Dex-Based Evaluation of Sustainable Rural Tourism in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewer generally does not have any significant modifications to the article titled "Dex-Based Evaluation of Sustainable Rural Tourism in Bosnia and Herzegovina," which is written very professionally.

The reviewer observed that although the word "sustainability" appears in the paper's title, the phrase "sustainable development" is not used in the text. It is advised that the concept of sustainable development be provided in the paper's introduction in a few sentences, mentioning the Common Future report as the source of the phrase.It is also the reviewer's recommendation that, in accordance with the criteria in the Materials and method section, the three components of sustainability should be highlighted, i.e. the Economic, Social and Environmental components. If the authors wish, they can add a political component, which is very important for sustainable development, especially for the countries of the Western Balkans, among which are Serbia, as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina. This recommendation remains up to the authors to decide whether or not they want to mention the political side at all. It was observed that social factors are mentioned, i.e. listed twice in the social component, so the reviewer's proposal is that instead of social factors, which are composed of - availability of entertainment venues, whether they sell local goods made on-site or in the local community, and whether visitors have the opportunity to help on the farm that is a part of the facility - rename these factors to: social resources.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,  

We would like to thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript 2030541. Thank you for your expertise, time, effort, and utterly constructive critique of the manuscript. After taking into consideration all the suggestions, we believe and hope that we have accomplished the necessary minor revision to the manuscript. We will try to give answers / replies to all of the individual tasks hereafter. A separate document, with highlighted changes (green) is provided, along with the revised manuscript.

1. Acknowledged. Lines 35 to 41 of the manuscript follow the given recommendation.
2. Acknowledged. Lines 54 to 55 (Introduction) and lines 156 to 164 (Materials and Methods) introduce and further address/elaborate on the three components of sustainability in general and the sustainability of rural development.
3.  Acknowledged. Changes are made in line 208 and also in Figure 1.

We hope that the revision we have made will suffice and that the revised manuscript will be accepted for publishing in Tourism and Hospitality. We highly appreciate your interest in our research and we would be happy to consider further improvements if necessary.

Kind regards,
Authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article does present the objective of the research that is supported by an adequate theoretical basis, which is precisely to provide a tool for enhancing the long-term growth of rural tourism in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIH).

The work considers important literature on the subject, demonstrates good knowledge of authors and scientific articles that address the problem. However, it is suggested that the introductory section be supported with a stronger theoretical basis because some criteria taken into consideration by the authors are empirical or assumptions, precisely it must clearly confirm the information gap. Despite the above, the problem to be solved is clear and highlights the importance and value of research.

An interesting element of the article is the contribution it makes to the theory of rural tourism and to provide recommendations for how they should be developed in the future belongs to multicriteria decision analysis, as well as the perception of quality in rural tourism accommodations is influenced by a variety of criteria including rural tourism attitudes, experiences and research. The methodology deepens in three important aspects that are the economic, social and ecological criteria, being relevant strategies for the decision makers of the actors involved.

In general terms, the methodology is more or less clear, but there are several terms written in the form of a list, it is assumed that the authors had previously reviewed the standards and guidelines of the journal to be in the understanding that it is correct. On the other hand, at the beginning of the results section, it mentions that the Delphi method was used, which has not been exposed or explained in the methodology or in previous sections. This is confusing, the authors are asked to confirm why the Delphi method was used and what are the particularities of said method.

The conclusions are clear, but there are some issues that the authors must correct so that they can be mentioned in the conclusions, for example, the use of the Delphi method, how this affects the conclusions, influences to issue other conclusions, and justify whether the methodology used was the most appropriate or in future research another method was used.

I recommend the authors to eliminate table 1, it is enough to explain it in the writing of a paragraph. Figure 1 can be improved, the letter is very small and may not be clearly interpreted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,  

We would like to thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript 2030541. Thank you for your expertise, time and effort, and utterly constructive critique of the manuscript. After taking into consideration all the suggestions, we believe and hope that we have accomplished the necessary minor revision to the manuscript. We will try to give answers / replies to all of the individual tasks hereafter. A separate document, with highlighted changes (blue) is provided, along with the revised manuscript.

1. Acknowledged. Lines 177 to 181 (Materials and Methods), line 372, and lines 380 to 382 (Conclusions) of the manuscript follow the given recommendation.
2. Acknowledged. Lines 221 to 224 explain the former Table 1 in form of a paragraph, as per suggestion.
3. Acknowledged. Layout and the font size is changed in Figure 1.

We hope that the revision we have made will suffice and that the revised manuscript will be accepted for publishing in Tourism and Hospitality. We highly appreciate your interest in our research and we would be happy to consider further improvements if necessary.

Kind regards,
Authors.