The UNESCO Environmental Corridor of Extremadura: Tourism and Governance as Tools for Social Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author assumes that promoting participatory decision-making improves the governance of a tourism territory, and proposes to analyze a specific case (UEC) to verify its progress in these aspects. Then, in reality, the author presents a mixture of things around the UEC that do not end up fulfilling its real objectives.

From my point of view, the first survey presented (made to visitors) serves to characterize in a very general way the tourist behavior of visitors. I think it is better to include this characterization together with the geographical, historical and political description of the case in a large descriptive section of the UEC, although reducing the number of words (there are many that occupy all this at the moment). This part cannot be included in materials and methods, with the exception of a technical description of the first survey. 

The second survey does address the real issues of tourism governance and community participation. Unfortunately the sample is only 70 and, moreover, only 12 informants are from the UEC, the rest being from other territories of Extremadura. I invite the author to provide some proof of the validity of the technique, it is difficult. In addition, many of the questions are dichotomous (yes/no), limiting the potential information.

In fact, what the author presents as focus groups are actually group interviews (the focus groups are made up of 6 or more informants). The distribution of the informants' profiles among the different groups seems very random. In any case, this is the most powerful source of information you have. I recommend you to perform discourse analysis from a structuralist perspective and connect the explanations of your informants with the theory and data obtained in the quantitative one, generating groupings in categories. It will certainly help you achieve your objective. You can also select and present the most relevant quotes.                   

As a consequence of the above, his conclusions are weakly supported, and the “limitations” section shows that almost everything remains to be done, after a work lacking in demonstrative force. 

After all this, the author should review the internal consistency of the article making sure that the objectives, theory, method and conclusions/discussion fit together adequately. This is currently not the case.  

Other minor problems:
-The reference to the influence of COVID distracts attention from the main objective. It is quite logical, and even evident, that there is a significant decline in visitors in the 1920s and 21.
-He uses the terminology “autonomus territory” and “Autonomus Community” without the reader being able to interpret whether he is referring to the same thing or not.  
-In the conclusions the author introduces new theoretical lines with their respective references, these lines should be advanced in the theoretical framework although in a very summarized form.

Author Response

Ver en archivo adjunto

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I enjoyed reading this paper. It is a good paper that indicates rigour in relation to research design and execution. The paper is well-constructed and includes relevant supplementary materials (visual figures and tables). Appropriate contextual information is provided. In particular, there is comprehensive analysis of tourism demand in the UEC and the overall aim 'to understand the dynamics of tourism governance in the four territories' is fulfilled.

I have some minor comments to highlight:

In places, there is scope to include more recent reference sources to support arguments - for example, the first sentence of the Introduction refers to the current context but the supporting reference is dated 2017.

Page 2, line 49 - the first sentence needs revising. It states that the term governance originates from 'governance'? The meaning is unclear here.

Line 81 refers to using the abbreviation 'CMU' but from line 85 'UEC' is used instead?

There is scope to clarify the numbers mentioned in relation to stakeholder focus group interviewees - Line 290 mentions 18 people actively involved, is this the sampling frame? Line 461 mentions 12 were interviewed. Are these 12 out of the 18 actively involved?

I hope this helps. 

Author Response

See in attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is no answer to this reviewer comment. Can you provide it?

As a consequence of the above, his conclusion are weakly suported and the “limitations”   section shows that almost everything remains to be done, after a work lacking in demonstrative force. After all this, the author should review the internal consistency of the article making sure that the objectives, theory, method and conclusions/discussion fit together adequately. This is currently not the case.

 He uses the terminology of “autonomus territory” an “autonomus community” without the reader being able to interpret whether he is referring to the same thing or not.

Author arnswer:

 The autonomous communities are a political demarcation in Spain into which its regions are divided and, in this case, we refer to the region of Extremadura. The autonomous territories are mentioned as the different areas that make up the UNESCO Environmental Corridor.

Reviewer:

It is correct, so ¿Did you explain these concepts to the readers?  ¿Where is this? Remember that our readers come from the five continents and could need the concepts for a better understanding.

Author Response

 

See attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf