Sustainable Tourism Issues in European Countries during the Global Pandemic Crisis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. This research uses bibliometric analysis. However, the COVID-19 outbreak in 2019. It is still not ended now. The existing literature seems not complete enough to telling a specific story about a sustainability of tourism in European Union. The research is only suitable to demonstrate the impact in the early period of the COVID-19.
2. The results do not show  the objective of this study. Please narrow the study objectives and the conclusions. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to kindly thank you for your evaluation and for the constructive and copious suggestions which have helped us to improve the draft significantly.

All your comments and suggestions have been taken into account in the revised paper, as described in the following file

Best Regards

the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper describes the problems of sustainable tourism issues in European countries

Detailed review:
- The title  " .... potential solutions ...." - in what sense / area? I don’t understand what the authors means?
- Abstract: “The abstract should be …………………………. 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations”. Points 3 and 4 should be corrected. The description of the results and conclusions too trivial, do not comply with the requirements of the MDPI publishing house.  The abstract should present much better the research methodology and the main results obtained.
- Misapplication of footnotes. Footnotes used contrary to MDPI rules. See: In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10). or [6] (pp. 101–105). There are errors in the article, e.g. line 129: (2021b). Observe the technical editing requirements of the journal, e.g.: line – 75: [20-23], when line 119: [30, 31,32] - should probably be: [30-32]???????
- Sometimes authors use "percent" in the text, sometimes "%". This also applies to the manner of presenting the figures, eg: "10 percent of employment and about 9.5 percent of GDP, and a six month disruption reduced 2.5" One method of presenting numerical data should be adopted, e.g. one decimal place. There are many such errors. The text should be standardized throughout the article.
- How do you position your research and the results obtained in relation to another international research? I think a discussion section is needed. Moreover, no comparison sufficiently with other similar studies is described. The authors need to describe the unique contribution of their work compared with state-of-the-art approaches.
- More critical analysis and established evidence (not own source) is needed to support the claims in this study
-    Conclusions: The conclusions are quite trivial. 
- The research methodology is very poor in the article. 
Unfortunately, in my opinion, the aim of the work: "the research aims at studying the impact of tourism on sustainability" - has not been achieved. Moreover, I am not convinced that bibliometric analysis can verify the truthfulness Hyp. 1:. The European countries are not equally affected regarding tourism by the Covid-19 crisis.
I recommend major revision.
Best regards,

The reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to kindly thank you for your evaluation and for the constructive and copious suggestions which have helped us to improve the draft significantly.

All your comments and suggestions have been taken into account in the revised paper, as described in the following file

Best Regards

the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is interesting and well structured. The only aspects I suggest to improve its quality are:
- if the search was conducted only using the Web of Science database, the risk is to have a limited number of results. It would be better to broaden the search
- Seeing the contents and citing this article would be helpful: Marinello et al., 2021 Indicators for sustainable touristic destinations: a critical review

Line 142: double point
Line 227: an empty line is missing

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to kindly thank you for your evaluation and for the constructive and copious suggestions which have helped us to improve the draft significantly.

All your comments and suggestions have been taken into account in the revised paper, as described in the following file

Best Regards

the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is not improved sufficiently.

1. What is the issue to be addressed is not clear. The description is not clear in the sections of introduction and literature. The methodology is not sufficiently to be fully completed. What kind of sustainability do you want to address in this paper. Please define in the introduction clearly, instead of loosely and broadly mentioned.
2. In the section of introduction you should provide the study back ground, the problems you wart to address in this research, the method applied in the analysis, the objectives to be approached. It is quite inappropriate that the section of introduction contains only the ambiguous concepts regarding sustainability.
3. The literature review should be rewrite. The analysis seems not provides sounds evidences to support the proposed “title” of the study.
4. If you want to mention about the impacts and the green recovery, then you should focus on these issues, rather than wide-ranging and indistinct description.
5. Line 161: The proportion of 7%, 8%, and 12% of the tourism sectors to the economies in the mentioned countries looks not “major” drivers. Do you think so?
6. What is the purpose to mention about Georgia in P4-p5? If your purpose is to address the issues occurs in the European countries, you should mention about the impacts as the European countries suffering, rather than only one of the specific country.
7. The current study only contains limited amount of results. There is no significant contribution.
8. After clearly defined the problems/the issues this research want to addressed, the authors should regenerate the results and the conclusions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Letter to Reviewer

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to kindly thank you for your evaluation and for the constructive and copious suggestions which have helped us to improve the draft.

All your comments and suggestions have been considered in the revised paper, as described in the following:

1. Comment:

What is the issue to be addressed is not clear. The description is not clear in the sections of introduction and literature. The methodology is not sufficiently to be fully completed. What kind of sustainability do you want to address in this paper. Please define in the introduction clearly, instead of loosely and broadly mentioned.

Response:

Thanks a lot for you comment.

We improved our introduction by better highlighting the main aim of the paper, we also improved the methodology and the literature review.

We inserted additional comments like: “The Covid-19 crisis has brought to the attention of stakeholders the major contribution that tourism can have in the human race for sustainable development. Closure of borders, cessation of economic activity has raised questions about the need and opportunity for national and international tourist flows. Also, both specialists and companies in the field have tried to find alternatives to traditional tourism that meet the need of people to know new places and to have experience in other cultures but also to respect the restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 crisis and to protect and environment”.

2. Comment:

In the section of introduction you should provide the study back ground, the problems you wart to address in this research, the method applied in the analysis, the objectives to be approached. It is quite inappropriate that the section of introduction contains only the ambiguous concepts regarding sustainability.

Response:

Thanks a lot for you comment.

We provided the study background, the methods utilized and the obtained results, better highlighting the paper purpose.

3. Comment:

The literature review should be rewrite. The analysis seems not provides sounds evidences to support the proposed “title” of the study.

Response:

Thanks a lot for you comment.

In the paper, we have explained the results in conjunction with the literature. The new title "Sustainable tourism issues in European countries during the global pandemic crisis" is in accordance with the content of our paper.  

It would be helpful if the reviewer could provide further suggestions on this matter, especially, when we have already responded to his/her comments in the first stage and improved our paper accordingly.

4. Comment:

If you want to mention about the impacts and the green recovery, then you should focus on these issues, rather than wide-ranging and indistinct description.

Response:

Thanks a lot for you comment.

In order to achieve sustainability, we have to implement also green tourism, considering necessary to mention it, especially since its importance has increased over time.

In fact, the paper is focusing on sustainability issues and its aims and objectives are clearly indicated in “Introduction”, “Conclusion”, and other sections.

Additional comments and specific references regarding green and responsible tourism were inserted. We added that: “Green tourism or responsible tourism can be solutions in order to promote sustainable development in leisure industry, because economic, social, and environmental issues are balanced for promoting the triple Bottom Line sustainability framework [177-122]. Therefore, the metamorphosis of international tourism must be under the sign of responsibility on the part of both consumers and economic operators in the joint effort to minimize negative externalities and improve social and environmental performance”.

5. Comment:

Line 161: The proportion of 7%, 8%, and 12% of the tourism sectors to the economies in the mentioned countries looks not “major” drivers. Do you think so?

Response:

Thanks a lot for you comment.

We modified, tourism being an important driver.

6. Comment:

What is the purpose to mention about Georgia in P4-p5? If your purpose is to address the issues occurs in the European countries, you should mention about the impacts as the European countries suffering, rather than only one of the specific country.

Response:

Thanks a lot for you comment.

We provided an example of Georgia, as the country has been largely dependent on tourism and consequently, affected by the crisis. Yet, it has found an innovative way to respond to the crisis by using hotels as quarantine zones and facilitating their survival on the market.

We have mentioned also other European countries, such as Greece, France, Portugal, Poland, and Spain in our paper, as well as data about the UK and G20 countries regarding the pandemic impact on tourism reported in the literature.

7. Comment:

The current study only contains limited amount of results. There is no significant contribution.

Response:

Thanks a lot for you comment.

We improved our results section, highlighting our contribution. We insert additional considerations: “The econometric analysis showed the complex nature of tourism, many influential factors can be mentioned such as the level of development of the country, the attitude of consumers towards the risks associated with national / international travel, social distance measures imposed by the authorities, the existence of the vaccine, the resilience of national economies to black swan events such as the Covid-19 crisis”.

8. Comment:

After clearly defined the problems/the issues this research want to addressed, the authors should regenerate the results and the conclusions.

Response:

Thanks a lot for you comment.

We improved our results and conclusions sections.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has been substantially improved. I recommend accepting and publishing the article in this form.

Author Response

Letter to Reviewer

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to kindly thank you for your evaluation and for the constructive and copious suggestions which have helped us to improve the draft.

Best Regards

The authors 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is revised, and many related research issues are listed. The current draft of the paper seems ok to be published.