Analyzing the Spatio-Temporal Distribution and Network Structure of Ecotourism Flow in Zhangjiajie

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper entitled „Analyzing the Spatio-Temporal Distribution and Network Structure of Ecotourism Flow in Zhangjiajie".

Unquestionably Zhangjiajie is a rising tourist city famous for its unique natural scenery and abundant tourism resources

I very much enjoyed reading and reviewing your paper. Your paper is promising, however, there are several issues that, in my opinion, authors should necessarily address:

- the aim paragraph at the moment is a bit messy. Clearly state the research question.

- the authors should add a theoretical background section. Ecotourism needs to be defined and contextualized with contemporary definitions and literature such as that from TIES, UNWTO and others who have shaped the field.  You need to provide a much stronger justification of the link of this research with sustainability if you want to publish it in this journal.

- the authors must expand the dialogue between literature and results in the discussion. The Discussion section should reveal a literature review of studies published or accessed elsewhere.

- the paper would be strengthened by following the conventional format where the discussion section is presented before the conclusion section.

- implications and limitations of the research should be further developed.

 

I congratulate the research team, we suggest the revision of the paper according to the above mentioned.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is good and should be publication-ready after a suitable revision. 

The literature review is not enough, more analysis is required to bridge the gap from the present research to the emergence of the research question and thus the research gap that this study will cover. The contribution, importance, limitations, and future directions of this study need to be analyzed further. 

The selection of the methodology needs to be substantiated. 
The conclusions and discussion section should be a thorough analysis of the work, and maybe the authors would like to remove the numbering, as it is not customary to have these sections portrayed as lists. 

All the best with the revision, I am looking forward to the next version. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

I would like to thank the authors for their comments and the improvement of the manuscript.

I do not have any additional comments.

From my point of view, the paper is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your advice and affirmation！

Mei Xu