Water Resources and Health Tourism in Val di Sole: Key Elements for Innovating with Nature in the Italian Inner Territories

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is very interesting and useful. It can be improved. It is recommended as follows:

1. introduction must be reduced, simplified and must be smoother;

2. methodology that is too verbose and sophisticated and not available for those who do not work in the same specific sector;

3. editing of English language with native speakers

The paper can only be accepted after making the suggested changes.

Author Response

1. 1. introduction must be reduced, simplified and must be smoother.

   Thank you for your comment. We have slightly adapted and improved the introduction to be simpler and clearer.

   
   
   2. methodology that is too verbose and sophisticated and not available for those who do not work in the same specific sector.

   Thank you for your comment. We have adapted and improved by better explaining the operative steps and procedures of the methodological approach in the entire section “3. Methodological approach”. In addition we have integrated new references to the “Research by Design” methodological framework (lines 154-156 clean version).
   Specifically, within the project framework, authors don't apply a codified methodology but rather combine and integrate different quantitative and qualitative tools and methods thus proposing an own methodological approach.

   
   
   3. editing of English language with native speakers.
   Thank you for your comment. We have deeply reviewed the whole text and rephrased. As shared with the guest editors and the managing editor, we will do a professional English language editing for the final version, in case the manuscript will be officially accepted.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Hydrological resource and health tourism in Val di Sole: key 2 elements for innovating with nature the inner territories” is a very interesting research but needs the following issues to be solved before publication.

1.      The language is difficult in some parts to understand.

2.      Title is too long and water resources is suggested instead of hydrological source.

3.      The methodology is not clear.

4.      There are several photos but little explanation about them.

5.      The conclusion needs complete revision.

Author Response

1. The language is difficult in some parts to understand.

Thank you for your comment. We have deeply reviewed the whole text and rephrased. As shared with the guest editors and the managing editor, we are planning to do a professional English language editing for the final version, in case the manuscript will be officially accepted.  

2. Title is too long and water resources is suggested instead of hydrological source.

Thank you for your comment. We agree with your recommendation and we have reviewed it.

3. The methodology is not clear.

Thank you for your comment. We have adapted and improved by better explaining the operative steps and procedures of the methodological approach in the entire section “3. Methodological approach”. In addition we have integrated new references to the “Research by Design” methodological framework (lines 154-156 clean version). 

Specifically, within the project framework, authors don't apply a codified methodology but rather combine and integrate different quantitative and qualitative tools and methods thus proposing an own methodological approach.

4. There are several photos but little explanation about them.

Thank you for your comment. We have expanded the description of all the figures.

5. The conclusion needs complete revision.

Thank you for your comment. We agree with your critique and we took this opportunity to rethink and restructure the final considerations. In particular, we have reviewed and integrated section “5. Discussion and final considerations” by critically commenting on the results of the methodological process and reconnecting them to the framework outlined in the background. We think this is relevant to open up the discussion, from the local experience to a wider reflection. With these in-depth comments, we believe that the precedent text highlights limits of the experiences and also opens up new potential outlooks and topics for the research advancement.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Editor and Authors

The issue of Hydrological resource and health tourism is a relevant topic. It is very important for the academic community to develop research on these current issues. Thermal tourism in Europe should be increased and become a segment of tourist attraction worldwide. The work is well structured. The abstract, introduction and literature review are written in a thoughtful and balanced way. The methodology and the discussion of results are presented in a clear and objective way. The normal thing in a scientific paper is that the discussion of the results and conclusion are carried out in separate points. They have also appeared together in high-impact scientific journals, but the conclusions need to be much more in-depth (final considerations). It is also important that I mentioned the work or future research directions that this work may give rise to. This part of the paper needs improvement. The bibliography is extensive and current, although it could be improved.

Other issues related to the work presented:

1.   What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?

The work aims to create a territorial strategy based on the value of thermal water systems, promoting the appreciation of their natural capital. The research proposes a resilient territorial brand, whose processes of change must be evaluated in space and time through the engagement of the local community. It is a very relevant, interesting and current issue, not only for Italy, but also for Europe itself. This is a relevant, pertinent, and interesting question as a current research topic.

2.     How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

The topic is original and relevant in this area of investigation. The way the authors approach the issue of water resources and health tourism, as elements to innovate with nature in inland territories is quite relevant, in terms of research and contribution to knowledge. This is an important work in this area of investigation.

3.     Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?

Yes, the text is well written, in a clear, objective, and precise way.

4.     Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
The normal thing in a scientific paper is that the discussion of the results and conclusion are carried out in separate points. They have also appeared together in high-impact scientific journals, but the conclusions need to be much more in-depth (final considerations). The conclusion should mention the objective of the work, its central question and its contribution to the advancement of knowledge. It is also important that I mentioned the work or future research directions that this work may give rise to. This part of the paper needs improvement.

5.     Is there any current bibliography that can be suggested, with the aim of improving the paper?

Yes, in the part of literature review on thermalism, maybe you can add the recent paper: Tavares F.O., Gomes Almeida L., Garcia Pinto A., Tavares V.C. (2022) The Role of Stakeholders in Thermal Tourism: A Bibliography Review. In: Ratten V., Braga V. (eds) Stakeholder Entrepreneurship. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7091-6_4

Author Response

The issue of Hydrological resource and health tourism is a relevant topic. It is very important for the academic community to develop research on these current issues. Thermal tourism in Europe should be increased and become a segment of tourist attraction worldwide. The work is well structured. The abstract, introduction and literature review are written in a thoughtful and balanced way. The methodology and the discussion of results are presented in a clear and objective way. The normal thing in a scientific paper is that the discussion of the results and conclusion are carried out in separate points. They have also appeared together in high-impact scientific journals, but the conclusions need to be much more in-depth (final considerations). It is also important that I mentioned the work or future research directions that this work may give rise to. This part of the paper needs improvement. The bibliography is extensive and current, although it could be improved.

1. What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?

The work aims to create a territorial strategy based on the value of thermal water systems, promoting the appreciation of their natural capital. The research proposes a resilient territorial brand, whose processes of change must be evaluated in space and time through the engagement of the local community. It is a very relevant, interesting and current issue, not only for Italy, but also for Europe itself. This is a relevant, pertinent, and interesting question as a current research topic.

Thank you for your comment and your appreciation by outlining the innovative aspect of the research.

2. How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

The topic is original and relevant in this area of investigation. The way the authors approach the issue of water resources and health tourism, as elements to innovate with nature in inland territories is quite relevant, in terms of research and contribution to knowledge. This is an important work in this area of investigation.

Thank you for your comment and your appreciation. However, as shared with the guest editors and the managing editor, we will do a professional English language editing for the final version, in case the manuscript will be officially accepted.

3. Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?

Yes, the text is well written, in a clear, objective, and precise way.

Thank you for your comment and your appreciation.

4. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?

The normal thing in a scientific paper is that the discussion of the results and conclusion are carried out in separate points. They have also appeared together in high-impact scientific journals, but the conclusions need to be much more in-depth (final considerations). The conclusion should mention the objective of the work, its central question and its contribution to the advancement of knowledge. It is also important that I mentioned the work or future research directions that this work may give rise to. This part of the paper needs improvement.

Thank you for your comment. We agree with your critique and we took this opportunity to rethink and restructure the final considerations. In particular, we have reviewed and integrated section “5. Discussion and final considerations” by critically commenting on the results of the methodological process and reconnecting them to the framework outlined in the background. We think this is relevant to open up the discussion, from the local experience to a wider reflection. With these in-depth comments, we believe that the precedent text highlights limits of the experiences and also opens up new potential outlooks and topics for the research advancement.

5. Is there any current bibliography that can be suggested, with the aim of improving the paper?

Yes, in the part of literature review on thermalism, maybe you can add the recent paper: Tavares F.O., Gomes Almeida L., Garcia Pinto A., Tavares V.C. (2022) The Role of Stakeholders in Thermal Tourism: A Bibliography Review. In: Ratten V., Braga V. (eds) Stakeholder Entrepreneurship. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7091-6_4

Thank you for your comment. We appreciate the recommendation and we have integrated the suggested reference in the manuscript (line 138 clean version).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have considered my comments/suggestions.