Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

In general, I am very supportive of publishing case studies concerning a particular destination, especially those that have not received much attention previously. Please see my suggestions on how this manuscript can be improved.

SECTION Introduction.

This section needs substantial revision. It should more forcefully and clearly communicate the purpose of the study. Since the purpose involves specific competing models, all abbreviations that the authors use in the paper need decoding. MIRAB, TOURAB, SITE, and SID need to be decoded in the INTRO. Some initial explanation of what the models mean – as this directly ties to the purpose – might also be in order. It is supposed that the reader knows the difference between the models. Maybe some of them do, but not all. Additionally, consider joining paras that have less than three sentences with other paras for a better flow. Stick to one name for the country – Cabo Verde or Cape Verde.

SECTION Literature Review.

This section consists of two aspects. One is an explanation of the models, and the other is how the model components are reflected in the research. The authors need more work on the structure of their review; as of now, it is not well organized. Why does MIRAB allow the CV to be resilient (page 3, para 3)? What is the connection? Regarding writing, the same comment: consider joining paras that have less than three sentences with other paras for a better flow.

SECTION Overview of Cape Verde.

This section is packed with a lot of relevant information, which shows that the authors indeed know the subject of their study. In terms of improvement, I suggest they pay attention to the flow of their narrative and rearrange textual segments a little. For example, start with the opening sentence of para 3 (Cape Verde is a small archipelago…) and then continue with the first sentence of para 1 (Cape Verde islands were discovered…). Consider joining some small paras together (see para 1 on page 5). Para 2 on page 5 has repeats: you do not need “good governance” after points (i), (ii), and (iii). In articles like this one, a geographical map showing the location would be welcome, too.

SECTION Methodology.

This section starts with a description of the data series obtained from three reputable sources. However, the authors should start by explaining their overall approach. They need to tell the reader what kind of data they will be using to achieve the purpose of their study and why it is appropriate. What method they will be using and why. Only then do they move to a description of the data, which needs to be detailed and well-structured.

Several points need clarification:

·       Para 1 on page 7 – do the authors refer to Figure 3 (if so, what they claim is not evident) or to the cited source [17]?

·       Why do the authors need hypotheses if correlations from Table 2 already tell us that GDP is correlated with each potential predictor?

·       Did the previous studies that used the TOURAB model already establish that those variables are predictors?

·       How is the GDP of Cabo Verde calculated? Do the authors propose to change how GDP is calculated? It is not clear what the phrase “the potential to contribute to GDP development” means (p. 7, hypotheses). One needs to discuss what economic mechanisms would justify those changes.

·       In the models of economic development, it is a common practice to account for a time trend and major events like Covid-19. What was the reason for not doing this?

·       Since some predictors are substantially correlated, what about the multicollinearity effect in the model?

·       Why are standard errors robust in the model with 22 data points (p. 8, para 1).

·       Finally, the INTRO part gave me the impression that the authors wanted to justify moving from the MIRAB model to the TOURAB model, so they could compare the predictive power of both models. This goes directly to my early point that the purpose of the study needs to be clarified.

·       Minor comments: Figure 4 is not needed. Tables must spell out what variables’ names stand for.

SECTIONS Conclusion and Managerial impact.

In Conclusion, focus on discussing the results and formulating the main conclusion points with respect to the original purpose of the paper. As of now, there are repeats from previous sections that describe the country and small islands' economies in general.

Managerial implications (i), (ii), and (iii) – how do they follow from the results? Explain.

What are the limitations of the study?

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Very minor edits can be made, and Grammarly software, which is free, will be enough to take care of those. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for the important considerations and comments you have made. We have fully answered the questions and comments.

We have also significantly rewritten and corrected almost all the parts of the document where there were any kind of similarities. Thus, now, we are almost sure that we have succeeded in considerably diminishing this undesirable percentage of similarity as well as English revision of the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

First sentence needs to be restructured.

 

Literature review

The intro refers to Cape Verde as a micro state. Can this be defined?

Noting the context of this paper, reference to the impact island economies faced because of the pandemic must be made. Several papers have been published on this matter, some argue that the lack of diversification is a threat for economic growth of the islands.

  

Overview of Capeverde

A map showing the island and its position should be added.

 

Managerial impact

The author/s mentioned that waste management is an issue. What measures are needed as the island state transitions to a TOURAB economic model.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article is well written and contributes to the field of island studies. I suggest publishing following minor revisions. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the important considerations and comments you have made. We have fully answered the questions and comments you kindly made.

We have also significantly rewritten and corrected almost all the parts of the document where there were any kind of similarities. Thus, now, we are almost sure that this version is better than the previous one thanks to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is the second review of the manuscript tourismhosp-2788584 Cape Verde: islands of vulnerability or resilience? A transition from a MIRAB model into a TOURAB one?

Unfortunately, the reply letter has very little specifics in explaining what changes and in which parts of the manuscript have been made. For example, in response to a paragraph with critique and suggestions about the Litreview section, the authors answered: “Thank you for this recommendation. We have done this change that turned the document to be more comprehensive” – this is not helpful at all!

For an effective reviewing process, the letter should include the agree/disagree response and the page and the para where the changes, if any, were made. Additionally, the Track Changes mode in a PDF file is not helpful, especially if the changes are numerous, it is better to highlight newly added segments.

SECTION Introduction.

Substantial revision was recommended in the first review. The authors made some revisions, but the substance and structure of the section have been only partially improved. The main thing is the vagueness of the study's purpose. It is buried in the middle of the section while it should be the conclusion of it. The new para about a discussion of what microstates are should go earlier than the purpose of the study.

Minor comments. The text needs proofreading for grammar. When the author first mentions MIRAB and TOURAB (para 3), only the latter is deciphered. MIRAB is first deciphered in the Abstract, which is a special and separate part of the article. By the time the purpose of the study is formulated, there is no need to explain abbreviations.   

SECTION Literature Review.

The newly added para below is an explanation (part of it) of what MIRAB model is. It should go earlier in the section, possibly after the first sentence.

The MIRAB model looks at the importance of remittances for the survival of SIDS. It also highlights the need for improved access to international financial services and invest[1]ment in infrastructure. Finally, it recognises the need for international support for SIDS in order to reduce their economic vulnerabilities [4, 16, 17].

The authors need more work on the structure of their review as now it is not well organized. Why does MIRAB allow the CV to be resilient (page 3, para 3)? What is the connection? This comment is from the previous review and I do not see how it is answered.

Minor comments. No need to explain MIRAB. “Although Cape Verde has long suffered from these issues,…” – not clear which issues the authors are referring. Proofread for clarity of expression.

SECTION Overview of Cape Verde.

Overall, this is a solid section. Please note: the name – Cape Verde/Cabo Verde – should be on the map.

SECTION Methodology.

How what the authors are doing relates to the purpose of the study is not clear to me. I am not an economist, so maybe giving the paper to review by someone with relevant expertise would help the authors to clarify. To me, the authors need to show why regressing GDP on variables Remittances, Foreign Direct Investment, Public Aid, and Tourism Receipts contributes to the purpose of their study: potential change of classification from a MIRAB (Migrations, Remittances, Aid and Bureau[1]cracy) model to a TOURAB (tourism, aid and bureaucracy).

Here are remaining original comments:

·       Why do the authors need hypotheses if correlations from Table 2 already tell us that GDP is correlated with each potential predictor?

o   REPLY: You are absolutely right. This should have been presented earlier and we have made that modification.

o   Reviewer: I do not see any changes. The question is not answered, either.

·       Did the previous studies that used the TOURAB model already establish that those variables are predictors?

o   REPLY: No reply

·       It is not clear what the phrase “the potential to contribute to GDP development” means (p. 7, hypotheses). One needs to discuss what economic mechanisms would justify those changes.

o   REPLY: You are quite right. This issue has been discussed previously in the theoretical discussion where we have presented the various development models where we saw in each one what the main variables affecting GDP. That´s why, we just stressed this, but we have added some mor information inside this section about this.

o   Reviewer: I do not understand what the authors refer to.

·       In the models of economic development, it is a common practice to account for a time trend and major events like Covid-19. What was the reason for not doing this?

o   REPLY: Thank for this important comment. You are right about this, but we have decided to focus our analysis on the whole evolution between 2000 and 2021. We have not strictly focused on COVID because this was a world event that affected almost all these kinds of small economies and therefore we decided to analyze all the flows because they would all be affected by this situation.

o   Reviewer: why not run the analyses with the trend? It will be cleaner.

·       Finally, the INTRO part gave me an impression that the authors wanted to justify moving from the MIRAB model to the TOURAB model, so they would compare the predictive power of both models. This goes directly to my early point that the purpose of the study needs to be clarified.

o   REPLY: No reply.

SECTIONS Conclusion and Managerial impact.

In the first round, I suggested that the authors would focus on discussing the results and formulating the main conclusion points concerning the original purpose of the paper and remove the repetitions. While there have been some revisions, the authors did not properly address the issue and need to work on it.

There was also a recommendation to show how Managerial implications (i), (ii), and (iii) follow from the results. The authors included a new para but did not show how those recommendations follow from their analyses. Some of these recommendations are external to the study. For example, how does this follow from the study?

“As for dams, it is imperative to improve management and maintenance mechanisms and to build new hydraulic works to retain water, but with appropriate techniques, rational costs and economic efficiency, thus allowing the country to strengthen its agricultural capacity and adapt to the climate changes.” (page 13, para 2).

Limitations have been addressed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please proofread for accuracy of expression. 

Author Response

Thank you for your important comments.

We have answered all the previous questions you made the first time, even though in some cases you seem to desagree. So, we have been more incisive in our actual answers and in this letter, once again we have tried to justify and reply to all questions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I appreciate your revisions. However, I feel that we do not hear each other on some points. Let me focus on a few of these.

TOURAB (tourism, aid and bureaucracy)

MIRAB (Migrations, Remittances, Aid and Bureaucracy)

Purpose of the study (P. 2, para 3):

“Thus, the current research tries to analyse Cape Verde’s situation and its poten[1]tial change of classification from a MIRAB (Migrations, Remittances, Aid and Bureau[1]cracy) model to a TOURAB (tourism, aid and bureaucracy) or SITE (small island tourism economy) model reflecting the changing nature of national economy and its taxonomy”

At the end of the INTRO section, you state that:

“Next, the methodology is explained. Third, this section examines the importance of the various variables of the MIRAB model in Cape Verde.”

Section Methodology starts with:

“Here is intended to analyse, according to the presented models, how, Remittances of Emigrants (RE), Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), Public development Aid (PDA) and Tourism receipts (TR) have the potential to contribute to Gross domestic product (GDP) development in Cape Verde. These were the most important variables towards a devel[1]opment path in the traditional models and therefore we will use them to Cape Verde”

It is not clear what model you are talking about. According to the Introduction, it should be MIRAB, but TR indicates TOURAB. The purpose of the study is to investigate whether for CV you can move from MIRAB to TOURAB model. Why does regressing GDP on four variables (presumably TOURAB variables) establish that? Has MIRAB model been established in a similar way, through regression? Is the difference between MIRAB and TouRAB only one variable TR? These things need clarifications.

In your study, you test four hypotheses through a regression model:

H1: Remittances (RE) have the potential to contribute to GDP growth.

H2: Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has the potential to contribute to GDP growth.

H3: Public Development Aid (AID) has the potential to contribute to GDP growth.

H4: Tourism Receipts (TR) have the potential to contribute to GDP growth.

Thus, your data includes 5 variables. How does your conclusion about water and dams follow from that regression model? Of course, Cape Verde has a lot of issues, and improvements need to be made in many sectors, including water and dams. But unless you connect the water issue to the variables/results of the model, your segment about water does not follow from your study, it is simply a general recommendation. You could have added other good recommendations as well.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some proofreading is needed.

Author Response

Thank you for your questions and comments.

We have answered all your questions and in the reply letter (as the final version of the text) you can see them. The only thing that is not in this letter is the paragraph that was removed in the text, but you can see it in the final version of the document.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf