Sustainable Tourism Planning for Taiwanese in Administrative Effects with Respect to Chinese Arrivals
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper "Sustainable Tourism Planning for Taiwanese in Administrative effects with respect to Chinese Arrivals" is dealing with Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) that might provide guidance for revising administrative decisions regarding comprehensive administrative tourism mechanism on reception travel agencies targeted on Chinese students.
The paper clearly demonstrates its value-added and its contribution to the topic. It cites some relevant sources (although a list of references can be further boosted up by some 15-20 additional relevant papers). The paper is written in good English.
minor revisions:
1) How about Taiwanese tourists in China? Can you elaborate on the tourism flow what goes the other way?
2) It would also be interesting to see some discussion whether your analysis might look differently in case of Chinese tourism in, say, U.S. or Europe? After all, Taiwan has the biggest advantage for the Chinese visitors - lack of the language barrier.
3) Figures 1 and 2 should be re-done (they looks dodgy and seem to be copied from somewhere).
4) How the lessons from tourism flows from China to Taiwan can be used in other countries? China is predicted to become the most-visited country in the world by 2030 and the outbound tourism from China will also be growing.
5) Can you suggest the pathways for further research on this topic?
Author Response
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Please find below some comments and suggestions about your paper.
The paper is interesting and could have relevant managerial implications, however the expected contribution has to be clarified; according to this I would suggest you to revise the structure to separate Methodology section from Findings section and make the paper more readable. (For instance, section 4 has to be intended as the methodology section? Paragraph 4.2 has to be intended as preliminary findings? As a description of the methodological process?)
Line 379: as it concerns the survey, you stated that it was conducted in January 2015, but did you submit all the 215 surveys in one month?
· Can you provide more information about the survey?
· Did you had not valid results or not valid surveys?
· How did you identified the travel agencies?
Line 385: how do you identified the four stratums?
Table 2 is interesting but a more detailed description would be needed.
Considering the amount of data emerging from the analysis I would suggest to extend the discussion and to stress the managerial implications;
Furthermore limitations and further research are missing, then I would suggest you to revise the structure of the last part of the paper creating two separated section, one for the discussion and the implications and one for the conclusion with limitations and further research.
The main limitation of the paper is that data have been collected more than 3 years ago and that refer to one year before.
However, considering the amount of data collected the analysis can be considered significant, but both the analysis of the context and the literature review have to be updated with more recent sources.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for providing a revision version of the paper..
The revisions have been performed properly, however I would suggest to rename section "6.1. Conclusion and limitation" as "7 Conclusion and limitation" and "6.2. Discussion and implication" as "6 Discussion and implication".
Regards,
Author Response
Dear Authors,
thank you for providing a revision version of the paper..
The revisions have been performed properly, however I would suggest to rename section "6.1. Conclusion and limitation" as "7 Conclusion and limitation" and "6.2. Discussion and implication" as "6 Discussion and implication".
Reply
Thank you for reviewer’s kind suggestion. We have correct both of the subsections to be Section 6 and Section 7, respectively.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
