Spatial Distribution Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Key Rural Tourism Villages in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- This paper was fairly informative but not fully progressive.

-  Nevertheless, it was a pertinent paper overall with some enlightening insights concerning rural tourism villages and spatial distribution factors.

- Findings were neat and logically ordered.  

Some minor issues to attend to:

1. The abstract uncomfortably starts with the description of the research methods. Thus it would be more useful to identify initially the research problem from the onset. Hence, the former part of the abstract needs rewriting and repositioning so that the paper's intent is far more overt.

2. Why is it of practical significance to upgrade the quality of rural tourism? And in what sense exactly? - could strengthen the socio-cultural and economic context here.

3. The author(s) mention that rural tourism began in the 1970s but not yet developed until the 1990s - please clarify this and the gap here.

4. Whilst the findings were satisfactory, the discussion section was rather disappointing and this should be redeveloped in order to ensure more connections/disconnections to the literature and to demonstrate more the contribution to knowledge. The current discussion section is thus rather 'flat' and 'static'.

5. More could have been made of the impact of the research in terms of telling us more about tourism planning, policy and sustainable development directives - so as to ensure more practical outcomes.

6. Conclusion 

Given that this journal concerns 'sustainability' there is a real need to implicate the intersections between the conclusion summary and sustainability aspects.   

Please deal in detail with these above points.

Finally, please do a final edit in terms of reviewing the expression, which could be more fluid in parts.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The purpose of the research is not clear. The authors should have described the research purpose more academically in the introduction. The title did not clearly express the direction of the research (Spatial Distribution Characteristics and Influencing Factors of 2 Key Rural Tourism Villages in China).  The paper should have explored the relationship between spatial distribution characteristics and influencing factors logically. Overall, the paper didn't demonstrate scientific methods and findings (i.e., reliability, validity, generalizability, or transferability). 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the introduction section, the reason why the spatial distribution of key rural tourism villages needs to be investigated is still not strong, especially from an academic perspective. You've tried to give reasons, but more from a practical point of view. Add reasons from the academic side why the spatial distribution needs to be analyzed, and why the influencing factor needs to be found. Include scientific references that why it is important to do

 

The formula number is too close to the formula, so it's confusing. As if the formula number is part of the formula calculation. I recommend that the formula number be more spaced from the formula

 

In the method section, explain the reasons why each method is used. Not just the definition. But explain why you chose those methods. Why not the others? Some have been explained, i.e the Spatial Autocorrelation Analysis, Geographic Connection Rate, and Disequilibrium Index methods. But others the reasons are still missing or less powerful.

 

When explaining the results, on line 187, it's a good idea to first explain what the Heihe-Tengchong line and Hu Huanyong's line are.

 

Also, explain what the “four major plates” of China's regional coordinated development strategy are. Because not all of your readers understand the Chinese situation.

 

You should also explain the development of the number of key rural tourism villages from year to year. Then whether the growth is significant or not. Real difference or not. So that the contents of Table 1 can be explained better

 

When explaining Table 2, explain why the data in the Second Batch is very much different from the first and third batches. It can even be up to three times. Is there a data input error? Are there any tourism businesses that are closed? Why does 2020 increase so much compare to 2019, even though it is a pandemic period? In-depth explanations on all of this should be added.

 

Explain the boundary values ​​for the Low, Lower, Median, Higher, and High categories in Figure 3. Also, explain why you divided them into these 5 categories. Why not 3 categories? Why not 7 categories?

 

Explain the boundary values ​​for the hot spot, sub-hot spot, nonsignificant, sub-cold spot, and cold spot categories in Figure 4. Also, explain why you divided them into these 5 categories. Why not 3 categories? Why not 7 categories?

 

 

In lines 329-331 you said “There are differences in climate, vegetation, soil, and other natural environmental factors in different elevation areas, which have a direct impact on the location, scale structure, and agricultural production mode of the villages”. Explain what each impact looks like. Include various scientific reference sources to explain the impact.

 

Correct the legend and coloring in Figure 5. According to your explanation that you divide it into 0-200, 200-500, 500-1000, and 1000-2000. Also, explain why you are dividing it like that. Why are the intervals not uniform?

 

Give an academic reference to strengthen your statement below: “River systems are a necessary condition for the development of rural tourism and provide basic material guarantees for human production and life.” And also all the statements on lines 348-351. Give references or academic reasons, so it's not just a personal opinion.

 

Give academic references to strengthen your following statement: “Tourism resource endowment is an important factor affecting the tourism development of a region”

 

Give academic references to strengthen your following statement: “Population density is one of the main factors affecting the spatial distribution of key rural tourism villages. The larger the population density is, the larger the tourism market capacity and the potential tourism market are.”

 

Explain the meaning of each number in the legend in Figure 8. What is the relationship between population density, economic foundation, and degree of modernization? Then how do you measure those 3 things? How do you measure economic foundation and degree of modernization? Explain in detail, and arrange for Figure 8 to reflect it all

 

Give an academic reference to strengthen your following statement: “Transportation is one of the six elements of tourism linking tourism destinations and tourist sources, including railways, highways, aviation, and water transport”

 

Why did you set the buffer zone to 20km and 40km in the Traffic location? why not another number? You must explain it with academic references.

 

Why did you set the buffer zone to 40km and 80km at the Tourist Market? why not another number? You must explain it with academic references. And why is the buffer zone number different from the Traffic location?

 

Your Discussion section is still lacking in depth. In the Discussion section, you must provide an in-depth interpretation of all the results you get. So it must be all. Currently, I see you only explain distribution only. All results should be discussed. Compare with the results of previous studies. Give reasonable insight. Provide some future direction. Also, explain what are the advantages of your research results compared to the results of previous studies. The discussion section is the most important part of a scientific paper because it shows the depth and breadth of the researcher in understanding the research topic. At this point, it appears that your paper is very under-contributed because this section does not exist.

 

add a Limitation section that explains what are the limitations or weaknesses of your research.

 

Your conclusion is still lacking. You only summarize the results. Please add an explanation of what your contributions are from the academic side and the practical side. Give reasons why everything you have said is a true contribution and not just a personal opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper deals with an interesting topic, namely the spatial distribution characteristics of key rural villages in China.

The authors used appropriate methodologies to achieve their research objectives. The figures are well-designed except for minor issues. I would suggest to check and modify the colours in Figure 1, since the similar colours of 2 batches may mislead the readers. In my opinion, the names of the categories in Figure 3 could be more appropriate instead of low-lower etc. to distinguish more clearly the differences.

In Figure 4, the secondary word does not start with capital letter, though all the other categories do so.

The conlsusions are clear, based on the results of the analyses.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe the authors did their best in finding and describing significant facts. But I have to pinpoint that this study is so significant in China, but not significant in other countries. Maybe.. this study result is meaningful. But in terms of generalizability and transferability, the study should extend its scope beyond China. Similar findings that have been conducted in other countries should be described. The authors should justify the result of the study. Your references cover many resources from other countries, but the authors did not explain the relationship between findings and existing references. How can authors justify the results? In China, the study is very valuable. This study is not suitable for an international journal.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has not succeeded in answering my first suggestion, especially regarding “Add reasons from the academic side why the spatial distribution needs to be analyzed, and why the influencing factor needs to be found. Include scientific references” The author only tells about other research but does not succeed in answering the “why” question. Again, the author must explain why the spatial distribution needs to be analyzed, and why the influencing factor needs to be found, scientifically not practically.

 

Based on the author's response, a new question arises from me. Why compared with the first batch, the growth of the second batch of tourism key villages belonging to the four major boards is very significant? The author has to explain the reason behind that phenomenon. And also why the numbers drop back significantly in batch 3. The author should explore and explain why this happened

 

The author must provide scientific academic references that support the following statements. In order not to impress just personal opinion “On the one hand, the key villages of rural tourism announced in 2019 year attracted wide attention from the industry, which aroused good social repercussions, and the key role of demonstration initially emerged”

 

In addition, the author must also provide scientific academic references that support the following statement "On the other hand, 2020 year is a decisive year for poverty alleviation and a key year for the full realization of a well-off society."

 

The author has not been able to accommodate my suggestion that the author should explain the boundary values ​​for the Low, Lower, Median, Higher, and High categories in Figure 3. As I see now in the Figure 3 legend, there are no numbers that indicate the boundaries of values at every level. The value boundaries must be the same. With the same boundary, the comparison process becomes valid, it will be seen whether certain batches are better than other batches.

Besides that. The author must also explain in the manuscript why you divided them into these 5 categories. Why not 3 categories? Why not 7 categories? The author must answer the "why" question so that it doesn't seem cherry-picking.

 

The author must also write in the manuscript, and display in the Figure 4 legend the boundary values ​​for the hot spot, sub-hot spot, nonsignificant, sub-cold spot, and cold spot categories. The author must also write in his manuscript, why you divided them into these 5 categories. Why not 3 categories? Why not 7 categories?

 

The author has not succeeded in explaining how the impact on "the location, scale structure, and agricultural production mode of the villages" in line 404.

 

Enter your explanation that “according to the landform classification standard in China, it is divided into plains (0 ~ 200 m), hills (200 ~ 500 m), mountains (500 ~ 1000 m), Class I plateaus (1000 ~ 2000 m ) and Class II plateaus (> 2000 m).” into your manuscript to support the explanation of Figure 6. Also include citations to the academic references that created the abovementioned division.

 

The author still needs to explain in the manuscript, why the radius of the buffer zone for the Tourist market differs from Traffic Location

 

The discussion on lines 518-587 should also be compared with the results of previous studies.

 

The authors have not succeeded in mentioning what their contributions from the academic side and the practical side are. Explain why everything you have said is a real contribution and not just a personal opinion. I see now only more focus on summarizing the results. The writer must claim his contribution to the body of knowledge, especially in the sustainability research field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe the authors did their best in correcting and reflecting on my suggestions. Good Paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Enter your answer to my comment number 2 into the manuscript. So that readers know why in 2020 the number increased significantly and suddenly dropped drastically in 2021.

 

I cannot buy the authors' answer to my comment number 5. I still insist that the boundary for each batch should be the same for each figure. So that the comparison can be equally fair. How can you compare two figures if their value boundaries are different?

If the boundaries are different, then an area can suddenly fall into the "Very Low" category, only because of changes in the "Very Low" boundary value that is getting longer (for example from 0.000-0.129 to 0.000-0.316), not because of changes in the characteristics of the area itself.

So, I still suggest that the boundary value across the figures in Figure 3 should be the same so that they can be compared fairly.

 

Please put your answer to my comment number 7 into the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf