Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations, I wish you success in your studies.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a well-executed study that examines the intersection between ecological resilience and tourism development in towns along the Beijing section of the Great Wall. The topic is highly relevant, particularly given current concerns about climate change, heritage preservation, and sustainable tourism. The authors offer a clear methodological framework supported by solid empirical data, using established tools such as the InVEST model and the coupling coordination degree model. The visual presentation through maps and figures is strong, and the study provides meaningful insights for both academic and applied audiences.

While the paper is already of good quality, I offer a few suggestions that may help improve clarity and impact. These include tightening parts of the literature review to avoid a listing style, expanding the discussion to better explore the broader significance of the findings, and reducing minor redundancies in the text. Additionally, although the English is generally understandable, the manuscript could benefit from light language editing to enhance fluency and academic tone. That said, these comments are offered as constructive suggestions and not as mandatory revisions. The manuscript, as it stands, is a valuable contribution to the field and would be suitable for publication with or without these adjustments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is overall readable, but the English requires improvement to meet the standards of academic publishing. Several expressions appear to be literal translations or contain awkward phrasing. For example, phrases like “The weathering of mountainous areas is intense” or “resulting in inundation risks in valleys under such conditions” could be rewritten for clarity and natural flow. Similarly, sentences such as “the landscape patch fragmentation… increases energy dissipation” are grammatically correct but semantically unclear in English.

These issues do not obstruct comprehension, but they do affect the professional tone of the manuscript. A thorough language revision is strongly recommended, both for this article and to support the authors’ future publications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The introduction contains excessive background description while lacking a clearly articulated research problem statement. It fails to directly lead into the research objectives of this study.
• Some sections in the literature review are tangential to the main theme, such as the passage starting at line 116 on page 4. Furthermore, except for section 2.1, the review fails to adequately highlight the research gap.
• While the paper proposes an eco-resilience assessment framework, the rationale for indicator definitions and weight allocation in Tables 1-2 (pages 9-10) is insufficient. It is recommended to supplement the theoretical justification for indicator selection and the methodology used to determine weights to enhance the framework's scientific rigor.
• Table 5 on page 12 lists data sources but lacks detailed descriptions of the data processing methods. It is recommended to add the preprocessing steps applied to the remote sensing data and the classification criteria used for the POI data.
• The conclusion appears disconnected from the actual findings. It does not explicitly answer the core research question nor summarize the concrete coordination relationship between "eco-resilience" and "tourism development".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately and comprehensively addressed all the points raised in the previous round of review. The manuscript now meets the journal's standards for publication, and I strongly recommend acceptance in its current form.