Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a well written paper and with a very interesting topic: tourism and emissions. My unique concern are two:

- the CGE is not explained (authors reforward to other paper),

- database is old (2007).

Moreover after COVID-19, results must be sensible with the baseline database. I suggest to anlayze the possibility to updater that database.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The contribution is about the impact of resident tourism subsidy policies on the Chinese economy and environment. Overall, the CGE model in this article can simulate the scenarios of resident tourism subsidies and provide policy makers with deeper insights into provincial economic and emission impacts.

The introduction provides sufficient background on the importance of tourism to the Chinese economy, the government's policies to promote tourism, and the interdependence of tourism development and the environment. The introduction could be improved by providing more specific details on the methodology used in this study and how it differs from previous studies on the topic and ending with a paragraph on "The reminder is structures as..." or so.

Overall, the methods section is well-written and provides enough detail for readers to replicate the study.

he results are presented in a somewhat clear manner in the text. The authors use Table 1 and Figure 1 to show the changes in national GDP, household welfare, investment, and output in different sectors under various tourism subsidy scenarios. They also use Figure 3 and Figure 4 to demonstrate the sectoral changes in energy consumption and emissions under different tourism subsidy scenarios. However, the presentation of the results can be improved by providing more detailed explanations of the numbers in the tables and figures and their implications. The authors could also use clearer headings and subheadings to help readers navigate the results section provide also the tables and figures named in the text, e.g. line 236, line 261, line 275: Table 1, table 2, table 3 named as well as other tables, but there are not tables; line 281, Figure 3, but no figure.

Some further comments

-) Please alphabetical order of keywords

-) Line 214: X. R. Hu et al. => Hu et al. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Greetings,

The paper has potential, but it needs additional correction. The first listing of references does not comply with the instructions. References should be in the form [8], not (Newell & Mulvaney, 2013). Correct it in the whole paper. The introduction is detailed and well written. Since there is no literature review, a literature review was performed here. In the introduction, it is necessary to emphasize the contribution of this paper and the objectives of the paper. At the end of the introduction, put what will be done in which selection. The Methods selection is well done as is the next selection. However, in this paper the problem is the results. There is not a single picture or table or analysis. Data are presented descriptively, they should be presented in tables, figures and various other tools. The authors must do this in detail. If this is not done, I will suggest that the paper be rejected in the next round of reviews. Then separate the discussion from the conclusion.

All the best

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

I’ve read your manuscript with big interest. The topic is internationally important, and learning about the Chinese experience will be enriching to many specialists. The manuscript is based on an in-depth research with strong methodology. The outcomes and their interpretations sounds interesting, and not only to China. They are communicated properly. The paper is well-organized and generally well-referenced. I guess it is also well-illustrated, but figures and tables are omitted occasionally, and, thus, I cannot judge of them. A very critical reading leaves impression that all is more or less ok with the manuscript, but I think some improvements can be made.

1)      Abstract: please, explain the abbreviation “CGE”.

2)      Methods: please, explain better why you use so “old” sources going back to the 2000s.

3)      Discussion: please, make comparisons with some other countries and cite the related literature (Discussion should also bear citations).

4)      Discussion: you consider migration of the workforce to the tourism industry. Why and how this occurs? What about the related salary changes? What about competences – the tourism industry requires some special competences, some of which are related to personal characteristics (openness, positive emotions, etc.), which cannot be developed quickly.

5)      Sorry, but I do not see any figures and tables promised in the text. They should be input into the main text. Apparently, they were omitted occasionally.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is fine for me. Only a revision of english could be better

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We will improve this in our future work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Greetings,

The authors have complied with the comments, the paper should now be accepted.

All the best.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.