Review Reports

REVIEW 1 REPORT

AUTHOR’S REPLY

1. The survey results are based on interviews.

Effectively, case studies demonstrate a flexibility not evident in many alternative research modes. It can illustrate the complexities of a situation by recognizing more than one contributing factor and, consequently, they are extensively used in tourism research.

2. It would be better to examine also the tourism development current state and prospects in chosen areas comparatively, and connect it with survey results, to see if the model of the DMO is good for tourism area or not.

It is a very interesting proposal. It opens a new and interesting opportunity of analysis that goes beyond the initial object of this research. On its own, it certainly deserves a whole other research paper.

However, this proposal will be included as a future research line to explore: contrasting the characteristics of the destinations with the internalization processes to identify its correlations.  

3.The article aims to determine how governance is internalised in tourism destination, to measure the level of governance internalisation in tourism destinations, and whether previous positions on governance actually translate into management.

Indeed, this is the main objective.

4.This research is relevant in the field. It helps to understand the management areas needed to improve tourism destination management. In this analysis, the aspects that favour or hinder the governance internalisation process have been identified through the two chosen dimensions.

Our objective is to ensure that the research has the maximum applicability. Being able to know the aspects that promote or hinder the internalization of governance (two of its main dimensions to be more specific) will be very useful for destination managers.

5.The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, and they address the main question posed.

The internalization of governance in tourism is a topic that has been little addressed. Other previous research has been focused on the internalization of quality or sustainable management.  Indeed, contributing to fill the gap on governance makes these conclusions useful.

6.The references are appropriate. Besides what has been done, the authors may analyze tourism development current state at the chosen areas, in order to see if the DMO model and governance internalisation is helpful or not ant it contributes to tourism development or not. This should be done for 8 areas and compare the DMO model-tourism development practice between 8 areas.

Probably one of the main limitations of the research done has been to find very little specific literature on internalization of governance. However, we have made up for this by looking for other useful references.

In relation to the second part of the commentary, we can only insist on what has already been expressed in the previous point 2 related to future research.  

Some key performance indicators may be processed and evaluated to measure the DMO model performance for tourism development: For example, the number of marketing campaigns organized by DMO, the number of incoming tourists, etc.

Indeed, this is an aspect that should be taken into account in the future research line to be proposed. It is clear that this is an extensive work, that can not be included in a paper already very extensive.

Can be improved: statement of research design, questions, hypothesis, and methods.

The value of qualitative methodology and the use of cases will be justified in more detail in the new proposal.

Can be improved: arguments and discussion of findings.

The lack of specific literature on internalization of governance makes it difficult to extend the discussion section. However, we will improve the discussion of the obtained results, according to the comments of both reviewers.

Can be improved: reference conclusions with secondary literature.

Further references will be included in the conclusions section in order to support the obtained conclusions.

REVIEW 2 REPORT

AUTHOR’S REPLY

1.Error in journal format

The new wording will be adjusted to the format provided by the journal (guidelines).

2.Error in bibliographic references

References have been rechecked. They have been adapted to the format of the journal. We are sorry that before it was not chronological.

3.Models and key factors are named but the differences and characteristics of each model are not specified (complete).

The models are mentioned more specifically in the new version of the article. In fact, the definition of the models was the result of an intensive work published in a previous article for which references are also given.

(Bono i Gispert, O., & Clavé Anton, S. (2020). Dimensions and models of tourism governance in a tourism system: The experience of Catalonia. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 17, 100465.)

We believe that introducing a summary of that earlier work could be distracting to the reader, and that it is basically a departure from the objective of this research.

Another option would be to eliminate the reference to the models since we think that it will not alter the value or orientation of the investigation.

An interesting future research work could look for correlations between the internalization of governance and the models in which it occurs.

4.The work is too descriptive and subjective (qualitative), more objective results are needed.

Case studies demonstrate a flexibility not evident in many alternative research modes. They can illustrate the complexities of a situation by recognizing more than one contributing factor and consequently they are used extensively in tourism research.

The value of qualitative methods will be better explained with specific references in this regard:

Beeton, S. (2005). The case study in tourism research: A multi-method case study approach. Tourism research methods: Integrating theory with practice, 37, 48.

Okumus, F., & Rasoolimanesh, S. M. (2022). Contemporary Research Methods in Hospitality and Tourism.

Xiao, H., & Smith, S. L. (2006). Case studies in tourism research: A state-of-the-art analysis. Tourism management, 27(5), 738-749.

5.Lack of own contribution (primary data) representative to conclude the results

In addition, it should be said that organizations representative of certain dynamics has been selected and that they generate a diversified and representative framework of a tourist destination as multifaceted as Catalonia.

In the new version of the paper, it will be expanded the content of those case studies in which, due to the need to reduce the text, there is still some information that is not included in the text.

6.Lack of limitations and future lines of research of the work.

We agree with this comment. According to future lines of research at the moment it only appears:

 “Further research into other dimensions that have yet to be dealt with would also be desirable. The results obtained are also an invitation to undertake additional research in order to identify the role and importance of internal and external factors behind the level of governance internalisation in particular destination management related organisations, in the same direction as studies of governance internalisation in other spheres.”

The proposal would be to add a future line of research in which the characteristics of the destinations can be contrasted with the internalization processes to identify if there is any correlation.

In relation to the limitations, it will be mentioned that the lack of existing literature on internalization of governance has hindered some of the scope of the research.

The conclusions section will be renamed “Conclusions and future lines of research”

7. Lack of practical implications of the work

Recognizing the elements that facilitate or hinder the internalization of governance acquires value for those responsible for destination management, since it allows them to focus their management efforts on building better destination governance.

A new section will be created in each case study called "applicable lessons", highlighting elements that can be taken as a reference by destination managers for the benefit of a clearer applicability.

8. Can be improved: theoretical background

The small size of the literature on internalization of governance is also a handicap in this case.

When looking for theoretical background  on internalization, most of elements  are associated with Sociology (how to integrate values, concepts, ideas...) or Business Economics (how to avoid outsourcing). These aspects could give content to the theoretical background, but it would be in a direction that is not the one of the research presented in this article.

9.Can be improved: relevant references

Perhaps one of the limitations of this research has been to find very little specific literature on internalization of governance. However, we have made up for this by looking for other useful references.

10. Can be improved: adequately referenced

References have been rechecked. They have been adapted to the journal’s format.

11. Must be improved: statement of research design, questions, hypothesis, and methods.

We understand that everything can always be improved but establishing a new research design means doing a new research. In this case, we consider that it will be the objectives of another brand new paper.

However, in order to improve the paper, the value of qualitative methodology and the use of cases will be justified in more detail.

12. Must be improved: arguments and discussion of findings.

The lack of specific literature on internalization of governance makes it difficult to extend the discussion section. However, the discussion part of the paper will be improved.

13.Must be improved: results presentation

A clearer format will be given to each case study by better distinguishing between the different sections.

14. Must be improved: reference conclusions with secondary literature.

Further references will be included in the conclusions section, in order to support the obtained findings.