Residents’ Well-Being and Sustainable Governance in Island Tourism: The Evidence from Aceh, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

This manuscript significantly adds to the literature, critiques the TALC and addresses a generally under-researched area- QoL of residences in tourism destinations, especially in and on islands. Moreover. focusing on the governance and policy aspects of sustainable tourism is also addressing a relatively ignored aspect of sustainable development and more specifically sustainable tourism. 

One observation though, is that the case is an island, and maybe implications of sustainable development in an island context could be addressed. This may require an additional theoretical lens of islands studies. In other words it may be good to see if the fact that the case is an island, whether or not there are any nuances that may affect the perceptions of the island residents' QoL. This suggestion, however, is optional. 

However, I think that section 6.3 "Policy and managerial recommendations" can be expanded and further developed and explained. The short sentences used to explain the recommendations can be expanded. 

Here, again such recommendations can be crafted generally and specifically towards island policy makers, as this is an island case. Again this is optional. 

Author Response

We authors sincerely thank all reviewers for their invaluable insights, which have enriched and strengthened our manuscript. Our responses and clarifications are summarized in the attached file.

We trust these clarifications and targeted revisions fully address each reviewer’s concerns while preserving the manuscript’s core contributions. Please let us know if the Editors would like further elaboration or additional evidence in any section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

Dear authors

Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled “Residents’ Well-Being and Sustainable Governance in Island Tourism: Evidence from Aceh” to the MDPI journal Tourism and Hospitality. This paper addresses a significantly underexplored area within sustainable tourism development—specifically, the well-being-centered dimension of tourism governance. As such, it represents a valuable contribution to the field and aligns closely with the scope of MDPI Sustainability, particularly with its Special Issue on “Tourism Sustainomics: Ecological and Economic Pillars, with Stakeholder and Political Implementation for Sustainable Development.”

However, some areas of the submitted manuscript would benefit from further refinement to enhance clarity and academic rigor.

In regard to title and Contextual Clarification I suggest to think to slightly revise the title for better clarity. The current title is well-structured, successfully communicating the focus and actual geographical scope of the study. However, for an international readership, it would be helpful to specify that the case study pertains to Indonesian islands. Additionally, while the research is sound, the discussion lacks adequate contextual grounding and the discussion remains technical. No background information is provided on the tourism characteristics of the Aceh islands under study. A brief contextual paragraph outlining the tourism profile of the islands would significantly improve the relevance and interpretation of the findings. The discussion should be revised accordingly to anchor the results within the real tourism context of the destinations studied.

There is a room for theoretical framework enhancement. The manuscript would benefit from a more explicit integration of its theoretical basis with established and emerging knowledge and discussion in the sustainable development paradigm. In particular, attention should be given to the psychological and socio-political dimensions of sustainable tourism, including well-being and sustainable tourism governance, e.g. implementation. I suggest incorporating theoretical insights from known sources, such as Buhalis’s Encyclopaedia of Tourism Management and Marketing (Buhalis, 2022, see entry on Tourism Sustainability Paradigm). Clarifying your governance conceptualization—perhaps in relation to the triple model of strategic leadership, governance mechanisms, and implementation/execution—would help structure your arguments and increase the theoretical robustness of your analysis.

In regard to Presentation of Results and SEM I would suggest the author revisit the following areas. The Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is technically well-executed and clearly presented. However, the clarity of the results would be improved by including a standard SEM diagram that visually represents the constructs, variables, pathways, and coefficients in accordance with SEM graphical conventions. Ensure all figures and tables include informative captions, clear legends, and that any links to datasets or supplementary material are functional. It would also be helpful to provide more detailed information on how survey statements were measured (and descriptive statistics presented, here I refer to items in Table 1 in Appendix). I know the researcher dilemma with selection of tables included into the limited space of the manuscript, but my suggestion would be to integrate these items table and its descriptives in the main body of the text, please consider.

I am optimistic about the potential contribution of this manuscript to the ongoing development of sustainable tourism scholarship, especially through its emphasis on well-being and sustainable tourism governance. With the minor improvements suggested above, I believe the paper will be a strong addition to the emerging scholarly network on sustainable tourism of how to make tourism sustainable.

I recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication in the Sustainability Special Issue, pending minor revisions.

However, several areas would benefit from further refinement to enhance clarity and academic rigor.

In regard to title and Contextual Clarification I suggest to think to slightly revise the title for better clarity. The current title is well-structured, successfully communicating the focus and actual geographical scope of the study. However, for an international readership, it would be helpful to specify that the case study pertains to Indonesian islands. Additionally, while the research is sound, the discussion lacks adequate contextual grounding and the discussion remains technical. No background information is provided on the tourism characteristics of the Aceh islands under study. A brief contextual paragraph outlining the tourism profile of the islands would significantly improve the relevance and interpretation of the findings. The discussion should be revised accordingly to anchor the results within the real tourism context of the destinations studied.

There is a room for theoretical framework enhancement. The manuscript would benefit from a more explicit integration of its theoretical basis with established and emerging knowledge and discussion in the sustainable development paradigm. In particular, attention should be given to the psychological and socio-political dimensions of sustainable tourism, including well-being and sustainable tourism governance, e.g. implementation. I suggest incorporating theoretical insights from known sources, such as Buhalis’s Encyclopaedia of Tourism Management and Marketing (Buhalis, 2022, see entry on Tourism Sustainability Paradigm). Clarifying your governance conceptualization—perhaps in relation to the triple model of strategic leadership, governance mechanisms, and implementation/execution—would help structure your arguments and increase the theoretical robustness of your analysis.

In regard to Presentation of Results and SEM I would suggest the author revisit the following areas. The Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is technically well-executed and clearly presented. However, the clarity of the results would be improved by including a standard SEM diagram that visually represents the constructs, variables, pathways, and coefficients in accordance with SEM graphical conventions. Ensure all figures and tables include informative captions, clear legends, and that any links to datasets or supplementary material are functional. It would also be helpful to provide more detailed information on how survey statements were measured (and descriptive statistics presented, here I refer to items in Table 1 in Appendix). I know the researcher dilemma with selection of tables included into the limited space of the manuscript, but my suggestion would be to integrate these items table and its descriptives in the main body of the text, please consider.

I am optimistic about the potential contribution of this manuscript to the ongoing development of sustainable tourism scholarship, especially through its emphasis on well-being and sustainable tourism governance. With the minor improvements suggested above, I believe the paper will be a strong addition to the emerging scholarly network on sustainable tourism of how to make tourism sustainable.

I recommend acceptance to special issue after minor revisions.

Author Response

We authors sincerely thank all reviewers for their invaluable insights, which have enriched and strengthened our manuscript. Our responses and clarifications are summarized in the attached file.

We trust these clarifications and targeted revisions fully address each reviewer’s concerns while preserving the manuscript’s core contributions. Please let us know if the Editors would like further elaboration or additional evidence in any section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Residents’ Well-Being and Sustainable Governance in Island Tourism: The Evidence from Aceh

 

Line 73 Further detail describing Aceh and the region is needed

Line 104. A plethora of hospitality and tourism exist noting both positive and negative impacts upon residents and communities…some of which relate to island countries. I recommend that the authors seek out studies from the Caribbean region and include them within this section.

Line 130 to 135. This section is crucial to the thesis of this manuscript and therefore requires a more detailed summary of governmental policies and procedures which are impacting, both positive and negatively, resident lifestyles and community impacts. This is important given that in line 153 to 156 the authors indicate that the ‘how do governance mechanisms evolve, or fail to evolve’ is a central premise of their study. Also, relative to governmental policies the authors need to clarify if they are referencing micro, macro, or both types of ‘planning’ bodies.

Line 210 to 222. The authors have provided demographic sampling indicators….however, what other selection criteria were used…such as direct impacts relating to tourist use of existing services which impact their daily lives? In short, what parameters defined ‘local engagement.’

Materials and Methods section

The authors need to describe the factor loading process used to include and exclude question variables thus providing rationale for item inclusion. At this point multicollinearity has not been sufficiently explained.

Analysis and Results section

The authors have appropriately applied the SEM process and included appropriate tables as well. However, what is being reported are residential perceptions of governmental polices which in effect severely hampers the validity of the provided findings given that a firm understanding of policies were not tested in this study. In essence, this is a severe weakness of this study.

Theoretical contributions section

The authors state that one of the primary theoretical contributions is a focus upon ‘matured infrastructure and stakeholder networks’. This reference is unclear given that an analysis of immature versus mature infrastructure and stakeholder networks was not sufficiently defined nor measured. Clarification is needed to support such a statement.

Note. When revising this manuscript, I strongly urge the authors to remain focused on the novelty of their research to the geographical context of an island country/context.

Author Response

We authors sincerely thank all reviewers for their invaluable insights, which have enriched and strengthened our manuscript. Our responses and clarifications are summarized in the attached file.

We trust these clarifications and targeted revisions fully address each reviewer’s concerns while preserving the manuscript’s core contributions. Please let us know if the Editors would like further elaboration or additional evidence in any section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Originality

While the integration of TALC, QoL, and STG is well-structured, it is unclear what specific theoretical innovation this paper offers. Has the model truly “extended” TALC theory or simply “applied” it in a new geographic context? If QoL is a mediator, how does this differ from prior QoL-centered governance frameworks (e.g., Ramkissoon, 2023)?

What new conceptual dimensions are added to TALC by this paper, beyond repackaging existing constructs? Could the authors articulate how their mediation model goes beyond the common QoL → support for tourism logic?

To strengthen originality, the authors could articulate clearer theoretical disruptions—e.g., redefining TALC stages based on governance typologies, or proposing a new construct such as “participatory maturity” as part of TALC.

2. Relationship to Literature

Although the literature cited is extensive, it is largely confirmatory and lacks engagement with critical or alternative paradigms.

Why were competing frameworks such as resilience theory or political ecology omitted?  How do the authors justify excluding seminal critiques of TALC, such as its colonial or extractive tendencies?

The authors should engage with more critical voices and reflect on power asymmetries in island tourism (e.g., Diedrich & García-Buades, 2009; Yanes et al., 2019). Including dissenting views would strengthen the conceptual depth and theoretical maturity.

3. Methodology

The authors use SEM appropriately, but key measurement and construct validity issues remain.

How were the TALC stages operationalized based on subjective resident perceptions? Was there any objective verification (e.g., tourism statistics, infrastructure records)?  Did the authors assess common method bias (CMB), given the mono-method, self-reported survey design?

Authors should triangulate TALC stage assignment with secondary data (e.g., tourism arrival trends). They should also conduct Harman’s one-factor test or a CFA marker technique to address CMB.

4. Results

The results are reported clearly, but interpretation is somewhat superficial.

The R² value for STG is only 17.4%. What other latent factors might be missing (e.g., trust in institutions, historical grievances)? Why is the QoL-STG link weaker in Simeulue? Could cultural or institutional factors explain this?

Authors should perform exploratory post hoc modeling to identify omitted predictors. They should also provide a culturally grounded discussion of inter-island differences.

5. Implications for Research, Practice and/or Society

Policy recommendations are generic and unmoored from context.

How feasible are digital dashboards or 4P partnerships in low-capacity island settings? Have similar interventions succeeded elsewhere in Southeast Asia?

Policy recommendations should be grounded in regional feasibility. Authors could conduct a contextual feasibility matrix or comparative benchmarking with ASEAN island cases.

6. Quality of Communication

The manuscript is mostly well-written, but repetitiveness and overstated claims detract from the scholarly tone.

Could the authors streamline redundant hypotheses and framework reiterations? Are claims of “robust blueprint” or “rights-based insights” supported by actual policy trials?

Tone down rhetorical flourishes, consolidate redundant content, and maintain an empirically grounded, neutral voice in abstract and conclusion.

Author Response

We authors sincerely thank all reviewers for their invaluable insights, which have enriched and strengthened our manuscript. Our responses and clarifications are summarized in the attached file.

We trust these clarifications and targeted revisions fully address each reviewer’s concerns while preserving the manuscript’s core contributions. Please let us know if the Editors would like further elaboration or additional evidence in any section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your detailed revisions and thoughtful responses to the first-round comments. The revised manuscript demonstrates a strong improvement in theoretical integration, methodological rigor, and clarity of argument. In particular, the integration of the Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) with residents’ quality of life (QoL) and sustainable tourism governance (STG) within a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework reflects a significant theoretical and empirical contribution.

However, a few minor issues remain that should be addressed to improve the final manuscript:

1. Theoretical Novelty Clarification

While the novelty claim is valid, it would strengthen the paper to elaborate more specifically on how this study goes beyond previous works, especially in operationalizing sustainable tourism governance. A clearer distinction from works such as Rasoolimanesh et al. (2020) and Spadaro et al. (2023) would be helpful.

2. Clarity in Figures and Tables

In Figure 2, please include standardized path coefficients and significance levels directly in the diagram. Also, consider expanding the figure caption for better self-explanation.

3. Discussion of R² Values

While the R² of 0.49 for QoL is acceptable, the R² of 0.17 for STG is modest. The discussion would benefit from acknowledging additional potential predictors (e.g., institutional trust, civic identity) and suggesting them as directions for future research.

4. Minor Language Refinement

Please ensure consistent terminology throughout (e.g., “TALC maturity” vs. “destination maturity”). Some sentences may benefit from slight refinements for smoother flow.

This manuscript represents a substantial scholarly contribution with rigorous methods and a relevant regional case. Following minor revisions as suggested above, I recommend this paper for acceptance with minor revisions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf