Satisfaction of Tourism Communities in World Heritage Sites Based on Residents’ Perceptions—Study Area of Mount Sanqingshan National Park, PRC

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a rich and diverse reconnaissance of several themes that have been given due consideration. It is a fairly comprehensive study in view of the implications and limitations described.

Further investigation into the analysis methodology used is required.

"This study uses structural equation modelling (SEM) for validation analysis, a method for building, estimating, and testing causal models that is widely used in social science research" (p.11). The paper lacks a thorough literature review on the use of this methodology for the validation of the satisfaction of tourism communities based on residents' perceptions or, more generally, to measure users' perceptions of a specific tourism offer. I believe this is important to justify the choice of analysis methodology

In line with this, it is necessary to include in the 'research limitations' those derived from the analysis methodology used. 

Author Response

Dear editors and referees

We are very grateful to the editors and reviewers for your valuable comments.

Based on the suggestions of the editors and reviewers and the discussions of the author team of this paper, we have made relevant changes to the paper.

First, we revised the title of the paper to “Satisfaction of Tourism Communities in World Heritage Sites based on Residents' Perceptions—Study Area of Mount San-qingshan National Park, PRC”, suggested by the reviewer 3, which is to make it more concise and clear.

Second, we revised sentences that were not easy to understand and could easily lead to ambiguity, suggested by the reviewer 2.

Third, related theoretical and practical implications in section 5.2 ‘Theoretical and Managerial Implications’ to reviewer 3.

Once again, I would like to express my sincerest thanks to the editorial board and reviewers for their valuable suggestions.

 Best wishes,

 Sifeng Nian

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is thorough and analytical, the data is well presented and the results are adequately discussed. Therefore I am happy to recommend it for publication in its current form.

Author Response

Dear editors and referees

We are very grateful to the editors and reviewers for your valuable comments.

Based on the suggestions of the editors and reviewers and the discussions of the author team of this paper, we have made relevant changes to the paper.

First, we revised the title of the paper to “Satisfaction of Tourism Communities in World Heritage Sites based on Residents' Perceptions—Study Area of Mount San-qingshan National Park, PRC”, suggested by the reviewer 3, which is to make it more concise and clear.

Second, we revised sentences that were not easy to understand and could easily lead to ambiguity, suggested by the reviewer 2.

Third, related theoretical and practical implications in section 5.2 ‘Theoretical and Managerial Implications’ to reviewer 3.

Once again, I would like to express my sincerest thanks to the editorial board and reviewers for their valuable suggestions.

 Best wishes,

 Sifeng Nian

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author(s),
Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper entitled Research on the Satisfaction of Tourism Communities in World Heritage Sites based on Residents' Perceptions—Study Area of Mount Sanqingshan National Park, PRC.

I found this paper very interesting. The topic of this paper is interesting and worthy of publication. The research part is clearly written, with good, concise prose, and also paper provides interesting findings. Great job author(s)! However, I see some places where improvement will be appreciated.

Title

My suggestion is to slightly correct the title, for example, “Satisfaction of Tourism Communities in World Heritage Sites based on Residents' Perceptions—Study Area of Mount Sanqingshan National Park, PRC”.

Abstract

Comment 1

Lines 14-20 – This sentence is too long. Please modify it and make it more comprehensive.

Same thing with lines 20-27. It is difficult to read like that.

Introduction

Comment 2

Lines 33-38 Sentence is too long and difficult to follow. Please modify it.

Conclusion

Comment 10

Explain the importance of your work, novelty, and originality. What are the theoretical contributions and management implications? These segments are missing.

The article is very interesting, but I think you can conclude it much better.

 

Once again thank you very much for the opportunity to read this interesting article. The manuscript is really nicely written with interesting results.  But some improvements when it comes to the Conclusion would be highly appreciated. Looking forward to reading your article again.

Wish you all the best!

 

 

Sincerely,

Reviewer 

Author Response

Dear editors and referees

We are very grateful to the editors and reviewers for your valuable comments.

Based on the suggestions of the editors and reviewers and the discussions of the author team of this paper, we have made relevant changes to the paper.

First, we revised the title of the paper to “Satisfaction of Tourism Communities in World Heritage Sites based on Residents' Perceptions—Study Area of Mount San-qingshan National Park, PRC”, suggested by the reviewer 3, which is to make it more concise and clear.

Second, we revised sentences that were not easy to understand and could easily lead to ambiguity, suggested by the reviewer 2.

Third, related theoretical and practical implications in section 5.2 ‘Theoretical and Managerial Implications’ to reviewer 3.

Once again, I would like to express my sincerest thanks to the editorial board and reviewers for their valuable suggestions.

 Best wishes,

 Sifeng Nian

Author Response File: Author Response.docx