An Examination of the Spatial Spillover Effects of Tourism Transportation on Sustainable Development from a Multiple-Indicator Cross-Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript. I find the current manuscript interesting. However, I have minor suggestions to improve the manuscript:

Abstract

The  limition and sugesstion should be summarized in a few sentences and included in the abstract.

Introduction

P.2 after line49, the authors should add a paragraph related to:

What is the problem, why you are doing this stuy, how this study contribute to the literature or/and how this study fill the gap? Briefly, I suggest the authors write a captivating introduction, including the research problem.

Literature Review

The literature is better than the introduction, however, it was short so they should extend the literature. The author(s) should write more about how other scholars tested those relationships and what they found. They should share previous scholars' studies or findings as an example instead of just citing them. I only saw three studies (Gao et al., 2021, Tahiri et al., 2022 and Destek & Aydın, 2022) but there should be more studies so they should also mention that.

Methods & Results:

There are no concern in here.

Conclusion:

 

In other words, the last section is not elucidated enough. The authors only mentioned what did they find. However, there should be a discussion of rationality for the outcome, and the author(s) should discuss the results and compare them to previous studies that have similar or opposing results. I wish the author the best of luck with the revision.

Author Response

Author's Notes to Reviewer

 

1)- Abstract: The limition and sugesstion should be summarized in a few sentences and included in the abstract .

- the "Abstract" section has been revised in terms of background, methods, objectives, results and conclusions, and limitations. Added limitation and suggestion to this section.;

 

2)- Introduction: P .2 after line49, the authors should add a paragraph related to : What is the problem , why you are doing this stuy , how this study contribute to the literature or / and how this study fill the gap ? Briefly , I suggest the authors write a captivating introduction , including the research problem .

- the “Introduction” section has been modified according to the comments, and the purpose of the study is stated in the last paragraph of the Introduction. The purpose of the study is that there are relatively little cross-research using multiple indicators related to tourism under the SDG framework, in order to fill a research gap, this study explores the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region of China as an example from the perspective of cross-research of multiple SDG indicators. Exploring the tourism coordinated development index and the spatial spillover effects of transportation on tourism sustainability in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region from a multi-indicator cross-perspective, to better illustrate the impact of different transportation modes and economic development on tourism. Thus providing methodological considerations useful for monitoring and assessing tourism sustainability and providing methodological tools and decision-making references for the development of tourism in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region of China and other similar regions around the world;

 

3)- Literature Review: The literature is better than the introduction , however , it was short so they should extend the literature . The author ( s ) should write more about how other scholars tested those relationships and what they found . They should share previous scholars ' studies or findings as an example instead of just citing them . I only saw three studies ( Gao et al .,2021, Tahiri et al .,2022 and Destek & Aydin ,2022) but there should be more studies so they should also mention that .

- in the “literature review”, modifications and supplements are made according to the comments, which are divided into two sections on “2.1 Sustainable Tourism Research Status” and “2.2 Transportation Spillover Effects Research status”. And some new references have been added to supplement its specific content;

 

4)- Conclusion: In other words , the last section is not elucidated enough . The authors only mentioned what did they find . However , there should be a discussion of rationality for the outcome , and the author ( s ) should discuss the results and compare them to previous studies that have similar or opposing results .

- in “Discussion and Conclusion” section, the findings have been supplemented, and possible explanations have been made for the formation of some results. According to the modification comments, the results of previous studies of similar or opposing results were compared and analyzed;

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

It was with great interest that I read the article “An Examination of the Spatial Spillover Effects of Tourism Transportation on Sustainable Development from a Multiple-Indicator Cross-Perspective”. The subject of the study is interesting, pertinent and current, taking in account the increasing relevance of mobility, especially associated to tourism sector and sustainable development.

This article complies with almost all the established norms for the articles of this publication in extension and formal organization. However, despite realizing that extensive review work has already been done, there are still some issues that deserve reflection. I hope that the advanced suggestions/questions can serve as a guide for the authors to revise and to improve the final manuscript:

1 – In the Abstract: from my point of view abstract should be redone. I recommend to the authors the formula: a bit introduction/background, objectives, methodology (that is not indicated), results and conclusion. The general purpose of the study is present but the concrete objectives should be clearly written as well as the methodology used.

2 – Key-words: some of the advanced keywords are not explored in Literature review (spatial spillover effects; transportation);

3 – In the Introduction: introduction must be improved. It is too synthetic; it does not clarify the subject that will be treated in the article. At the end of this section objectives should be clearly stated as well as the research questions or starting questions;

4 – In Literature Review section: there’s a lack of a real literature review about previous research and results about this thematic or related themes, namely about spatial spillover effects or transportation and tourism and sustainable development. From my point of view the last paragraph should come in the introduction;

5 – In the Materials and Methods section: The maps presented are not framed in the text, with the exception of C. What is the purpose of map a, b and d? In line 109 should appear (Figure 1c).

6 – In Results section: I have my doubts about the effectiveness of using acronyms. There are too many, it is not possible to immediately understand what it is about and we have to constantly go back to the table 1 to understand what it is about. Pay attention to the space between text and tables.

7 – In Conclusion and Discussion section: Shouldn't it be the other way around? Discussion and Conclusion? Again the issue of acronyms. It must be revised. What about the practical applications of this index? Can you clarify better?

Author Response

Author's Notes to Reviewer

 

1)- In the Abstract : from my point of view abstract should be redone . I recommend to the authors the formula : a bit introduction / background , objectives , methodology ( that is not indicated ), results and conclusion . The general purpose of the study is present but the concrete objectives should be clearly written as well as the methodology used;

- the “Abstract” section has been rewritten. The “Abstract” section has been modified according to the recommended formula in the order of background, methods, objectives, results and conclusions, and limitations;

 

2)- Key - words : some of the advanced keywords are not explored in Literature review ( spatial spillover effects ; transportation );

- in the “literature review”, modifications and supplements are made according to the comments, which are divided into two sections on “2.1 Sustainable Tourism Research Status” and “2.2 Transportation Spillover Effects Research status”. The Keywords “spatial spillover effects” and “transportation” are explored in the literature review;

 

3)- In the Introduction : introduction must be improved . It is too synthetic ; it does not clarify the subject that will be treated in the article . At the end of this section objectives should be clearly stated as well as the research questions or starting questions;

- the “Introduction” section has been modified according to the comments, and the purpose of the study is stated in the last paragraph of the Introduction. The purpose of the study is that there are relatively little cross-research using multiple indicators related to tourism under the SDG framework, in order to fill a research gap, this study explores the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region of China as an example from the perspective of cross-research of multiple SDG indicators. Exploring the tourism coordinated development index and the spatial spillover effects of transportation on tourism sustainability in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region from a multi-indicator cross-perspective, to better illustrate the impact of different transportation modes and economic development on tourism. Thus providing methodological considerations useful for monitoring and assessing tourism sustainability and providing methodological tools and decision-making references for the development of tourism in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region of China and other similar regions around the world;

 

4)- In Literature Review section : there ' s a lack of a real literature review about previous research and results about this thematic or related themes , namely about spatial spillover effects or transportation and tourism and sustainable development . From my point of view the last paragraph should come in the introduction;

- in the “literature review”, modifications and supplements are made according to the comments, which are divided into two sections on “2.1 Sustainable Tourism Research Status” and “2.2 Transportation Spillover Effects Research status”. And we adjusted the last paragraph to the “Introduction”;

 

5)- In the Materials and Methods section : The maps presented are not framed in the text , with the exception of C . What is the purpose of map a , b and d ? In line 109 should appear ( Figure 1c);

- a brief description of the Figure 1 has been added at the bottom of the Figure 1. Specifically for “Figure 1. The distribution of the study area: (a) Altitude: the macro pattern of the BTHR terrain; (b) Vegetation index: the ecological environment in the BTHR; (c) Tourism destinations distribution: the tourism resources in the BTHR; (d) Tourism core density and transportation conditions: the transport network in the BTHR.” And in line 109 has been modified to Figure 1c as suggested;

 

6)- In Results section : I have my doubts about the effectiveness of using acronyms . There are too many , it is not possible to immediately understand what it is about and we have to constantly go back to the table 1 to understand what it is about . Pay attention to the space between text and tables;

- The acronyms in the “Results” section have been supplemented and modified to the full names for easy reading. The space between the text and the tables has also been adjusted;

 

7)- In Conclusion and Discussion section : Shouldn ' t it be the other way around ? Discussion and Conclusion ? Again the issue of acronyms . It must be revised . What about the practical applications of this index ? Can you clarify better ?

- the “Conclusion and Discussion” section has been modified to “5. Discussion and Conclusion”. The acronyms have been supplemented and modified to the full names for easy reading. The contents of the index applications have been supplemented, and possible explanations have been made for the formation of some indexes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your paper. I appreciate the work done by the authors and the changes introduced to the manuscript. The current version has been substantially improved in terms of its scientific merits and writing coherence. Just noting the issue of spaces between text and headings (2, 2.1, 3. 3.1).