Spatiotemporal Evolution and the Impact of Changing Political–Economic Systems on Tourism Spatial Planning and Land Use: The Case of Kupari, Dubrovnik, Croatia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This reviewer appreciates being given an insight into the history of resorts through this review. The topic is interesting and timely, filling a research gap. However, I believe the authors should make some improvements.

1. Structural Issues

1.1. The overall work is very disorganized.

1.2. Please follow the instructions for authors at all times (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions).

1.3. The abstract is somewhat confusing; you can improve it by following this structure (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions): 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Briefly describe the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used; 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article: it must not contain results that are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.

1.4. The introduction is confusing and disorganized; follow the established outline (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions).

2. Formatting and Source Issues

2.1. Correct formal aspects: excessive parentheses (line 40), citation system (line 107), etc.

2.2. Overuse of footnotes. Footnotes are clarifications that can be omitted from the text. Essential information cannot be included in them; it must be included in the text. When essential information is needed, integrate it into the text; when it is complementary, keep it as footnotes, but always keep them brief.

2.3. A location map (of Kupari in relation to Duvroknik, and of Duvroknik in Croatia) would aid understanding.

2.4. Add a chronological table or timeline to aid reading.

2.5. Planning requires showing plans and images of what is being discussed.

2.6. Appendices should be integrated into the text, as they are part of a comprehensive understanding of the work.

2.7. Review the references as indicated in the instructions for authors (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions).

3. Methodological Issues

3.1. The work lacks a methodology as such; it is a justification of what is done.

3.2. Review works on physical or spatial planning to establish a methodology.

4. Content Issues

4.1. The title can be a question, but it must refer to the resort being studied (they're not talking about Croatia, but about a specific resort): Kupari. It's "more than a hundred years old," and the chronology 1880-2020 can be incorporated.

4.2. The introduction reads more like a continuation of the abstract than an introduction. It's very messy.

4.3. They must be precise: "Kupari resort was conceptualized in the 1900s." Precision is essential in history.

4.4. There is no theoretical framework as such. They must make a decision: what is the central theme of the work? Based on the Journal's theme, resort planning. Focus on that, and read. You can't do a literature review of 10 works. Create an outline, for example: resort planning, planning models, internal and external factors… Finally, you can move on to the evolution of planning, although this reviewer believes it would be more appropriate to create a section discussing (aristocratic) tourism planning in the Central Powers and the emergence of nation states (there is literature on coastal resorts in the Baltic, Czech seaside resorts, etc.), socialist planning (two models, elite and mass; there is literature, although sometimes it is from a capitalist perspective), and post-socialist planning (there is literature on Croatia, but also on Bulgaria, Ukraine, and Romania). The idea of ​​tourism in each period influences physical planning.

4.5. It is not necessary to recount the history of Croatia, but rather to contextualize the period and discuss the objective: Kupari's planning at each point in the analysis.

4.6. The conclusions presented are more of an extended summary than a conclusion. Indicate main findings, implications, limitations, and future lines of research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title to Review: Rewrite the title based on the keywords (tourism; political and economic system (PES); institutionalism; Kupari; Croatia)
Abstract: The abstract does not reflect the content of the article; there is a lack of methodology, results, and conclusion.
Please redo the abstract to include a brief description of the study area, the objectives of the work, methodology, results, and conclusion.
Keywords: Remove the abbreviation.

The article deals with the influence of political and economic systems on the territory of Kupari. I was unable to find a map of the study area. There is historical data that testifies to the political developments taking place on land, and their evolution can be measured through aerial and satellite photos. Likewise, these political systems have an influence on economic developments that can be measured and quantified through criteria and indicators, and illustrated by curves and graphs.
Unfortunately, however, the entire article presents historical data and economic situations in a qualitative and subjective manner. This reflects the lack of a clear and objective methodology.
I recommend reformulating the entire article by choosing a clear and objective methodology and using new technologies to illustrate field results. Similarly, on the economic side, the authors should present quantitative data illustrated by graphs and evaluate each period using criteria and indicators.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study explores a highly significant topic: how the spatial planning of Croatia's tourism industry has been influenced by the changes in the political economic system (PES) over a span of more than a century. To this end, the author conducts an in-depth diachronic analysis of the planning practices under the four different systems from the Austro-Hungarian Empire to the present, applying the theory of historical institutionalism. Taking the Kupari resort village as an example, the author combines the grand historical narrative with specific empirical evidence for argumentation and analysis. However, the current version of the manuscript still has room for improvement in terms of structural arrangement, analytical depth, and engagement with existing literature. Specific suggestions are as follows:

Firstly, in terms of the logical structure of the article, there is a lack of an independent "Discussion" section. All empirical materials are placed under a large Section 4, "The impact of PES...", and then it directly proceeds to the conclusion. This approach results in a relatively scattered analysis and interpretation, lacking a centralized space to deeply explore the theoretical implications of the research findings, engage in dialogue with the literature, and discuss broader implications.

Secondly, in terms of the refinement of the research question, the title of the article itself is an intriguing research question, and "change and constancy" indeed runs through the entire text, providing a strong logical thread for the whole article. However, from the perspective of research operability, it is suggested that at the end of the introduction or in the theoretical framework section, this core issue could be broken down into one or two more specific and operational sub-questions, so as to make the analytical levels of the article more distinct. At the same time, the author accurately points out the gap in existing research, that is, the lack of systematic and long-term research on how political and economic system changes affect tourism spatial planning. Although the current theoretical framework is somewhat thin in its exposition, it can be introduced in greater depth regarding its core mechanisms.

Thirdly, in terms of the selection of research methods, this study adopted a diachronic single-case study, supplemented by a "case within a case" design, which was highly suitable. However, in the organization of content structure, the structure of Section 3 could be adjusted to be clearer, for instance, divided into three subsections: "Research Design", "Data Collection", and "Analysis Strategy". It is believed that such an operation would enable readers to grasp the operational process of the research more quickly.

Fourth, the presentation of the research results is vivid in narrative and well-supported by evidence. The interweaving of the Kupari case is highly effective and serves as a finishing touch. Meanwhile, the four tables in the appendix provide a brilliant summary of the core arguments of the entire text. It is suggested that some analytical comments be added to the descriptive narrative to help readers extract the evidence supporting the core arguments from the numerous historical details, and also to lay the groundwork for the subsequent "Discussion" section.

Finally, it is suggested that a "Discussion" section be added to focus on how this study deepens or modifies our understanding of "critical junctures" and "path dependence" in historical institutionalism? Does the case of Croatia reveal any specific mechanisms of path dependence?

In addition, there are also some minor mistakes. For instance, the last sub-section in Section 4 is numbered as "4.1.4", which is obviously a typesetting error and should be "4.4".

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This reviewer believes the work is more organized and has improved substantially. I only have format assessments:
1. Figures 2 must have scale and orientation, can be expanded to Croatia, the surrounding countries are not excessively interesting.
2. The notes on the page continue to be excessive, there is no clear criterion. If it's important, go to the text. If it is not important, sometimes it is not necessary to add it, and other times it should just be clarification.
3. You must review the format, but understand that this will happen in the editing process.
A question for authors, for revisions, is essential to preserve the original text and introduce exchange control. Otherwise, you are obliged to revise the text completely and lose track of changes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' response is unconvincing; the added images lack coordinates and references, quantitative data, and any mention of technology use. The article cannot be published in its current form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this revised manuscript, the author has responded positively to the reviewers' comments and made careful revisions. Although the new version has made significant progress, there are still some areas that could be further improved, such as the depth of application of the theoretical framework, the integration of historical narrative with the core argument, and the strength of the argumentation in the discussion section.

In the introduction section, the core research questions and hypotheses remain unclear. For instance, it could be more clearly stated: "How does frequent PES change affect the long-term resilience and development robustness of tourism areas by influencing spatial planning legislation and institutions?" Based on this, more specific hypotheses could be proposed, such as: "The intensity of PES change is positively correlated with the instability of the spatial planning legal framework and the depth of institutional fractures." "Even after drastic PES changes, the remaining institutions and development concepts still exhibit path dependence."

In the theoretical framework and literature review section, the formation mechanism of "path dependency" can be elaborated in depth, as well as how "critical junctures" break path dependency and initiate new development trajectories. This is crucial for explaining why Kupari's "elite tourism" positioning has been sustained while its development has been repeatedly interrupted due to changes in PES. In the methodology section, "spatio-temporal evolution analysis" is a comprehensive methodological system. A brief description of the specific operational steps can be provided. For instance, how to compare maps, planning documents, and legal texts from different periods to identify the "changing" and "unchanging" elements.

In the case analysis section, the historical narrative rarely directly references the theoretical concepts (path dependence, critical junctures) proposed earlier, resulting in a certain gap between theory and empirical analysis. Additionally, the current discussion section is very brief, essentially serving as an introduction to the tables in the appendix. The actual discussion content seems to be placed in the tables in the appendix (Table A1-A4). Tables are concise summaries of the results, while the "discussion" section should provide in-depth interpretation, theoretical elaboration, and extension of these results, which would be more conducive to readers' comprehension and understanding.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf