Tourism Planning in Underdeveloped Regions—What Has Been Going Wrong? The Case of Extremadura (Spain)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Page 2, line 55: 5% of the 83M of tourism - correct the wording.

Page 11, line 340: the sector. the realisation - grammatically vaguely worded.

Figure 1 should be legible and free of obscured data.

Check the citations of sources from Table 2 in the References, e.g. Inskeep, 1991, Ivars-Baidal & Vera, 2019 etc.

Main problem are inappropriate self-citations by authors, e.g. Robina-Ramírez, R.; Fernández-Portillo, A. What Role does Tourists’ Educational Motivation Play in Promoting Religious Tourism among Travellers? Annals of Leisure Research 2018, 23, 1-22, etc.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 1

First of all, we want to express our gratitude for having the patience to read the manuscript. Your insightful suggestions have helped us to raise the standard of the paper by improving the sections you have pointed out us.

1. Page 2, line 55: 5% of the 83M of tourism - correct the wording.

Thank you very much. It is corrected. Please, see the new sentence correcting by the native English translator. If you are not happy we can change it:

‘’…the south-west region received more than 5% of the 83M of tourists who visited Spain in 2019 [18]’’.

2. Page 11, line 340: the sector. the realisation - grammatically vaguely worded.

Thank you very much. Again, the native English translator has translated in this way:

‘’Interview 8: ‘Tourism technicians and inspectors have a great deal to contribute to the tourism planning’’.

3. Figure 1 should be legible and free of obscured data.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have made a new figure more. If you are not agree, we can change it again:

4. Check the citations of sources from Table 2 in the References, e.g. Inskeep, 1991, Ivars-Baidal & Vera, 2019 etc.

Thank you very much. It has been corrected.

5. Main problem are inappropriate self-citations by authors, e.g. Robina-Ramírez, R.; Fernández-Portillo, A. What Role does Tourists’ Educational Motivation Play in Promoting Religious Tourism among Travellers? Annals of Leisure Research 2018, 23, 1-22, etc.

Thank very much for your comment. It has been corrected and we have added another citations more appropriate.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. This paper deals with an interesting topic that is often neglected in tourism research.
2. However, the aims and scope of the study are not clear at all and ought to be drastically improved. An example: the first sentence of the abstract has tautological features: in a small sentence the word 'tourism' shows up 3 times!
3.  It is disturbing that the whole paper is full of normative statements: the words 'should' and 'must' appear allover the paper. It suggests that the author only seeks to find confirmation for a normative policy perspective to be supported by a PLS-SEM model. This is not acceptable.
4. Tourism planning is as old as tourism. There is no need to defend this, and certainly not by using inferior references (refs 1-3).
5. The author has failed to specify the research objectives, neither the structure of the study.
6. The terms functional and dysfunctional are often used: in my view functional is the opposite of dysfunctional. So why then use these terms separately?
7. I am really concerned about the relevance of the hypotheses. For example, why is it relevant to test whether the study of a territory affects the determination of the objectives in tourism planning (H2)? Furthermore, this Hypothesis is not tested at all.
8. A major flaw in the study is that the hypotheses are not tested at all. One would expect at the end a systematic review of the outcomes of the tests, but I could not find it. So what is the significance of specifying these hypotheses? And where do these test results influence the conclusions?
9. It would have been helpful, if the author would have defined the concept of planning professionals. Are these people, agents, bodies, institutions?
10. The transition from section 3.1 to 3.2 is very abrupt. What is the meaning of the model? And where does the input come from? There are 205 participating planners in section 3.1 and 31 planners in section 3.2. How come?
11. The SEM model has a major shortcoming. There are 3 endogenous constructs (DE, OB, ST,), but only one exogenous force (FE). This means that functional and multidisciplinary elements of tourism are supposed to drive all outcomes. This seems to me a strange proposition which is not in agreement with the hypotheses.
12. Table 4 has Spanish indicators!
13. The meaning of Table 5 deserves more explanation.
14. Since I have serious doubts on the plausibility of the model, I have also serious doubts on the validity of the conclusions. 
15. But even if I accept the model, the normative theoretical conclusions do not follow logically from the model estimations. At best, they do not contradict the author's prior ideas.
16. The practical conclusions are no surprise and well known. Why do we then need a PLS-SEM model to find the obvious? And the hypotheses do not play a role here.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2

First of all, we want to express our gratitude for having the patience to read the manuscript. Your insightful suggestions have helped us to raise the standard of the paper by improving all the sections you have pointed out us.

We have maintained this colour blue in the Clean Version to easily see what paragraphs, tables and changes have been added to address your improvement proposals.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. This paper deals with an interesting topic that is often neglected in tourism research.

Thank you very much for yor comment.

2. However, the aims and scope of the study are not clear at all and ought to be drastically improved. An example: the first sentence of the abstract has tautological features: in a small sentence the word 'tourism' shows up 3 times!

Thank you very much. It is corrected. Please, see the new section. If you are not happy we can change it again:

The article proposes a planning model to develop tourism from a holistic perspective that includes economic, population and social aspects. Following a participatory methodology, the objective of the study is to propose a tourism planning model that contributes to the development of rural territories based on the involvement of tourism planners in the study. A total of 205 tourism planners and 443 tourism offices participated in the study. The data obtained were analyzed using the PLS-SEM method. The results indicate that tourism planning has to be carried out by a professional team with diverse technical profiles that monitors the objectives set and adapts them to changes in the environment.

3. It is disturbing that the whole paper is full of normative statements: the words 'should' and 'must' appear allover the paper. It suggests that the author only seeks to find confirmation for a normative policy perspective to be supported by a PLS-SEM model. This is not acceptable.

Many thanks for your comment. We have applied the appropriate changes to the text.

As you have mentioned in the first point, this work addresses a commonly neglected aspect in the field of tourism planning. After presenting a theoretical model, we have sought a statistical tool that would validate the initial hypotheses. We have been working on finding a significant sample of tourism planners and tourism agencies in order to validate the model. We believe that the sample is significant enough, although it can be increased with more dedication and available time. We think that structural equation models give a higher level of confidence to research due to their statistical efficiency through robust and powerful software. According to Haenlein & Kaplan, (2004) these models are especially useful in the field of social sciences, educational sciences, and behavioral sciences since they allow theoretical testing of causal models.

References:

Haenlein, M. y Kaplan, A. (2004). A Beginner ́s Guide to Partial Least Squares Analysis. Understanding Statistics, 3(4), 283-297

4. Tourism planning is as old as tourism. There is no need to defend this, and certainly not by using inferior references (refs 1-3).

We appreciate your comment, but the first paragraph is just an introduction to the issue raised. We intend to highlight that, despite the long journey of tourism planning, there are still flaws in it that are not properly considered.

5. The author has failed to specify the research objectives, neither the structure of the study.

Thank you for your comment. We completely agree and the structure of the study was not detailed. The objective of the study was explained from line 68. However, we understand that it was not clear enough, so we hope to have solved the error as follows:

Based on previous studies on strategic tourism planning [30,16, 8] and mistakes made in tourism planning around the world, the research aims to produce a tourism planning model that takes into account the importance they have certain elements of planning such as the development of strategic objectives [31, 30]. The authors acknowledge that there are no studies that analyze the elements that define these failures, and even fewer that propose solutions compiled from social agents who are experts in planning [32].

In order to define strategies that allow us to provide solutions to the failure of tourism planning in underdeveloped regions, a review of the existing literature to date on the research topic was carried out. The variables obtained were refined in two focus groups established with 21 tourism planners from different corners of Spain. Finally, 443 tourism offices and 205 tourism planners participated in the study and the data obtained was analyzed with the statistical tool Smart PLS Path Modeling [33, 34].

6. The terms functional and dysfunctional are often used: in my view functional is the opposite of dysfunctional. So why then use these terms separately?

We greatly appreciate your comment. The fact that one word is the opposite of another does not allow the terms to be used interchangeably. Anyway, your comment indicates that the text needs to be clearer, so we have proceeded to improve it:

In any planning process, it is necessary to carefully address the dysfunctional and functional elements that contribute to slow down the development of a territory. By the term ‘dysfunctional elements’ we understand the negative impacts on the territory of an environmental, economic, patrimonial, social and population nature such as degradation of the environment, higher rents, tourism, loss of cultural identity, among others [35, 36]. By ‘functional elements’ we understand those factors of a participatory and multidisciplinary nature that contribute to harmonizing the tourist resources in the territory according to a pattern of tourism development or planning such as the participation of the resident community or different tourism entrepreneurs in the area [31, 37]. Both functional and dysfunctional elements are part of the initial study that needs to be carried out throughout the territory and will allow us to establish the objectives of a tourism plan [19,21,31,34].

7. I am really concerned about the relevance of the hypotheses. For example, why is it relevant to test whether the study of a territory affects the determination of the objectives in tourism planning (H2)? Furthermore, this Hypothesis is not tested at all.

Thank you for your comment. There are numerous studies that show that tourism planning has not always been properly considered as an essential element in the correct development of tourism in a place [1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 19, 20, 24, 30, 86]. The various meetings held with tourism planning professionals have led us to conclude that the initial study is the step prior to any tourism planning, but that it is not always carried out. For this reason, we insist on the importance of its realization, and we prove that it should guide the demarcation of the objectives to be met [38, 39, 40, 59, 66, 69, 86]. On numerous occasions, tourism planning at the regional level is a simple copy of tourism planning at the national level, so we see it relevant to point out that the planning of a territory must be governed by particular and not general issues [86, 24].

References:

1. Liu, A.; Wall, G. Planning tourism employment: a developing country perspective. Tourism Management 2006, 27, 159-170.
2. Jurado Almonte, JM.; Pazos-García, F.J. Población y turismo rural en territorios de baja densidad poblacional en España. Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles 2016, 71, 247-272.
3. Nieto Masot, A.; Ríos Rodríguez, N. Rural Tourism as a Development Strategy in Low-Density Areas: Case Study in Northern Extremadura (Spain). Sustainability 2021, 13, 239.
4. Hall, C.M. (2000). Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships. Essex: Prentice Hall.
5. Velasco, M. Entre el poder y la racionalidad: gobierno del turismo, política turística, planificación turística y gestión pública del turismo. Pasos 2016, 14, 577-594.
6. Gunn, C.A. Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases. 3rd Ed.; Taylor & Frances: Washington, United States, 1994.
7. Sánchez-Oro Sánchez, M.; Castro-Serrano, J.; Robina-Ramírez, R. Stakeholders’ Participation in Sustainable Tourism Planning for a Rural Region: Extremadura Case Study (Spain). Land 2021, 10, 553.
8. Nieto Masot, A.; Ríos Rodríguez, N.; Cárdenas Alonso, G. Planificación turística en Extremadura. Análisis de sus territorios turísticos. Cuadernos de Turismo 2020 46, 291-317.
9. Nieto Masot, A.; Cárdenas Alonso, G. 25 años de políticas europeas en Extremadura: turismo rural y método Leader. Cuadernos de Turismo 2017, 39, 389-416.
10. Sánchez Martín, J.M.; Rengifo Gallego, J.I. Evolución del sector turístico en la Extremadura del siglo XXI: auge, crisis y re-cuperación. Lurralde 2019, 42, 19-50.
11. Simão, J.N.; Partidário, M.R. How Does Tourism Planning Contribute to Sustainable Development? Sustainable Development 2012, 20, 372-385.
12. Garau, G.; Carboni, D.; El Meligi, A.K. Economic and environmental impact of the tourism carrying capacity: a local-based approach. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 2021. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1177/10963480211031426 (accessed on 21 March 2022).
13. Faulkner, B. Towards a framework for tourism disaster management. Tourism Management 2001, 22, 135-147.
14. Martínez-Quintana, V. Planificación colaborativa del turismo local y de naturaleza en época de crisis. In El turismo después de la pandemia global. Análisis, perspectivas y vías de recuperación. Asociación Española de Expertos Científicos en Turismo, 2020, 120-140.
15. Milano, C.; Novelli, M.; Cheer, J. Overtourism and Tourismphobia: A Journey Through Four Decades of Tourism Devel-opment, Planning and Local Concerns. Tourism Planning & Development 2019, 16, 353-357.
16. Tosun, C.; Jenkins, C.L. (1996). Regional Planning Approaches to Tourism Development: the case of Turkey. Tourism Man-agement 1996, 17, 519-531.
17. Esfehani, M. H.; Albrecht, J. N. Planning for Intangible Cultural Heritage in Tourism: Challenges and Implications. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 2019, 43, 980–1001.
18. Cabezas Hernández, M.T.; Leal-Solís, A. A propósito de la planificación de turismo en España: necesidad u oportunidad. Revista General de Derecho del Turismo 2021, 3, 1-52.
19. A major flaw in the study is that the hypotheses are not tested at all. One would expect at the end a systematic review of the outcomes of the tests, but I could not find it. So what is the significance of specifying these hypotheses? And where do these test results influence the conclusions?

Thank you very much for your comment. We have added a new table in the manuscript where we relate the theory summarized to the hypotheses and results.

The following table shows the connection between the theory developed, the hypotheses raised and the results obtained (see table 9).

Table 9. Hypothesis, Theory Summary and Results

9. It would have been helpful, if the author would have defined the concept of planning professionals. Are these people, agents, bodies, institutions?

Thank you very much for yor suggestion.

The sampling was applied to tourism planning professionals in Spanish regions with similar tourist characteristics. In all of those regions, tourism is promoted by provincial councils and tourism councils and planning professionals are the different professionals who work in these entities and participate in the development of tourism planning in their region.

10. The transition from section 3.1 to 3.2 is very abrupt. What is the meaning of the model? And where does the input come from? There are 205 participating planners in section 3.1 and 31 planners in section 3.2. How come?

Thank you for your comments.

• The distribution of the participants was as follows:

For the refinement and choice of the indicators, 31 tourism planning agents from different corners of Spain and 38 tourism offices from Extremadura were contacted. Finally, 21 agents and all tourist offices participated. Due to the distance and the restrictive measures required by Covid, the meetings took place by Zoom. After the meetings, the final indicators were established, supported by the review of the literature.

A total of 302 tourism planners and a total of 1,462 tourism offices were sent the questionnaire. Finally, 205 responses from the planners and 443 responses from the tourist offices were obtained.

Table 2. Tourist Planners and Tourist Offices in Spain who took part in the selection for variables.

Source: Self made

• Regarding the abrupt jump from section 3.1 to 3.2, we hope we have solved it as follows:

Figure 1 shows the origin of the different agents and offices that have participated and collaborated in the selection of variables for the study and that we detail below.

• The model introduction has also been added:

The model that represents the study is detailed below.

11. The SEM model has a major shortcoming. There are 3 endogenous constructs (DE, OB, ST,), but only one exogenous force (FE). This means that functional and multidisciplinary elements of tourism are supposed to drive all outcomes. This seems to me a strange proposition which is not in agreement with the hypotheses.

Thank you very much for your comment. You are absolutely right and there was a mistake in the version of the model that we have corrected.

Figure 2. Structural Model (Source: Self-made. DE: dysfunctional elements of tourism planning; OB: determination of objectives in tourism planning; ST: study of the territory to be planned; and FE: functional and multidisciplinary elements of tourism).

12. Table 4 has Spanish indicators!

Thank you very much for your correction, it is just corrected.

13. The meaning of Table 5 deserves more explanation.

Thank you very much for your comment. Finally, discriminant validity was analysed using the heterotrait-monotrait test (HTMT), which allows a more rigorous analysis of the discriminant validity criteria [77]. For this, its value should not exceed 0.90 [76]. As we can see in the following table, all the results obtained have been less than 0.90, which means that the model is totally valid (see Table 6).

14. Since I have serious doubts on the plausibility of the model, I have also serious doubts on the validity of the conclusions.

Thanks again, the validity of the model is based on the selection criteria for variables in which an important number of tourism planners have been involved. Once the variables have been contrasted among them results and conclusions are validated by the statistical model results.

15. But even if I accept the model, the normative theoretical conclusions do not follow logically from the model estimations. At best, they do not contradict the author's prior ideas.
16. The practical conclusions are no surprise and well known. Why do we then need a PLS-SEM model to find the obvious? And the hypotheses do not play a role here.

Thank you very much for your comments. We have solved suggestions 15 and 16 as follows. Anyway, if you still do not like it, let us know and we will try to solve it:

Since the end of the 20th century, tourism has become an activity that is capable of diversifying and reactivating the economy of rural areas that have problems of an aging population and of depopulation [83]. This study provides, in an innovative way, a tourism planning model that supports the successful achievement of such a purpose. According to Chin and Newsted (1999) [84], this model is strongly predictive so it can be extrapolated to any region with similar characteristics. In future tourism planning, these regions have to consider aspects that the literature proposed and that now, this empirical study corroborates. As confirmed by the hypotheses, tourism planning must be carried out by professionals with different profiles, basing the objectives on a rigorous initial study. Thus, in light of the results obtained, we present the result of the hypotheses in three theoretical conclusions and three practical recommendations that ought to be taken into account by regional and provincial administrations.

Theoretical conclusions

In the first place, planning a developing destination requires defining objectives [30, 31] that are realistic given the possibilities and seeking a balanced transition towards the intended tourism model (H1. DE->OB) [49, 50, 37, 5, 16, 51]. It should be taken into account that strategic objectives in tourism planning are not universal and that each destination or region ought to consider its own situation (H1. DE->OB) [85].

Therefore, to achieve this, the objectives have to be based on an initial study [40] that includes the capacities, attributes, resources and attractions of the destination (H2. ST->OB) [39, 43]. In this way, the objectives will be fully integrated into and are appropriate for the destination in question (H2. ST->OB) [1, 15, 16].

Third, the nature of the objectives is under an obligation to be economic, environ-mental, spatial and social [10] so that a global model of tourism development is estab-lished in the region through the established objectives (H3. FE->OB).

Practical recommendations

The results of our research indicate that the study that will guide the objectives to be established is strongly influenced by the functional and multidisciplinary elements of tourism (H5. FE->ST) [60, 62, 63]. This means that for the tourism plan to be fully integrative and holistic, it has to be carried out by a professional team with various technical pro-files (H3. FE->OB) [17, 48]. In addition, the objectives required to be monitoring and up-dating by the professional team (H6. FE->DE) [39, 40, 41]. To this end, we propose a monitoring system for objectives before, during and after the completion of the tourism plan. Before carrying out the plan, the formal objectives of the predecessor plan must be analyzed and adapted to the time frame of the new plan [15, 16, 38, 86]. The initial study will include these old goals to find out why they have not been achieved (H2. ST->OB) [86, 38]. The rest of the objectives will be based on the initial preliminary study [12, 15, 16, 38, 1, 86].

During the execution of the plan, we propose to review the objectives periodically in formal meetings of the members of the planning team. If necessary, they will reorient themselves and adapt to the changes that are happening at the time (H1. DE->OB; H3. FE-> OB) [16, 14, 60]. In this case, alert systems will be necessary to notify us of these changes [16, 51, 63, 64, 14, 60], such as: if the target number of arrivals is being met or not and why; if there are changes in tourism trends that may affect our region; or if there are external factors that affect these new trends. Conducting surveys to collect such information will be necessary. Collaboration with an entity that is responsible for compiling all this information through surveys, such as a Tourism Observatory, would be beneficial (H4. ST->DE).

After the execution of the plan, all the objectives will be reviewed [38]. A report will be prepared that explains in detail how the proposed objectives have been achieved. In the case of the objectives not achieved, the reason for this will be studied in order to take it into account in the future plan.

Given that the regional planning level is the most appropriate one for involving the resident community in the planning process [66], the study is obliged to always integrate their participation [13, 16, 66, 67, 68]. The development of tourism systems and institutions that consider local associations and networks will be of great help. The purpose is to ensure a sustainable benefit over time rather than the immediate achievement of maximum profitability [86] and to seek to consolidate the region as a tourist destination [83, 34]. Finally, achieving the objectives will allow us to implement the model in the regions involved in the research by assessing the results along the tourism planning period, which will be key to avoid economic or political pressure from the local and regional touristic authorities [10, 86].

Limitations and future lines of research

The main limitations of our study are related to conducting in-depth interviews and surveys. Due to the social situation caused by Covid-19, the interviews were carried out through virtual meetings and telephone calls, missing the opportunity for face-to-face discussion. In addition, we also found that the participants lacked time and interest in the research.

Extremadura was the first region analysed in this study, but future studies can continue with the same methodology in other regions in order to compare results. It would also be interesting to use this methodology with mature destinations where the tourism planning has been a success, and to others where it has resulted in failure. In this way, a planning model of its own could be established for each type of destination by virtue of the results obtained.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciated the article for its clarity and concreteness in highlighting the true limits of tourism planning. The methodological approach is consistent with the purposes of the study and well developed. The authors showed attention to the operational implications of their analysis by suggesting some practical recommendations. In this regard, in line with what the authors themselves expressed in the course of the article ("the objectives must be monitored and updated according to new events and information generated by the environment"), I suggest adding the opportunity to start, within the tourism planning framework, a process of developing ex ante, ongoing and ex post monitoring systems, as well as early warning systems capable of reporting any risk situations.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2

First of all, we want to express our gratitude for having the patience to read the manuscript. Your insightful suggestions have helped us to raise the standard of the paper by improving the section you have pointed out us.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciated the article for its clarity and concreteness in highlighting the true limits of tourism planning. The methodological approach is consistent with the purposes of the study and well developed. The authors showed attention to the operational implications of their analysis by suggesting some practical recommendations. In this regard, in line with what the authors themselves expressed in the course of the article ("the objectives must be monitored and updated according to new events and information generated by the environment"), I suggest adding the opportunity to start, within the tourism planning framework, a process of developing ex ante, ongoing and ex post monitoring systems, as well as early warning systems capable of reporting any risk situations.

Many thanks for your comments and your encouraging words. We hope your insightful suggestion would be pleased. In the original text, you can find it from the 379 line:

‘’In addition, the objectives must be monitored and updated by the professional team [39, 40, 41]. To this end, we propose a monitoring system for objectives before, during and after the completion of the tourism plan. Before carrying out the plan, the formal objectives of the predecessor plan must be analyzed and adapted to the time frame of the new plan [15, 16, 38, 86]. The initial study should include these old goals to find out why they have not been achieved [86, 38]. The rest of the objectives will be based on the initial preliminary study [12, 15, 16, 38, 1, 86].

During the execution of the plan, we propose to review the objectives periodically in formal meetings of the members of the planning team. If necessary, they will reorient themselves and adapt to the changes that are happening at the time [16, 14, 60]. In this case, alert systems will be necessary to notify us of these changes [16, 51, 63, 64, 14, 60], such as: if the target number of arrivals is being met or not and why; if there are changes in tourism trends that may affect our region; or if there are external factors that affect these new trends. Conducting surveys to collect such information will be necessary. Collabora-tion with an entity that is responsible for compiling all this information through surveys, such as a Tourism Observatory, would be beneficial.

After the execution of the plan, all the objectives will be reviewed [38]. A report will be prepared that explains in detail how the proposed objectives have been achieved. In the case of the objectives not achieved, the reason for this will be studied in order to take it into account in the future plan’’.

REFERENCES

1. Liu, A.; Wall, G. Planning tourism employment: a developing country perspective. Tourism Management 2006, 27, 159-170.
2. Gunn, C.A. Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases. 3rd Ed.; Taylor & Frances: Washington, United States, 1994.
3. Sola Teyssiere, J. La ordenación del turismo y sus relaciones con la legislación de ordenación del territorio, del urbanismo y de la protección del medio ambiente. Administración de Andalucía: revista andaluza de Administración Pública, 2004, 53, 109-134.
4. Cozma, A.C.; Coros, M.M. Regional Planning for Rodna as a Tourist Destination. Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai. Negotia 2020, 65, 49-68.
5. Martins, M. Tourism Planning and Tourismphobia: An Analysis of the Strategic Tourism Plan of Barcelona 2010-2015. Journal of Tourism, Heritage & Services Marketing 2018, 4, 3-7.
6. Garau, G.; Carboni, D.; El Meligi, A.K. Economic and environmental impact of the tourism carrying capacity: a local-based approach. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 2021. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1177/10963480211031426 (accessed on 21 March 2022).
7. Faulkner, B. Towards a framework for tourism disaster management. Tourism Management 2001, 22, 135-147.
8. Martínez-Quintana, V. Planificación colaborativa del turismo local y de naturaleza en época de crisis. In El turismo después de la pandemia global. Análisis, perspectivas y vías de recuperación. Asociación Española de Expertos Científicos en Turismo, 2020, 120-140.
9. Serrano-González, J.; Pérez González, E.M.; Oliveira, C.; Álvarez-García, J. La estrategia de planificación turística de la Villa de La Orotava (Tenerife, Islas Canarias, España): el registro de la percepción y la participación social como base para la sos-tenibilidad de una Citta Slow. Revista Espacios 2020, 41, 372-386.
10. Gee, C.Y. International tourism: A global perspective. World Tourism Organization: Madrid, Spain, 1997.
11. Moscardo, G. Exploring social representations of tourism planning: Issues for governance. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2011, 19, 423-436.
12. Sancho, A. Introducción al turismo. OMT: Madrid, Spain, 2001.
13. Williams, S. Tourism geography. Routledge: London, United Kingdom, 2003.
14. Cabezas Hernández, M.T.; Leal-Solís, A. A propósito de la planificación de turismo en España: necesidad u oportunidad. Revista General de Derecho del Turismo 2021, 3, 1-52.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has made a serious attempt to improve the paper. It is now acceptable.