Bridging Research and Practice in Sustainable Tourism: The Case of Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Manuscript: “Bridging Research and Practice in Sustainable Tourism: The Case of Spain”
Date: 1st September
Journal: Sustainability

 

1. General Comments

The manuscript addresses an important topic at the interface of research and practice in sustainable tourism in Spain. Overall, the study is well-structured, the methodology is appropriate, and the findings are clearly presented. The manuscript could be strengthened by incorporating more contextual literature and clarifying certain methodological and interpretative aspects.

 

2. Title and Abstract

• The title is informative and accurately reflects the content of the manuscript.
• The abstract is generally clear and concise. It highlights that few studies have examined how industry professionals actively engage in sustainable tourism practices.

3. Introduction

• The introduction clearly defines the aim of the study and outlines the methodology.
• It would benefit from including additional literature on sustainable tourism in Spain to provide a richer background and context, such as:
• Dodds, R. (2007). Sustainable tourism and policy implementation: Lessons from the case of Calviá, Spain. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(4), 296–322.
• Cisneros-Martínez, J. D., McCabe, S., & Fernández-Morales, A. (2018). The contribution of social tourism to sustainable tourism: A case study of seasonally adjusted programmes in Spain. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(1), 85–107.
• Huete-Alcocer, N., López-Ruiz, V. R., & Grigorescu, A. (2019). Measurement of satisfaction in sustainable tourism: A cultural heritage site in Spain. Sustainability, 11(23), 6774.
• Blancas, F. J., Lozano-Oyola, M., Gonzalez, M., Guerrero, F. M., & Caballero, R. (2011). How to use sustainability indicators for tourism planning: The case of rural tourism in Andalusia (Spain). Science of the Total Environment, 412, 28–45.
• Boqué-Ciurana, A., Menendez, M., Suarez Bilbao, M., & Aguilar, E. (2022). Exploring the climatic potential of Somo’s surf spot for tourist destination management. Sustainability, 14(14), 8496.
• Vazquez Vicente, G., Martín Barroso, V., & Blanco Jimenez, F. J. (2021). Sustainable tourism, economic growth and employment—The case of the wine routes of Spain. Sustainability, 13(13), 7164.
• Dans, E. P., & González, P. A. (2019). Sustainable tourism and social value at World Heritage Sites: Towards a conservation plan for Altamira, Spain. Annals of Tourism Research, 74, 68–80.
• The introduction sections are well-organized but ensure that relevant and recent literature is adequately cited to strengthen the contextual framing.

 

4. Methodology

• The methodology is clearly described and appropriate for the research objectives.
• On page 3, lines 98–99, consider indicating in brackets which explanation corresponds to Sections 2.1, 2.2, or 2.3 for clarity.
• Figure 2 is well-presented.
• The literature review is clearly explained.
• Suggestions / Potential Improvements:
• In Section 2.2, the authors describe the Spanish sustainable tourism model. It could be valuable to include information on climate change adaptation plans of the different autonomous communities or clarify why this was not incorporated. – I understand that this is not included in this study, but it would be of interest to mention why it is not added and if this topic could be of interest for future research-.
• For Figure 3, specify in the title that the panelists’ profile relates to the Delphi analysis.

 

5. Results / Findings

• Results are clearly presented.
• Figure 4: Specify that the table was derived from the literature review.
• Page 12, line 2.17: Future research could examine findings for each autonomous community; consider adding this to the conclusion/discussion.
• Figure 6: Indicate in the title if the figure is based on Delphi results.
• Table 10: Mention in the title whether the actions were selected through the Delphi process.
• Overall, tables, figures, and graphs are appropriate and informative. Ensure that the results are correctly interpreted and clearly linked to the methodology.

 

6. Conclusions

• For future research, it would be valuable to link proposed actions to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
• Page 17, lines 382–386: This is an important point. Suggest including it as a potential future research avenue.
• Page 17, lines 396–397: This result highlights potential vulnerabilities under climate change. Consider adding a sentence explicitly discussing possible mitigation or adaptation strategies or exploring alternative scenarios to enhance resilience.
• As a future research avenue, it would be interesting to examine the scientific advances published on sustainable tourism in Spain and explore how these findings could be translated into practical applications. The authors could consider adding a sentence in the manuscript highlighting this potential direction for future research.

 

Author Response

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Thank you for your useful suggestions on our manuscript, they have led us to improve substantially the quality of the paper. The detailed responses to your comments are listed below point by point.

 

 

1. General Comments. The manuscript addresses an important topic at the interface of research and practice in sustainable tourism in Spain. Overall, the study is well-structured, the methodology is appropriate, and the findings are clearly presented. The manuscript could be strengthened by incorporating more contextual literature and clarifying certain methodological and interpretative aspects.

 

ANSWER

We very much appreciate your valuable comments, contextual literature was incorporated as recommended in lines 60 to 75.

 

 

2. Title and Abstract. The title is informative and accurately reflects the content of the manuscript. The abstract is generally clear and concise. It highlights that few studies have examined how industry professionals actively engage in sustainable tourism practices.

 

ANSWER

We very much appreciate your valuable comments.

 

 

3. Introduction. The introduction clearly defines the aim of the study and outlines the methodology. It would benefit from including additional literature on sustainable tourism in Spain to provide a richer background and context, such as:
   • Dodds, R. (2007). Sustainable tourism and policy implementation: Lessons from the case of Calviá, Spain. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(4), 296–322.
   • Cisneros-Martínez, J. D., McCabe, S., & Fernández-Morales, A. (2018). The contribution of social tourism to sustainable tourism: A case study of seasonally adjusted programmes in Spain. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(1), 85–107.
   • Huete-Alcocer, N., López-Ruiz, V. R., & Grigorescu, A. (2019). Measurement of satisfaction in sustainable tourism: A cultural heritage site in Spain. Sustainability, 11(23), 6774.
   • Blancas, F. J., Lozano-Oyola, M., Gonzalez, M., Guerrero, F. M., & Caballero, R. (2011). How to use sustainability indicators for tourism planning: The case of rural tourism in Andalusia (Spain). Science of the Total Environment, 412-413, 28-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.09.066
   • Boqué-Ciurana, A., Menendez, M., Suarez Bilbao, M., & Aguilar, E. (2022). Exploring the climatic potential of Somo’s surf spot for tourist destination management. Sustainability, 14(14), 8496.
   • Vazquez Vicente, G., Martín Barroso, V., & Blanco Jimenez, F. J. (2021). Sustainable tourism, economic growth and employment—The case of the wine routes of Spain. Sustainability, 13(13), 7164.
   • Dans, E. P., & González, P. A. (2019). Sustainable tourism and social value at World Heritage Sites: Towards a conservation plan for Altamira, Spain. Annals of Tourism Research, 74, 68-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2018.10.011

The introduction sections are well-organized but ensure that relevant and recent literature is adequately cited to strengthen the contextual framing.

 

 ANSWER

We very much appreciate your valuable comments. All above literature was included in the manuscript as suggested in lines 60 to 75.

 

 

4. Methodology. The methodology is clearly described and appropriate for the research objectives. On page 3, lines 98–99, consider indicating in brackets which explanation corresponds to Sections 2.1, 2.2, or 2.3 for clarity. Figure 2is well-presented. The literature review is clearly explained.

 

ANSWER

As suggested, Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 were associated to the methodology at the beginning of Section 2: “The research employed a three-stage methodology, as illustrated in Figure 1. In the initial phase (2.1), an extensive review of scientific literature combined with thematic analysis was conducted to construct a theoretical reference framework. This framework delineates the key elements to be incorporated into an effective model aimed at promoting sustainable tourism development. In the second phase (2.2), a review of non-peer-reviewed literature—primarily produced by national and international public institutions—was conducted. This analysis facilitated the development of a set of recommended actions to be implemented within Spain’s sustainable tourism sector. Experts in the field identified major actions in the Spanish realm to efficiently promote sustainable tourism in the country (2.3).” (lines 108-116)

5. Suggestions / Potential Improvements. In Section 2.2, the authors describe the Spanish sustainable tourism model. It could be valuable to include information on climate change adaptation plans of the different autonomous communities or clarify why this was not incorporated. – I understand that this is not included in this study, but it would be of interest to mention why it is not added and if this topic could be of interest for future research. For Figure 3, specify in the title that the panelists’ profile relates to the Delphi analysis.

ANSWER

Lines 173 to 175 in subsection 2.2 address the reviewer suggestion: “While climate change adaptation is highly relevant to tourism, it falls outside the scope of this study, which focuses on outlining a general action plan for Spain. Future research should, however, address this crucial dimension.”

The caption of Figure 3 was amended as follows: “Figure 3. Profile of panelists for the Delphi process. Source: Author.”

 

6. Suggestions Results / Findings. Results are clearly presented. Figure 4:Specify that the table was derived from the literature review.

ANSWER

The caption of Figure 4 was amended as follows: “Figure 4. Breakdown of the actions proposed to foster sustainable tourism in Spain by theme and sustainability dimension from the review of literature. Source: Author.”

 

 

8. Figure 6:Indicate in the title if the figure is based on Delphi results. Table 10:Mention in the title whether the actions were selected through the Delphi process. Overall, tables, figures, and graphs are appropriate and informative. Ensure that the results are correctly interpreted and clearly linked to the methodology.

 

 ANSWER

The caption of Figure 6 was amended as follows: “Figure 6. Allocation of actions among the themes for the three frameworks produced: 3.1 academic literature, 3.2 grey Spanish literature, and 3.3 Delphi method. Source: Author.”

 

Captions of Table 9 to Table 12 were properly amended to clarify that actions were proposed by panelists of the Delphi process as follows:

 “Table 9. Economic-related initiatives according to panelists.”

“Table 10. Actions to enhance the institutional dimension from the Delphi process.”

“Table 11. Environmental tips from panelists.”

“Table 12. Initiatives proposed by experts geared towards the social facet.”

 

 

9. Conclusions. For future research, it would be valuable to link proposed actions to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

 

 ANSWER

During the conceptualization of the present research, the Author assessed the inclusion of the analysis of the impacts of the action plan on the SDGs. It was however discarded because the close interconnection between most of the SDGs which could be confusing for readers. As recommended, this subject was considered in lines 448-452 for future research: “Further shortcomings were also revealed in this article to be addressed in potential studies on vulnerabilities of tourism under climate change, an integrated resilience enhancement strategy, practical application of scientific advances on sustainable tourism, or the linkage between the SDGs and the action plan towards a more sustainable tourism model.”

 

10. Page 17, lines 382–386: This is an important point. Suggest including it as a potential future research avenue.

 ANSWER

As recommended, lines 401-412 were amended as follows: “There are notable differences between the action plan conceived by the panelists and those built upon scientific and specialized literature which open up potential new research avenues. Actions geared towards territorial cohesion, competitiveness, and value creation, developing a network of smart tourist destinations, and maximizing revenues by travelers were discarded in the economic field. Institutional initiatives involving social marketing, artificial intelligence or virtual tourist experiences were also ignored. Actions with respect to the environmental domain such as those associated with reducing carbon footprint, addressing climate change, raising environmental awareness, designing tourism models based on data analysis, promoting ecotourism, and studying consumer behavior towards gastronomic tourism were not seconded by experts. Measures to encourage territorial connectivity and cohesion through tourism, assess impacts of tourism on local communities, and analyze residents’ perceptions on tourism models were not included in the new framework either.”

 

 

 

 

11. Page 17, lines 396–397: This result highlights potential vulnerabilities under climate change. Consider adding a sentence explicitly discussing possible mitigation or adaptation strategies or exploring alternative scenarios to enhance resilience.

 ANSWER

With regard to this issue, lines 448 to 452 were added: “Further shortcomings were also revealed in this article to be addressed in potential studies on vulnerabilities of tourism under climate change, an integrated resilience enhancement strategy,  practical application of scientific advances on sustainable tourism, or the linkage between the SDGs and the action plan towards a more sustainable tourism model.”

 

 

12. As a future research avenue, it would be interesting to examine the scientific advances published on sustainable tourism in Spain and explore how these findings could be translated into practical applications. The authors could consider adding a sentence in the manuscript highlighting this potential direction for future research.

 

ANSWER

With regard to this issue, lines 448 to 452 were added: “Further shortcomings were also revealed in this article to be addressed in potential studies on vulnerabilities of tourism under climate change, an integrated resilience enhancement strategy, practical application of scientific advances on sustainable tourism, or the linkage between the SDGs and the action plan towards a more sustainable tourism model.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study claims novelty in “bridging theory and practice,” yet this bridge is not convincingly established. Much of the framework simply replicates the Spanish government’s strategy axes without critically interrogating their adequacy. The dependence on the Spanish Sustainable Tourism Strategy 2030 as the sole organizing framework is limiting, since this document itself is preliminary and not critically assessed.

 

The paper lacks deeper theoretical engagement with scientific and tourism debates. Instead, it adopts a managerialist tone, primarily cataloguing actions without engaging with structural contradictions of tourism growth. The manuscript therefore  would benefit substantially from situating its argument within the most recent developments in scientific thought—specifically the metamodern turn. Metamodernism has emerged as a post-postmodern platform that oscillates between modernist rationalism and postmodern scepticism, enabling the integration of managerial/pragmatic problem-solving with critical reflexivity without collapsing into either dogmatic certainty or paralysing relativism. This turn is articulated as an oscillatory ontology and epistemology that reconceives the field as post-disciplinary and post-paradigmatic, explicitly favouring plural, abductive, and integrative modes of inquiry over single-paradigm closure (Matlovič, Matlovičová 2025, Storm 2021). Incorporating this framework would allow the authors to transcend a merely descriptive collation of “actions” and instead theorise how practice and research co-produce sustainable tourism futures through iterative, reflexive movements between competing values and evidences.  A metamodern lens also helps to problematise the dominance of the institutional dimension observed in the results. Rather than reporting this imbalance, the authors could reinterpret it as a symptom of oscillation in Spanish sustainable tourism governance: an over-investment in managerial instruments (standards, digitalisation, hubs) as a compensatory move in the face of unresolved environmental and social contradictions.

The paper does not explicitly formulate research questions or hypotheses in a clear, testable manner. Instead, it presents a broad aim: to “propose a framework/action plan for advancing sustainable tourism in Spain by bridging research and practice.” This lack of explicit questions or hypotheses makes the study read more like a policy report than a piece of scientific inquiry. Without guiding questions, it is difficult to evaluate whether the methodology adequately answers them. The authors should formulate at least one overarching research question (e.g., How can the integration of academic knowledge, policy guidelines, and practitioners’ insights shape a more balanced and actionable sustainable tourism model for Spain?), along with sub-questions about differences between scholarly, grey literature, and practitioner perspectives.

The research design is descriptive rather than analytical. It lacks hypothesis-driven or question-driven logic, reducing the study’s academic rigor. It is also imbalanced: literature review is extensive, grey literature is descriptive, and Delphi panel is very limited in sample size (n=7). The Delphi component is underpowered; typical Delphi studies use 15–30 panelists to ensure robustness. The criteria for action inclusion/exclusion (e.g., 21-point threshold on Likert scales) are not theoretically justified.

The paper provides a wealth of empirical material (tables, action lists, figures) but the arguments derived from them are not especially compelling. They remain generic: calls for stronger regulation, collaboration, innovation, and diversification.

The most interesting finding—the systematic overweighting of institutional actions—is reported but not theorised. This is a missed opportunity to develop a more critical and persuasive argument about the structural drivers of Spain’s sustainable tourism trajectory.

Instead of presenting lists of actions, the discussion should foreground the structural contradictions revealed in the study: Institutional dominance vs. ecological/social neglect: Why do regulatory frameworks and digitalisation consistently overshadow climate adaptation, biodiversity, or community empowerment? Policy rhetoric vs. practitioner priorities: Why did panelists downplay climate change and community perception studies, despite their prominence in academic literature? Growth vs. sustainability: How does the strong emphasis on competitiveness and revenue-maximisation sit alongside goals of environmental and social responsibility?

The discussion should argue explicitly that this study is not just about Spain. By interpreting findings through a metamodern lens, the paper offers a transferable framework for other destinations grappling with similar tensions between economic growth, environmental thresholds, and social legitimacy. This would markedly increase its attractiveness to the international scientific community.

The sheer number of tables and lists makes the results section feel like a catalogue rather than an analysis. Readers may find it difficult to extract the key takeaways without wading through long inventories.

The results are presented descriptively but not sufficiently interpreted within the results section itself; interpretation is deferred to discussion, which weakens the flow. The findings would be clearer if the authors:

• Reduced the number of tables (merge overlapping ones).
• Highlighted 4–5 key empirical insights at the end of each subsection (rather than leaving readers to infer them).
• Used more visual comparison tools (e.g., showing where academic vs. practitioner perspectives diverge).
• Framed the Delphi results more cautiously, acknowledging the limitations of the small panel.

The conclusions are supported by the descriptive results presented, but they are not thoroughly grounded in deeper analysis or secondary theory. Some claims (e.g., about reliability, or about the adequacy of Spain’s strategy) are only weakly evidenced by the data. The paper misses the opportunity to synthesise findings into broader conceptual insights that would resonate internationally. The conclusions should move beyond summary to interpretive synthesis, explaining what the results reveal about systemic tensions in Spain’s sustainable tourism and explicitly connect findings to secondary literature on sustainable tourism governance, degrowth, and metamodern sustainability science (e.g., oscillation between growth imperatives and ecological/social constraints).

References:

MATLOVIČ, R., MATLOVIČOVÁ, K. (2025). The Metamodern Shift in Geographical 
Thought: Oscillatory Ontology and Epistemology, Post-disciplinary and Post-paradigmatic Perspectives. Folia Geographica, 67(1), 22-69. 

STORM, J.A.J. (2021). Metamodernism. The Future of Theory. Chicago: The University  of Chicago Press. 359 p. ISBN 978-0-226-78665-0.

Author Response

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Thank you for your useful suggestions on our manuscript, they have led us to improve substantially the quality of the paper. The detailed responses to your comments are listed below point by point.

 

 

1. The study claims novelty in “bridging theory and practice” yet this bridge is not convincingly established. Much of the framework simply replicates the Spanish government’s strategy axes without critically interrogating their adequacy. The dependence on the Spanish Sustainable Tourism Strategy 2030 as the sole organizing framework is limiting, since this document itself is preliminary and not critically assessed.

 

ANSWER

As stated in the Abstract (lines 13-14), “this research addresses this gap by proposing a strategic action plan to guide Spain’s tourism sector toward a more sustainable model”. This new framework is not a replica at all of the Spanish Sustainable Tourism Strategy 2023, because the latter has not been developed hitherto. It consists solely of a list of general strategic axes and principles. On the basis of these constituents, which only served to structure the action plan, guidelines to lead Spanish tourism towards a more sustainable path were proposed by combining literature (“theory”) and experts judgment (“practice”). Regarding the Spanish context, there is no literature using this approach, that is why the Author considers the study as a novelty in the field.

 

 

2. The paper lacks deeper theoretical engagement with scientific and tourism debates. Instead, it adopts a managerialist tone, primarily cataloguing actions without engaging with structural contradictions of tourism growth. The manuscript therefore  would benefit substantially from situating its argument within the most recent developments in scientific thought—specifically the metamodern turn. Metamodernism has emerged as a post-postmodern platform that oscillates between modernist rationalism and postmodern scepticism, enabling the integration of managerial/pragmatic problem-solving with critical reflexivity without collapsing into either dogmatic certainty or paralysing relativism. This turn is articulated as an oscillatory ontology and epistemology that reconceives the field as post-disciplinary and post-paradigmatic, explicitly favouring plural, abductive, and integrative modes of inquiry over single-paradigm closure (Matlovič, Matlovičová 2025, Storm 2021). Incorporating this framework would allow the authors to transcend a merely descriptive collation of “actions” and instead theorise how practice and research co-produce sustainable tourism futures through iterative, reflexive movements between competing values and evidences.  A metamodern lens also helps to problematise the dominance of the institutional dimension observed in the results. Rather than reporting this imbalance, the authors could reinterpret it as a symptom of oscillation in Spanish sustainable tourism governance: an over-investment in managerial instruments (standards, digitalisation, hubs) as a compensatory move in the face of unresolved environmental and social contradictions.

 

ANSWER

We very much appreciate your valuable recommendation, but the research aims at building a strategic action plan to guide Spain’s tourism sector towards a more sustainable model. Hence, the methodology proposed combines a review of  literature with expert’s judgment. Notwithstanding the above, the reviewer’s suggestion was included as future research in lines 452-455: “The application of the proposed framework to the international context is planned in a new study, as well as the analysis of the structural drivers of Spain’s sustainable tourism trajectory through the lens of Metamodernism.”

 

 

 

3. The paper does not explicitly formulate research questions or hypotheses in a clear, testable manner. Instead, it presents a broad aim: to “propose a framework/action plan for advancing sustainable tourism in Spain by bridging research and practice.” This lack of explicit questions or hypotheses makes the study read more like a policy report than a piece of scientific inquiry. Without guiding questions, it is difficult to evaluate whether the methodology adequately answers them. The authors should formulate at least one overarching research question (e.g., How can the integration of academic knowledge, policy guidelines, and practitioners’ insights shape a more balanced and actionable sustainable tourism model for Spain?), along with sub-questions about differences between scholarly, grey literature, and practitioner perspectives.

 

ANSWER

Since statistical analysis were not applied in the research, no hypotheses were posed. However, lines 76 to 80 formulated an overarching research question to guide the development of the strategic action plan for the Spanish sustainable tourism as follows: “Within this context, a pertinent research question emerges: how can academic inquiry, policy frameworks, and practitioners’ perspectives be integrated to delineate a pathway toward a sustainable tourism model? This article aims to give response to this query by proposing a framework for advancing sustainable tourism in Spain, one of the world’s leading destinations.”

 

4. The research design is descriptive rather than analytical. It lacks hypothesis-driven or question-driven logic, reducing the study’s academic rigor. It is also imbalanced: literature review is extensive, grey literature is descriptive, and Delphi panel is very limited in sample size (n=7). The Delphi component is underpowered; typical Delphi studies use 15–30 panelists to ensure robustness. The criteria for action inclusion/exclusion (e.g., 21-point threshold on Likert scales) are not theoretically justified.

 

ANSWER

A qualitative approach was deliberately adopted in the research to devise an action plan by bridging research and practice in sustainable tourism. The low number of panelists was highlighted in lines 432-433 as an additional research constraint as follows: “In the same direction, the number of participants in the panel may be viewed as a limiting factor in the study.”

 

The present investigation is inspired in other studies published on relevant journals in which the Delphi technique was applied with a low number of panelists:

 

Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M., & Ariza-Montes, A. (2022). The role of social entrepreneurship in the attainment of the sustainable development goals. Journal of Business Research, 152, 242–250. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.07.061

Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M. (2025). Developing an assessment governance framework for urban digital twins: Insights from smart cities. Cities, 156 (September 2024), 105558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105558

 

Lines 191-193 qualify the inclusion criterium as follows: “Consensus for inclusion was defined as a minimum aggregated score of 21 points, equivalent to an average rating of no less than 3 points per expert across the seven evaluators.”

 

 

5. The paper provides a wealth of empirical material (tables, action lists, figures) but the arguments derived from them are not especially compelling. They remain generic: calls for stronger regulation, collaboration, innovation, and diversification.

 

ANSWER

Tables and action lists provided are an essential part of the action plan sought in the research by combining academic and grey literature with experts’ judgement. Specific actions were summarized in Tables 9 to 12 as result of panelists’ insights based on their practice. Figures helped to interpret the relation of actions to sustainability dimensions (Figure 4) or the three schemes (academia vs practitioners) produced in the research (Figure 6).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. The most interesting finding—the systematic overweighting of institutional actions—is reported but not theorised. This is a missed opportunity to develop a more critical and persuasive argument about the structural drivers of Spain’s sustainable tourism trajectory.

 

ANSWER

Lines 383 to 385 were added to theorize the large number of actions in the institutional dimension (Table 10) proposed by the Spanish experts as follows: “This substantial number of initiatives reflects the importance that Spanish practitioners attribute to the national governance agenda for sustainable tourism, particularly in the absence of dedicated legislation and regulation.”

 

The discussion of the structural drivers of Spain’s sustainable tourism trajectory by using the Metamodernism approach was suggested as a future investigation in lines 452-455.

 

 

7. Instead of presenting lists of actions, the discussion should foreground the structural contradictions revealed in the study: Institutional dominance vs. ecological/social neglect: Why do regulatory frameworks and digitalisation consistently overshadow climate adaptation, biodiversity, or community empowerment? Policy rhetoric vs. practitioner priorities: Why did panelists downplay climate change and community perception studies, despite their prominence in academic literature? Growth vs. sustainability: How does the strong emphasis on competitiveness and revenue-maximisation sit alongside goals of environmental and social responsibility?

 

ANSWER

As stated in several sections, the research aims at developing a strategic action plan to guide Spain’s tourism sector toward a more sustainable model that integrates research and practice. The discussion of structural contradictions disclosed in the article might be examined through the lens of Metamodernism in a future investigation as suggested in lines 452-455. It deserves a specific study that is out of the scope of the present work.

 

 

8. The discussion should argue explicitly that this study is not just about Spain. By interpreting findings through a metamodern lens, the paper offers a transferable framework for other destinations grappling with similar tensions between economic growth, environmental thresholds, and social legitimacy. This would markedly increase its attractiveness to the international scientific community.

 

 

 

ANSWER

We very much appreciate your valuable comments that will be deemed in a future research in which the metamodern lens will be deemed as mentioned in lines 452-455. The current research is primarily focused on the proposal of an action plan to lead Spanish tourism towards a more sustainable path.

 

 

9. The sheer number of tables and lists makes the results section feel like a catalogue rather than an analysis. Readers may find it difficult to extract the key takeaways without wading through long inventories.

 

ANSWER

Actually, the main goal of the study is to draft a catalogue of actions for a more sustainable Spanish tourism grounded on research and practice. Conclusions seek to give readers key takeaways.

 

 

10. The results are presented descriptively but not sufficiently interpreted within the results section itself; interpretation is deferred to discussion, which weakens the flow.

 

ANSWER

Because the main outcome of the study is the action plan summarized in an inventory of initiatives grouped into the four sustainability dimensions (social, economic, environmental, institutional), the discussion mostly consists of the presentation of results to avoid arbitrary views of the Author.

 

 

11. The findings would be clearer if the authors:

• Reduced the number of tables (merge overlapping ones).

 

ANSWER

Despite the high number of tables (12), they cannot be merged because they gather actions for each one of the 3 schemes considered (academic literature, grey literature focused on the Spanish realm, practitioners) and the 4 sustainability dimensions (social, economic, environmental, institutional). Thus, there is no overlapping.

 

12. The findings would be clearer if the authors:

• Highlighted 4–5 key empirical insights at the end of each subsection (rather than leaving readers to infer them).

 

ANSWER

Section 3 purposely presents findings from literature review and/or experts’ judgement in each subsection to avoid subjective bias.

13. The findings would be clearer if the authors:

• Used more visual comparison tools (e.g., showing where academic vs. practitioner perspectives diverge).

 

ANSWER

Figure 6 visually compares the number of actions associated to the 3 perspectives considered (3.1: academic literature, 3.2: grey literature focused on the Spanish realm, and 3.3 Spanish practitioners from Delphi process)

 

Figure 6. Allocation of actions among the themes for the three frameworks produced: 3.1 academic literature, 3.2 grey Spanish literature, and 3.3 Delphi method. Source: Author.

 

 

 

14. The findings would be clearer if the authors:

• Framed the Delphi results more cautiously, acknowledging the limitations of the small panel.

 

ANSWER

The low number of panelists was highlighted in lines 432-433 as a research constraint as follows: “In the same direction, the number of participants in the panel may be viewed as a limiting factor in the study.”

 

 

15. The conclusions are supported by the descriptive results presented, but they are not thoroughly grounded in deeper analysis or secondary theory. Some claims (e.g., about reliability, or about the adequacy of Spain’s strategy) are only weakly evidenced by the data. The paper misses the opportunity to synthesise findings into broader conceptual insights that would resonate internationally. The conclusions should move beyond summary to interpretive synthesis, explaining what the results reveal about systemic tensions in Spain’s sustainable tourism and explicitly connect findings to secondary literature on sustainable tourism governance, degrowth, and metamodern sustainability science (e.g., oscillation between growth imperatives and ecological/social constraints).

 

ANSWER

The reviewer is right, the conclusions are predominantly grounded on the action plan proposed for the Spanish tourism as the research aim to achieve. For this reason, implications in the international context were not discussed in the present manuscript. But “the application of the proposed framework to the international context is planned in a new study, as well as the analysis of the structural drivers of Spain’s sustainable tourism trajectory through the lens of Metamodernism” were mentioned in lines 452 to 455.

 

16. References:

MATLOVIČ, R., MATLOVIČOVÁ, K. (2025). The Metamodern Shift in Geographical Thought: Oscillatory Ontology and Epistemology, Post-disciplinary and Post-paradigmatic Perspectives. Folia Geographica, 67(1), 22-69. 

STORM, J.A.J. (2021). Metamodernism. The Future of Theory. Chicago: The University  of Chicago Press. 359 p. ISBN 978-0-226-78665-0.

 

ANSWER

We very much appreciate your recommendation on the above references to apply a metamodern approach in the analysis of sustainable tourism. It has been thus included as a line of future investigation in which the two suggested manuscripts will be taken as main reference in the definition of the methodological protocol.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study deals with a current and important issue. Its structure is logical, its language is clear and sufficiently scientific. The bibliography provides a useful overview of the theory of sustainable tourism. In my opinion, the chosen methodology is correct. The systematic literature review was presented in detail. Its implementation is professional, so the results are correct. The Delpi method was presented in the least detail, and in my opinion, the number of participants involved is somewhat small (7 people). I consider this to be one of the weak points of the research. The literature involved is adequate in both depth and quantity. The outstanding virtue of the article is that the published results may be interesting for both theoretical and tourism practitioners. The study is a high-quality work, carried out with high standards, and therefore I recommend its publication in its unchanged form.

Author Response

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Thank you for your useful suggestions on the manuscript, they have led us to improve substantially the quality of the paper. The detailed responses to your comments are listed below point by point.

 

 

The study deals with a current and important issue. Its structure is logical; its language is clear and sufficiently scientific. The bibliography provides a useful overview of the theory of sustainable tourism. In my opinion, the chosen methodology is correct. The systematic literature review was presented in detail. Its implementation is professional, so the results are correct. The Delphi method was presented in the least detail, and in my opinion, the number of participants involved is somewhat small (7 people). I consider this to be one of the weak points of the research. The literature involved is adequate in both depth and quantity. The outstanding virtue of the article is that the published results may be interesting for both theoretical and tourism practitioners. The study is a high-quality work, carried out with high standards, and therefore I recommend its publication in its unchanged form.

 

ANSWER

We very much appreciate your valuable comments. Unfortunately despite the many invitations sent by the Author, only 7 experts accepted to be part of the research. This research constraint was highlighted in lines 432-433.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-