Sustainable Hunting as a Tourism Product in Dehesa Areas in Extremadura (Spain)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript „Sustainable hunting as a tourism product in dehesa areas. Case study in the regions of Villuercas-Ibores-Jara and Siberia (Extremadura, Spain)” is a very important study from the point of view of social sciences. I agree with the Authors' idea that sustainable hunting, as mentioned in this paper, can contribute to the achievement of environmental, economic and social benefits. Sustainable hunting can be an important element in the development of tourism in rural areas affected by population decline, aging of this population, and low birth rates and unemployment. In this work, sustainable hunting was defined (the concepts were operationalized correctly, which should be emphasized), and then analyzed in the context of factors that may allow for its development. In this way, data was collected to conclude about the prospects of using sustainable hunting in the development of tourism. Thus, it has been shown that hunting can be treated as an untapped tourism resource in Spain. This approach can be inspiring to many other countries. I consider the research problem discussed in this article to be important, I consider the way of its research to be methodically correct, and the inference to be justified.
Despite the overall positive opinion about the article, I believe that it requires a few corrections and additions necessary to obtain its high quality.
1 / In line 52 the citation should be corrected. Right now there is: "... means" (6: 4). In spite of the ... "
2 / Figure 1 should be referred to in the text of the article.
3 / Lines 129 to 138 should be linked in table 1. Table 1 should be cited in the text.
4 / Table 3 should have a title.
5 / Lines 216 to 223 should be linked to the source of the data to be referenced in the text.
6 / Lines 225 to 238 should be linked to table 6. Table 6 should be cited in the text.
7 / Lines 250 to 253 should be included in the text, any existing bullets should be deleted and saved continuously.
8 / Lines 271 to 279 should be linked to Table 7. Table 7 should be cited in the text.
9 / Lines 281 to 291 should be linked to Table 8. Table 8 should be cited in the text.
10 / Lines 337 to 348 should be linked to Table 9. Table 9 should be cited in the text.
11 / Chapter 4. "Discussion" should be divided into a substantively coherent paragraphs.
12 / In line 404 the citation should be corrected - reference to source materials. At the moment it is: "... (18) (51; 27) show that ..."
13 / Conclusions should be numbered and ordered from the most detailed to the most general.
Author Response
First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for his comments on the manuscript. These have guided us in improving the format and quality of the manuscript. For this reason, each and every one of the issues suggested has been addressed, as you can see in the text itself. The changes made are underlined in yellow to facilitate further revision. Thank you very much.
Kind regards,
The authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear editor, dear authors,
The topic of the manuscript (“Sustainable hunting as a tourism product in dehesa areas. Case 2 study in the regions of Villuercas-Ibores-Jara and Siberia (Extremadura, Spain)”) might be of interest to the Sustainability journal readership. The amount and interest of the work that the authors carried out is worthy of consideration and this could potentially be a robust publication. However, a lot of minor issues must be addressed before its publication.
Please, find my comments and suggestions in the attached pdf.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for his comments on the manuscript. These have guided us in improving the format and quality of the manuscript. For this reason, each and every one of the issues suggested has been addressed, as you can see in the text itself. The changes made are underlined in yellow to facilitate further revision. Thank you very much.
Kind regards,
The authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This research appears to be of interest and appropriate for publication in Sustainability's Special Issue "Sustainable Hunting Committed to Biodiversity Conservation." In the manuscript, "Sustainable hunting as a tourism product in dehesa areas. Case study in Villuercas-Ibores-Jara and Siberia (Extremadura, Spain)" (sustainability-1839141), the prevalence of tourism-related threats and pressures was reported. The study has been presented in an average manner, and it needs to be substantially revised in order to be accepted for publication. I have a few questions or suggestions regarding the current manuscript.
First and foremost, language is the primary concern in this study, and proper language editing by a native speaker is required.
P1 Lines 2-3: Shortened the title to "Sustainable hunting as a tourism product in dehesa areas in Spain".
P1 Lines 10-25: The current abstract is too generalized to meet publication standards. The abstract must be streamlined, and qualitative results should be included.
P1 Lines 26-27: The presented keywords are not sufficient, and authors may add 5–6 appealing keywords.
P1 Lines 29-36: Here, the authors need to add a paragraph that explains the global or regional scope of this study and its significance.
P1-2 Lines 28-84: Another matter of concern is the literature cited in this study. It appeared that the authors were not fully aware of the most recent literature pertaining to their study. Two studies are cited as references, and authors may wish to consider including such relevant and updated literature in their research. (1) Nature-based tourism influences ecosystem functioning along waterways: Implications for conservation and management <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156935>; (2) The relationship between people's activities and values with the protection level and biodiversity <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104141>.
P2 Lines 81-83: The research objectives need to be expressed properly. The current general expression is not suitable.
The captions of Figures 1-4 are not completed, and complete information is needed there.
P8 Lines 192-201: The Statistical Analysis section should be presented in different sections. There is no information about which statistical significance tests were conducted before conducting Pearson Correlation.
P14 Lines 366-367: It would be better to convert Table 10 into a Heat Map Correlation Figure.
P15-16 Lines 375-441: The discussion part is relatively generalized and shorter than the requirement. Authors may add more information by improving cross-discussion within it.
Author Response
First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for his comments on the manuscript. These have guided us in improving the format and quality of the manuscript. For this reason, practically all the questions and suggestions he made have been addressed, except for the following:
- The language has been sent for review by this publisher. However, given that the deadline for revising the article exceeded the revision time, it has been decided to send the changes and, subsequently, incorporate the text with the translation revised by mdpi.
- On the other hand, with regard to the suggestions for statistical changes, no such recommendations have been made. The authors consider this analysis to be correct and table 10 shows the results obtained perfectly.
Thank you very much for your comments.
Kind regards,
The authors.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The author's response does not satisfy me. Journals ranked by SCIE and SSCI (Web of Science) require minimum standards of publication. When a reviewer comments on a manuscript point by point, it means the reviewer spends time assisting the authors to respond accordingly. Apparently, the authors do not pay attention to such details or are confident that their manuscript will be accepted without responding to the reviewers in a proper manner. This is unacceptable. I still stand by my comments from the first round.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we believe there must be some misunderstanding with the above review and comments. For this reason, we attach a more detailed document of the issues that have been addressed following your recommendations.
Reviewer 3:
First and foremost, language is the primary concern in this study, and proper language editing by a native speaker is required.
Authors:
A review of the language has been carried out by MDPI itself and a certificate is attached.
Reviewer 3:
P1 Lines 2-3: Shortened the title to "Sustainable hunting as a tourism product in dehesa areas in Spain".
Authors:
The title has been changed. However, the reference to Extremadura has been kept in the title because of the differences between the dehesas in the different Spanish regions.
Reviewer 3:
P1 Lines 10-25: The current abstract is too generalized to meet publication standards. The abstract must be streamlined, and qualitative results should be included.
Authors:
The abstract has been modified.
Reviewer 3:
P1 Lines 26-27: The presented keywords are not sufficient, and authors may add 5–6 appealing keywords.
Authors:
The keywords have been increased to five.
Reviewer 3:
P1 Lines 29-36: Here, the authors need to add a paragraph that explains the global or regional scope of this study and its significance.
Authors:
A paragraph explaining the importance and scope of this study has been added.
Reviewer 3:
P1-2 Lines 28-84: Another matter of concern is the literature cited in this study. It appeared that the authors were not fully aware of the most recent literature pertaining to their study. Two studies are cited as references, and authors may wish to consider including such relevant and updated literature in their research. (1) Nature-based tourism influences ecosystem functioning along waterways: Implications for conservation and management <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156935>; (2) The relationship between people's activities and values with the protection level and biodiversity <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104141>.
Authors:
Both references have not been included as they are not relevant to this study. We do not agree with the reviewer's comment that the article has not included current references on the subject, as we searched Web of Sciences and SCOPUS for the latest published bibliography. For example, the following references can be cited:
- Arroyo-López, B. Management for sustainable red-legged partridge hunting. Málaga: I Jornada de Caza, Pesca y Naturaleza, 2017, pp. 87-106.
- Middleton, A. The economics of hunting Europe. FACE, 2015, pp. 16. In: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://face.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/framework_for_assessing_the_economics_of_hunting_final_.en_.pdf
- Moghimehfar, F.; Harwhaw, H.W.; Foote, L. Hunting tourism: the case of Canadian Praire waterfowl hunters. Wildlife tourism, environmental learning and ethical encounters. Springer, 2017. In: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-55574-4?noAccess=true
- Pešić, B. Hunting tourism as a factor for economic development of hunting associations on the territory of the City of Leskovac. Turizam, 2021, 1, Vol. 25. 1-10. DOI: 10.5937/turizam25-27492
- Kupren, K.; Hakuć-Błażowska, A. Profile of a Modern Hunter and the Socio-Economic Significance of Hunting in Poland as Compared to European Data. Land, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111178
Reviewer 3:
P2 Lines 81-83: The research objectives need to be expressed properly. The current general expression is not suitable.
Authors:
The objectives of this research have been modified and clarified, and the methodological section has been modified to include an outline of the process carried out.
Reviewer 3:
The captions of Figures 1-4 are not completed, and complete information is needed there.
Authors:
The legends have been modified and the names of the hunting grounds in Extremadura have been translated to make them easier for the reader to understand.
Reviewer 3:
P8 Lines 192-201: The Statistical Analysis section should be presented in different sections. There is no information about which statistical significance tests were conducted before conducting Pearson Correlation.
Author:
Parametric tests have not been performed, as they are not necessary to carry out a correlation analysis.
Reviewer 3:
P14 Lines 366-367: It would be better to convert Table 10 into a Heat Map Correlation Figure.
Authors:
Parametric tests have not been performed, as they are not necessary to carry out a correlation analysis.
Reviewer 3:
P15-16 Lines 375-441: The discussion part is relatively generalized and shorter than the requirement. Authors may add more information by improving cross-discussion within it.
Authors:
The discussion has been modified and rewritten by organising it into different thematic sections and including a new bibliography.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
No more comments
