Economic Valuation of Green Island, Taiwan: A Choice Experiment Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Following my recomandations:
- in the introduction I would insert the articulation of the paper
- I would deepen the discussion through references from the scientific literature, highlighting the theoretical implications
- In the conclusions, I would explain the practical implications more clearly.
Author Response
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have had the opportunity to read the manuscript carefully. The authors tried to explore how tourists and local residents differently have willingness to pay for ecological attributes. The article presents some interesting ideas that are potentially of interest to both academics and practitioners.
However, there are some theoretical and methodological issues which in my mind limit the present contribution in its present form.
First of all, there are a few supportive literature reviews and theoretical backgrounds for this study. Although authors attempt to cover some issues regarding the study area,, still this article shows a lack of supportive arguments and their consistency and poor theoretical development about differences between tourists and local residents, sustainable attributes which were used for variables for research purposes.
Next,the discussion doesn't sufficiently offer insight into the findings. The author(s) need to get at question of "so what?" more for Sustainability.
Overall, I enjoyed reading this study and found it interesting. It could make a contribution to sustainable tourism study literature at micro level. I hope my comments help in revising and rethinking this research and wish the authors the best with this line of scholarship.
Author Response
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents a sound empirical analysis but it lacks clarity and does not develop any theoretical background or any analytical framework. Overall I think the authors can design a publishable paper with the material they have, but in its present form this piece needs a major revision. I hope the following comments help to improve the paper:
Abstract: please include the real aim of the study. The aim is not the usage of a method, I guess. Furthermore, do not include data in the abstract. Finally, add the contribution (also the theoretical one) of this paper.
Title: I think the paper title is not appropriate and it create expectations which cannot be fulfilled. Sustainable Tourism Development and Climate Change are not the central constructs/objects analyzed in this paper.
The paper structure goes from introduction to methods used: but what about the theoretical background of this study? What about a in-depth literature review? Ecossystem valuation pattern research needs to be discussed. The authors discuss the methods in the introduction section, but the basic theoretical assumptions and its shortcoming and advantages are not discussed or highlighted at all.
Methods and Results: These two section are well-written however very hard to read. The authors might explain the analysis of the data in order to pre-structure the results' section. Furthermore, the study site choice needs justification and the methods used.
Discussion: A interpretation and discussion of the results in light of earlier studies is totally missing!
Conclusions: this is also a very weak section: it is a repetition what was said or a summary. But it lacks concrete management recommendation as well as further research recommendations. Limitations were addressed.
Author Response
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The article focuses on a topic of great interest such as the sustainability of island destinations. The study follows the requirements for a scientific publication. The conclusions set out the main limitations that are basically focused on the attributes and size of the sample in certain groups. However, the methodology can be validated and improved in future studies.
Author Response
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I found that authors tried to incorporate the reviewers’ suggestion, and that this article was neatly revised.
This article is meaningful in that it deals with economic valuation with CEM for sustainable tourism.It is acceptable for the Sustainability.
Best,
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you very much for the detailed and well-explained revision of the document. I think it will be a good contribution to our Journal and I recommend to accept the paper.
