Spatial Distribution and Accessibility of High Level Scenic Spots in Inner Mongolia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I believe that the authors provide in this second version, satisfactory answers to the critical comments made by the reviewers to the first version. Regarding the comments expressed in the first review, I note that the presentation of the equations has been improved, and I maintain my positive opinion on the statistical instruments used.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Introduction:
Please define better the research problem of the study. You said that “there are few studies on the spatial structure of scenic spots. But this is enough to justify publication?” Emphasize the novelty of your study.
.
Overview of Study Area
In section 2 “Overview of Study Area” you have in section 2 “Data Sources”. In my opinion i tis not very suitable. Maybe you can write this sub-section in the next one.
Conclusion and Discussion
Here you have 3 sub-sections: 5.1. Conclusions; 5.2 Implications; 5.2. Limitations and Future Research Directions. My questions is: In the conclusion section you also discuss results?
If so, my first suggestion here is to call to the first section precisely “conclusion and discussion” and maybe you can insert the implications of the study here. Second, I add to the principal title “Future Research Directions”.
But my major concern here is that you don’ t relates this section with literature review. It would be useful and often mandatory the link of the Conclusion section with literature review. Please do that.
Good work for the next steps.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In overall, it can be said that the study is exploratory in nature, rather than deductive. Therefore, caution must be used when making statements about the results, as causality has not been investigated. Specific comments are as follows:
- Many of the notations are not explained such as n in (1), X in (2), so forth.
- How was travel time measured? Is it distance divided by the road speed limit? Shouldn't there be consideration on traffic conditions and alternative travel modes?
- What is the number of nearest neighbors when setting up the nearest-neighbor scheme?
- The concept of spatial accessibility needs to be revisited. According to Figure 2, spatial accessibility seems to be high for most regions (where high and low are relative in terms - maybe Figure 1 is not consistent with Table 1)
- Naturally, the spatial correlation would be high given the setup. What is the implication?
- Part 4 should not be a narrative but include a formal analysis. Otherwise, it should be included as a discussion stemming from the authors' opinion.
- What are the definition of spatial weighting matrix and the weight elements?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have responded thoroughly to the outstanding comments made by the reviewer in the first round. However, it is seen that the responses are not consistent with the revised version of the manuscript. Specifically, the responses are not reflected on the revised version of the manuscript. Explanation of the notations and definitions of the spatial weighting matrix, as well as its elements should be included in the manuscript, along with citations, as they are important information on empirical analysis.
Author Response
please see the attachment. thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have shown efforts in improving the quality of the manuscript to a satisfactory level. Good luck with the rest of the process.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study examines factors that are likely to shape the access of scenic places in Inner Mongolia using indicators such as the natural environment, traffic network, resource endowment and economic activity. Real examples of both types of scenic spots are needed for the readers to grasp the study purpose and method. In fact, a brief discourse on a couple of human spots, in the context of identified indicators, for comparative purpose would strengthen the argument of the study. Statement such as ‘accessibility of natural scenic sports is better than the human scenic spots’ need to be validated in the latter case. Hot and cold spot terms need to be explained. Overall, although the topic is interesting, the writing style of the paper is ambiguous and the content might not catch the reader’s attention particularly from a tourism standpoint. The authors should rewrite the introduction and conclusion part of the paper. The literature review section needs to be expanded.
This study examines factors that are likely to shape the access of scenic places in Inner Mongolia using indicators such as the natural environment, traffic network, resource endowment and economic activity. Real examples of both types of scenic spots are needed for the readers to grasp the study purpose and method. In fact, a brief discourse on a couple of human spots, in the context of identified indicators, for comparative purpose would strengthen the argument of the study. Statement such as ‘accessibility of natural scenic sports is better than the human scenic spots’ need to be validated in the latter case. Hot and cold spot terms need to be explained. Overall, although the topic is interesting, the writing style of the paper is ambiguous and the content might not catch the reader’s attention particularly from a tourism standpoint. The authors should rewrite the introduction and conclusion part of the paper. The literature review section needs to be expanded.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The presentation in the text of the equations in point 2.3 of the paper must be improved, so that the equations are centered vertically with respect to the writing lines themselves.
I believe that the statistical instruments used by the authors are adequate for this study. The one used for the analysis of spatial autocorrelation is very interesting.
The conclusion and discussion is coherent and closely related to the previous analyzes in section 3.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript has tried to measure the geographical characteristics of Inner Mongolia using spatial analysis. However, this manuscript did not show any scientific meaning except the current status of Inner Mongolia, which is already revealed through various media.
The density and accessibility of a specific region is unique, but just showing numbers of a specific region is not scientifically meaningful. Can you explain why this happen? Is there specific and meaningful reason for this number? If not, it is not worth for the academic publication.
Also, the there is absence between the finding of the manuscript and sustainability, which is crucial for the publication decision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The key question for the manuscript was "the meaning of the study" in the previous review. However, authors have only tried to explain the intention of the study. In the manuscript, readers cannot understand the meaning of the study, and why this findings should be published.
I think that it's useless to persuade me without revising the manuscript.
