The Measurement of High-Quality Development Level of Tourism: Based on the Perspective of Industrial Integration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

comments on the concept of the article

the theoretical part should be conceived thematically more to the main topic of the work, which is the construction of evaluation index system for the high-quality development of the tourism industry
in the presented form, the theoretical part is not very compact, the messages are fragmentary in some parts and the individual messages should be more related to each other.

The methodology of work is formally missing. A clear description of the methodology for compiling indicators is all the more important because the author writes "the theoretical connotation of the high-quality development of the tourism industry has not yet been recognized and clearly defined." So here's the question, what concept does the author come from? The answers are partly in chap. 3, however, should be clearly formulated methodologically and clarified how they were derived.

part of methodological approaches contains chap. 3. "The Construction of Evaluation Index System for the High-quality development of Tourism Industry Based on Industrial Integration", but I recommend to process as a comprehensive methodological chapter; the methodology should include a clear derivation of a set of indicators, including links to literature review

Formal comments

for the article bad citation ethics is typical and it is necessary to consistently cite sources; I strongly recommend a revision of the citation apparatus throughout the article; several examples.

• missing source citations for text on lines 273 to 287
• for Tables 2 to 6, the sources from which the calculation was drawn must be given as sources

• in chap. The introduction is missing twice mentioning the data source (citation), specifically here

  According to The National Bureau of Statistics, in 2019, the number of domestic tourists was 6.006 billion, an increase of 8.4%; the comprehensive contribution of tourism to GDP was ¥10.94 trillion, accounting for 11.05% of the total GDP. Tourism employed 28.25 million directly, and tourism employed 79.87 million directly and indirectly, accounting for 10.31% of the total employed population in the country.

  and also here

  In 2018, The General Office of the State Council issued Guiding Opinions on Promoting the Development of Global Tourism, proposing to promote the integrated development of tourism and urbanization, ...

in this sentence indicate the year:

"The report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China pointed out that ..."

missing verb:

"Ren, et al. [15] examine how the income level of a country’s tourist arrival on economic growth and environmental pollution in 8 Mediterranean countries over period 1995-2004."

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: the theoretical part should be conceived thematically more to the main topic of the work, which is the construction of evaluation index system for the high-quality development of the tourism industry in the presented form, the theoretical part is not very compact, the messages are fragmentary in some parts and the individual messages should be more related to each other.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your insightful comment. We agree with you that in the January 2022 version of this paper, our theoretical part was not proper, because it did not capture the nature of the relationship between tourism industry integration and high-quality development. Adopting your comment, we first presented our motivation for this research (i.e., lines 61-74). We think that the integrated development of the tourism industry is the high-quality development of the tourism industry, which is highly consistent with the high-quality development of the tourism industry, or it is an important symbol of the high-quality development of the tourism industry. Second, we have expanded our review in Section 2. According to our review, we can confirm that the key findings of the paper are not stated in the existing literature. Third, we have highlighted the relationship between tourism industry integration and high-quality development in section 3.1. Finally, we have shown how to build an evaluation index system based on the existing literature in section 3.2.

Point 2: The methodology of work is formally missing. A clear description of the methodology for compiling indicators is all the more important because the author writes "the theoretical connotation of the high-quality development of the tourism industry has not yet been recognized and clearly defined." So here's the question, what concept does the author come from? The answers are partly in chap. 3, however, should be clearly formulated methodologically and clarified how they were derived.

part of methodological approaches contains chap. 3. "The Construction of Evaluation Index System for the High-quality development of Tourism Industry Based on Industrial Integration", but I recommend to process as a comprehensive methodological chapter; the methodology should include a clear derivation of a set of indicators, including links to literature review.

Response 2: Thank you for this helpful comment. Adopting your comment, we reviewed more recent publications, and cited more literature on quality evaluation of tourism development. In the new version, we have tried our best to expand our review in Section 2 starting on page 3. At the end of Section 2, we have specificed the differences between our paper and extant publications, and shown our major contributions. Moreover, we show how to build an evaluation index system based on the existing literature in section 3.2.

We also have highlighted the relationship between tourism industry integration and high-quality development in section 3.1. We defined the high-quality development of the tourism industry as the development of meeting the growing tourism needs of the general public and improving the satisfaction of tourists, which was derived from the high-quality development of economy. In summary, the integrated development of the tourism industry is the high-quality development of the tourism industry, which is highly consistent with the high-quality development of the tourism industry, or an important symbol of the high-quality de-velopment of the tourism industry.

We think that the quality of tourism industry development is related to the high-quality development of the tourism industry, but it is not the same thing. The former is a static concept, while the latter is a dynamic concept. The former is only quality evaluation, while the latter is development evaluation including quality.

Point 3: for the article bad citation ethics is typical and it is necessary to consistently cite sources; I strongly recommend a revision of the citation apparatus throughout the article; several examples.

missing source citations for text on lines 273 to 287

for Tables 2 to 6, the sources from which the calculation was drawn must be given as sources in chap. The introduction is missing twice mentioning the data source (citation), specifically here

According to The National Bureau of Statistics, in 2019, the number of domestic tourists was 6.006 billion, an increase of 8.4%; the comprehensive contribution of tourism to GDP was ¥10.94 trillion, accounting for 11.05% of the total GDP. Tourism employed 28.25 million directly, and tourism employed 79.87 million directly and indirectly, accounting for 10.31% of the total employed population in the country.

and also here

In 2018, The General Office of the State Council issued Guiding Opinions on Promoting the Development of Global Tourism, proposing to promote the integrated development of tourism and urbanization, ....

Response 3: Thank you very much. We have done our best to remove incorrect citations and corrected the wrong threes. In the new vision, on page 10, we added the sources of the calculation as “Enders, C. K., Analyzing longitudinal data with missing values. Rehabilitation psychology 2011, 56, (4), 267”. Similarly, we added the citation in the introduction. Specifically, “https://www.mct.gov.cn/whzx/whyw/202003/t20200310_851786.htm” and “http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2018-03/22/content_5276447.htm”, respectively.

Point 4: in this sentence indicate the year: "The report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China pointed out that ..."

Response 4: Thanks. We have accordingly added the year in this senstence. In the new vision, which is “The report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (2017) pointed out that ...”.

Point 5: missing verb: "Ren, et al. [15] examine how the income level of a country’s tourist arrival on economic growth and environmental pollution in 8 Mediterranean countries over period 1995-2004."

Response 5: Thank you very much for your careful reading. We have re-written this sentence to “Ren, et al. [17] examine how the income level of a country’s tourist arrival affects the economic growth and environmental pollution in 8 Mediterranean countries over period 1995-2004”.

For this revision, we have made a significant effort to incorporate all of the comments from you, the Editor, and other three reviewers. We hope that you find this new version satisfactory.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: The work is interesting and has been studied in-depth and with methodological rigour. The structure of the work is good and well-articulated. Sources of statistical data used in the Introduction shall be provided.

Response 1: Thank you very much for this general evaluation and your positive recommendation. We agree with you that in the January 2022 version of this paper, some old expressions (i.e., text on lines 31 to 36, and lines 42 to 49) were not appropriate in the introduction, as it did not provide source citations. In order to avoid misunderstanding, we have added the source citations.

For this revision, we have made a significant effort to incorporate all of the comments from you, the Editor, and other three reviewers. We hope that you find this new version satisfactory.

`

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: In the paper, an evaluation index system for the high-quality development of the tourism industry proposed that uses a combination of fuzzy mathematics and cluster analysis to evaluate the high-quality development level of the tourism industry. This evaluation index system applied to the Chinese tourism industry shows the large gap between regions and differences in the main influencing factors. The proposed approach is important especially for analyzing tourism markets of middle-income developing countries with huge territory and uneven territorial development. Therefore, one can confirm that the paper adds to the literature on tourism in emerging markets. The measurement methods, data sources and processing are correctly detailed. The analysis is made in a careful and appropriate way.

Response 1: Thank you very much for this general evaluation and your positive recommendation. We have very carefully read your advice, and agree that we need to do more works to satisfy Sustainability's publication standards. We have strictly followed all comments and have devoted every effort to revise our paper.

Point 2: In the abstract, better to straight clarify that the proposed index is applied to evaluate the development level of the Chinese tourism industry in 2011-2018 (row 12).

Response 2: Thank you for this helpful comment. Adopting your comment, we have re-written this sentence to “Based on the analysis of the relationship between tourism industry integration and high-quality development, this paper constructs an evaluation index system to evaluate the high-quality de-velopment level of the tourism industry in 2011-2018 of China by using the combination of fuzzy mathematics and clustering model”.

Point 3: The Introduction section should not only put the research topic in context but also correctly present the research gap, research question(s), and objectives of the particular study (presented in this paper). These points should be clearly stated and emphasized. It is better to present the structure of the paper in the last paragraph.

Response 3: Thank you for this constructive comment. We agree with you that in the January 2022 version of this paper, our introduction was not proper, because it did not propose the research questions, and missed the structure of our paper. Adopting your comment, we first presented our motivation for this research (i.e., lines 61-74). We think that the integrated development of the tourism industry is the high-quality development of the tourism industry, which is highly consistent with the high-quality development of the tourism industry, or it is an important symbol of the high-quality development of the tourism industry. Therefore, it will provide a decision-making basis for the national and local governments to formulate accurate plans and policies to promote the integration of the tourism industry and the high-quality development of tourism.

And then we show that although the prior research has examined how to measure the tourism quality[1-4], there is a paucity of measure models and theories analyzing the high-quality develop-ment level of tourism (research gap). Finnally, we displayed the structure of this paper (i.e., lines 83-86).

Point 4: In the literature review, the author points out that the existing literature “focuses on the high-quality development of economy, service industry and tourism” and then counts lists “in bulk” a number of (relevant but in different aspects) papers on the topic (rows 64-120). A more structured and thorough literature review is needed that would allow the reader to better understand what papers investigate the “high-quality development” economics; what papers focus on the Territorial Integration Approach and/or on service quality as theoretical phenomena, what authors proposed measurement tools (and what are similarities and differences between these tools/models), etc. Maybe it makes sense to divide the literature review into some subsections, each corresponding to the exact topic discussed in the relevant literature.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing out the shortcomings of our paper. Adopting your comment, we reviewed more recent publications, and cited more literature on quality evaluation of tourism development. In the new version, we have tried our best to expand our review in Section 2 starting on page 2. At the end of Section 2, we have specificed the di¤erences between our paper and extant publications, and shown our major contributions. Moreover, we show how to build an evaluation index system based on the existing literature.

Point 5: A too detailed description in subsection 4.3 (also “in bulk” like in Section 2, with many names of provinces) makes it difficult to understand the results (rows 335-373). Maybe it is possible to organize the information into a table or visualize it somehow.

Response 5: Thank you for this important comment. We have accordingly added a table to further illustrate (Table 7, lines 438-439).

Point 6: In the Conclusion and Discussion Section, the author needs better highlight the contribution to the field and the promising paths for future research.

Response 6: Thanks. We agree with your comment. In the new version, we have accordingly highlighted our contribution to this field and added a future research direction on how to measure the high-quality development of tourism in the presence of the Covid-19 pandemic.

For this revision, we have made a significant effort to incorporate all of the comments from you, the Editor, and other three reviewers. We hope that you find this new version satisfactory.

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

Point 1: I really enjoyed reading your manuscript entitled “The Measurement of High-quality Development Level of Tourism: Based on the Perspective of Industrial Integration”, which is very interesting. However, I have some remarks as follow:

Response 1: Thank you very much for this general evaluation and your positive recommendation. We have very carefully read your advice, and agree that we need to do more works to satisfy Sustainability's publication standards. We have strictly followed all comments and have devoted every effort to revise our paper.

Point 2: In the introduction, the manuscript explained the current tourism development in China and heighted that “There is insufficient understanding of the internal mechanism of the integrated development of tourism industry, and there is blindness in practice.” However, it did not provide enough arguments to explain: Why this study is important and how is it related to that evoked problem? In addition, why do we need to measure the high-quality development level? Is there any clear research gap ? I would suggest author to clarify these questions at the end of the introduction part. From my personal point of view, it will help readers to better understand your paper.

Response 2: Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree with you that in the January 2022 version of this paper, our introduction was not proper, because it did not propose the research questions, and missed the structure of our paper. Adopting your comment, we first presented our motivation for this research (i.e., lines 61-74). We think that the integrated development of the tourism industry is the high-quality development of the tourism industry, which is highly consistent with the high-quality development of the tourism industry, or it is an important symbol of the high-quality development of the tourism industry. Therefore, it will provide a decision-making basis for the national and local governments to formulate accurate plans and policies to promote the integration of the tourism industry and the high-quality development of tourism.

And then we show that although the prior research has examined how to measure the tourism quality[1-4], there is a paucity of measure models and theories analyzing the high-quality develop-ment level of tourism (research gap). Finally, we displayed the structure of this paper (i.e., lines 83-86).

Point 3: According to me, the literature review part is fine. However, I wonder how author has developed the construct of Evaluation Index System (in Section 3). This should be based on something (i.e., on previous studies) and at this point, the process or the method is not very clear. I would like author to develop this section as well. It might me interesting to include a figure to explain the whole process.

Please have a look at the existing literature on this topic. There are many but I cite some of them as follow:

Luo, W. (2018). Evaluating tourist destination performance: Expanding the sustainability concept. Sustainability, 10(2), 516.

Wan, Y. K. P., & Li, X. (2013). Sustainability of tourism development in Macao, China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(1), 52-65.

Haibo, C., Ke, D., Fangfang, W., & Ayamba, E. C. (2020). The spatial effect of tourism economic development on regional ecological efficiency. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(30), 38241-38258.

Response 3: Thank you for raising important comments and suggesting three references. Adopting your comment, we reviewed more recent publications, and cited more literature on quality evaluation of tourism development. In the new version, we have tried our best to expand our review in Section 2 starting on page 3. At the end of Section 2, we have specificed the differences between our paper and extant publications, and shown our major contributions. Moreover, we have shown how to build an evaluation index system based on the existing literature in section 3.2.

We think that the quality of tourism industry development is related to the high-quality development of the tourism industry, but it is not the same thing. The former is a static concept, while the latter is a dynamic concept. The former is only quality evaluation, while the latter is development evaluation including quality.

We also highlighted the relationship between tourism industry integration and high-quality development in section 3.1. We defined the high-quality development of the tourism industry as the development of meeting the growing tourism needs of the general public and improving the satisfaction of tourists. In summary, the integrated development of the tourism industry is the high-quality development of the tourism industry, which is highly consistent with the high-quality development of the tourism industry, or an important symbol of the high-quality de-velopment of the tourism industry.

Point 4: Section 4 is fine for me. There are too many tables but they are important at the same time. The Conclusion and Discussion section should be developed according to the findings. In addition, the Covid-19 pandemic has changed the travel and tourism industry and the policy makers should consider it for a better and sustainable tourism development. I would like author to include this in the conclusion or perspective part.

Response 4: Thank you for this insightful comment. We have accordingly extended our finding in section 5. In addation, we added a future research direction on how to measure the high-quality development of tourism in the presence of the Covid-19 pandemic.

For this revision, we have made a significant effort to incorporate all of the comments from you, the Editor, and other three reviewers. We hope that you find this new version satisfactory.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is interesting and has been studied in-depth and with methodological rigour. The structure of the work is good and well-articulated.

Sources of statistical data used in the Introduction shall be provided. 

Author Response

Point 1: The work is interesting and has been studied in-depth and with methodological rigour. The structure of the work is good and well-articulated. Sources of statistical data used in the Introduction shall be provided.

Response 1: Thank you very much for this general evaluation and your positive recommendation. We agree with you that in the January 2022 version of this paper, some old expressions (i.e., text on lines 31 to 36, and lines 42 to 49) were not appropriate in the introduction, as it did not provide source citations. In order to avoid misunderstanding, we have added the source citations.

For this revision, we have made a significant effort to incorporate all of the comments from you, the Editor, and other three reviewers. We hope that you find this new version satisfactory.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the paper, an evaluation index system for the high-quality development of the tourism industry proposed that uses a combination of fuzzy mathematics and cluster analysis to evaluate the high-quality development level of the tourism industry. This evaluation index system applied to the Chinese tourism industry shows the large gap between regions and differences in the main influencing factors. The proposed approach is important especially for analyzing tourism markets of middle-income developing countries with huge territory and uneven territorial development. Therefore, one can confirm that the paper adds to the literature on tourism in emerging markets. The measurement methods, data sources and processing are correctly detailed. The analysis is made in a careful and appropriate way.

At the same time, I have a couple of suggestions to improve the paper before publishing.

1) In the abstract, better to straight clarify that the proposed index is applied to evaluate the development level of the Chinese tourism industry in 2011-2018 (row 12).

2) The Introduction section should not only put the research topic in context but also correctly present the research gap, research question(s), and objectives of the particular study (presented in this paper). These points should be clearly stated and emphasized. It is better to present the structure of the paper in the last paragraph.

3) In the literature review, the author points out that the existing literature “focuses on the high-quality development of economy, service industry and tourism” and then counts lists “in bulk” a number of (relevant but in different aspects) papers on the topic (rows 64-120). A more structured and thorough literature review is needed that would allow the reader to better understand what papers investigate the “high-quality development” economics; what papers focus on the Territorial Integration Approach and/or on service quality as theoretical phenomena, what authors proposed measurement tools (and what are similarities and differences between these tools/models), etc. Maybe it makes sense to divide the literature review into some subsections, each corresponding to the exact topic discussed in the relevant literature.

4) A too detailed description in subsection 4.3 (also “in bulk” like in Section 2, with many names of provinces) makes it difficult to understand the results (rows 335-373). Maybe it is possible to organize the information into a table or visualize it somehow.

4) In the Conclusion and Discussion Section, the author needs better highlight the contribution to the field and the promising paths for future research.

As to the English language and style, there may be advanced suggestions but I see no need for major improvements.

Author Response

Point 1: In the paper, an evaluation index system for the high-quality development of the tourism industry proposed that uses a combination of fuzzy mathematics and cluster analysis to evaluate the high-quality development level of the tourism industry. This evaluation index system applied to the Chinese tourism industry shows the large gap between regions and differences in the main influencing factors. The proposed approach is important especially for analyzing tourism markets of middle-income developing countries with huge territory and uneven territorial development. Therefore, one can confirm that the paper adds to the literature on tourism in emerging markets. The measurement methods, data sources and processing are correctly detailed. The analysis is made in a careful and appropriate way.

Response 1: Thank you very much for this general evaluation and your positive recommendation. We have very carefully read your advice, and agree that we need to do more works to satisfy Sustainability's publication standards. We have strictly followed all comments and have devoted every effort to revise our paper.

Point 2: In the abstract, better to straight clarify that the proposed index is applied to evaluate the development level of the Chinese tourism industry in 2011-2018 (row 12).

Response 2: Thank you for this helpful comment. Adopting your comment, we have re-written this sentence to “Based on the analysis of the relationship between tourism industry integration and high-quality development, this paper constructs an evaluation index system to evaluate the high-quality de-velopment level of the tourism industry in 2011-2018 of China by using the combination of fuzzy mathematics and clustering model”.

Point 3: The Introduction section should not only put the research topic in context but also correctly present the research gap, research question(s), and objectives of the particular study (presented in this paper). These points should be clearly stated and emphasized. It is better to present the structure of the paper in the last paragraph.

Response 3: Thank you for this constructive comment. We agree with you that in the January 2022 version of this paper, our introduction was not proper, because it did not propose the research questions, and missed the structure of our paper. Adopting your comment, we first presented our motivation for this research (i.e., lines 61-74). We think that the integrated development of the tourism industry is the high-quality development of the tourism industry, which is highly consistent with the high-quality development of the tourism industry, or it is an important symbol of the high-quality development of the tourism industry. Therefore, it will provide a decision-making basis for the national and local governments to formulate accurate plans and policies to promote the integration of the tourism industry and the high-quality development of tourism. 

And then we show that although the prior research has examined how to measure the tourism quality[1-4], there is a paucity of measure models and theories analyzing the high-quality develop-ment level of tourism (research gap). Finnally, we displayed the structure of this paper (i.e., lines 83-86). 

Point 4: In the literature review, the author points out that the existing literature “focuses on the high-quality development of economy, service industry and tourism” and then counts lists “in bulk” a number of (relevant but in different aspects) papers on the topic (rows 64-120). A more structured and thorough literature review is needed that would allow the reader to better understand what papers investigate the “high-quality development” economics; what papers focus on the Territorial Integration Approach and/or on service quality as theoretical phenomena, what authors proposed measurement tools (and what are similarities and differences between these tools/models), etc. Maybe it makes sense to divide the literature review into some subsections, each corresponding to the exact topic discussed in the relevant literature.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing out the shortcomings of our paper. Adopting your comment, we reviewed more recent publications, and cited more literature on quality evaluation of tourism development. In the new version, we have tried our best to expand our review in Section 2 starting on page 2. At the end of Section 2, we have specificed the di¤erences between our paper and extant publications, and shown our major contributions. Moreover, we show how to build an evaluation index system based on the existing literature.

Point 5: A too detailed description in subsection 4.3 (also “in bulk” like in Section 2, with many names of provinces) makes it difficult to understand the results (rows 335-373). Maybe it is possible to organize the information into a table or visualize it somehow.

Response 5: Thank you for this important comment. We have accordingly added a table to further illustrate (Table 7, lines 438-439).

Point 6: In the Conclusion and Discussion Section, the author needs better highlight the contribution to the field and the promising paths for future research.

Response 6: Thanks. We agree with your comment. In the new version, we have accordingly highlighted our contribution to this field and added a future research direction on how to measure the high-quality development of tourism in the presence of the Covid-19 pandemic.

For this revision, we have made a significant effort to incorporate all of the comments from you, the Editor, and other three reviewers. We hope that you find this new version satisfactory.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Author,

I really enjoyed reading your manuscript entitled “The Measurement of High-quality Development Level of Tourism: Based on the Perspective of Industrial Integration”, which is very interesting. However, I have some remarks as follow:

In the introduction, the manuscript explained the current tourism development in China and heighted that “There is insufficient understanding of the internal mechanism of the integrated development of tourism industry, and there is blindness in practice.” However, it did not provide enough arguments to explain: Why this study is important and how is it related to that evoked problem? In addition, why do we need to measure the high-quality development level? Is there any clear research gap ? I would suggest author to clarify these questions at the end of the introduction part. From my personal point of view, it will help readers to better understand your paper.

According to me, the literature review part is fine. However, I wonder how author has developed the construct of Evaluation Index System (in Section 3). This should be based on something (i.e., on previous studies) and at this point, the process or the method is not very clear. I would like author to develop this section as well. It might me interesting to include a figure to explain the whole process.

Please have a look at the existing literature on this topic. There are many but I cite some of them as follow:

• Luo, W. (2018). Evaluating tourist destination performance: Expanding the sustainability concept. Sustainability, 10(2), 516.
• Wan, Y. K. P., & Li, X. (2013). Sustainability of tourism development in Macao, China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(1), 52-65.
• Haibo, C., Ke, D., Fangfang, W., & Ayamba, E. C. (2020). The spatial effect of tourism economic development on regional ecological efficiency. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(30), 38241-38258.

Section 4 is fine for me. There are too many tables but they are important at the same time. The Conclusion and Discussion section should be developed according to the findings. In addition, the Covid-19 pandemic has changed the travel and tourism industry and the policy makers should consider it for a better and sustainable tourism development. I would like author to include this in the conclusion or perspective part.

I found the topic very interesting and I hope my comments will help author to improve the manuscript. Best of luck with the revision.

Author Response

Point 1: I really enjoyed reading your manuscript entitled “The Measurement of High-quality Development Level of Tourism: Based on the Perspective of Industrial Integration”, which is very interesting. However, I have some remarks as follow:

Response 1: Thank you very much for this general evaluation and your positive recommendation. We have very carefully read your advice, and agree that we need to do more works to satisfy Sustainability's publication standards. We have strictly followed all comments and have devoted every effort to revise our paper.

Point 2: In the introduction, the manuscript explained the current tourism development in China and heighted that “There is insufficient understanding of the internal mechanism of the integrated development of tourism industry, and there is blindness in practice.” However, it did not provide enough arguments to explain: Why this study is important and how is it related to that evoked problem? In addition, why do we need to measure the high-quality development level? Is there any clear research gap ? I would suggest author to clarify these questions at the end of the introduction part. From my personal point of view, it will help readers to better understand your paper.

Response 2: Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree with you that in the January 2022 version of this paper, our introduction was not proper, because it did not propose the research questions, and missed the structure of our paper. Adopting your comment, we first presented our motivation for this research (i.e., lines 61-74). We think that the integrated development of the tourism industry is the high-quality development of the tourism industry, which is highly consistent with the high-quality development of the tourism industry, or it is an important symbol of the high-quality development of the tourism industry. Therefore, it will provide a decision-making basis for the national and local governments to formulate accurate plans and policies to promote the integration of the tourism industry and the high-quality development of tourism.

And then we show that although the prior research has examined how to measure the tourism quality[1-4], there is a paucity of measure models and theories analyzing the high-quality develop-ment level of tourism (research gap). Finally, we displayed the structure of this paper (i.e., lines 83-86).

Point 3: According to me, the literature review part is fine. However, I wonder how author has developed the construct of Evaluation Index System (in Section 3). This should be based on something (i.e., on previous studies) and at this point, the process or the method is not very clear. I would like author to develop this section as well. It might me interesting to include a figure to explain the whole process.

Please have a look at the existing literature on this topic. There are many but I cite some of them as follow:

Luo, W. (2018). Evaluating tourist destination performance: Expanding the sustainability concept. Sustainability, 10(2), 516.

Wan, Y. K. P., & Li, X. (2013). Sustainability of tourism development in Macao, China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(1), 52-65.

Haibo, C., Ke, D., Fangfang, W., & Ayamba, E. C. (2020). The spatial effect of tourism economic development on regional ecological efficiency. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(30), 38241-38258.

Response 3: Thank you for raising important comments and suggesting three references. Adopting your comment, we reviewed more recent publications, and cited more literature on quality evaluation of tourism development. In the new version, we have tried our best to expand our review in Section 2 starting on page 3. At the end of Section 2, we have specificed the differences between our paper and extant publications, and shown our major contributions. Moreover, we have shown how to build an evaluation index system based on the existing literature in section 3.2.

We think that the quality of tourism industry development is related to the high-quality development of the tourism industry, but it is not the same thing. The former is a static concept, while the latter is a dynamic concept. The former is only quality evaluation, while the latter is development evaluation including quality.

We also highlighted the relationship between tourism industry integration and high-quality development in section 3.1. We defined the high-quality development of the tourism industry as the development of meeting the growing tourism needs of the general public and improving the satisfaction of tourists. In summary, the integrated development of the tourism industry is the high-quality development of the tourism industry, which is highly consistent with the high-quality development of the tourism industry, or an important symbol of the high-quality de-velopment of the tourism industry.

Point 4: Section 4 is fine for me. There are too many tables but they are important at the same time. The Conclusion and Discussion section should be developed according to the findings. In addition, the Covid-19 pandemic has changed the travel and tourism industry and the policy makers should consider it for a better and sustainable tourism development. I would like author to include this in the conclusion or perspective part.

Response 4: Thank you for this insightful comment. We have accordingly extended our finding in section 5. In addation, we added a future research direction on how to measure the high-quality development of tourism in the presence of the Covid-19 pandemic.

For this revision, we have made a significant effort to incorporate all of the comments from you, the Editor, and other three reviewers. We hope that you find this new version satisfactory.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Still, on the basis of a detailed analysis, especially chap. 3.2 I believe that the derivation of indicators is not clearly described. However, I welcome the addition of an overview of existing work, they contain fundamental approaches. The methodology of the work should be described.

Formal comments:

ertiary indicators .The result - 

population in the country¹ - there must be a link [1] to a properly described resource, not a footnote to refer to the resource URL;  the whole region² - same comment
Gooroochurn and Sugiyarto [25]analyze; Kim et al.[30]; for a better life[5].; g tourist satisfaction[26]. - missing space, please check carefully, there are other occurrences

Rhee[3], et al. [3] 

Krogmann, et al. [46]

Meanwhile, Tourism quality

The authors declare no conflict of interest. must be The author declare no conflict of interest. (The only one author)

. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for making a positive recommendation with some insightful comments that are helpful to improving our paper. We are also pleased to learn that the second reviewer, the third reviewer and Reviewer 4 have recommended the acceptance of our paper. The editor was also very positive and encouraged us to make a revision according to your comments. We read your report carefully and did our best to address your comments. We hope that you will be satisfited with the new version.

Point 1: Still, on the basis of a detailed analysis, especially chap. 3.2 I believe that the derivation of indicators is not clearly described. However, I welcome the addition of an overview of existing work, they contain fundamental approaches. The methodology of the work should be described.

Response 1: Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree with you that the derivation of indicators should be clearly described. We also do our best to explain how the indicators derivation from 4 dimensions: tourism industry economy, tourism industry structure, tourism industry integration, and tourism industry performance in section 3.2. Although, how to measure the level and quality of tourism development have gained much attention in academia recently. Prior research has explored this question from different perspectives. In practice, however, the quality of tourism industry development is related to the high-quality development of the tourism industry, but it is not the same thing. We introduce the connotation of high-quality development of tourism from the connotation of high-quality economic development. And then we construct an evaluation index system to evaluate the quality of tourism industry development in the presence of industrial integration. Because, the integrated development of the tourism industry is the high-quality development of the tourism industry, which is highly consistent with the high-quality development of the tourism industry, or an important symbol of the high-quality development of the tourism industry.

Point 2: ertiary indicators .The result -

population in the country1 - there must be a link [1] to a properly described resource, not a footnote to refer to the resource URL;  the whole region2 - same comment

Gooroochurn and Sugiyarto [25]analyze; Kim et al.[30]; for a better life[5].; g tourist satisfaction[26]. - missing space, please check carefully, there are other occurrences

Rhee[3], et al. [3]

Krogmann, et al. [46]

Meanwhile, Tourism quality.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your careful reading. We have accordingly changed “ertiary indicators .The result” and “Meanwhile, Tourism quality” to “ertiary indicators. The result”, “Meanwhile, tourism quality”, respectively. The sentences have been rewritten and data sources have been added for reference. We also have accordingly added space. We have checked all citations and corrected wrong ones. In addation, we have done our best to proofread the whole paper and remove all typos as well as grammatical errors.

Point 3: The authors declare no conflict of interest. must be The author declare no conflict of interest. (The only one author)

Response 3: Thanks I declare no conflict of interest.

For this revision, we have made a careful revision to address all of the comments from you. We hope that you find this new version satisfactory.

Reviewer 3 Report

There are substantial improvements. From my point of view, the paper is now ready for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for making a positive recommendation with some insightful comments that are helpful to improving our paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

The revised version is satisfactory. I suggest to accept the paper.

Author Response

Thank you very much for making a positive recommendation with some insightful comments that are helpful to improving our paper.