Exploring the Economic Viability of Agro-Ecotourism as a Climate Change Adaptation Measure: A Travel Cost Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript once again.
Although the manuscript has been substantially improved, several important issues still need to be addressed. Please find my specific suggestions below:

• The author(s) state, “However, some challenges exist.” It would strengthen the manuscript to provide a more detailed explanation or specific examples of these challenges to help readers better understand the potential negative effects of sustainable tourism in YST.
• The statistics related to the tourism market size in YST remain unclear. Including concrete data, such as the number of visitors or market size figures, would enhance the credibility and feasibility of the study.
• The manuscript still lacks a clear discussion of its theoretical implications. Expanding on the theoretical contributions would help demonstrate the study's significance within the broader academic context.

 

Author Response

The authors appreciate the Reviewer’s approval and valuable comments that make the improvement possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of the major revisions have been made to this manuscript to address the questions I have raised. However, for the choice of independent variables, the authors only use statistically significant determinants and key variables in decision-making as a basis for choice. The manuscript does not show the relevant statistical tests and how the key variables are determined before constructing the model. Why is age squared, and what is its theoretic base on? Please provide additional relevant information.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the Reviewer’s approval and valuable comments that make the improvement possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Dear Author/s

The topic under discussion is intriguing. Although the authors have worked very hard, there are certain points in this research that need clarification.

The natural environment has carrying capacity. However, this study does not take into account the area's carrying capacity, which is a necessary consideration for this topic.

This paper needs to be expanded by looking at the destination's sustainability and carrying capacity.

Title

Part of the title of the paper is "Climate Change Adaptation Measure". But in this paper, the writers just briefly touch on the subject of climate change. The Climate Change Adaptation Measure must be covered in a separate chapter of the article if they wish to keep it in the title. Otherwise, the title ought to be modified.

Abstract

The description of geographical features should not be in the abstract but in the text of the paper.

More should be added about the methods and objectives of the research.

Abbreviations should be explained first and only then used independently (TWD).

Line 45

How to mitigate climate shocks and simultaneously benefit the local economy. requires an explanation, not just a statement.

Line 62

,, some challenges exist,,

It should be stated what all these challenges are

Line 120

Maps in the paper are inappropriate and don't offer any accurate information. There is no any data in Figure 1.

Maps used for the geographical location of the destination being studied should have a geographical map as a base. This is mandatory to see the configuration of the terrain.

Line 141/163

This section of the article outlines Taiwan's progress in promoting and developing leisure agriculture since 2000. But without the results displayed, this is just a broad list.

Information on the benefits that have been accumulated over the previous 25 years should be included to this section.

Line 297/340

To ensure that readers understand the subjects being covered, this section should be reviewed.

From line 297 to line 330, the following figures have been explained by the authors.  This text should be sorted with the figures.

It needs to be modified. Every table should have text that is either above or below the figures that are being described.

Line 340

,, The mean value of personal monthly income is 455354.24,, ???

 It is unclear which personal monthly income figures are involved, in the absence of any marking. Are they statistical or comparable monetary units?

Results

The results section need to be updated to reflect the modifications that need to be made to the paper.

Conclusion

 The Conclusion section should be expanded and supplemented with data relevant to the study conducted.

 

Best whishes

Author Response

The authors appreciate the Reviewer’s approval and valuable comments that make the improvement possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper and provide comments to the Authors.

The paper requires supplementation, in my opinion:

- it is worth expanding the description of the studied region, its specificity, examples of tourist attractions, etc. and characterizing tourist traffic in the region, e.g. number of tourists, seasonality of tourism in the region, etc.;

- please characterize agro-ecotourism farms in the studied region, e.g. number of farms, number of beds, etc.;

- limited information on the studied variables (only the mean and standard deviation), more information characterizing the variables should be provided, e.g. minimum, maximum, mode, quartiles, etc.;

- the description of the research results should be expanded, e.g. interpretation of the model results;

- in the Results section, the authors indicate significant correlation or lack of correlation between some variables, but do not provide numerical values.

Detailed comments:

- in my opinion, abbreviations should not be used in the abstract;

- please consider converting the value data from Taiwanese dollars (TWD) to US dollars (USD) or provide a conversion rate for these currencies;

- lines 127-128; instead of "just a mountain away from..." it is better to provide the distance in km;

- lines 131-132; not all listed agricultural products are from fruit trees;

- please consider having tables 1-6 separated by the text of the paper.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the Reviewer’s approval and valuable comments that make the improvement possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the scientific article: Exploring the Economic Feasibility of Agro-Ecotourism as a Climate Change Adaptation Measure: A Travel Cost Approach

The article addresses a very current and important issue of sustainable development. The authors undertake to assess the economic feasibility of agro-ecotourism as a means of adaptation to climate change. In the reviewed article, the Travel Cost Method (TCM) is used to estimate the recreational value of natural resources in the mountainous region of Taiwan (Yuanshan Township).

The application of TCM in the context of agro-ecotourism as a climate change adaptation strategy is original and makes a significant contribution to empirical research on the sustainable development of rural areas. The article attempts to quantify the value of intangible ecosystem services, which is important for policy decision-making and spatial planning.

The article's structure is logical and clear, and the conclusions are consistent.

However, I have some comments regarding the article's text.

1. Although agro-ecotourism is the central theme of the article, the authors did not provide a definition of this concept or cite sources that would justify it. Meanwhile, it is an ambiguous term, understood differently depending on the geographical, political and social context.
2. The article lacks a separate "Discussion" section, which would allow for in-depth reflection on the research results in the context of existing literature. Although some reflections are included in the conclusion, this does not replace a full-fledged comparative analysis, critical interpretation of the results and an indication of the extent to which the results are consistent with, divergent from or complementary to other studies in the field of agrotourism, TCM or adaptation to climate change.

It is also worth considering introducing the following content into the text of the article:

1. A broader comparison of the results with other similar case studies - this would enrich the contextualization of the obtained results.
2. Analyses of the impact of political or climate changes on future tourist behavior - which the authors suggest as a future direction of research, but it would be worth outlining potential scenarios now.

The article presents an interesting, innovative approach to the valuation of ecosystem services. It may be valuable both for researchers and decision-makers involved in planning sustainable development in rural areas. After taking into account the indicated comments, it will be much more readable and clear.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the Reviewer’s approval and valuable comments that make the improvement possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I see that you have made a great effort to respect the reviewer's opinion. It would be very interesting if you continue your research

Congratulations

 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comments. The authors are grateful for the thoughtful feedback and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors responded to all my comments from the review. They made corrections to the paper, thanks to which the article is much better than in the original version.

In my opinion, it would be worth expanding the characteristics with the number of tourist traffic and tourist base (accommodation base, catering) of the studied region. It would enhance the paper, but it is not necessary.

Please consider presenting the financial results in world currency (USD), not local currency (New Taiwan Dollar). This will make it easier to compare the results with studies from other regions of the world.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comments. The authors are grateful for the thoughtful feedback and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-designed and makes a significant contribution to its field of research.

It would be beneficial to include an additional section discussing the study's limitations and future research directions. This would provide readers with a comprehensive perspective and encourage further investigations in the field.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

While the manuscript is well-written, several concerns need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication in Sustainability. Below, I offer suggestions to enhance the quality of the article.

Introduction

• The contents of the Introduction section and the Materials and Methods section are redundant. Specifically, the information in the third and fourth paragraphs is repeated on page 4. The author(s) could combine this information or remove the redundancies.
• The author(s) stated: “These zones, alongside legal agri-tourism farms, provide visitors with an immersive experience of rural life and recreational agriculture.” Including a detailed explanation or examples of the tourism products would help readers better understand the study area's background.
• How do agricultural innovation, environmental stewardship, and cultural preservation affect sustainability in this study area? Are there any negative impacts?
• The statement, “Fundamentally, the TCM analysis estimates the economic value of the recreational resources in YST and shows that the integration of leisure agriculture and ecotourism significantly contributes to the local economy, as it supports sustainable development and climate adaptation efforts at the same time,” requires references. Are there supporting statistics, or is this assumption made by the author(s)? The results of this study are not mentioned at this stage, so the author(s) should provide references or revise the statement accordingly.
• What are the research questions or hypotheses?

Materials and Methods

• How many people visit YST for travel? Are there any statistics available?
• While a total of 400 respondents completed the questionnaire, the numbers presented in the tables exceed 400. Were some respondents counted more than once, or is there an error in data reporting?

 

• The manuscript does not address the theoretical implications or limitations. These should be included to provide a more comprehensive discussion.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper “Exploring the Economic Feasibility of Agro-Ecotourism as a Climate Change Adaptation Measure: A Travel Cost Approach”.

 

Although I find the topic highly important – the role of tourism in nature conservation – I must unfortunately propose rejection of the paper. The paper namely promises too much based on a relatively simple method. While the survey does include a random sample of 400 participants (although we are not informed how the randomness was secured) and the analysis does give information on economic costs for the visitors based on basic information about the visitors, this type of information is not enough to be able to judge on economic feasibility of agro-ecotourism, let alone of agro-ecotourism as a climate change adaptation measure.  

 

First, economic feasibility of agro-ecotourism would have to include the analysis from the perspective of the farmers and potentially overall destination. At the most basic level this would include answers to the questions such as (a) what are their costs in relation to income, and (b) what is the economic feasibility of this measure in comparison to other options they might be assessing (how competitive and economically sustainable is the option of agro-ecoturism in comparison to other forms of tourism and other forms of economic activities?).

 

And second, economic feasibility of agro-ecotourism as a climate change adaptation measure would have to take into consideration also the climate change elements in the analysis – to what climate change impacts exactly are farmers adapting via agro eco-tourism, what are other potential adaptation measures and how to assess agro-ecotourism feasibility and effectiveness as climate change adaptation measure. The authors did not elaborate enough on this in the paper, beyond some general statements.  For example, the issue of “whether to conserve or reclaim/exploit scattered spots in local mountainous land” is not as simple as presented in the paper. As the case from the debates in European Alps show, on the one hand, exploitation via cow or other type of grazing can allow for specific types of meadow vegetation to blossom versus forest cover. In this case what we would generally consider “exploitation” helps to preserve biodiversity more than forest cover. And both options, forest cover and meadows have different benefits for tourism development.

 

Overall, I hope the authors are not too disappointed with my review and hope they manage to expand the literature review and add additional data to expand the analysis and really provide useful recommendation to the local farmers on how to best adapt to the climate change and use agro-ecotourism for the best results.  

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It was a pleasure to review this manuscript. Here are my reviews.

1. This manuscript seems to be in the same area as a document from 2024. "Chen, W. J., Jan, J. F., Chung, C. H., & Liaw, S. C. (2024). Evaluating the Economic Viability of Agro-Ecotourism as a Nature-Based Solution for a Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Case Study of Yuanshan Township, Taiwan. Sustainability, 16(18), 8267.” Why was this area chosen as a research case? Is it representative?

2. Presenting the study's findings in the abstract is sufficient. The description of the study site is recommended to be included in the research methodology.

3. This research topic is Exploring the Economic Feasibility of Agro-Ecotourism as a Climate Change Adaptation Measure. However, the introduction and literature review overly introduce the geographical setting. Whether residents work hard or not was not relevant to this study. It reads like a composition rather than a paper. It does not focus on the research topic.

4. The author mentions that leisure activities have received increasing attention recently. However, references from 2007, 1999, and 2015 are cited. This is an inappropriate citation. In addition, the author cited a book published in 1966 to confirm the development of TCM theory. This is also an inappropriate citation.

5. Why is the number of visits a function of cost and other variables? Why cannot costs be included in X? What is the theoretical basis? Is it because this manuscript explores cost factors? Being included in X does not affect the statistical results.

6. Equation (2)  k is the sample size. It is not shown.

7. How are the average driving distance, time, and transportation costs calculated? The manuscript does not present how the investigation was conducted.

8. Is exp in equation (4) an exponent or a function? Does it have the same meaning as equation (2)?

9. From Table 8, we can see that X contains 7 variables. Why are these 7 variables included? What is its theoretical basis? Why does AGE multiply AGE? What is its meaning?

10. The purpose of the study of this manuscript was to demonstrate the economic possibilities of eco-tourism in entertaining tourists and supporting the livelihood of the population at the same time. The results of the analyses do not show how the tourists are entertained, nor do they show the impact of climate change factors. Neither does it show the effects of climate change factors.

 

The findings of this manuscript do not answer the research topic.