Sustainable Tourism and Its Environmental and Economic Impacts: Fresh Evidence from Major Tourism Hubs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am sending my review in a PDF

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to reviewer

Reviewer

In the following paragraph you will find my comments to the document “Sustainable Tourism and Its Environmental and Economic Impacts: Fresh Evidence from Major Tourism Hubs.”

In Figure 1, the presence of seasonality is evident. Such seasonal effects do not permit an adequate interpretation of the information; a filter should be used to eliminate seasonal variations.

Response

Dear Reviewer

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. In response, we confirm that seasonality has been addressed using the STL (Seasonal and Trend decomposition using Loess) method, as proposed by Cleveland, et al. [1].

 

Reviewer

The theoretical framework is weak; it seems more a list authors who have already studied this topic from different perspectives. The theoretical framework should provide information related to the association between variables. In other words, it should provide a clear transmission channel between the explicative variables and the dependent variable.

Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have substantially revised the theoretical framework to go beyond a descriptive summary of prior studies. The revised section now clearly outlines the causal mechanisms linking the explanatory variables (TDI, FDI, TOPE, EPS, POPD) to the dependent variables (CO₂ emissions and GDP), drawing on established theoretical constructs such as the Environmental Kuznets Curve, tourism-led growth hypothesis, and pollution haven hypothesis.

 

Reviewer

The idea of presenting a figure to describe the effects is very good, however, a further explanation of why these relationships occur is needed.

Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your positive feedback regarding the inclusion of the figure. In response to your suggestion, we have expanded the discussion accompanying the figure to provide clearer explanations of the underlying mechanisms driving the observed relationships

 

Thanks,

 

 

1. Cleveland, R.B.; Cleveland, W.S.; McRae, J.E.; Terpenning, I. STL: A seasonal-trend decomposition. J. off. Stat 1990, 6, 3-73.

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Bearing in mind that it is a resubmission and that I had the opportunity to review the first version, I am pleased to say the following:

The authors took into account the comments and recommendations of the reviewers and in this sense, this version is much more robust. The justification for the relevance of the study is now clearer and more solid.

The methodology is more detailed and well explained and the results are also clearer.

Hence, and despite not bringing anything new to the discussion on the topic, I do not see any disadvantage in the study being published.

Author Response

Response to reviewer

 

Reviewer

Bearing in mind that it is a resubmission and that I had the opportunity to review the first version, I am pleased to say the following:

The authors took into account the comments and recommendations of the reviewers and in this sense, this version is much more robust. The justification for the relevance of the study is now clearer and more solid.

The methodology is more detailed and well explained and the results are also clearer.

Hence, and despite not bringing anything new to the discussion on the topic, I do not see any disadvantage in the study being published.

 

Response

Dear Reviewer

We sincerely thank you for your positive and encouraging feedback. We are glad that the revised version meets your expectations in terms of justification, methodological clarity, and robustness, and we appreciate your recognition of the improvements made.

Thanks

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for your efforts in addressing my comments and suggestions. The manuscript shows improvement, but the introduction remains too long and broad. It should be reduced. Focus only on what is relevant to your study. Other than that, I have no further comments. 

Author Response

Response to reviewer

 

Reviewer

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for your efforts in addressing my comments and suggestions. The manuscript shows improvement, but the introduction remains too long and broad. It should be reduced. Focus only on what is relevant to your study. Other than that, I have no further comments. 

 

Response

Dear Reviewer

We thank you for your valuable feedback and appreciation of the improvements made. In response to your suggestion, we have shortened the introduction by removing broader contextual details and ensured it focuses solely on the elements directly relevant to our study's scope and objectives.

 

Thanks,

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting paper which investigates the complex relationships between tourism development, economic growth, and carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions in the top ten most-visited countries globally.

Starting from the abstract, to further enhance it, consider highlighting briefly the contribution of this research (it presents the findings, but why are these important?).
In the Introduction, in lines 38-42 there is a repetition regarding tourism impact; thus, you could consolidate these points for better conciseness.
In line 97, do you mean Trends instead of Tends?
In line 155, politicians is rather informal; consider using "policymakers" for academic writing.

The literature review part provides a broad overview of relevant studies on the tourism-emissions-growth nexus and related factors. The methodology and results part presents a wealth of findings and offers insightful discussions. 

Given the limitations you identify, consider also suggesting how future studies could address these gaps and outlining some potential avenues for future research. 

Author Response

Response to reviewer

 

Reviewer

This is a very interesting paper which investigates the complex relationships between tourism development, economic growth, and carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions in the top ten most-visited countries globally.

Starting from the abstract, to further enhance it, consider highlighting briefly the contribution of this research (it presents the findings, but why are these important?).

 

Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for the constructive feedback. In response, we have revised the abstract to briefly highlight the contribution of the research by emphasizing its methodological rigor and the policy relevance of its findings. Specifically, we now clarify how the study adds value by offering cross-methodological evidence and actionable insights for designing climate-resilient tourism strategies in top global destinations.

Reviewer

In the Introduction, in lines 38-42 there is a repetition regarding tourism impact; thus, you could consolidate these points for better conciseness.

Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for the helpful observation. We have revised lines 38–42 in the Introduction to remove the repetition and consolidate the discussion of tourism’s impact, thereby improving the clarity and conciseness of the section.

 

Reviewer

In line 97, do you mean Trends instead of Tends?

Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for pointing that out. The term has been corrected from "tends" to "trends" in line 97 to accurately reflect the intended meaning.

 

Reviewer

In line 155, politicians is rather informal; consider using "policymakers" for academic writing.

Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for the suggestion. We have replaced "politicians" with the more formal term "policymakers" in line 155 to improve academic tone.

Reviewer

The literature review part provides a broad overview of relevant studies on the tourism-emissions-growth nexus and related factors. The methodology and results part presents a wealth of findings and offers insightful discussions. 

Response

Dear Reviewer

We appreciate the reviewer’s positive feedback on the literature review, methodology, and results sections. Your encouragement motivates us to further refine and strengthen the paper.

 

Reviewer

Given the limitations you identify, consider also suggesting how future studies could address these gaps and outlining some potential avenues for future research.

Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have now included recommendations in the conclusion for future studies to broaden the sample to diverse tourism markets and incorporate additional variables such as environmental regulations and tourist behavior to address current data limitations and enhance understanding of sustainable tourism development.

 

Thanks,

Reviewer 5 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

Thanks for taking the time to address my previous comments. I read the new version of the article, and I believe that you effectively addressed my comments as well as the ones of the other reviewers. Right now, the paper is improved, and I believe it is suitable for publication. The reference list is way more adequate, and the English language has improved. 

Author Response

Response to reviewer

 

Reviewer

Dear authors, 

Thanks for taking the time to address my previous comments. I read the new version of the article, and I believe that you effectively addressed my comments as well as the ones of the other reviewers. Right now, the paper is improved, and I believe it is suitable for publication. The reference list is way more adequate, and the English language has improved. 

 

Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your positive feedback and constructive guidance throughout the review process. We appreciate your recognition of the improvements made and look forward to the paper’s publication.

 

Thanks,

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing my comments 

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 Authors This paper presents an interesting analysis of the relationship between tourism development, economic growth, and environmental sustainability in the world's top tourism destinations. The use of multiple econometric techniques, including FGLS, 2SLS, DK, and PaQR, suggests a rigorous approach to examining these complex relationships.   However, the entire paper suffers from weaknesses in language and style. There are complex sentences, imprecise and awkward word choices such as "Broadway-relating activities," "up-country element," or particularly poor English phrases like "sink, as it seems where". Also, there are grammatical errors, inconsistent verb tenses, awkward phrasing, abrupt transitions that disrupt flow and cohesion and instances of redundancy.
  Literature review lacks a clear organizational structure. It seems to jump from one study to another without a logical progression of ideas.  The transitions between paragraphs are often abrupt, making the review feel disjointed.    Regarding theoretical framework,  the writing is also difficult to follow, making it challenging to understand the proposed theoretical framework.   For data description and research methodology, consider explaining stronger why these specific econometric methods were chosen.  However, the econometric analysis is robust.   The justification for the selected time period (1994-2023) is weak. Simply stating "profound shifts in global tourism" is insufficient. The result presentation and discussion lacks depth. The analysis is mainly descriptive and does not explore the broader context of the findings.    The policy recommendations are general and lack specificity.  The call for "sustainable tourism practices" and "green tourism strategies" is vague and does not provide concrete guidance for policymakers.     Consider including explicit discussion on the paper's limitations and its implications.    Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper has potential, but the weaknesses in writing and analysis significantly detract from its overall merit.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to read and review your manuscript. The paper examines the connection between tourism, economic development, energy factors, and environmental sustainability and thereby brings important insights. The general quality is relatively good; however, a few issues must be addressed to improve the manuscript's quality and clarity. My suggestions are as follows:

1. The introduction section is quite long. It should be narrowed and shortened, and research objectives should be clearly stated.
2. Page 2, lines 55-56: This sentence sounds confusing; it needs to be rewritten.
3. Figures 2, 3 and 4 representing theoretical frameworks could be better presented. Perhaps it would be better if those figures, which are currently presented separately, were combined into a single figure/picture. They could be reduced in size and combined into one to improve clarity and save space. With this approach, all three frameworks would be displayed in a more structured and visually unified manner, saving space and enhancing readability, as the existing figures appear blurry and less clear.
4. Page 7, the paragraph below figure 2 consists of only two sentences, which are too long and difficult to read. It should be divided and simplified writing to make it more understandable and clearer. Also on page 12, the sentence in lines 380-386 is too long.
5. Page 7, line 297: the sentence "Wherein EP denotes energy prices." seems redundant. EPS is mentioned previously, and EPS is drawn on the figures, so where is the EP that is mentioned?
6. Figures 6, 7 and 8 are of low resolution, which affects readability and visual clarity. Besides, figure 7 is fairly large; it may be smaller and more compact.
7. The conclusion section lacks theoretical and practical implications (although it is in the title Policy Implications, they are not noticeable in this section), study limitations, and future research suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this work.

The first thing that stands out to me is the selection of countries that are part of the study, which, according to the authors, are the most important in terms of tourism. It is not well justified and is, at the very least, questionable.

Regarding the methodology and results, I don't have much to add, because they seem clear to me.

The main question is the relevance of the work and the conclusions that do not bring anything new: there is a direct relationship between the receiving countries and the increase in pollution. And what's new? I think the authors could (and should) have chosen a more original theme or, at least, explored another angle on the theme.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thanks for submitting this interesting article. I believe this topic needs to be urgently researched to increase the knowledge in this field and give precious insights to policy-makers. Anyhow, I believe that your article cannot be published in its current form. In my opinion, several aspects need to be addressed, the first being improving the reference list in your article.

 

Here, I provide some specific comments:  

 

 

Specific comments:

 

-Figure 1: Please provide more information in this figure. It is not clear what the numbers on the axes should represent. Furthermore, it is unclear where you took these data and to which country they refer.

 

LINE 35: Is that a citation? It is not reported in the reference list. Furthermore, I think using more official data like IPCC or similar for this information would be better.

 

LINE 48: I would suggest checking the references. Reference 15 does not seems relevant to the piece of information you are talking in the text.

 

LINE 60: Once again, I suggest better checking your reference. Where do you find this information? I looked at reference 24, but I could not find this info in the paper. Some official estimates about Co2 emissions of the tourism sector exist, and I would recommend citing that (see, for example, the work of authors such as Lenzen or Gossling for relevant reference in this field).

 

LINE 125: More context should be provided when introducing a new concept/framework from the literature. Furthermore, I would suggest always including a reference.

 

LINE 135: Same as specified above.

 

LINE 120-141: The research GAP is not specified enough. I believe that much more research has been done on this topic and you failed to cite them.

 

Literature review: This section is interesting, but I believe that 5 papers are not enough. Once again, a lot more research can be found about this topic. Furthermore, I would suggest adding a table to synthesize the relevant paper you found in the literature; this could increase the readability of this section.

 

LINE 232-245: More context and citations about these frameworks should be provided. The research gap you aim to fill should also be better contextualized and explained.

 

The results section could be improved. While I appreciate the meticulous methodological approach you followed in your research, my impression is that you have increased the complexity of the analyses for no reason. I would suggest keeping it more simple and explaining better the reasons behind all the analyses you are performing.

Furthermore, I believe that more explanation should be provided on why you chose those variables and why you decided to do three different models. The relationship between economic development and CO2 emissions has already been widely analysed in the literature. Why not focus specifically on the role of tourism? Furthermore, why not focus on the differences between the different countries?

 

 

A discussion section is missing. I believe that this demonstrates that you failed to put your research in an appropriate literature framework. A discussion section where you critically discuss your results with the ones of previous studies should be included.

 

Similarly, the conclusion section should be improved. The theoretical and practical implications of your research are missing.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language should be improved. Some phrases and terminology used make the text unclear, especially in the first part of the paper. 

As an example: 

-Line 51-53

-Line 55-56 

I do not understand what you meant in these sentences. This applies to other sentences as well. I would suggest you revise them or use an English proofreading service.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am sending my comments in a PDF 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf