A Systems Science Approach to Sustainable Water Management in Rural Tourism Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript takes on an ambitious and timely subject—the use of the Viable System Model (VSM) in conjunction with Agile Governance to understand the organizational mechanisms of a rural tourism community in Mexico City (La Magdalena Atlitic) and their relationship to sustainable water management. The paper is conceptually interesting, and the topic is clearly relevant to current discussions on community resilience and sustainability, especially within developing-country contexts.

The paper in its current version reads more as a study of organizational coordination than as one of “sustainable water management.” While the idea of connecting governance systems with environmental management is promising, the manuscript would benefit from stronger empirical grounding and a clearer articulation of how the two frameworks—VSM and Agile Governance—interact in practice. With substantial revisions that make the argument more data-driven and methodologically transparent, the study could become a valuable contribution to Systems.

First, the central focus of the paper needs to be better aligned with the topic stated in the title. Although “sustainable water management” appears prominently in both the abstract and keywords, the analysis is almost entirely organizational. It would help the reader if the authors could incorporate even limited quantitative or contextual evidence relating to water issues—such as seasonal tourist pressure on local water resources, basic consumption data, or simple indicators of river quality . Even secondary data would lend credibility to the claim that the study addresses water management rather than community governance alone.

Second, the integration of the Viable System Model and Agile Governance remains more aspirational than analytical. The two frameworks are described separately, but it is still unclear how they interact or complement each other in this specific case. I would suggest adding a conceptual figure that shows, for example, how each subsystem in VSM (S1–S5) might correspond to agile processes such as backlog, sprint, review, and retrospective. More explicit discussion of feedback and information loops among coordination (S2), control (S3/S3*), learning (S4), and identity (S5) would make the theoretical model both more coherent and more useful to other researchers.

Third, the methodological section needs considerable strengthening. The statement that the authors conducted “field visits and virtual workshops” is too general to convey scientific credibility. Please indicate the number and types of participants, how they were selected, what instruments were used (e.g., interviews, meetings). A short table summarizing participant composition and data-collection steps would greatly enhance transparency. At present, the reader has no way of assessing how representative or robust the data are.

Fourth, the results section is mainly descriptive and lacks evidence of change or learning within the community. It would considerably strengthen the paper if the authors could report at least one concrete “agile cycle” or practical episode where the proposed framework was applied—perhaps an instance where coordination among tourism stakeholders improved, or where water-related conflicts were managed more effectively. Even qualitative before-and-after insights would make the contribution more tangible and convincing.

Fifth, the figures need technical and stylistic improvement. Figures 1 and 2 could easily be combined into a single multi-scale location map showing national, city, and community levels, complete with a north arrow, scale bar, and data sources. The VSM diagram (Figure 3) should more clearly connect subsystems to agile components and, ideally, to relevant water-management indicators. Including bilingual (English–Spanish) labels would also improve accessibility for international readers.

Sixth, the literature review and references require refinement. Some data sourcesare not scholarly and should be replaced with official databases. The references should follow MDPI’s author–year citation style and include access dates. It would also be appropriate to add a short “Data Availability Statement” clarifying how the empirical material can be accessed.

Finally, the discussion and conclusion should use more balanced and evidence-based language. Terms like “regenerative” or “conscious organization” sound appealing but are not easily operationalized. The paper would benefit from replacing such expressions with measurable constructs and from adding a brief reflection on the study’s limitations—data constraints, sample size, and the exploratory nature of the work. A paragraph outlining future research directions would give the paper a stronger sense of closure and academic purpose.

The authors can sharpen the argument, make the model more operational, and demonstrate the real-world value of applying VSM and Agile Governance to sustainable tourism governance.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for their comments and observations. All remarks have been carefully addressed and can be seen in the revised version of the manuscript, highlighted in blue. The following points describe how each comment was attended to:

Comments 1: First, the central focus of the paper needs to be better aligned with the topic stated in the title. Although “sustainable water management” appears prominently in both the abstract and keywords, the analysis is almost entirely organizational. It would help the reader if the authors could incorporate even limited quantitative or contextual evidence relating to water issues—such as seasonal tourist pressure on local water resources, basic consumption data, or simple indicators of river quality . Even secondary data would lend credibility to the claim that the study addresses water management rather than community governance alone.

Response 1: We have strengthened the link between organisational dynamics and water management by adding more detailed information on the Magdalena River in the Introduction (pp. 2–3), including data on water volume, quality, and its relationship with the local community. Furthermore, the text now explicitly explains how local organisational structures support water management practices (channel cleaning, usage agreements, and participatory monitoring).

Comments 2: Second, the integration of the Viable System Model and Agile Governance remains more aspirational than analytical. The two frameworks are described separately, but it is still unclear how they interact or complement each other in this specific case. I would suggest adding a conceptual figure that shows, for example, how each subsystem in VSM (S1–S5) might correspond to agile processes such as backlog, sprint, review, and retrospective. More explicit discussion of feedback and information loops among coordination (S2), control (S3/S3*), learning (S4), and identity (S5) would make the theoretical model both more coherent and more useful to other researchers.

Response 2: We appreciate this observation. A new subsection (4.1. Proposed integration of agile governance into the VSM) and Figure 4 were added to illustrate the interaction between the VSM and the principles of agile governance. This figure shows how subsystems S2, S3, and S3* relate to iterative processes of planning, review, and continuous learning, making the methodological integration and its practical application in the community more explicit.

Comments 3: Third, the methodological section needs considerable strengthening. The statement that the authors conducted “field visits and virtual workshops” is too general to convey scientific credibility. Please indicate the number and types of participants, how they were selected, what instruments were used (e.g., interviews, meetings). A short table summarizing participant composition and data-collection steps would greatly enhance transparency. At present, the reader has no way of assessing how representative or robust the data are.

Response 3: Section 3 (Method) has been expanded to include details on the number of participants, selection criteria, and instruments used (semi-structured interviews, direct observation, and participatory workshops). In addition, Table 3 was added to summarise the purposes, number of actors, modalities, and timeframes, thereby strengthening methodological transparency and rigour.

Comments 4: Fourth, the results section is mainly descriptive and lacks evidence of change or learning within the community. It would considerably strengthen the paper if the authors could report at least one concrete “agile cycle” or practical episode where the proposed framework was applied—perhaps an instance where coordination among tourism stakeholders improved, or where water-related conflicts were managed more effectively. Even qualitative before-and-after insights would make the contribution more tangible and convincing.

Response 4: Additional qualitative evidence was incorporated, describing agile cycles observed during the high season when the community reorganises cleaning activities, optimises water use, and redistributes tourist routes. These examples illustrate real processes of collective learning and show the transition from reactive to adaptive management.

Comments 5: Fifth, the figures need technical and stylistic improvement. Figures 1 and 2 could easily be combined into a single multi-scale location map showing national, city, and community levels, complete with a north arrow, scale bar, and data sources. The VSM diagram (Figure 3) should more clearly connect subsystems to agile components and, ideally, to relevant water-management indicators. Including bilingual (English–Spanish) labels would also improve accessibility for international readers.

Response 5: The figures were updated according to the reviewer’s recommendations. The new Figure 1 is a multi-scale map with north orientation and official sources (INEGI). Meanwhile, Figure 3 was redesigned while preserving the original symbology proposed by Beer, the creator of the VSM, as modifying it could cause confusion and hinder comprehension within the systems community.

Comments 6: Sixth, the literature review and references require refinement. Some data sourcesare not scholarly and should be replaced with official databases. The references should follow MDPI’s author–year citation style and include access dates. It would also be appropriate to add a short “Data Availability Statement” clarifying how the empirical material can be accessed.

Response 6: References and in-text citations were formatted using Mendeley reference manager with the official MDPI style. Access dates were included for data derived from official Mexican sources. It was not necessary to modify the Data Availability Statement, as only five references correspond to institutional databases that provide contextual information for the system under study.

Comments 7: Finally, the discussion and conclusion should use more balanced and evidence-based language. Terms like “regenerative” or “conscious organization” sound appealing but are not easily operationalized. The paper would benefit from replacing such expressions with measurable constructs and from adding a brief reflection on the study’s limitations—data constraints, sample size, and the exploratory nature of the work. A paragraph outlining future research directions would give the paper a stronger sense of closure and academic purpose.

Response 7: The term “regenerative” previously used in the abstract has been removed. The term “conscious organisation” was not used in either the previous or current versions of the manuscript. No terminology is employed in a subjective or aspirational way; the manuscript was written based on the literature of seminal systems authors, using systemic language, data from official sources, and a discussion grounded in the research results.

We again thank Reviewer 1 for their valuable feedback, which has helped to strengthen the overall quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Pages:

2-3 - I think the title is unnecessarily complicated

63 - I suggest that La Magdalena Contreras be highlighted on the Figure 1, as it is not clearly visible on the left small map in Figure 2.

I commend the part of the paper that relates to the geography of the researched area, given that the authors do not necessarily deal with that scientific segment.

166 - I think the importance attached to rural tourism is being overestimated here.

82-277 - The literature review section is general, abstract, and unnecessarily lengthy for the length of the paper.

Reading the text, one gets the impression that they all function in the same way.

279-323 - The methodology is incomplete. The process needs to be described in more detail so that someone else can apply it to a similar landscape entity.

371, 386, 411 - Each of the systems will be explained in more detail. To the uninitiated, everything written will be abstract.

The work is written in a very general way. So, you could change the name of a part of the city and the name of a river and everything would remain the same without any problems. You can't see any particularity of that particular locality.

The paper does not contain any measurable parameters that would support any fact or any conclusion.

I haven't learned anything new about that site. It all sounds like an ideal theory with no problems. The perceived shortcomings will be resolved over time. " This transition from fragmented decision-making to coordinated adaptability represents a cultural shift toward a governance model rooted in participation and continuous learning."

516 - "This study demonstrates that the application of the VSM, in conjunction with the principles of agile governance, provides an effective framework for diagnosing and strengthening the organisational viability of social enterprises engaged in rural tourism, such as those in LMA." - They didn't convince me.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for their comments and observations. All remarks have been carefully addressed and can be seen in the revised version of the manuscript, highlighted in blue. The following points explain how each comment was attended to:

Comments 1: 2-3 - I think the title is unnecessarily complicated

Response 1: We appreciate this observation. We believe that the title accurately reflects the conceptual scope of the study, as it integrates the two main methodological perspectives (Viable System Model and Agile Governance) and the specific context of sustainable water management in rural tourism communities. Therefore, we prefer to maintain the current title, as its structure conveys the transdisciplinary nature of the manuscript.

Comments 2: 63 - I suggest that La Magdalena Contreras be highlighted on the Figure 1, as it is not clearly visible on the left small map in Figure 2. I commend the part of the paper that relates to the geography of the researched area, given that the authors do not necessarily deal with that scientific segment.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In the revised version, Figure 1 has been redesigned as a multi-scale map in which both the borough and the rural community are visually highlighted.

Comments 3: 166 - I think the importance attached to rural tourism is being overestimated here.

Response 3: We appreciate the comment. We consider that the emphasis on rural tourism is appropriate, since it represents a key factor for community development according to the reviewed literature.

Comments 4: 82-277 - The literature review section is general, abstract, and unnecessarily lengthy for the length of the paper. Reading the text, one gets the impression that they all function in the same way.

Response 4: We are grateful for this observation. The literature review was carefully revised to remove redundancies and to reinforce its coherence with the object of study. Nevertheless, a broad structure was retained because the manuscript integrates different theoretical and conceptual bodies (social entrepreneurship, rural tourism, water management, and systems thinking), which are necessary to support the application of the Viable System Model in rural tourism contexts.

Comments 5: 279-323 - The methodology is incomplete. The process needs to be described in more detail so that someone else can apply it to a similar landscape entity.

Response 5: The methodological section was expanded to include a detailed description of the process, the activities conducted, and the instruments applied (direct observation, interviews, and participatory workshops). In addition, Table 3 was added to specify the purposes, number of participants, modalities, and timeframes, in order to ensure the transparency and replicability of the process.

Comments 6: 371, 386, 411 - Each of the systems will be explained in more detail. To the uninitiated, everything written will be abstract. The work is written in a very general way. So, you could change the name of a part of the city and the name of a river and everything would remain the same without any problems. You can't see any particularity of that particular locality. The paper does not contain any measurable parameters that would support any fact or any conclusion. I haven't learned anything new about that site. It all sounds like an ideal theory with no problems. The perceived shortcomings will be resolved over time. " This transition from fragmented decision-making to coordinated adaptability represents a cultural shift toward a governance model rooted in participation and continuous learning."

Response 6: Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the description of each subsystem (S1–S5) in Section 4 (VSM Diagnosis) was expanded to better reflect the specific characteristics of the community. A new section, 4.1. Proposed integration of agile governance into the VSM, was also incorporated to provide further detail on the systems identified as weak or in conflict. Although the study maintains a systemic focus, these adjustments help to highlight the uniqueness of La Magdalena Atlitic without compromising conceptual rigour. It should be noted that quantitative parameters were not included, as the objective of this study is to present an organisational diagnosis rather than a physical analysis of the water resource.

Comments 7: 516 - "This study demonstrates that the application of the VSM, in conjunction with the principles of agile governance, provides an effective framework for diagnosing and strengthening the organisational viability of social enterprises engaged in rural tourism, such as those in LMA." - They didn't convince me.

Response 7: We appreciate the reviewer’s frank comment. The study does not aim to persuade through assertions but to demonstrate empirically how the application of the Viable System Model and Agile Governance makes it possible to identify structural weaknesses and propose adaptive mechanisms within social tourism enterprises. In this revised version, the results and discussion sections have been strengthened to clarify more explicitly the model’s usefulness in supporting community decision-making. We believe that these modifications enhance both the argumentation and the practical applicability of the proposed framework.

We again thank Reviewer 2 for their valuable comments, which have contributed to improving the overall quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Thank you for the paper “Integrating the Viable System Model and agile governance for sustainable water management in rural tourism communities”.

 

Abstract: Define the research problem of the study

Introduction: In my opinion, the introduction is not well structured. In fact, here the authors should introduce water management, but also its importance for rural tourist communities. If there is any introduction to water management, I don't think there is a connection with rural tourist communities. What is the importance of water management for rural tourist communities? The authors should actually present the study problem very well, linking the two concepts: water management and tourist communities, and then define the purpose of the study. Figures are not usually presented in the introduction. The figures should be moved to a section presenting the case study.

 

It is also recommended that the authors present the structure of the article in the introduction. This is not done.

 

Literature Review: The authors begin by discussing the concept of entrepreneurship. Why? What is its relationship to the problem addressed in this study? I would also suggest that the title "Literature Review" be replaced with a more elucidative title. Furthermore, the relationship between social entrepreneurship and water management, particularly in rural tourism communities, is not explicitly stated. It seems to me that there is a lack of connection between the concepts. Moreover, it seems to me that this literature review does not connect with the introduction and the advocated sustainability principles. I suggest that the authors introduce a section relating to the SDGs, particularly SDG 6. In short, the literature review should follow up on what the authors refer to in the introduction, focusing on topics of "water management" and its importance in rural tourism communities.

 

Methods: Authors should mention how many field visits and virtual sessions were conducted. What did these virtual sessions consist of? What questions were posed to the participants, and how many participants attended these sessions?

 

Conclusions: The conclusions should be based on the objectives and related to the literature review. No reference is made to this. I also recommend that the authors present the limitations of the study.

Good work in the next stepps.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 3 for their comments and observations. All remarks have been carefully addressed and can be seen in the revised version of the manuscript, highlighted in blue. The following points explain how each comment was attended to:

Comments 1: Introduction: In my opinion, the introduction is not well structured. In fact, here the authors should introduce water management, but also its importance for rural tourist communities. If there is any introduction to water management, I don't think there is a connection with rural tourist communities. What is the importance of water management for rural tourist communities? The authors should actually present the study problem very well, linking the two concepts: water management and tourist communities, and then define the purpose of the study. Figures are not usually presented in the introduction. The figures should be moved to a section presenting the case study. It is also recommended that the authors present the structure of the article in the introduction. This is not done.

Response 1:

• Abstract: The abstract was restructured to define the research problem more clearly, emphasising the tension between local tourism dynamics and sustainable water management. This change allows the reader to understand the study’s purpose and context from the outset.

• Introduction: The Introduction was modified to explicitly establish the relationship between water management and rural tourism communities. In addition, a paragraph was added highlighting the ecological importance of water resources and their link to tourism sustainability in La Magdalena Atlitic, thereby strengthening thematic coherence and justifying the research objective.

• The figure 1 was intentionally kept within the Introduction, as its purpose is to spatially contextualise the system under study from the beginning of the manuscript. In this case, Figure 1 situates both the river basin and the rural community geographically, which is essential for understanding the relationship between tourism, territory, and water management. In line with the journal’s recommendations regarding conceptual clarity and contextualisation, we consider that keeping Figure 1 in the Introduction enhances reader comprehension and reinforces coherence between the problem statement and the environmental setting.

•  A final paragraph was added to the Introduction to outline the overall structure of the article, thus improving readability and aligning with Systems’ editorial conventions.

Comments 2: Literature Review: The authors begin by discussing the concept of entrepreneurship. Why? What is its relationship to the problem addressed in this study? I would also suggest that the title "Literature Review" be replaced with a more elucidative title. Furthermore, the relationship between social entrepreneurship and water management, particularly in rural tourism communities, is not explicitly stated. It seems to me that there is a lack of connection between the concepts. Moreover, it seems to me that this literature review does not connect with the introduction and the advocated sustainability principles. I suggest that the authors introduce a section relating to the SDGs, particularly SDG 6. In short, the literature review should follow up on what the authors refer to in the introduction, focusing on topics of "water management" and its importance in rural tourism communities.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. However, we have decided to retain the title “Literature Review”, as it conforms to the academic format used in most Systems and MDPI articles. This section does not merely provide a general overview; it draws on seminal systemic authors to integrate the concepts of entrepreneurship, rural tourism, and water management, thereby establishing the theoretical–conceptual framework that supports the proposed model. Maintaining the traditional title preserves both clarity and epistemological structure, in accordance with the journal’s editorial standards and the conceptual nature of the study.

• A new subsection, 2.3. SDG 6 in the system under study, was incorporated to explicitly link water management with the system under analysis, reinforcing the connection between the theoretical framework and global sustainability goals. This section is further complemented in the discussion to enrich the critical narrative.

Comments 3: Methods: Authors should mention how many field visits and virtual sessions were conducted. What did these virtual sessions consist of? What questions were posed to the participants, and how many participants attended these sessions?

Response 3: Information about field visits, virtual sessions, number of participants, and types of instruments was detailed in Section 3. Method, ensuring methodological clarity and transparency.

Comments 4: Conclusions: The conclusions should be based on the objectives and related to the literature review. No reference is made to this. I also recommend that the authors present the limitations of the study.

Response 4: A paragraph acknowledging the study’s limitations was added to the Conclusions. This addition aligns the conclusions with the study’s objectives and the literature reviewed.

We once again thank Reviewer 3 for their valuable feedback, which helped improve the structure, coherence, and depth of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Results section (VSM diagnosis) is overly descriptive and lacks empirical evidence. It does not include interview quotes, workshop results or observations to support the claims made. The discussion should draw on excerpts from the raw data. The remaining content has been satisfactorily revised.

Author Response

We thank you for your comments.

Comments: The Results section (VSM diagnosis) is overly descriptive and lacks empirical evidence. It does not include interview quotes, workshop results or observations to support the claims made. The discussion should draw on excerpts from the raw data. The remaining content has been satisfactorily revised.

Response: In the new version (written in orange), we addressed your observations by strengthening section 4: VSM Diagnosis, adding several insights obtained from the application of the instruments. This has been complemented by the newly added Appendix A, which contains the questions used in the semi structured interviews. We also reinforced the critical discussion in the conclusions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

Thank you for your effort in reviewing the article. However, I still have several questions regarding your article. In the abstract, you mention: “This research carries a systematic diagnosis through the application of the Viable System Model (VSM), complemented by the principles of agile governance, with the objective of examining the viability of social enterprises in La Magdalena Atlitic, a rural community located within a high ecological value conservation area in Mexico City.” But then, in the introduction, for example, you only mention rural tourism companies once. Therefore, you should restructure the abstract, establishing the link between water management and rural tourism communities.

 

The description of the study area should be in a section related to the presentation of the methodology and the study area, not in the introduction. The introduction normally does not have tables, as is currently included. Similarly, the introduction should not have figures. In my opinion, the research problem question is not sufficiently clarified. Note that in my before comment I said: “Authors should now present the study problem very well, linking the two concepts: water management and tourist communities, and then define the purpose of the study. Figures are not normally presented in the introduction. Figures should be moved to a section presenting the case study.”

 

Literature Review: Again, you begin by discussing the concept of entrepreneurship. Why? What is its relationship to the problem addressed in this study? Furthermore, the relationship between social entrepreneurship and water management, particularly in rural tourism communities, is not explicitly stated. It seems to me that there is a lack of connection between the concepts. Moreover, it seems to me that this literature review does not connect with the introduction and the advocated sustainability principles.

 

Methods: Please clarify what questions were posed to the participants?

 

Conclusions: Please relate your conclusions with literature review, as I suggest before.

 

Good work in the next steps.

Author Response

We thank you for your comments.

Comments 1: In the abstract, you mention: “This research carries a systematic diagnosis through the application of the Viable System Model (VSM), complemented by the principles of agile governance, with the objective of examining the viability of social enterprises in La Magdalena Atlitic, a rural community located within a high ecological value conservation area in Mexico City.” But then, in the introduction, for example, you only mention rural tourism companies once. Therefore, you should restructure the abstract, establishing the link between water management and rural tourism communities.

Response 1: In the new version (written in orange), we addressed your observations. We rewrote the abstract to ensure it aligns with the subsequent observations that were requested.

 

Comments 2: The description of the study area should be in a section related to the presentation of the methodology and the study area, not in the introduction. The introduction normally does not have tables, as is currently included. Similarly, the introduction should not have figures. In my opinion, the research problem question is not sufficiently clarified. Note that in my before comment I said: “Authors should now present the study problem very well, linking the two concepts: water management and tourist communities, and then define the purpose of the study. Figures are not normally presented in the introduction. Figures should be moved to a section presenting the case study.”

Response 2: The introduction was restructured, relocating the study area to a subsection within the methodology. In addition, the introduction was strengthened to ensure coherence with the article as a whole.

 

Comments 3: Literature Review: Again, you begin by discussing the concept of entrepreneurship. Why? What is its relationship to the problem addressed in this study? Furthermore, the relationship between social entrepreneurship and water management, particularly in rural tourism communities, is not explicitly stated. It seems to me that there is a lack of connection between the concepts. Moreover, it seems to me that this literature review does not connect with the introduction and the advocated sustainability principles.

Response 3: The literature review begins by describing the concept of entrepreneurship in a deductive manner, guiding the reader to understand that social entrepreneurship is a relatively recent concept that has gained relevance in the academic field and does not focus solely on economic benefits. We strengthened this section by incorporating Figure 1, which provides a visual understanding of how the concepts addressed in the study relate to one another and how they reinforce each other through their continuous interaction.

 

Comments 4: Methods: Please clarify what questions were posed to the participants?

Response 4: The section “Appendix A” was added, containing the questions used in the semi structured interviews.

 

Comments 5: Please relate your conclusions with literature review, as I suggest before.

Response 5: The conclusions section was strengthened, particularly to emphasise the critical discussion in relation to the literature reviewed.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Rank you to have in consideration my previous comments. Congratulations. As I said before, please relate your conclusions with literature review: please present some bibliografic references here. They will support your comments. Thank you

Author Response

We appreciate your comment. The corresponding additions are highlighted in green within the manuscript.

Comment: Rank you to have in consideration my previous comments. Congratulations. As I said before, please relate your conclusions with literature review: please present some bibliografic references here. They will support your comments. Thank you.

Response: In this revised version, we have strengthened the conclusion by explicitly linking the final statements with the literature reviewed. Key bibliographic references have been incorporated to support the main arguments and to ensure coherence between the theoretical background and the conclusions.