Investigating Change in the Willingness to Pay for a More Sustainable Tourist Destination in a World Heritage City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research is well done and corresponds to the publication. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Kind Regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity of reading and reviewing your interesting paper. The manuscript investigates a topic which falls under the journal's scope and the paper has merit, it brings new insights on the topic.

However, there are several aspects that need improvement, and I present below several suggestions:

1.The Introduction should be re-written and re-structured, so that it includes only main introductory issues and a presentation of the aims, objectives, and a short presentation of the structure of the paper.

2.What is now called Introduction is basically a theoretical background of the study and it should be renamed accordingly. This section could include also the literature, which should be focused on the topic and should include more recent titles. I suggest two titles here from MDPI journals but more others can be found and referenced:

Sultan, M.T. et al. Social Media-Based Content towards Image Formation: A New Approach to the Selection of Sustainable Destinations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4241. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084241

Vílchez-Lara, M.d.C. et al. Methodology for Documentation and Sustainability of Cultural Heritage Landscapes: The Case of the Tajos de Alhama (Granada, Spain). Sustainability 2021, 13, 12964. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312964

3.The Methodology section should not be placed after the model. The Methodology section should include both the methods used, the hypotheses, the model. The results and the discussion of them should be placed in a separate dedicated section.

4.In the final section you should refer only to conclusions, limitations, implications. I recommend to enhance this part, it now include both discussion, which is very schematic, and conclusions, which are definetely underdeveloped. Please add limitations and further suggestions for continuance of the study.

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. Thank you very much for your kind and pertinent considerations. We summarize the changes made to the text, which we have highlighted with the typography in red.

 1.The Introduction should be re-written and re-structured, so that it includes only main introductory issues and a presentation of the aims, objectives, and a short presentation of the structure of the paper.

-  The Introduction has been restructured, separating sections 2, 3 and 4 from it.

2.What is now called Introduction is basically a theoretical background of the study and it should be renamed accordingly. This section could include also the literature, which should be focused on the topic and should include more recent titles. I suggest two titles here from MDPI journals but more others can be found and referenced:

Sultan, M.T. et al. Social Media-Based Content towards Image Formation: A New Approach to the Selection of Sustainable Destinations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4241. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084241

Vílchez-Lara, M.d.C. et al. Methodology for Documentation and Sustainability of Cultural Heritage Landscapes: The Case of the Tajos de Alhama (Granada, Spain). Sustainability 2021, 13, 12964. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312964

- See answer 1. The bibliographic reference of Vílchez-Lara et al. Has been incorporated.

3.The Methodology section should not be placed after the model. The Methodology section should include both the methods used, the hypotheses, the model. The results and the discussion of them should be placed in a separate dedicated section.

- The order of the fifth section (Methodology) has been modified.

 4.In the final section you should refer only to conclusions, limitations, implications. I recommend to enhance this part, it now include both discussion, which is very schematic, and conclusions, which are definetely underdeveloped. Please add limitations and further suggestions for continuance of the study.

 - The heading for Discussion, Conclusions and Management Implications has been completed (seventh)

Kind Regards

Carlos Jurado-Rivas

Marcelino Sánchez-Rivero

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for providing a revised version of your manuscript. Unfortunately, my suggestions were mostly not addressed. Particularly, the final section which should be the most important in terms of contribution, is underdeveloped. I am not convinced that putting all together, in one page, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS is a good solution.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

First of all, sincerely thank you for the suggestions to the text. As you can see, the text has undergone profound changes thanks to the suggestions of reviewers (5) and editors (3). In its specific case, the discussion and conclusions have been expanded, as well as the structure of the introduction and the methodology.

Kind regards

Carlos Jurado-Rivas
Marcelino Sanchez-Rivero