Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A brief description of the traditional construction system of the "Pagliaru" would be important to understand the design innovation.

Please translate the text of the images into English

In a further phase of the research it would be interesting to assess the circularity of the project through an LCD approach 

 

 

Author Response

Thanks to reviewers’ comments that allowed us to improve the quality of the paper.

A brief description of the traditional construction system of the"Pagliaru" would be important to understand the design innovation.

Response: We have added some information about the material and morphological characteristics of the traditional pagliaru in the pargraph 3.1.

Please translate the text of the images into English

Response: Done, thank you. We have translated the images (fig. 2 and 3) or included an explanatory legenda in the caption (fig. 7). 

In a further phase of the research it would be interesting to assess the circularity of the project through an LCD approach

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The project has been developed taking as reference the principles of circular design (see added paragraph 3.2) and a next phase of the work will involve, as you suggested, an evaluation through an LCD approach ( we added it in the section “Outlook and Conclusions”).

Reviewer 2 Report

 

In my opinion, the participatory approach is not sufficient for this paper. Please try to find another approach and please describe detailed methodology you used. In the section 3.2. please explain your methods used. Interviews? Surveys? Panels? In my opinion all terms (words) used in the figure 2 and 3 should be translated into English. In my opinion the method use in the paper is simply “the best practices approach” which is commonly use in applied science. In the paper we find rather description concerning one project which is quite interesting but not sufficient in scientific article.

Some terminological problems. In your paper the Authors use some important commonly known aspects, concepts etc., espaccially:

• sustainable, responsible tourism (please see at least three papers published in Sustainability: https://doi.org/10.3390/su6010001 ; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041887 ; and https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126599
• Please explain what do you mean by “experiential tourism destination”
• Hinterland needs to be explained. Please do not consider the hinterland, periphery or/and marginal area.

Additionally there is no any explication why you link your research to the Covid-19 pandemic. If you really want to add this topic, please write a few sentences about the problem (please see e.g. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041887 )

The paper needs the conclusion(s) and even discussion session.

At the and please join the ideas of circular economy, sustainable tourism (and COIVID-19 if you really wish to put this problem into the main idea of the paper).

 

Author Response

Thanks to reviewers’ comments that allowed us to improve the quality of the paper.

In my opinion, the participatory approach is not sufficient for this paper. Please try to find another approach and please describe detailed methodology you used. In the section 3.2. please explain your methods used. Interviews? Surveys? Panels? In my opinion all terms (words) used in the figure 2 and 3 should be translated into English. In my opinion the method use in the paper is simply “the best practices approach” which is commonly use in applied science. In the paper we find rather description concerning one project which is quite interesting but not sufficient in scientific article.

Response: Thank you for your opinion, which allowed us to clarify methodological aspects in the text. We have included a detailed description of the methodology in a dedicated paragraph (see new paragraph 3.2). The methodology adopted is inspired by Design Sprint, an approach used in business and in this research declined to be applied to architecture. In our opinion this is an innovative approach, a new way to relate to the architectural project (which often takes months or years to be developed) based not only on participation but also on the speed of decision-making and concept design, as well as including aspects of circular design. What is proposed in the article is therefore an experimental approach and not a best practice, which can be used beyond the specific case study.

As you suggested, we have translated the images (fig. 2 and 3) or included an explanatory legenda in the caption (fig. 7). 

Some terminological problems. In your paper the Authors use some important commonly known aspects, concepts etc., especially:

sustainable, responsible tourism (please see at least three papers published in Sustainability: https://doi.org/10.3390/su6010001; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041887; and https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126599 

Response: Thank you for the bibliography provided. We have expanded the bibliographic references in the text from those recommended and clarified the concept of Experiential tourism that we refer to in the article.

Please explain what do you mean by “experiential tourism destination”

Response: you are right, the expression used “experiential tourism destination” was inappropriate. We have modified the sentence, thank you. 

Hinterland needs to be explained. Please do not consider the hinterland, periphery or/and marginal area.

Response: You are right. The term "hinterland" was improperly used due to a mistranslation. We have replaced it with "inner areas", as defined in the SNAI (Strategia Nazionale Aree Interne), areas rich in potentials and on which we are investing nationally (and not only).

Additionally there is no any explication why you link your research to the Covid-19 pandemic. If you really want to add this topic, please write a few sentences about the problem (please see e.g. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041887) 

Response: Done, thank you.  We have included a few sentences in the text that justify the link with the Covid-19 pandemic topic.

The paper needs the conclusion(s) and even discussion session.

At the and please join the ideas of circular economy, sustainable tourism (and COVID-19 if you really wish to put this problem into the main idea of the paper).

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have improved the structure of the article by making explicit the paragraph of the discussions, which was not sufficiently clear before. The conclusions, although also present in the previous version, have been extended with some considerations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Good paper, I recommend to publish after native English correction.

Author Response

Thanks to reviewers’ comments that allowed us to improve the quality of the paper.

Good paper, I recommend to publish after native English correction.

Response: Thank you for your comment. As suggested we had the text proofread by a qualified translator.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion the paper is suitable. The Authors improved significantly the paper.