Sun and Sand Ecotourism Management for Sustainable Development in Sisal, Yucatán, Mexico
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSustainability
August 2024
Sun and sand ecotourism management for sustainable development in Sisal, Yucatán, Mexico
Review
The article is interesting, but it contains several methodological gaps that absolutely must be filled. Given the title of the article and the word "sustainable" in the title, it is necessary to also refer to other environmental aspects such as water and energy consumption by tourists and possible air pollution (through increased car traffic), e.g. in the form of one paragraph and commentary.
Below are some detailed comments.
1. On what basis were the respondents selected?
2. What is the basis for the number of interviews in each group? (Table 1) Is it proportional to the size of the population (i.e. sector)? Requires comment.
3. The numbers and levels of subsections require comment.
4. Figure 3 – no information in the caption regarding which year these changes are – you can guess from the text, but it should be indicated in the figure description;
5. Line 182 – what method? The reference [34] is too less in the description of the methodology!
6. Why were 42 interviews considered sufficient? Why weren't they finished earlier or continued to 50? This requires comment. Is the number of interviews in each group proportional to anything?
7. At what time were the interviews conducted on the beach? No additional information. Morning, evening?
8. While Google is obvious, TESIUNAM requires some explanation in the text
9. What is the population size of Sisal? Such information would be useful in the text.
10. Add 1-2 sentences about Atlas ti ver.8 and other tools used in the research.
11. Figure 4 – it is not clear whether one side of the figure results from a documentary review and the other from an interview? Because that is what the caption under the figure says….?
12. NbT in subtitle should be expanded
13. Sustainability and environmental protection are not only issues discussed in the text (including protection of dunes). Please also refer to issues such as water consumption by tourists or energy consumption, or air pollution, e.g. in one paragraph.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageno extra comments
Author Response
Reviewer 1. Thank you for all your comments, they were very helpful to improve the contribution.
Research design, questions, hypotheses and methods must be improved
Thank you very much for your comment! We added a research question and working hypothesis. The methods were better explained, according to the reviewer’s recommendations.
The results can be improved
The results were reviewed and better explained.
General comment: The article is interesting, but it contains several methodological gaps that absolutely must be filled. Given the title of the article and the word "sustainable" in the title, it is necessary to also refer to other environmental aspects such as water and energy consumption by tourists and possible air pollution (through increased car traffic), e.g. in the form of one paragraph and commentary.
We improved the methodological gaps.
We added several lines addressing the different socioeconomic and environmental burdens of tourism and then mention how these need to be considered when aiming at having sustainable tourism.
- On what basis were the respondents selected?
We selected key actors as respondents that were identified using the non-probabilistic sampling technique known as snowball, which consisted of asking the first identified key actors to point out other key actors whose participation they considered relevant, thus allowing us to expand the network of actors that were identified. When the recommendations of those interviewed began to repeat themselves, we stopped. This is explained in the methods section.
- What is the basis for the number of interviews in each group? (Table 1) Is it proportional to the size of the population (i.e. sector)? Requires comment.
As stated in the previous answer, the methodology used was a snowball method; therefore, it is not related to the size of the population but rather to the identification of the key actors who lead the community interest groups or the main authorities who make decisions for the development of tourism in Sisal. This is explained in the methods section.
- The numbers and levels of subsections require comment.
We carefully considered this comment and decided to simplify Table 2 for clarity. We hope it is clearer since the table now only includes sections and their corresponding explanations of the information analyzed.
- Figure 3 – no information in the caption regarding which year these changes are – you can guess from the text, but it should be indicated in the figure description.
Done! The dates were already mentioned in the legend within the photographs, but it was also added to the figure legend for clarity.
- Line 182 – what method? The reference [34] is too less in the description of the methodology!
In the methods we added more information explaining that “The questions included in the semi-structured interviews followed the qualitative method that emphasizes the vision of the actors, the analysis of their contexts and the meaning of social relations for the reconstruction of reality, as a technique of information collection and analysis”
- Why were 42 interviews considered sufficient? Why weren't they finished earlier or continued to 50? This requires comment. Is the number of interviews in each group proportional to anything?
We selected key actors as respondents who were identified using the non-probabilistic sampling technique known as snowball sampling. This technique is based on asking the first actors who participated in previous workshops that were held with key stakeholders and whose work is linked to the management of coastal dunes and beaches. They were asked to point out other key actors whose participation they considered relevant. Thus, we were able to expand the network of actors identified as leaders or authorities of each group and who participated in the decision-making process regarding the use and conservation of beaches and coastal dunes. When the interviewees' recommendations began to repeat, we stopped interviewing. The repetition of recommendations occurred at 42 interviews, and thus, we stopped. The above is commented in “interview and surveys section” of the ms.
- At what time were the interviews conducted on the beach? No additional information. Morning, evening?
From March to April 2022, a total of 65 surveys were applied to adult tourists, who were at the beach area. Interviews were applied at any time of the day when they were available and willing to respond. Information above was added in “Surveys section”
- While Google is obvious, TESIUNAM requires some explanation in the text
TESIUNAM refers to the catalog of (undergrad and graduate) theses from students studying at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. This Information was added in the paragraph after table 2.
- What is the population size of Sisal? Such information would be useful in the text.
The population of Sisal is 2,078 inhabitants. This information was added in the “Study area” section
- Add 1-2 sentences about Atlas ti ver.8 and other tools used in the research.
Atlas ti version 8 is a program designed for the systematization and analysis of qualitative information in any format (text, image, sound, video). Response trends were sought through systematization, categorization, and coding (in Basic Units of Analysis - BAU) of the information received. This information was added in the “Information analysis section of interviews”
- Figure 4 – it is not clear whether one side of the figure results from a documentary review and the other from an interview? Because that is what the caption under the figure says….?
Documentary review just served to complete imprecise information about dates or names of facts that the interviewees have doubts or did not now. Information was added in the caption of Figure 4
- NbT in subtitle should be expanded.
Nature based Tourism (NbT). This was added in the subtitle.
- Sustainability and environmental protection are not only issues discussed in the text (including protection of dunes). Please also refer to issues such as water consumption by tourists or energy consumption, or air pollution, e.g. in one paragraph.
We expanded the first paragraph in the introduction and added these issues.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSome links to the online resources are not working. Often reference is made to Master's theses.
The introductory section does not introduce, or does so only in part. Relevant concepts are poorly argued or missing:
- A modern and shared definition of Ecotourism. From it an ecological (vertical) relationship with (not only) nature and culture (local communities) should emerge,
- Community Based and Community Involved Tourism. It is taken for granted through some references,
- Nature-related tourism (eg. ecological tourism, green tourism, nature tourism, adventure tourism, ecotourism and others, as a concrete form of sustainability, see Córdoba y García, 2003: 11).
- Extractivism (only a very short reference in the discussion),
- Covid19 pandemic and its consequences (it is taken for granted),
- Slow and proximity tourism (only a very short reference is made),
- Gentrification.
The text could be lightened with graphics when the following topics are discussed:
- Tourism at various scales (eg. Sisal tourism statistic),
- Questionnaires, interviews and results.
The cartography could be improved: a contextualization map 1 of the area (to be inserted where the study area is introduced) and the existing map could be improved in visual quality and greater detail.
Better explain the grey literature.
Author Response
Reviewer 2. Thank you for all your comments, they were very helpful to improve the contribution.
Must be improved the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic.
In the introduction we added a paragraph to better contextualize the study regarding the benefits and burdens of tourism.
- Some links to the online resources are not working. Often reference is made to Master's theses.
We verified the links and made sure they work. Master’s Theses are part of the consulted gray literature from the Theses catalog at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. These are available at http://tesisunam.dgb.unam.mx/
- The introductory section does not introduce, or does so only in part. Relevant concepts are poorly argued or missing:
- A modern and shared definition of Ecotourism. From it an ecological (vertical) relationship with (not only) nature and culture (local communities) should emerge,
In the introduction we improved the definition of eco-tourism.
- Community Based and Community Involved Tourism. It is taken for granted through some references,
For clarity, we added some lines in the introduction to improve the definition of Community-Based and Community Involved Tourism.
- Nature-related tourism (eg. ecological tourism, green tourism, nature tourism, adventure tourism, ecotourism and others, as a concrete form of sustainability, see Córdoba y García, 2003: 11).
In the introduction we added some lines and the reference by Córdoba and García. Thanks you very much for your recommendation!
- Extractivism (only a very short reference in the discussion),
We added a short paragraph in the discussion, where we talk about new perspectives of sustainable ecotourism in Sisal. We think the argument is more solid now. Thank you very much!
- Covid19 pandemic and its consequences (it is taken for granted),
In the methods we added a few lines to further explain the covid pandemic. Yes, it is taken for granted, but this information is necessary as the covid area fades away over time. Thank you for the recommendation.
- Slow and proximity tourism (only a very short reference is made),
We mention this briefly in the introduction, where we have expanded the explanation of ecotourism.
- Gentrification.
We added a paragraph on the risks of gentrification for Sisal in the discussion.
- The text could be lightened with graphics when the following topics are discussed:
- Tourism at various scales (eg. Sisal tourism statistic),
- Questionnaires, interviews and results.
The article already has 6 figures and two tables, showing the study site and the results. We think it is best not to have more graphics or tables.
- The cartography could be improved: a contextualization map 1 of the area (to be inserted where the study area is introduced) and the existing map could be improved in visual quality and greater detail.
This recommendation is not clear to us, since Figure 2 already includes a map of Mexico (showing the worldwide known Gulf of Mexico), with the location of the study site, and an aerial view of Sisal.
- Better explain the gray literature.
We improved the explanation of the theses that we consulted, in the methods.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNothing to be outlined in particular
