Contrasting Futures in the Alps: Causal Layered Analysis of the Discourses Guiding Territorial Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors. Your paper seems to be interesting and deals with an important topic: landscape planning and governance in the Alps. In general, it  is well written. Altough this it present some weaknesses that in my opinion should be take in consideration:

• In the abstract clearly present the purpose of the study, the methodology that you use, results and main implications of the study. I recommend to limit keywords to five or six.
• In the introduction, present the structure of the paper in the end of the same. 
• After the introduction, you should present a section of the methodology and other concerning the study area and the reasons to select them (that is the four areas in the  Italian Alpine Region), instead of only material and methods. In the methodological approach you can add a sample of the interview. Also you should add more information concernin the 128 hours of participant observation. 
• In the results section,  it can be helpfully to "identify" the interviewers. For instace, (interviewer 1- resident from...). 
• In the discussion section, you may relate it  with literature review and the purpose of the study.
• After the discussion section, present a conclusion section. Here you may present the main outputs of your study, implications for theory and practise. In the end of the section you can add the limitations of it and paths for future research. 
• Last but not the least, add more recent bibliographic references. 

Thank you

Author Response

Comment 1:
“In the abstract clearly present the purpose of the study, the methodology that you use, results and main implications of the study. I recommend to limit keywords to five or six.”

Response 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. The list of keywords has been reduced to five, which are now: anticipatory governance; critical futures; community-driven development; Alps; collective properties.

Comment 2:
“In the introduction, present the structure of the paper in the end of the same.”

Response 2:
Thank you for the suggestion. We have added a short paragraph at the end of the Introduction section (line 99) that presents the structure of the paper.

Comment 3:
“After the introduction, you should present a section of the methodology and other concerning the study area and the reasons to select them (that is the four areas in the Italian Alpine Region), instead of only material and methods. In the methodological approach you can add a sample of the interview. Also you should add more information concerning the 128 days of participant observation.”

Response 3:
We agree with the reviewer’s suggestions. Therefore, we have extensively revised both the Introduction and the “Materials and Methods” section. The methodological approach is now presented more clearly, followed by a distinct subsection describing the study areas and the rationale for their selection (lines 121-140). We have also added further details on the nature of the 128 hours of participant observation and the type of qualitative data collected (see new Table 1).

Comment 4:
“In the results section, it can be helpfully to ‘identify’ the interviewers. For instance, (interviewer 1 – resident from…).”

Response 4:
We understand the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the identification of interviewers or respondents. However, in our case, there were no formal “interviewers” conducting structured interviews. Instead, both authors acted as participant observers within local contexts, engaging in open dialogues and informal exchanges with various community members. These interactions often included spontaneous questions and reflections, but they were not based on a fixed questionnaire or standardized interview guide. Consequently, we have clarified this in the revised Methods section, specifying that data were collected through long-term ethnographic immersion, including observation, informal conversations, and active participation in community life, rather than through a formal interview protocol.

Comment 5:
“In the discussion section, you may relate it with literature review and the purpose of the study.”

Response 5:
We agree that strengthening the links between the discussion, the literature review, and the study’s objectives can improve the overall coherence and contribution of the paper. Therefore, we have revised the Result and Discussion sections to explicitly relate our findings to previous research on foresight, landscape planning, and Alpine governance. We now highlight how Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) can be operationalised in Alpine contexts, contributing to both critical futures studies and participatory spatial planning.

Comment 6:
“After the discussion section, present a conclusion section. Here you may present the main outputs of your study, implications for theory and practise. In the end of the section you can add the limitations of it and paths for future research.”

Response 6:
We note that the main outputs and implications for theory and practice were already addressed in the subsections of the Discussion—namely “Reframing carrying capacity through CLA”, “Methodological implications: what CLA adds to spatial planning”, and “From case findings to Alpine-wide implications and one suggestion”. Paragraph 4.5 “Limitations and directions for further research” already presents the limitations of it and paths for future research. However, following the reviewer’s recommendation, we have now added a concise Conclusion section that summarises these points and clearly states the study’s overall contribution, limitations, and directions for future research.

Comment 7:
“Last but not the least, add more recent bibliographic references.”

Response 7:
We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to the currency of the references. The bibliography already includes several recent works up to 2020–2025, particularly those addressing participatory foresight, mountain governance, and sustainable tourism (e.g., Dax & Tamme, 2023; Tucker et al., 2021; Villa, 2025). We have reviewed the reference list and confirm that the most dated sources—such as Polak (1973) or Inayatullah (1990)—remain foundational works essential to the theoretical framing of futures studies and the application of Causal Layered Analysis. Their inclusion is therefore justified, as they provide the conceptual roots upon which the more recent literature builds.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

The manuscript is rich in conceptual discussion, but it reads more like an essay than a systematic research article. The structure needs to be tightened to ensure that research questions, methods, and findings are presented with greater clarity.

The use of Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) is interesting, but its newness to the Alpine case is not strongly brought out. The authors need to state clearly what newness this study has in relation to other applications of CLA.

The balance between descriptive ethnographic data and analytical insights is skewed. Some sections provide rich descriptions, while others are too narrative in form and short on analytic content.

The paper seems to make assertions without empirical validation to an adequate degree. More evidence is required to back up assertions on communities, governance, and impacts.

The manuscript is overly wordy in certain sections. Presentation in a clearer and more compact manner would improve readability and contribution quality.

The abstract is well written but lacks quantitative or material evidence in favor of assertions. It should state how many documents, interviews, or fieldwork hours were analyzed.

The introduction is strong in background but lacks a clear research gap. The authors must state explicitly what is lacking in existing literature on Alpine futures or foresight.

The paper refers to global foresight research but fails to compare the Alpine case sufficiently with other contexts. Why are the Alps specifically relevant to CLA?

Some statements (e.g., "tourism will save the economy") are generalized with no references. These must be substantiated by literature or clarified as popular discourses.

The link between carrying capacity and CLA is raised late and must appear earlier in the introduction to orient the reader.

The description of the CLA framework is largely a paraphrase of Inayatullah's model. Authors must clarify how their operationalization differs or is innovative.

The use of Generative AI tools (Gemini, ChatGPT) for data gathering is problematic. Authors must explain how AI outputs were used, validated, and bias-tested.

Figures and tables (Table 1 and 2, for instance) are revealing but need more methodological connection: how were the categories in Table 2 derived from data?

The results chapter mixes case description and interpretation. These should be separated: present the empirical material first and then interpret it in CLA terms.

Some of the case instances (such as Malga Zangola après-ski bar, Seiser Alm traditions) are anecdotal. More systematic evidence is needed to demonstrate that these patterns generalise.

The evidence depends rather heavily on anecdotes without sufficient triangulation with statistical or planning data. Visitor numbers or housing data, for example, could be more systematically interwoven.

The "open hybrid village" is an intriguing metaphor, but it appears underdeveloped. The authors must clarify what specific indicators, governance arrangements, or practices would define this model.

It discusses mostly a repetition of what is found in other terms. Rather, it should unveil new contributions the CLA approach brings about in contrast to other conventional planning processes.

The carrying capacity reframing section is helpful, but has to be grounded upon more empirical content or instances. At present, it reads conjectural.

The three "contributions" of CLA (verification, dialogue, design) are useful, but they are at a conceptual level. The authors must show how they emerged from their data specifically.

Some of the references are dated (e.g., based on Polak 1973 without connecting to more recent foresight literature). Updating references would strengthen theoretical framing.

Figures and tables can be improved for clarity. Figure 1 (Google Maps screenshot), for example, is too basic for a peer-reviewed journal. A professionally drawn map is recommended.

Author Response

Comment 1:

“The manuscript is rich in conceptual discussion, but it reads more like an essay than a systematic research article. The structure needs to be tightened to ensure that research questions, methods, and findings are presented with greater clarity.”

Response 1:
We appreciate this feedback and have taken it into account. The structure of the paper has been revised to more clearly present the research questions, the methodological design, and the main findings. The Introduction now states the research objectives explicitly, while the “Materials and Methods” section specifies the methodological steps, and the Discussion and Conclusion summarise the empirical insights and implications more systematically.

Comment 2:

“The use of Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) is interesting, but its newness to the Alpine case is not strongly brought out. The authors need to state clearly what newness this study has in relation to other applications of CLA.”

Response 2:
We agree that the novelty of applying CLA to Alpine contexts should be made more explicit. To our knowledge, CLA has never been applied to the study of Alpine regions, nor to the imaginaries shaping tourism or territorial development within the Alps. Although extensive literature exists on Alpine futures, governance, and landscape planning, these studies have rarely examined the underlying narratives and metaphors that guide collective visions and possible futures. We have therefore clarified in the Introduction that this paper represents the first attempt to use CLA to explore these dimensions in the Alpine socio-ecological context (lines 79-81).

Comment 3:

“The balance between descriptive ethnographic data and analytical insights is skewed. Some sections provide rich descriptions, while others are too narrative in form and short on analytic content.”

Response 3:
We have revised and shortened the Material and Methods, and Results sections to better distinguish empirical descriptions from analytical interpretation. Each case description is now followed by a short analytical paragraph that explicitly situates the findings within the four CLA layers (litany, system, worldview, and metaphor), enhancing the consistency between data and analysis.

Comment 4:

“The paper seems to make assertions without empirical validation to an adequate degree. More evidence is required to back up assertions on communities, governance, and impacts.”

Response 4:
We acknowledge that some claims required stronger empirical grounding. We have therefore revised the Results section to include additional references to supporting evidence from local policy documents, statistical data, and ethnographic field notes. Where quantitative data were limited, we have clarified that the statements represent observed tendencies or perceptions expressed by community members, rather than generalised empirical facts.

Comment 5:

“The manuscript is overly wordy in certain sections. Presentation in a clearer and more compact manner would improve readability and contribution quality.”

Response 5:
The manuscript has been edited for conciseness and clarity. Redundant sentences and overlapping descriptions have been shortened, particularly in the Introduction and Discussion sections. The overall word count has been reduced, and transitions between sections have been streamlined to improve readability.

 

Comment 6:

“The abstract is well written but lacks quantitative or material evidence in favor of assertions. It should state how many documents, interviews, or fieldwork hours were analyzed.”

Response 6:
Thank you for this useful comment. We have updated the Abstract to include the scale of data collection—specifically, the 128 days of participant observation and the period of document and media analysis covering 2010–2025. This addition clarifies the empirical basis of the study.

Comment 7:

“The introduction is strong in background but lacks a clear research gap. The authors must state explicitly what is lacking in existing literature on Alpine futures or foresight.”

Response 7:
We agree with this important point. The Introduction has been revised to explicitly identify the research gap (line 93). Although there is a rich body of work on Alpine governance and sustainability, few studies address the cultural and narrative dimensions of how futures are imagined and negotiated. The paper therefore fills this gap by applying Causal Layered Analysis to uncover the deep narratives that guide Alpine development discourses.

Comment 8:

“The paper refers to global foresight research but fails to compare the Alpine case sufficiently with other contexts. Why are the Alps specifically relevant to CLA?”

Response 8:
Thank you for raising this important point. We have expanded the Introduction and Discussion to clarify why the Alps offer a particularly relevant context for applying CLA. The Alpine region combines strong local governance traditions (e.g., collective land tenure) with increasing external pressures from tourism and real-estate investment, creating a fertile setting for analysing competing narratives of development. We now emphasise that this socio-ecological complexity makes the Alps an ideal “laboratory” for testing the interpretive and diagnostic potential of CLA.

Comment 9:

“Some statements (e.g., ‘tourism will save the economy’) are generalized with no references. These must be substantiated by literature or clarified as popular discourses.”

Response 9:
Thank you for this clarification. We have revised such statements throughout the manuscript to explicitly identify them as common narratives or popular discourses rather than authorial claims. Where possible, we have added supporting references from relevant literature on tourism discourses in the Alps (e.g., Dax & Tamme, 2023; Heslinga et al., 2019).

Comment 10:

“The link between carrying capacity and CLA is raised late and must appear earlier in the introduction to orient the reader.”

Response 10:
We agree with this suggestion. We have moved the first mention of “carrying capacity” to the Introduction and briefly explained how the concept is reinterpreted through CLA. This provides a clearer orientation for readers at the beginning of the paper.

Comment 11:

“The description of the CLA framework is largely a paraphrase of Inayatullah’s model. Authors must clarify how their operationalization differs or is innovative.”

Response 11:
We appreciate this important observation. Inayatullah's model only offers categories through which to interpret and frame the layers of reality. The layer descriptions presented here emerged from ethnographic research; they are neither paraphrases of existing studies of Alpine communities nor the authors' inventions. We have revised the Methods section to highlight how our operationalization of CLA extends Inayatullah’s original framework by integrating empirical ethnographic material and by connecting CLA layers to the definitions of carrying capacity. This adaptation makes the framework suitable for spatial and governance analyses.

Comment 12:

“The use of Generative AI tools (Gemini, ChatGPT) for data gathering is problematic. Authors must explain how AI outputs were used, validated, and bias-tested.”

Response 12:
We have revised the Methods section to clarify that generative AI tools were used exclusively to support the retrieval and synthesis of dispersed secondary data (e.g., visitor statistics, local reports) and that all AI-assisted outputs were manually verified, edited, and triangulated with primary sources. The authors take full responsibility for the accuracy and interpretation of the data.

Comment 13:

“Figures and tables (Table 1 and 2, for instance) are revealing but need more methodological connection: how were the categories in Table 2 derived from data?”

Response 13:
Thank you for this helpful observation. We have clarified in the Methods section how the categories used in Table 2 (now Table 3) were derived from the coding of ethnographic notes, documents, and media content following the four CLA levels. Each column of Table 3 corresponds to a distinct narrative cluster that emerged inductively during cross-case comparison. As anthropological research methodology (ethnography) was used, the data collected comes exclusively from the narratives of the interlocutors, i.e. the various participants in the communities: their narratives are anecdotal only if not taken into account as data collected using qualitative research methodology. Ethnographic narration thrives on such narratives and on the cultural production and interpretation of the natives (Malighetti R. 2021, Anthropology and Ethnography. Science, Method, Writing, L’Arca di Scholé, Brescia.)

Comment 14:
“The results chapter mixes case description and interpretation. These should be separated: present the empirical material first and then interpret it in CLA terms.”

Response 14:
Thank you for this comment. We understand the reviewer’s suggestion to separate empirical description from interpretive analysis. We have now separated descriptive elements of the cases, moved them to the materials and methods section, and left only interpretations of CLA levels in the results section.

 

Comment 15:

“Some of the case instances (such as Malga Zangola après-ski bar, Seiser Alm traditions) are anecdotal. More systematic evidence is needed to demonstrate that these patterns generalise.”

Response 15:
We acknowledge this concern. The cases mentioned were chosen as emblematic examples of broader governance and narrative patterns rather than as isolated anecdotes. We have clarified this in the text. The use of Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) was intentionally used to organize and interpret diverse qualitative materials within a single analytical framework. Given the heterogeneous nature of our data—ethnographic observations, document analysis, and media content—the CLA served precisely to integrate these strands into a coherent structure rather than to treat them as separate stages.

Comment 16:

“The evidence depends rather heavily on anecdotes without sufficient triangulation with statistical or planning data. Visitor numbers or housing data, for example, could be more systematically interwoven.”

Response 16:
Thank you for this comment. As mentioned above, the ethnographic approach differs from quantitative analysis, in which evidence is inferred based on data and explanatory hypotheses. Visitor numbers and other statistics are only reported to characterise the selected territories and social contexts examined; the number of inhabitants or visitors or other quantitative variables do not determine the narratives or visions of local development; this aspect is significant and constitutes the added value of the study as it proposes to integrate the usual assessments based on quantitative data.

Comment 17:

“The ‘open hybrid village’ is an intriguing metaphor, but it appears underdeveloped. The authors must clarify what specific indicators, governance arrangements, or practices would define this model.”

Response 17:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have expanded the subsection describing the “open hybrid village” to include concrete indicators and governance features that distinguish this emerging model. These include hybrid residency patterns (residents, returnees, long-stay visitors), shared governance mechanisms (collective ownerships, co-management agreements), and indicators of social sustainability (resident-days, intergenerational activities, volunteer involvement).

Comment 18:

“It discusses mostly a repetition of what is found in other terms. Rather, it should unveil new contributions the CLA approach brings about in contrast to other conventional planning processes.”

Response 18:
We agree that highlighting the distinctive contribution of CLA is essential. Therefore, we have added a paragraph in the Discussion explicitly contrasting CLA with conventional planning methods. We argue that CLA does not replace quantitative or procedural tools but complements them by addressing the cultural, discursive, and value-based dimensions often ignored in planning practice.

Comment 19:

“The carrying capacity reframing section is helpful, but has to be grounded upon more empirical content or instances. At present, it reads conjectural.”

Response 19:
We agree. The section is speculative regarding the opportunities emerging from this research; the interpretation of carrying capacity through CLA was not predefined as specific research objective. Research on redefining carrying capacity thresholds in four such diverse contexts in the Alps is beyond the scope of this article.

Comment 20:

“The three ‘contributions’ of CLA (verification, dialogue, design) are useful, but they are at a conceptual level. The authors must show how they emerged from their data specifically.”

Response 20:
We acknowledge that the three contributions of Causal Layered Analysis (verification, dialogue, and design) are presented at a conceptual level, and this is intentional. By definition, CLA is a conceptual and critical thinking tool, not a predictive or problem-solving technique. Its purpose is to generate new questions rather than technical solutions—to challenge prevailing narratives and “used futures,” thereby opening space for alternative imaginaries.

In this study, the conceptual nature of CLA is central: by reframing how actors talk about and interpret their territories, it reveals how changing narratives can ultimately transform the criteria, values, and tangible actions that shape territorial governance. The framework thus serves as a cognitive and interpretive bridge between discourse and practice, rather than an empirical model derived directly from data.

 

Comment 21:

“Some of the references are dated (e.g., Polak 1973) without connecting to more recent foresight literature.”

Response 21:
Thank you for this note. We have verified the references and confirmed that several recent sources (e.g., Thorn et al., 2020; Tucker et al., 2021; Dax & Tamme, 2023) are already included to ensure the paper’s alignment with current research. The few older references, such as Polak (1973) and Inayatullah (1990, 2002), are intentionally retained because they are foundational to the theoretical lineage of futures studies and Causal Layered Analysis. We have now made this rationale explicit in the Discussion.

Comment 22:
“Figures and tables can be improved for clarity. Figure 1 (Google Maps screenshot), for example, is too basic for a peer-reviewed journal. A professionally drawn map is recommended.”

Response 22:
Thank you for this useful suggestion. The new version provides a cleaner cartographic layout, uniform colour scheme, and clearer labelling of the four study areas within the Alpine region.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for considering some of my previous comments. However, I still recommend the following:

After the introduction, you should include a section on methodology and another on the study area and the reasons for its selection (i.e., the four areas of the Italian Alpine Region), instead of just one section – materials and methods.

In the methodological approach, you refer to "in-depth interviews and life histories according to the ecological anthropological methodology". However, according to your current response, you did not use formal interviews. Please clarify this in the article.

In short, you should be more precise in your methodology section.

I would also appreciate some references in the conclusion section. In my opinion, they are important to give consistency to your article.

Thank you

Author Response

Comment 1:

Thank you for considering some of my previous comments. However, I still recommend the following:

After the introduction, you should include a section on methodology and another on the study area and the reasons for its selection (i.e., the four areas of the Italian Alpine Region), rather than just one section – materials and methods.

Response 1:

We appreciate this suggestion. The current Materials and Methods section already integrates both the methodological description and the rationale for the selection of the study areas, but we agree that making this structure more explicit can improve readability. We will therefore split Section 2 into two sections: 2 Methodology and 3 Study Areas and Selection Criteria.
This change will make clearer the distinction between the research design and the contextual description of the four Alpine cases.

Comment 2:

In the methodological approach, you refer to “in-depth interviews and life stories according to ecological anthropological methodology”. However, according to your current response, you did not use formal interviews. Please clarify this in the article. In short, you should be more precise in your methodology section.

Response 2:

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this ambiguity. Indeed, our fieldwork followed an ecological anthropological approach based primarily on participant observation and informal, narrative-based conversations, rather than on a rigid, formal interview protocol. We will revise the wording to avoid misunderstanding and to clarify that “in-depth interviews” and “life stories” refer to ethnographic dialogues and narrative reconstructions gathered during prolonged immersion in the field, not to structured or questionnaire-based interviews. See lines around 129

Comment 3:

I would also like to see some references in the conclusion section. In my opinion, they are important to give consistency to your article.

Response 3:

We appreciate the reviewer’s intention to strengthen consistency through scholarly grounding. However, in our view the Conclusion section already summarises the key findings and theoretical implications discussed in Section 4, which contains extensive literature references. Adding citations here would risk redundancy and disrupt the conciseness expected in the journal’s format.
Nonetheless, we are open to slightly extending the final discussion (Section 4.4 or 4.5) with a few targeted references that connect our findings to existing literature on collective imaginaries and mountain futures, thus reinforcing the conceptual bridge without overloading the conclusion itself.

Bai, X., van der Leeuw, S., O’Brien, K., Berkhout, F., Biermann, F., Brondizio, E. S., Cudennec, C., Dearing, J., Duraiappah, A., Glaser, M., Revkin, A., Steffen, W., & Syvitski, J. (2016). Plausible and desirable futures in the Anthropocene: A new research agenda. Global Environmental Change, 39, 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.017

Boscoboinik, A., & Cretton, V. (2017). “Find Your Nature” in the Swiss Alps In Search of a Better Life in the Mountains. Český Lid, 104(2), 199–212.

Boscoboinik, A., Cretton, V., & Offenhenden, M. (2022). Presentation Special Issue: Living in the Mountains. Reframing Imaginaries, Im/mobilities and Sense of Belonging. Quaderns de l’Institut Català d’Antropologia, 38(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.56247/qua.424

Gleeson, E. H., Dach, S. W. von, Flint, C. G., Greenwood, G. B., Price, M. F., Balsiger, J., Nolin, A., & Vanacker, V. (2016). Mountains of Our Future Earth: Defining Priorities for Mountain Research—A Synthesis From the 2015 Perth III Conference. Mountain Research and Development, 36(4), 537–548. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-16-00094.1

Morse, W. C. (2023). Protected area tourism and management as a social-ecological complex adaptive system. Frontiers in Sustainable Tourism, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsut.2023.1187402

Salazar, N. B. (2012). Tourism Imaginaries: A Conceptual Approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 863–882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.10.004

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

This is an excellent paper that adds something worthwhile to the fields of futures studies, human geography, and Alpine studies. The minor revisions provided are not structural flaws but suggestions for further sharpening the clarity, correctness, and balance of an already solid manuscript.

The "open-hybrid-village" model is presented as the most thrilling and ground-breaking option. The authors properly admit they disagree with it, but in parts, the language has the feel of being the preferred solution. The conclusion may better rephrase the worth of "conscious plurality" and that the best outcome may be an institution-specific syncretic integration of all three narratives, but not a full adoption of the hybrid model.

Limitations are rightly identified but perhaps a bit more substantial. In particular, the authors should provide a more detailed discussion on how the "uneven data depth" in the four cases may have contaminated the comparative results. For example, does its poorer presence in Seiser Alm reduce confidence in its description relative to Monte Bondone?

Understand that while CLA is excellent at revealing underlying narratives, it is poorer at predicting which narrative will prevail or in providing quantitative predictions of their prevalence.

"The observation period may be approximated as roughly 128 days" – The abstract says "128 hours," while the table and here say "days." This is a significant conflict that must be resolved. The body text and the table must be in agreement.

The title says "Some data for an overview," but the source note is quite technical. Consider rephrasing the title to be more descriptive, e.g., "Overview and visitor data for the selected study areas."

"Grographics" is a typo and should be corrected to "Geographies."

Author Response

Comment 1:

The "open-hybrid-village" model is presented as the most thrilling and ground-breaking option. The authors properly admit they disagree with it, but in parts, the language has the feel of being the preferred solution. The conclusion may better rephrase the worth of "conscious plurality" and that the best outcome may be an institution-specific syncretic integration of all three narratives, but not a full adoption of the hybrid model.

Response 1:

We agree that some wording may unintentionally suggest a normative preference for the "open-hybrid-village" model. Our intention is to treat it as an emerging narrative constellation, not a prescriptive model. We will therefore revise the discussion and conclusion to better emphasise the value of conscious plurality and the possibility that each territory may integrate elements from the three metaphors—playground, heritage, and hybrid—in context-specific ways. (see around line 515  and 601, in Conclusion)

Comment 2:
Limitations are rightly identified but perhaps a bit more substantial. In particular, the authors should provide a more detailed discussion on how the "uneven data depth" in the four cases may have contaminated the comparative results. For example, does its poorer presence in Seiser Alm reduce confidence in its description relative to Monte Bondone?

Response 2:

We appreciate this observation. Indeed, the ethnographic engagement was uneven across cases (greater in Monte Bondone and Rabbi, more limited in Seiser Alm). We will expand the Limitations (4.5) section to explain how this asymmetry may have influenced the richness of interpretation, while noting the triangulation mechanisms (documentary, media, and institutional sources) used to counterbalance it (See lines 549-560)

Comment 3:

Understand that while CLA is excellent at revealing underlying narratives, it is poorer at predicting which narrative will prevail or in providing quantitative predictions of their prevalence.

Response 3:

We agree entirely. CLA is designed to reveal the structure of imaginaries, not to forecast dominance or quantitative prevalence. We will explicitly acknowledge this methodological boundary in Section 4.3 (“Methodological implications”) and in the Limitations subsection. (see around line 489 and 559)

Comment 4:

"The observation period may be approximated as roughly 128 days" – The abstract says "128 hours," while the table and here say "days." This is a significant conflict that must be resolved. The body text and the table must be in agreement.

Response 4:

We thank the reviewer for noticing this inconsistency. The correct figure is 128 days of participant observation (not hours). We will correct the abstract accordingly and ensure consistency in the entire manuscript and Table 1.

Comment 5:

The title says "Some data for an overview," but the source note is quite technical. Consider rephrasing the title to be more descriptive, e.g., "Overview and visitor data for the selected study areas." "Grographics" is a typo and should be corrected to "Geographies."

Response 5: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have modified the table 2 titles as suggested.