Community-Led Sustainable Tourism in Rural Areas: Enhancing Wine Tourism Destination Competitiveness and Local Empowerment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

after the first round of review all the mentioned request from the reviewer were met. 

The title was changed, as well the introduction and results and concluding part of the paper. 

therefore it may be published without further delay, 

kind regards , the reviewer

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

once again, thank you for all your comments.

Warm greetings,

authors

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper submitted for review is, in my opinion, well prepared and in this form can be published in the journal Sustainability. 

The Authors have made corrections and additions in accordance with my earlier suggestions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

once again, thank you for all your comments.

Warm greetings

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors have addressed my comments from the first review to a large degree. Many elements have been corrected and added. For the most part, I accept the Authors' responses and explanations.

In my opinion, there are only two things left for possible improvement:

1. In chapter 3. Materials and Methods still missing a diagram, showing, on the one hand, the sequence of action steps and, on the other hand, indicating the research methods used in each step. And I still missing a theoretical description of the methods used and the models built. Please add mathematical formulas in the article, with an explanation of all elements and justification of what will result from the specific values obtained.
2. The chapter 4. Results and discussion still in my opinion does not contain a discussion of the results only the results themselves. Elements that can be classified as a discussion of results were added by the Authors in Chapter 5 Conclusions. It can be left that way, just please adjust the chapter titles to the content.

I have no further comments. With the corrections, I recommend the article for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have no further comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the suggestions. We explained each one in detail and implemented it in the text. We hope that we understood well what was asked of us and that this version of the paper will meet the necessary criteria.

Best regards,

authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the article presents a well-structured and insightful examination of community-led sustainable tourism in rural wine destinations. However, some areas require refinement to enhance clarity, coherence, and academic rigor.

Abstract

The abstract provides a concise summary of the study, outlining its objectives, methodology, and key findings

Intro

The introduction sets a strong foundation by discussing the importance of tourism for economic, social, and environmental sustainability. It provides a broad overview of the challenges faced by rural tourism destinations and the potential for community involvement to address these challenges. However, a more explicit statement on the research gap would strengthen the introduction. While the discussion effectively establishes the relevance of the study, it could more clearly define what aspects of community-led tourism have been overlooked in previous research. Additionally, the transition from general sustainable tourism principles to the specific focus on wine tourism could be smoother.

Theoretical background

The theoretical background is comprehensive and well-supported by literature, particularly in its discussion of different levels of community participation (informative, consultative, and collaborative). This section effectively justifies the importance of local engagement in tourism development.

However, while the discussion on destination attractiveness, infrastructure, and marketing is relevant, it does not sufficiently link these factors to the sustainability framework emphasized in the study. Additionally, expanding the discussion on how community participation has been successfully implemented in similar contexts would strengthen the theoretical foundation.

Methodology

The methodology section demonstrates a well-thought-out approach, particularly in its justification for using a constructivist epistemological framework. The research sample is well-documented, with a valid sample size that ensures the reliability of the findings. However, certain aspects of the data collection process require further clarification.

Additionally, the short data collection period (June–August 2024) may limit the generalizability of the findings, as it does not capture seasonal fluctuations in tourism patterns. Acknowledging this limitation and suggesting potential follow-up studies would enhance the methodological rigor.

Results-discussion

The results and discussion section effectively presents the findings of the factor analysis and SEM. These findings provide meaningful insights into the role of community-led initiatives in sustainable tourism.

However, the discussion would benefit from a deeper exploration of the differences between the two study regions(optional). While the findings are presented collectively, there is little analysis of how the impacts of community engagement differ between Banoštor and Radda in Chianti. A comparative analysis would add depth to the discussion and provide more nuanced conclusions.

Conclusion

The conclusion successfully summarizes the study's key findings and reinforces the importance of community participation in sustainable tourism. However, the policy recommendations introduced here could be more directly linked to the study’s empirical results. For instance, the recommendation to invest in marketing and infrastructure should be clearly tied to findings. The section on future research is relatively brief and could be expanded to suggest specific avenues for further investigation. For example, conducting longitudinal studies to assess the long-term effects of community participation on tourism sustainability would be a valuable extension of this research.

Practical implications

No comments here. Good job.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the suggestions. We explained each one in detail and implemented it in the text. We hope that we understood well what was asked of us and that this version of the paper will meet the necessary criteria.

Best regards,

Authors

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

Dear authors, 

Overall impression: the paper is in the scope of the journal sustainabilty. 

It needs major changes. 

Title is not appropriate

the main topic is wine, tourism with a wide description of wine cellarsand two wine regions. 

therefore it should be put in the title

e.g enhacing wine tourism destination competitiveness 

Introduction is partialy appropriate - it needs reordering and a logical Frame

the introduction should start with a wider context of destination

lines 48 to 48

then rural areas

then about tourism as a branch

then communty led tourism

some references are about wine tourism

and finnaly the niche development context of wine tourism

and then about the two regions surveyed

how do slow food references accord to your survey?

Materials and methods are partly appropriate

the sample of participants should be at least decribed by socio demography and economic features (age, occupation, profession, gender etc)

Results

authors should show the described variables / questions used in factor analys

in a separate table, before table 1. 

also in table 2 and  the names of the variables should be visible

or write bellow the table v 4..question about; v20 ...question about...

if technicaly possible the same for figure 1 name the variables and factors

it would be clearer it the authors provide the questionnaire in the appendix

aslos in the text about factors and description input the names of the variables e.g lines 453 to 456; 456 to 467; 478 to 482

Conclusions 

lines 554 

since there is no table with sociodemographic features we cannot foresee if "skills development fortifies local workforce..."

how will "skills development " resul in more sustainable and competitive tourism

this are statements not proven in results (and not present in factors 1,2,3)

the same for wine tourism linse 563 onwards, 

the survey has not prooved these parts of the text.

Practical implications are not appropriate- should be tottaly changed

authors impliocate what was not a part of their survey

if the authors provide such a text then in the introduction part they should support their implications;

e.g. 

lines 575 Banoštor is the premium wine region ? from where did you get this

line 577 uniqness , from which features do you draw the uniqness 

line 579 growing reputation

line 584 wine tourism contributes to the well being of the community...

and so on

 

kind regards

the reviewer

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you very much for each of your comments. These are constructive comments that help our work to be better and to find its place in the scientific literature. Everything you told and pointed out for us is of great importance. We hope that we have understood everything well and that we will meet your expectations with this version of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Factor analysis and structural equation model (SEM) were used to make an empirical analysis of the data, so as to provide references for the role of community participation in enhancing the competitiveness of rural tourism destinations and sustainable tourism development. But the article's contribution to innovation in this field is limited. While the study found relationships between variables, it did not provide enough novel insights or theoretical advances to distinguish this study from existing literature. The paper may consider introducing other methods or analytical techniques to complement and enhance the comprehensiveness and innovation of the findings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of the manuscript needs improvement.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you very much for each of your comments. These are constructive comments that help our work to be better and to find its place in the scientific literature. Everything you told and pointed out for us is of great importance. We hope that we have understood everything well and that we will meet your expectations with this version of our work.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although wine tourism is becoming increasingly popular among researchers, it is still considered a niche form of tourism. The development of wine tourism in areas that have not been attractive to tourists so far can contribute not only to the growth of incomes of residents involved in this sector of the economy, but can also have a positive impact on the development of a local sense of regional identity. Therefore, I believe that the subject of the manuscript is important and relevant.

 

I highly value the text submitted for review. However, I have a few comments/suggestions to consider:

 

1. Wine tourism is considered a part of cultural tourism and is combined with culinary tourism, sustainable tourism and agritourism. The authors focused only on the aspect of sustainable tourism. I believe that it would be worthwhile to explain the concept of wine tourism in more detail.
2. There is no need to repeat what the aim of the research was and what the hypotheses are in the Materials and Methods section (lines 269-283). This information was in the Introduction section (lines 92-106)
3. In the Results and discussion section, authors refer only to the results of their research. It is advisable for authors to compare their research results with the results of other studies, indicating similarities and differences.

 

4. Please supplement the conclusions with research limitations and problems. You can also suggest areas that require further research, or indicate what was not included in the research but should have been, etc.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you very much for each of your comments. These are constructive comments that help our work to be better and to find its place in the scientific literature. Everything you told and pointed out for us is of great importance. We hope that we have understood everything well and that we will meet your expectations with this version of our work.

Beste regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Article “Community-led Sustainable Tourism in Rural Areas: Enhancing Destination Competitiveness and Local Empowerment” concerns the subject matter of Community-led sustainable tourism. The analyses were carried out in terms of the role of local residents in shaping tourism initiatives that not only promote environmental stewardship but also enhance local economies and preserve cultural heritage. The research focused on two rural wine destinations, Banoštor in Serbia and Radda in Chianti, Italy, utilizing a constructivist epistemological approach to understand community-led tourism. The study aimed to assess how community involvement enhances the competitiveness of rural destinations, evaluates the social, cultural, and economic empowerment of local communities, and examines the role of community participation in sustainable tourism development.

The article is in line with current research trends in the field of sustainable tourism in rural areas. The results obtained by the authors can be considered to increase knowledge in the analyzed research area.

My comments on the different parts of the article:

1. Introduction

The authors correctly introduced the reader to the subject matter undertaken. Based on the literature, they showed the validity and need for the research taken up. In a clear and readable way the research hypotheses were formulated and the aims of the research conducted were indicated.

2. Theoretical background

I have no comments on this part. The background of the research was correctly indicated, based on the literature.

3. Materials and Methods (in the content incorrectly marked with the number 2)

I have the most comments on this section. To begin with, I suggest a more traditional layout: first describe the subject of the research, the sources of data, and then describe the research methodologies used.

According to what I understood, the starting point for analysis was the surveys conducted. Please describe them in detail - what form they took (interviews, questionnaires) what the respondents were asked about (on what basis the questions were built). On line 240, numbers appear in brackets - from further reading one can deduce that this is the number of respondents. Please write this clearly in the article.

Lines 296-328 - these are already results rather than research methodology. Please move this to the next chapter. As I understand these specific variables (marked Vi) are the result of analyses from the surveys. Please provide a full list of these factors, as I understand they were asked about in the surveys. The methodology should also include a justification for choosing exactly these factors (e.g., based on the literature). At the moment the reader does not know what was asked, the authors immediately present the results.

I am missing a theoretical description of the methods used and the models built. Please add mathematical formulas in the article, with an explanation of all elements and justification of what will result from the specific values obtained.

To organize the methodology, please add a diagram showing, on the one hand, the sequence of action steps and, on the other hand, indicating the research methods used in each step. In the current version there is a lot of mess, the reader has to guess on his own what was done and how it was done successively.

4. Results and discussion (marked with the number 3)

As for the results, I have no comments, while I do not see in this section a classical discussion of the results. I propose to create another section “Discussion” and conduct in it a classical discussion of the results. Please point out the limitations of the methodology adopted, the possibilities of its broader, different use, compare the results obtained with the results of other studies on this topic, conducted by other authors in other areas, etc.

5. Conclusions (numbered 4)

I have no comments. Conclusions are formulated correctly, they relate directly to the research conducted. Practical implications are indicated.

Review Summary

The article needs to be reorganized, supplemented and slightly rewritten according to the above comments. However, this is only to improve the quality of the article, which is already a good study. Having taken into account the above comments, I recommend the article for publication.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you very much for each of your comments. These are constructive comments that help our work to be better and to find its place in the scientific literature. Everything you told and pointed out for us is of great importance. We hope that we have understood everything well and that we will meet your expectations with this version of our work.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx