Barriers to Integrating Sustainability in Hospitality Education: Insights from Australian Academia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for the opportunity to review a very interesting manuscript. I will provide several comments and recommendations that the authors may consider in order to improve the paper. The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic, applies a qualitative approach that is appropriate to the research question, and offers new insights into hospitality education.

• I believe it is both necessary and essential to include a literature review. This section should map existing research, explain the research gap, and present the theoretical framework. In this way, the paper would gain a stronger foundation and more clearly demonstrate its contribution. For a highly recognized journal such as this one, I consider that at least 50 references should be included. If the authors decide not to follow this recommendation, I kindly request that they clearly state the reason why a literature review has been omitted so that further editorial decisions can be made accordingly.

• The methodology is well explained; however, I recommend providing additional justification for the adequacy of the sample.

• The results are clear and well structured, but it would be beneficial to include more representative participant quotes, incorporate dissonant perspectives, and consider presenting the findings in a tabular format.

• The discussion could be further connected to theoretical frameworks and should highlight the conceptual contribution of the paper. It would also be useful to include examples of authentic assessments and concrete indicators.

• The study’s limitations, recommendations for future research, and research implications should be articulated much more clearly. The authors may wish to consider presenting these sections as separate headings, although this is not mandatory.

• The reference list is solid, but it is recommended to include more recent sources from the 2023–2025 period, particularly those addressing sustainability competencies and learning outcomes.

• It is necessary to correct formal and typographical issues (subheading numbering, minor typographical errors) and to place the note on the use of AI tools in a separate section in accordance with the journal’s guidelines.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive comments. All suggestions have been carefully addressed, and the manuscript has been thoroughly revised to reflect these improvements. The detailed responses to each comment are provided in the attached “Response to Reviewer 1” document. We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the clarity, theoretical depth, and overall contribution of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper offers an original and valuable contribution to the existing body of literature by examining educators’ perspectives on embedding sustainability education (SE) within hospitality programs at Australian universities. It sheds light on the challenges encountered and the strategies employed, presenting novel insights that warrant publication. The study identifies four enduring obstacles: institutional limitations, curriculum saturation coupled with insufficient assessment frameworks, cultural resistance, and fragile industry–academic collaborations.

The manuscript effectively situates its inquiry within established and emerging theoretical frameworks, demonstrating a comprehensive grasp of the relevant scholarship. The literature review is well-integrated and positions the study within the broader discourse on sustainability education and hospitality curriculum development.

To enhance clarity and focus, it is recommended that the introduction explicitly articulate the study’s objectives and the research questions that guided the investigation.

The research design and methodology are clearly delineated, with arguments convincingly supported by empirical data. The discussion of findings is coherent and well-balanced, with results presented in a clear and persuasive manner. The analysis engages thoughtfully with existing literature, and the referencing is thorough and appropriate.

Ultimately, the paper makes a significant scholarly contribution by advocating for deeper pedagogical innovation in hospitality education. It argues that sustainability must be embedded as a core graduate attribute, underpinned by robust policies, measurable outcomes, and strengthened industry–academic partnerships. This approach is essential for achieving systemic change aligned with Sustainable Development Goals—specifically SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). The writing is precise, accessible, and effectively communicates the study’s implications.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 – Comment 1:
It is recommended that the introduction explicitly articulate the study’s objectives and the research questions that guided the investigation.
Response 1:
We sincerely thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. We have revised the final paragraph of the Introduction (Page 2) to state the overarching objective and three guiding research questions that structure the inquiry. This clarification enhances the paper’s focus and coherence.

Reviewer 2 – General Comments:
The research design and methodology are clearly delineated, with arguments convincingly supported by empirical data. The discussion of findings is coherent and well-balanced, with results presented clearly and persuasively. The analysis engages thoughtfully with existing literature, and the referencing is thorough and appropriate.

Response 2:
We are deeply grateful for the reviewer’s encouraging evaluation and appreciation of our work. Minor stylistic and formatting refinements have been made 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Thank you so much for inviting me to review this paper. The current paper investigates an important and timely topic,” How sustainability education is being incorporated into hospitality programs in Australian universities.

In general, the paper needs to follow the academic style:  starting with 1- introduction, literature review including theoretical foundation, 3- methods, 4- analysis techniques, 5 – discussion, 6-theoretical and practical implications, and finally, limitations and future research.

The abstract repeats information already presented in the introduction and does not provide enough methodological detail. It should briefly mention how many participants were interviewed, how they were selected, and the basic approach to analysis.

Introduction

The introduction explains well why sustainability matters but spends too much space justifying its importance. Condensing these sections and moving quickly to the research problem, aims, and contributions would make the start of the paper more focused and effective.

 Although the paper sets its discussion against wider debates in sustainability education and the SDGs, there is little engagement with more precise theoretical literature on sustainability integration in higher education.

The introduction also lacks a clear conceptual or theoretical base. To give the study stronger direction, it would help to adopt a guiding framework such as transformative learning, curriculum change, or organizational learning theory. This would clarify how sustainability integration is being interpreted and analyzed.

There is a need for deeper analysis and real examples of what exactly constitutes tokenism in hospitality curricula, how it happens in practice, and its implications for student learning outcomes. Cultural resistance is the main barrier, but this manuscript does not fully explain its sources, forms, and underlying dynamics within Australian hospitality education.

While weak industry–academic linkages are cited as a main barrier, the study does not elaborate on the nature or consequences of these gaps. Adding a discussion of how industry partnerships could be better leveraged, or specific examples of successful and/ or unsuccessful collaborations, would provide valuable, practical insight.

The authors well justified the focus on the Australian context. However, the authors could benefit from a more explicit comparison with international literature and practices. For instance, how the Australian experience aligns or diverges from other national contexts is what can widen the relevance of this study as well as improve its contribution to the global discourse.

The literature review heavily relied on recent reviews and international studies without much critique of existing gaps, contradictions, or limitations in the literature. A more critical synthesis would help position the study’s unique contribution and contextualize its findings within ongoing scholarly debates.

The paper promises practical guidance for curriculum designers, institutional leaders, and policymakers at best with general recommendations. The authors should provide actionable, context-specific strategies and clear policy implications that would help to answer the “so what “questions.

Though the paper reminds one of some “constructivist paradigm,” it does not clearly articulate any particular guiding theoretical or conceptual framework (for instance, models of curriculum change, innovation adoption, or organizational learning). A clearer, explicit setting of the findings within such frameworks would enable very explicit connections to broader educational change literature. The barriers and enablers discussion is mainly descriptive and does not critically engage with existing literature in framing the Australian experience within a global or comparative perspective. Relevant literature integration would make the discussion much more analytical.

It would add more heft to throw in some theorization here about why these particular barriers persist and how institutional factors work with or against individual agency in the structuration of outcomes. That is what would take the analysis to a higher explanatory level. The study emphasized "tokenistic, compliance-driven practices," but it does not provide concrete examples or detailed case illustrations. Just throw in that kind of evidence for good measure and then further clarify exactly how tokenism of that nature actually does work.

Methods and discussions

However, although the current study claims to provide a comprehensive analysis, it is only based on twelve participants. The authors MUST justify how this small sample size achieves thematic saturation and adequately represents the diversity of the Australian higher education context

There is Insufficient detail regarding the interview protocol, interview duration, coding process, and trustworthiness measures (such as triangulation or member checking). Authors should add these details to demonstrate methodological rigor and ensure the credibility of these findings.

Discussion of ethical considerations, limitations of the sampling approach, and potential future studies' bias are not mentioned in the manuscript.

The authors refer to “constructivist paradigm,” but they didn’t clearly articulate a specific guiding theoretical or conceptual framework (such as models of curriculum change, innovation adoption, or / and organizational learning). The authors should align these findings within such frameworks, which in turn would facilitate stronger connections to broader educational change literature.

The barriers and enablers' discussion are mainly descriptive and does not critically engage with existing literature in framing the Australian experience within a global or comparative perspective. Relevant literature integration would make the discussion much more analytical.

The research findings would benefit from more robust interpretation, for instance, through theorizing why particular barriers persist and how institutional factors may interact with individual agencies to shape outcomes.

While the research findings related to prior literature, the findings do not develop practical implications, especially for educators, program designers, and policymakers, nearly as much. An explicitly actionable set of recommendations would create high practical value for the article. The section on Future Research is short and general. More specificity regarding research questions, methodologies that might be recommended to pursue, or gaps in the current study that have been identified would be more helpful in guiding subsequent scholarship.

General

Some paragraphs are lengthy and use complex compound sentences. This might challenge the reader. In most cases, results sections merge in one paragraph thematic description and participant quotations and thus obscure both the main thematic focus and its supporting evidence. Breaking these up into separate elements with simplified sentence structures would help clarity and readability.

The references should follow the reference style specifically, sustainability.

 

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your constructive and insightful feedback. Each of your comments has been carefully considered and fully addressed in the revised manuscript. The attached “Response to Reviewer 3” document outlines the specific revisions made, including enhancements to the theoretical framing, methodological transparency, practical implications, and future research directions. We believe these improvements have strengthened the manuscript’s clarity, depth, and overall contribution to the field.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am grateful for the opportunity to review this insightful and valuable manuscript entitled “Barriers to Integrating Sustainability in Hospitality Education: Insights from Australian Academia”. Below are some suggestions for potential improvements:

1. In the introduction section, clearly highlight how this study differs from prior research. Add a paragraph specifying the study’s objectives and theoretical and practical contributions expected from the study findings.
2. I recommend removing the paragraph that lists the findings of the study in the introduction section (lines 114-122).
3. How does the constructivist paradigm specifically inform the interpretation of sustainability integration challenges in hospitality curricula?
4. The notion of “tokenism” is repeatedly mentioned but not operationally defined. A clearer conceptual definition would strengthen theoretical clarity.
5. Although the data collection and analysis process are well described, the sample justification could be expanded. Why 12 participants? Was data saturation achieved? The authors should explain how participants were approached or recruited.
6. How do the authors account for the possible self-selection bias of participants who are already interested in sustainability?
7. The discussion would benefit from a stronger linkage between empirical findings and theoretical implications—for instance, how do these findings extend prior models of sustainability curriculum integration?
8. How can universities overcome cultural resistance among both faculty and students to make sustainability a “core value” rather than an elective theme?
9. The implications could be more action-oriented: for example, suggesting policy frameworks, accreditation standards, or faculty development models that universities could adopt.
10. What policy recommendations could be drawn for national accreditation bodies or curriculum designers in hospitality and tourism education?

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. Your comments have been invaluable in refining the clarity, structure, and theoretical depth of the manuscript. All points raised have been carefully addressed, and the attached “Response to Reviewer 4” document outlines the specific revisions undertaken. These include enhancements to the conceptual framing, methodological transparency, and practical implications, ensuring that the revised paper more effectively contributes to advancing the understanding of sustainability integration in hospitality education.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Firstly, I would like to give the authors credit for their work.

In abstract the aim of the study should be clearly identified as the novelty. Why was this study conducted? What is the main objective? What is the originality of this work?

Introduction: In the introduction, you should emphasise the originality of this work and the main objective and research questions. In introduction, the structure of the paper should be included.

The conclusions that are in the introduction, they should be removed and introduced in conclusion chapter.

Since this article doesn't have a literature review chapter, in my opinion the introduction should be more complete. The authors should review more articles about this subject.

Methodology: The methodology should be more complete. Where is the interview guide? How many questions? What were the questions? How was conducted the interview?

With regard to the results, it should be clearer how they were obtained. Since they used NVivo, I think this article would be enriched by the use of concept and mind maps, analysing the word cloud to identify common themes, and cross-referencing different types of data using matrices to find patterns.

The conclusions are missing. This chapter is very important to relate the results with the objectives and with the literature. Theoretical and practical implications are missing.

This article lacks a common thread, in which a goal is defined and then we analyse the conclusions drawn from it.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. Your comments have been instrumental in strengthening the manuscript’s clarity, coherence, and academic rigour. All points have been carefully addressed and detailed in the attached Response to Reviewer 5 document. The revisions include a clearer articulation of the study’s originality and objectives, an expanded literature review and methodology section, enhanced presentation of results with thematic figures and tables, and a substantially developed conclusion outlining theoretical and practical implications. We believe these comprehensive revisions have significantly improved the quality and contribution of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The authors have demonstrated considerable effort in revising the manuscript and have clearly addressed all reviewers’ comments.

• In the introduction, they successfully expanded the theoretical framework and clarified the research context.

• The literature review is now more comprehensive and better aligned with the research objectives.

• The methodology is thoroughly elaborated and clearly explained, enhancing the transparency of the research.

• The results are presented more clearly, with appropriate interpretations and logical connections to previous studies.

• The discussion has been improved and now provides deeper insights into the practical and academic implications of the study.

• The conclusion is concise yet informative, reflecting the essence of the conducted research.

• The linguistic and stylistic aspects of the paper have been significantly improved, contributing to greater readability and a more professional tone.

• Overall, the authors have successfully revised all sections of the paper and demonstrated a high level of commitment to scientific quality.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for their encouraging and generous feedback. We deeply appreciate the recognition of our efforts to strengthen the theoretical framework, methodology, and overall coherence of the manuscript. We are grateful for their positive evaluation and have carefully ensured that all sections retain the clarity, rigour, and quality noted in the review.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has shown improvements, however, there are some flaws:

More justifications are needed to use the second phase “interview only”.

Formatting the paragraph in the introduction is messy.

In line 425/426 data analysis is repeated.

More details are required about the code, whether initial codes are inductive or deductive.

I recommend authors to add a separate implication section (theoretical and practical).

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 3 for their constructive feedback and valuable suggestions, which have helped further refine the manuscript. In response to the comments:

1. Justification for using interviews only:
   A paragraph was added at the end of Section 3.1 (Research Design) clarifying the rationale for using interviews only in the second phase. This addition links the data-collection choice to the study’s constructivist and interpretivist orientation and the goal of capturing educators’ lived experiences in depth.
2. Formatting in the Introduction:
   The Introduction section has been reformatted for improved readability. Paragraphs were separated for logical clarity, hyphenation artefacts removed, and consistent spacing before reference brackets applied in line with journal formatting standards.
3. Repetition of data analysis (lines 425–426):
   The redundant paragraph at the end of Section 3.3 that repeated information about data analysis was removed. A concise transition sentence (“The data were then prepared for systematic analysis, as outlined in the following section.”) was added to maintain logical flow between Sections 3.3 and 3.4.
4. Clarification of coding process:
   A clarifying sentence was added in Section 3.4 specifying that initial coding followed an inductive approach, allowing codes to emerge from participants’ narratives rather than being pre-imposed by existing theoretical constructs. This clarification strengthens transparency regarding the analytic process.
5. Addition of the Implications section:
   A new subsection titled 6.3 Theoretical and Practical Implications has been included within Section 6 (Conclusion). It discusses how the findings contribute to sustainability education theory and provides actionable recommendations for hospitality educators and institutions.

We are grateful for the reviewer’s thoughtful comments, which have enhanced the precision, structure, and interpretive clarity of the paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your efforts. 

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 4 for their kind acknowledgment and positive evaluation of our revised manuscript. We appreciate their time and thoughtful engagement throughout the review process.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have answered all the questions raised. The article has been greatly improved. In my opinion, it can be published.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 5 for their positive assessment and encouraging endorsement. We are grateful for their recognition that all previous concerns have been addressed and that the manuscript has been substantially improved. We appreciate their support and recommendation for publication.