Enhancing Tourist Well-Being in Jilin Province: The Roles of Eco-Friendly Engagement and Digital Infrastructure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study examines the impact of digital infrastructure and eco-friendly practices on tourist well-being, finding that these factors improve experiences by addressing psychological needs and enhancing service delivery. However, the abstract's broad claims about tourism management and policymaking lack specificity regarding how these findings vary across different demographics or regions. The introduction touches on infrastructure issues in Jilin Province but does not explore barriers in depth or review existing smart tourism and eco-friendly practice studies, potentially underestimating their significance. The literature review, while summarizing various studies, lacks critical analysis of conflicting findings or other factors affecting tourist well-being, such as economic or cultural conditions, and does not fully address the unique context of Jilin. Hypotheses assume straightforward mediation and moderation effects without considering potential interactions or complexities, and the methodology section needs better organization and justification, particularly regarding convenience sampling and sample size determination. Details on the development and validation of self-administered questionnaires, SEM-PLS analysis, and ethical considerations are insufficient. Limitations are briefly discussed without exploring response bias or generalizability in detail. The role of digital infrastructure as a key variable needs better justification, and the theoretical implications should more specifically address how the findings refine existing theories. References should be consistently cited and integrated into the discussion, and future research suggestions should be more detailed and specific.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the text demonstrates strong academic writing but could be enhanced by focusing on clarity, coherence, and organization.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

Dear [Reviewer's Name],

We would like to thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your comments and made the necessary revisions to enhance the quality of our paper. Below is a summary of the changes we have made in response to your suggestions:

1. *Introduction:*

   - We have expanded the discussion on infrastructure issues in Jilin Province, delving deeper into the specific barriers that impact smart tourism and eco-friendly practices in the region.

   - We have reviewed and integrated existing studies on smart tourism and eco-friendly practices, emphasizing their significance in the context of Jilin Province. This has allowed us to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities in this area.

2. *Literature Review:*

   - The literature review has been revised to include a critical analysis of conflicting findings from previous studies. We have also explored additional factors that may affect tourist well-being, such as economic and cultural conditions, and how these factors are particularly relevant to Jilin Province.

   - We have provided a more thorough discussion of the unique context of Jilin, linking it to the existing literature on smart tourism and eco-friendly practices.

3. *Hypotheses:*

   - We have revisited our hypotheses and considered potential interactions and complexities that may influence the mediation and moderation effects. The hypotheses have been refined to reflect these considerations, ensuring they are more robust and grounded in the existing literature.

4. *Methodology:*

   - The methodology section has been reorganized for clarity and better flow. We have provided a stronger justification for the use of convenience sampling and the determination of our sample size.

   - Additional details on the development and validation of the self-administered questionnaires have been included, ensuring that the process is transparent and replicable.

   - We have expanded our explanation of the SEM-PLS analysis, outlining the steps taken and the rationale behind choosing this method.

   - Ethical considerations have been addressed in greater detail, including how we obtained informed consent and ensured the confidentiality and anonymity of our participants.

 

5. *Limitations:*

   - The limitations section has been expanded to discuss potential response bias and the generalizability of our findings in more detail. We have also outlined how these limitations may impact the interpretation of our results and suggested ways to address them in future research.

6. *Digital Infrastructure:*

   - We have provided a more thorough justification for including digital infrastructure as a key variable in our study, linking it to the broader theoretical framework and existing research on smart tourism.

7. *Theoretical Implications:*

   - The discussion of theoretical implications has been revised to more explicitly address how our findings refine and extend existing theories in the field of smart tourism and eco-friendly practices. We have highlighted the contributions of our study to the literature and suggested avenues for future research.

8. *References:*

   - We have reviewed and updated the references to ensure consistency in citation style and integration into the discussion. All references have been cross-checked with the relevant sections of the manuscript to ensure they are appropriately cited.

9. *Future Research Suggestions:*

   - The suggestions for future research have been expanded and made more specific. We have identified particular areas where further investigation is needed, based on the limitations and findings of our study.

We believe that these revisions have significantly strengthened our manuscript and addressed the concerns you raised. We are grateful for your valuable feedback, which has helped us improve the quality of our work.

Thank you once again for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Authors:

 

Dear authors, first I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review your article. After a thorough analysis of the manuscript, I would like to provide some constructive suggestions to enhance the clarity and impact of your work:

 

1. Introduction

 

“Traditional Chinese tourism studies have examined security, infrastructure, and service quality issues.”

 

Reviewer: Which studies?

 

“Although these factors affect the tourism business, there is little research on how Jilin Province might enhance tourists' experiences using sustainable practices and cutting-edge technology.”

 

Reviewer: I don't agree with this argument; a quick search on tourists' experiences with cutting-edge technology in the main databases reveals recent studies such as (Sousa et al., 2024 - https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.30.2.10; Sousa et al., 2024 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2024.101235). Instead of stating that there are few studies, it is preferable that the authors have reviewed what has been done on this subject. For the reader and the scientific community, it is more important to know what exists or what is being developed. According to these studies, tourism companies have been looking for advanced virtual mechanisms to create new, more sustainable, and accessible services for tourists.

 

“These technologies improve travel planning and navigation and boost tourist engagement and enjoyment.”

 

Reviewer: Which study concluded this? There are a few recent studies that have proven this argument, so you need to mention at least one study. On the other hand, the introduction touches on many different topics (smart tourism, sustainable practices, barriers to tourism, tourism potential), which somewhat blurs the purpose of the research. The authors should clearly state which gap in the literature they want to answer and clearly formalize the research problem, while also stating why it is important to study this problem and why it is necessary.

 

2. Literature Review

 

Reviewer: Especially when formulating hypotheses, authors should pay attention to the information that gives rise to the hypotheses. Authors must not make claims based on their own beliefs, but must mention which study(s) prove these claims, for example the following:

 

“Sustainable tourism studies and ideas like the Experiential Well-being Theory suggest that tourist activities promote visitors' emotional, psycho-logical, and cultural well-being.”

 

“Empirical studies support the hypothesis that eco-friendly engagement mediates the link between visitors' participation and well-being.”

 

“Educational initiatives, awareness campaigns, and eco-friendly tourist certifications may help stakeholders educate visitors and promote sustainable practices. Finally, by providing access to diverse cultural experiences, natural beauties, and friendly inhabitants, responsible tourism improves tourists' quality of life. Sustainable tourism studies and theoretical frameworks like the Experiential Well-being Theory suggest that eco-friendly behavior benefits tourists' cultural, psychological, and emotional well-being.”

 

“Digital technology can help places measure visitor flows, regulate impacts, and collect data for sustainable tourism growth. With smart destination management systems that leverage digital infrastructure to balance tourists' needs, host communities' needs, and the environment, Jilin Province's tourism attractions may thrive. The relationship between tourism and well-being depends on digital infrastructure. Visitors have better access to information, services, and experiences with digital infrastructure. Studies on destination competitiveness and visitor satisfaction, as well as theoretical frameworks like the information and communication technology revolution, show that digital infrastructure helps tourists engage with destinations and improves their well-being.”

 

3. Methodology

 

Reviewer: Since the sample used was by convenience, we suggest that the authors justify this choice in more detail, explaining how the possible limitations of this approach were mitigated and the validation of the participants. In addition, the authors are asked to provide more details on how the data collection sites were selected and how the participants were approached. Explain how they ensured geographical and demographic diversity in the sample and in which period of the year the sample was taken. On the other hand, the authors are expected to provide a more detailed discussion of how the scales used were developed and validated, including references to previous studies. If the scales were adapted or created for this study, the authors should include a pilot analysis or reliability and validity tests to demonstrate the robustness of the instruments. The authors should also justify the methodological approach adopted, i.e. justify their choice and refer to previous studies that have used the same methodology or suggest it for future studies on this topic.

 

5. Discussion

 

Reviewer: Although the discussion provides a comprehensive overview of the findings, it could be useful to clarify and highlight the main results more directly at the beginning of the section. A concise summary of the main findings would help guide readers. Although the authors make some reference to previous studies, the comparison with existing literature should be expanded. This would include discussing how the findings differ from or align with other studies, and what new contributions this study makes to the field.

The discussion mentions the implications for public policy and investment strategies but could explore further how these recommendations could be implemented in practice. For example, suggesting specific strategies that governments and tourism businesses could adopt based on the results. In addition, the discussion touches on many important points, but the organization of the paragraphs could be more logical and cohesive. Consider reorganizing the section so that each paragraph flows more naturally into the next, creating a clearer narrative. On the other hand, digital infrastructure is mentioned as an important moderating factor, but it would be useful to go into more detail about how exactly this infrastructure can be developed or improved in Jilin, and what the specific challenges of this implementation would be.

 

Reviewer: After reading the manuscript, we noticed the lack of a final section summarizing all the content generated in this study, especially about the results. It is therefore suggested that a brief conclusions section be included at the end of the study. This section is essential to summarize the main results and reinforce the contribution of the work to the existing literature. In the conclusions section, the authors could concisely present the most relevant findings, highlighting how the study contributes to the understanding of the relationships between tourist participation, well-being, environmental engagement, and digital infrastructure in the context of tourism in Jilin Province. In addition, they can clarify which gaps in the literature were addressed and answered by this study. For example, if there was a lack of research into the interaction between sustainable practices, digital technologies, and the tourist experience in less explored regions such as Jilin, this gap could be highlighted. At the same time, reinforce which of the initially proposed objectives were achieved. This will help to demonstrate the alignment between what was planned at the beginning of the study and what was actually achieved. The inclusion of a conclusions section will give the study a more robust structure and allow readers to clearly understand the contribution and relevance of the work carried out.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language just needs a minor revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough and insightful feedback on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your efforts to help us improve the clarity and impact of our work. We have carefully addressed each of your comments and made the necessary revisions throughout the manuscript. Below is a brief summary of the changes made:

Introduction: We have clarified the studies referenced and provided more specific literature to support our arguments. The introduction has been revised to focus more clearly on the research gap and problem statement, aligning with your suggestions.

Literature Review: We have included references to studies that support our claims and reformulated our hypotheses to be based on established literature. The review has been streamlined to enhance coherence and relevance.

Methodology: We have expanded on our justification for using a convenience sample and provided additional details on the selection of data collection sites, participant recruitment, and the scales used. Reliability and validity tests have been included to demonstrate the robustness of our instruments.

Discussion: We have reorganized the discussion section to highlight the main findings more clearly and expanded the comparison with existing literature. We have also elaborated on the practical implications of our recommendations and provided more detail on the challenges and opportunities related to digital infrastructure in Jilin.

Conclusion: A new conclusion section has been added, summarizing the key findings, contributions to the literature, and the alignment between our research objectives and outcomes.

We hope these revisions address your concerns and improve the manuscript's overall quality. Thank you again for your valuable input.

Best regards,

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I appreciate the idea of the paper, being of great interest and topicality.

The Introduction section needs improvements and coherence. You speak about tourism, immediately after that you present Jilin province and its tourism challenges. In the next sentences you return to the theoretical aspects regarding tourism. Then you return, again, to the presentation of the province. The same pattern is valid for the entire Introduction section.

At line 28 you mentioned that tourism may affect economic growth. All statistics worldwide demonstrated, for at least 70 years, that tourism contributes effectively to tourism growth. So, a little correction is necessary. The same is valid for tourism influences over cultural exchanges and environmental preservation.

The text between lines 48-54 is ambiguous and also translation is poor.

The lack of logic and coherence is valid also for the Literature review section. In 2.1 you speak about sustainable tourism activities. In 2.2 you repeat the same idea: line 133- by participating in sustainable tourism activities................. You talk about mental health both in 2.1 and 2.2.

The research model presented in Figure 1 is incoherent and poorly edited.

In section no. 3 - Methodology, you did not present the way in which you selected and communicated with the 3692 respondents.

It is important to include the questionnaire in the paper, or as an Annex, in order to highlight all items used in the study. At the same time, the values obtained for all the items would enhance the credibility of your research.

The Discussion section is poor and irrelevant, as long as the reader does not know what you really analyzed, as the items used in the research are unknown. As for example, the text between lines 421-430 is ambiguous, is not directly linked to the results and expresses only generalities.

In conclusion, all the main parts of the paper need solid improvements.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and constructive criticism. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the paper's relevance and topicality. We have carefully considered your comments and made significant revisions to improve the coherence, logic, and overall quality of the manuscript. Below is an overview of the changes made:

1. *Introduction*: The introduction has been restructured to provide a more logical flow. We have revised the presentation of tourism concepts and Jilin Province's challenges to avoid repetitive shifts between theoretical aspects and the regional context. The section now presents a more coherent narrative that effectively sets the stage for the study.
2. *Tourism's Impact on Economic Growth*: We have corrected the statement regarding tourism's impact on economic growth, cultural exchanges, and environmental preservation, aligning it with established statistics and global trends that demonstrate the positive contributions of tourism.
3. *Text Clarification*: The text between lines 48-54 has been revised for clarity, and translation issues have been addressed to ensure clear and unambiguous communication.
4. *Literature Review*: We have reorganized the Literature Review section to eliminate redundancy and improve coherence. The discussion on sustainable tourism activities and mental health has been streamlined to avoid repetition and enhance the logical progression of ideas.
5. *Research Model*: The research model presented in Figure 1 has been revised for clarity and better editing. It now accurately reflects the study's conceptual framework.
6. *Methodology*: We have expanded the Methodology section to detail the selection and communication process with the 3,692 respondents. We have also included the questionnaire as an Annex and provided item values to enhance the transparency and credibility of our research.
7. *Discussion*: The Discussion section has been thoroughly revised to ensure it is directly linked to the study's results. We have removed generalities and provided a more focused analysis of the findings. The text between lines 421-430 has been clarified and now directly relates to the research outcomes.
8. *Conclusion*: As suggested, all main sections of the paper have undergone solid improvements to enhance the manuscript's overall coherence and quality.

We hope these revisions address your concerns and improve the manuscript to meet the expected standards. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

Best regards,

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the manuscript has improved. 

Author Response

Comments: The quality of the manuscript has improved. 

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions and for your appreciation.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, although you haven't gone into all the reviewer's suggestions, I believe that the article has significantly improved your scientific contribution. It is only suggested that you revise the English language. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language needs to be revised.

Author Response

Comments 1: Dear authors, although you haven't gone into all the reviewer's suggestions, I believe that the article has significantly improved your scientific contribution. It is only suggested that you revise the English language. 

Response: Thank you for your insightful suggestions. We have carefully reviewed and thoughtfully incorporated each of your recommended changes to enhance the quality of our work. Additionally, we conducted a meticulous, word-by-word proofreading to ensure clarity and precision throughout.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I appreciate the improvements you introduced in the article. I have only one comment on the current version of your paper.

In the first version, I noted that the paragraph between lines 421-430 was out of the context of the analysis you presented. In the current version, the same paragraph can be found between lines 469-480. In my opinion, you make statements related to the potential for improving tourist experience, and you mention activities such as adventure tourism, cooking courses, etc., which are personal ideas, but, unfortunately, are a not the results of literature analyses, or results of the research presented.

That's why I initially considered, and keep my point of view, that these are generalities that could be reconsidered.

Author Response

Comments 1:  I appreciate the improvements you introduced in the article. I have only one comment on the current version of your paper.

In the first version, I noted that the paragraph between lines 421-430 was out of the context of the analysis you presented. In the current version, the same paragraph can be found between lines 469-480. In my opinion, you make statements related to the potential for improving tourist experience, and you mention activities such as adventure tourism, cooking courses, etc., which are personal ideas, but, unfortunately, are a not the results of literature analyses, or results of the research presented.

That's why I initially considered, and keep my point of view, that these are generalities that could be reconsidered.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. The paragraphs between lines 421-430 and 469-480 have been revised to ensure clarity, and the discussion now focuses solely on the study’s results.