Hallmark Sporting Events as a Vehicle for Promoting the Sustainable Development of Regional Tourism: Strategic Perspectives from Stakeholders
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study aims to reveal the role of HSEs (hallmark sporting events) in the sustainable development of regional tourism from the stakeholders’ perspective. The study contributes to the literature on sporting events and knowledge of sustainable development in several ways.
Described four strategic development perspectives:
- Using the HSE to Create Regional Tourism Features
- The Critical Factors of Facilitating Sustainable Development
- The Role of HSE Stakeholder Groups in Realizing Regional Development Goals
- Sustained Benefits for Regional Tourism Development after the HSE
The strategic outlook put forward by this study can help HSEs owners or local governments to correctly choose and host suitable events, thereby providing a reference to sporting events for the development of tourism in other specific regions.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: This study aims to reveal the role of HSEs (hallmark sporting events) in the sustainable development of regional tourism from the stakeholders’ perspective. The study contributes to the literature on sporting events and knowledge of sustainable development in several ways.
Described four strategic development perspectives:
- Using the HSE to Create Regional Tourism Features
- The Critical Factors of Facilitating Sustainable Development
- The Role of HSE Stakeholder Groups in Realizing Regional Development Goals
- Sustained Benefits for Regional Tourism Development after the HSE
The strategic outlook put forward by this study can help HSEs owners or local governments to correctly choose and host suitable events, thereby providing a reference to sporting events for the development of tourism in other specific regions.
Response 1: The author would like to thank the reviewer for providing valuable comments. The author has added more descriptions about sustainability, tourism development in the introduction section. Please refer to the revision.
Reviewer 2 Report
In the manuscript the author presented an important point, although the manuscript has some drawbacks.
Main remarks:
- Introduction - in the introduction, please write more about sustainability, tourism development. The manuscript was sent to Sustainability. Suggested publications:
- Roman, M .; Roman, M .; Niedziółka, A. Spatial Diversity of Tourism in the Countries of the European Union. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2713. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072713
- Gu, X .; Hunt, C.A .; Lengieza, M.L .; Niu, L .; Wu, H .; Wang, Y .; Jia, X. Evaluating Residents ’Perceptions of Nature-Based Tourism with a Factor-Cluster Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010199
Why does the footnote numbering start with [101], [17], [43,100] ? - introduction.
2. Conclusions - in conclusions, please also answer the following questions:
• what are the research gaps?
• what is new to this manuscript?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Introduction - in the introduction, please write more about sustainability, tourism development. The manuscript was sent to Sustainability. Suggested publications:
Roman, M .; Roman, M .; Niedziółka, A. Spatial Diversity of Tourism in the Countries of the European Union. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2713. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072713
Gu, X .; Hunt, C.A .; Lengieza, M.L .; Niu, L .; Wu, H .; Wang, Y .; Jia, X. Evaluating Residents ’Perceptions of Nature-Based Tourism with a Factor-Cluster Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010199
Why does the footnote numbering start with [101], [17], [43,100] ? - introduction.
Response 1: The author would like to express sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their valuable opinions and comments on this article. According to the reviewer’s suggestions, the author has rewritten more about sustainability, tourism development and added these two suggested publications in the Introduction. The footnote numbers of references have been rearranged. This revised manuscript has been submitted to MDPI for English editing.
Point 2: Conclusions - in conclusions, please also answer the following questions:
- what are the research gaps?
- what is new to this manuscript?
Response 2: The author has added more explanations about the research gaps and the novel contributions of this paper. Please see Page 12, Section 5.1 Findings.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept in present form. Good luck!
