The Moderating Role of ESG Administration on the Relationship between Tourism Activities and Carbon Emissions: A Case Study of Basic Local Governments in South Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major revision is required. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to express my deepest gratitude for your thoughtful feedback. I have carefully considered all the comments you provided and have done my utmost to address them. Attached is the revised version of the file. The sections detailing each improvement are organized as follows.

Thank you once again for your valuable insights.

Best regards,

Heekyun Oh

 

Comment 1: The introduction's absence of a concise and clear framework makes it difficult to follow the concepts as they develop. May be dividing the content into manageable chunks with obvious transitions between them would be appropriate.

Response 1: As you have pointed out, the content of the introduction has been divided into manageable paragraphs with clear transitions between them. I have focused on ensuring that each paragraph is naturally connected to the research goal based on the content of the previous paragraph. In addition to reinforcing the entire introduction, all sentences have been rearranged into paragraphs with commonality. I have organized the flow of the paragraphs in this order: General background on global warming ➝ Tourism industry (TI) and global warming, focusing on carbon emissions (CE) ➝ Overall trends between TI and CE ➝ South Korean context ➝ Primary research purpose ➝ ESG administration as a moderating tool ➝ Secondary research purpose. Transitions between paragraphs have been clarified, and the topics of each paragraph have been made more distinct. Modified parts are marked in red throughout the introduction. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

 

Comment 2: Give a more convincing justification for the study's choice of South Korean context. What fresh viewpoints or insights does this background provide, and how does it advance knowledge of the connection between tourism-related activities and carbon emissions?

Response 2: As you indicated, the rationale for selecting the South Korean case within the introduction has been strengthened. Emphasis has been placed on the conflicting results regarding the South Korean case, highlighting it as an example of a country facing a dilemma in implementing tourism-environmental policies. Additionally, the lack of fundamental academic research has been included as a basis for this selection. The relevant section has been modified in red within the introduction (p. 2) as follows. Thank you for your valuable insights.

『……Given this framework, the present research plans to investigate the South Korean context in-depth. The rationale for selecting this case as a research subject is as follows: First, conflicting results have similarly been reported in this country. One study [18] identified positive effects, while another [21] revealed negative impacts, and the other [22] found no significant influence. Second, substantial evidence indicates that South Korea is actively pursuing harmony between tourism and environmental policies, making it a representative country with a significant interest in environmental policy [28]. Third, South Korea has undergone relatively rapid growth in the tourism industry, accompanied by subsequent negative environmental impacts [29]. Fourth, most crucially, there is a lack of foundational research in this area ……』

 

Comment 3 : Make sure that each paragraph builds on the content in the one before it and leads naturally into the study objectives. This will facilitate coherence and provide the reader with a smooth start.

Response 3: As you pointed out, regarding the supplementary process of [Comment #1] (dividing the content of the introduction into manageable paragraphs and inserting clear transitions between them), emphasis was placed on ensuring that each paragraph naturally follows the research goal based on the content of the previous paragraph. The modified parts are marked in red throughout the introduction. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

 

Comment 4: Although you point out how crucial ESG management is to reduce the negative environmental effects of tourism, it would be better if you could give a stronger explanation for the choice of this strategy. What evidence exists to support the effectiveness of ESG in addressing environmental concerns in the tourism industry, and how does it fit into the particular context of South Korea?

Response 4: As you pointed out, in the introduction, the evidence supporting the effectiveness of ESG in addressing environmental issues within the tourism industry has been strengthened. Additionally, further explanation has been provided on how this effect is applied in the specific context of South Korea. The relevant part has been modified and highlighted in red within the introduction section (p. 3) as follows. Thank you once again for your valuable insights.

『Evidence supporting the effectiveness of ESG activities is emerging in various domains. Public governance has been shown to stimulate ESG participation and enhance companies' environmental, social, and governance performance [39]. Additionally, the efficacy of ESG strategies has been validated in the public sector [40].For instance, in New Zealand, the implementation of strict environmental regulations for sustainable tourism has led to a significant reduction in the environmental footprint of the tourism industry [41]. In South Korea, ESG has emerged as a focal issue receiving considerable attention in academia, business management, and public policy [42,43]. Above all, South Korea possesses diverse tourism resources, rendering the tourism industry a vital economic asset [44]. However, the environmental pollution and ecosystem destruction resulting from increased tourists pose serious challenges [45]. Consequently, the systematic approach of addressing these issues through ESG administrative measures is highly suitable for South Korea's context. It can serve as a key strategy to promote sustainable tourism development. Thus, within this context, the South Korean case is deemed appropriate for verifying the effects of ESG initiatives.』

 

Comment 5: There is overlap in the literature review since similar findings and approaches are frequently repeated across studies. To cut down on redundancy and expedite the review process, think about combining the results into more general themes or patterns rather than summarising each study separately.

Response 5: As you advised, I have reduced the repetition of similar results and reorganized the theoretical background to ensure simplicity and clarity. I avoided merely listing the review details for each study. After reviewing the effects of the upper divisions, modifications were made by recombining them based on specific patterns (effects by subdivisions) and importance. The relevant part has been edited and highlighted in red within the literature review section (p. 4-5). Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

 

Comment 6 : Contradictory data and opposing viewpoints are not addressed in the literature study. Recognise and assess studies with contradicting results objectively in order to show that you have a sophisticated grasp of the intricacies of the study. Also, other settings like USA, Australia, New Zealand, or Europe should be considered in literature review.

(For eg. https://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/99984/1/MPRA_paper_99984.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X22001018, etc)

Response 6: As you mentioned, studies with conflicting results were also involved. The journals you recommended were included in the review as well. The relevant section has been modified in red in the literature review (p. 6) as follows. Thank you once again for your valuable suggestions.

『The current study also reviewed previous research with conflicting results. Itwas deemed essential for promoting a comprehensive understanding of the research topic and recognizing the complexity and variability of the phenomenon of interest. In this way, identifying potential influencing factors and conditions affecting carbon emissions helped prevent confirmation bias regarding causality. It contributed to solidifying the theoretical framework by enhancing the reliability of the research model. The results of research cases that are inconsistent with the mainstream are as follows:

Aziz et al. [19] applied the moments quantile regression method to analyze the correlation between tourism, renewable energy, economic growth, and carbon emissions using annual data from 1995 to 2018 for BRICS countries. The results showed that tourism hurt CO2 emissions from the 10th to the 40th quantiles but was insignificant for the remaining quantiles. Dogan and Aslan [20] conducted a panel data analysis on the EU and candidate countries from 1995 to 2011. The results revealed that energy consumption increases emission levels, while real income and tourism mitigate CO2 emissions. In Fethi and Senyucel's [21] study, dynamic causal relationships were tested using annual panel data from 1996 to 2016 for 50 major tourist destinations. As a result, it was found that tourism development had a positive impact on CO2 emission levels in some countries, while in others, it had a negative impact.

Mishra et al. [24] analyzed the dynamic link between tourism, transportation, economic growth, and carbon emissions using data from the United States. By applying the wavelet coherence technique to monthly data from 2001 to 2017, they revealed strong but inconsistent associations between the variables and confirmed the presence of significant co-movement across different time scales. Liu et al. (2019) [23] examined the dynamic link between international tourism revenue, economic growth, energy use, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in Pakistan from 1980 to 2016. The key results showed that tourism revenue did not significantly impact environmental quality, while economic growth and energy consumption were the primary determinants of CO2 emissions. Dogru et al. [22] investigated the relationship between tourism development, economic growth, renewable energy consumption, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in OECD countries and reported results that contradict existing studies. For instance, tourism development had a negative impact on CO2 emissions in Canada, the Czech Republic, and Turkey, while it had a positive and significant impact in Italy, Luxembourg, and Slovakia. Additionally, Belgium, France, New Zealand, and Slovakia demonstrated a transition to sustainable tourism practices.

The information so far has been organized in the following. Conflicting results persist regarding the impact of the tourism industry on carbon emissions. These disparities imply a lack of a standardized method to confirm causality between these two factors. The point is that the inducing effect of tourism activities on carbon emissions is a global phenomenon. Accordingly, the approach to reducing the tourism industry's influence may be premature.』

 

Comment 7: Make sure your study's research objectives and research questions are directly addressed in the literature review. Explain in detail how the conceptual framework and methodology of your own research are informed by and strengthened by the evaluated literature.

Response 7: As you pointed out, I have further explained how the results of the literature review affect the conceptual framework and methodology of this study. The relevant section has been modified in red within the literature review (p. 9) as follows. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

『Based upon the above theoretical considerations, meaningful and realistic analysis results are expected to be derived only when the influence of each of the four sub-tourism industry sectors—such as shopping, accommodation, F&B, and recreation—is considered. Thus, an essential structural model is created where the four lower tourism sectors are subordinated to the upper sector, tourism activities, which in turn influence carbon emissions through electricity and gas use. Here, ESG administrative power is anticipated to control carbon emissions from tourism activities effectively. The model is alsoexpanded to a structure in which exogenous variables (including six control variables mentioned above) that influence the centralcausal relationship are controlled. Additionally, a final model can be set up to compare the periods before and after the outbreak of COVID-19. From an empirical perspective, in-depth consideration of a model embodying the structure between these variables is necessary. Additionally, the feasibility of collecting the required data is another crucial factor in applying the methodology.』

 

Comment 8: To give a thorough analysis, the discussion section should incorporate the conclusions from the literature review along with the findings from your own investigation. Instead of just summarising the literature, talk about how your findings and those of other studies differ or coincide, and what this means for the study questions or hypotheses.

Response 8: As you pointed out, further explanation has been provided on where the results of this study align with and differ from existing studies. Additionally, I have considered the academic implications of these findings. The relevant part has been revised and highlighted in red within the conclusion section (p. 22) as follows. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

『The impact of tourism activities on carbon emissions showed results consistent with numerous studies. However, the differences lay in the contributions of the sub-sectors. Compared to previous studies, such as Xiong et al. [57], Sun [58], and Lenzen et al. [59], the effects of the food & beverage and shopping sectors were significant, showing high similarity in context. On the other hand, there is some divergence from studies by Chen et al. [56]and Tang and Ng [57], which identified accommodation and recreation as the most significant contributing factors. The results from different studies can vary based on the tourism destinations, input variables, estimation models, points of analysis, and data used. For instance, an Indian study [25–27] demonstrated conflicting results for the same tourism destination, revealing that the inclusion of more historical data led to a more negligibleperceived impact of tourism on carbon emissions. Therefore, it is necessary to continue supplementing comparative research by applying more standardized and sophisticated analysis methods. …… On the other hand, inconsistent results highlight the need for further investigation. These differences may stem from various factors such as research methodology, sample characteristics, spatial and temporal attributes, and other unique interactive conditions (e.g., COVID-19). Therefore, it is essential to explore these discrepancies from multiple perspectives. By identifying new variables, establishing improved methodologies, and pinpointing the effects of specific conditions, future efforts can contribute to solidifying the theoretical framework.』

Comment 9: Conclude the most important findings, emphasise their importance, and compile the primary arguments brought up during the discussion to wrap up the conclusion part.

Response 9: As you pointed out, the most important findings from this study have been highlighted in the conclusion, with the purpose of summarizing the main points raised during the discussion. The relevant section has been revised in red within the conclusion (p. 22) as follows. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

『In conclusion, the study's key points are as follows: Carbon emissions increase as tourism demand rises, which may become more pronounced as tourism activities intensify post-COVID-19. Tourism development evidently serves as an incentive to stimulate tourism demand. However, if well-established ESG administrative policies are implemented, the carbon emissions induced by tourism can be effectively controlled. Additionally, efforts are required to identify the exogenous factors associated with these ESG administrative policies.』

Comment 10: Future Research Directions: Based on the knowledge you have obtained from your study, provide recommendations for future research. Determine which areas need more research, suggest different approaches or methods, and provide targeted research questions that could expand or expand on your findings.

Response 10: As you advised, areas requiring further research have been suggested, along with alternative approaches or methods. I have proposed specific follow-up research questions that could expand and deepen the findings. The relevant section has been revised in red within the conclusion (p. 23) as follows. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

『In this research, domestic tourism and international tourism were not distinguished. Additionally, considering that trends may differ significantly from the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is necessary to conduct a comparative analysis with the period of 2022-2023, when tourism activities began to recover rapidly. However, this study faced severe limitations due to the reliance on secondary public data. The National Statistics Portal generally delays data updates. Hence,as of the second quarter of 2024, energy consumption, regional safety index, income level, and green space rate are only available up to 2022, with some updates published in March 2024. Furthermore, a limitation was that local government data separating domestic and foreign nationals was not provided. Thus, a future analysis comparing the effects before and after the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., 2019-2021 vs. 2022-2023) is anticipated when data for 2023 becomes available. Here, it is vital to complement the quantitative analysis with qualitative insights from industry stakeholders, which will help understand the impact of COVID-19 on tourism activities and ESG policies from a broader perspective.』

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study provides into the relationship between tourism activities and carbon emissions during the years from 2019 to 2021. However, the study does not differentiate between domestic and international tourism, which had markedly different trends during the pandemic.

There are significant contextual limitations as the data from 2023 indicates a dramatic recovery in tourism (according to the Korea Tourism Organization, the number of foreign tourists visiting in 2023 increased by 245.0% to 11.03 million compared to the previous year). Notably, starting April 1, 2022, fully vaccinated travelers who registered their overseas vaccination history through the Quarantine system were eligible for quarantine exemption, likely contributing to an increase in tourism. This further underscores the need to update the analysis to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the trends.

Recommendations:

Extend the analysis to include data from 2022 and 2023. This will capture the recovery phase and provide insights into how tourism activities and carbon emissions have evolved post-pandemic.

Conduct separate analyses for the pandemic years (2019-2021) and the post-pandemic period (2022-2023). Compare these periods to identify any shifts in tourism activities and their environmental impacts.

Include an analysis that distinguishes between the impacts of domestic and international tourism on carbon emissions. This will provide insights into how each segment contributes differently during and after the pandemic.

Complement the quantitative analysis with qualitative insights from industry stakeholders to better understand the broader impacts of the pandemic on tourism practices and ESG policies.

Update the reference list with more current literature.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to express my deepest gratitude for your thoughtful feedback. I have carefully considered all the comments you provided and have done my utmost to address them. Attached is the revised version of the file. The sections detailing each improvement are organized as follows.

Thank you once again for your valuable insights.

Best regards,

Heekyun Oh

 

 

Comment 1: Extend the analysis to include data from 2022 and 2023. This will capture the recovery phase and provide insights into how tourism activities and carbon emissions have evolved post-pandemic. Conduct separate analyses for the pandemic years (2019-2021) and the post-pandemic period (2022-2023). Compare these periods to identify any shifts in tourism activities and their environmental impacts.

Response 1: As you recommended, I have endeavored to carefully address the issues you advised. Limitations that hinder an extended comparative analysis in this study have been clearly described. Additionally, areas requiring further research have been suggested, along with alternative approaches or methods. Specific follow-up research questions that could expand and deepen the findings have also been proposed. The relevant section has been revised in blue within the conclusion (p. 23). Thank you once again for your valuable recommendation.

 

Comment 2: Include an analysis that distinguishes between the impacts of domestic and international tourism on carbon emissions. This will provide insights into how each segment contributes differently during and after the pandemic.

Response 2: The secondary data currently available has a limitation in that it does not provide a distinction between South Koreans and foreigners. Therefore, I have added an additional explanation to specify these restrictions. Recognizing this as a significant limitation of the study, I have set it as a direction for follow-up research. The relevant part has been highlighted in blue within the conclusion section (p. 23). Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

 

Comment 3: Complement the quantitative analysis with qualitative insights from industry stakeholders to better understand the broader impacts of the pandemic on tourism practices and ESG policies.

Response 3: As you recommended, I have described the importance of supplementing qualitative research in areas that quantitative analysis cannot explain, and the potential for gaining deeper insights through this, have been specified. The relevant part has been revised in blue within the conclusion section (p. 23). Thank you once again for your valuable insights. The result of merging comments 1 through 3 is as follows.

『In this research, domestic tourism and international tourism were not distinguished. Additionally, considering that trends may differ significantly from the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is necessary to conduct a comparative analysis with the period of 2022-2023, when tourism activities began to recover rapidly. However, this study faced severe limitations due to the reliance on secondary public data. The National Statistics Portal generally delays data updates. Hence, as of the second quarter of 2024, energy consumption, regional safety index, income level, and green space rate are only available up to 2022, with some updates published in March 2024. Furthermore, a limitation was that local government data separating domestic and foreign nationals was not provided. Thus, a future analysis comparing the effects before and after the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., 2019-2021 vs. 2022-2023) is anticipated when data for 2023 becomes available. Here, it is vital to complement the quantitative analysis with qualitative insights from industry stakeholders, which will help understand the impact of COVID-19 on tourism activities and ESG policies from a broader perspective.』

 

Comment 4: Update the reference list with more current literature

Response 4: As you mentioned, I have reorganized all the references throughout the article to cite the most up-to-date material possible. All modifications related to reference updates and other changes are marked in red. Thank you once again for your guidance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for addressing almost all previous comments. However, there are still some minor issues to be fixed.

Introduction:

Comments/Feedback: The introduction is too lengthy. It's almost three pages. I can see some repetition of the same thing here and there.

Literature review: Response 6: As you mentioned, studies with conflicting results were also involved. The journals you recommended were included in the review as well. The relevant section has been modified in red in the literature review (p. 6) as follows. Thank you once again for your valuable suggestions.:

Comments/Feedback: You have mentioned the journals recommended were mentioned in the review, however, the response is different from the edited manuscript, as no such were visible in the manuscript.

Conclusion:

Comments/Feedback: The latter part of the study is too lengthy as well. Sometimes readers have to re-read what it is all about. The conclusion also needs to be trimmed mainly from 5.1 to 5.3.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable advice. 
Please see the attachment.

Thank you once again.

 

Best regards,

The author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Changes acknowledged

Kind regards and best of luck

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thanks to your opinion, I was able to address very important issues. 
Thank you so much.

Best Regards,
The author