Tourism, Value Appropriation, and Ecological Degradation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
heThe manuscript proposed an alternative (Marxist) theoretical framework for the explication of the development of commodified tourism, and the role of ecological and cultural (value) appropriation in the determination of capitalist profitability, and its developmental implications. The current mode of tourism development is ecologically and socially unsustainable, and it may be ended with a broad outline of a different perspective of decommodified tourism within a post-capitalist development. It’s important for sustainable tourism.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your time and patience to read my manuscript. In the revised version of my paper, I have largely taken into account your suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is strong in the sense that it challenges a widely accepted phenomenon in a rapidly developing sector namely sustainable tourism
It has sufficiently engaged and discussed the relevant literature with some secondary research findings.
However there is not sufficient work on Marxist approach to tourism development. With this kind of ambitious theoretical argument I would have liked to see a more empirical qualitative research methodology supporting the author's hypothesis. A survey or Interviews with relevant people in the field and their results discussed with published literature could have helped making original contribution to knowledge. But given time constraints this could be limited to just structured questions to selected main players in "sustainable tourism".
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your time and patience to read my manuscript. In the revised version of my paper, I have largely taken into account your remarks or suggestions, especially in my introductory and concluding sections.
Regarding Point 3 of your suggestions, my response is rather limited, due to time and space constraints. I must say, however, that I have intentionally restricted myself to a theoretical analysis of the issues involved. The empirical investigation of the relevant phenomena would be a different project, as suggested in my response.
Reviewer 3 Report
While the article attempts to provide a fresh perspective on tourism development by proposing a Marxist theoretical framework, there are several significant issues that prevent the paper from being recommended for publication.
The content description and contextualization with respect to previous and present theoretical background need improvement. The article should provide a more comprehensive review of the existing literature and better situate the proposed framework within the broader field of tourism research.
The research design, methodology, and results sections are major areas of concern. The paper lacks a clear research design, and the authors fail to provide adequate details on the specific methods used to analyze the data or support their claims. The results section is also unclear, making it difficult for readers to understand the paper's key findings and their implications.
The coherence and balance of the arguments and discussion can be improved. The authors should revise the paper to present a more structured and logical argument, addressing the potential weaknesses and limitations of their approach.
The conclusions presented in the article are not thoroughly supported by the results or the referenced secondary literature. The authors should strengthen their conclusions by better linking them to the evidence provided in the paper.
Due to the substantial issues identified in the research design, methodology, and results sections, I cannot recommend this paper for publication in its current form. The authors should address these critical concerns before resubmitting their manuscript.
Moderate editing is required to improve the clarity and flow of the English language.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your time and patience to read my manuscript. In the revised version of my paper, I have partly taken into account your suggestions and comments, but time or other constraints have not allowed me to more extensively respond to your points, as you might wish.
Points 2 & 3 of your comments are partly taken into account in the amendments made in the introductory and the concluding sections of my paper. Points 4 & 5 of your comments are also taken into account in the amendments made in my last section, where I highlight the limitations of my research effort and suggest some areas for further research, including empirical research. But I must say that my paper is not an empirical research and does not include a sufficient empirical support. My more limited ambition is to contribute, as far as I can, to a development of a theoretical approach allowing a better understanding of the relevant phenomena.
Reviewer 4 Report
This research deals with a very interesting and recently updated topic. I would like to congratulate the authors for their great work. However, small changes should be incorporated to improve the article.
First, the introduction does not adequately write the objectives pursued by the research. It should be improved. In addition, it would be interesting to add a paragraph that outlines the structure of the article.
Regarding the theoretical framework, the references should be updated.
Be careful in some references that are misquoted.
It would be interesting to include a discussion of results section.
What do the authors propose as future lines of research? What are the limitations of the article?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your time and patience to read my manuscript. Given the time and other constraints that I face, I have tried to take your suggestions into account with minor corrections and some longer amendments, especially in the introductory and the concluding section of my revised paper. That is my response to Point 1 of your comments.
Regarding Point 2 of your comments, I have tried in my introduction to present the reasons for the methodological/theoretical orientation of my article and to more clearly state the main objectives of this research.
Your Point 3: I am not aware of any more recent publications in the area where I am focusing. Any suggestions would be of help.
Your Point 4: It would be more helpful if you pointed out more specifically the case(s) where I may have misquoted the work of others.
Your Points 5 & 6 are largely taken into account in my amendment in the concluding section where I highlight the limitations of my research effort and suggest areas for further research.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Although the manuscript was not updated with stronger evidence based research the paper was defended as a more guiding tool for further research and discussions in an interesting and original topic.
As this was clearly stated in the updated version the paper can now be published in its revised form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you again for your comments and your support.
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract: The abstract provides a clear overview of the paper's content. However, it could be improved by providing a more concise summary of the key findings and their implications.
Methodology: The methodology section is well-detailed, but it should be improved by providing more information on the data collection process and the rationale behind the chosen methods.
Results: The results should be improved by providing more visual aids, such as graphs or tables, to help readers better understand the data.
Discussion: could be improved by providing a more balanced view of the topic, considering alternative perspectives or interpretations of the results.
Conclusion: should be improved by providing more specific recommendations for future research or practical applications of the findings.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you once again for your comments and suggestions, which I appreciate.
Responding to your 1st suggestion, I have somehow modified my Abstract. Given time constraints, I have not responded to your Points 2 & 3. Taking your Points 4 & 5 into account, I have inserted an amendment in the concluding section of my article and provided an additional reference at the end. All these changes are highlighted in gray color.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have incorporated all the suggested modifications and the manuscript has improved considerably - congratulations!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you once again for your comments and your support, which I greatly appreciate.
