Coastal Tourism Recovery amid COVID-19: Insights from a Participatory System Dynamics Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, for me is a pleasure to review this manuscript, but from my point of view, this might be improved in some points like:

1º. The title is very long for research engines.

2º. The abstract section must face the main objectives, methods, findings, and the new contribution of this paper.

3º. Some paragraphs are very long to read in the entire paper.

4º Introduction section is also focused on the COVID-19 impact. Authors need to tackle your own narrative which are related to your main objectives and research questions (I did not see it). Indeed, I did not see the main gaps of this research.

5º. I recommend authors implement data from 2021 in Figure 2 because readers demand know this relevant information.

6º Authors need to explain and develop better the materials and methods section, please. For instance, authors wrote: "During the participatory process, a series of online meetings and workshops were held to explore the dynamics behind “the impacts of COVID- 19 on coastal tourism in NMB” to inform recovery strategies" I want to know where and how it was done. 

7º. Authors wrote this in the line 188: "The meetings were initiated through a brief introduc tion, followed by a short presentation of the project explaining the aim, the concept of 185 system dynamics modelling, stakeholder roles and the envisaged outputs of the study" Authors did not explain it in the introduction section. Indeed, authors did not write the main objectives and research questions.

8º Authors wrote it: "causal mapping was conducted using Stella® Architect software [54]. Casual Loop Diagrams (CLDs) are qualitative SD tools that represent variables and the relationships between them" Authors need to develop more this section and Stella Architec software. For example, explain that authors have used this methodology and software and their results, so we can compare findings and conclusions. 

9º There are a lot of acronyms in the paper, sometimes it really difficult to read and understand it. 

10º. Results section demand more information and develop from Tables 1 and 2; Figures 4, 5 and 6. Moreover, would be interesting compare your own results with other updated studies like: 

Florido-Benitez, L. (2021). The effects of COVID-19 on Andalusian tourism and aviation sector. Tourism Review, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 829-857. 

Rogerson, C. M., & Rogerson, J. M. (2020). COVID-19 and tourism spaces of vulnerability in South Africa.

van der Merwe, P., Saayman, A., & Jacobs, C. (2021). Assessing the economic impact of COVID-19 on the private wildlife industry of South Africa. Global ecology and conservation, 28, e01633.

Musavengane, R., & Leonard, L. (2022). COVID-19 impacts on tourism: Southern Africa’s experiences. Development Southern Africa, 39(1), 1-2.

11º. There is a great mistake in this manuscript because authors did not tackle the main objectives in the introduction and conclusion sections.

12º, Conclusion section need to be considerably improved. The importance of this paper lies in your own findings and conclusions, and this was not really showed in these sections because authors did not develop objectives and research questions in the paper.

13º. Figure 7 must be included in Results section.

14º. Table 3 should be add as an Appendix section or in results section.

15º. Authors have to implement Theoretical and managerial, and limitations and future studies subsections. 

Author Response

Please find attached the responses in PDF format.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General Comments:

The manuscript deals introduction of a qualitative causal mapping process to understand multiple stakeholder perspectives to identify and test potential management interventions regarding the impacts of COVID-19 on coastal tourism in Nelson Mandela Bay, South Africa. Although I appreciated the work of the authors, some caveats are mentioned below.

Specific Comments:

1.     The authors need to mention all their contributions as well as the originality as compared to previous research/other reported work in the introduction section.

2.     P2. L55: Authors may wish to give a more detailed discussion on the localised effects which absorb foreign tourism impacts.

3.     The authors may wish to provide scales to the maps of Figure 1.

4.     The title of section 2.2 Impacts of COVID-19 on Tourism from a System Dynamics perspective do not corresponds to the content of this section. I suggest the authors to restructure this section as some description of the system dynamics modelling method is presented here.

5.     The resolution of Figures 6 is poor. Values of external tourism relief funding and infrastructure upgrade costs variables are not legible.

6.   Authors may wish to give a more detailed discussion on how do the three governance response scenarios intertwine with suggested management interventions summarized in Figure 7. 

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Responses attached below. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

I have reviewed the entire paper, I saw has improved the entire paper according to reviewer's suggestions. Although, I need to include this author in this paper due to the reevance in this topic: