The Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Driving Factors of Regional Ecological Efficiency in the Tourism Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

 

Yes, this manuscript provides a thorough review of relevant research on tourism ecological efficiency. The authors have citied recent studies that have examined tourism efficiency at the provincial level in China, as well as research on spatial characteristics and its influencing factors. This submitted manuscript positions itself in relation to prior work by arguing that a lack of studies exist that focuses on using trend surface analysis.

 

The background narrative helps to contextualise the study well, noting China's goals for sustainable tourism development, the importance of Guangdong Province, and the need to balance tourism growth with ecological impacts. References to policy initiatives and tourism statistics in my view help frame the research questions and significance of the study.

 

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

 

The research design and methodology are thoroughly presented and align well with the stated objective of assessing and explaining the spatiotemporal differences in tourism ecological efficiency across these cities over time. The methods chosen in my view are appropriate for the research questions posed by this manuscript. 

 

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

 

Overall, the paper builds a compelling narrative by linking the DEA, spatial analysis, and regression results together to paint a cohesive picture of tourism ecological efficiency in Guangdong Province. The results align with the stated objectives and are presented in a convincing yet balanced manner.

 

Are the results clearly presented?

 

Yes

 

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

 

Overall, I feel the conclusions help summarise the major findings and provide logical interpretations, explanations, and recommendations grounded in these results. The linkages to the literature review are also made clear. However, the policy and practical recommendations are somewhat broad. I would argue that the authors need more targeted suggestions that could be made together with deeper investigation into the cities' ecotourism challenges.

Author Response

This attachment is a modified document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

* The topic: in trend with the recent approaches in the tourism area, and compatible with the journal orientation.

* Abstract: please avoid using acronyms here (SBM, ArcGIS) or write the complete word.

* Introduction:

-          Developing the ecological tourism concept and the digital economy concept, too;

-          Also, what is the linkage between these 2 concepts? The authors can be implied with personal arguments.

 

-          It is needed to create a clearer and bigger context for the research;

-          A presentation of the analyzed area is required; it is needed to understand where is applied the research and to find details about this;

-          To extend the framework of research in the introduction;

-          To develop the references and to show how were approached the main concepts in the literature;

* Point 2 (starting line 93):

-  the need to present in an organized manner the research methodology: methods used and why, how was developed the research, how was collected the data, etc.

-          Table 1: how do you choose the indicators? Which criteria were used for this?

-          2.1 It cannot be a separate subchapter, and is not presented like an individual subchapter, due to the lack of explanation;

-          2.2.1. (starting line 100): which data were used in the model? Is the model from literature or it is created by authors?

-          Suddenly entrance into the model, without any presentation and/or arguments;

-          How do you choose the variables for the model?

-          Why did you choose this model? And which is the author's contribution?

* Conclusion:

-          The usefulness of the paper?

-          The references of the ”results” in the conclusion (like ”firstly” etc.) are the object of the discussion, not of the conclusion; please, reorganize this part.

Author Response

This attachment is a modified document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although this study proposes relevant methods to measure ecological efficiency in the tourism sector and analyze/identify the problems and factors that influence the sustainable development of urban tourism, there is a substantial room for improvement in terms of methodology, depth of analysis, clarity, and practical relevance.

 

In the abstract, the authors refer to “Improving tourism ecological efficiency is profitable to sustainable development, and facilitating the harmony of tourism development and the ecological environment is also conducive to sustainable development.” But they do not present theoretical foundations to support this statement.

 

The objectives of this investigation are not presented in the summary. The authors only describe the methodology used, reporting its purpose, immediately drawing conclusions.

State the objectives and then describe the methodology used to achieve the objectives.

 

The abstract must include the added value of this research. What it adds (theoretically and practically) taking into account the existing literature.

 

In the introduction the statement “Improving regional tourism ecological efficiency is conducive to realizing the sustainable development of tourism industry.” It is not properly substantiated. In fact, the relationship ecological efficiency and sustainability should be deepened.

 

In the introduction, the authors state that “In 2021, tourism accommodation units in Guangdong Province received nearly 257.01 million overnight tourists, an increase of 11.46% year-on-year.” However, they do not mention the source.

 

In the introduction, the authors identified a gap in the literature when they state that “There is a lack of literature that comprehensively combines tourism with sustainable development to list relevant suggestions…”. In this sense, they should formulate study hypotheses, to be validated or not, through the methods used.

 

At the end of the introduction, state how this manuscript is structured. In the introduction, the authors propose to calculate the tourism ecological efficiency of 21 cities in Guangdong Province and analyze the problems and factors associated with the sustainable development of urban tourism. However, as a starting point, they should refer to the tourist load capacity of the 21 cities analyzed.

 

In point 2, despite mentioning the source of the data in the text, the authors should include the source at the end of table 1.

 

In point 2, where the authors describe and explain the mathematical expressions and variables of the research methods used (SBM-DEA model, natural breakpoint method, trend surface analysis and the geographical detector model) there is not a single bibliographic reference. Explain with authors the research methods used.

 

In section 3, the authors read the results, city by city, so the reading becomes too dull. They should highlight the cities that registered the most significant improvements or worsening, highlighting the cities where the government made investments and improvement actions related to sustainability. Complement this analysis with the calculation of average annual growth rates.

In sessions 2 and 3, place text between points and subpoints. In the main point, make a brief introduction to what will be covered in the subsequent subpoints.

 

Section 3, “Results” should be titled “Results and discussion”.

 

In section 2, “Conclusions and suggestions”, the authors should include the limitations of this study, in particular those related to the methods used. For example, in the SBM-DEA model, measures of model sensitivity and/or stability are not presented.

 

In section 2, “Conclusions and suggestions, authors must answer the following questions: Why is this study relevant? What are its contributions? The Conclusion section does not address theoretical and managerial implications clearly. Furthermore, in the conclusion section, it would be interesting to propose future investigations taking into account the suggestions made by the authors.

 

Author Response

This attachment is a modified document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is considered the effort of the authors to contribute to the paper's improvement and to implement the modifications according to recommendations.

A new recommendation, now, is to insert in the paper all improvements and explanations, that proved useful, presented in the Cover Letter but not included in the final paper (for example, responses 9, 11, 12).  And, to the end, to check the fluency of the text and better organizing of the paragraphs, to be easier to follow.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf