Tourism Urbanisation in Metropolitan Fringe: Insights from the Tourist City of Lavasa in Pune, India

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The last paragraph of the Introduction is not necessary. The current structure is more like a thesis. It would be better if the authors could better justify the contributions or significance of this research.

2. Literature Review: How about the “inside-out” and “outside-in” angles mentioned in the abstract? What are the theories related to “inside-out” and “outside-in”? The literature review focuses more on the development of the concepts of tourism urbanisation. However, the theoretical foundation of this paper should be explained better.

3. Methodology: "The data was obtained from public documents, on site observations during visits to 331 Lavasa from 2005 to 2016." Can the authors have more recently published data?  

4. "Peri-urban conurbations of Indian cities" Are there any other similar cities in the world? It could help to justify the generalization of this research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall good quality. I would suggest that the authors revise the title of "2. Region, tourism, and tourism urbanisation- key concepts" to just "2. Region, tourism, and tourism urbanisation" or list the key concepts as sub-titles.  

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and feedback. We have responded to all your comments- Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very interesting paper. I think the paper is ready for publication. 
Just a curiosity: did/does this Lavasa "touristification" process receive some criticism?  

Author Response

Thank you for your encouraging feedback. We have responded to your comment in the attached file- Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research paper examines tourism-led urbanization along a corridor linking the city of Pune to Lavasa in India. The story is interesting (especially for a non-Indian) to read, however I am not sure what the "lessons" are (as stated in the title). Can the results of this case study be generalized? It seems to be a very peculiar case study. Also, the title says "tourism urbanization" but to what degree urbanization here is really tourism-induced.

On page 8, lines 319-321, the authors write:

"For analysing tourism urbanisation induced by Lavasa, a morphological study of the Lavasa tourism sub-region was conducted using temporal mapping and direct observations at two scales: within the Lavasa Hill City, and along the main access, the road connecting Lavasa with Pune city". I think the concept of scale is not used correctly here.

On page 13, we can read;

"The route that provides access to the formal destination, because of its alignment and character, develops into an informal tourist space where one finds that locals offer tourism products and tourism services via informal means – roadside stalls (temporary), shanties, local produce, meagre accommodation, and other amenities competing and cooperating simultaneously". I have never been there so I may be wrong, but somehow I doubt that these services cater for tourists. Maybe we should revisit the definition of tourism and tourists. I general, I believe the term "tourism" is used very loosely in this article.

Methodology seems OK (nothing too sophisticated though). The literature section generally covers the major works on the subject. However, I do not see the "wow" factor so to speak. I don't think the paper could be published in a journal that has limited space and, thus, is generally looking for highly original studies. However, I could see the paper published in Sustainability, as this journal does not have space limitations.

Best of luck!

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and feedback. We have responded to all your comments- Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved but more detailed information is still needed to make the information and research more reliable. For example, the authors mentioned "Public documents published by project proponents and government authorities till 2019." What were the published documents used in the research? A list of the documents will be helpful. "Interviews with shop owners, officials of Lavasa, and local villagers conducted in 2021 to 2022." How did the authors structure the interview questions and what were the questions? If interviews were used, some direct quotes would be helpful for the audience to know what the interviewees said. No related information was mentioned in the current manuscript. I would encourage the authors to provide the above information. Good luck!

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their comment- we have provided more information on methodology and interview content as suggested.  Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf