Strategies for the Promotion of Regenerative Tourism: Hospitality Communities as Niches for Tourism Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As a general comment, the authors submitted an interesting manuscript, and it is linked to the objectives of the journal; however, some issues have to be reconsidered.

The objective of the manuscript is to provide an original insight on how regenerative tourism can be consolidated through hospi-34 tality communities, using the ‘Aves de la Sierra’ (‘Mountain Birds’ in English) project in 35 Huelva, Spain, as a case study.

The subject area is rather interesting and, possibly, not enough approached by other scholars, so there is potential room for this manuscript to bring new information once it reaches the expected level of quality.  

The Abstract is consistent and clear The Abstract succeeded in presenting the main findings.

For better visibility on databases, the authors are asked not to repeat among keywords the words/concepts included in the title of the article. Entering different words in the title and in the keywords can improve the search for the paper in metasearch engines and internet databases. 

In the introduction, the part of the Literature Review is well constructed and it is easy to point out the scientific gap.

- I suggest ending the Introduction part with a short presentation of the structure of the manuscript. 

- Figure 1 should be translated into English

The methodology part should be split into more sub-chapters, so it could be redesigned  to be easier to understand.

- A map of the studied areas could help

In the Chapter 4 "The Results" part?  is the longest one in the manuscript and it pointed out relevant information, they are presented and correlated. The discussion part is not enough pointed out, so it is difficult to see if it is consistent and if it brings important information for scholars. I suggest that the Results and the Discussion parts be better constructed and to provide more quantitative data to see the outputs. Also, to better point out wht thie study case was selected 

The conclusions seems to be too long; it is advised to shorter and make it more pertinent for  for the government, forests/parks administrators, etc.

The manuscript pointed out relevant information, they are presented and correlated. The discussion part is interesting, and consistent, bringing important information for scholars. 

 The conclusion part is distinct and, also, consistent

Author Response

REVIEWER'S COMMENTS 1	REPLIES TO REVIEWER 1
Entering different words in the title and keywords	New keywords have been added that are not in the title: socio-technical innovation, eco-social transition in tourism, cooperative digital transactions and action-research.
End the introduction by presenting the structure of the article.	The introduction ends by presenting the structure of the article.
Split the sub-heading of the methodological section and restructure it.	The methodological section has been restructured to make it clearer by dividing it into subheadings. In the theoretical framework, section 2.3. on transformative innovation is introduced in order to justify and give coherence to the introduction of the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP). The SLOC model, followed in the participatory strategy for the development of the regenerative tourism experience, is also explicitly explained and argued.
Rewrite the headings for analysis of results and conclusions.	The discussion section has been rewritten, introducing a dialogue between the article's contributions and contributions made by other authors. A new, updated list of references has been introduced. Yet, in general terms, the article has been rewritten in order to make it more objective and scientific, giving more importance, in the case analysis, to the analytical theoretical framework on which the whole participatory, action-research process (carried out over 18 months) is based, with the aim of promoting a transformative tourism innovation in regenerative tourism. Also, to try to avoid a reading that would just lead the reader to consider this case study as a successful and best practice example of regenerative tourism.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript focuses on regenerative tourism, presenting the case of the "Aves de la Sierra" community in Spain. It analyzes the transition from traditional tourism to sustainable models that emphasize strengthening local communities and utilizing cooperative digital platforms. The content aligns with the scope of Administrative Sciences, as it addresses management and innovation issues in tourism practices. The manuscript is consistent with the Special Issue’s focus, as it examines the need for the tourism sector to adapt post-pandemic, emphasizing natural and cultural heritage preservation, sustainable economic development, and the use of digital solutions for managing tourism activities.
Comment 1: The introduction provides a general overview of regenerative tourism but does not clearly define the scientific gap or highlight the specific novelty of the study. Additionally, the support from recent and targeted references appears limited, which could affect the contextual depth of the section.
Comment 2: The theoretical framework introduces the Multilevel Perspective (MLP) of Change effectively but lacks a clear linkage between the theoretical concepts and the specific practices explored in the case study. This disconnect might limit the applicability of the framework to the research context.
Comment 3: Key concepts such as "shielding" and "learning" are described adequately but remain at a general level. Greater specificity in their application to the case of regenerative tourism could enhance the section’s relevance.
Comment 4: While the theoretical framework is well-referenced, the inclusion of additional recent sources, especially those addressing the latest advancements in regenerative tourism and the application of the MLP framework, would provide a more robust foundation. This could be achieved by expanding one or more paragraphs to incorporate diverse perspectives from recent studies in tourism innovation and socio-technical transitions.
Comment 5: Figure 1 provides a comparison of the bases of sustainability and regeneration; however, it is presented in Spanish. Please convert it in English
Comment 6: The inclusion of Figure 1 is not clearly justified within the text. While the figure aligns with the discussion on sustainability versus regeneration, its specific contribution to the theoretical framework or the study’s objectives is not explicitly explained. Adding a brief explanation of its relevance would enhance the clarity and purpose of its use.
Comment 7: Figure 1 references Reyes Rojas and Casasola Guerrero (2021), but the text does not elaborate on how this source supports the framework being discussed.
Comment 8: The section from lines 110 to 141 contains several significant statements about the importance of cooperative digital platforms and digital empowerment in regenerative tourism. However, these statements lack citations to support their validity. Adding references to relevant studies or sources would enhance the credibility of the manuscript.
Comment 9: The article introduces the Multilevel Perspective (MLP) framework and provides a detailed overview of its levels and benefits (lines 166-172). However, the justification for selecting MLP as the theoretical foundation is not clearly articulated. Explaining why MLP is particularly suited for this study and how it outperforms other possible frameworks would clarify its relevance.
Comment 10: The article does not explicitly state research questions or hypotheses. While it implies that the study investigates the role of "innovation niches" and community management in regenerative tourism, formulating clear research questions or hypotheses would enhance the focus of the study and its alignment with the theoretical framework presented.
Comment 11: The article integrates Participatory Action Research (PAR) to complement the MLP framework, emphasizing community involvement and co-creation. However, the relationship between these two methods is not clearly articulated, leaving the connection between theory and practice somewhat unclear.
Comment 12: While the article outlines the benefits of PAR for empowering local communities, it does not sufficiently justify why this method was chosen over other participatory or action-based approaches. Providing a clearer rationale would strengthen the methodological foundation.
Comment 13: The application of PAR to the "Aves de la Sierra" case study is described in general terms. Including more specific examples or details of how PAR was implemented in this context would enhance the practical relevance of the article.
Comment 14: The SLOC Model is introduced as a method for designing participatory strategies. However, its selection is not clearly justified in relation to the PAR and MLP frameworks already discussed.
Comment 15: The application of the SLOC Model to the "Aves de la Sierra" case study is not explicitly detailed.
Comment 16: The description of the four phases in the Materials and Methods section is comprehensive but could benefit from a visual representation. Adding a diagram to outline the phases (Diagnosis and Initial Evaluation, Design of Participatory Strategies, Implementation and Collaborative Management, and Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation) would enhance clarity
Comment 17: Figure 2 appears to be adapted from another study, but it has several issues that require attention. The resolution is low, making it difficult to read, and there are Spanish terms next to the title "Transformed Tourism System," which do not align with the English language of the article.
Comment 18: The case study provides a detailed description of the ‘Aves de la Sierra’ project, but its connection to the theoretical frameworks (MLP, PAR, SLOC) is not clearly established. Clarifying how these frameworks were applied in the case study would strengthen the theoretical alignment of the section.
Comment 19: Neither the Discussion nor the Conclusions sections address the limitations of the study. Including a structured discussion of methodological and practical limitations is needed.
Comment 20: The Discussion section would benefit from a more structured integration of the practical and theoretical implications of the study. While the Conclusions briefly touch upon these aspects, incorporating a detailed discussion on how the findings can be applied to similar contexts (practical implications) and how they advance or refine the MLP, PAR, and SLOC frameworks (theoretical implications) would significantly strengthen the article’s contribution.
 

Author Response

REVIEWER'S COMMENTS 2	REPLIES TO REVIEWER 2
Comment 1	In the introduction, the novelty of the study has been justified, as well as the gaps it aims to fill, introducing new and updated literature: Ateljevic & Sheldon, (2022), Cave & Dredge (2021) and Bellato et al., (2023), among others.
Comment 2: Rationale and connection of the Multilevel Perspective.	In order to justify the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) as the analytical framework of the case study, section 2.3. on transformative innovation has been introduced in the theoretical framework section to give coherence to the methodological approach followed in the action-research process developed in the experience presented.
Comment 3. Specificity of the concepts "shielding" and "learning".	These concepts are specified, as far as their application to the case study is concerned, in the new section 4.2.3.
Commentary 4. Update of literature on regenerative tourism	There are no studies on regenerative tourism using the MLP analytical framework, but the literature on regenerative tourism has been updated, as described above.
Commentary 5, 6 and 7 on Figure 1	Figure 1 has been deleted in this version as it did not contribute to the case study.
Comment 8	The discussion includes literature that justifies the importance of cooperative digital platforms for regenerative tourism (Miedes, Flores Wanner, 2023) and Warnner, 2023). It also appears in the theoretical framework: (Minghetti & Buhalis, 2010) and (Sigala & Marinidis, 2012).
Commentary 9 Justify the application of the MLP analytical framework	As stated in response to comment 2, section 2.3. on transformative innovation has been introduced to justify the use of and give coherence to the application of the MLP Framework in the case study.
Comment 10. Introduce research questions	As stated in both the abstract and the introduction, the article attempts to answer the question of how regenerative tourism experiences could be promoted and developed, trying to bridge the gap between theory and practice in regenerative tourism.
Comment 11 and 12. Integration between action research and the MLP model	In order to make a clear link between these approaches and, therefore, the case study methodology, the methodological section has been redrafted, commenting on the introduction of the action-research process in the development of the experience. Section 2.3. of the transformative innovation is also introduced to integrate the MLP framework into it. Finally, the introduction of the action-research process is justified insofar as the University is present in the process, guiding it and analysing the critical factors that determine the promotion and development of this experience of regenerative tourism, which is the objective of this work.
Comment 13. How the action research process improves practice.	This process improves practice because, as stated throughout the article, it guides the participatory process at all times over the 18 months, following an analytical framework that has already been scientifically validated.
Comment 14 and 15. Explicitly justify and detail the SLOC model.	The introduction of the SLOC model is justified by introducing section 4.2.2., which includes reviews of various authors, following the design of the participatory intervention strategy in the process of developing the regenerative tourism experience.
Comment 16. Add process diagram	An explanatory diagram of the entire participatory action-research process applied to the development of this experience has been inserted in section 4.2.2.
Comment 17.	Figure 2 has been deleted as it added unnecessary complexity to the study.
Connecting the MLP, PAR and SLOC frameworks and approaches	As outlined above, the article has been restructured by introducing section 2.3. on transformative innovation into the theoretical framework in order to give coherence to the application of the MLP analytical framework. The SLOC strategy is also explicitly explained in section 4.2.2. All of this, as stated in the methodological section, within the participatory action-research process.
Comment 19. Introducing methodological and practical constraints	Both in the methodological section and in the conclusions, the main limitations of this case study have been explained.
Comment 20. Improve the discussion section	In the discussion section, the main contributions of this case study are presented and related to the conclusions reached by some authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The choice of topic of the article is modern and may be of wide interest. The abstract summarizes the content of the article well. The introduction revolves around the concept of regenerative tourism.

I recommend supplementing the introduction with the presentation of the structure of the article and the formulation of the research question/questions.

Literature summary is an acceptable quality part of the study. It covers the issue in sufficient depth.

Chapter 3 presents the methodology, which is quite poor.  As a result, the case study (Chapter 4) also became subjective. Please elaborate in Chapter 3 on how you ensured the researcher's objectivity during the personal participation.

Chapter 4 is too general, it does not confirm that it is really a good practice of regenerative tourism. Any well-functioning Tourism Destination Management organization would be able to implement a similar development process.  I recommend the complete rewriting of chapter 4.3. Chapter 4.4 is also too general and not scientific enough. I recommend rewriting this as well.

In summary: The author has chosen a good and modern topic, but the case study part does not reach the usual standard of the journal. Therefore, I recommend publishing the article only in case of significant revision.

Author Response

REVIEWER'S COMMENTS 3	REPLIES TO REVIEWER 3
Complete the information with the structure and questions of the article.	The structure of the article has been detailed at the end of the introduction. The question ‘What are the critical factors that could explain the development of regenerative tourism experiences?’ is also raised.
How has the objectivity of the researcher been guaranteed?	The methodological section has been redrafted, explaining and justifying the action-research process carried out. Also justifying the subjectivity by presenting, in a coherent and interrelated way, the analytical theoretical framework (MLP, transformative innovation, and SLOC strategy) which, scientifically validated, was followed in the process, by introducing a new epigraph 2.3. on transformative innovation in the theoretical framework.
Complete rewrite of 4.3 and 4.4.	The entire section 4, concerning the analysis of the case, has been rewritten, as the aim was not to show the results of the process in order to assess the extent to which it can be considered a successful case of good practice. The aim was to highlight the factors that can contribute to or limit the development of regenerative tourism experiences, which is why so much importance is given to the analytical and strategic framework (MLP, transformative innovation, and SLOC model) that has been followed throughout the participatory action-research process.
Significant revision	The article has been rewritten in order to make it more objective and scientific, giving more importance, in the case analysis, to the analytical theoretical framework on which the whole participatory action-research process (carried out over 18 months) has been based, with the aim of promoting a transformative tourism innovation in regenerative tourism. Also, to try to avoid a reading that merely guides the reader to consider this case study as a successful example of good practice in terms of regenerative tourism.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As I've seen, almost the entire manuscript was updated and improved.

In my opinion, the conclusion part is too long and general; I suggest to me more specific.

Author Response

The conclusions section has been reduced.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 Thank you for addressing the suggested revisions. The paper has significantly improved in clarity and structure.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the observations.