The Evolution of the Spatial–Temporal Pattern of Tourism Development and Its Influencing Factors: Evidence from China (2010–2022)
, Minghan Wu 3,*, Jinlian Shi 1,2, Huize Yang 1, Jiaxin Wang 2, Xiaoyuan Zhang 1,2 and Xin Zhang 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI had the pleasure to review the paper “The evolution of spatial-temporal pattern of tourism development and its influencing factors: Evidence from China (2010-2019)” which attempts to Using Geographic Information System(GIS) spatial analysis, Moran Index and Geographically weighted regression(GWR) model, this paper analyzes the spatial-temporal evolution of tour-ism development in 31 provinces in China during 2010-2019.. It is an interesting research topic and has potential to provide rich research implications to contribute this tourism area development research area. Aside these strengths, in my humble opinion, there are several weakness need to be overcome. The remainder of this review summarizes a couple of my key comments.
1. Table 1 is hard to read. The display needs to be adjusted.
2. The data range is from 2010-2019. Considering it is 2024, the data need to be updated. The data back to 5 years is not new enough.
3. The research implication is still weak by answering “so what” to the research question. For example, there are some descriptions of data analysis results, as authors mentioned, “…the eastern provinces are far ahead, and their tourism development is more healthy, efficient and reasonable. …., which is consistent with the results of existing studies”. While the results have been justified by previous study, so why this paper repeat the study?
4. In the discussion, as the main practical implication, the authors stated “priority should be given to developing regions with tourism advantages, improving the level of economic development, forming transportation networks and sustaining opening-up, and promoting regional tourism efficiency (Liu et al., 2021).” While considering regional heterogeneity, different areas’ development involved complicate situations and factors. So as authors mentioned “…..provinces with a lower level have a faster growth rate…. “(Page 12), I am not sure the feasibility of these implication and suggestion to these developing areas.
Author Response
Comments 1:Table 1 is hard to read. The display needs to be adjusted.
Response 1:Table 1 has been reduced.
Comments 2:The data range is from 2010-2019. Considering it is 2024, the data need to be updated. The data back to 5 years is not new enough.
Response 2:The study period was updated to 2010-2022.
Comments 3:The research implication is still weak by answering “so what” to the research question. For example, there are some descriptions of data analysis results, as authors mentioned, “…the eastern provinces are far ahead, and their tourism development is more healthy, efficient and reasonable. …., which is consistent with the results of existing studies”. While the results have been justified by previous study, so why this paper repeat the study?
Response 3:Minor revisions have been made in the article
Comments 4:In the discussion, as the main practical implication, the authors stated “priority should be given to developing regions with tourism advantages, improving the level of economic development, forming transportation networks and sustaining opening-up, and promoting regional tourism efficiency (Liu et al., 2021).” While considering regional heterogeneity, different areas’ development involved complicate situations and factors. So as authors mentioned “…..provinces with a lower level have a faster growth rate…. “(Page 12), I am not sure the feasibility of these implication and suggestion to these developing areas.
Response 4:Feasibility needs to be further studied in conjunction with the actual situation of specific regions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTaking 31 provinces in China during 2010-2019 for example, this paper studied the evolution of spatial-temporal pattern of tourism development and its influencing factors. Overall, although the authors have done some research work, there are still many problems in this paper that need to be greatly modified.
First, the literature review in this paper needs to be rewritten, and the authors need to point out the shortcomings of existing studies? What supplement or improvement does the author make on the basis of the existing deficiencies? Moreover, literature review should not be written in a list, but should be summarized and induced.
Second, in the last paragraph of the introduction, the author gives the research purpose of this paper, but the question here is how the research purpose is logically related to the existing research.
Third, in the empirical analysis, the author adopts the least square method and GWR method, but why does the author not use spatial econometric model to explore the possible spatial spillover effect?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Good
Author Response
Comments 1:First, the literature review in this paper needs to be rewritten, and the authors need to point out the shortcomings of existing studies? What supplement or improvement does the author make on the basis of the existing deficiencies? Moreover, literature review should not be written in a list, but should be summarized and induced.
Response 1:Minor revisions have been made in the article.
Comments 2:In the empirical analysis, the author adopts the least square method and GWR method, but why does the author not use spatial econometric model to explore the possible spatial spillover effect?
Response 2:The two are analyses at different levels, and considering the impact of influencing factors on the development level of tourism in different provinces, the use of least squares and GWR methods can effectively explain the geographical heterogeneity between variables.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would particularly like to congratulate the authors of this work. However, the authors should provide a better paper structure: A distinction between the introduction and literature review. The formatting should be improved, for example page 8, subtitle and note in the same line.
The abstract should be improved, it is missing: background, the objective, novelty and the implications for both theory and practice.
The authors should mention the specific gap in the field.
The authors should explain some acronyms, for example NDC, R&D….
The table 1 should be restructured and explained.
The references should be improved, for example, references of 2024 are missing.
The empirical part of the work is a little out of date. Data up to 2019. It would be interesting to update the data and mention the impact of COVID-19.
The conclusions should be related with the literature review and referred if the study objective was reached. What corroborates, what adds...
Future researches are missing in the paper.
Author Response
Comments 1:The authors should explain some acronyms, for example NDC, R&D….
Response 1:Explanations of noun abbreviations have been provided.
Comments 2:The table 1 should be restructured and explained.
Response 2:Table 1 has been adjusted.
Comments 3:The references should be improved, for example, references of 2024 are missing.
Response 3:Added references for 2024.
Comments 4:The empirical part of the work is a little out of date. Data up to 2019. It would be interesting to update the data and mention the impact of COVID-19.
Response 4:The research period has been updated to 2010-2020.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has made some modifications according to the comments of the reviewers, so it is recommended to accept the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGOOD
Author Response
Comments 1:The author has made some modifications according to the comments of the reviewers, so it is recommended to accept the manuscript.
Response 1:Thank you so much, professor.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI congratulate you on your revisions, which have greatly improved the article. However, some of them have not been realised, which I still believe would improve the article. Then, I´ll mention it again:
The authors should provide a better paper structure: A distinction between the introduction and literature review.
The abstract should be improved, it is missing: background, the objective, novelty and the implications for both theory and practice.
Future researches are missing in the paper.
Author Response
Comments 1:The authors should provide a better paper structure: A distinction between the introduction and literature review.
Response 1:The introduction elaborates on the importance and urgency of high-quality tourism development, the feasibility of the research, and the purpose and practical significance of this study; The literature review covers the research results, methods, and shortcomings of sustainable development in the tourism industry.
Comments 2:The abstract should be improved, it is missing: background, the objective, novelty and the implications for both theory and practice.
Response 2:The abstract has been supplemented with research background, theoretical basis, and impact on practice.
Comments 3:Future researches are missing in the paper.
Response 3:This article to some extent points out that there may be different spatial layout trends in the future, but there are still unresolved difficulties and doubts, which have implications for future research. Utilize more advanced data and tools to conduct in-depth mining of research content, in order to discover more valuable information.
