The Nature of Spain’s International Cultural Tourism throughout the Economic Crisis (2008–2016): A Macroeconomic Analysis of Tourist Arrivals and Spending

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well written, easy to read, good tables and figures. However, my only concern is the contribution of the paper: the paper is based entirely on secondary data, it is very descriptive, statistical analysis is based only on percentages > needs more sophisticated statistical analysis. Data on the tables come from other sources, hence the authors' contribution is not evident.

Considering the above I have to reject the paper in its current form. It could be significantly improved by implementing more rigorous statistical analysis.

Author Response

The official  statistical sources of the Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Tourism  of Spain are the only ones that allow to obtain a real sample of the  arrival of international tourists to Spain and its cultural motivation. Indeed, its use in this research is as a secondary source but it is the only one that allows to develop analyzes of this nature. These  statistical sources are shown in the raw, it corresponds to the  researchers their statistical transformation to obtain results and  conclusions. Precisely, data processing is the major contribution of this research. It  is true that the statistical analyzes have been little complex so we  are making new analyzes with SPSS to provide more relevant results and  conclusions.

Reviewer 2 Report

This work presents an interesting research. The objectives are clear, the literature has been studied deeply and the conclusions are based on a complete set of data.  The main weakness of the study is the methodology, which is just a descriptive exposition. However, the research fulfills the initial objectives and it offers enough evidences to hold the conclusions. The conclusions are cautious and limited to the observed evidence. For all these reasons, I think this is a good contribution to the specific literature about tourism economics.

Author Response

Thank you for your recommendations. We will review the english language and style.

Reviewer 3 Report

I do agree with the authors that it is important to investigate the how cultural tourism performs from a macroeconomic perspective and it is a good that this paper starts this discussion and line of research. However, there paper has many weaknesses that prevent it from being considered for publication. Below are the main concerns:

- It does not have a structured literature review. The paper goes from introduction to methodology without analyzing former studies about cultural tourism (at least the economic aspects of it), which is the theme of the paper.

- I did not find the research questions that the paper talks about what the research questions

- What is the exact purpose or objective of this research? SMO1 cannot be one; it is contextual information. SMO4 is an obvious purpose of any research enterprise and so is SMO5.

- What quantitative analyses were performed? What statistics?

- The paper does not inform the reader how is data collected from FRONTUR (entry, spending, tourists with primarily cultural motivations etc.)

- As for results, they are too descriptive and speculative to draw any meaningful conclusions. I finished reading the paper and did not find any tangible result.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your comments and suggestions. These have been taken into consideration to improve our research. In the following section, the answers to the main observations are presented. Please, do not hesitate to suggest further comments to continue improving our manuscript.

- It does not have a structured literature review. The paper goes from introduction to methodology without analyzing former studies about cultural tourism (at least the economic aspects of it), which is the theme of the paper.

Authors' response: As indicated in the manuscript, several studies analyze the contribution oftourism to the economic development of the countries. Most of them (Lea 1988, Sinclair 1998, Balaguer and Cantavella-Jordá 2002, Cuadrado-Roura and Lopez 2011, Nieto Román and Bonilla 2016) emphasize their contribution to employment, GDP, balance of payments, territorial regeneration, etc. A number of studies, also cited in the manuscript (Eugenio-Martín and Campos-Soria 2014, Stylidis and Terzidou 2014), analyze the behavior of tourism during the economic crisis and determine its main impact (change in the demand and behavior of the tourist, a reduction of tax revenue from tourism, a decrease in international tourist arrivals, etc.). However, it is especially difficult to find a bibliography focused on the behavior of cultural tourism, especially in periods of economic crisis, beyond the reports of international organizations (UNWTO). In the case of Spain, two studies have been taken as a reference: Roura and Morales (2011) and Nieto, Román and Bonilla (2016). In them, some solutions are offered to alleviate the effects of the crisis on tourism, such as the promotion of cultural tourism.

- I did not find the research questions that the paper talks about what the research questions

Authors' response: The hypothesis indicated in the "introductory section" has been answered, after statistical analysis and the obtaining of tangible results, in the "discussion section".

- What is the exact purpose or objective of this research? SMO1 cannot be one; it is contextual

information. SMO4 is an obvious purpose of any research enterprise and so is SMO5.

Authors' response: The secondary objectives have been modified and adapted to the main methodological achievements.

- What quantitative analyses were performed? What statistics?

Authors' response: In order to determine the behavior of international tourism with primarily cultural motivations in Spain, T-tests were developed for independent samples to compare two items:

• Item 1. Period of economic non-crisis: 2003-2007 and 2014

• Item 2. Period of economic crisis: 2008-2013

These two items were compared in function of the following variables:

• Variable 1. International tourists

• Variable 2. International visitors with primarily cultural motivations

• Variable 3. International tourists total spendings

• Variable 4. International visitors with primarily cultural motivations spendings

• Variable 5. Average spending per international tourists

• Variable 6. Average spending per visitor with primarily cultural motivations

- The paper does not inform the reader how is data collected from FRONTUR (entry,

spending, tourists with primarily cultural motivations etc.)

Authors' response: In the review of the manuscript the information about how is data collected from FRONTUR was expanded. The following paragraph has been inserted:

“The objective of this survey is to quantify and characterize the flows of visitors entering Spain.

Since May 1996, the survey has collected data from administrative sources, both public and private, that record border traffic. This includes manual counts of vehicles and people, as well as sample surveys at access points (roads, airports, seaports and rail stations). On an annual basis, the survey comprises approximately 2,200,000 manual counts as well 360,000 personal surveys”

Information on the collection of data from other statistical sources has also been expanded.

- As for results, they are too descriptive and speculative to draw any meaningful conclusions. I

finished reading the paper and did not find any tangible result.

Authors' response: To achieve more tangible results and avoid their dispersion, this research has focused on the behavior of cultural tourism during the period 2003-2014, eliminating the analyze of tourism that occasionally perform cultural activities. T-tests statistical studies have also been developed in order to compare different variables. With these modifications have been obtained more tangible results that allow to draw more meaningful conclusions.

Round  2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the author for revising the paper and addressing all reviewers' comments. The changes are appropriate and the paper can now be accepted.

Good luck with your research!

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recommendations. They have made it possible to reinforce this paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

The primary objectives need to be more explicity stated, as the authors did with the two secondary objectives stated on page 3, which by the way are not research objectives per se. They are "the how" the primary objectives will be accomplished.

I don´t understand the first statistical source mentioned in the methodology (Spanish Touristic Movement at Borders). Do they ask Spanish households whether they host non-residents? What exactly is this statistic? How was used in the study?

The contribution stated on page 4 (line 163-166) is not sufficient. The authors have to show how their paper contributes to advance the theoretical base of economics and/or tourism studies, not just organizing statistical data. This is in fact the main weakness of the paper, as pointed out in the first review. It is descriptive and lacks a strong contribution to the theory and/or practice.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thaks a lot for your recommendations, we are sure they are going to reinforce our paper considerably. We would like to point out the improvements made: 

(a) The primary objective has been changed to be more explicity. A new paragraph has been added between lines 98-102. 

(b) The objective of  the source "Spanish Touristic Movement at Borders" is to quantify and characterize the flows of visitors entering Spain. Since May 1996, the survey has collected data from administrative sources, both public and private, that record border traffic. This includes manual counts of vehicles and people, as well as sample surveys at access points (roads, airports, seaports and rail stations). On an annual basis, the survey comprises approximately 2,200,000 manual counts as well 360,000 personal surveys. In order to clarify some aspects of this relevant source a new paragraph has been added between lines: 140-143.

(c) The contributes of this paper to the advance of tourism studies have been increased. A new paragraph has been added between lines 178-184.

We remain at your disposal in case you have any doubts. 

Thanks.

Round  3

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for improving the paper. Contributions are seen more clearly now.