Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The research presents an adecuate state of the art that duly justifies the need for it. The objectives are clear and the methodology is appropriate. Furthermore, the results obtained are of great scientific interest and could be useful for decision-making. However, the manuscript needs to redefine certain sections, as well as to improve and adapt some of its parts.

Comments:

IMPORTANT: it is recommended that the main sections be redefined so that they appear as follows: Introduction - Methods - Results - Discussion - Conclusions.

Summary: too much focus on the results obtained. Also, a brief overview of the state of the art of the researched topic is missing. What has been previously researched on this topic and why is your work necessary?

Keywords should be in lower case, with the exception of COVID-19. 

Introduction and theoretical background: both sections present the information in a clear and orderly manner. The bibliography used is adequate and the need to carry out this study is duly justified.

Analysis: it would be advisable, as indicated at the beginning of the comments, to clearly differentiate the content relating to "Methods" from that relating to "Results". In addition, it is essential that the "Results" section avoids incorporating any information that may be debatable. For example, expressions such as "This study suggests..." or "These conflicting findings suggest that..." should be part of the discussion, not the results.

Discussion and implications: the discussion is rather limited and needs to be improved. It is important that this section includes an integrated interpretation of the results obtained, as well as a comparison of the results with those of previous publications. It should also include a critical analysis of the results in accordance with the stated objectives.

Implications should be included in the conclusions section, since, among other issues, the possibility of applying the model developed to other fields of study is mentioned, which leaves the door open for future research.

Conclusions: not included. It is important to talk about the findings found during the research, as well as their importance (both for science and for the different social agents) and possible future lines of work.

Some formatting issues:

- Remove boldface type from citations in the text.

- Review all the bibliography and adapt it to the format required by the journal. Some examples are shown below:

* Remove italics from the bibliographical listing.

* The year of publication is not placed after the authors. It should be placed after the name of the journal (without being separated by a comma). In addition, the year of publication should be in boldface type.

* Remove the blank space between authors of compound names. Example: use "Zeng, L.P" instead of "Zeng, L. P".

* Use “en dash (–)” for page numbering. Example: use 56–72 instead of 56-72.

* The DOI link must appear in its full version. Example: use “https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816620933712” instead of “doi:10.1177/1354816620933712”.

 

Author Response

Manuscript ID Sustainability-1925706

Ensuring a sustainable hospitality and tourism industry in the COVID-19 era: using an open market valuation technique

Dear Professor Zachary Zhang,

Thank you very much for the helpful and constructive comments that you and the reviewers provided regarding our manuscript. We are very grateful to have had the opportunity to revise our paper on the basis of these valuable suggestions.

As you will see from the revised manuscript, we have done our utmost to address all the issues raised. These changes are detailed below, starting with the Editor’s comments and then the reviewers’ feedback. In the updated manuscript, all the resulting changes are marked in red for clarity. We have also streamlined and further edited the original content in order to accommodate the reviewers’ suggestions; these changes are also marked in red.

The result is an extensively reworked manuscript which we hope and believes addresses all your suggestions and conforms to the authors’ guidelines and style.

Thank you once more for your constructive feedback. We hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further queries.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Authors of Manuscript Sustainability-1925706

 

 

Reviewer 1

Reviewer 1, Comment 1:

IMPORTANT: it is recommended that the main sections be redefined so that they appear as follows: Introduction - Methods - Results - Discussion - Conclusions.

Our response:

Many thanks for this constructive observation. In response, we have redefined the main sections to be Introduction, Background, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions.

Reviewer 1, Comment 2:

Summary: too much focus on the results obtained. Also, a brief overview of the state of the art of the researched topic is missing. What has been previously researched on this topic and why is your work necessary?

Our response:

Many thanks for pointing this out. As a result, we have edited the summary to provide a brief overview of the state of the art of the researched topic is missing. All the revised parts can be found in red in summary in the revised manuscript, and read as follows:

Executive Summary: Tourism has always been one of the most profitable service industries. But because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the tourism industry is facing some big problems. As a result, the tourism industries lost a lot of money. This paper aims to find and rank recovery solutions to help the tourism industries. This article investigates two key areas: firstly, how government aid can best be prioritised among the various subsectors of the hospitality and tourism industry; and secondly whether public assessment of the measures the US government took against the pandemic is related to the outlook for recovery, including the role played by perceptions of government performance and efficacy at handling the crisis, and self-efficacy in terms of avoiding infection. Two studies were conducted among US consumers, using different methods of data collection and analysis. The first study utilised an open market valuation technique to explore how governmental aid might be prioritized among the tourism and hospitality industries. The second study used AMOS/SEM to examine travellers’ positive perceptions of the likelihood of hospitality and tourism industry recovery. Study 1 found that all six industry subsectors investigated (hotels, airlines, restaurants, car rentals, casinos and cruise lines) had been influenced negatively by COVID-19, with the heaviest impact felt by hotels and cruise lines. Study 2 indicated that the level of public level of satisfaction with the US government’s performance in addressing the pandemic was positively related to expectations of hospitality and tourism industry recovery. The findings could guide policymakers in deciding how best to allocate public funds between the different subsectors of the hospitality and tourism industry.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 1, Comment 3:

Keywords should be in lower case, with the exception of COVID-19. 

Our response:

Many thanks for this very constructive point, with which we totally agree. This has been undertaken, which reads as follows:

COVID-19; open market valuation technique; government bailouts; government performance; hospitality and tourism recovery; sustainable tourism.

 

Reviewer 1, Comment 4:

Introduction and theoretical background: both sections present the information in a clear and orderly manner. The bibliography used is adequate and the need to carry out this study is duly justified.

Our response:

We are grateful for these very constructive and positive feedback.

Reviewer 1, Comment 5:

Analysis: it would be advisable, as indicated at the beginning of the comments, to clearly differentiate the content relating to "Methods" from that relating to "Results". In addition, it is essential that the "Results" section avoids incorporating any information that may be debatable. For example, expressions such as "This study suggests..." or "These conflicting findings suggest that..." should be part of the discussion, not the results.

Our response:

Many thanks for this very constructive point, with which we totally agree. This has been undertaken.

Reviewer 1, Comment 6:

Discussion and implications: the discussion is rather limited and needs to be improved. It is important that this section includes an integrated interpretation of the results obtained, as well as a comparison of the results with those of previous publications. It should also include a critical analysis of the results in accordance with the stated objectives.

Our response:

Many thanks for this very constructive point, with which we totally agree. Your comment has led us to revise and improve the discussion and implications section. We believe these changes enhance the paper and that its novel contributions and potential importance. Thank you again for highlighting this point (Please kindly see section 5, Discussion and implications).

Reviewer 1, Comment 7:

Conclusions: not included. It is important to talk about the findings found during the research, as well as their importance (both for science and for the different social agents) and possible future lines of work.

Our response:

Many thanks for pointing this out. As a result, we have added the conclusions section. It can be found in red in the revised manuscript, and read as follows:

1. Conclusions

          The part that governments play in how things go seems to be very important. Governments can do something to lower the high risk that travellers see in buying airline tickets in the next few years. By doing this, some of the change in consumer behaviour could be stopped. Given how most airlines do business now and how small their profit margins are, a change in behaviour like the one described in this research could have a big effect on their ability to stay in business. This research adds to what is already known about changes in travel behaviour after COVID-19, such as a drop in the intention to take public transportation.

   Because of the pandemic, our results show that the value of each of the six industries—hotels, airlines, restaurants, cruise lines, and car rentals—has dropped by a large amount. In each industry, the drop is big enough to make people worry about the long-term future of that industry. What is clear, though, is that the cruise industry is where the most serious problems lie. This may not be a big surprise. One reason could be that the ratio of business travellers to leisure travellers is probably lower in the cruise industry than in other industries we looked into. One might think that business travel might get better faster than leisure travel, and our findings support this idea. In spite of the valuable implications for practitioners and researchers presented by this study, there are still some limitations. The study sample was collected from the US and, therefore, the results might not be generalisable to other cultures. Researchers could apply our model in other cultural contexts and compare the results in order to validate our proposed model in different societies.

We wish to thank Reviewer 1 for such useful comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to your review. We have done our best to address all your suggestions in our revised version, and we hope you agree that the paper is now much stronger and better-argued as a result.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The work shows an investigative sufficiency and, in addition,
analyzes in an accurate and original way how tourism has been transformed
in recent times and, in a very particular way, as a consequence of COVID

Author Response

Manuscript ID Sustainability-1925706

 

Ensuring a sustainable hospitality and tourism industry in the COVID-19 era: using an open market valuation technique

 

 

Dear Professor Zachary Zhang,

Thank you very much for the helpful and constructive comments that you and the reviewers provided regarding our manuscript. We are very grateful to have had the opportunity to revise our paper on the basis of these valuable suggestions.

As you will see from the revised manuscript, we have done our utmost to address all the issues raised. These changes are detailed below, starting with the Editor’s comments and then the reviewers’ feedback. In the updated manuscript, all the resulting changes are marked in red for clarity. We have also streamlined and further edited the original content in order to accommodate the reviewers’ suggestions; these changes are also marked in red.

The result is an extensively reworked manuscript which we hope and believes addresses all your suggestions and conforms to the authors’ guidelines and style.

Thank you once more for your constructive feedback. We hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further queries.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Authors of Manuscript Sustainability-1925706

 

 

Reviewer 2

Reviewer 2, Comment 1:

The work shows an investigative sufficiency and, in addition,
analyzes in an accurate and original way how tourism has been transformed
in recent times and, in a very particular way, as a consequence of COVID.

 

Our response:

We are grateful for these very constructive and positive feedback.

We wish to thank Reviewer 2 for such useful comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to your review. We have done our best to address all your suggestions in our revised version, and we hope you agree that the paper is now much stronger and better-argued as a result.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is written on a topical issue in the field of tourism economics. However, it is necessary to highlight the following as recommendations:

1. to consider in more detail the measures of state support for the tourism sector during the period of Covid-19;

2. improve the quality of figures, tables and all graphic material, since at the moment they do not look quite suitable for the scientific journal (in terms of graphic design).

Author Response

Manuscript ID Sustainability-1925706

 

Ensuring a sustainable hospitality and tourism industry in the COVID-19 era: using an open market valuation technique

 

 

Dear Professor Zachary Zhang,

Thank you very much for the helpful and constructive comments that you and the reviewers provided regarding our manuscript. We are very grateful to have had the opportunity to revise our paper on the basis of these valuable suggestions.

As you will see from the revised manuscript, we have done our utmost to address all the issues raised. These changes are detailed below, starting with the Editor’s comments and then the reviewers’ feedback. In the updated manuscript, all the resulting changes are marked in red for clarity. We have also streamlined and further edited the original content in order to accommodate the reviewers’ suggestions; these changes are also marked in red.

The result is an extensively reworked manuscript which we hope and believes addresses all your suggestions and conforms to the authors’ guidelines and style.

Thank you once more for your constructive feedback. We hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further queries.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Authors of Manuscript Sustainability-1925706

 

 

Reviewer 3

Reviewer 3, Comment 1:

1. to consider in more detail the measures of state support for the tourism sector during the period of Covid-19;

Our response:

Many thanks for this constructive observation. In response, we have added a paragraph on the measures of state support for the tourism sector during the period of Covid-19, and read as follows:

The US government has taken a number of steps at the national level to help the tourism industry and related industries. Most US states have also announced that they will be putting in place economic aid packages, some of which are specifically for the tourism industry. Most of the time, these measures have two main directions:

• Financing measures, using specific tools like credit lines, government guarantees, deferring or rescheduling payments, grants given mostly to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), subsidies or co-financing or salary compensation for people directly affected.
• Stimulating and helping companies that have been hit hard by the crisis, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); Getting rid of barriers and easing up on employment laws; Helping tourism destinations that have been hurt by the pandemic by giving them budgets for promotion and consulting for the development of tourism products and services.
• Measures of a fiscal nature, mostly aimed at moratoriums, extended deadlines, or exemptions: changes in the tax regime, deferrals/rescheduling/reductions of social security contributions and pensions, direct and consumption taxes (VAT), elimination of sector-specific taxes (accommodation, promotion).

 

  .

Reviewer 3, Comment 2:

Improve the quality of figures, tables and all graphic material, since at the moment they do not look quite suitable for the scientific journal (in terms of graphic design).

Our response:

Many thanks for pointing this out. As a result, we have edited the tables and figure. Please kindly find the edited figure and tables in the revised manuscript.

We wish to thank Reviewer 1 for such useful comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to your review. We have done our best to address all your suggestions in our revised version, and we hope you agree that the paper is now much stronger and better-argued as a result.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic of the presented article is interesting and still current and attractive. Among the main contribution, I would certainly mention the statistical processing of the issue. Among the negative aspects, I would include the controversy of COVID-19 itself, the amount of inaccurate, unverifiable, incomplete data that varies from country to country. I did not notice any shortcomings in the statistics and individual measurements. I don't want to touch anyone, but "From our result, we can certainly deduce the theory that

business trips can recover faster than leisure travel". No testing is needed for this theory even if there is an alibi "may". I would then recommend building the article on hypotheses that the results would confirm or refute. Lines 346 - 350 I would emphasize that one can only agree with them. In this issue, there are many factors influencing the way of looking at things. In the end, this may also mean the opposite result to the result supported by statistical methods. Despite this criticism, I once again highlight the statistical methods and their evaluation used in of this article.I have the following questions:

1. Why was the USA chosen for both studies, when none of the authors has a listed place of work in this country? Of course, it's not forbidden, but it's like I'm dealing with e.g. tourism of a place of a completely different country just because it is a world famous location. It would introduce a certain degree of unreliability. Local patriotism is sometimes appropriate

2. Why was the DowJones index chosen as an indicator of the American labor market? The index comes under fire because of the weighting of the average, which is made up of stock prices.

3. On what basis were these 6 industrial sub-sectors that you mention in the article determined? Casinos and cruise ships come to mind, which of course belong to the tourism industry, but in many countries of the world they have a minimal or no share in tourism. Was it chosen deliberately because of the statistical method and some specific test?

Author Response

Manuscript ID Sustainability-1925706

 

Ensuring a sustainable hospitality and tourism industry in the COVID-19 era: using an open market valuation technique

 

 

Dear Professor Zachary Zhang,

Thank you very much for the helpful and constructive comments that you and the reviewers provided regarding our manuscript. We are very grateful to have had the opportunity to revise our paper on the basis of these valuable suggestions.

As you will see from the revised manuscript, we have done our utmost to address all the issues raised. These changes are detailed below, starting with the Editor’s comments and then the reviewers’ feedback. In the updated manuscript, all the resulting changes are marked in red for clarity. We have also streamlined and further edited the original content in order to accommodate the reviewers’ suggestions; these changes are also marked in red.

The result is an extensively reworked manuscript which we hope and believes addresses all your suggestions and conforms to the authors’ guidelines and style.

Thank you once more for your constructive feedback. We hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further queries.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Authors of Manuscript Sustainability-1925706

 

 

Reviewer 4

Reviewer 4, Comment 1:

Why was the USA chosen for both studies, when none of the authors has a listed place of work in this country? Of course, it's not forbidden, but it's like I'm dealing with e.g. tourism of a place of a completely different country just because it is a world famous location. It would introduce a certain degree of unreliability. Local patriotism is sometimes appropriate

Our response:

Many thanks for this observation. The authors selected the USA based on the required data availability to conduct the required analysis using using an open market valuation technique.

Reviewer 4, Comment 2:

Why was the DowJones index chosen as an indicator of the American labor market? The index comes under fire because of the weighting of the average, which is made up of stock prices.

Our response:

Many thanks for pointing this out. The general Dow Jones Industrial Average is the market index of choice in the analysis. Because daily infection and fatality data is typically reported after the close of markets, effects lagged by one day are investigated. We use daily returns series of 23 months (from September 2018 to July 2020). 

 

Reviewer 4, Comment 3:

On what basis were these 6 industrial sub-sectors that you mention in the article determined? Casinos and cruise ships come to mind, which of course belong to the tourism industry, but in many countries of the world they have a minimal or no share in tourism. Was it chosen deliberately because of the statistical method and some specific test?

Our response:

Many thanks for this very constructive point, with which we totally agree. These 6 industrial sub-sectors were selected based on consistent data availability.

         

We wish to thank Reviewer 1 for such useful comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to your review. We have done our best to address all your suggestions in our revised version, and we hope you agree that the paper is now much stronger and better-argued as a result.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

This study aims to understand the way of prioritizing government aid among subsectors of the tourism and hospitality industry using an open market valuation technique and SEM approach. While this study is generally well-organized and written.. the manuscript needs to be further revised for publication.

1. introduction should be justified why this study is needed. In particular, the negative effect (or consequences) of covid19 and the efforts of public funds/support or other keywords should be explained thoroughly.

2. Besides, the readability and logical flow of the introduction should be enhanced.

3. Table 1 in the current format is not clear. please do not use a figure form; rather, attach the table itself.

4. The author(s) should focus more on the logic behind why two studies are needed and how they are connected to answer the core research questions/objectives.

5. For study 2, please provide hypotheses and theoretical foundations.

6. For study 2, please explain how to prepare the survey questionnaire, survey items, etc.

7. discussion should be strengthened. theoretical implications should be comparing the results from the current study and theories, earlier findings, etc.

 

Author Response

Manuscript ID Sustainability-1925706

 

Ensuring a sustainable hospitality and tourism industry in the COVID-19 era: using an open market valuation technique

 

 

Dear Professor Zachary Zhang,

Thank you very much for the helpful and constructive comments that you and the reviewers provided regarding our manuscript. We are very grateful to have had the opportunity to revise our paper on the basis of these valuable suggestions.

As you will see from the revised manuscript, we have done our utmost to address all the issues raised. These changes are detailed below, starting with the Editor’s comments and then the reviewers’ feedback. In the updated manuscript, all the resulting changes are marked in red for clarity. We have also streamlined and further edited the original content in order to accommodate the reviewers’ suggestions; these changes are also marked in red.

The result is an extensively reworked manuscript which we hope and believes addresses all your suggestions and conforms to the authors’ guidelines and style.

Thank you once more for your constructive feedback. We hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further queries.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Authors of Manuscript Sustainability-1925706

 

 

Reviewer 5

Reviewer 5, Comment 1:

Introduction should be justified why this study is needed. In particular, the negative effect (or consequences) of covid19 and the efforts of public funds/support or other keywords should be explained thoroughly.

Our response:

Many thanks for this constructive comment. In response, we have made careful revisions to our introduction section, with particular attention to making introduction far more focused and relevant. These changes are marked in red throughout sections section 1. Introduction.

 

Reviewer 5, Comment 2:

Besides, the readability and logical flow of the introduction should be enhanced.

Our response:

Many thanks for pointing this out. As a result, we have edited the introduction to improve the introduction readability and logical flow.

 

Reviewer 5, Comment 3:

Table 1 in the current format is not clear. please do not use a figure form; rather, attach the table itself.

Our response:

Many thanks for this observation. In response, we have attached Table 1.

Reviewer 5, Comment 4:

The author(s) should focus more on the logic behind why two studies are needed and how they are connected to answer the core research questions/objectives.

Our response:

Many thanks for this very constructive point, with which we totally agree. This has been undertaken.

 

 

 

Reviewer 5, Comment 5:

For study 2, please provide hypotheses and theoretical foundations.

Our response:

Many thanks for this very constructive point, with which we totally agree. This has been undertaken.

Reviewer 5, Comment 6:

For study 2, please explain how to prepare the survey questionnaire, survey items, etc.

Our response:

Many thanks for this very constructive point, with which we totally agree. Your comment has led us to revise and improve the study 2, (Please kindly see section 3.2, study 2).

Reviewer 5, Comment 7:

Discussion should be strengthened. theoretical implications should be comparing the results from the current study and theories, earlier findings, etc.

Our response:

Many thanks for pointing this out. As a result, we have revised the discussion and implications section.

We wish to thank Reviewer 1 for such useful comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to your review. We have done our best to address all your suggestions in our revised version, and we hope you agree that the paper is now much stronger and better-argued as a result.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made a great effort to include the indications suggested by the reviewers. The manuscript is well structured and the information provided by the manuscript has improved qualitatively. However, some changes are still needed:

Page 2:

A. “elsewhere in Asia ([2], although avian”: “elsewhere in Asia [2], although avian”

B. “equilibrium model [11, 12]., which showed”: “equilibrium model [11, 12], which showed”

C. “study by Karabulut et al [13]. revealed that COVID-19”: “study by Karabulut et al. [13] revealed that COVID-19”

D. Measures have two main directions. Why are there three sections?

E. “enterprises (SMEs); Getting rid of barriers”: “enterprises (SMEs); getting rid of barriers”

Page 3:

F. “human contact they involve [20] Since there was a nationwide”: “human contact they involve [20]. Since there was a nationwide”

G. “decreased significantly [21] Between February”: “decreased significantly [21]. Between February”

H. “industries fell by 56% and 33%, respectively [22] more than 98 million”: Do you mean this? “industries fell by 56% and 33%, respectively [22]. More than 98 million?”

Page 4:

I. “according to the WTTC, and [23] predicts that 44–57 million Jobs”: to place this citation in a more appropriate place.

J. “particularly vulnerable [13,24] Since publicly”: “particularly vulnerable [13,24]. Since publicly”

K. “Our paper prposes that”: “our paper proposes that”

L. “(government perofrmnce)”: “government performance”

M. “esitmated duration”: “estimated duration”.

N. “Fig.1 demosntrates”: “Figure 1 demonstrates”

Page 5:

O. “It modelled the impact of COVID-19 on these six areas by adapting [31] securities market-based approach”: place the citation at the end of the sentence.

P. “by Fong et al [18].”: “by Fong et al. [18].”

Page 8:

Q. “marketing review [36] Correlation coefficients”: “marketing review [36]. Correlation coefficients”

References:

R. Please check all references used to adapt them to the journal format. Example:

Zeng, L. P., Ge, X.-Y., Peng, C., Tai, W., Jiang, S., Du, L., Shi, Z.-L. Cross-neutralization of SARS coronavirus-specific antibodies against bat SARS-like coronaviruses. Science China Life Sciences. 2017, 60 (12), 1399–402. The correct format is: Zeng, L.P.; Ge, X.Y.; Peng, C.; Tai, W.; Jiang, S.; Du, L.; Shi, Z.L. Cross-neutralization of SARS coronavirus-specific antibodies against bat SARS-like coronaviruses. Science China Life Sciences 2017, 60, 1399–402.

S. Revise the numbering of sections and sub-sections: ¿1.Background? ¿1.Methods? ¿1.Results? ¿1.Discussion and implications?

Author Response

Manuscript ID Sustainability-1925706 R2

 

Ensuring a sustainable hospitality and tourism industry in the COVID-19 era: using an open market valuation technique

 

 

Dear Professor Zachary Zhang,

Thank you very much for the helpful and constructive comments that you and the reviewers provided regarding our manuscript. We are very grateful to have had the opportunity to revise our paper on the basis of these valuable suggestions.

As you will see from the revised manuscript, we have done our utmost to address all the issues raised. These changes are detailed below, starting with the Editor’s comments and then the reviewers’ feedback. In the updated manuscript, all the resulting changes are marked in red for clarity. We have also streamlined and further edited the original content in order to accommodate the reviewers’ suggestions; these changes are also marked in red.

The result is an extensively reworked manuscript which we hope and believes addresses all your suggestions and conforms to the authors’ guidelines and style.

Thank you once more for your constructive feedback. We hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further queries.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Authors of Manuscript Sustainability-1925706R2

 

 

Reviewer 1

Reviewer 1, Comment 1:

Page 2:

1. “elsewhere in Asia ([2], although avian”: “elsewhere in Asia [2], although avian”
2. “equilibrium model [11, 12]., which showed”: “equilibrium model [11, 12], which showed”
3. “study by Karabulut et al [13]. revealed that COVID-19”: “study by Karabulut et al. [13] revealed that COVID-19”
4. Measures have two main directions. Why are there three sections?
5. “enterprises (SMEs); Getting rid of barriers”: “enterprises (SMEs); getting rid of barriers”

 

Our response:

Many thanks for this constructive comment. In response, we have made careful revisions to the identified points from A to E. These changes are marked in red throughout section 1. Introduction.

 

Reviewer 1, Comment 2:

Page 3:

1. “human contact they involve [20] Since there was a nationwide”: “human contact they involve [20]. Since there was a nationwide”
2. “decreased significantly [21] Between February”: “decreased significantly [21]. Between February”
3. “industries fell by 56% and 33%, respectively [22] more than 98 million”: Do you mean this? “industries fell by 56% and 33%, respectively [22]. More than 98 million?”

Our response:

Many thanks for this constructive comment. In response, we have made careful revisions to the identified points from F to H. These changes are marked in red throughout section 2.1. The COVID-19 pandemic and sustainable tourism.

 

 

Reviewer 1, Comment 3:

Page 4:

1. “according to the WTTC, and [23] predicts that 44–57 million Jobs”: to place this citation in a more appropriate place.
2. “particularly vulnerable [13,24] Since publicly”: “particularly vulnerable [13,24]. Since publicly”
3. “Our paper prposes that”: “our paper proposes that”
4. “(government perofrmnce)”: “government performance”
5. “esitmated duration”: “estimated duration”.
6. “Fig.1 demosntrates”: “Figure 1 demonstrates”

 

Our response:

Many thanks for this constructive comment. In response, we have made careful revisions to the identified points from I to N. These changes are marked in red throughout section 2.2. Government role during the COVID-19 pandemic

 

Reviewer 1, Comment 4:

Page 5:

1. “It modelled the impact of COVID-19 on these six areas by adapting [31] securities market-based approach”: place the citation at the end of the sentence.
2. “by Fong et al [18].”: “by Fong et al. [18].”

 

Our response:

Many thanks for this constructive comment. In response, we have made careful revisions to the identified points from O and P. These changes are marked in red throughout section 3.1. Study 1.

 

 

 

Reviewer 1, Comment 5:

Page 8:

1. “marketing review [36] Correlation coefficients”: “marketing review [36]. Correlation coefficients”

 

Our response:

Many thanks for this constructive comment. In response, we have made careful revisions to the identified point Q. These changes are marked in red throughout section 4.2.1. Common method bias.

Reviewer 1, Comment 6:

References:

1. Please check all references used to adapt them to the journal format.
2. Revise the numbering of sections and sub-sections: ¿1.Background? ¿1.Methods? ¿1.Results? ¿1.Discussion and implications?

Our response:

Many thanks for this constructive comment. In response, we have checked all references used and adapted them to the Journal format. To further consider your comment, we revised the numbering of sections and subsections.

 

 

We wish to thank Reviewer 1 for such useful comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to your review. We have done our best to address all your suggestions in our revised version, and we hope you agree that the paper is now much stronger and better-argued as a result.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

All tables and figures should be re-inserted as a native table, etc.

The current tables and figures are not clear enough to read and understand.

Author Response

Manuscript ID Sustainability-1925706R5

 

Ensuring a sustainable hospitality and tourism industry in the COVID-19 era: using an open market valuation technique

 

 

Dear Professor Zachary Zhang,

Thank you very much for the helpful and constructive comments that you and the reviewers provided regarding our manuscript. We are very grateful to have had the opportunity to revise our paper on the basis of these valuable suggestions.

As you will see from the revised manuscript, we have done our utmost to address all the issues raised. These changes are detailed below, starting with the Editor’s comments and then the reviewers’ feedback. In the updated manuscript, all the resulting changes are marked in red for clarity. We have also streamlined and further edited the original content in order to accommodate the reviewers’ suggestions; these changes are also marked in red.

The result is an extensively reworked manuscript which we hope and believes addresses all your suggestions and conforms to the authors’ guidelines and style.

Thank you once more for your constructive feedback. We hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further queries.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Authors of Manuscript Sustainability-1925706R5

 

 

Reviewer 5

Reviewer 5, Comment 1:

All tables and figures should be re-inserted as a native table, etc.

 

Our response:

Many thanks for this constructive comment. In response, we have attached a document that include all tables and figures.

 

We wish to thank Reviewer 5 for such useful comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to your review. We have done our best to address all your suggestions in our revised version, and we hope you agree that the paper is now much stronger and better-argued as a result.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx