Rural Tourism Recovery Patterns in the Eastern Carpathians: A Cluster-Based Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focus on five key indicators that help assess the recovery of tourism in mountainous rural areas, comparing data from the pre-COVID years (2016–2019) with the post-COVID years (2021–2023). A mix of statistical testing, indexing, and clustering techniques was used to take a closer look at how tourism has bounced back in these mountainous rural regions. 

The are some comments:

1. While five core indicators are analyzed, the paper does not justify why these were prioritized over others (e.g., tourism revenue).

2. The study uses data up to 2023. Confirm whether the data remains representative or requires updates (e.g., 2024 trends).

3. The vertical axis name of Figure 1 is too small to see clearly, and the title is too brief using only "Dendrogram".

4. The composite index uses weighted Z-scores, but the rationale for assigning weights to specific indicators (e.g., tourist arrivals vs. occupancy rate) is unclear. Briefly explain the weighting criteria.

5. The discussion of cluster differences should explore underlying drivers (e.g., governance, infrastructure investment) rather than merely stating statistical disparities.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

1. Q1: While five core indicators are analyzed, the paper does not justify why these were prioritized over others (e.g., tourism revenue).

Authors Answer: Thank you for your comment. However, we would like to inform you that the availability of data at the local (commune) level was the main factor influencing the choice of the five core indicators. At this territorial resolution, tourism earnings and specific financial data are not included in official statistics from Romania's National Institute of Statistics (INSSE). Moreover, we consider that the selected indicators - including tourist arrivals, overnight stays, accommodation capacity, and occupancy rate - capture both the demand and supply sides of tourism activity in a comprehensive manner. Given that pricing per night in rural pensions tends to be relatively homogeneous across localities in the study area, we believe that volume-based indicators offer a reasonable and consistent proxy for local tourism performance and recovery.

2. Q2: The study uses data up to 2023. Confirm whether the data remains representative or requires updates (e.g., 2024 trends).

Authors Answer: We thank the reviewer for this observation. At the time of conducting the analysis and drafting the manuscript, the most recent data available from the National Institute of Statistics (INSSE) at the local (commune) level extended only up to the year 2023.

Even though we recognize that 2024 tourist trends might soon provide additional insights, we believe that incorporating the years 2021-2023 offers a sufficiently thorough view of the post-COVID recovery stage. Furthermore, we intend to update the study once more recent data becomes available.

 

3. Q3: The vertical axis name of Figure 1 is too small to see clearly, and the title is too brief using only "Dendrogram".

Authors Answer: We used the dendrogram primarily as a visual guide to illustrate the clustering structure, not as a standalone analytical figure requiring enlargement to full-page scale. Therefore, we believe its current size is appropriate for its illustrative purpose. However, we have revised the title to make it more informative, as per your suggestion. The updated title is: „Dendrogram of Cluster Analysis of Eastern Carpathian Communes Based on Tourism Performance Indicators”.

 

4. Q4: The composite index uses weighted Z-scores, but the rationale for assigning weights to specific indicators (e.g., tourist arrivals vs. occupancy rate) is unclear. Briefly explain the weighting criteria.

Authors Answer: We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. In constructing the composite index, we standardized all five tourism indicators using Z-scores and assigned them equal weights. This choice was explicitly made to avoid introducing subjectivity into the weighting process A corresponding clarification has been added to Section 3.3 of the revised manuscript, as follows:

„All indexes were calculated as the arithmetic mean of Z-scores for the five tourism indicators, computed separately for each reference period. In constructing the composite index, all five indicators (tourist arrivals, accommodation capacity, number of operating units, overnight stays, and occupancy rates) were standardized using Z-scores and assigned equal weights. Because there was no strong theoretical or empirical reason to prioritize one aspect of tourism performance over another, we chose this method to avoid introducing subjectivity through weighting. By treating all indicators as equally important, the resulting indices offer a straightforward yet reliable way to compare the performance of each cluster before and after the pandemic. Then, descriptive statistics were employed to compare cluster profiles in time. By analyzing differences between the PTPI and PoTPI values, the study identified which clusters demonstrated stronger resilience and recovery, and which were more adversely affected. The difference between the two indices served as a central metric for tracking the relative trajectory of recovery across clusters.”

 

5. The discussion of cluster differences should explore underlying drivers (e.g., governance, infrastructure investment) rather than merely stating statistical disparities.

 

Authors Answer: We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In response, we have revised Section 4.2 of the manuscript to go beyond the statistical comparison and to briefly explore potential structural and contextual factors that may help explain the differences observed among clusters. New interpretive commentary has been added for each cluster, addressing issues such as infrastructure quality, local governance, strategic planning, and the capacity to adapt to changing visitor preferences. These insights aim to highlight plausible drivers of tourism resilience or vulnerability. The revised content appears in Section 4.2 as follows:

 

„These cluster profiles show different degrees of structural preparedness for recovery and adaptive capacity, in addition to statistical differences. Access to tourism markets, governance efficacy, and infrastructure quality are examples of potential explanatory factors. Looking at Cluster 4, we can observe that it maintained the highest values across all key tourism indicators, both before and after the pandemic. This consistency suggests us a solid and resilient tourism structure. Maybe this performance is supported by well-developed infrastructure, effective local leadership, and a more diverse range of tourism services. It's also possible that these localities benefited from specific investments or improved online visibility during the recovery period, which helped them remain attractive and competitive. Cluster 3, on the other hand, shows a noticeable decline compared to pre-pandemic levels, especially in overnight stays and occupancy rates. This trend may reflect deeper structural issues such as poor infrastructure, geographic isolation, or maybe a lack of sustained institutional support. Some destinations from this group might still rely on outdated tourism models and may not have the flexibility or the tools to adapt to changing market expectations.

Looking at Cluster 1, its performance remains relatively low but stable over time. These places may have a decent infrastructure base, but they might not be using it to its full potential. Challenges such as weak local promotion, limited strategic planning, or inconsistent policy support could explain why these areas are not progressing, despite having the necessary resources.”

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents interesting point of post-pandemic rural tourism in Eastern Carpathians and its recovery patterns. In general, the paper is well written and interesting. It has a clear logic and adopts appropriate methodology to achieve its goals. The literature review is quite complex, includes the actual and meaningful publications and successfully outlines the issue of rural tourism recovery in general, and its conditions Carpathians specifically. The methods are clearly presented and well used and documented. The results of the research are thoroughly interpreted and characterized. The concluding part is also fine but I have two major remarks to its content:

1. it is not including discussion section – the results are not discussed within any other studies related to similar topic. in truth, there are several resources brought up in the conclusion section but none of them is used to discuss the results but rather to include some common conclusions.
2. and resulting from the 1. the conclusions are going far beyond the scope of the research. First part of Conclusions chapter fairly refers to the scope of the research and its results while the second part includes pretty general appeals that are not directly connected to the results and, often, are taken from the literature of the topic. It would not be a problem, if it is just a brief outlook on possible paths for tourism recovery, but it takes more than the half of Conclusions. Therefore, I suggest to revise this part of the text by: 1) discussing some results and 2) focusing more on the results, and eventually methods, in conclusion part.

The technical and editorial aspects are fine and does not need any significant interference. Abstract and keywords are depicting the content of the paper in a brief but precise manner.

I recommend the paper for publication after introducing small changes, especially in the conclusion section. Additionally, I attach the manuscript with comments in order to make a revision process more smooth.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

1. Q1: it is not including discussion section – the results are not discussed within any other studies related to similar topic. in truth, there are several resources brought up in the conclusion section but none of them is used to discuss the results but rather to include some common conclusions.

Authors Answer: We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. As suggested, we have added a new section (4.3. Discussion) that places our results in conversation with existing research on rural tourism resilience and post-pandemic recovery. This section highlights areas where our findings align with or differ from previous studies, particularly with regard to governance, infrastructure, and destination adaptability. We believe this addition offers better context for interpreting the results and strengthens the contribution of the paper to the academic literature.

2. Q2: and resulting from the 1. the conclusions are going far beyond the scope of the research. First part of Conclusions chapter fairly refers to the scope of the research and its results while the second part includes pretty general appeals that are not directly connected to the results and, often, are taken from the literature of the topic. It would not be a problem, if it is just a brief outlook on possible paths for tourism recovery, but it takes more than the half of Conclusions. Therefore, I suggest to revise this part of the text by: 1) discussing some results and 2) focusing more on the results, and eventually methods, in conclusion part.

 

Authors Answer: We thank the reviewer for this observation. In response, the Conclusions section has been revised and streamlined in light of feedback received from all reviewers. The revised version reflects the core findings and scope of the study more clearly and concisely.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes an interesting recovery patterns for rural tourism in the Eastern Carpathians. The study results are clearly presented and relevant. However, I have some comments, which can be summarized as follows:

1. The Abstract emphasis the results, but should describe more clearly the research methods used.
2. In the Introduction and Literature Review sections authors use two citation systems. The authors follow the recommended system with reference numbers placed in square brackets [ ], simultaneously with the use of in-text citation author-date system, e.g. “as Turnock (2002) notes in one of his studies [1]”, instead of “as Turnock [1] notes in one of his studies.”
3. The introduction should specify the aim, the main objectives of the study and emphasize the novelty of the study.
4. The Literature Review section is written in a descriptive manner. Relevant previous research should not only be listed and summarized but also discussed, critically analyzed. The authors should capture more clearly the gap this study fills and link their attempts to previous investigations
5. Some phrasing is redundant, e.g. Lines 77-78 “Three main factors make this location the subject of our study. This study is centered on this topic for three primary reasons.”; Line 208 “Descriptive statistics - Descriptive statistics”; Line 219 “Cluster Analysis Cluster analysis, from a methodological standpoint…”
6. The implications of the findings should be discussed in a wider context and the limitations of the work should be highlighted.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

1. Q1: The Abstract emphasis the results, but should describe more clearly the research methods used.

Authors Answer: We thank the reviewer for this observation. In response, the Abstract has been revised to more clearly reflect the objectives, methodological approach, and key findings of the study. The updated version also reduces background details and better aligns with the overall focus of the paper. These changes were made based on feedback received from multiple reviewers.

2. Q2: In the Introduction and Literature Review sections authors use two citation systems. The authors follow the recommended system with reference numbers placed in square brackets [ ], simultaneously with the use of in-text citation author-date system, e.g. “as Turnock (2002) notes in one of his studies [1]”, instead of “as Turnock [1] notes in one of his studies.”

Authors Answer: We thank the reviewer for this observation. All in-text citations have been revised to follow the journal’s required numeric referencing style. Instances of the author–date format have been removed, and references are now presented exclusively in the numeric format, as per journal guidelines.

 

3. The introduction should specify the aim, the main objectives of the study and emphasize the novelty of the study.

Authors Answer: We thank the reviewer for this useful suggestion. A paragraph has been added at the end of the Introduction to clearly state the aim and objectives of the study and to briefly outline its main contribution. The paragraph is as follows:

 

„This paper aims to make us better understand how rural mountain tourism in the Eastern Carpathians has recovered following the COVID-19 crisis. It examines changes over time in key tourism indicators—such as arrivals, overnight stays, and accommodation capacity—and compares how different destinations have fared in terms of recovery. The main goals are to group the destinations based on tourism performance, to explore spatial variations and to identify which areas have shown more or less resilience in the years after the pandemic. What makes this study distinct is its strong focus on the local level and its use of a combined methodological approach—clustering and index-based analysis—to offer a more nuanced picture of how recovery has played out across this diverse mountain region.”

 

4. Q4: The Literature Review section is written in a descriptive manner. Relevant previous research should not only be listed and summarized but also discussed, critically analyzed. The authors should capture more clearly the gap this study fills and link their attempts to previous investigations.

Authors Answer: We thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. A paragraph has been added to the end of the Literature Review to better synthesize previous work, highlight the research gap, and show how this study builds on and complements existing literature. The paragraph is as follows:

 

„Much of the existing research on mountain tourism and post-COVID-19 recovery has focused either on national-level trends or on individual case studies. While these studies offer important insights, also they often miss the local differences that can exist even within the same region. There is still a lack of comparative research at the local scale, especially when it comes to rural and mountain destinations. This study helps fill that gap by using official data at the commune level and applying quantitative methods to capture differences in how areas have recovered. In doing so, it provides a fresh, complementary perspective that brings spatial disparities to the forefront—differences that are often overlooked in broader, national-level analyses.”

 

5. Some phrasing is redundant, e.g. Lines 77-78 “Three main factors make this location the subject of our study. This study is centered on this topic for three primary reasons.”; Line 208 “Descriptive statistics - Descriptive statistics”; Line 219 “Cluster Analysis Cluster analysis, from a methodological standpoint…”

Authors Answer: We thank the reviewer for pointing out these redundancies. The identified repetitions have been revised or removed to improve clarity and avoid unnecessary duplication.

 

6. The implications of the findings should be discussed in a wider context and the limitations of the work should be highlighted.

Authors Answer: We thank the reviewer for this observation. In response, the Conclusions section has been revised and streamlined in light of feedback received from all reviewers. The revised version reflects the core findings and scope of the study more clearly and concisely.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors must to make some changes too.

The article it is very well done from statistical  point of view, but  needs a little adjustments for common people.   

Line 9, Abstract- too many details about COVID  period in that short Abstract, or maybe they can  change  the title Pre and Post COVID

Line 253     4. Results and Discussion

Line 254      4.1. The Evolution of the Tourism Sector: Pre-COVID vs. Post-COVID

Maybe it is better to make separate section Results. Discussion

Line 354  Discussion .    4.2. Recovery Dynamics in Rural Tourism: An Empirical Cluster Analysis

Line 372 373

Line 374

Cluster 1 includes 9 cases (13.6%), Cluster 2 has 7 cases (10.6%), Cluster 3 comprises 22 cases (33.3%), 373 and Cluster 4 includes 28 cases (42.4%). This relatively even distribution supports the stability and internal consistency of the clustering solution.

 Using cluster analyze  define also the name of cluster in function of  indicators  or   regions not just numbers

The indicators that were analyzed include tourist arrivals, accommodation 14 capacity, the number of operating units, overnight stays, and occupancy rates. What we 15 found was that while occupancy.

Line 495. Conclusions

This study focused on rural mountain

 Mention some specific mountain zone and what characteristic attract  tourists.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am not qualify 

Author Response

Reviewer 4

1. Q1: Line 9, Abstract- too many details about COVID period in that short Abstract, or maybe they can  change  the title Pre and Post COVID

 

Authors Answer: We thank the reviewer for this observation. In response, the Abstract has been revised to more clearly reflect the objectives, methodological approach, and key findings of the study. The updated version also reduces background details and better aligns with the overall focus of the paper. These changes were made based on feedback received from multiple reviewers.

2. Q2:

Line 253     4. Results and Discussion

Line 254      4.1. The Evolution of the Tourism Sector: Pre-COVID vs. Post-COVID

Maybe it is better to make separate section Results. Discussion

Line 354  Discussion .    4.2. Recovery Dynamics in Rural Tourism: An Empirical Cluster Analysis

 

Authors Answer: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The structure of Section 4 has been maintained to reflect the progression from descriptive to analytical results, followed by a separate interpretative section (4.3 Discussion). The heading of 4.2 refers to the empirical findings from the cluster analysis, while the more reflective discussion takes place in the subsequent section. We believe this structure supports a clear and logical flow.

 

3. Q3:

Line 372 373

Line 374

Cluster 1 includes 9 cases (13.6%), Cluster 2 has 7 cases (10.6%), Cluster 3 comprises 22 cases (33.3%), 373 and Cluster 4 includes 28 cases (42.4%). This relatively even distribution supports the stability and internal consistency of the clustering solution.

Using cluster analyze  define also the name of cluster in function of  indicators  or   regions not just numbers

 

Authors Answer: A8: We thank the reviewer for this useful suggestion. Descriptive names for the clusters have been added in Table 3 to help readers better understand the key features of each group. In the rest of the manuscript, numeric labels were maintained for clarity and consistency.

 

4. Q4: The indicators that were analyzed include tourist arrivals, accommodation 14 capacity, the number of operating units, overnight stays, and occupancy rates. What we 15 found was that while occupancy.

Line 495. Conclusions

This study focused on rural mountain

Mention some specific mountain zone and what characteristic attract  tourists.

 

Authors Answer: We thank the reviewer for this observation. In response, the Abstract has been revised to more clearly reflect the objectives, methodological approach, and key findings of the study. The updated version also reduces background details and better aligns with the overall focus of the paper. These changes were made based on feedback received from multiple reviewers. The Conclusions section has been revised and streamlined in light of feedback received from all reviewers. The revised version reflects the core findings and scope of the study more clearly and concisely.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are no more comments. I think this version can be accepted.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors improve the article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am not qualify