Reconsidering Waterfront Regeneration and Cruise Tourism in Hamburg, Germany
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript analyses how the Hamburg Cruise Days Festival attempted to perpetuate the status quo of the cruising industry.This study contains some interesting findings which can increase our individual and collective awareness of the invaluable richness of the world’s land- and water-based environment before it is irreplaceably exhausted. I made several suggestions for the article before:
1. iThenticate shows a Percent match of 34%. I suggest you adjust the text to reduce the similarity score.
2. I recommend adding a description of the study results in the abstract.
3. The introduction lacks a review of existing research. I suggest adding a literature review on topics such as the blue economy, cruise tourism, and urban waterfront areas.
4. The introduction mentions that the article is guided by two main research puzzles, but it does not clearly state the source and basis of these puzzles. I suggest you add a description of the research background to clarify the specific problems or gaps your study aims to address.
5. What is the purpose of the study? I recommend you clearly state this point.
6. The introduction needs additional citations to support your viewpoints.
7. The purpose and goals of Chapter 2, "Taking it to the Sea," seem unclear. Could it be integrated into the introduction?
8. The main methodology of the study involves field-based participant observation. Could this approach weaken the replicability and credibility of the results? I suggest discussing this point in the discussion section.
9. In the results section, the paper does not clearly explain why these specific cases were chosen for study, nor how they represent broader issues or contexts. Additionally, I recommend further discussion on the representativeness and limitations of the cases.
10. The discussion section lacks an examination of the study’s limitations and potential future research directions.
11. The conclusion needs to more effectively summarize the main findings of the research, highlighting their contribution to the existing body of knowledge.
The present version of the manuscript has solved all my doubts, so I think the article can be published in its current form.
Author Response
"The present version of the manuscript has solved all my doubts, so I think the article can be published in its current form."
Thank you for this kind comment and deliberation. Cordially. Carlos J. L Balsas, Ph.D., AICP
Please see the attachment for details (Response to reviewer 1).
author-coverletter-41957573.v1.pdf
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview Report
1. Clarity, Relevance, and Structure
The manuscript addresses an important aspect of the environmental implications of cruise tourism. However, the presentation lacks a clear scientific flow and structure. In several instances, the writing resembles storytelling rather than presenting factual arguments grounded in solid information.
2. References
The manuscript cites approximately 90 references, which indicates substantial effort in research. However, only a limited number of these references are from the past five years. Additionally, there is no indication of excessive self-citation.
3. Scientific Soundness and Experimental Design
While the author attempts to frame the study within a scientific context, the overall coherence and logical progression of ideas are weak. It is challenging to discern the main arguments or objectives of the study due to the disjointed flow of information.
4. Reproducibility of Results
The results section is presented as a case study, which disrupts the conventional structure of scientific writing. Moreover, the case study approach is not adequately explained in the materials and methods section, making it difficult to assess the reproducibility of the findings.
5. Figures, Tables, and Data Interpretation
The figures and tables are well-prepared and effectively present the data. However, the vague and unclear structure of the manuscript diminishes their impact. The statistical analysis and interpretation of data, if any, are not consistently highlighted or thoroughly discussed.
6. Conclusions
Although the conclusion is reasonably well-written, it lacks coherence with the rest of the manuscript. The conclusion does not adequately clarify the study’s main findings or provide a strong summation of the research objectives.
7. Ethics and Data Availability
The manuscript does not include an ethics statement, which is a critical omission. While the data availability statement is sufficient, any data derived from reviews or secondary sources should also be made explicitly accessible.
Recommendations
- Improve Structure: Reorganize the manuscript to follow a logical scientific structure, ensuring that the argument flows seamlessly from introduction to conclusion.
- Enhance Clarity: Focus on presenting arguments factually rather than narratively. Clearly define the research objectives and hypotheses.
- Update References: Incorporate more recent studies from the past five years to enhance the relevance and credibility of the work.
- Explain Methodology: Clearly describe the case study approach in the materials and methods section.
- Integrate Data: Align figures and tables with the text to strengthen the coherence and impact of the presented data.
- Include Ethics Statement: Address ethical considerations explicitly to meet publication standards.
- Refine Conclusions: Ensure that the conclusions align with the presented evidence and provide a clear, impactful summary of the research findings.
This manuscript has potential but requires significant revision to meet the standards of scientific writing and publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAdditional Comment on Language Quality
Although the manuscript demonstrates good language quality, it contains excessive jargon, which may limit accessibility to a broader audience. Simplifying the language and avoiding overly technical terms would improve readability. Additionally, refining the English to express the research more clearly and concisely would enhance the overall quality of the manuscript.
Recommendation:
- Revisit the text to replace complex jargon with simpler terms while maintaining scientific accuracy.
- Consider a thorough language editing service or peer review to ensure clarity and fluency in English expression.
Author Response
Please see the attachment (Response to reviewer 2).
author-coverletter-42287410.v1.pdf
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1）The rise of the cruise tourism and the activities organized by port cities bring opportunities for the economic and social development of port cities, but also pose serious risks to the environment of port and waterfront areas. The research on the benefit of cruise tourism on the economic development and the impact on environment of port cities have important practical significance.
2）If possible, it is recommended to add some quantitative analysis. Such as how much consumption has been driven, how much pollution and emissions have been increased by this cruise tourism at September 2019 in Hamburg, Germany.
Author Response
Please see the attachment (Response to reviewer 3).
author-coverletter-42333278.v1.pdf
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author made a satisfactory effort to improve the clarity and structure of the article.
Author Response
Thanks very much for this comment.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents a thorough investigation into a specific and practically significant research question. To help strengthen the manuscript, the following suggestions are offered:
First, it would be helpful to expand on the broader implications of the case study’s findings to improve external validity. Without this, readers from different countries or sectors may struggle to fully appreciate the relevance and applicability of the conclusions.
Second, the article could benefit from additional content. For example, the introduction could more clearly emphasize the study's core contributions. The conclusion would be stronger with a discussion of the study’s potential limitations and suggestions for future research, offering a more comprehensive perspective on the study's impact and scope.
Lastly, further reasoning is needed to support the feasibility of the proposed recommendations. While the author provides several ideas for improving the festival and the cruise tourism, there is limited analysis of the costs or practicality of implementing these changes.
Author Response
response, thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript analyses how the Hamburg Cruise Days Festival attempted to perpetuate the status quo of the cruising industry.This study contains some interesting findings which can increase our individual and collective awareness of the invaluable richness of the world’s land- and water-based environment before it is irreplaceably exhausted. However, there are several issues that need to be addressed. Therefore, major revision is required before this manuscript can be accepted for publication in Sustainability.
1. iThenticate shows a Percent match of 34%. I suggest you adjust the text to reduce the similarity score.
2. I recommend adding a description of the study results in the abstract. You might consider structuring your abstract similarly to the one in the article by Li et al. (https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122213).
3. The introduction lacks a review of existing research. I suggest adding a literature review on topics such as the blue economy, cruise tourism, and urban waterfront areas.
4. The introduction mentions that the article is guided by two main research puzzles, but it does not clearly state the source and basis of these puzzles. I suggest you add a description of the research background to clarify the specific problems or gaps your study aims to address.
5. What is the purpose of the study? I recommend you clearly state this point, and you might adjust your structure following the introduction in Yao et al.’s paper (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e03222).
6. The introduction needs additional citations to support your viewpoints.
7. The purpose and goals of Chapter 2, "Taking it to the Sea," seem unclear. Could it be integrated into the introduction?
8. The main methodology of the study involves field-based participant observation. Could this approach weaken the replicability and credibility of the results? I suggest discussing this point in the discussion section.
9. In the results section, the paper does not clearly explain why these specific cases were chosen for study, nor how they represent broader issues or contexts. Additionally, I recommend further discussion on the representativeness and limitations of the cases.
10. The discussion section lacks an examination of the study’s limitations and potential future research directions.
11. The conclusion needs to more effectively summarize the main findings of the research, highlighting their contribution to the existing body of knowledge. You might consider adjusting your conclusion structure following the one used by Yao et al. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e03222).
Author Response
response, thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy comments are in margin bubbles. I find your literature review to be scattered throughout and least clear in the beginning. I find the steps of your research unclear especially definition of stakeholders and the steps you will take after your initial exploration. You should include a map of your Hamburg location in relation to all your activities. This is a global journal, not everyone has "shoe leather" familiarity with Hamburg.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
response, thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
The revision seems properly addressed my recommendations. I have no further suggestions, and the paper can be considered for publishing.
With best regards
The reviewer
Author Response
Thank you
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no more suggestions.
Author Response
Thank you
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy previous, inadequately addressed, comments still stand.
