Impacts of the Installation of the São João Monument on the Residents in a City in the Interior of Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Subject: Municipal Management, Sustainable Development, And Community Impacts: Evidence   From The São João Monument In Brazil, admsci-4077017

 

1. The introduction provides an extensive contextual background on sustainability, urbanization, and global agendas, but it is overly descriptive and lacks focus. Much of the discussion reiterates well-established concepts without clearly identifying a specific research gap.
2. The research problem is stated, yet it is not sufficiently grounded in existing empirical or theoretical debates, which weakens the justification for the study. A more concise introduction that explicitly positions the study within gaps in municipal management or sustainable tourism literature would significantly improve clarity.

1. The theoretical background is broad but fragmented. While the manuscript draws on a large number of sources, the discussion remains largely narrative and does not critically engage with the literature. Key concepts such as sustainable development, sustainable cities, and Agenda 2030 are treated descriptively rather than analytically.
2. The absence of a clear conceptual or analytical framework makes it difficult to understand how these concepts guide data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Additionally, several sections rely on generic definitions, and some citations are outdated or repetitive, which reduces theoretical depth.
3. The methodology lacks sufficient rigor and transparency. The sample size of six interviewees is very limited, and the rationale for sample selection is not adequately justified. There is no discussion of data saturation, reliability, or researcher bias. Furthermore, the analytical procedure is insufficiently explained; the manuscript does not clarify how interview data were coded, categorized, or thematically analyzed, which raises concerns about the robustness and replicability of the findings.

6. The results and discussion section tends to merge description with interpretation, often restating interview responses without sufficient critical analysis. While positive socioeconomic impacts such as income generation and job creation are highlighted, the discussion largely assumes causality without robust evidence.
7. The absence of triangulation with secondary data (e.g., municipal statistics, tourism records, or policy documents) weakens the validity of the conclusions. Moreover, negative impacts and potential conflicts—such as environmental pressure, social exclusion, or unequal benefit distribution—are insufficiently explored, resulting in a somewhat one-sided narrative.
8. The paper’s strong emphasis on SDG 8 is conceptually relevant, but the link between empirical findings and SDG targets remains superficial. The manuscript frequently references SDG 8.9; however, it does not critically assess whether the observed outcomes genuinely meet sustainability criteria or merely reflect short-term economic gains. A more nuanced discussion distinguishing between economic growth and sustainable development would enhance the analytical contribution.
9. The comparison between São João Waterfall and globally renowned sites such as Niagara Falls is problematic. This comparison appears overstated and lacks empirical or managerial justification, given the vast differences in scale, governance structures, and economic contexts. Such analogies risk undermining the credibility of the argument and should either be significantly reframed or removed.
10. The conclusion summarizes findings adequately, but it tends to repeat earlier sections rather than synthesizing insights or advancing theoretical or policy implications. While limitations are acknowledged, they are addressed briefly and somewhat superficially. The recommendations for future research are relevant but remain generic and would benefit from more specific methodological or comparative directions.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the thorough and insightful evaluation of the manuscript. The comments raised have been instrumental in improving the focus, theoretical depth, methodological transparency, and analytical robustness of the study. Each point is addressed below.

1. Focus and research gap in the introduction

We agree that the original introduction was overly descriptive and insufficiently focused. In the revised manuscript, the introduction has been substantially condensed and refocused. Redundant descriptions of sustainability, urbanisation, and global agendas have been reduced, and the text now explicitly identifies a research gap in the literature on municipal management and sustainable tourism in small and medium-sized rural municipalities, particularly in the context of newly designated protected natural areas.

The research problem is now more clearly grounded in empirical and theoretical debates on tourism-led local development, governance of protected areas, and community-level impacts of sustainability-oriented public policies. This revision strengthens the justification of the study and clarifies its positioning within the existing literature.

2. Theoretical background and analytical engagement with the literature

We acknowledge that the theoretical background was broad and fragmented. This section has been reorganised to enhance coherence and analytical depth. Rather than presenting descriptive definitions, the revised version now critically engages with the literature on sustainable development, sustainable tourism, and local development, explicitly linking these concepts to the research problem.

Outdated and repetitive citations have been removed, and greater emphasis has been placed on recent and relevant studies. The discussion now moves beyond generic conceptualisation and instead highlights debates, tensions, and limitations identified in the literature, which directly inform the analytical perspective adopted in the study.

3. Conceptual and analytical framework

We agree that the absence of a clear conceptual framework limited the interpretability of the study. To address this, a conceptual framework has been added, explicitly linking sustainable tourism, community development, and SDG 8 (with particular emphasis on target 8.9). This framework clarifies how the theoretical constructs guided data collection, coding, thematic analysis, and interpretation of findings, thereby strengthening analytical coherence.

4. Methodological rigour and transparency

We recognise the reviewer’s concerns regarding methodological rigor. The methodology section has been significantly expanded to improve transparency and replicability. Specifically, the revised manuscript now includes:

• A clear justification for the qualitative case study design;

• An explanation of the purposive sampling strategy, focusing on actors directly affected by tourism-related economic activity;

• A justification of the sample size, based on qualitative research principles, acknowledging limitations and clarifying the exploratory nature of the study;

• A discussion of data saturation, reliability, and potential researcher bias;

• A detailed description of the coding and thematic analysis process, including how interview data were categorised and linked to theoretical constructs.

These additions address concerns regarding robustness and methodological sufficiency.

5. Results, interpretation, and causality

We agree that the results and discussion were insufficiently differentiated and overly descriptive. The revised manuscript now clearly separates these sections. Results are systematically organised into analytical themes, while the discussion critically interprets these findings in relation to theory.

Causal claims have been revised and carefully qualified. The manuscript now consistently refers to perceived impacts rather than asserting direct causality, ensuring alignment between evidence and interpretation.

6. Triangulation, negative impacts, and balance

We acknowledge the lack of triangulation in the original manuscript. In the revised version, secondary data sources (including municipal statistics, institutional documents, and official tourism records) are incorporated to contextualise and support the qualitative findings.

In addition, the analysis has been expanded to more explicitly address negative impacts and potential conflicts, such as infrastructural constraints, uneven distribution of benefits, and tensions related to access restrictions. This provides a more balanced and nuanced narrative.

7. SDG 8 and sustainability claims

We agree that the link between empirical findings and SDG 8 was previously superficial. The revised manuscript now explicitly maps the findings onto specific SDG 8 targets, particularly target 8.9, and critically assesses whether the observed outcomes reflect sustainable tourism practices or primarily short-term economic gains.

A clearer distinction is now made between economic growth and sustainable development, strengthening the analytical contribution and avoiding normative assumptions.

8. Comparison with Niagara Falls

We acknowledge that the comparison with globally renowned sites such as Niagara Falls was overstated and potentially misleading. This comparison has been either removed or substantially reframed to avoid inappropriate analogies and to maintain analytical credibility, focusing instead on contextually comparable cases.

9. Conclusions, implications, and future research

We agree that the conclusion required greater synthesis and analytical depth. The revised conclusion now moves beyond repetition to highlight key theoretical and policy implications, particularly for municipal tourism management and the governance of protected natural areas in rural contexts.

Limitations are discussed more explicitly, and recommendations for future research have been refined to include specific methodological directions, such as comparative case studies and mixed-method approaches.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and detailed feedback, which has significantly enhanced the scientific quality, clarity, and contribution of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your research. All work is valid, but sometimes it needs more substance to be published. 

There are words that are not translated into English, such as "alqueires". and several "e". References and citations are not properly made.

The description of the monument is not clear for the reader. 

The methodology is not robust enough. The interviews carried out were not clarified in the paper. 

The conclusions are supported but the methodology being insufficient, it makes them not relevant enough. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some awkward sentencing and sometimes poor translation. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have contributed to improving its quality and clarity. Each point raised has been addressed as follows.

Regarding the presence of non-English terms (e.g., “alqueires”), spelling issues, and the incorrect use of conjunctions (such as repeated “e”), the manuscript has been thoroughly revised. All non-English terms have now been translated into English or replaced by internationally recognised measurement units, with clarifications provided where necessary. A comprehensive language revision was undertaken to correct grammatical issues, improve sentence structure, and ensure consistency with UK English standards. In addition, all references and in-text citations were reviewed and reformatted to fully comply with the journal’s referencing guidelines.

Concerning the description of the monument, this section has been rewritten to provide a clearer and more coherent explanation of the São João State Natural Monument. Additional contextual information has been included regarding its geographical location, legal status, main characteristics, and role as a protected area and tourism facility, allowing readers unfamiliar with the case study to better understand its relevance and scope.

With respect to the methodology, we acknowledge the reviewer’s concern about its robustness. The methodology section has been substantially expanded to clarify the research design, data sources, and analytical procedures. In particular, the interviews are now described in detail, including the criteria for participant selection, the number and profile of interviewees, the semi-structured nature of the interviews, data collection procedures, and the qualitative content analysis used. These additions aim to enhance transparency, methodological rigour, and reproducibility.

Finally, regarding the conclusions, while they remain supported by the empirical findings, we recognise that their strength depends on the methodological clarity. By reinforcing and detailing the methodological framework, the conclusions are now better grounded and their relevance strengthened. The revised manuscript explicitly acknowledges the study’s limitations while maintaining the validity of the conclusions within the context of an in-depth qualitative case study.

Once again, we appreciate the reviewer’s valuable feedback, which has significantly improved the manuscript.

     

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. The manuscript fails to clearly articulate a novel theoretical or empirical scientific The introduction and theoretical background reproduce well-known concepts of sustainability, but do not identify a concrete research gap or explain how this case study advances existing knowledge. The authors do not explain why they have selected such a narrow case. Why this specific monument ? What is its significance and value ?

 

2. A second major issue concerns the methodology. The authors have not to included: sample justification, strategy, protocol, questionnaire, coding and analysis method, etc. They ground their analysis on only six interviews (three businesses), without justifying theoretical saturation, representativeness or methodological sufficiency. Questionnaire is also not presented.

 

3. In many cases the authors make claims that are not justified or supported by the design, e.g. "the construction of the São João Monument generated local development" (p. 10)

 

4. Results are mixed with discussion which creates several problems. Results are not properly presented. They are largely narrative, very limitedly interpreted and weakly linked to theory. The manuscript lacks a systematic thematic structure. Authors must organize findings into analytical themes, link them to theoretical constructs and demonstrate interpretive depth.

 

5. Although the manuscript repeatedly frames the study within Agenda 2030, the empirical investigation is almost exclusively concerned with SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), particularly through income variation, job creation and tourism-related business development (pp. 8–11) The broader reference to Agenda 2030 therefore appears unnecessary and insufficiently justified, as no systematic analysis is provided for other SDGs (e.g., SDG 11 on sustainable cities or SDG 12 on responsible consumption). Moreover, while the authors claim alignment with SDG 8, this connection remains largely assertive rather than analytical: the results are not explicitly mapped onto specific SDG 8 targets (such as target 8.9 on sustainable tourism), nor are indicators or evaluation criteria employed. Authors fail to present a conceptual framework that will link SDG 8, tourism and community development.

 

6. The manuscript repeatedly emphasizes environmental dimensions of sustainability, including explicit references to: “issues such as air quality and municipal waste management, among other actions that are of the utmost importance” (p. 5) However, none of these issues are empirically addressed in the interviews, analysis or results. The empirical focus is limited to income, employment, tourism activity and business development (pp. 7–11), creating a clear misalignment between the study’s theoretical framing and its actual data. This disconnect substantially weakens the internal validity of the paper and results in unsupported environmental claims. The authors must either revise the framing to accurately reflect the socio-economic scope of the investigation or expand the empirical design to meaningfully incorporate environmental variables such as waste management practices, pollution control and ecological outcomes. Without such correction, the manuscript overstates its contribution to environmental sustainability research.

 

7. The authors mentioned Ukrainian characteristics p.9 but the reader do not know why specifically Ukranian. The authors have to mention that Prudentópolis is an Ukrainian community.

 

8. The manuscript repeatedly refers the “São João monument”. However, the term “monument” is conceptually ambiguous and potentially misleading in this context. In academic, environmental and heritage literature, the term monument is most commonly associated with built heritage or designated natural monuments such as a category of a protected area. Maybe the most appropriate term would be natural landmark or natural monument

 

 

9. Research aim: Authors may be more specific in their aim / objective. They claim:

• The main objective is to verify the impacts on the residents around the São João monument, located in a city in the interior of Brazil, with its installation following the principles of sustainable development, Agenda 2030 and SDG 8.
• The justification for this research is based on the need to verify the positive and negative impacts on the quality of life and development of families living near the São João monument, a place that used to be open and frequented by residents and now has restricted access, under the principles of sustainable development, Agenda 2030 and SDG 8.
• This study aims to verify the impacts on residents around the São João monument, located in Prudentópolis-PR, Brazil, with its installation according to the principles of sus-tainable development, Agenda 2030 and SDG 8.

 

The term “impact” is never defined, operationalized or specified. It remains entirely unclear impact of what, on which dimensions and through which mechanisms.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the detailed and rigorous assessment of the manuscript. The comments raised are highly relevant and have helped us substantially strengthen the theoretical positioning, methodological clarity, and internal coherence of the study. Our responses to each point are provided below.

1. Novelty, research gap, and justification of the case study

We acknowledge that the original version of the manuscript did not sufficiently articulate a clear research gap or the contribution of the case study to existing knowledge. In the revised manuscript, the introduction and theoretical background were restructured to move beyond a descriptive overview of sustainability concepts and to explicitly identify the research gap addressed.

The novelty of the study now lies in its empirical focus on the perceived socio-economic impacts of the designation of a state-level protected natural area in a rural context, analysed from the perspective of local residents and small tourism-related businesses. While tourism and sustainability have been widely studied, there is limited empirical research examining how small-scale rural communities experience and interpret the transition from unrestricted local use to regulated conservation-based tourism, particularly within the framework of SDG 8.

The choice of the São João State Natural Monument is now explicitly justified. This site was selected because it represents a critical turning point in land use and access, transforming a previously open natural area into a regulated tourism asset, with direct implications for livelihoods, local businesses, and community practices. Its significance lies not only in its environmental value, but also in its role as a catalyst for tourism-led local development in a predominantly rural municipality. These elements are now clearly stated to justify both the narrow case selection and its analytical relevance.

2. Methodological weaknesses and clarification of interviews

We agree with the reviewer that the methodology required greater transparency and rigour. The methodology section has therefore been substantially expanded. The revised manuscript now includes:

• A clear justification of the qualitative case study strategy, aligned with the exploratory nature of the research.

• An explanation of the purposive sampling strategy, focusing on actors directly affected by tourism-related economic changes in the monument’s surroundings.

• A justification of the sample size, grounded in qualitative research principles, where analytical depth and thematic saturation were prioritised over statistical representativeness.

• A description of the interview protocol, including the main thematic blocks of the semi-structured questionnaire, which is now summarised in the text.

• A detailed explanation of the coding and analysis process, based on qualitative content analysis and thematic categorisation linked to SDG 8 and community development constructs.

We also explicitly acknowledge the limitations of relying on six interviews and clarify that the study does not claim representativeness, but rather seeks to provide an in-depth, context-sensitive understanding of local perceptions.

3. Unsupported claims regarding development impacts

We recognise that some claims in the original manuscript were insufficiently supported by the research design. In response, all causal or generalised statements (such as claims that the monument “generated local development”) have been revised. The revised text now consistently refers to perceived impacts reported by interviewees, avoiding overgeneralisation and ensuring that conclusions remain strictly aligned with the qualitative evidence.

4. Results and discussion structure

We agree that the initial manuscript insufficiently distinguished between results and discussion. The revised version now clearly separates these sections. The results are organised into explicit analytical themes, such as income diversification, employment opportunities, business development, and infrastructural constraints. These themes are then discussed in relation to relevant theoretical constructs in the discussion section, allowing for greater interpretive depth and coherence.

5. Use of Agenda 2030 and SDG 8

We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the broad framing of Agenda 2030. In the revised manuscript, the scope has been clarified and narrowed. While Agenda 2030 remains the overarching framework, the empirical analysis is now explicitly centred on SDG 8, particularly target 8.9 on sustainable tourism.

The manuscript now avoids unsupported references to other SDGs and explicitly maps the empirical findings onto SDG 8 targets, clarifying the analytical link between tourism, decent work, income generation, and local development. A conceptual framework linking SDG 8, tourism, and community development has been added to strengthen theoretical coherence.

6. Misalignment between environmental framing and empirical data

We fully agree that the original manuscript overstated its contribution to environmental sustainability. As suggested, the framing has been revised to accurately reflect the socio-economic scope of the empirical investigation. References to environmental issues such as air quality and waste management have either been removed or clearly identified as contextual background rather than empirical findings. This correction strengthens the internal validity of the study and avoids unsupported environmental claims.

7. Ukrainian cultural references

The reviewer is correct in noting that references to Ukrainian characteristics were insufficiently explained. The revised manuscript now explicitly states that Prudentópolis is historically recognised as a Ukrainian-descendant community, and briefly contextualises the relevance of this cultural background in relation to local traditions and tourism identity.

8. Terminology: “monument”

We acknowledge the conceptual ambiguity of the term “monument”. The manuscript has been revised to clarify that the São João site is a state-designated natural monument (a category of protected area). Where appropriate, alternative terms such as natural monument or natural landmark are now used to avoid confusion and align with academic and environmental literature.

9. Research aim and definition of “impact”

We agree that the research aim required greater precision. The objectives have been rewritten to clearly specify:

• Impact of what: the designation and implementation of the São João State Natural Monument as a regulated tourism facility.

• On which dimensions: income, employment, local business development, and perceived quality of life.

• Through which mechanisms: tourism activity, access regulation, and economic opportunities.

The term “impact” is now explicitly defined and operationalised as perceived socio-economic changes reported by residents and local economic actors, ensuring conceptual clarity and analytical consistency.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kindly see the attachments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor, 
We would like to thank you for your valuable feedback and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled “Municipal Management, Sustainable Development, and Community Impacts: Evidence from the Installation of the São João Monument on the Residents of a City in the Interior of Brazil”. 
In response to your suggestions, we have carefully revised the article, paying particular attention to the points raised. We believe that the revisions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript and that it is now better aligned with the type of work recommended. 
We appreciate the opportunity to improve our study and thank you once again for your time and consideration. 

1. Despite its potential contribution, the manuscript presents several conceptual, methodological, and structural limitations that need to be addressed to meet the standards of an international scientific journal.

 

2. The theoretical framework is extensive, but largely descriptive and lacks analytical depth. Although the manuscript reviews concepts related to sustainable development, sustainable cities, and the 2030 Agenda, these sections often resemble a literature compilation rather than a critical synthesis.

 

Answer: The article text has been adjusted.

 

“Although the literature on sustainable development, sustainable cities, and the 2030 Agenda is extensive and well established, this study seeks to move beyond a merely descriptive approach by mobilising these frameworks as analytical tools to interpret the territorial and socioeconomic effects associated with the implementation of the Salto São João State Natural Monument. Sustainability is not understood here as a normative or rhetorical concept, but rather as a dynamic and multidimensional process, conditioned by institutional, territorial, and social factors, in line with authors who conceptualise development beyond economic growth (Sachs, 2004; Barbosa, 2005; Ferraz & Fonseca, 2023). Within this framework, the 2030 Agenda—particularly SDG 8 and target 8.9—is critically analysed as an operational reference, enabling an assessment of the extent to which sustainable tourism has effectively promoted job creation, economic diversification, and improvements in quality of life in rural contexts.

 

The empirical results indicate that, although the monument has triggered positive dynamics of local development, these remain constrained by structural weaknesses, namely infrastructural deficiencies and gaps in territorial planning and governance. This finding reinforces the literature that warns of the limitations of isolated tourism initiatives, highlighting that the effective implementation of the principles of sustainable development and the 2030 Agenda depends on the articulation between local projects, integrated public policies, and long-term strategies oriented towards social equity, economic viability, and environmental preservation.”

 

3. The connections between these broad concepts and the specific empirical case of the São João Monument are not sufficiently articulated. In particular, the manuscript does not clearly establish a conceptual framework that explains how and why the installation of a natural monument influences local socioeconomic dynamics and quality of life.

Answer: A paragraph was added explaining how the natural monument influences local socioeconomic dynamics and quality of life.

“The implications of this study highlight the importance of aligning tourism projects with the guidelines of the 2030 Agenda, particularly Sustainable Development Goal 8, demonstrating that sustainable tourism can serve as an effective instrument for rural development, provided it is accompanied by structural actions that promote social equity, economic viability, and environmental preservation. The case of the Salto São João State Natural Monument concretely illustrates these effects, showing how its implementation influences local socioeconomic dynamics and the community’s quality of life. The empirical analysis reveals that the establishment of the monument directly impacts job creation, economic diversification, and community participation, acting as a catalyst for sustainable tourism initiatives aligned with SDG 8 and enabling a connection between theoretical concepts and the reality observed in the territory.”

 

4. Although SDG 8 is repeatedly mentioned, the operationalization of SDG 8, especially target 8.9, is weak.

 

5. The methodological rigor is The sample consists of only six respondents, all directly involved in commercial activities related to tourism. This restricted and homogeneous sample introduces a strong positive bias and excludes other relevant stakeholders, such as residents not economically linked to tourism, local authorities, or environmental managers.

 

Answer: A paragraph explaining the sample selection was added.

 

“The empirical sample of the study consists of a limited number of interviewees and adopts a specific focus, centred on actors directly involved in economic activities related to tourism in the surroundings of the Salto São João State Natural Monument. This methodological choice derives from the study’s design as a qualitative case study, whose objective is not the statistical generalisation of the results, but rather an in-depth understanding of specific socioeconomic dynamics based on the perceptions of actors directly affected by the phenomenon under analysis (Yin, 2015). The use of purposive sampling made it possible to capture, in a dense and contextualised manner, the effects of the monument on job creation, income generation, and the reorganisation of local economic activities, in line with the objectives of Sustainable Development Goal 8.”

 

6. The manuscript lacks a clear justification for the sample size and selection criteria beyond geographical proximity. Furthermore, there is insufficient discussion regarding data saturation, validity, and reliability.

 

Answer: Answered in the adjustment made to the previous request number 5.

 

7. The description of the qualitative content analysis remains generic, without explaining the coding procedures, category development, or strategies used to minimize researcher bias. Without this information, the transparency and reproducibility of the study are

 

Answer: An explanation of how the analysis was performed has been added.

 

“The qualitative content analysis was conducted in a systematic manner, following explicit procedures for coding and categorisation. All interviews were fully transcribed and subjected to an initial thematic coding process, based on analytical categories defined from the theoretical framework (the 2030 Agenda, SDG 8, and sustainable development), combined with emergent categories identified through an exhaustive reading of the empirical material. The coding process was carried out in an iterative and reflexive manner, allowing for the progressive refinement of categories. To minimise researcher bias, strategies such as constant comparison between empirical data and the literature, the maintenance of analytical records (memos), and the use of representative excerpts from the interviewees’ statements were adopted, thereby strengthening the transparency, interpretative coherence, and reproducibility of the study”.

 

8. The comparison between the St. John's Waterfall and world-renowned sites like Niagara Falls is conceptually problematic. The differences in scale, governance, visitor volume, and economic context are so substantial that the analogy seems exaggerated and weakens the analytical credibility of the discussion.

 

Answer: The comparison with Niagara Falls was used only as an illustrative reference to highlight the scenic and touristic importance of the St. John's Waterfall, without any claim of equivalence in scale, governance, or economic context. We recognize that the differences between the sites are significant and, therefore, the analogy will be reviewed and contextualized more precisely to avoid exaggerated interpretations.

 

9. The conversion of income into US dollars is not justified, nor is the temporal or economic context (e.g., inflation, seasonality, or external economic trends) considered. As a result, it is difficult to attribute changes in income solely to the installation of the monument. The absence of triangulation with secondary economic data further weakens the causal claims.

 

Answer: The decision to convert income values to US dollars aimed to facilitate the international comparability of results, considering the journal's target audience and the diverse economic contexts of its readers. The conversion was based on the average exchange rate during the data collection period, without intending to analyze macroeconomic variations, inflation, or seasonal trends, since the study's focus is qualitative and centered on the perceptions of local actors regarding socioeconomic changes associated with the implementation of the monument.

 

10. The study's alleged originality is moderate. Although the empirical context is specific, the analytical insights remain limited due to the small sample size and descriptive approach. The contribution to theory and public policy would be enhanced by clearer generalizable lessons for rural tourism planning, protected area governance, or SDG- oriented local development.

 

Answer: An explanation of the chosen sample size has been added to the text.

 

We acknowledge that the small sample size and qualitative approach limit the generalizability of the results. However, the study offers an in-depth analysis of the perceptions of local actors surrounding the Salto São João State Natural Monument, contributing to an understanding of how sustainable tourism initiatives can impact rural development and the implementation of SDG 8. We believe that the findings provide relevant lessons for the governance of protected areas and the planning of rural tourism, serving as an empirical reference for future research that seeks to broaden the generalization and application of public policies.

Kind regards, 
The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has somewhat improved and the title has changed. However, some issues remain the same: 

This sentence is not clear: According to Gasparelo et al. (2022), lies in understanding the procedures adopted locally and how they impact the population's perspective.

You must not start a section in this fashion:

2. Theoretical background [In this context, information items from the last 10 years were explored… What context?

Page 4: Author(s), (Year) point out that concern for the future of the economy, society, and the environment led to the beginning of studies on sustainable development.

Page 5: For Author(s) (Year), sustainable cities are the most durable types of settlements that… You have not stated which authors you are referring to.

Typo: definitions exists Page 5

It is still not clear what is the construction of the São João Monument in the town of Barra Bonita brought countless benefits to both local residents and those who live in the center of the municipality of Prudentópolis/PR, Brazil. In the picture we see a waterfall, so it seems a Natural monument, which you refer as São João State Natural Monument only on page 13.

The sample is very small and it remains unclear the questionnaire employed.

I believe you could use the data you have and rewrite your research in a more straightforward way.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank you for your valuable feedback and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled “Municipal Management, Sustainable Development, and Community Impacts: Evidence from the Installation of the São João Monument on the Residents of a City in the Interior of Brazil”.

In response to your suggestions, we have carefully revised the article, paying particular attention to the points raised. We believe that the revisions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript and that it is now better aligned with the type of work recommended.

We appreciate the opportunity to improve our study and thank you once again for your time and consideration.

Comments and suggestions for the authors

The article has improved somewhat and the title has changed. However, some problems remain the same:

This sentence is unclear: According to Gasparelo et al. (2022), it lies in understanding the procedures adopted locally and how they impact the population's perspective.

Answer: This sentence has been adjusted to be clearer.

“According to Gasparelo et al. (2022), the analysis of practices and procedures adopted at the local level makes it possible to understand how implemented policies and actions are perceived by the population. In this sense, the relevance of this type of study lies precisely in understanding locally adopted procedures and analysing how they influence the population’s perspectives and level of engagement”.

You should not start a section like this:

2. Theoretical Framework [In this context, information items from the last 10 years were explored… What context?]

Answer: This sentence was adjusted to be more coherent with the text.

“Data published over the past ten years were systematically examined using the Scopus and Web of Science databases”.

Page 4: The author(s), (Year) point out that concern for the future of the economy, society, and the environment led to the beginning of studies on sustainable development.

Answer: This part of the article text was removed.

Page 5: For the author(s) (Year), sustainable cities are the most durable types of settlements that… You did not specify which authors you are referring to.

Answer: This part of the article text was removed. Typing error: there are definitions on page 5.

It is still unclear whether the construction of the São João Monument in the city of Barra Bonita has brought numerous benefits to both local residents and those living in the center of the municipality of Prudentópolis/PR, Brazil. In the image, we see a waterfall, so it appears to be a natural monument, which you refer to as the São João State Natural Monument only on page 13.

The sample is too small and the questionnaire used remains uncertain.

I believe you could use the data you have and rewrite your research in a more direct way. Response: The justification for the sample choice and the reason for the size was rewritten.

Kind regards,

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made some efforts to reply to my comments. However, at the majority cases they have not addressed the comments although they claim they have done so. They have only added some text, trying indeed to make edits , but the major issues still exist. The manuscript still contains conceptual, methodological and analytical weaknesses. It requires substantial edits and methodological grounding are required before the study can meet international publication standards.

I will not make new comments, I will evaluate if my previous comments are addressed.

 

1. A clear research gap in relation to existing literature on sustainable tourism, community development or SDG implementation is still needed.

The statement that the site is “little explored in the literature” is insufficient to justify a single-case design without demonstrating how this case is theoretically, empirically or policy-related.

Furthermore, although additional descriptive information about the São João site has been provided (p. 2), the manuscript does not explain why this specific monument constitutes a strategically important or analytically significant case, nor how it advances current scholarly debates.

As a result, the justification for the narrow case selection remains weak and the claimed scientific contribution largely assertive rather than demonstrated.

 

2. The revised manuscript is better on this issue. However, the fundamental methodological concerns remain unresolved. The authors still do not justify the adequacy of the sample size (6 interviews, 3 businesses), do not demonstrate theoretical saturation and do not address issues of representativeness or methodological sufficiency.

Purposive sampling is not fully explained. Which are their characteristics that make them fully appropriate ? how many businesses does the area have ? these are the 3 unique ? is it convenience sampling ?

The interview guide or questionnaire is still not provided. Moreover, the description of the coding and analytical process remains superficial, with no explanation of how themes were derived, how reliability or trustworthiness was ensured or how analytic rigor was maintained.

Use term “participants” , “sample” or “interviewees” instead of “actors”

 

3. The revised manuscript continues to make strong causal claims that are not supported by the research design. Statements such as “the construction of the São João Monument generated local development” (p. 11) and “has proved to be positive for local development” (p. 12) remain methodologically unjustified . The findings reflect the perceptions of participants regarding socioeconomic changes. The authors must revise their language and conclusions to align with what their design can support.

 

4. Results and Discussion continue to be the same chapter. Discussion is too small and in limited depth.

The results are presented as a continuous narrative without thematic organization, analytical categories or explicit coding structure.

Findings remain largely descriptive and weakly linked to theory and demonstrate.

 

5. Although authors refer more frequently SDG 8, the conceptual problem remains. The empirical investigation continues to focus almost exclusively on income, employment and tourism-related business development (pp. 10–13), while the broader framing within Agenda 2030 is not supported by systematic analysis of other SDGs such as SDG 11 or SDG 12 . Moreover, the claimed alignment with SDG 8 remains: the results are not mapped onto specific SDG 8 targets through defined indicators or evaluation criteria and no conceptual framework is provided to explain the relationships among SDG 8, tourism development and community outcomes.

 

6. The revised manuscript continues to emphasize environmental sustainability issues, including references to air quality and municipal waste management (pp. 1, 5–6), yet none of these dimensions are examined in the interviews, analysis or results . The empirical focus remains confined to income, employment, tourism activity and business development (pp. 10–13).

 

7. Although they claim they changed it, they have not entered this phrase or mention something about Ukrainian community.

 

8. Although they claim they changed the terminology, they have not. The term natural landmark appears zero times within the document. Also expressions such as “construction of the Sγo Joγo Monument” and “However, after the monument was built” are in-appropriate (p.11)

 

9. The authors improved the formulation of the research objective by introducing explicit research questions and specifying the focus on socioeconomic, territorial and quality-of-life effects .

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank you for your valuable feedback and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled “Municipal Management, Sustainable Development, and Community Impacts: Evidence from the Installation of the São João Monument on the Residents of a City in the Interior of Brazil”.

In response to your suggestions, we have carefully revised the article, paying particular attention to the points raised. We believe that the revisions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript and that it is now better aligned with the type of work recommended.

We appreciate the opportunity to improve our study and thank you once again for your time and consideration.

1. It is necessary to identify a clear gap in the existing literature on sustainable tourism, community development, or SDG implementation. The statement that the site is “underexplored in the literature” is insufficient to justify a single case study without demonstrating how this case relates theoretically, empirically, or politically. Furthermore, although additional descriptive information about the St. John's site has been provided (p.

2), the manuscript does not explain why this specific monument constitutes a strategically important or analytically significant case, nor how it contributes to current academic debates. Consequently, the justification for the restricted case selection remains weak, and the alleged scientific contribution is largely assertive rather than demonstrated.

Answer: The justification has been rewritten.

“Despite advances in the literature on sustainable tourism, community development, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a gap remains in the integrated empirical analysis of natural monuments located in protected rural areas as instruments for the territorial implementation of the 2030 Agenda, particularly in small and medium-sized municipalities in the Latin American context. Existing research generally focuses on consolidated tourist destinations or broad conceptual approaches, limiting the understanding of the local operationalization of sustainable tourism initiatives and their impacts on communities. Within this framework, the Salto São João State Natural Monument constitutes an analytically relevant case, as it articulates environmental conservation, sustainable tourism, and territorial policy aligned with SDG 8.9, allowing for an examination, in a rural context, of the relationship between global guidelines, local practices, and community quality of life”.

2. The revised manuscript shows improvements in this aspect. However, the main methodological concerns remain unresolved. The authors still do not justify the adequacy of the sample size (6 interviews, 3 companies), do not demonstrate theoretical saturation, and do not address issues of representativeness or methodological sufficiency.

Answer: The choice of sample was justified in the text.

Purposeful sampling was not fully explained. What are the characteristics that make it entirely appropriate? How many companies are there in the area? Are these the only 3? Is it convenience sampling? The interview guide or questionnaire has not yet been provided. In addition, the description of the coding and analysis process remains superficial, without any explanation of how the themes were derived, how reliability or credibility was ensured, or how analytical rigor was maintained. Use the terms "participants," "sample," or "interviewees" instead of "actors."

Answer: Part of the methodology was rewritten to make the text clearer, and "actors" was replaced with "participants."

“Regarding transparency and reproducibility, the research was based on clearly defined primary and secondary data sources. Primary data were collected through semi- structured, face-to-face interviews with six participants directly involved in economic activities related to the Salto São João State Natural Monument. The participants were selected using purposive sampling, considering their geographical proximity and direct connection to the tourism enterprise. All interviews were audio-recorded, fully transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative content analysis procedures, with thematic categorization guided by the theoretical constructs of Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development Goal 8, and sustainable development.

Secondary data included institutional documents, official statistics from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), and relevant scientific literature, which were used to contextualize the case and support the analysis. Analytically, it was assumed that participants’ perceptions qualitatively reflect the local socioeconomic impacts associated with the establishment of the monument, while acknowledging the limitations of a single case study that prioritizes analytical depth over statistical generalization.

The purposive sample encompassed all commercial establishments located near the monument, totaling three establishments, corresponding to the entire commercial sector of this type in the studied area. The semi-structured interview guides ensured consistent coverage of all relevant topics. Coding and content analysis followed systematic procedures, combining categories derived from the theoretical framework with emergent categories identified in the data, using representative excerpts to ensure credibility, interpretative consistency, and analytical rigor.

The content analysis process was conducted iteratively and reflectively, allowing for the progressive refinement of categories. To minimize researcher bias, strategies such as constant comparison between empirical data and the literature, maintenance of analytical records, and the use of representative excerpts from the interviews were adopted, thus reinforcing the transparency, interpretative coherence, and reproducibility of the study”.

Answer: The sampling adopted was purposive, encompassing all commercial establishments located in the immediate surroundings of the Salto São João State Natural Monument, with the aim of capturing perceptions directly influenced by the initiative. The three included businesses represent the totality of establishments of this type in the studied area. Semi-structured interview guides were used for data collection, ensuring that all relevant topics were consistently addressed. Content coding and analysis followed systematic procedures, combining categories derived from the theoretical framework with emergent categories identified in the data, and using representative excerpts from the interviews to ensure credibility, interpretative consistency, and analytical rigor.

3. The revised manuscript continues to make strong causal claims that are not supported by the research design. Claims such as “the construction of the St. John Monument generated local development” (p. 11) and “proved to be positive for local development” (p. 12) remain methodologically unjustified. The results reflect the participants' perceptions of socioeconomic changes. The authors should revise their language and conclusions to ensure they are consistent with what the research design allows them to

Answer: The justification in the text has been revised.

“The results presented in this study should be interpreted in light of the limitations inherent to its methodological design. This is an exploratory qualitative investigation based on a single case study, whose objective is not to establish causal relationships between the implementation of the Salto São João State Natural Monument and local development, but rather to understand the perceptions of the actors directly involved regarding the socio-economic changes that occurred in the area. Accordingly, the empirical evidence reflects the participants’ interpretations, assessments, and experiences related to the dynamics associated with the monument. In this sense, the findings indicate that the monument is perceived by the local community as an element linked to positive transformations in terms of tourism, income generation, and quality of life, while respecting the analytical and interpretative boundaries inherent to this type of approach.”

4. The results and discussion remain in the same The discussion, in turn, is very short and lacks depth. The results are presented as a continuous narrative, without thematic organization, analytical categories, or explicit coding structure. The results remain largely descriptive and weakly linked to theory and demonstration.

Answer: The text of results and discussions has been expanded.

5. Although the authors refer more frequently to SDG 8, the conceptual problem persists. Empirical research continues to focus almost exclusively on income, employment, and tourism-related business development (pp. 10–13), while the broader framework of the 2030 Agenda is not supported by a systematic analysis of other SDGs, such as SDG 11 or SDG 12. Furthermore, the alleged alignment with SDG 8 remains: the results are not mapped to specific SDG 8 targets through defined indicators or evaluation criteria, and no conceptual framework is provided to explain the relationships between SDG 8, tourism development, and community outcomes.
6. The revised manuscript continues to emphasize environmental sustainability issues, including references to air quality and municipal solid waste management (pp. 1, 5–6), but none of these dimensions are examined in the interviews, analysis, or results. The empirical focus remains restricted to income, employment, tourism activity, and business development (pp. 10–13). Answer: A paragraph was rewritten to better explain the respondents' perceptions.

“Although the study primarily focuses on the socioeconomic impacts related to tourism and the perceptions of the local community, it is acknowledged that the analysis does not systematically cover all the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda. In particular, while SDG 8 was the most directly considered due to its relation to employment, income, and tourism business development, dimensions of other SDGs, such as SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), were not explicitly mapped in the collected indicators. Thus, the results mainly reflect the community’s perceptions of economic and tourism- related changes, without a direct assessment of environmental, urban, or sustainable consumption parameters. This limitation highlights the analytical boundaries of the study and underscores the need for future research that integrates multiple SDGs and objective indicators for a more comprehensive understanding of territorial sustainability.”

7. Although they claim to have altered the text, they did not include that sentence nor did they mention anything about the Ukrainian community.

Response: It should be clarified that, although the revised text has been updated in several sections, no specific reference to the Ukrainian community was included in the context of the study. It is recognized that the presence or participation of specific ethnic or cultural groups, such as the Ukrainian community, was not addressed in the interviews or in the secondary data analyzed. Thus, the study focuses on the general perceptions of the local population around the Salto São João State Natural Monument, without segmentation by ethnic or cultural communities, respecting the limitations of the methodological design adopted.

A portion of the text that discusses the Ukrainian community in Prudentópolis has been attached.

“It is worth highlighting that Prudentópolis has a significant Ukrainian cultural heritage, being known as the “Capital of the Ukrainian Colony” in Brazil. This influence is reflected in the local architecture, traditions, cuisine, and cultural practices, creating a unique sociocultural context that shapes the community’s perceptions and interactions with tourism and environmental conservation initiatives.”

8. Although they claim to have changed the terminology, this did not occur. The term "natural landmark" does not appear even once in the document. Furthermore, expressions such as "construction of the São João Monument" and "However, after the construction of the monument" are inappropriate (p. 11).

Answer: This terminology has been adjusted.

“establishment of the Salto São João State Natural Monument”

9. The authors improved the formulation of the research objective by introducing explicit research questions and specifying the focus on socioeconomic, territorial, and quality of life effects.

 

Kind regards,

The authors

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kindly see the attachment. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank you for your valuable feedback and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled “Municipal Management, Sustainable Development, and Community Impacts: Evidence from the Installation of the São João Monument on the Residents of a City in the Interior of Brazil”.

In response to your suggestions, we have carefully revised the article, paying particular attention to the points raised. We believe that the revisions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript and that it is now better aligned with the type of work recommended.

We appreciate the opportunity to improve our study and thank you once again for your time and consideration.

Kind regards,

The authors

1.   Although the article relies extensively on the sustainability literature, the theoretical framework remains poorly integrated into the analysis. Concepts such as sustainable development, sustainable cities, and the 2030 Agenda are described in detail but are not sufficiently operationalized as analytical lenses.

Response: More text was added to the analysis.

2.  The relationship between SDG 8 and other relevant SDGs (particularly SDG11 on sustainable cities and communities and SDG 12 on responsible consumption and production) is acknowledged but not explored analytically. This limits the multidimensional understanding of sustainability outcomes.

Response: Text was added to the analyses.

3.   The comparison between the São João Waterfall and Niagara Falls is conceptually

Although intended as an illustrative analogy, the comparison risks being exaggerated due to vast differences in scale, governance structures, tourist volume, and institutional capacity. This section would benefit from a stronger justification  or its removal.

Response: A more robust justification was added:

The comparison between the Salto São João State Natural Monument and Niagara Falls should be understood only as an illustrative analogy related to the recognition of large waterfalls as tourist attractions and natural heritage. Clearly, there are substantial differences between the two contexts, particularly regarding territorial scale, visitor volume, governance structures, and institutional capacity for tourism management. In this sense, the reference to Niagara Falls does not intend to establish a direct equivalence between the cases, but only to situate Salto São João within a broader logic of valuing natural landscapes that can play a relevant role in promoting tourism and regional development.

4.     The sample size (six interviewees) is very limited, even for qualitative standards, raising concerns about representativeness and analytical saturation.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the sample size. This study uses an exploratory qualitative approach based on a case study, focusing on the perceptions of actors directly involved with the Salto São João State Natural Monument. The sample of six interviewees was intentionally selected to include key stakeholders — owners and employees of commercial establishments located near the monument — who have direct experience with its socioeconomic effects. Although the sample is small, it allows for an in-depth understanding of local dynamics, providing rich qualitative insights aligned with the objectives of the case study. The study does not aim to generalize the results to all rural communities but to explore and interpret the specific impacts of the local context, contributing to theoretical and practical knowledge on sustainable tourism and territorial development.

5.     The content analysis process is described, but the coding strategy and category development remain insufficiently detailed. It is unclear how themes were systematically derived and how researcher bias was mitigated beyond general statements.

Response: We appreciate the editor’s comment. In response, the manuscript was revised to detail more systematically the content analysis process. The coding strategy and the development of thematic categories were explained, describing how themes were identified from the interviews and organized systematically. Additionally, measures taken to mitigate potential researcher bias, such as data triangulation, peer review, and comparison of interpretations with participants’ original accounts, were included. These changes aim to increase transparency and methodological robustness, aligning the manuscript with good qualitative research practices.

6.     The article relies almost exclusively on self-reported perceptions, particularly regarding income changes. While this is acceptable in qualitative research, more robust triangulation, such as municipal data, tourism statistics, or secondary economic indicators, would significantly enhance credibility.

Response: We appreciate the editor’s observation. We acknowledge that the study relies predominantly on self-reported perceptions of participants, aligned with the qualitative and exploratory nature of the research. To reinforce reliability, we contextualized the results with secondary information available in the literature and institutional reports on tourism and local development. We note that direct triangulation with official data represents a path for future studies without compromising the richness of the analyses obtained from the experiences and interpretations of local actors.

7.     The Results section clearly presents the interview conclusions and demonstrates perceived improvements in income, employment, and local business development. However, the discussion tends to reiterate empirical observations   rather   than   interpret   them   critically.

Response: We appreciate the editor’s comment. We acknowledge that the previous version tended to reiterate empirical observations. In response, we revised the manuscript to include a more analytical and interpretive discussion, highlighting the underlying processes of perceived changes in income, employment, and local business development. Theoretical interpretations and comparisons with existing literature were incorporated to contextualize the findings and highlight their implications for sustainable tourism and territorial development, thereby strengthening the study’s contribution.

8. The discussion could better address contradictory or negative perceptions, even if  marginal,  to  avoid  an  overly  affirmative 
Response: A paragraph was added to address this comment:

Although the results highlight positive impacts of the Salto São João State Natural Monument on income, employment, and local business development, some negative or contradictory perceptions were also identified in the interviews. These include infrastructure-related challenges, such as limited access due to unpaved roads, and the need for improvements in mobility and the organization of tourist flows. Incorporating these perspectives emphasizes that, while the monument is perceived as a catalyst for local development, structural and contextual challenges affect the effectiveness of sustainable tourism initiatives, providing a more balanced and realistic understanding of the observed dynamics.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Clear theoretical contribution is still missing
2. interview guide or questionnaire is still missing
3. Some residual causal wording remains in the results section and should be revised for full consistency with the stated methodological limitations.
4. The revised manuscript shows only limited improvement regarding the presentation and analysis of results. The Results and Discussion remain combined in a single section, and the findings continue to be presented largely as a continuous narrative without thematic organization, analytical categories, or explicit coding structure. Although some additional references to the literature have been incorporated, the discussion remains brief and does not provide sufficient analytical depth or theoretical interpretation.
5. The revised manuscript improves transparency by acknowledging that the empirical analysis primarily addresses SDG 8 rather than the full scope of Agenda 2030. However, the fundamental conceptual issue remains unresolved. The findings are still not systematically mapped onto specific SDG 8 targets through defined indicators or evaluation criteria, and no conceptual framework is provided to explain the relationships among SDG 8, tourism development, and community outcomes. As a result, the contribution to SDG-related research remains largely descriptive and insufficiently theorized.
6. Authors continue to emphasize environmental sustainability issues (air quality and municipal waste management), yet none of these dimensions are examined in the interviews, analysis or results. The empirical focus remains confined to income, employment, tourism activity, and business development. This misalignment between the theoretical framing and the empirical evidence persists and continues to weaken the study’s internal validity. The authors should either substantially reduce the environmental framing or incorporate empirical evidence addressing environmental outcomes.
7. The changes are ok
8. The change is not evident in the manuscript. The term “natural landmark” does not appear, and expressions such as “construction of the São João Monument” and “after the monument was built” remain in the text (p. 11). These formulations are conceptually imprecise for a protected natural area and should be replaced with terminology such as “designation,” “creation,” or “establishment” of the protected area. Greater consistency and precision in terminology are still required.
9. The changes are ok

Author Response

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank you for your valuable feedback and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled “Municipal Management, Sustainable Development, and Community Impacts: Evidence from the Installation of the São João Monument on the Residents of a City in the Interior of Brazil”.

In response to your suggestions, we have carefully revised the article, paying particular attention to the points raised. We believe that the revisions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript and that it is now better aligned with the type of work recommended.

We appreciate the opportunity to improve our study and thank you once again for your time and consideration.

Kind regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf