Attractive Landscape Features as Drivers for Sustainable Mountain Tourism Experiences
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please, the authors pay attention to these sentences: "Previous studies of agri-tourism development in Europe and beyond [10–110 12], and respective literature reviews represent a precursor to analysis for this paper. As mountain tourism can be conceived as a specific type of rural tourism, the focus will be on delineating the specificities in tourism activities in these spatial contexts. A common thread is that attractiveness is based on topography, aesthetic appeal, options for outdoor activity and the notions of landscape as distinct from other rural areas. In this perspective landscapes are not as much understood as “pristine areas” but as places that are shaped by human activity and thus largely dependent on socio-economic activities, types of tourism activities selected and strategies for making use of these spaces. The literature review will thus stress the need to shift mountain tourism approaches increasingly towards sustainable pathways that would enable the realization of resilient place-based strategies." It sounds quite ambiguous because of the evidence of the different levels of the anthropization of the rural environment against the mountains. In paragraph 3.1 'Literature review', we find some argumentation (you see from 207 to 216): "In conceptual terms, various concepts of mountain tourism types can be discerned [16] which represent divergent strategies, but nevertheless might overlap to some extent. In particular, these refer to “rural tourism”, “agritourism”, “ecotourism”, “community-209 based tourism”, “cultural tourism” and different types of “niche tourism” which e.g. might link to gastronomic features, sports or other well-being focus. The Alps have been realized very early as a model of mountain tourism for other mountain ranges [4]. Like the Alpine Convention, also global assessment of mountain tourism performance called increasingly for prioritizing socio-cultural needs and environmental impacts [3], local community development [6] as core drivers for shifts towards sustainable development trajectories [14; 17-19]." In my opinion, this is the crucial base of the paper: it needs to anticipate the principal reference the authors have chosen both in the introduction (in the sense of environmental sustainability, not only social and economic dimensions) and in the 3.1 paragraph. My advice is that the authors clarify what is, in the literature, the carrying capacity of the mountain environment with which MV policies must deal. The only respect for protected areas may not suffice.
Motivating if 23 interviews are sufficient for the research is very important. I think could be useful to make a comparison between this case study and others in the literature.
Author Response
Comment: Please, the authors pay attention to these sentences: "Previous studies of agri-tourism development in Europe and beyond [10–110 12], and respective literature reviews represent a precursor to analysis for this paper. As mountain tourism can be conceived as a specific type of rural tourism, the focus will be on delineating the specificities in tourism activities in these spatial contexts. A common thread is that attractiveness is based on topography, aesthetic appeal, options for outdoor activity and the notions of landscape as distinct from other rural areas. In this perspective landscapes are not as much understood as “pristine areas” but as places that are shaped by human activity and thus largely dependent on socio-economic activities, types of tourism activities selected and strategies for making use of these spaces. The literature review will thus stress the need to shift mountain tourism approaches increasingly towards sustainable pathways that would enable the realization of resilient place-based strategies." It sounds quite ambiguous because of the evidence of the different levels of the anthropization of the rural environment against the mountains.
Answer by authors: Thank you for your comments and pointing by focusing on these sentences on teh ambiguity of tourism development in mountain areas. It is particularly concern for the divergence of tourism development that inspires this paper. We address the situation of „overtourism“ in some (small) parts of mountain areas (and regions), particularly in the Alps, and juxtapose them to new initiatives, like the Mountainering Villages scheme. In order to emphasize and clarify trhis point further we included an additional statement on the ambiguity of developments and our paper’s orientation in the outline of the methodological approach of the paper (lines 131-135).
Comment: In paragraph 3.1 'Literature review', we find some argumentation (you see from 207 to 216): "In conceptual terms, various concepts of mountain tourism types can be discerned [16] which represent divergent strategies, but nevertheless might overlap to some extent. In particular, these refer to “rural tourism”, “agritourism”, “ecotourism”, “community-209 based tourism”, “cultural tourism” and different types of “niche tourism” which e.g. might link to gastronomic features, sports or other well-being focus. The Alps have been realized very early as a model of mountain tourism for other mountain ranges [4]. Like the Alpine Convention, also global assessment of mountain tourism performance called increasingly for prioritizing socio-cultural needs and environmental impacts [3], local community development [6] as core drivers for shifts towards sustainable development trajectories [14; 17-19]." In my opinion, this is the crucial base of the paper: it needs to anticipate the principal reference the authors have chosen both in the introduction (in the sense of environmental sustainability, not only social and economic dimensions) and in the 3.1 paragraph.
Answer by authors: Thank you for indicating this as crucial base of the paper. We have addressed in teh introduction (and later in the discussion section) the importance to assess sustainable development in a holistic way. To support this we refer to the long-term engagement of CIPRA who started on teh ecologicla assessment and concern for the Alps decades ago, and led to the establishment of the Alpine Convention. This is underlined by references of Alpine Convention’s survey study (reference 7) and the analysis of UNWTO on sustainable mountain tourism (reference 6). See also next point.
Comment: My advice is that the authors clarify what is, in the literature, the carrying capacity of the mountain environment with which MV policies must deal. The only respect for protected areas may not suffice.
Answer by authors: As we had hardly argued on the concept of „carrying capacity“ in our first submitted version, we included that aspect in the revised version, integrating some aspects about the potential role of „upper limits“ for tourism development of a region. In the MV case the objective ist o remain significantly below those levels, and to use the gap as a particular asset for attracting specific types of tourist groups. Moreover, we have indicated in various text passages that „protected areas“ are jsut an indicator for the situation and not the only goal for ecological quality development. We have strengthened that argument through additional text in the revised version.
Comment: Motivating if 23 interviews are sufficient for the research is very important. I think could be useful to make a comparison between this case study and others in the literature.
Answer by authors: We have extended the arguments why teh respective emthod of analysing three municipalities and ist main local actors was chosen, and we have added supporting literature references to this approach. In addition in the discussion section we had referred to a number of studies on MV which have been carried out recently (see references 23, 54, 62, 73) and we included further literature on this comparative aspect (refeences 64, 65 and 71).
Hopefully, we have addressed all your concerns and can provide an improved version of the paper through this revised manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, I thank to author(s) for the clarity and the subject to refers of the study. Secondly, the study will be better if the importance of the mountain tourism or rural tourism especially after the Covid-19. On the other hand the Alps are the most known places not only for the Austrian tourism but also for other countries. So it will be good to emphasize the statistical data or the comparible knowledge about this. The other important thing is the methodological aspect of the study is weak. In a section it says limited interviews was engaged, but the information about the interviews are limited. The study should be improved with its data collection and analysis process thus it will make the study stronger than it is. Lastly, the reference list of the paper could not checked due to its lack. So it is necessary to see paper after its corrections.
Author Response
Comment: First of all, I thank to author(s) for the clarity and the subject to refers of the study.
Answer by authors: Thank you for this comment on the clarity and subject presentation of the study. In our view, this is an important aspect of tourism development and potential future changes in tourism behaviour.
Comment: Secondly, the study will be better if the importance of the mountain tourism or rural tourism especially after the Covid-19.
Answer by authors: As the study was carried out at teh beginning and during the pandemic, we could not analyse changes after the pandemic. However, we agree that the pandemic might have significant impacts on tourism patterns, particularly related to mountain tourism and the selection of various intensity of tourism types. Nevertheless we included recent literature on first stage assessment of envisaged changes due to COVID-19 which were carried out for the Alps (see reference 71) and extended discussion on this aspect in our revised version.
Comment: On the other hand the Alps are the most known places not only for the Austrian tourism but also for other countries. So it will be good to emphasize the statistical data or the comparible knowledge about this.
Answer by authors: In teh introduction we mention the global dimension of mountain tourism which shows the opportunties and challenges of mountain tourism development; also in the discussion section we relate to other similar intiatives across diverse mountain ranges and refer to examples of mountaineering as an important type to tourism. To underline this point we have adderd the most recent numbers published by FAO and UNWTO on global tourism (reference 19) which are provided in ordert o enable improved understanding of the drivers and obstacles for mountain tourism in diverse contexts.
Comment: The other important thing is the methodological aspect of the study is weak. In a section it says limited interviews was engaged, but the information about the interviews are limited. The study should be improved with its data collection and analysis process thus it will make the study stronger than it is.
Answer by authors: We have tried to synthesize information on empirical work to the required minimum to understand the selection of methods, tools applied and findings to be cocnluded from the approach of qualitative analysis. We habve explained this approach through additional information and also underline in the revision the focus on local actors assessment, investigation of endogenous involvement, the role of networks etc. which led to the sample of interviewees included in the research. The underlying study was one step in collecting information which was a supplement to widespread detailed available literature on the implementation of MV scheme in the particpating municipalities, supported also by further studies accessed to inform the analysis of MV performance (through analysis of agri-tourism in Austria, and the general tourism monitoring scheme used for the results differentiating between MV and other rural tourism im Austria).
Comment: Lastly, the reference list of the paper could not checked due to its lack. So it is necessary to see paper after its corrections.
Answer by authors: We don’t understand completely this concern as the reference list with 72 references was part of the submitted paper. As mentioned above, we have added literature according to the review requirements, particularly in field of emthodological tools and reference to the study approach, measurment of global tourism, further aspects of discussing ecological value and limits of mountain tourism, and comparison of our study results with other studies on MV scheme across the Alps, but also with regard to mountaineering development, in general.
We hope that all these amendments and additional explanations in the manuscript provide an improved revised paper and take account of all your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
no other comments
Author Response
Thank you for your approval to the submitted manuscript in the second review round. We appreciate your previous comments in teh first round and thank you for the improvements made possible through those comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is good enough to make its point. It contributes to the literature and highlights the points of the sustainable mountain tourism development in the Austrian case. Inferences are fairly good for the mountain tourism stakeholders.
Author Response
Thank you for your approval to the submitted manuscript in the second review round. We appreciate your previous comments in the first round and thank you for the improvements made possible through those comments.
