Prioritizing Sustainability in Ethno-Tourism: An AHP Assessment of Rural Villages in the Balkans

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the paper requires substantial revisions, particularly in the introduction, literature review and results sections.

High level of plagiarism rate 

Comments attached 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

On behalf of all co-authors, we would like to sincerely thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and detailed comments you provided. Your feedback has greatly contributed to improving the clarity, structure, and overall quality of the paper. We carefully addressed each of your suggestions, and we believe that the revised version of the manuscript is now clearer, more concise, and better aligned with the journal’s requirements.

We have prepared a point-by-point response to your comments, indicating the changes that were made in the manuscript (red color).

 

Comment: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

The entire manuscript has undergone a thorough English-language revision to improve grammar, readability, and scientific terminology. Figures, captions, and tables were also reviewed and adjusted to ensure consistency.

 

Comment: The abstract needs to be edited a little bit. The abstract effectively identifies a research gap… But the results are discussed in detail in abstract and it is not necessary. You don’t need to mention the percentage changes in the abstract.

Response: We revised the abstract by removing detailed numerical results (percentage changes) and instead providing a general summary of the findings. The revised abstract now emphasizes the main contributions and implications of the study without presenting detailed statistical outcomes.

 

Comment: The introduction is too long, repetitive, and contains unnecessary global examples. It should be more concise and aligned with the journal structure.

Response: In the revised manuscript, the Introduction has been substantially shortened and restructured. Repetitive definitions and overlapping explanations of ethno-tourism and indigenous tourism were removed, while global examples were condensed into a single sentence to provide context without unnecessary detail. The Introduction now consists of three concise paragraphs: (1) the significance of tourism and definitions of ethno-tourism and indigenous tourism, (2) the role of ethno-villages with a brief reference to global practices, and (3) the research gap, objectives, and contributions.

 

Comment: Rather than forming an analytical framework section, section 2 should be literature review… The analytical framework reads like methodological detail rather than conceptual framing.

Response: The revised manuscript now presents a comprehensive Literature Review in Section 2, which integrates the discussion of sustainability, key dimensions (economic, environmental, and socio-cultural), and the application of multi-criteria methods such as AHP. The Analytical Framework has been moved to the end of the Literature Review (Section 2.1) and has been substantially revised. It now focuses only on the conceptual dimensions—economic, environmental, socio-cultural, infrastructural/management, and tourist attractiveness—and their integration in the proposed framework (Figure 1). Methodological details about AHP (e.g., pairwise comparisons, weighting, sensitivity analysis) have been relocated to the Methods section.

Comment: The materials and methods section are well drafted. But I have concerns only related to the sample representation of the regions. Only 13 ethnic villages were analyzed, which is small relative to the total number in the region. Need proper justification for that.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have clarified the rationale for analyzing 13 ethno-villages. The selected cases were purposefully chosen because they represent some of the most active and recognized ethno-villages in Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia, and provided sufficient data availability and stakeholder engagement. While the sample size is numerically limited, it is regionally diverse and offers a meaningful basis for comparative analysis, particularly given the robustness of the AHP methodology. We have also acknowledged this limitation explicitly in the Limitations section, emphasizing that future research should expand the number of cases and geographical coverage to validate and extend the findings.

 

Comment: The result section needs edition. This section has a clear presentation of output but much of the section simply restates numbers from tables/figures instead of highlighting key insights. It is repetitive to explain directly what is mentioned on the table.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have substantially edited the Results section to avoid repetition of numerical values already presented in tables and figures. Instead of restating outputs, the text now emphasizes key patterns and insights, highlights differences between higher- and lower-ranked ethno-villages, and interprets the relative importance of sustainability criteria. For instance, we focus on the leading role of economic performance, the consistently high ranking of Drvengrad Mećavnik, and the robustness of results confirmed by sensitivity analyses. A short synthesis paragraph has also been added at the end of the Results section to provide a concise transition into the Discussion.

 

We would like to thank you once again for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work. We wish you continued success in your academic career.

 

Sincerely,

Prof. Dr. Andrej Škraba

on behalf of The Authors

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

Your paper on evaluating the sustainability of ethno-villages through multi-criteria analysis makes a valuable contribution to the field of sustainable tourism. The use of the SuperDecisions software and the detailed sensitivity analysis, which confirms the robustness of the results, are particularly commendable. However, to further strengthen the paper and make it more accessible to a broader readership, I recommend the following revisions:

- The introduction is rather long and reads more like a literature review. It would benefit from a sharper focus on the specific research problem and its significance.

- The examples from Kenya, Thailand, and Peru are interesting but may be less relevant to a study centered on the Balkans, and these could be moved to the discussion if needed.

- The explanation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process is lengthy for an introduction and would fit better in the methodology section.

- The definition of sustainable ethno-tourism is repeated (see lines 81–85) and should be streamlined.

- Please clarify the process of gathering expert assessments, including the number of evaluators and the criteria for their selection. Provide a more detailed explanation of the multi-criteria analysis techniques, as not all readers will be familiar with these methods.

- Offer a deeper analysis of the factors that led to the lower ranking of certain ethno-villages so that readers can better understand the challenges they face.

- Enrich the discussion with practical implications of the findings, highlight the paper’s contribution relative to existing literature, and make the novel aspects of the research clearer.

 - While solid, the conclusion is somewhat lengthy. Consider condensing it to a few key sentences that capture the main contributions and take-home messages, ending with a strong, forward-looking statement about the future of sustainable ethno-tourism in the region.

• Finally, please adjust Figure 2 to reflect the official territorial definition of the Republic of Serbia. The Republic of Serbia does not recognize the unilaterally declared independence of Kosovo, a position also held by several other countries, including Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, and Slovakia, as well as major G20 members such as China, Russia, India, and Brazil. For this reason, the map should depict Kosovo within Serbia’s internationally recognized borders. If you wish to indicate Kosovo’s specific political status, I recommend a neutral cartographic approach—for example, using a dashed boundary line or adding a clarifying note in the legend, with an appropriate reference. This suggestion is made purely to ensure academic and cartographic accuracy and to maintain political neutrality, as the paper is a scientific study rather than a political statement.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

we would like to thank you sincerely for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We carefully considered each of your suggestions and revised the paper accordingly. Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response, highlighting the changes made in the revised version (red color).

 

Comment: The introduction is rather long and reads more like a literature review. It would benefit from a sharper focus on the specific research problem and its significance. The examples from Kenya, Thailand, and Peru are interesting but may be less relevant to a study centered on the Balkans, and these could be moved to the discussion if needed. The explanation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process is lengthy for an introduction and would fit better in the methodology section.  The definition of sustainable ethno-tourism is repeated (see lines 81–85) and should be streamlined.

Response: In the revised version, we streamlined the introduction by reducing repetition and removing the lengthy definition of sustainable ethno-tourism. We also shortened and refocused the section to place greater emphasis on the research problem and its significance. We addressed the examples from Kenya, Thailand, and Peru. Finally, the detailed explanation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was moved to the Materials and Methods section, where it is more appropriately elaborated.

 

Comment: please clarify the process of gathering expert assessments, including the number of evaluators and the criteria for their selection. Provide a more detailed explanation of the multi-criteria analysis techniques, as not all readers will be familiar with these methods.

Response: We revised the Materials and Methods section by explicitly stating the number and profile of experts (19 participants, including ethno-village managers, tourism officials, and academic researchers) and explaining the selection criteria to ensure both practical and academic perspectives were included. In addition, we expanded the methodological description of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), providing a clearer, step-by-step explanation of its functioning for readers less familiar with multi-criteria decision-making methods. These revisions make the methodological process more transparent and accessible to a wider readership.

 

Comment: Offer a deeper analysis of the factors that led to the lower ranking of certain ethno-villages so that readers can better understand the challenges they face.

Response: In the revised version, we expanded the Discussion by offering a deeper analysis of the factors that contributed to the lower ranking of certain ethno-villages. Specifically, we highlight structural and organizational challenges such as limited financial resources, infrastructural shortcomings, insufficient digital connectivity, and weaker community engagement. By linking these findings to existing literature, we provide readers with a clearer understanding of the obstacles these villages face and the types of interventions that could enhance their sustainability.

 

Comment: Enrich the discussion with practical implications of the findings, highlight the paper’s contribution relative to existing literature, and make the novel aspects of the research clearer.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we added a dedicated section on the practical implications of the findings, focusing on how policymakers, managers, and local communities can apply the results to enhance the sustainability of ethno-villages. We also clarified the study’s contribution relative to existing literature by highlighting that this is one of the first systematic applications of AHP to evaluate the sustainability of ethno-tourism in the Balkans, supported by sensitivity analyses that confirm the robustness of the results. Finally, we made the novel aspects of the research more explicit, emphasizing the integration of economic, environmental, infrastructural, social, and cultural dimensions into a comprehensive analytical framework. These revisions strengthen the relevance and originality of the study for both academics and practitioners.

 

Comment:  While solid, the conclusion is somewhat lengthy. Consider condensing it to a few key sentences that capture the main contributions and take-home messages, ending with a strong, forward-looking statement about the future of sustainable ethno-tourism in the region.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we condensed the conclusion to focus on three key contributions: (1) identifying the dominant role of economic performance in ethno-village sustainability, (2) highlighting disparities and challenges faced by lower-ranked villages, and (3) presenting a replicable methodological framework through the application of AHP. We also added a forward-looking statement emphasizing the future potential of sustainable ethno-tourism in the Balkans, which we believe provides a stronger and more impactful ending to the paper.

 

Comment:  Figure 2 to reflect the official territorial definition of the Republic of Serbia.

Response: You can find a clarifying note in the legend, with an appropriate reference.

 

We trust that the revisions have addressed your concerns and that the manuscript is now clearer, more concise, and more impactful. We are grateful for the time and effort you invested in reviewing our work.

 

Sincerely,

Prof. Dr. Andrej Škraba

on behalf of The Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Nothing to say, great work

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3.

 

We sincerely thank you for your positive and encouraging feedback on our manuscript. We are very pleased that you found the paper to be well-structured, clearly written, and a valuable contribution to the field of sustainable tourism and ethno-village research.

We also appreciate your constructive suggestion regarding the inclusion of more details about the experience and background of the ethno-village owners and managers. In response, we have expanded the Materials and Methods section to include this additional information, thereby further strengthening the methodological transparency of the study.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful review and kind recognition of our work.

 

Sincerely,

Prof. Dr. Andrej Škraba

on behalf of The Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for addressing the suggestions. I also recommend that the paper be accepted for publication in the scientific journal Sustainability.