Sustainability Struggle: Challenges and Issues in Managing Sustainability and Environmental Protection in Local Tourism Destinations Practices—An Overview^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors should be congratulated on their efforts to improve the work.
While no work can ever be perfect, I believe this one is worthy of publication and will make a valuable contribution to the field.

Good work.

Author Response

Please see the attached file. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the introduction part, It claims to fill the "gap in the operational framework", but does not clearly define the scale of the "local destination" (villages and towns?) Protected area? This leads to the ambiguity of the research boundary. The main causes of environmental problems are attributed to "insufficient government participation" and "weak public awareness", while structural obstacles such as market mechanisms (such as the absence of carbon pricing) and enterprise resource limitations are ignored.

In literature review, no related theory was choosen and based. Besides, the key contributions description should not be put into the literature review part.

In data and methods,   the content analysis method only describes keyword retrieval and does not show the coding process, reliability test or software tools (such as NVivo), making it difficult to verify the objectivity of the conclusion. The literature screening criteria are ambiguous (such as subjective judgment on "applicability"), which may omit  literatures (government reports) or non-English research, leading to doubts about the representativeness of "Global Insights".

The research findinds should respond to theoretical contribution, or form a verifiable conceptual model or indicator system.

The overall text organization is disorder. So many paragraph divisions.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is well written. However, to further improve the quality of the study, the reviewer would like to make a few suggestions.

1. Given the topics covered in this study, the authors could discuss the implications for the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) from a tourism perspective.
2. The authors could cite, and more importantly reflect on, several important previous studies which could contribute to this study.
3. Regarding "3. Materials and Methods", I would like to leave comments:
   The authors noted that "The researchers decided to manually review the selected articles ... " Please be specific about "manually review." How can future researchers manually review?  The authors also noted that "Given the resources for this study, manual analysis 260 was chosen by the researchers as more feasible and effective ..."  This reviewer is hard to agree with the authors' claim. Is manual analysis really feasible and effective against non-manual analysis?  Based on this reviewer's knowledge, there are many quantitative approaches for critical review of literatures and bibliography studies. 
4. More importantly, research questions, i.e., RQ1 and RQ2, focus on barriers in the context of sustainable tourism. However, it looks a bit hard to confirm those primary barriers, i.e., what are the primary barriers?, and how those barriers can be dealt with improving environmental outcomes.
5. In overall, major revision is recommended.

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please make it more coherent overall. 

Author Response

Thank you very much, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for your efforts. The authors well considered suggestions made by this reviewer. 

Author Response

Thank you very much, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I feel this is a review type article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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

The paper ‘Managing Sustainability and Environmental Protection in Local Tourism Destinations - An overview and Challenges’ picks up an interesting research thread. The authors focused attention on the issue of current environmental challenges in managing local tourism destinations on a sustainable basis. In the study, the authors highlighted the importance of sustainability as a key determinant of the development and success of local tourism destinations. A literature review was conducted for the study. Qualitative methods were used in the methodology adopted. 
The abstract of the paper presents the aim of the research, the methodology adopted and the main conclusions. The abstract should point out the gap in the literature to which the paper responds. The abstract should be improved in this respect. 

The introduction discusses the background to the research by pointing out the issue of environmental protection in local tourist destinations and the challenges of sustainable development in this area. In the introduction, the authors present the research concept, formulate the research themes. I make no observations on the introduction presented.
The next part of the paper presents a literature review. The review justifies the research strand undertaken. However, it is worthwhile to relate the introductory content more broadly to the aspect of the environmental challenges of tourism destinations and the public's opinion of the challenges undertaken in this regard. These are important aspects related to the area of sustainable development, creating the potential for sustainable change of tourist destinations. In this respect, it is worth highlighting this issue on a world - study area scale to indicate the importance of public support for the changes being made as a determinant of business effectiveness. In this respect, it is worth studying, among others, https://doi.org/10.3390/en17163912, 10.1371/journal.pone.0319254. The above will enrich the cognitive value of the paper in the area studied. Outside of the area indicated, I do not contribute observations to the literature review.

The next part of the paper is oriented towards a discussion of methodology and sources. I believe that a purely qualitative analytical approach needs to be supported by at least simple quantitative instrumentation to strengthen the inference. I suggest the use of simple methods or simple statistics to strengthen the research side. The accepted nature of the paper is ‘article’ (noted in the header) and not ‘review’, although this is how the authors define it and the content indicates this. However, even for a review, simple quantitative methods are generally advisable, so I recommend these additions. 
The further research section focuses on the theoretical discussion of aspects of the challenges of tourism destinations in the sphere of sustainability. The authors here shift the diagnosis aspect of challenges and measurement, pointing to tools with mapping to the cognitive area (point 4 Environmental Sustainability in Tourism - Measures and Activities). This is a very valuable point, prepared with a strong reference to the literature.

The next section is oriented towards the layout of current challenges, with the identification of key management challenges in the sphere of environmental management in tourism destinations, articulating the role of sustainability (section 5). Particularly valuable in this part of the study is Figure 1. This section presents the exhaustively discussed theme from the theoretical side. 
The theoretical study leads to theoretical conclusions. As already indicated, it makes sense to enrich the presented study with a quantitative approach, where the authors would present numerical summaries of the sources discussed, providing a basis for an in-depth analysis. This would strengthen the research section and improve the conclusions.
The discussion section should be more strongly oriented towards discussing the results of the authors' findings against the background of alternative studies. The above provides a basis for emphasising the novelty of the approach presented. The discussion section should be improved once the quantitative study has been strengthened. Similarly, the conclusion.

Also.
Literature well selected, but worth strengthening in the introductory content area - according to comments in the review
In summary, this is a good paper. However, it needs some improvements prior to publication - to complete the discussion in the area of introductory content (literature review) - according to comments in the review. In addition, the methodology needs to be strengthened with a quantitative approach (simple enough) and the inference needs to be improved as a result of the above.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for bringing this important issue to our attention. Indeed, tourism is a business sector that, in many parts, lags behind other industries in adopting sustainable practices. It is therefore valuable to research into the reasons why this industry is so hesitant. The present paper, however, scratches merely the surface. Large parts (especially chapter 4) does not advance the current state of knowledge, but replicates insights which have been long reached university course books or other teaching material. I therefore recommend to narrow down the research question and to dedicate the paper to one or two more specific questions. In the discussion part, you touch upon some very interesting issues, which you could take on and dedicate the paper to. This is a) line 550 ff: The important questions that arise are why these movements are slow and current issues still on for over a decade, and what can be done to change this situation, since it is obvious that local destinations heavily depend on a healthy and well preserved environment. >> yes, please engage in this, I would find it very interesting and relevant or b) line 558ff: circularity and interconnectedness of influencers: this would be interesting to look into as well.

The weakest part of the paper is the introduction. This is due to weak language as well as weak structure. I would like to recommend to re-structure the introductory part and to dedicate a full paragraph to one argumentative point. As it stands now, paragraphs contain different thoughts and do not fully develop an argumentative structure. They, therefore, seem accidental and are hardly convincing. The introduction contains a lot of buzz-words (agility, digitalization and resilience… leadership, line 3), which authors do not take up in the literature review. In this regards, the introduction produces a lot of “loose ends” (slack information) which does not serve the consistency of the paper.  

Regarding research questions, it is not fully clear whether they relate to tourism businesses or destinations (“sustainable tourism practices” may relate to tour operators or hotels as well). The same applies to the three aims formulated in lines 102-106. Line 105: Offering theoretical and managerial implications and some frameworks that destination management can utilize>> please be more precise: what frameworks, for what?

Nearly as week as the introduction is the methods section. Please describe the methodological steps in a more precise and complete way. Especially, I could not understand what criteria you applied to include or exclude papers after the screening of the abstracts. Secondly, authors should better explain how they derived their findings (in a qualitative way) from the material. If you used qualitative content analysis, please describe how.  

In the results section, contents of chapter 4 and 5 largely overlap. In chapter 4 well-known management approaches like EU ETIS Framework are missing. In chapter 5 there is a considerable number of statements, which are too simplistic or which are not entirely correct. This is the case for, i.e. line 389:  Destination management, in its essence, includes corporate and public management >> Destination managements do not engage in public management in its common sense.

In the discussion part, authors put responsibility on international bodies, instead of local businesses and tourists. This view is very much contested and should be discussed critically, at least. Secondly, authors miss to hint at the value-action-gap in tourism. They emphasise the role of knowledge and education but omit to say that despite knowledge tourists and tourism businesses tend to act unsustainably. Research on jow this could be changed would be a very interesting, and enlightening endeavour.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some of your expressions are hard to understand or not idiomatic for example:
-line 47: persuades tourist demand
- line 64: This entails a responsible attitude toward environmental protection>> probably "this requires a responsible attitude..."
And many other parts of the paper, which I cannot list. The paper would profit from proof reading by a native speaker. There are spelling errors.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In terms of literature review, present literature review merges multiple aspects into a whole, please give different facets for review. There is a lack of transitional sentences between paragraphs, and there are large jumps in content. For example, there is a direct shift from the systemic description of the environment to the agenda framework , with no explanation as to how the two fit together.

You should summarize your main research contributions after literature review..  

In terms of part 4, Environmental Sustainability in Tourism - Measures and Activities, 

In terms of research methods, some text analysis methods, such as Nivio qualitative software, Citespace software to better reveal core issues in local tourism develoment.

In terms of the analysis of the results, Current Issues in the Management of Environmental Sustainability in Local Tourism Destinations should be further refined and divided into several parts for a clearer understanding by the reader. Besides, despite mentioning the roles and responsibilities of local governments, there is no detailed discussion of the practical challenges that local governments may face in implementing these environmental policies. The article mentions what measures and actions should be taken, but lacks citations of specific successful cases or practical experiences, which makes the discussion at the theoretical level slightly abstract and makes it difficult to provide clear guidance for practical operation.

The figures plooted in this paper is not clearly presented.

In terms of discussion, the analysis is disjointed and does not capture the focus of the discussion.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the work is good, as the review covers central themes such as sustainability, tourism destination management, environmental protection and the role of stakeholders, which are current and relevant topics for the area. Relevant works are cited (e.g. Gössling, Hall, UNWTO) and the topic is framed in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

However, as with any work, it has limitations with regard to Lack of criticality of the concept of sustainability in tourism, such as in relation to debates on "overtourism" (e.g., work by Peeters et al., 2018, on limits to tourism growth); criticism of sustainable tourism in developing countries (e.g., Fletcher, 2011; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020); Technology and sustainability, which could include discussions on the role of platforms (e.g., Airbnb and its impacts) or AI in tourism, Fletcher, 2011; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020); technology and sustainability, which could include discussions on the role of digital platforms (e.g. Airbnb and its environmental impacts) or AI in destination management (references such as Gretzel et al., 2015).

In terms of limitations, the conclusions do not differentiate the contexts (e.g. mature vs. emerging destinations) in a specific way and the theoretical implications are not very innovative, as the suggestions made (e.g. greater government involvement) are already well documented in the literature.

We therefore suggest the following improvements:

1. Include criticisms of sustainable tourism (e.g. works by Sharpley, 2020, or Fletcher, 2011).
2. Contextualize regional differences (e.g. compare Europe and Africa), if possible.
3. Discuss ethical limitations (e.g., how to avoid excluding local communities in decisions).

Suggested references for inclusion:

Fletcher, R. (2011). Sustaining Tourism, Sustaining Capitalism? The Tourism Industry's Role in Global Capitalist Expansion. Tourism Geographies, 13(3), 443-461. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2011.570372

Peeters, P. et al. (2018). Tourism's Impact on Climate Change.

Buhalis, D., Amaranggana, A. (2013). Smart Tourism Destinations. In: Xiang, Z., Tussyadiah, I. (eds) Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2014. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03973-2_40

Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2021). Overtourism: Lessons for a Better Future. Island Press. ISBN-10: 1642830763 and ISBN-13 : 978-1642830767

Good luck

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the article. 

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments, guidance, and support in improving our manuscript. We have carefully considered and incorporated all your suggestions, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality of the article. All additions and changes made in response to your feedback are highlighted in green within the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, thank you for the second version of the paper. Unfortunately, the paper's contents are still very broad and generic, thus not delivering any considerable new insights. The abstract's structure does still not live up to common standards as regards structure and contents. The aim of the paper to equip stakeholders with tools to operationalize sustainability has not been met. Instead, managerial implications are vague, remain on a very superficial level and do not contribute any new insights to act on sustainability in destinations. The case of Serbia does not relate to the rest of the paper. It is still unclear how the results were deduced from the data. Authors refer to thematic coding (page 5), however do not explain how codes were set or how categories were deduced.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments, guidance, and support in improving our manuscript. We have carefully considered and incorporated all your suggestions, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality of the article. All additions and changes made in response to your feedback are highlighted in green within the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The overall logic should be further enhanced, and the discussion part should be integrated more cohesive. 

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments, guidance, and support in improving our manuscript. We have carefully considered and incorporated all your suggestions, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality of the article. All additions and changes made in response to your feedback are highlighted in green within the revised manuscript.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, the paper is still too generic, the contents are too unspecific and broad. The paper does not contain new insights.The research gap as formulated by the autors ("Despite growing recognition of sustainability’s importance, practical guidance forovercoming implementation barriers remains scarce. Prior research has focused on theo- retical models or isolated case studies, leaving a gap in scalable, stakeholder-centric frameworks.") does not apply, since there is a multitude of practical frameworks on how to implement sustainability measures throughout the touristic value chain. Furthermore, authors apply concepts incorrectly or mix up concepts, for example sustainable development is not the same as sustainability (line 95). The concept of environmental competiviveness, though interesting, is not explained well, and hardly plays a role in the discussion. The discussion heavily refers to government institutions, whether on European, national or local level, as necessary promotors of a sustainable development in tourism, thus taking the responsiblity off the shoulders of tourism businesses, guests and DMOs. The title of the paper does not fit the content, since the paper is not about managing sustainability in destinations, but about public governance or public rule-setting for sustainability in tourism. The methods section still does not shed light on how the evaluation of the papers was done.

Author Response

Authors sincerely appreciate the time and effort taken to provide detailed feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have helped us significantly improve the paper’s focus, clarity, and theoretical rigour. Below, we outline the key revisions made in response to your concerns, with major changes indicated in green in the revised manuscript:

1. Specificity and Novelty:

-We have refined the paper’s focus to address specific gaps in scalable, stakeholder-centric frameworks for sustainability in tourism, clarifying how our work differs from existing practical frameworks (e.g., by emphasizing multi-stakeholder collaboration and measurable outcomes).

-New insights from recent literature and case exaples to strengthen the originality of our contribution have been added.

2. Research Gap Clarification:

-The research gap has been reformulated to better reflect the lack of integrated frameworks that bridge theoretical models, case studies, and scalable solutions, addressing your concern about the multiplicity of existing frameworks.

3. Conceptual Precision:

-Corrected the conflation of sustainability and sustainable development (Line 95.

-Expanded the explanation of environmental competitiveness and its role in the discussion, linking it more explicitly to destination-level decision-making.

4. Stakeholder Responsibility:

-The discussion now better balances the roles of public institutions, businesses, DMOs, and tourists, emphasizing shared accountability.

Title Adjustment:

-The title has been revised to better reflect the paper’s content.

Methods Transparency:

-The Methods section now details the systematic evaluation process for included papers.

We hope these revisions address your concerns and welcome further suggestions to enhance the manuscript’s quality. Thank you again for your valuable feedback and patience.

 

Best regards,

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf