Ecotourism in China, Misuse or Genuine Development? An Analysis Based on Map Browser Results

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have taken up an interesting problem of assessing the development of ecotourism in China. Tourism in this country creates a huge market for both the reception of foreign incoming tourism as domestic tourism. The very term ecotourism is interpreted differently and the ecotourism slogans and logos are often abused for commercial purposes, phenomenon occurring not only in China.

Fig. 1 and 2 (however have some annotations in text) should be described sufficiently to allow for understanding of what year exactly they are referring to in.

Line 41: definition of Ecotourism for TIES; it is worth referring to def. of UN WTO https://sdt.unwto.org/content/ecotourism-and-protected-areas, because it is wider !;

Line 200: I do belive that authors are referring to 2016 Stat. Yearbook, certainly not the 2006 (we have after all 2019 at the moment)

Summary; Line 322, UNWTO is already deeply involved in wide-scale international cooperation in th field of ecotourism, organising for eg. World Ecotourism Summit, but the specialised commity might not be bad idea.

I was really hoping for more (or any) elaborate section of 'Future Research' related to this topic especially after such complex section of 'Chances and suggestion for future ecotourism development in China'

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. WE took good care to address all your points and those from other reviewers as well as the academic editor. Please find below our answers related to your comments. Note that the manuscript underwent substantial changes, especially in the Introduction section. We updated the literature review with additional, more recent literature to give context to our research and rechecked the English spelling and style. Moreover, the analysis has been updated with data from the 2018 Yearbooks. This didn't change the overall results, but all values in the tables have been modified.

Line numbers refer to the text using Simple Markup option.

Fig. 1 and 2 (however have some annotations in text) should be described sufficiently to allow for understanding of what year exactly they are referring to in.
ANSWER: We added reference to data sources. Note that the figure have been replaces with updated ones based on more recent datasets (Yearbooks of 2018 instead of 2016)

- Line 41: definition of Ecotourism for TIES; it is worth referring to def. of UN WTO https://sdt.unwto.org/content/ecotourism-and-protected-areas, because it is wider !;
ANSWER: We added the reference to UNWTO page. Actually, IOs and NGOs generally agree on the definition and the fundamental principles of ecotourism, which distinguish it from other forms of tourism. These principles are stated in the manuscripts in the sentence following the definition (line 46).

- Line 200: I do believe that authors are referring to 2016 Stat. Yearbook, certainly not the 2006 (we have after all 2019 at the moment)
ANSWER: Indeed, that was a mistake. Note that we updated all our data, tables and figures to the 2018 Statistical Yearbooks.

- Summary; Line 322, UNWTO is already deeply involved in wide-scale international cooperation in the field of ecotourism, organising for eg. World Ecotourism Summit, but the specialised committy might not be bad idea.
ANSWER: We edited the Conclusions section

- I was really hoping for more (or any) elaborate section of 'Future Research' related to this topic especially after such complex section of 'Chances and suggestion for future ecotourism development in China'
ANSWER: We added a section 4.4 discussing limitations and future work

Reviewer 2 Report

Ecotourism in China, misuse or genuine development? An analysis based on map browser results-Comments

This study analyzes the ecotourism development by using map browser method in China; estimate the relationship between of ecotourism site quantity, density, GDP and population size. However, this research lack of the theoretical thinking on ecotourism development, and only focus on empirical method with spatial and secondary data. Moreover, the ecotourism need treat as a core construct based on the topics, the authors have to identify the real case study can meet the definition on “ecotourism”. The ecotourism would divided as the natural-based ecotourism, community-based ecotourism etc., I’m not very sure this paper would focus on which “construct” or “definition”, and also lack of the conceptual framework with theoretical thinking on the topic. By the way, this paper didn’t talk the main and creative thinking with the research evidences and outcomes, it’s also have to revise on the section of “Conclusions”.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. WE took good care to address all your points and those from other reviewers as well as the academic editor. Please find below our answers related to your comments. Note that the manuscript underwent substantial changes, especially in the Introduction section. We updated the literature review with additional, more recent literature to give context to our research and rechecked the English spelling and style. Moreover, the analysis has been updated with data from the 2018 Yearbooks. This didn't change the overall results, but all values in the tables have been modified.

Line numbers refer to the text using Simple Markup option.

- However, this research lack of the theoretical thinking on ecotourism development, and only focus on empirical method with spatial and secondary data.
ANSWER: Our introduction section has been widely revised, including extensive and updated literature review, remove ambiguities, and at the end better explain the theoretical thinking and rationale rationale.

- Moreover, the ecotourism need treat as a core construct based on the topics, the authors have to identify the real case study can meet the definition on “ecotourism”. The ecotourism would divided as the natural-based ecotourism, community-based ecotourism etc., I’m not very sure this paper would focus on which “construct” or “definition”, and also lack of the conceptual framework with theoretical thinking on the topic.
ANSWER: We used map browser with key word 'ecotourism' to see how the general public (in this case the providers) use the word in their businesses. From our results and other studies, it look quite clear that there's a misuse of the term, with a tendency to tag as 'ecotourism' anything offering some kind of nature-based activity. The meaning and development of 'shengtai luyou' (ecotourism) is discussed in the introduction and our rationale has been developed at the end of the introduction (from line 143 to end of chapter)

- By the way, this paper didn’t talk the main and creative thinking with the research evidences and outcomes, it’s also have to revise on the section of “Conclusions”.
ANSWER: We added a section 4.4 discussing limitations and future work. The discussion section has been expanded, in particular section 4.2 and 4.2. Conclusion has also been developed to include the conclusions of the present study. However, we meant this conclusion to be an opening for international discussion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Introduction Section:
1. Page 2, Lime 54-59: Without a clear operational framework to guide this flourishing industry ...... many operational framework has been published by various NGOs including UNWTO, UNEP, Ecotourism Australia, GSTC etc. I think authors could refer to the guidelines provided by these NGOs to know more about the operational framework for ecotourism. In addition, the reference cited also aged. There are many publication in the field of ecotourism recent years, also in SUSTAINABILITY

2. An extensive literature review section is needed to enhance the background of this research. Many relevant publication of Ecotourism in China in the past decades. These articles could offer a more holistic views on the ecotourism development in China (including Hong Kong and Taiwan).

3. Page 2, line 93-94: Several studies reported increasing pressure..... The reference cite here is old. There are many many articles have been published in recent years regarding to tourists behaviours and attitudes. Some examples for your reference

Cheung, L. T., Lo, A. Y., & Fok, L. (2017). Recreational specialization and ecologically responsible behaviour of Chinese birdwatchers in Hong Kong. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(6), 817-831.

Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2018). Ecotourism behavior of nature-based tourists: An integrative framework. Journal of Travel Research, 57(6), 792-810.

Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2015). The effects of recreation experience, environmental attitude, and biospheric value on the environmentally responsible behavior of nature-based tourists. Environmental management, 56(1), 193-208.

Chow, A. S., Cheng, I. N., & Cheung, L. T. (2019). Self-determined travel motivations and ecologically responsible attitudes of nature-based visitors to the Ramsar wetland in South China. Annals of Leisure Research, 22(1), 42-61.

4. Please highlight the importance of your research and indicates what kind of potential contribution of your study could provide.

Methodology section:
5. Where Gaode Maps has been selected, explain further the rationale of choosing this map.

Discussion Section:
6. section 4.2 needs to be further elaborated to justify why the term of "Ecotourism" has been misused. it is not persuasive based on the results of data analysis which no correlation was found between the provincial distribution pattern of the Chinese ecotourism sites and the nature factors. authors have to further discuss why it is happening and offer more concrete examples to justify the misuse of the term.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. WE took good care to address all your points and those from other reviewers as well as the academic editor. Please find below our answers related to your comments. Note that the manuscript underwent substantial changes, especially in the Introduction section. We updated the literature review with additional, more recent literature to give context to our research and rechecked the English spelling and style. Moreover, the analysis has been updated with data from the 2018 Yearbooks. This didn't change the overall results, but all values in the tables have been modified.

Line numbers refer to the text using Simple Markup option.

1. Page 2, Line 54-59: Without a clear operational framework to guide this flourishing industry ...... many operational framework has been published by various NGOs including UNWTO, UNEP, Ecotourism Australia, GSTC etc. I think authors could refer to the guidelines provided by these NGOs to know more about the operational framework for ecotourism. In addition, the reference cited also aged. There are many publication in the field of ecotourism recent years, also in SUSTAINABILITY
ANSWER: The sentence was referring to the early days of ecotourism where coherent frameworks from several IOs and NGOs were not available. We adapted the text to remove ambiguities.

2. An extensive literature review section is needed to enhance the background of this research. Many relevant publication of Ecotourism in China in the past decades. These articles could offer a more holistic views on the ecotourism development in China (including Hong Kong and Taiwan).
ANSWER: We updated with more recent articles and expanded our literature review, both for Chinese and international cases.

3. Page 2, line 93-94: Several studies reported increasing pressure..... The reference cite here is old. There are many many articles have been published in recent years regarding to tourists behaviours and attitudes. Some examples for your reference...
ANSWER: We updated the literature review with several recent works and also included your valuable suggestions. Please note than our work is more focused on the use of ecotourism label by the providers more than the behaviour of tourists in ecotourism destinations. We put a great effort in improving the introduction section to give context to our research and avoid ambiguities.

4. Please highlight the importance of your research and indicates what kind of potential contribution of your study could provide.
ANSWER: We added a section at the end of the introduction (lines 166-169)

5. Where Gaode Maps has been selected, explain further the rationale of choosing this map.
ANSWER: Compared to the other providers, it is much bigger (higher APP downloads and monthly active users) and it allows the organization of the results by province, which is what we needed for this study. We adapted the text to make it more clear (lines 191-198).

6. section 4.2 needs to be further elaborated to justify why the term of "Ecotourism" has been misused. it is not persuasive based on the results of data analysis which no correlation was found between the provincial distribution pattern of the Chinese ecotourism sites and the nature factors. authors have to further discuss why it is happening and offer more concrete examples to justify the misuse of the term.
ANSWER: It is true, it is hard based on these findings to explain misconception and misuse of the word shengtai luyou and its principles. However, this work gives support to previous case studies and suggests that isolated case studies may not be exceptions, but that the problem is probably widespread in the country. Moreover, with that section we want to show how ecotourism appears more developed in those areas that need it the less (high GDP, low natural capital). We improved the section by developing further the discussion and added a section 4.4 discussing limitations and future work to be more clear about the extent of the present work.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

After revise the manuscript, this research still lack of the theoretical thinking on ecotourism development, and only focus on empirical method with spatial and secondary data. By the way, this paper didn’t talk the main and creative thinking with the research evidences, outcomes, and theoretical thinking, it’s also have to revise on the section of “Conclusions”.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time in reviewing our manuscript.

This new version on the manuscript presents major English grammar and style improvements that may help shade light on unclear or misleading parts of the manuscript.

We tried to improve our manuscript according to your comments. However, the comments being the same as the previous round of reviews, we are a bit confused about where exactly the issue is. 

Our empirical method, i.e. using data to find pattern, is in general a valid scientific approach. We used it to support other studies that investigated ecotourism adoption in China. These studies use different survey methods such as interviews, They are very useful for local assessments but lack the overview at the national level. That's where we came in.

Concerning your comment: 

By the way, this paper didn’t talk the main and creative thinking with the research evidences, outcomes, and theoretical thinking, it’s also have to revise on the section of “Conclusions”

After our major editing of the overall manuscript, this comment remained unchanged. At this point, we may need more detail to understand your meaning...

Reviewer 3 Report

I am happy to accept the manuscript after such substantial revision according to my comments

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your precious comments and suggestion which significantly improved the quality of our work.

Our Best Regards