Advancing Global Climate and Biodiversity Goals Through Regenerative Tourism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author/s

Climate change, biodiversity and regenerative tourism!!

Very interesting combination but it's been comfused inside your paper, for the following reasons:

- Abstract: There is no any point about the aim of your study

- Literature review (LR): is missing!! after the introduction you present materials and methods! This is totally wrong

- Materials and methods: There is no any clear methodology that you followed! What is this? it's a systematic LR?, It's a bibliometric LR? a specific methodology is totally missing

- You mention in the text Figure S1 & S2 which are also missing

- You refer to a new paradigm of regenerative tourism abut very lightly! There is no any figure to present this kind of transform to this new paradigm!

- and finally you should present clearly the differences between alternative tourism, sustainable tourism and why regenerative tourism is the better way for destinations

Author Response

Actions taken to accommodate the comments of Reviewer 1:

 

Reviewer: Dear Author/s

Climate change, biodiversity and regenerative tourism!!

 

Comment: We thank the reviewer for this positive assessment.  The reviewer´s critical comments have provided important guidance to improve the paper.

 

Reviewer: Very interesting combination but it's been comfused inside your paper, for the following reasons:

- Abstract: There is no any point about the aim of your study

 

Comment: We agree, and have added a sentence in the abstract on the aim of the Review.  The instructions for a Review paper in Sustainability include the following sections:

Action: The Abstract now reads (Lines 18-21):  “Here the evidence pointing at the rise of regenerative tourism as a new paradigm is reviewed, the differential goals of regenerative, relative to sustainable tourism, are defined and actions along five domains of action are identified that can help tourism destinations embrace the transition toward the regenerative tourism paradigm.”

 

Reviewer: - Literature review (LR): is missing!! after the introduction you present materials and methods! This is totally wrong

 

Comment:  The paper was submitted as a Review, hence the review of the literature represents the main body of the paper, and not a section that, in regular research articles, will be presented in the Introduction. We have clarified this in the Introduction.  The Literature Review is provided through the various sections, which Sustainability refers to, for Review papers such as the present submission, as “Relevant Sections”.

 

The Sustainability instructions for authors reads: “Review: Reviews offer a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature within a field of study, identifying current gaps or problems. They should be critical and constructive and provide recommendations for future research. … The structure can include an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Relevant Sections, Discussion, Conclusions, and Future Directions.”

 

Action:  We have revised the last paragraph of the introduction to better explain the goal of the paper and how and how the paper is organized.

 

The introduction now reads (Lines 88-95):  “Here, we review the role of tourism in advancing climate and biodiversity action through the emerging paradigm of regenerative tourism. First, we examine how driving paradigms changed as tourism spread. We then define the emerging paradigm of regenerative tourism, and address how this can help advance action in climate and biodiversity, along with the connected food and water crises. We then provide a road map to guide the tourism sector toward the transformation required to embrace the emerging paradigm of regenerative tourism, addressing both the needs of people and the planet.”.

We have also edited the sections in the manuscript, to ensure they comply with the sections required by Sustainability for a Review (see above).

 

Reviewer: - Materials and methods: There is no any clear methodology that you followed! What is this? it's a systematic LR?, It's a bibliometric LR? a specific methodology is totally missing

 

Indeed, no “Materials and methods” are required for a Review paper, unless it is a scoping review (see https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#preparation),  or Systematic Review, which is not the case for our paper (submitted as a Review, not as a Scoping Review), so we have removed the section Materials and methods.  The source of data on Figs. 1 and 2 were already provided in the figure headings.

 

Reviewer: - You mention in the text Figure S1 & S2 which are also missing

 

Comment: A separate file including Figure S1 & S2 were provided, following the submission instructions.  However, it seems the review system did not make these files available to reviewers. 

Action:  To avoid a similar situation, We have now also appended the supplementary figures at the end of the manuscript, in addition to upload them as a separate file.

 

Reviewer: - You refer to a new paradigm of regenerative tourism abut very lightly!

 

Comment: We agree with the reviewer that the new paradigm is scattered througout the text and we may have failed to present it in a compact manner. 

Action:  We have reorganized the paper to address the reviewer´s concern. The emerging paradigm of regenerative tourism is now presented in two sections:  a new section entitled “The emergence of Regenerative Tourism as a new paradigm”, where we provide a review of how the concept developed; and “4. Discussion: Defining and Implementing Regenerative Tourism”, where five pillars of action are presented that form the basis to design and transform tourism destinations and businesses to embrace the emerging paradigm of regenerative tourism.

 

We have added two new paragraphs, to the section “The emergence of Regenerative Tourism as a new paradigm”, describing how the concept of regenerative tourism arose.  The new text reads (Lines 150-172): “Published papers characterize regenerative tourism as a model that aims to push beyond traditional sustainable approaches to focus on “giving back and contributing to the proactive regeneration of communities, cultures, heritage, places, landscapes, creating positive outcomes, not just ‘doing less damage’ [12]. These formulations translate the concept of regenerative development into the tourism sector. Regenerative development concepts first arose four decades ago in the context of agriculture [13], to extent a decade letter to the design of the built environment [14] and extending from regenerative design to tourism in the context of the role of tourism as a driver of urban regeneration [15]. Regenerative design originally aimed at participating with the environment by using the health of ecological systems as a basis for design, rather than simply doing “less bad”, thereby creating a whole system of mutually beneficial relationships [14]. Recognizing the role of tourism to act as a vector of urban and rural regeneration lead, in the present decade, to the formulation of the more encompassing concept of regenerative tourism that focused not only on the regeneration of the built environment, but also on environment, biodiversity and communities [12].

 

The emergence of the concept of regenerative tourism was further propelled by the crisis delivered by the COVID19 pandemic, which exposed massive vulnerabilities in the tourism operating system [18, 19] and created new demands and expectations by tourists [20]. A regenerative tourism, therefore, arose as a response to the COVID19 crises on the believes that regenerative tourism will be more resilient to future shocks to the sector while being better capable to accommodate future expectations by tourisms [21]. Regenerative tourism calls for a transformation of the sector going beyond sustainable and responsible tourism, not just the restoration or renewal of tourism [22]. “

 

 

Reviewer: There is no any figure to present this kind of transform to this new paradigm!

 

Comment: Figure 3 shows how actions along the five action pillars for regenreative tourism can help advance UN Sustainable Development goals.

 

Reviewer: - and finally you should present clearly the differences between alternative tourism, sustainable tourism and why regenerative tourism is the better way for destinations

 

Comment: We agree, and have edited the section “4. Discussion: Defining and Implementing Regenerative Tourism” to achieve this.

 

Action:  The text now reads (Lines 175-179): “Regenerative tourism differs from sustainable tourism in that it serves its host community rather than the tourism industry alone, by giving back to that community and place more than it takes from it”,  (Lines 185-195) “Regenerative tourism reframes the discussion to involve all stakeholders, adopting a holistic view of the system to deliver positive contributions to climate and biodiversity, and the nested problems of water and food, that support one health for people and planet. This requires a fundamental shift in ambition from a focus on reducing negative impacts of sustainable tourism to a focus on creating positive impacts, aiming to go beyond net-zero emissions or biodiversity impacts to achieve a net-positive impact on people and the planet (Fig. 3). Regenerative tourism also differs from alternative tourism models that advocate for de-growth as the only path to reconcile tourism with the pursue of sustainable development goal [19, 20], by driving the investment and returns of tourism the industry to achieve regenerative goals.”, and  (Lines 199-201) “This will ultimately create a long-term resilient business model, better equipped to weather future disruptive events, while making a positive impact on humanity by contributing to advancing global planetary goals”.

 

The difference between the sustainability and the regenerative paradigms are also further discussed in the revised and expanded section “The emergence of Regenerative Tourism as a new paradigm”, as described above.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Abstract is well structured, but it suggests that the authors would develop the objectives they propose in a more in-depth and scientific way.

The article is largely based on a literature review. The objectives proposed by the authors are limited to somewhat vague ideas, which need to be better worked on from an academic point of view.

The statements in the previous paragraph are embodied in the conclusions, where the authors are unable to go beyond the generalities presented in the previous points.

I consider that, despite what I wrote in the previous paragraphs, the topics covered in the article are worth a publication and due to that reason I did not reject the article, although it has to be a lot improved to  to be worthy of being published in a journal with the quality of Sustainability.

In the reviews which must be made by the authors, the way of presenting some bibliographic sources must be taken into consideration, avoiding, for example, the indication of websites instead of the author/organization and year (among others see p.2). The authors should also correct small errors such as the year 20303 (p. 2), or harmonize the acronym KMGBF, which sometimes appears as KMGBD (for example, p. 6).

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

Reviewer: The Abstract is well structured, but it suggests that the authors would develop the objectives they propose in a more in-depth and scientific way.

 

Comment:  We agree, and have made extensive changes on the manuscript organization and content to provide a more in-depth, scientific review of regenerative tourism, as well as to better comply with the instructions for Review papers in Sustainability, which reads: “Review: Reviews offer a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature within a field of study, identifying current gaps or problems. They should be critical and constructive and provide recommendations for future research. No new, unpublished data should be presented. The structure can include an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Relevant Sections, Discussion, Conclusions, and Future Directions.”  (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#preparation).

Action: Major changes include:

 

Abstract: expanded to spell out the aims of the paper.

 

Introduction: Revised to better explain the goal of the paper and how and how the paper is organized.

 

New section “The emergence of Regenerative Tourism as a new paradigm”, where we provide a new paragraph providing a review of how the concept of regenerative tourism developed;

 

New section: section “4. Discussion: Defining and Implementing Regenerative Tourism” revised to clearly the differences between alternative tourism, sustainable tourism and why regenerative tourism is the better way for destinations, and where five pillars of action are presented that form the basis to design and transform tourism destinations and businesses to embrace the emerging paradigm of regenerative tourism.

 

Materials and Methods: removed, to comply with the structure of Reviews.

 

Reviewer: The article is largely based on a literature review. The objectives proposed by the authors are limited to somewhat vague ideas, which need to be better worked on from an academic point of view.

 

Comment: We agree that the paper did not go into sufficient detail and thank the reviewer for the critical comments that have guided us to produced a much improved, revised version of the paper.

Action: We have expanded the paper to better define the goals, review the path leading to the concept of sustainable tourism, and better differentiate the emerging paradigm of regenerative tourism from that of sustainable tourism, as well as for views that the alternative path to sustainable tourism, failing to achieve its goals, should be de-growth of the tourism sector. This is alrgely embedded in the new section “The emergence of Regenerative Tourism as a new paradigm”, where we provide a new paragraph providing a review of how the concept of regenerative tourism developed.

 

Reviewer: The statements in the previous paragraph are embodied in the conclusions, where the authors are unable to go beyond the generalities presented in the previous points.

 

Comment: We agree.

Action: The manuscript has been reviewed thoroughly to improve the depth of the review, by expanding all sections, particularly the goals stated in the introduction, and the sections “The emergence of Regenerative Tourism as a new paradigm”, and “4. Discussion: Defining and Implementing Regenerative Tourism”.  The last section provides a detailed analysis of opportunities to operationalize regenerative tourism along five domains of action to generate positive benefits on climate and biodiversity action, and across SDGs. The conclusion now highlights the domains of action we proposed and the importance to establish metrics to ascertain whether gains in economic, social, cultural and natural capital have been delivered.

The key conclusions of the paper are:

• The successive paradigms of tourism identified here: boosterism and sustainable tourism is now leading to regenerative tourism as an emerging new paradigm.
• We conclude that sustainable tourism is no longer an acceptable framework for the torusim industry and that regnerative thinking should guide future tourism develppment.
• Regenerative tourism is also likely to mitigate the risk global tourism, in its current form, faces, as it is already underperforming, highly vulnerable and heading towards breakdown.
• An investment into key actionable areas is required to elicit the transition toward regenerative tourism, including nature-based solutions, a transition to renewable energy sources and sustainable transport, implementation of circular waste and water management systems, adoption of regenerative agriculture and food production, and transition to sustainable supply chains.
• The academic discussion on regenerative tourism should be followed by actionable initiatives that may help achieve the required transformative change.
• Five domains of action that can operationalize the transformation toward regenerative tourism of existing or planned destinations were defined (Fig. 3).
• Establishing metrics to assess progress along these actionable do-mains will be essential to ascertain whether regenerative tourism has been reached, as lack of metrics will preclude the assessment of whether economic, social, cultural and natural capital has been increased relative to the baseline.
• By implementing these actions along with participatory governance approaches, regenerative tourism may build a re-silient industry that collectively and individually contribute to accelerating the achievement of the UN SDGs and offering multiple benefits for people and planet.

 

Reviewer: I consider that, despite what I wrote in the previous paragraphs, the topics covered in the article are worth a publication and due to that reason I did not reject the article, although it has to be a lot improved to  to be worthy of being published in a journal with the quality of Sustainability.

In the reviews which must be made by the authors, the way of presenting some bibliographic sources must be taken into consideration, avoiding, for example, the indication of websites instead of the author/organization and year (among others see p.2). The authors should also correct small errors such as the year 20303 (p. 2), or harmonize the acronym KMGBF, which sometimes appears as KMGBD (for example, p. 6).

 

Comment:  We thank the reviewer for this assessment, and the help and guidance provided to improve the manuscript, which have led to a much improved revised version as an outcome of the actions above.

 

Action:  We have addressed all of the issues and inconsistencies identified by the reviewer, which have been corrected as needed. For instance, 20303 should have read 2030 [3], as now corrected. KMGBF is now used throughout.

 

The webpages referred to are the primary source for the legal documents and conventions, as well as data sources cited, which are not available as citable sources with author/organization year, as the reviewer suggests.  This is in accordance with Sustainability instructions for references, which reads: “We encourage citations to data, computer code and other citable research material. If available online, you may use reference style 9. below.  9. Title of Site. Available online: URL (accessed on Day Month Year).”

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for allowing me to read this article.

The main objective of the research carried out is in line with the increasingly popular issue of tourism as an industry that is particularly vulnerable to crisis situations, such as the SARS-CoV-19 pandemic, as its business is heavily dependent on providing tourists with the opportunity to spend their leisure time in a healthy, attractive environment. The study focuses on the perspective of the role of tourism in promoting climate action and biodiversity through the emerging paradigm of regenerative tourism.

Please describe in detail the methodology of the research carried out, not just the data sources.

Conclusions should be concrete and must follow from the research carried out. What are they?

References to literature subjects are appropriate.

Figure 1 requires a more readable graphic design for the reader.

In figures 1 and 2, please clearly mark S1 and S2 or draw the situations S1 and S2.

Other comments:

Do the authors see any limitations in terms of the solutions used? If so, this should be described in the final section of the manuscript.

The results, described in lines 104-108, are not illustrated by Fig. 1, please correct/complete.

What does the abbreviation KMGBD used in lines 220 and 272 mean? Or should it not be the abbreviation KMGBF?

Is Figure 3 the result of the authors' research or is it taken from another source? The SDGs icons, used in fig. 3, are too small and illegible.

In the paragraph in lines 327-342, please check and write the abbreviations SDGs correctly.

As a result, the manuscript can be published after minor corrections.

Author Response

Reviewer: Dear Authors,

Thank you for allowing me to read this article.

The main objective of the research carried out is in line with the increasingly popular issue of tourism as an industry that is particularly vulnerable to crisis situations, such as the SARS-CoV-19 pandemic, as its business is heavily dependent on providing tourists with the opportunity to spend their leisure time in a healthy, attractive environment. The study focuses on the perspective of the role of tourism in promoting climate action and biodiversity through the emerging paradigm of regenerative tourism.

Comment:  We thank the reviewer for the assessment and the advice provided, which helped greatly improve the revised manuscript.

Reviewer: Please describe in detail the methodology of the research carried out, not just the data sources.

Comment: As the paper is a Review, no new research is carried out, and a Materials and Methods section is not required, as per the instructions to authors of Sustainability.  Data sources are provided in the heading of the figures, and hence, no new data, produced by the authors, is reported, which is also consistent with instructions for authors: “Review: Reviews offer a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature within a field of study, identifying current gaps or problems. They should be critical and constructive and provide recommendations for future research. No new, unpublished data should be presented. The structure can include an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Relevant Sections, Discussion, Conclusions, and Future Directions.”  

Reviewer: Conclusions should be concrete and must follow from the research carried out. What are they?

Comment:  We have now improved the Conclusion section to clearly identify what the key conclusions are.  These are:

• The successive paradigms of tourism identified here: boosterism and sustainable tourism is now leading to regenerative tourism as an emerging new paradigm.
• We conclude that sustainable tourism is no longer an acceptable framework for the torusim industry and that regnerative thinking should guide future tourism develppment.
• Regenerative tourism is also likely to mitigate the risk global tourism, in its current form, faces, as it is already underperforming, highly vulnerable and heading towards breakdown.
• An investment into key actionable areas is required to elicit the transition toward regenerative tourism, including nature-based solutions, a transition to renewable energy sources and sustainable transport, implementation of circular waste and water management systems, adoption of regenerative agriculture and food production, and transition to sustainable supply chains.
• The academic discussion on regenerative tourism should be followed by actionable initiatives that may help achieve the required transformative change.
• Five domains of action that can operationalize the transformation toward regenerative tourism of existing or planned destinations were defined (Fig. 3).
• Establishing metrics to assess progress along these actionable do-mains will be essential to ascertain whether regenerative tourism has been reached, as lack of metrics will preclude the assessment of whether economic, social, cultural and natural capital has been increased relative to the baseline.
• By implementing these actions along with participatory governance approaches, regenerative tourism may build a re-silient industry that collectively and individually contribute to accelerating the achievement of the UN SDGs and offering multiple benefits for people and planet.

Reviewer: References to literature subjects are appropriate.

Comment:  Thank you.

Reviewer: Figure 1 requires a more readable graphic design for the reader.

Comment:  A high-definition version of Figure 1 will be provided for the final production of the manuscript.

Reviewer: In figures 1 and 2, please clearly mark S1 and S2 or draw the situations S1 and S2.

Comment: A separate file including Figure S1 & S2 were provided, following the submission instructions.  However, it seems the review system did not make these files available to reviewers. 

Action:  To avoid a similar situation, We have now also appended the supplementary figures at the end of the manuscript, in addition to upload them as a separate file.

 

Reviewer: Other comments:

Do the authors see any limitations in terms of the solutions used? If so, this should be described in the final section of the manuscript.

Comment: We agree.

Action: The following consideration on limitations have been added in the Conclusions section, as recommended:

(Lines 452-457): “Implementing regenerative tourism may be easier for new developments where the infrastructure basis and operating models are designed for purpose, and maybe more challenging for mature destinations that require retrofitting. Moreover, tourism does not exist in a vacuum, and is embedded in a social, economic and infrastructure fabric that can either propel regenerative tourism if also evolving toward regenerative thinking and design or else become a hurdle to implement regenerative tourism.”

Reviewer: The results, described in lines 104-108, are not illustrated by Fig. 1, please correct/complete.

Action:  We thank the reviewer for pointing to this error, the call to (Fig. 1) at the end of the sentence was incorrect and has been removed.

Reviewer: What does the abbreviation KMGBD used in lines 220 and 272 mean? Or should it not be the abbreviation KMGBF?

Action:  We thank the reviewer for pointing to this error, KMGBF is now used throughout

Reviewer: Is Figure 3 the result of the authors' research or is it taken from another source? The SDGs icons, used in fig. 3, are too small and illegible.

Comment:  Figure 3 is original and summarizes the content of section “4. Discussion: Defining and Implementing Regenerative Tourism”.   We apologize for the small size when the figure is embedded in the journal supplied template. A high-resolution figure will be provided for final production of the paper.

Reviewer: In the paragraph in lines 327-342, please check and write the abbreviations SDGs correctly.

Action:  Abbreviations have been corrected.

Reviewer: As a result, the manuscript can be published after minor corrections.

Comment:  We thank the reviewer for the useful criticism and guidance.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript analyzes the Advancing Global Climate and Biodiversity Goals through Regenerative Tourism. In my opinion, several important points need to be addressed to exploit the potential of the manuscript:

 

Format: The author has used the latest version

 

English language and style: There are still some grammatical errors in the article, so please correct these errors to avoid troubling your readers.

 

Operational definitions of the variables and hypotheses: （1）There are many references to "we" in the article, so please try not to use the first person and replace it with a more objective expression. （2）The content of Chapter 2, "Materials and Methods," is too little; please supplement the content of this sheet if only the current content; the research design of the article seems weak. （3）The article used only one type of descriptive analysis, just a descriptive analysis of the data in question, and the source of the data is still a year old; the authors could have considered using the most recent data and further analyzing the data based on what is available in the article, not just a descriptive analysis. （4）The research methodology does not say how the literature was searched; please add details of the search process and how to differentiate between the literature on two topics.

 

Results:（1）Both Figure 1 and Figure 2 do not label the specific data in the figure. The data in Figure 1 only goes up to 2020, lacking data from the last three years of the study; the color scheme in Figure 2 is confusing, please use a more differentiating color scheme, and the number of publications in Figure 2 appears to have dropped considerably in 2023 because the authors only captured the relevant data in June 2023, perhaps the authors could have added to the applicable data by now. （2）In the second part of the findings, the authors compare the number of articles and searches on the topics of "sustainable" and "regenerative," it does not fully explain the shift of attention from the concept of sustainability to the concept of regeneration. The author mentions that there will be a significant drop in interest in sustainability in 2022. Since no specific data is available, the author's figure suggests that interest in sustainability is still much higher than interest in regeneration in 2022, despite a drop in interest in sustainability. （3）The article's discussion section does not address the study's findings. This section reads more like a literature review that should be placed in Chapter 2, which needs to be revised based on the study findings.

 

Conclusions and Policy Implications: （1）There are formatting errors in the conclusion section, so please proofread the article again to correct the formatting and grammatical errors. （2）Similarly, the conclusion extensively uses "we" as a subject; please replace it with a more objective description. （3）Please add the article's shortcomings and policy implications.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.guage required.

Author Response

Reviewer: This manuscript analyzes the Advancing Global Climate and Biodiversity Goals through Regenerative Tourism. In my opinion, several important points need to be addressed to exploit the potential of the manuscript:

Comment:  We thank the reviewer for the guidance provided, which helped greatly improve the revised manuscript.

Reviewer: Format: The author has used the latest version

 

Reviewer: English language and style: There are still some grammatical errors in the article, so please correct these errors to avoid troubling your readers.

Action:  The revised text has been thoroughly checked for appropriate grammar

Reviewer: Operational definitions of the variables and hypotheses: （1）There are many references to "we" in the article, so please try not to use the first person and replace it with a more objective expression.

 

Action:  We have excluded the use of “we” from the abstract, where we concur a passive voice should be used, and have also adopted a passive voice where this was preferable throughout the text.  However, we have retained an active, “we”, voice when referring to our goals, actions and conclusions, consistent with the encouragement to use active voice in scientific papers to take responsibility for these actions and conclusions, as reflected in over 75% of papers, across research fields, adopting an active voice since 2017 (Leong 2020). We have not found any preference in the instructions to authors of Sustainability to avoid an active voice.

 

Leong, A. P. (2020). The passive voice in scientific writing through the ages: A diachronic study. Text & Talk, 40(4), 467-489.

 

 

Reviewer: (2）The content of Chapter 2, "Materials and Methods," is too little; please supplement the content of this sheet if only the current content; the research design of the article seems weak.

 

Comment: Indeed, no “Materials and methods” are required for a Review paper, unless it is a scoping review (see https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#preparation),  or Systematic Review, which is not the case for our paper (submitted as a Review, not as a Scoping Review), so we have removed the section Materials and methods.  The source of data on Figs. 1 and 2 were already provided in the figure headings.

 

 

Reviewer: (3）The article used only one type of descriptive analysis, just a descriptive analysis of the data in question, and the source of the data is still a year old; the authors could have considered using the most recent data and further analyzing the data based on what is available in the article, not just a descriptive analysis.

 

Comment: The category of Sustainability paper our manuscript was submitted, Review papers, are not required to present new data nor formal data analyses, unlike Systematic Reviews.  The data on Figs. 1 and 2 are reported for descriptive purposes and, therefore, no formal analysis is required. 

 

Action: we have updated Figure 1 to the most recent date, 2023, available, redrawn the figure for clarity and updated the accesion number. Unfourtunately, we visited the data sources for Fig. 2 but they are not yet updated further, as they are typically update annually, with a lag time, so more frequent updates for data on Fig. 2 are not available. 

 

Reviewer:（4）The research methodology does not say how the literature was searched; please add details of the search process and how to differentiate between the literature on two topics.

 

Comment: As explained below “Materials and methods” are not equired for a Review paper, so we have removed the section Materials and methods. The source of data on Figs. 1 and 2 are provided in the figure headings, along with, as intructed by the journal, the accesion date..

 

 

Reviewer:  Results:（1）Both Figure 1 and Figure 2 do not label the specific data in the figure. The data in Figure 1 only goes up to 2020, lacking data from the last three years of the study; the color scheme in Figure 2 is confusing, please use a more differentiating color scheme, and the number of publications in Figure 2 appears to have dropped considerably in 2023 because the authors only captured the relevant data in June 2023, perhaps the authors could have added to the applicable data by now.

 

Comment:  We agree.

 

We have updated Fig. 1 to 2023, the latest date available, and have improved the readibility.  The sources of the data for Fig. 2 update these data  annually with considerable time lags, so more recent data are not available.  Figure 1 has been redrawn to improve readibility.  This will also improve in the published version where the high resolution figures uploaded to the journal web site will be used, rather than the low resolution versions embedded in the uploaded manuscript.

 

Reviewer: (2）In the second part of the findings, the authors compare the number of articles and searches on the topics of "sustainable" and "regenerative," it does not fully explain the shift of attention from the concept of sustainability to the concept of regeneration. The author mentions that there will be a significant drop in interest in sustainability in 2022. Since no specific data is available, the author's figure suggests that interest in sustainability is still much higher than interest in regeneration in 2022, despite a drop in interest in sustainability.

 

Comment:  The reviewer is correct, this is the reason why we refer to regenerative tourism as an emerging paradigm, while it is clear that most academic publications still predominantely refer to sustainable tourism.

 

Action:  We have accomodated the reviewer’s point in the paper by adding the sentence: “Whereas much of the academic literature on tourism continues to focus on sustainability, the concept of regenerative tourism is an emerging paradigm that is gaining traction in the published literature [11] [12]”.

 

Reviewer: (3）The article's discussion section does not address the study's findings. This section reads more like a literature review that should be placed in Chapter 2, which needs to be revised based on the study findings.

 

Comment:  Indeed, the paper is submitted as a Review, not an Article, where the goal is to review the topic, not the present and analyze new data, and hence, a Review article is not organizing around findings (i.e. data) but as a literature review.  Figures 1 and 2 are provided as guidance only, not to be the base for a formal analysis.  The instructions for authors for a Review article in Sustainability recommend the following sections: Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Relevant Sections, Discussion, Conclusions, and Future Directions.

 

Reviewer: Conclusions and Policy Implications: （1）There are formatting errors in the conclusion section, so please proofread the article again to correct the formatting and grammatical errors.

 

Comment: We thank the reviewer.  We have now thoroughly revised the ms. to correct formatting errors.

 

Reviewer:（2）Similarly, the conclusion extensively uses "we" as a subject; please replace it with a more objective description.

 

Comment:  Active voice is currently the prevailing writitng style in academic publications (75% since 2017, Leong 2020) particularly when not refering to data analysis results, which should be objective, but to actions, conclusions and oppinions formulated by the authors. We have avoided an active voice when refering to data presented in Figs. 1 and 2, which are objective.

 

Reviewer:（3）Please add the article's shortcomings and policy implications.

 

Comment:   We agree. 

 

Action: We have added the following as a Policy Implication in “Conclusions”:

 

(Lines 461-465): “Policies such as reserving development areas for regenerative tourism businesses, and providing financial incentives, such as tax incentives and/or co-investments in specific projects aligned with the obligations of nations under UN Conventions, may be used to catalyze the transition to regenerative tourism, provided the multiple benefits it generates across SDGs.”

 

We have also added the following shortcoming: (Lines 452-457): “Implementing regenerative tourism may be easier for new developments where the infrastructure basis and operating models are designed for purpose, and maybe more challenging for mature destinations that require retrofitting. Moreover, tourism does not exist in a vacuum, and is embedded in a social, economic and infrastructure fabric that can either propel regenerative tourism if also evolving toward regenerative thinking and design or else become a hurdle to implement regenerative tourism.”

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author/s

Bravo and well-down for the revised version of your paper

It's clear now what you really want to present, to analyse and discuss

But I would like to put a methodology section, no matter if your paper is a 'Review'

I proposed minor revision

Author Response

Reviewer:  Bravo and well-down for the revised version of your paper

It's clear now what you really want to present, to analyse and discuss

Comment.  We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment.

But I would like to put a methodology section, no matter if your paper is a 'Review'

I proposed minor revision

Comment: We have now added a Methods section, as requested.

 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a carefully done manuscript, and the findings are of considerable interest. It analyzes the Advancing Global Climate and Biodiversity Goals through Regenerative Tourism. A few minor comments and suggestions are listed below.

Introduction

Firstly, the introduction needs to go into more detail about the current state of tourism and its impact on the environment, highlighting why the concept of 'Regenerative Tourism' needs to be introduced.

Data

Secondly, in the citation of data, it is essential to ensure that the data and cases cited are up-to-date to increase the article's currency and credibility.

Language

Thirdly, use clear and concise language to express your views and avoid long, complicated sentences. Appropriate explanations or labeling are provided for technical terms to ensure non-specialist readers can understand them.

Formatting

Fourthly, regarding formatting, references should be formatted correctly, following the citation norms of the journal or academic field in which they are published.

Content

Fifthly, in terms of content, for each point or conclusion, provide sufficient data, case studies, or research evidence to support it. In the discussion section, the main points are analyzed in depth, possible challenges and solutions are explored, and complementary future research directions are added.

I understand the authors' efforts to contribute to Regenerative Tourism research. I would allow the authors minor revisions and encourage this manuscript to resubmit if possible.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear editors

(1) There are still some problems with this article. The introduction needs to go into more detail about the current state of tourism and its impact on the environment, highlighting why the concept of 'Regenerative Tourism' needs to be introduced.

(2) in the citation of data, it is essential to ensure that the data and cases cited are up-to-date to increase the article's currency and credibility.

(3) in terms of language, use clear and concise language to express your views and avoid lengthy and complicated sentences. Appropriate explanations or labeling are provided for technical terms to ensure non-specialist readers can understand them.

Formatting

(4) Regarding formatting, references should be formatted correctly, following the citation norms of the journal or academic field in which they are published.

(5) in terms of content, for each point or conclusion, provide sufficient data, case studies, or research evidence to support it. In the discussion section, the main points are analyzed in depth, possible challenges and solutions are explored, and complementary future research directions are added.

However, this manuscript is suitable to be published. The manuscript's topic is interesting, the quality of the writing is good, and only minor revisions are needed for publication.

Author Response

This is a carefully done manuscript, and the findings are of considerable interest. It analyzes the Advancing Global Climate and Biodiversity Goals through Regenerative Tourism. A few minor comments and suggestions are listed below.

Comment: We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment.

Introduction

Firstly, the introduction needs to go into more detail about the current state of tourism and its impact on the environment, highlighting why the concept of 'Regenerative Tourism' needs to be introduced. 

Comment: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion.

Action: The text now reads: (Lines 62-71):  “An assessment of trends in the ecological footprint of tourism across nations, found a significant foot print, but that it depended on the economic status of the receiving country, where high income nations could deploy measures to reduce emissions and impacts on the environment (Ozturk et al.).  Subsequent international analyses found that whereas tourism, as practices under the sustainability paradigm over the last decade, also has positive effects on the environment, the direct negative effects tend to exceed positive effects, resulting in an overall significantly negative impact (Liu et al 2022). A systematic bibliometric review also reported evidence for flaws in ecotourism and ecotourism, which may contribute to impacts on biodiversity, soil erosion,  deteriorated air quality, the destruction of ancestral lands, and the of corruption, among multiple documented impacts (Shahbaz et al. 2021).

Ozturk I, Al-Mulali U, Saboori B (2016) Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of tourism and ecological footprint. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:1916–1928.

Liu, Z., Lan, J., Chien, F., Sadiq, M., & Nawaz, M. A. (2022). Role of tourism development in environmental degradation: A step towards emission reduction. Journal of environmental management, 303, 114078.

Shahbaz, M., Bashir, M. F., Bashir, M. A., & Shahzad, L. (2021). A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review of tourism-environmental degradation nexus. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(41), 58241-58257.

Data

Secondly, in the citation of data, it is essential to ensure that the data and cases cited are up-to-date to increase the article's currency and credibility. 

Comment:  On request of reviewer 1, we have now added back a Materials and Methods section.

Language

Thirdly, use clear and concise language to express your views and avoid long, complicated sentences. Appropriate explanations or labeling are provided for technical terms to ensure non-specialist readers can understand them. 

Comment:  We strongly  agree with the reviewer.

Action: We have revised the text to break and simplify long complicated sentences, particularly through the Discussion and Conclusion sections, where they were abndant, and adequately introduce technical terms.

Formatting

Fourthly, regarding formatting, references should be formatted correctly, following the citation norms of the journal or academic field in which they are published. 

Comment:  We have ensured we follow the recommended reference style by “Sustainability”.

Content

Fifthly, in terms of content, for each point or conclusion, provide sufficient data, case studies, or research evidence to support it. In the discussion section, the main points are analyzed in depth, possible challenges and solutions are explored, and complementary future research directions are added.

Comment:  We agree and have revised the discussion and conclusion sections accordingly.

I understand the authors' efforts to contribute to Regenerative Tourism research. I would allow the authors minor revisions and encourage this manuscript to resubmit if possible.

Comment:  We thank the reviewer for the recommendations, which have resulted in a much improved revised version of the manuscript.