Choice Experiment Method for Sustainable Tourism in Theme Parks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The present manuscript sheds light on how the choice experiment method can be applied to the theme parks of Taiwan. It is based on a sound study and bears many important (also methodologically) information. The test is organized logically. The cited literature is appropriate, and figures and tables are also ok. Nonetheless, some improvements are necessary before this manuscript becomes acceptable. I hope my recommendations will help to bring it fully in order.

• A general question: your study is attached to the only Taiwanese theme parks. Does the cultural frame matter for explanation of results of such studies?
• Title: this can be shortened so: "Choice Experiment Method for Sustainable Tourism in Theme Parks"
• Abstract and Key Words should inform about the place/country where your method was tested.
• You need to indicate the names of examined theme parks, to indicate the time frame of your survey, and to give example of your questionnaire (at least, I have been unable to find this information in the manuscript).
• I strongly recommend to add a subsection to Conclusions with the numbered list of the most principal findings (from Results and Discussion).
• All monetary notions should be given in both NTD and USD, with clear indication of the used exchange rate.
• The language needs polishing.
• Why not to add 1-2 photos of the studied theme parks?

Author Response

Thank you very much for your insightful comments and suggestions. We believe your comments and suggestions are appropriate and useful to us in order to improve considerably the quality of the manuscript. We have revised our paper in light of your comments and instructions. Please refer to attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations to the Authors on their successful scientific work and interesting research. I think it's a mature article, but a few things need to be improved.
1. Due to the use of currency values (prices, expenses) in the article, I suggest supplementing this information with values in USD, which may help in understanding the content of the article.
2. The quality of the presented indicators should be standardized.
3. It is not understandable why Table 3 (results) is included in the Discussion chapter. It looks like an artificial extension to this chapter.
4. Line 374 is possibly misdrafted.
5. The description of the study was included in the first lines of the Results chapter in the Methodology.
6. I have not noticed whether the research was carried out in one place or in different theme parks? When was the research conducted?
7. According to the authors, can the COVID-19 pandemic have a significant impact on the presented results?
Good luck!

Author Response

Thank you very much for your insightful comments and suggestions. We believe your comments and suggestions are appropriate and useful to us in order to improve considerably the quality of the manuscript. We have revised our paper in light of your comments and instructions. Please refer to attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear colleagues

The article you submitted is very well structured, scientifically supported and absolutely sound and logical. It is highly advised to be published.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your insightful comments and suggestions. We believe your comments and suggestions are appropriate and useful to us in order to improve considerably the quality of the manuscript. We have revised our paper in light of your comments and instructions. Please refer to attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf