Social Entrepreneurship and SDGs in Rural Tourism Communities: A Systemic Approach in Yecapixtla, Morelos, Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I find this manuscript interesting being focused on a current topic based on the evaluation of social entrepreneurship in Yecapixtla, Morelos, located in Mexico from the perspective of current situation of the actors that make up the SE sector in Food and Beverage linked to tourism activity. The analysis of the sustainability of social entrepreneurship is based on the Soft Systems Methodology method.

Key words: usually, the words from the title can no be used as key words: there are 3 similar words: Social entrepreneurship; rural tourism; systemic approach. You should include the name of the method used: Soft Systems Methodology

Introduction

The introduction is too large!

This section is a  mixt of introduction, case study description, and literature review.

The role of this section is to introduce the reader in the topic of the paper and the research performed by the authors.

You should add after the presentation of the aim of the paper the research questions and the importance of the study.

Subsections 1.1, 1,2, and 1.3. should be replaced in other sections as follow:

Subsection 1.1 should be organised as Literature review as a new section.

Subsection 1.2 Yecapixtla, Morelos, Mexico should be renamed by the authors as Case study description and be included as first section of methodology. The fragment between Rows 102-127 is a presentation of the case study which is not suitable to be included in the introduction with so many details

Subsection 1.3 can be included as a subsection of Literature review after  1.1. Communities with a tourism vocation: moreover, 1.3 shoud be organized more sinthetically

1.3.1. SDG 1: No poverty the subtitle is very general – it should be reformulated

Figure 1 should be included in the literature review section.

 

Methodology

To include here as a first subsection the description of the case study.

The authors present only from a statistical point of view the study area, without highlighting its importance from the perspective of the theme addressed: is it a very well-known and appreciated tourist area? What are the traditional dishes? Are these elements of tourist attraction? The authors must highlight the reason that was the basis for choosing the study area?

The authors mentioned that services represent 34.91% - you can add two or three examples; manufacturing  27.19% - to add several examples

4. Results

The authors should explain better how they elaborated the results. Sometimes the authors mentioned general results and did not offer a more particular details. The authors should explain how they establish the integration of three types of relationshipsr between several stakeholders. The description of problems is not correlated with the factors influencing it.

For a more complex evaluation it is necessary to apply semi-structured interviews with different stakeholders and including farmers who are involved in rural tourism in the analyzed region in order to better highlight the problems and to identify the development challenges. If you will not be able to apply interviews with at least some stakeholders, you can propose it as future research.

Figure 5 is titled Structured Problem Situation, but it shows more stakeholders and other details (several sustainable development targets), but not the problem.

How did the authors reach the following ideas ?: page 10: "Govern ment institutions and external entities: This level encompasses international organisations such as UN Tourism and the SDGs. While these actors hold a high level of influence, their degree of participation is variable. The results revealed discontinuous relationships due to the lack of continuity in projects, the design of centralised policies, or limited sensitiv-ity to local realities. This highlights the structural challenges faced by SE initiatives in establishing effective links within the institutional framework."

Discussion

I missed a discussion section.

 Authors should critically present the results, sometimes using the comparison with results obtained in other studies on similar topics: for example:

Rows 364-369: The application of SSM enabled a contrast between theoretical assumptions and the   observed reality, reinforcing the applicability of the systemic approach to diagnose and interpret the dynamics of SE in rural communities with a tourism vocation. The combination of methodological tools—such as the rich picture, the systemic classification of actors, and direct observation—allowed the identification of the links that strengthen the system,  as well as the factors that limit its homeostasis. – here the authors can find some sililarities of results by comparing with other resuts obtain in several studies

Or:

Rows 371-372: The complexity of activity across the macro-environment, environment, and system in focus demonstrates that, despite the adoption of sustainable practices by entrepreneurs in Yecapixtla, structural conditions continue to constrain their effectiveness and continuity. There are other studies that highlight the same ideas regarding structural conditions continue to constrain their effectiveness and continuity...

Rows 373- 374: While SE is defined as a model that integrates and balances social, environmental, and   economic goals, its performance in rural contexts is not linear. – in which other studies is this idea found?

Several ideas can be included in discussion section:

- the importance of the study from methodological perspective and from the practical point of view. The authors should put in evidence the originality of the study.

-the authors may refer to the one or two proposed solution; the authors mentioned between Rows 293-285: In this context, SSM enables the development of a comprehensive diagnosis that facilitates the identification of solutions to the challenges associated with SE in the F&B sector in the rural community of Yecapixtla, Morelos. The authors did not present solutions.

Conclusions

The authors should add the limit(s) of the study and future research.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. All observations have been carefully addressed in the revised manuscript. The corresponding changes are highlighted in green throughout the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Your article stands out for its solid theoretical grounding, rigorous application of the SSM systemic methodology and relevant integration of the SDGs, providing a coherent and contextualized analysis of social entrepreneurship in rural tourism-oriented communities.

In order to increase the applicative impact of the study, I recommend that you detail the public policy proposals by identifying key actors and implementation mechanisms, include comparative examples from other regions that can support the validation of the findings, and develop knowledge transfer components between the institutional sector and local actors.

It would also be useful to broaden the discussion on the sustainability of the relationships identified over time and possible ways to strengthen inter-institutional collaborations.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for their positive and constructive feedback. We have carefully addressed each of the recommendations in the revised manuscript. All changes made in response to these observations are highlighted in blue.

• Public policy proposals and implementation mechanisms: In the Discussion section, we have expanded the reflection on governance strategies by identifying local actors—such as the municipal tourism office and the economic development council—as potential facilitators. Suggested mechanisms now include participatory forums, local training programmes, and periodic monitoring of SDG progress (Lines 440-444).
• Comparative examples: We have incorporated references to related findings from other rural tourism contexts, including studies by Dahles et al. (2020) in Cambodia and Wang et al. (2024) in rural China, to reinforce the validity of our analysis (Lines 424-426).
• Knowledge transfer: A paragraph has been added highlighting the role of knowledge transfer mechanisms, including collaborative training, joint planning, and feedback loops between institutional and community actors (Lines 447-450).
• Sustainability of relationships and inter-institutional collaboration: The Discussion section now includes a final paragraph that addresses the long-term sustainability of stakeholder relationships, underscoring the importance of institutional continuity, trust-building, and shared decision-making frameworks.

We thank the reviewer once again for their thoughtful input, which has helped us improve the practical relevance and robustness of our study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to review the manuscript entitled " Social Entrepreneurship and SDGs in Rural Tourism Communities: A Systemic Approach in Yecapixtla, Morelos, Mexico”. I have some comments. 

Strengths:
•    Original case study (Yecapixtla, Mexico) and innovative use of Soft Systems Methodology.
•    Relevant topic aligned with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
•    Clear structure and some visual aids (e.g., rich picture) enhance conceptual framing.
The study has potential and offers originality, but it needs stronger theoretical integration, methodological transparency, and clearer academic writing. After these are addressed, it could make a valuable contribution.
Weaknesses and some points for Improvement:
1.    While the article touches on relevant theoretical concepts (such as social entrepreneurship and rural development), the literature review is fragmented and lacks depth. The integration of prior research is more descriptive than analytical, and some seminal works on social entrepreneurship and tourism are missing or underdeveloped. A clearer contextualization within existing empirical studies would strengthen the foundation. The article includes a number of references, but many are descriptive or background-focused. There is minimal critical engagement with recent debates, and several key scholars in both social entrepreneurship and rural tourism are absent or under-cited. The bibliographic foundation feels thin in places.
2.  The methodology is qualitative and observational, relying on Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), but lacks detailed explanation of how data were gathered, validated, or analyzed. There are no interviews or structured instruments mentioned. More transparency in data collection procedures and criteria would strengthen the research design.
3.    The results are presented in a mostly descriptive manner, and while they reflect the participants’ experiences, they are not well-organized around the research objectives. Tables or visual representations could improve clarity. The presentation lacks a clear link between data and interpretation.
4.    There is room for a more compelling narrative that compares findings to existing literature and considers alternative interpretations.
5.    A tighter linkage between results, discussion, and conclusion is necessary for greater persuasiveness.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 3 for their thoughtful and constructive review. Please see the attachment. All changes in the manuscript appear in purple.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I received an article for review titled Social Entrepreneurship and SDGs in Rural Tourism Communities: A Systemic Approach in Yecapixtla, Morelos, Mexico. The article is relevant and addresses an important scientific issue. However, there are shortcomings, primarily related to its structure. Below are my comments on the reviewed text:

-The Introduction is currently too extensive. It should be a concise introduction to the research topic, clearly and early defining the research problem and objectives. It should span 1–2 pages. Currently, the introduction is too long, with objectives appearing only on the third page and containing excessive theoretical content that should be in a separate section.

-The theoretical discussion on topics such as Social Entrepreneurship and its relationship with the SDGs should be moved from the introduction to a separate section titled Theoretical Background.

- The presentation of the research area, currently in the introduction (Section 1.2. Yecapixtla, Morelos, Mexico), should be a separate section, e.g., Research Area, placed after the introduction and theoretical background. Additionally, the map of Yecapixtla’s (Figure 2) location should include a supplementary figure showing the research area (municipality) within the context of the country. Given the article’s focus on tourism, the research area information should be briefly supplemented with basic details about tourism assets and the role of tourism in the municipality.

-The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are well-described but should be part of the separate Theoretical Background section, placed before the research area presentation and after the introduction. Additionally, the current version lacks information on how and by which institution the SDGs were developed. This should be briefly described in relation to the UN’s efforts in creating Agenda 2030 and promoting the SDGs.

- The Methods section should provide a more detailed description of direct observation. Specifically, how this method was implemented, what the observation objectives were, the timeframe of the study, the area and objects observed, etc. These details are crucial for the research methodology and need to be included. It should also be clarified whether and why only the F&B sector was considered in the field research.

- The Results should be elaborated further by providing examples (short case studies) and/or specific data to support the analysis.

- The Discussion must be grounded in scientific literature. Currently, it lacks connections to other published research results on similar topics.

- The Conclusions should present study limitations and future research directions, which are currently missing.

The text requires revisions and should be resubmitted for a second review.

 

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 4 for their thorough review and constructive feedback. Please see the attachment. Modifications are highlighted in orange to facilitate the editorial process.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript offers an important and original contribution to the understanding of social entrepreneurship (SE) in rural tourism communities, specifically through the lens of a systemic approach applied in Yecapixtla, Mexico. The literature review is thorough and the selection of SDGs relevant to the context is well-justified. The application of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) provides an innovative angle that enhances the understanding of complex community dynamics. However, the methods section could be more clearly articulated, particularly regarding the procedures for direct observation and field note analysis. Clarifying how field observations were systematically recorded and interpreted would strengthen the methodological rigor. Additionally, while the English is generally clear, several sections would benefit from minor editing to improve flow and precision of expression.

Overall, the work is valuable and with minor improvements in clarity and English editing, it will be a strong contribution to the journal’s readership.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is generally good, and the meaning is clear throughout the manuscript. However, there are occasional grammatical inaccuracies, awkward phrasings, and overly long sentences that affect the flow and precision of the text. I recommend a careful language editing to enhance clarity, readability, and academic tone before publication.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 5 for their encouraging assessment and valuable suggestions. We appreciate the recognition of the manuscript’s originality, methodological innovation, and relevance to the SDGs. Below we address the specific comments:

Comment: The methods section could be more clearly articulated, particularly regarding the procedures for direct observation and field note analysis.

Response: We have revised the Methods section (Pages 7-9) to provide a clearer and more structured description of the procedures used during fieldwork. This includes details on the number of visits, the use of observation guides and field diaries, and the criteria used to categorise and interpret the observations. These changes enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the methodological approach.

Comment: Clarifying how field observations were systematically recorded and interpreted would strengthen the methodological rigor.

Response: Thank you for this observation. A dedicated paragraph (Lines 334-354) has been added to describe how field data were registered, organised, and interpreted through the application of SSM. This explanation reinforces the methodological rigour of the study and justifies the systemic categorisation of actor relationships and tensions within the SE system.

Comment : Minor editing is needed to improve flow and precision of expression.

Response: The entire manuscript has been reviewed for clarity and coherence. Several sections were rewritten or restructured to enhance readability and academic tone, especially in the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections. We have also adopted more concise and precise formulations throughout the text to ensure that the meaning is clearly conveyed without unnecessary complexity.

 

Once again, we are grateful for the reviewer’s insightful feedback, which has contributed significantly to improving the overall quality and clarity of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript had been improved!

Congratulation for your interesting study!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I commend the authors for their diligent and thoughtful incorporation of the my comments and suggestions. The revised manuscript reflects a substantial improvement in both clarity and scientific rigor. The resulting study constitutes a meaningful contribution to the field and exemplifies the value of a thorough and constructive peer review process. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the article titled "Social Entrepreneurship and SDGs in Rural Tourism Communities: A Systemic Approach in Yecapixtla, Morelos, Mexico" for the second time. The article has been significantly improved. The theoretical framework has been clearly separated into a distinct section within the introduction, the description of the study area has been expanded, SDG's have been further described, and the study limitations and directions for future research have been added. In my opinion, the authors have substantially revised the article.
However, I note a few minor issues. The study aims could be relocated to the beginning of the introduction, as they are currently placed in the literature review (page 3, line 95). Additionally, the results section could be enhanced with more insightful data. These are minor recommendations, and I leave it to the editors’ discretion to decide whether further revisions are necessary. Overall, the article has been sufficiently improved, and I recommend it for publication.