Do Different Settings Matter in the Economically Sustainable Tourism Approach? A Comparative Study of Serbia, Kazakhstan, and Hungary

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First, it is recommended that the terms “public support” and “social support” be replaced by “local support”. This clarifies that the study is based on specifying how the local population can promote the tourism development of a specific destination.  

In addition, it is necessary to clarify that the proposed research refers to sustainable development from an economic perspective. Usually, the term “sustainable development” in tourism refers to the environmental sphere. In this sense, I strongly recommend that this clarification not only be made throughout the text, but that it be specified in the title itself.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, which we fully accept and have carefully addressed throughout the revised manuscript.

We have systematically replaced the terms “public support” and “social support” with “local support” across the entire manuscript to more accurately reflect the study’s focus on the perceptions and contributions of the local population in supporting tourism development. This terminology adjustment has also been reflected in the research model (Figure 1), the construct labels, and all related hypotheses (e.g., H3), tables, and discussion sections.

We acknowledge the importance of clearly specifying the economic perspective of sustainable development, especially considering that sustainability in tourism is often primarily associated with environmental concerns. In response, we have emphasized the economic dimension of sustainability at all relevant points in the manuscript:

The title has been revised to explicitly refer to the economic dimension of sustainability.

In the abstract, the opening sentence now explicitly states that the study analyzes sustainable tourism development from an economic perspective.

Additional clarifications were incorporated in the Introduction, Theoretical Framework, and Discussion sections, where we stress that the study examines how perceived economic benefits and costs influence local support for tourism development.

We believe these revisions enhance the conceptual clarity of the manuscript and align it more closely with the intended research focus. We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback, which helped us improve the precision and coherence of our work.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a significant and timely topic within sustainable tourism research, comparing perceptions and support for sustainable tourism development across three distinct cultural and socioeconomic contexts: Serbia, Kazakhstan, and Hungary. The comparative cross-cultural approach employed constitutes a valuable contribution to the literature, particularly through its integration of sophisticated statistical methodologies and predictive modeling techniques. The theoretical foundation is robust, primarily utilizing Social Exchange Theory (SET) as the conceptual framework for hypothesis development and testing.

Title (Page 1)
The phrase "Underlining comparison" could be replaced with more conventional terminology. I suggest changing the title to "A Comparative Study from Selected Countries" or "The Influence of Different Settings on Sustainable Tourism Approaches: A Comparative Study of Serbia, Kazakhstan, and Hungary."
Abstract (Page 1, lines 19-33)
The density of methodological terminology may affect the readability of the abstract. It might be appropriate to establish a better balance between introducing methods and presenting key findings.
The relationship between tourism arrival forecasting and perception analysis could be articulated more clearly to enhance the coherence of the abstract.
Introduction (Page 1, lines 38-60; Page 2, lines 44-75)
I suggest changing the phrase "The tourism progress has become..." (line 38) to "Tourism development has become..." for improved clarity.
The expression "inspire sustenance for sustainable tourism development" (line 61) is somewhat lengthy and could be stated more concisely for better clarity.
Arguments regarding the research gap could be slightly strengthened to better demonstrate the necessity of this comparative study.
Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development (Page 2, lines 77-93; Pages 3-7)
The literature review is quite comprehensive, but in some instances resembles an enumeration of studies. Consolidating and synthesizing certain sections could provide a better critical and integrated analysis.
The logical connection between the literature review and research hypotheses could be articulated more convincingly.
A deeper exploration of how moderating variables influence the primary relationships could enhance the theoretical richness of the manuscript (Page 6, lines 250-270).
Materials and Methods (Page 8, lines 329-379; Pages 9-14)
More detailed explanations about the sampling process and respondent selection method in each country would strengthen the methodology section (Page 8, lines 352-379).
Adding further information about the validity and reliability of the research instrument in cross-cultural contexts would be beneficial (Page 10, lines 414-423).
Clarifying how questionnaires were adapted and standardized for use in three different countries could enhance the study's credibility (Page 11-12, Table 2).
Results and Discussion (Pages 14-24)
Separating the results section from the discussion could improve the manuscript's structure (Page 14, lines 535-550). This separation would allow readers to first become familiar with the findings and then study their interpretation.
Providing deeper analysis of the reasons for observed differences between countries would enrich the manuscript (Pages 20-22).
Strengthening the connections between results from different analytical techniques would help create greater coherence in this section (Pages 17-24).
Clearer interpretation of K-means and PCA findings and their relationship to the main research questions would be helpful (Page 23, lines 750-780).
Conclusion (Page 25, lines 795-830)
Including more forward-looking perspectives and emphasizing the main message of the research more strongly could increase the impact of the conclusion.
Creating a more explicit connection between the findings and initial hypotheses could contribute to the overall coherence of the manuscript.
Theoretical and Practical Implications (Page 26, lines 841-881)
Condensing some lengthy sentences could help increase textual clarity.
Providing more specific practical solutions for tourism stakeholders and policymakers could strengthen the applied relevance of the study.
Enhancing the connection between research findings and their practical applications could add value to the manuscript.
Limitations and Future Research Directions (Page 27, lines 896-949)
Expanding the discussion of methodological limitations, especially regarding the advanced statistical methods used, could be beneficial.
Offering more precise and practical suggestions for future research could help guide subsequent studies.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive comments. We highly appreciate the time and effort invested in evaluating our manuscript and recognize that the suggestions provided have significantly improved the overall quality and coherence of our work. Below, we provide a detailed response to each point raised, along with a summary of the changes made in the revised manuscript:

We have revised the title to a more conventional and descriptive form:
The Influence of Different Settings on Sustainable Tourism Approaches: A Comparative Study of Serbia, Kazakhstan, and Hungary.

The abstract has been revised to better balance methodology and findings. We have added a clear sentence linking tourist arrival forecasting with residents’ perception analysis to improve coherence and clarity.

Replace “The tourism progress has become...” with “Tourism development has become...”

Simplify the expression “inspire sustenance for sustainable tourism development.”

Strengthen the articulation of the research gap.
Response: All suggested language improvements have been implemented. The phrase “Tourism development has become...” has replaced the previous version, and the sentence referring to sustaining tourism development has been shortened for clarity. We have also expanded the discussion of the research gap by highlighting the lack of comparative, cross-cultural studies focusing on the economic dimension of sustainability in tourism.

The entire section was revised for improved synthesis. Studies are now thematically grouped and critically discussed rather than listed. Before each hypothesis, a brief logical explanation is added. A new subsection was included titled “Theoretical Role of Moderating Variables”, elaborating on the theoretical importance of travel frequency and tourist contact as moderators.

These aspects have been significantly expanded. We added a paragraph detailing the stratified sampling approach per country, explained the back-translation and adaptation process for cultural equivalence, and reported reliability coefficients across national samples to demonstrate internal consistency. 

We created two distinct sections: “Results” and “Discussion.” The discussion section now includes a dedicated subsection comparing cross-country results and explaining their contextual significance. Additionally, we added a paragraph showing convergence among statistical and machine learning techniques. The K-means and PCA results are clearly interpreted in relation to respondent segmentation and the study’s core research questions.

The conclusion has been rewritten to emphasize the broader implications of the findings and their contribution to sustainable tourism discourse.

We avoided enumeration and presented a coherent narrative that links theoretical contributions to practical tourism strategies in transitional and developed contexts. Concrete implications for Serbia, Kazakhstan, and Hungary are described, along with a reflection on global relevance.

We elaborated on the limitations of cross-sectional, self-reported data and the absence of qualitative insights. Future research directions now include longitudinal, mixed-methods designs, wider geographical expansion, inclusion of other stakeholders, and analysis of digital and technological influences on tourism perceptions.

We thank the reviewer once again for the detailed and insightful feedback, which helped us significantly improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is clear and well structured. I've no further comments. 

• What is the main question addressed by the research? - The main topic of this paper is about the selected criteria to evaluate sustainable tourism approaches. • Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case. - In my opinion the article presents a novelty not only on the main topic selection but rather more on the methodology of the approach. It can be applied to other countries sustainable tourism approaches. • What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? - The main topic and the approach methodology. • specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? _ I don't see a need of improvement • Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case. Yes they are, since authors make a solid comparison of results between the 3 case studies which allow them to proving that this methodology can be replicable. • Are the references appropriate?- Yes they are. - An authors present an updated list of references • Any additional comments on the tables and figures. - I have no comments on this topic . The article has enough data.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our manuscript and for acknowledging its clarity, structure, and methodological contribution. We are especially grateful for the recognition of the originality of the topic, the applicability of the proposed approach, and the consistency of the findings with the presented arguments. Your encouraging feedback is greatly appreciated, and it strengthens our confidence in the relevance and quality of the research.

Thank you once again for your time and thoughtful review.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

• The study aims to analyze perceptions of economically sustainable tourism development in three selected comparable countries (Serbia, Kazakhstan, and Hungary) and to evaluate public support for tourism by examining perceived benefits and costs and the moderating effects of travel frequency and interactions with tourists. Forecasting analyses for 2025–2030 indicate potential growth in tourist arrivals, with Hungary showing the highest projections. Combining MGA and SEM analysis revealed that positive perceptions of benefits and cultural identification enhance tourism support, while perceived costs reduce it.
• Authors need to provide recent references to support their claims, as some claims have no supporting references, such as in the introduction authors stated, "The focus on individual factors often overlooks their potential synergistic effects, which can result in an incomplete understanding of the complex tourists/local communities’ interactions". "Furthermore, studies that conduct comparative analyses across different geographical and cultural contexts, especially among nations with different scales of economic levels and cultural characteristics, are scarce and fragmented.“And many other claims along the manuscript. The following references could be of help if integrated:
• (2022). What if the local community is already well-off enough? Stakeholders’ conflicts over sustainable tourism development in remote communities. Journal of Place Management and Development, 15(4), 493-510.
• (2024). Antecedents of nostalgia-related cultural tourism behaviour: evidence from visitors to pharaonic treasures city. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 7(5), 2486-2503.
• For SET theory: (2024). AR-enabled safety precautions and employee volunteerism in fast-food restaurants: the pivotal role of adoption intention. Current Issues in Tourism, 1-21.
•  
• The introduction is very brief and needs to be expanded to include recent studies on the topic. It needs to start with the big picture. What global or regional trends are the authors tapping into? What’s missing in current research or practice? The study should respond to this gap, but again, this needs to emerge from the study.
• Authors need to clearly and concisely solve their study problem and what's unknown about the current sustainable tourism approaches, and why it is important currently and how the study plans to address the issue.

 

• The title doesn’t currently capture the heart of the study and can be improved.

 

• The foundation of the Theory is not well written; it is not clear what specific theory the authors are using to support their study assumptions.

 

• The title “Creation of Hypotheses” needs to be changed to “Hypotheses development”

 

• Section 2 needs to be separated into two sections, “Foundation of Theory” and “Hypotheses Development”, and rewritten. Previous literature needs to be separated, and the hypotheses development section needs to focus only on the studies that explored the two variables previously.

 

• The study “Theoretical Model” needs to be presented before the hypothesis development.

 

• Section 3. Materials and methods have no supporting references; this is reducing the rigour of the methods used in the study.

 

• Table 2. “Summary of constructs and variables derived from the theoretical framework" needs more clarification. What exactly are you trying to show, and why does it appear in this section? Normally, each variable should be measured by 3-5 sentences, not only one!

 

• The study needs a discussion section as well as a theoretical contribution section.

 

• It also needs professional proofreading.

 

• References need to be updated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need improvement

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback and specific suggestions that helped us improve the overall quality, structure, and clarity of our manuscript. Below we provide a detailed response to each point:

The introduction has been revised in accordance with the reviewer’s guidance. It now begins with a broader contextualization of global and regional trends in sustainable tourism, including the strategic role of tourism in achieving international development goals. The revised introduction clearly identifies the research problem, articulates the current knowledge gap, and explains why this issue is important at present. The study's objectives and contributions are now explicitly stated. All key claims have been substantiated, and updated references have been added at the end of the section to support the argumentation.

The research problem has been explicitly defined, highlighting what is unknown in current sustainable tourism approaches, specifically the lack of integrated economic, cultural, and social perspectives, as well as the underexplored role of moderating variables. The introduction now clearly presents how this study addresses that gap through a comparative, multidimensional approach.

Although the original suggestion was to separate the theoretical review from hypothesis development, we followed the request of other reviewers who emphasized that each hypothesis must be directly grounded in relevant literature. Therefore, it was not feasible to create two distinct sections. Instead, the review of prior studies and theoretical arguments is now integrated with each hypothesis, ensuring clarity, continuity, and academic rigor.

In accordance with the reviewer’s suggestion, the theoretical model is now presented before the hypothesis development, allowing readers to understand the conceptual structure prior to the elaboration of hypotheses.

The methodology has been expanded and improved. Each part of the research procedure now includes supporting references, especially for the sampling approach, instrument design, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation procedures. This strengthens the credibility and replicability of the methods used.

Table 2 has been revised to ensure clarity. Each variable is now measured using three items, as per established best practices in construct development and measurement.

The manuscript has undergone professional proofreading to improve language quality, clarity, and coherence throughout the text.

The reference list has been updated and revised. There are no sources older than eight years, and the majority of the references used are from the past five years, ensuring the manuscript is grounded in current literature and recent scholarly discourse.

Once again, we are grateful for your careful and detailed review, which significantly contributed to the enhancement of this manuscript.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been well revised and is ready for publication in the journal.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the comments, the manuscript looks better now