Sustainable Tourism Through Digitalization and Smart Solutions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper uses the method of inductive reasoning, which is characterized by the fact that the conclusions are probable but not completely certain.
Keywords should contain words that are not repeated in the title.
The Introduction section of the paper has the role of preparing the reader and presenting basic information about the topic. Reorganize the Introduction section so that it is focused on the general context of the topic, description of the problem, the aim of the work, hypotheses, since it is a scientific/research work, the methodology (in short), and the structure of the work.
The Literature review section should be supplemented with quantitative data such as the percentage of online bookings and mobile applications in tourism, the percentage influence of social networks on destination selection, etc.
The Source should be indicated under the Figure and Table.
A questionnaire was used to collect data. It is necessary to let you know in which period the data were collected, how many questionnaires were filled out, and how many were valid. Also, could you explain how data collection was done by questionnaire?
Considering the use of questionnaires, it is questionable why the authors used the method of inductive reasoning. Qualitative methods do not provide reliable results. The possibility of applying quantitative methods should be considered.
The results and conclusions drawn using qualitative methods are inconclusive, so I suggest that the authors use quantitative methods in the analysis of the collected survey data to ensure greater precision and validity of the conclusions.
It is necessary to rearrange the Methods section by the application of quantitative methods and present the questionnaire used more clearly. Following the previous section, the Results section should be arranged so that the results of the research are clear to the scientific and professional public.
The manuscript has potential, but the choice of scientific research method reduces the scientific basis of the work. In the work, define a hypothesis and, through processing and analysis, confirm or reject the results. Due to the use of a survey, there is room for better scientific methods.
References can be better by selecting papers published in Q1/Q2 journals, not older than ten years, and reducing the use of information from the websites of programs and projects whose results are not scientifically based.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your useful comments and suggestions about our work. We followed your suggestions and we proceed with changes in the following sections:

1. Introduction (we changed the introduction in order to be more comprehensive and to help the reader understand the analysis that follows and we added numerical data),
2. Literature Review (we added numerical data),
3. Methodology (we added more details about the survey and used also a quantitative analysis as you suggested),
4. Study area (we introduced a new section presenting the areas of the Interreg Europe project that we use as case study),
5. Findings & Results (we added numerical results from the questionnaire and a correlation analysis and we introduced an extra sub-section interpreting the results),
6. Discussion (we enriched this section with the results of the correlation analysis),
7. Conclusions (we enriched this section to include all the necessary comments about our research)

We also proceed with changes for our sources on figures and tables as you suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a good job of discussing sustainable tourism through digitalization. The methodology is clearly explained. In the literature review section, the authors did well by highlighting the three pillars of sustainability (environmental, social, and economic). In the results and/or discussion sections, the authors could have referred to these three pillars. I hope this will improve the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your useful comments and suggestions about our work. We would like to inform you that we have proceed with changes in the following sections, in order to improve our work:

1. Introduction (we changed the introduction in order to be more comprehensive and to help the reader understand the analysis that follows and we added numerical data),
2. Literature Review (we added numerical data),
3. Methodology (we added more details about the survey and used also a quantitative analysis as you suggested),
4. Study area (we introduced a new section presenting the areas of the Interreg Europe project that we use as case study),
5. Findings & Results (we added numerical results from the questionnaire and a correlation analysis and we introduced an extra sub-section interpreting the results),
6. Discussion (we enriched this section with the results of the correlation analysis),
7. Conclusions (we enriched this section to include all the necessary comments about our research)

We also proceed with changes for our sources on figures and tables as you suggested.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the article: Sustainable tourism through digitalization

The article analyzes how digitalization can support the sustainable development of tourism in European regions. The authors base their research on the results of the Interreg Europe project “TAAS—Tourism as a Service,” which covered 9 regions from different EU countries. The aim is to show that the implementation of digital tools (e.g., mobile applications, tourist cards, VR/AR, data platforms) can contribute to more sustainable, innovative, and inclusive tourism.
The article lacks a detailed analysis of numerical data. This manuscript is mainly based on a qualitative approach, despite collecting quantitative data (no graphs, statistical comparison of regions).
In the article, the authors write that (L195-197): In addition to the 9 case studies, a questionnaire will also be taken into account, in which stakeholders of tourism have answered questions about the local needs and strengths of the TAAS project area and the opportunities that the project can create for tourism. However, the article does not provide the exact number of people who took part in the survey (i.e. respondents), nor the specific dates the survey was conducted. There is also no information about the number of participants (surveyees), their positions, or the exact dates the survey was conducted.
The Discussion section is in the article, but its form and content do not fully correspond to the editorial recommendations of the MDPI Sustainability journal.
The authors refer to practical challenges. They discuss the survey results in the context of barriers to digitalization and sustainable tourism (e.g., seasonality, destination overload, low quality of digital tools). They will also present the perspectives of stakeholders. Digitalisation can help limit the negative effects of mass tourism. They point out the importance of regional cooperation and public policies.
However, this section has too little critical analysis of the results. First of all, there is a lack of references to the research hypotheses (even indirect ones) and a broader theoretical context in relation to the existing literature on the studied issue. The section is more like an extensive conclusion or summary of the results than a deep discussion. "Discussion" repeats some of the content previously presented in "Findings & Results", instead of interpreting them or confronting them with the literature. There is no reference here to the limitations of the study. The authors do not mention methodological limitations, such as a small sample (9 respondents), lack of quantitative data, or the risk of subjectivity. There are also no specific suggestions for future research.
I wonder about the sentence (L26-29): According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), the pandemic had a catholic effect on the world, especially in Europe, reducing tourism flow by 74% worldwide. What is a catholic effect?
The authors should improve and refine the article to meet the high scientific standards and formal requirements of the journal Sustainability (MDPI). The work has an application value, and the interregional context enhances its practical significance. Nevertheless, the text requires significant additions and revisions regarding methodology, data presentation and narrative structure.
1. Abstract
The current abstract is too descriptive. It lacks specific numerical information and a synthetic presentation of the results.
2. Research questions
The text lacks clearly posed research questions or hypotheses.
3. Methodology
The article does not provide the number of respondents, their profile, the period of the study or the mode of response to the survey.
4. Data analysis
The presentation of the results is mainly descriptive. There is a lack of data visualization (tables, graphs) and in-depth comparative analysis.
5. Discussion
The discussion in its current form resembles an extended summary. There is a lack of reference to previous studies and methodological reflection.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your useful comments and suggestions about our work. We followed your suggestions and we proceed with changes in the following sections:

1. Introduction (we changed the introduction in order to be more comprehensive and to help the reader understand the analysis that follows and we added numerical data),
2. Literature Review (we added numerical data),
3. Methodology (we added more details about the survey and used also a quantitative analysis as you suggested),
4. Study area (we introduced a new section presenting the areas of the Interreg Europe project that we use as case study),
5. Findings & Results (we added numerical results from the questionnaire and a correlation analysis and we introduced an extra sub-section interpreting the results),
6. Discussion (we enriched this section with the results of the correlation analysis),
7. Conclusions (we enriched this section to include all the necessary comments about our research)

We tried to make our work more comprehensive with adding data and presenting research questions and hypotheses clearly. We also used the word catholic as it means generally and to emphasize that the Pandemic had influenced the whole world. We also changed the structure of our work to correspond to the editorial recommendations.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses an important and timely topic. The authors followed the suggestions and developed a more effective concept and methodological approach. However, for full scientific and practical value, a more precise definition of key terms and a more comprehensive presentation of the results are needed. It would also be interesting to look at the potential negative aspects of digitalization in tourism.

The Introduction provides statistical data on the importance of tourism in the world, and the results of similar research should have been reviewed in order to substantiate the need for this research work. This research is one in a series and does not represent some different, innovative knowledge that will be of importance for science and practice.

Also, the source should be stated below the tables, even if the table is the result of data processing by the author.

References have been improved, but the focus is still on professional knowledge, not science.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you for your insightful suggestions to our research.

We have proceed with some changes as you suggested. Specifically, we tried to mention that digital technologies in tourism does not have only positive effects in areas. It can help in improving sustainability of that area, but it can also have negative aspects. In this topic there are not many researches that provide data to prove it. For this reason, it is mentioned in the new revised version of our work as a topic for future research. We also tried to improve our references and we added sources below of all our tables. In addition, we tried to expand the analysis on our definitions. We proceed with an expansion on the term of Industry 4.0, as it was not mentioned sufficiently and we added the term "digitainability" at the end of our research. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of the article “Sustainable Tourism through Digitalization”. I appreciate the authors’ efforts to modify the manuscript in accordance with my previous comments. After analysing the text, I confirm that the key issues identified in the first review have been properly addressed. After the corrections, the article has gained in clarity, consistency of structure and scientific reliability. I believe that the current version is suitable for publication in the journal Sustainability.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you for your insightful suggestions to our research.

We would like to inform you that we have proceed with some minor changes. Specifically, we tried to mention that digital technologies in tourism does not have only positive effects in areas. It can help in improving sustainability of that area, but it can also have negative aspects. In this topic there are not many researches that provide data to prove it. For this reason, it is mentioned in the new revised version of our work as a topic for future research. We also tried to improve our references and we added sources below of all our tables. In addition, we tried to expand the analysis on our definitions. We proceed with an expansion on the term of Industry 4.0, as it was not mentioned sufficiently and we added the term "digitainability" at the end of our research.