of questionnaries. From this point of view, it is a progressive work. In summary, I rate the document positively. I have, but a few comments. In p. 2 authors claim:

The trips of Hungarians to Transylvania (Romania), of Bulgarians to Macedonia and of Romanians to Bulgaria, etc., led to the creation of a specific tourism product and niche market (...). In my opinnion I would recommend to specify or complete the literature related this theme. What the authors are thinking about the title Macedonia ? They want to tell us, it is a historical territory or current North Macedonia ? These are two different things.  In p. 7 authors claim:

There is a significant demand for tourism from Hungarians who are interested in their own past, the traditions of their people or the homeland of their ancestors, who emigrated. I would recommend to complete the literature related this idea. Finaly, in page 7 and 8 complete the literature, for example this study: Martin, Hetényi. The Hungarian Minority and Confessional Question in the Interwar Czechoslovak Republic and the Slovak State. DOI 10 17951/m 2017 2 67. In: Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska : Sectio M Balcaniensis et Carpathiensis. - ISSN 2450-6354, vol. 2, n. 1-2 (2017), p. 67-86.

I would like to point out in connection with cultural heritage and ethnic tourism with the fact that in Komárno in 17 and 18 century lived very importatnt community of 8,000 Orthodox Serbs. For a time  lived in Komárno very important Serbian patriarch Arsenije III Crnojević and other personalities Serbian history. A number of documents have been preserved in the Orthodox church in Komárno, which testify to the rich cultural heritage of this important Serbian enclave. For this reason, we believe that this is an important role in the development of tourism. Recommended literature for example: Ján Zozuľak. Cyrilo-metodská misia v kontexte srbsko-slovenských vzťahov. In: Cyrilometodějská tradice v novodobých československých dějinách. - Zlín : Sdružení Evropská kulturní stezka sv. Cyrila a Metoděje, 2018. - ISBN 978-80-270-5024-6, p. 21-35. Церовић, Љубивоје. 2011. Срби у Коморану. Нови Сад. Церовић, Љубивоје. 2015. Срби у Словачкој. Нови Сад.

For the development of cultural tourism we highly recommend to involve this two cities under the umbrella of cultural routes. Nitra Self-governing Region planned Komárno as one of the stop of the international project Cyril and Methodius Route:  http://www.regionnitra.sk/europska-kulturna-cesta-sv-cyrila-a-metoda.

Author Response

We appreciate the time and effort that you an have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of your suggestions. It would have been interesting to explore the religious aspect (Hetényi), however we feel it is out scope of this paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper deals with the development of cross-border cultural tourism destinations as a means of territorial integration across the Slovak-Hungarian border and presents two border towns Komárom (Hungary) and Komárno (Slovakia) as an example.

One of the main driving forces of the communities in both towns is to turn the borders that divide into borders that unite by strengthening the cohesion between the relevant countries and regions.

Based on the research, which was implemented through the questionnaires administered in both cities, the opportunities for the development of cultural tourism were being sought. From this aspect, the article supports new findings, so I evaluate it positively.

I’d like to make the following comments for improvement:

• page 2 - you state that: Since 1999, the examined border section has been continuously involved in the cross-border cooperation programmes supported by the EU. The theme of cultural heritage has gradually become more and more important in the Hungarian-Slovak programmes and now accounts for more than 1/3 of the projects, while the protection and valorisation of natural and cultural heritage accounts for about 2/3 of the total pro-60 gramme budget (Table 1).
• it should be noted that one of the first grants to support the development of cross-border cooperation at that time was the Visegrad Fund
•  
• I recommend the following literature:

Dubcová, A.; Drgoňa, V.; Nemčíková, M.; Kramáreková, H.; Krogmann, A.; Némethová, J.; Pulpitlová, M.; Oremusová, D. Perception of the border line on an example of the Danubian Euroregions of the Slovak-Hungarian borderland, 2002. In. Dubcová, A.; Kramáreková, H.; Cimra, J. eds. Proceedings of the International Colloquy State border reflection by border region population of V4 states. Nitra : UKF, 2002. 269 p.  ISBN 80-8050-536-5.

Kramáreková, H.; Dubcová, A. Cestovný ruch ako impulz regionálneho rozvoja slovensko-maďarského pohraničia okresu Komárno / Tourism as an impulse of regional development of the Slovak-Hungarian borderland (the Komárno district case study).  In. Geografické informácie 8 : Stredoeurópsky priestor - Geografia v kontexte nového regionálneho rozvoja. Nitra : UKF, 2004.  s. 469-480. ISBN 80-8050-784-8.

http://www.kgrr.fpv.ukf.sk/images/casopisy/Geograficke_informacie_8_2004.pdf

Kramáreková, H.; Dubcová, A.; Némethová, I. Evaluation of Cross-Border Co-operation of Slovakia and Hungary. In.  Central Europe Area in View of Current Geography : Proceedings of 23rd Central European Conference, 8th-9th October 2015, Brno. p. 216-227. ISBN 978-80-210-8313-4. doi:10.5817/CZ.MUNI.P210-8314-2016

• page 4 – a formal unification is necessary (Leask – Fyall, 2006). (Timothy & Prideaux, 2004).
• page 7 – the figure is unclear - is it necessary to highlight the names of both cities and both countries; red lines - what do they represent? Roads?
• I recommend that Chapter 3.1 should begin with a reference to the figure and not with the figure itself
• references to figures are missing in the whole text...
• over the Danube. (Sikos T. – Tirner, 2008; Simon, 2011; Szilágyi, 324 2016) Due ... put a dot after the right parenthesis and correct it everywhere

• both cities have a significant potential in terms of cultural routes; I recommend using

Krogmann, A.; Ivanič, P.; Kramáreková, H.; Petrikovičová, L.; Petrovič, F.; Grežo, H. Cultural Tourism in Nitra, Slovakia: Overview of Current and Future Trends.  Sustainability 2021, 13, 5181. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095181

• I also recommend incorporating the association VÁG-DUNA-IPOLY REGIONÁLIS TÁRSULÁS http://vahdunajipel.eu/hu/ and its activities into the text

Author Response

We appreciate the time and effort that you  have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful for your suggestion and have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided. We also all corrected the formatting errors in the text.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper deals with an interesting topic in regards to the cultural tourism and cross-border relations. However, there are a lot of elements that should be re-elaborated and structured. Even the title is promising much more than it is actually giving to the readers, it should be rewritten.

In general, the referencing logic of the journal is not respected at all, this should be remediated. It is not necessary to cite twice the exact source within the same paragraph (Silberberg, Timothy and Boyd, Leask and Fyall, etc.)).

At the beginning of the different sections, a short overview and reasoning should be provided on the content of that specific section.

The paper seems to be edited in an incoherent way by multiple persons without carefully finalising it. Also, the different parts have no connections; section 2 is not giving insights into the other parts of the paper. The methodology and the questionnaire (which is for sure not interview in a classic way, but a person-based standardised questionnaire-filling) is not explained by a proper theoretical background: why these questions were taken, how they can be compared with the general international literature. The methodology itself has a lot of value-adding hindering aspects, as it is not proper to address the questions raised at the beginning.

Specific suggestions for the different parts of the paper can be seen as follows:

1. Introduction

The introduction section should be more concise. Table 1 is containing meaningful information; however, without a proper explanation and justification of the programmes, it is not fulfilling its role. It should be placed in section 2. A proper research question is missing, or the claimed aim of the paper is not in line with the paper.

2. Aspects of cultural tourism

The section has to be re-elaborated. First, the general concepts of the tourism branches should be discussed, after the Hungarian-Slovakian situation and why and how this is connected to tourism. In this way, the paper could become more understandable.

In the section, a clear distinction between the general cultural-tourism aspects and the focus area of the Central and Eastern Europe (maybe also Europe itself) should be emphasised. It is quite confusing mixing the two elements without a proper framework. It might bring an added value by creating a subsection where the general trends are shown for cultural tourism. Also, at the end of the starting thoughts, an overview and reasoning behind the subsections should be provided. It is neither explained why these tourism types are addressed in detail. Also, the general logic of approaching the topic should have been provided.

In heritage tourism, a special section of dark tourism is mentioned without properly addressing the category itself. This should be corrected.

Basically, only the last paragraph is giving the justification for why and how this topic has been discussed in the paper.

3. Cross-border cohesion aspects of the Komárom-Komárno cultural tourist destination

It is strongly advised not to start the 3.1 section with a Figure; at least some thought should be shared first. Also, the proper introduction for the whole section is missing. The historical importance of the city has too much space, whilst some contradicting information can be found. E.g., it is not clear whether after the WWII the city remained united or not; this element should be explicit (lines 340-345).

The first paragraph of 3.2. is better suiting section 3.1. Furthermore, it is quite a question why two sections are needed for showing the history of the city.

There are two 3.2. sections.

The description of the methodology is average, there is no information about the basic population; neither other statistical data has been provided or how the data was analysed (apparently no statistical tools were applied to discover eventual differences) or should be treated by the readers. It is stating only that Komarno and Komárom residents while the ethnicity question is not addressed. It is quite a problem that the Covid occurred, but under this specific circumstance, no conclusions should be drawn from this questionnaire. Even considering the methods applied for the survey, the numbers should be greater to contributing to the literature. It is a problem that the Covid situation was certainly affecting the two parts and/or regions of the city; in addition, this might happened in a different way, but this aspect has not been emphasised at all.

4. Cultural tourism and residents

There is no proper introduction for this section, and it is only showing the descriptive data of the results without properly addressing the formerly identified literature elements.

It is also doubted whether the word cloud is the right choice for showing the results of the open questions (or in this quantity).

Figure 6 is not properly edited (missing legend, also not sorted along with an understandable logic). It is also a question why Figure 8 x-axis is containing 0 and 0.5 as a starting origin, as it is not a real option, plus why not demonstrating the differences applying the same logic as before (focusing on a certain part of the axis).

5. Cultural tourism in the area

There is no proper introduction for this section; furthermore, it is providing only descriptive, low-quality data. At least there are some connections to the literature, but not creating a live link to them. In this section, the legend of the Figures has a totally contrary way of presenting the data as before. Figure 14 is questionable whether the 49 respondents equally mentioned the three options.

4. Discussion

This is probably section 6 and not 4. The discussion is low-scaled, addressing some topics which haven’t been discussed properly. E.g., it is stating that the differences between ethnic groups; the statistical presentation of the ethnic groups in the two parts of the city; the statement in terms of low level of classic international tourism (without properly showing the exact numbers), etc.

Also, the proper confrontation and comparison with the section 2 is missing. There is no information on how the paper gives an added value to the general literature. Also some thoughts which could be called as implications are not connected to the other parts of the paper. Also, the limitations and the future research areas are missing; therefore, it is not contributing to the science in general.

Author Response

We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript.

Here is a point-by-point response to your comments:

• The introduction section should be more concise. Table 1 is containing meaningful information; however, without a proper explanation and justification of the programmes, it is not fulfilling its role. It should be placed in section 2. A proper research question is missing, or the claimed aim of the paper is not in line with the paper. Response: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added to the text, providing further explanation and clarified the main aim of the paper taking into account your comment about connecting the survey to the aim of the paper.

• The section aspects of cultural tourism has been revised, we explained why these tourism types are addressed and provided a reasoning on the content of the sections through linking them together.7

•  We added to the text and provided a general introduction of the area: location, main characteristics, corrected the contradicting historical information and summarized the history in one chapter.

• In relation to the methodology we highlighted that the survey was a standardized questionnaire, which has not been done by our team. the consortium made a conscious decision on the minimum number of 40 questionnaires per category of interviewees, largely on the basis of the nature of the questionnaires (very comprehensive, intensive/in-depth), which limited our ability and resources for more expansive (larger-sample) surveys. We emphasized more the limitations caused by Covid-19. We provided demographic data, and for reference statistical data of the basic population.

•  

  In the sections related to results, we added an introduction and tried to link the results to the literature more comprehensively.

•  

  We corrected the formatting errors, and incorporated the suggestions related to the figures.

• We rewrote the conclusion, added future research areas and limitations caused by the pandemic. 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The Reviewer admits the efforts exerted by the authors. Basically, two major elements were not corrected: chapter two and the conclusion-related comments. The other parts are already acceptable. However, if the conclusions are not properly connected to the literature, clearly indicating what the added value of the study is, it is not fulfilling the expectations of scientific papers and research, even considering the prestige of the journal.

The Reviewer understands that the research has been carried out as probably an obligatory element of the project. The basic problem is its appropriateness. The results elaboration is acceptable, but basically it is a serious doubt whether it can bring valid implications and novum to the academia, to the practice, or to the policymakers. Why these groups would or should read this paper is still an unanswered question.

Even the authors admit that the survey is non-representative, and COVID 19 impacted. The former one in itself questions its place in the journal, while the latter one is not processed or highlighted enough throughout the theoretical background. This might could be the only way for resolving the actual conflict in regards to the paper. Even putting in focus this aspect (which requires a significant amount of effort), it is still a question whether the way of realising the research could be seen as a supportive element or not. The numbers are proper for a university thesis (a master-level perhaps), but the actual scimagojr scores are far beyond this quality level.

Author Response

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript. We thank the reviewer for pointing the missing elements out. We agree with the points, therefore revised the manuscript in the following points:

• as the research hyptohesis was not clearly communicated, we have formulated separately the theoretical hypothesis and the empirical topic of the paper. In relation to that we connected our results to the theoretical hypothesis and empirical topic of the separately as well in the conclusions. While the numbers are low, we still think the research carries valuable information for policy makers and further elaborated on the added value and usefulness of this research to policy makers and destination managers.
• in regards to representativeness, we would like to highlight that there is no statistical data on the composition and demographics of the standard population of interest: cross-border tourist and because of that we could not adhere to the criterion. We acknowledge that this should have been clearly communicated in the first place. We added that to the methodology. We also clarified that COVID-19 caused problems during the survey, but mainly in the way that it took longer time and respondents were harder to reach.