Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

On behalf of the reviewer, I have finished reviewing the article entitled "Methodological reflection on sustainable tourism in protected natural areas". Furthermore, the article needs to increase the quality in some parts of the manuscript. Here are some areas that require clarification. 

1. The research gap and the contribution of the study need to be clarified based on the author’s elaboration. In addition, in the introduction, the authors just mentioned the gap and contribution of the study without elaborating on this component. Furthermore, authors also need to explore the aims of the study. 
2. Please make sure some paragraphs are missing with the line, or pleas make sure the paragrap are good. 
3. Methodology and discussion section are quite good. 
4. Please make sure the components of the practical and theoretical implication.  Good luck for your manuscript. 

Author Response

REVIEWER 1.

We would like to thank the reviewers for their attention and time devoted to the manuscript and express our gratitude for their comments and recommendations, which have served to enrich the work and make it more understandable.

Thank you very much.

 

Reviewer's comments:

1. The research gap and the contribution of the study need to be clarified based on the author's explanation.
2. Furthermore, in the introduction, the authors only mentioned the gap and the contribution of the study without delving deeper into this component. The authors should also explore the objectives of the study.

Corrections made:

 

After reference [20], the following content was added:

Tourism in protected areas is a complex and multidisciplinary discipline that shows gaps in research related to the balance between conservation, sustainable development, and the tourist experience. Some research focuses on immediate effects, but there is little evidence of cumulative effects, such as alteration of fauna, soil erosion, or modification of natural cycles. Further study is needed on informal activities such as unregistered visitors or illegal tourism and their effect on sensitive areas.

Other research gaps are linked to the lack of agreement on the calculation of physical, ecological and social carrying capacity for different types of ecosystems, as well as the lack of dynamic models that take into account climate change, visitor variations and ecological resilience. Many studies do not delve deeply into the analysis of the advantages or disadvantages that tourism brings to local communities, in addition to the failure to incorporate indigenous knowledge into tourism management without folklorising or exploiting it.

From this point of view, the methodology on sustainable tourism in protected areas is an important contribution, as it aims to comprehensively incorporate the study of the complex relationships between tourism and protected natural areas through an interdisciplinary approach that considers ecological, economic and social science components, as well as their impact on improving the living conditions of host communities as part of balanced socio-economic growth and local development.

The objective of the study was modified as follows: to propose a theoretical and methodological contribution to the study of sustainable tourism in protected natural areas, with the capacity to promote environmental protection and sustainable local development in host communities.

 

Reviewer's comments:

Make sure that some paragraphs are missing from the line or make sure that the paragraphs are good.

Corrections made:

The paragraphs and their content were reviewed. The structure of the text was improved.

Reviewer's comments:

The methodology and discussion sections are quite good.

Please ensure that the practical and theoretical implications are complete. Good luck with your manuscript!

Corrections made:

In chapter 4, ‘Discussion,’ section 4.7, entitled ‘Practical and theoretical implications,’ was added with the following content:

The practical implications of the research are focused on improving tourism management alongside environmental protection and providing socio-economic benefits to the host communities. The aim is to transform theory into concrete actions through a process of study adapted to local contexts and the coordination of actions between government actors, academia and communities.

As part of the practical results, we can mention the establishment and use of sustainability indicators that allow the evaluation of the impacts of tourism in real time, in accordance with the analysis by [54]. The establishment of visitor limits in accordance with ecological and social thresholds, staggered schedules and alternative routes, participation of host communities in the decision-making process, use of endogenous materials and renewable energy resources for wastewater treatment and recovery, bioremediation of eroded land, among others.

 

The manuscript will be sent for English improvement by MDPI's professional assistance. This may contribute to improving the quality and understanding of the work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

sustainability-3739489

In this paper the authors present a methodology for sustainable tourism in protected areas. The paper is well-supported by many references, reflecting the authors' effort to ground their work in existing literature. However, there is a place for improvement in the structure of the chapters, flow of sentences, and English. My comments are listed below.

Line 4 – “y” change to “,”

Introduction – too many paragraphs. There is no need to separate them by references. I suggest you group paragraphs to make reading easier.

Line 57- “areas are areas” not needed. Just delete one “area”.

Line 65-67- “Biosphere reserves created in protected areas capable of balancing conservation and human development. Wildlife sanctuaries created for the protection of critical habitats for endangered species. Marine protected areas located in ocean areas protected for the conservation of marine ecosystems” This is hard to read as the sentences should be more connected, and you should use verbs. Are wildlife and marine protected areas a part of the biosphere reserves? Also, if you indicate why the wildlife protected area is proclaimed (for endangered species), then also indicate why the biosphere reserve would be proclaimed. Define better all these three protected areas.

1.1.2. Protected natural areas in Ecuador – authors should write about the title, but they mention many countries in this chapter. Sometimes they make connection to Ecuador, and sometimes this link is not clear. If you mention other countries, connect this knowledge to Ecuador.

Line 135- “In India, they emerged two millennia ago to identify particular areas dedicated to the preservation of natural resources” This sentence does not have a clear meaning. I suggest changing it to “Two millennia ago, particular areas dedicated to the preservation of natural resources began to be identified in India.”

Line 188- „km2“ use superscript for 2.

Line 242-260- here you start your sentences multiple times with „In 2007…“ Try using phrases as „at the same time“ or „the same year“, and try to connect these findings.

Line 261- you talk about research in Turkey and say „This led to an assessment of the potential of Ecuador's natural environment “. This is not clear, and I do not see connection between results delivered in Turkey with Ecuador.

351- „hu-man“ no need for –

Line 879- „The main limitation of the study…“ I do not think this is the limitation of the "study". This is the limitation of the specific protected area which can be improved.

Line 890- „The size of the sample selected and the selection and structuring of the group of experts may constitute another limitation. “ I do not think this is the "limitation". „Bias“ is more suitable word for this case, as experts can be biased if they come from the study area and can not judge objectively. This is purely a human factor.

Figure 1 – delete one „:“ in IV row

Figure 4. All colors look similar. Try changing the color palette.

Figure 11. There are sentences which are not ending properly. Example: Second b). Fourth 3).

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggest you find a native speaker to correct the sentence structure in the Introduction section. Try grouping the sentences into longer paragraphs to improve the flow of reading. 

Author Response

REVIEWER 2.

We would like to thank the reviewers for their attention and time devoted to the manuscript and express our gratitude for their comments and recommendations, which have enriched the work and made it more understandable.

Thank you very much.

Reviewer's comments:

In this article, the authors present a methodology for sustainable tourism in protected areas. The article has extensive bibliographic support, reflecting the authors' efforts to base their work on existing literature. However, the structure of the chapters, the flow of the sentences and the English could be improved. My comments are listed below.

Reviewer's comments:

Line 4 – ‘and’ changes to ‘,’.

Corrections made:

The suggested change was made in line 4: “and” changed to ‘,’

Reviewer's comments:

Introduction: too many paragraphs. It is not necessary to separate them with references. I suggest grouping them together to make it easier to read.

Corrections made:

The introduction was revised and small paragraphs were merged to make it easier to read.

Reviewer's comments:

Line 57: ‘The areas are areas’ is not necessary. Simply delete ‘area’.

Corrections made:

The suggested change was made in line 57.

Reviewer's comments:

Lines 65-67: ‘Biosphere reserves created in protected areas capable of balancing conservation and human development. Wildlife sanctuaries created for the protection of critical habitats for endangered species. Marine protected areas located in protected ocean areas for the conservation of marine ecosystems.’ This is difficult to read, as the sentences should be more connected and verbs should be used. Are wildlife and marine protected areas part of biosphere reserves? Also, if you indicate why the wildlife protected area is designated (for endangered species), indicate why the biosphere reserve would be designated. Better define these three protected areas.

Corrections made:

The paragraph beginning on line 61 has been refined and reworded as follows:

There are several types of protected natural areas. National parks are areas of significant ecological value that are strictly protected to ensure the conservation of biodiversity, ecosystems and natural landscapes and constitute the most important conservation objective within a system of protected areas. Nature reserves, often referred to as ecological, biological or wildlife reserves, are protected natural areas specifically designed for the conservation of key species, habitats and ecological processes and are more specialised than national parks created for the conservation of specific species and ecosystems. Natural monuments are designated for the conservation of unique geological, biological and landscape features, which may be rock formations, endemic species, reefs, caves or other outstanding natural phenomena. Unlike parks, they are more specific in their focus, although they are equally vital for biodiversity and science. Biosphere reserves are areas recognised by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Science and Culture through the Man and the Biosphere programme, which seek to harmonise biodiversity conservation with sustainable development and scientific research. Unlike other protected areas such as national parks and natural monuments, they are not areas where humans are excluded, but rather spaces for promoting a model of sustainable coexistence between humans and nature. Wildlife sanctuaries are areas created with the specific function of conserving essential habitats for threatened or endangered species and, unlike other areas such as national parks or biosphere reserves, they have a more specific focus on ensuring the survival of critically vulnerable fauna and flora through the strict protection of their natural environment. Marine protected areas are areas of the ocean that are legally designated for the conservation of marine biodiversity, the restoration of damaged ecosystems and the sustainable management of aquatic resources. Unlike terrestrial protected areas, they face unique challenges due to their connection to international waters, industrial fishing and the effects of climate change [10].

Reviewer's comments:

1.1.2. Protected natural areas in Ecuador: The authors should mention the title, but they mention many countries in this chapter. Sometimes they make a connection with Ecuador, and other times this connection is not clear. If they mention other countries, relate this knowledge to Ecuador.

Corrections made:

The recommendations were accepted and the following contributions were made:

The content referring to the cases of Bigodi Uganda [45]; São Miguel das Missões, in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil [47]; and Turkey [48] was removed.

In the cases referring to experiences in Belize [43], the Dominican Republic [44] and the rural community of Taquile Island in Peru [46], the following contributions were made:

At the international level, some experiences were developed that influenced the development of tourism in protected natural areas in Ecuador. In 1999, interest in the debate on ecological issues and sustainability among academics fostered the development of research focused on community-based tourism based on participatory planning and the distribution of economic benefits to social sectors in Belize [43]. The experiences gained were welcomed in Ecuador by community ecotourism, based on community initiatives to participate in sustainable tourism to improve the living conditions of host communities and promote local control of small-scale tourism, experiences that benefited the development of tourism in the context of protected natural areas.

Another international experience that influenced the development of tourism in protected natural areas in Ecuador took place in the Dominican Republic in 2004 through the development of a project with a modelled approach for the evaluation of integrated systems and transdisciplinary analysis to conceptualise the impacts of different types of tourism, considering the interrelationship between ecology, economy and society [44]. The experiences generated by the project led to suggestions for promoting tourism development in different contexts, including Ecuadorian initiatives in protected natural areas.

In 2007, in the rural community of Taquile Island in Peru, research was conducted to analyse the performance and influence of external intermediaries and mediators in sustainable tourism [46]. The project experiences were used to analyse the consequences of competition and transport control in tourist facilities developed in the context of protected areas. The need to further investigate the impacts of intermediation and mediation was identified, particularly in relation to investment, the performance of the Ecuadorian public sector and the participation of host community actors.

Reviewer's comments:

Line 135: ‘In India, they emerged two millennia ago to identify specific areas dedicated to the preservation of natural resources.’ This sentence is unclear. I suggest changing it to: ‘Two millennia ago, specific areas dedicated to the preservation of natural resources began to be identified in India.’

Corrections made:

The recommendation was accepted as indicated by the reviewer.

Reviewer's comments:

Line 188- ‘km2’ use superscript for 2.

Corrections made:

The recommendation was accepted as indicated by the reviewer.

Reviewer's comments:

Lines 242-260: Here you begin your sentences several times with ‘In 2007...’ Try using phrases such as ‘at the same time’ or ‘the same year’ and try to connect these findings.

Corrections made:

The recommendation was accepted and the redundancy related to the year 2007 was removed, as indicated by the reviewer.

 

Reviewer's comments:

Line 261: You mention research in Turkey and say, ‘This led to an assessment of the potential of Ecuador's natural environment.’ This is unclear, and I do not see any connection between the results obtained in Turkey and those in Ecuador.

Corrections made:

The recommendation was accepted and the paragraph related to the research carried out in Turkey was removed.

Reviewer's comments:

351- ‘hu-mano’ is not necessary –

Corrections made:

The recommendation was accepted as indicated by the reviewer.

 

Reviewer's comments:

Line 879: ‘The main limitation of the study...’ I do not believe that this is the limitation of the ‘study.’ It is the limitation of the specific protected area, which can be improved.

Line 890: ‘The size of the sample selected and the selection and structuring of the expert group may constitute another limitation.’ I do not believe that this is the ‘limitation.’ ‘Bias’ is more appropriate in this case, as the experts may be biased if they come from the study area and cannot judge objectively. This is purely a human factor.

Corrections made:

The recommendation was accepted as indicated by the reviewer. The two paragraphs (lines 879 and 890) related to limitations were deleted and new content was added:

Among the main limitations are the lack of a global consensus on the definition of sustainable tourism; the lack of continuous scientific monitoring, with most research based on short-term data, which does not allow for the determination of the effects of tourism on impacts that may take several years to manifest, such as trail erosion or microplastic pollution; academic approaches that are disconnected from reality, motivated by poor consultation with community actors on the concept of sustainable tourism; studies that ignore cultural, ecological and legal differences, offering results based on generalisations that are disconnected from the objective reality of each territory. Therefore, the proposed methodology aims to adopt integrated frameworks by combining ecological, social and economic indicators with the use of the Tourism Benefits and Impact Measurement (MBPI) method; to encourage longitudinal studies and continuous scientific monitoring; the involvement of tourists and local actors in the collection of sensitive data and information; and the organisation of workshops with community participation on criteria associated with sustainability.

Reviewer's comments:

Figure 1 – delete a ‘:’ in row IV

Corrections made:

The recommendation was accepted in accordance with the reviewer's comments, and the figure now appears as follows:

Reviewer's comments:

Figure 4. All colours look similar. Try changing the colour palette.

Corrections made:

The recommendation was accepted as indicated by the reviewer and a new figure was provided.

Reviewer's comments:

Figure 11. Some sentences are not correctly punctuated. Example: Second b). Fourth 3).

Corrections made:

The recommendation was accepted in accordance with the reviewer's comments and a new figure was provided.

Reviewer's comments:

Comments on the quality of the English language.

I suggest you find a native speaker to correct the sentence structure in the Introduction section. Try to group sentences into longer paragraphs to make it easier to read.

Corrections made:

The manuscript will be sent for English improvement by MDPI's professional assistance. This may help improve the quality and comprehension of the work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The study demonstrates strong practical significance. However, the following issues require improvement: 1. The concepts "sustainable tourism", "ecotourism", and "responsible tourism" lack clear distinction in their usage. 2. Section 1 of the literature review is somewhat redundant; it could be more focused on identifying the research gap(s). 3. The sources and construction process of the sustainable tourism indicators need detailed elaboration; the current description is insufficient. 4. The sample size is notably small. Is its representativeness adequate? Please explain the rationale for sample selection. Why was Machalilla Park chosen over the other 13 parks? Shouldn't local residents be included as tourism stakeholders? Clarification is needed. 5. On page 12, line 454: What does "M=5" signify? 6. For the studies in sections 3.1 and 3.2: Is validation of reliability and validity required? 7. The low value of Kendall's W coefficient in Table 3 suggests poor agreement/consistency, correct? 8. Figure 5 has low resolution, making the legend difficult to discern. In Figure 11, the abbreviations "SLR" and "RST" are undefined.

Author Response

REVISOR 3.

Queremos agradecer a los revisores por su atención y tiempo dedicado al manuscrito y expresar nuestra gratitud por sus comentarios y recomendaciones, que han servido para enriquecer el trabajo y hacerlo más comprensible.

Muchas gracias

Comentarios del revisor:

El estudio demuestra gran relevancia práctica. Sin embargo, los siguientes aspectos requieren mejoras:

Comentarios:

1. Los conceptos de “turismo sostenible”, “ecoturismo” y “turismo responsable” carecen de una distinción clara en su uso.

La recomendación fue aceptada de acuerdo con los comentarios del revisor y se agregó nuevo contenido a la sección de discusión.

El concepto de turismo sostenible es transversal a todos los tipos de turismo. Para el diseño de la metodología, la aplicación y el uso de este concepto implican la implementación práctica de una perspectiva turística orientada a reducir el impacto negativo del sector en el medio ambiente, la cultura y las comunidades locales, a la vez que se promueven beneficios económicos y sociales a largo plazo para el sector y las comunidades anfitrionas. Las principales características incluyen la reducción de la contaminación y el consumo de recursos naturales, la protección de la biodiversidad y los ecosistemas, y la promoción del uso de energías renovables y prácticas ecoeficientes [12].

 

El concepto de ecoturismo implica la participación en actividades de turismo sostenible como una forma especializada de turismo que se centra en la naturaleza, la conservación del medio ambiente y el beneficio de las comunidades anfitrionas. Se lleva a cabo en entornos naturales con el objetivo de fomentar la observación de la flora y la fauna sin alterar las condiciones del hábitat. Se utilizan infraestructuras y equipos de bajo impacto para prevenir la contaminación y el deterioro del medio ambiente, promoviendo así el aprecio por la naturaleza entre los turistas [7,62].

 

La práctica del turismo responsable implica la adopción de un enfoque ético específico dentro del turismo sostenible, centrado en promover comportamientos inspirados en la maximización de los beneficios para las comunidades locales, la reducción de los efectos ambientales adversos y el fomento de decisiones conscientes por parte de visitantes y prestadores de servicios para garantizar la protección ambiental, social y cultural del territorio. El objetivo es que el turismo genere ingresos directos y oportunidades de empleo para la comunidad anfitriona [13,80].

 

Comentarios:

2. La sección 1 de la revisión de la literatura es algo redundante; podría centrarse más en identificar lagunas en la investigación.

Se ha perfeccionado el contenido de la sección 1.

Comentarios:

3. Las fuentes y el proceso de construcción de indicadores de turismo sostenible requieren una elaboración detallada; la descripción actual es insuficiente.

Se aceptaron los comentarios y recomendaciones realizadas por el revisor y se agregó nuevo contenido:

The objective of implementing sustainable tourism indicators in protected natural areas is to provide the methodology with a practical and structured tool that guarantees increased effectiveness in tourism management processes.  The findings facilitate the identification of difficulties and non-compliance in relation to tourism sustainability and enable the establishment of guidelines and measures for decision-making in institutions, with the aim of advancing the management of tourist destinations that are developed in the context of protected areas.

Sustainable tourism indicators were established within the framework of protected natural areas, based on three specific instruments: the database of tourism indicators published by the World Tourism Organisation in 2005 [53]; the tourism sustainability index [54] as a tool for measuring the impact of tourism on a destination; and the Ecuador Tourism Indicator System [55] as initial information in the process of determining specific indicators of tourism sustainability in the context of protected areas.

The sustainable development indicators for tourist destinations formed the database for the analysis of tourism sustainability in the field of protected natural areas and are based on the collection of systematised data that facilitate the comparative and progressive study of a destination. It basically includes economic, socio-cultural, environmental and governance-related data, as well as other variables that facilitate the characterisation of the destination and the administrative processes related to public administration and the development of key tourism business elements [56].

Based on the tourism sustainability index, an additional index is developed that facilitates the integrated interpretation of the results through statistical data representative of the value of tourism sustainability in the context of protected natural areas. It allows comparisons to be made between different situations over time in the same destination to facilitate decision-making based on the evolutionary characterisation and the effect of measures and actions that can be applied successively.

The Ecuador Tourism Indicator System provides specific data for the sustainable management of destinations and for decision-making in the Ecuadorian tourism management process, with data updated until 2024.

The development of sustainable tourism indicators in protected natural areas is based on research carried out in 2022 by the authors [57], who used a three-dimensional design and 18 simple indicators, which were adapted and modified for this project, where four dimensions and 12 simple indicators were designed.

Comments:

4. The sample size is remarkably small. Is it representative? Explain the rationale for the sample selection. Why was Machalilla Park chosen instead of the other 13 parks? Should local residents be included as tourism stakeholders? Clarification is required.

The comments and recommendations made by the reviewer were accepted and the following content was incorporated:

Regarding the sample size, it should be noted that protected areas tend to have a limited target population (managers, guides, specialised visitors and local communities) and limited logistical and economic resources in remote or difficult-to-access contexts, which restricts the study sample.

On the other hand, the qualitative and exploratory approach delves deeper and provides a better understanding of complex phenomena than statistical generalisation. Representativeness may be sufficient if the sample includes key actors and a diversity of perspectives.

In exploratory studies, validity is based on the richness of the information and theoretical saturation rather than on the number of cases, so statistical generalisation is not sought, but rather contextual understanding and the generation of hypotheses.

It was therefore decided to carry out convenience sampling, selecting accessible and available participants based on relevant characteristics defined by the limitations and vulnerabilities of protected natural areas.

It should be noted that the use of small samples is common and accepted in qualitative, exploratory or case studies, especially in contexts that are difficult to access or with small populations, as is the case in many protected areas dedicated to ecotourism. The key lies in the careful selection of participants and methodological transparency in justifying sampling decisions.

Machalilla Park was selected for the study rather than another park, taking into account the aspects considered by the researchers: biodiversity and ecological importance; cultural and archaeological relevance; diverse ecosystems represented; active presence of local communities; legal protection, recognition, experience and track record in ecotourism; accessibility and connectivity; zoning and size; climatic and environmental conditions; and diversity of tourist offerings.

It should be noted that the tourism stakeholders included in the sample included local residents who are key players in the operation, improvement and management of sustainable tourism, allowing for analysis of the social appropriation of ecotourism, benefits, effectiveness of community participation and its challenges. They are highly representative in terms of roles and sectors within the community, knowledge and experience of the relationship between conservation and tourism, and contribute a diversity of perspectives, contextual knowledge, identification of socio-cultural impacts and promote the applicability and relevance of the research results. From an ethical point of view, voluntary participation, informed consent, local knowledge and the cultural diversity of the host communities were taken into account.

Comments:

1. On page 12, line 454: What does ‘M=5’ mean?

M stands for sample and the number 5 is an error; the correct number is 9.

 

Comments:

2. Para los estudios de las secciones 3.1 y 3.2: ¿Se requiere validación de la confiabilidad y validez?

 

La recomendación fue aceptada de acuerdo con los comentarios del revisor y se incluyó el siguiente contenido en la sección de metodología:

Se realizó una validación para determinar la confiabilidad mediante un estudio piloto que identificó ítems ambiguos o poco correlacionados. Se aplicó el coeficiente alfa de Cronbach para medir la consistencia interna de los ítems, con un valor de 0,79, lo que indica una buena confiabilidad.

La validez de contenido se demostró a través de una revisión por expertos con suficiente conocimiento en turismo sostenible, ecoturismo y el concepto de turismo responsable, la validez de constructo se demostró a través de un análisis cualitativo que verificó que los ítems de la encuesta agruparan coherentemente las dimensiones teóricas y la validez de criterio se demostró comparando los resultados con otros indicadores propuestos por autores citados en el marco teórico de la investigación y por instrumentos aplicados en estudios previos.

Comentarios:

 

3. El bajo valor del coeficiente W de Kendall en la Tabla 3 sugiere poco acuerdo/consistencia, ¿correcto?

La recomendación fue aceptada de acuerdo con los comentarios del revisor y se agregó nuevo contenido:

El bajo valor de la W de Kendall sugiere que los expertos no discriminaron bien entre criterios, por lo que la aplicación del método Delphi permitió alcanzar un consenso más sólido y defendible.

Cada criterio fue evaluado por nueve expertos y se calcularon los siguientes datos para cada criterio:

• Media y mediana
• desviación estándar
• RIQ (rango intercuartil): útil para determinar el consenso

Aunque el coeficiente W de Kendall fue muy bajo, los resultados Delphi muestran que no hay una gran dispersión (todos los RIQ = 0,0); la mayoría de los criterios tienen una mediana = 5,0, lo que indica un acuerdo aparente, lo que explica por qué W fue bajo: hubo acuerdo, pero no suficiente variación para que Kendall lo detectara.

Los resultados del análisis se muestran en la Tabla 4.

Tabla 4. Resultados del análisis

No	Promedio		Medio	desviación estándar	ICR (rango intercuartil)
1	Valor práctico	4.888888888888889	5.0	0.33333333333333337	0.0
2	Viabilidad	5.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
3	Empleabilidad	4.777777777777778	5.0	0.4409585518440984	0.0
4	Perspectiva de desarrollo	4.888888888888889	5.0	0.33333333333333337	0.0
5	Trascendencia	5.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
6	Carácter innovador	4.888888888888889	5.0	0.33333333333333337	0.0
7	Versatilidad	4.777777777777778	5.0	0.4409585518440984	0.0

 

En la Tabla 5 (criterios de uso), dos criterios mostraron una alta dispersión y deberían reevaluarse en una segunda ronda Delphi:

• Sencillez y facilidad de uso
• Adopción de normas internacionales

Ambos presentes:

• RIC = 1.0
• Desviación estándar ≥ 0,5

Esto indica que algunos expertos no comparten la misma evaluación y que vale la pena explorar las razones detrás de estas diferencias.

Por lo tanto, se realizó una segunda ronda, en la que la mayoría de los criterios tuvieron medianas de 5 y rangos intercuartílicos (RIC) de 0, lo que indica una dispersión muy baja en las respuestas. La Tabla 6 muestra los resultados del análisis.

Tabla 6. Resultados del análisis

No	Promedio	Medio		desviación estándar	ICR (rango intercuartil)	¿Revalorar?
1	Capacidad integradora	4.888888888888889	5.0	0.33333333333333337	0.0	FALSO
2	Sencillez y facilidad de uso	4.666666666666667	5.0	0.5	1.0	Verdadero
3	Asequibilidad para los participantes	5.0	5.0	0.0	0.0	FALSO
4	Adopción de normas internacionales	4.555555555555555	5.0	0.5270462766947298	1.0	Verdadero
5	Definición estructural general	5.0	5.0	0.0	0.0	FALSO
6	Adaptabilidad a los cambios del entorno	4.777777777777778	5.0	0.4409585518440984	0.0	FALSO

 

Comentarios:

1. La Figura 5 tiene baja resolución, lo que dificulta la lectura del pie de foto. En la Figura 11, las abreviaturas «SLR» y «RST» no están definidas.

Se aceptó la recomendación según lo indicado por el revisor y se modificaron las figuras 5 y 11.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am happy to see that authors accepted my suggestions to change the previous version, as now the text and the figures looks much better. I have no further suggestions. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has fully addressed all previous reviewers' comments. Therefore, we recommend acceptance of the current version.