Performance Evaluation of Lhasa Winter Tourism Policy Based on Institutional Change Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting study on a new tourism context. I hope that the overall quality of the manuscript can be further improved by addressing the following concerns:

1. In the Introduction, the authors repeatedly emphasize the lack of research on winter tourism policies. While this point is contextual, it appears somewhat distant from a clear theoretical contribution. The repetition of this argument is also somewhat distracting. It would be beneficial for the authors to articulate more clearly at least two distinct theoretical contributions of the study.
2. The authors present the core mechanism in Figure 1; however, the justification for this framework appears insufficient. It would strengthen the manuscript if Figure 1 were supported and refined with clearer theoretical grounding.
3. Table 2 outlines the criteria for policy performance evaluation. However, the basis for these criteria is not clearly explained. The authors may wish to clarify the rationale behind their selection.
4. Section 3.1 introduces the research objectives. Given that this study does not appear to employ a multi-structured experimental design, it is unclear why the research objectives are newly presented in this section. Stating the research objectives clearly in the Introduction should be sufficient. Therefore, I recommend removing this redundant content and restructuring Section 3 for better coherence.
5. Overall, the results do not appear to be supported by statistical significance. In the absence of clearly defined hypotheses, the findings seem to rely heavily on the authors’ subjective interpretations. Strengthening the analytical rigor of the study would greatly enhance its credibility.

Author Response

Comment 1

In the Introduction, the authors repeatedly emphasize the lack of research on winter tourism policies. While this point is contextual, it appears somewhat distant from a clear theoretical contribution. The repetition of this argument is also somewhat distracting. It would be beneficial for the authors to articulate more clearly at least two distinct theoretical contributions of the study.

Response 1:

We sincerely appreciate this constructive comment. In the revised Introduction, we have removed repetitive descriptions about insufficient winter tourism policy research and clearly highlighted two distinct theoretical contributions of this study:

This study innovatively introduces institutional change theory into winter tourism policy evaluation, deconstructs the dynamic evolution of policy into three dimensions “design–implementation–outcome”, and integrates satisfaction feedback from four stakeholders to establish a novel “three-dimensional, four-stakeholder” integrated evaluation framework, which enriches the theoretical paradigm of tourism policy performance research.

This study extends winter tourism policy research to high-altitude, ecologically fragile, multi-ethnic regions represented by Lhasa, supplements context-specific theoretical explanations of institutional change in special regional tourism governance, and expands the geographical scope and theoretical boundaries of winter tourism policy research.

Corresponding revisions have been marked in the manuscript.

 

Comment 2

The authors present the core mechanism in Figure 1; however, the justification for this framework appears insufficient. It would strengthen the manuscript if Figure 1 were supported and refined with clearer theoretical grounding.

Response 2:

We agree with the reviewer. In the revised manuscript, we have further strengthened the theoretical foundation of Figure 1. We explicitly explain the logical connection between the “three-dimensional, four-stakeholder” framework and institutional change theory, especially the dynamic logic of “equilibrium–disequilibrium–equilibrium” throughout policy evolution. We also clarify how stakeholder satisfaction drives institutional adjustment and policy iteration. The theoretical basis and internal mechanism of Figure 1 are now more complete and rigorous.

For specific details, please refer to Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of the paper (revisions are highlighted).

 

Comment 3

Table 2 outlines the criteria for policy performance evaluation. However, the basis for these criteria is not clearly explained. The authors may wish to clarify the rationale behind their selection.

Response 3:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. We have supplemented the references supporting the evaluation criteria and indicators in Table 2 in the manuscript:

[29] Wang, J.W.; Sun J.; Lei T.; et al. Structural system and effectiveness evaluation of red tourism policy in China. Tourism Tribune, 2025, 40(12): 125-144. DOI:10.19765/j.cnki.1002-5006.2025.12.012.

[30] Chen, Y. Quantitative Evaluation and configuration effects of tourism consumption policies in China: Based on text analysis of consumption policies. Yangzhou University, 2025. DOI:10.27441/d.cnki.gyzdu.2025.001042.

 

Comment 4

Section 3.1 introduces the research objectives. Given that this study does not appear to employ a multi-structured experimental design, it is unclear why the research objectives are newly presented in this section. Stating the research objectives clearly in the Introduction should be sufficient. Therefore, I recommend removing this redundant content and restructuring Section 3 for better coherence.

Response 4:

We accept this suggestion. The original Section 3.1 about research objectives has been completely removed to avoid redundancy. Research objectives are now fully and clearly stated in the Introduction. The structure of Section 3 has been reorganized to improve logical coherence and overall readability.

 

Comment 5

Overall, the results do not appear to be supported by statistical significance. In the absence of clearly defined hypotheses, the findings seem to rely heavily on the authors’ subjective interpretations. Strengthening the analytical rigor of the study would greatly enhance its credibility.

Response 5:

Due to space limitations, the article does not include content supporting statistical significance, such as data sources, estimation methods, and data validation processes. The relevant details are presented as follows:

1 Data Sources

To reliably assess the performance of winter tourism policy implementation in Xizang, this study endeavored to ensure data authenticity and the scientific rigor of data collection procedures for each specific indicator. Data were classified into two categories: objective indicators and subjective indicators.

For objective indicators, data were mainly collected through textual analysis, supplemented by interviews and expert consultations. Indicators such as tourism revenue and tourist arrivals were obtained from publicly available documents and statistical materials. Given the unique characteristics and limited accessibility of tourism statistics in Xizang, for indicators with inconsistent statistical standards or no directly available data from documentary sources, we conducted interviews with staff involved in policy implementation and drew on expert judgments to make reasonable estimations based on existing data, so as to ensure that the data authentically reflect the actual conditions of each indicator (Table 1).

Table 1 Data sources of objective indicators.

Sub-project Layer	Indicator Factor Layer	Main Data Sources
Design	Intensity of policy formulation	Statistical data on investment in Winter Tour in Xizang
Social Benefits	Boosting tourism employment	Statistical data during winter tourism operation
Economic Benefits	Tourism revenue	Statistical data during winter tourism operation
	Number of tourists	Statistical data during winter tourism operation
	Construction of key winter tourist attractions	Statistical data on supporting routes and scenic spots for winter tourism

For subjective indicators, data were collected through interviews and questionnaire surveys. Based on existing theoretical research, this study designed its research methods following the principles of comprehensiveness and scientific rigor. Interviews were mainly conducted with government staff and tourism enterprises, while questionnaires were distributed to local residents and tourists. Four sets of questionnaires were developed with consistent evaluation themes but different emphases and wording, so as to triangulate and supplement responses from different stakeholders toward the same issues, ensuring the rationality and validity of the actual indicator data collected (Table 2).

Table 2 Data sources of subjective indicators.

Sub-project Layer	Indicator Factor Layer	Main Data Sources
Design	Rationality of policy content	Interviews and questionnaires
	Public participation in policy formulation	Interviews and questionnaires
	Breadth of policy formulation	Interviews and questionnaires
	Satisfaction with product design	Interviews and questionnaires
Implementation	Degree of policy implementation	Interviews and questionnaires
	Enthusiasm for policy participation	Interviews and questionnaires
	Awareness of policies	Interviews and questionnaires
	Satisfaction with policy services	Interviews and questionnaires
Social Benefits	Improvement of regional visibility	Interviews and questionnaires
	Improvement of basic service facilities	Interviews and questionnaires
	Fairness of policy income distribution	Interviews and questionnaires
Economic Benefits	Satisfaction with income growth	Interviews and questionnaires
Ecological Benefits	Satisfaction with ecological environment	Interviews and questionnaires
	Enhancement of ecological protection awareness	Interviews and questionnaires
	Impact on environmental improvement	Interviews and questionnaires
Cultural Benefits	Enrichment of cultural activities	Interviews and questionnaires
	Attitude towards foreign cultures	Interviews and questionnaires
	Impact on cultural communication	Interviews and questionnaires

2 Questionnaire Design

(1) Questionnaire for Government Staff

With the assistance of the supervisor, the research team contacted 7 government staff members from tourism-related departments in Lhasa, and data were mainly collected through semi-structured telephone interviews. As they have long been engaged in work related to tourism development in Lhasa and are familiar with local winter tourism policies, their evaluations of relevant indicators can ensure high reliability (Appendix 1). Limited by work arrangements and position availability, only 7 government staff members were selected. Although the sample size is relatively small, the sample remains highly representative given their sufficient information access and practical experience in the implementation of Lhasa’s winter tourism policies.

(2) Questionnaire for Tourism Enterprises

Questionnaire surveys for tourism enterprises were mainly conducted via telephone interviews. A total of 15 tourism enterprises with relatively sound winter tourism business in Lhasa were selected, including 5 travel agencies, 5 tourist attractions, and 5 tourist hotels to ensure representative sampling.

Travel agencies were randomly chosen from award-winning agencies listed on the official website of the Department of Tourism Development of the Xizang Autonomous Region, as they are more familiar with winter tourism policies. Tourist attractions were selected based on high visitor flow during winter, including the Potala Palace and Jokhang Temple. Five tourist hotels were randomly selected according to sales rankings on Qunar.com for telephone interviews, ensuring strong reliability of the sample (Appendix 2).

(3) Questionnaire for Local Residents

Considering local residents’ perceptions of winter tourism development, questionnaires for local residents were distributed mainly near Barkhor Street and the Ramoche Temple area, where there is a high density of shops and a high level of public participation in winter tourism (Appendix 3).

(4) Questionnaire for Tourists

Questionnaire surveys for tourists were carried out near two major scenic spots: the Potala Palace and Jokhang Temple (Appendix 4). This is because Lhasa serves as the tourism hub of the Xizang Autonomous Region, where tourists are more diverse, and the two scenic spots are the most representative in Lhasa.

 

3 Questionnaire Validity Test

(1) Reliability analysis

In research, the reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s α) is commonly used to examine the stability and reliability of questionnaire results. This study employed SPSS software to conduct reliability analysis on the questionnaire data of 18 subjective indicators. The results showed that the reliability coefficient was 0.948, which is greater than 0.7, indicating that the questionnaire data had high reliability, satisfactory stability and consistency.

Table 3 Reliability analysis of questionnaire on winter tourism policy in Lhasa.

		Mean of Scale If Item Deleted	Variance of Scale If Item Deleted	Corrected Item–Total Correlation	Cronbach's Alpha If Item Deleted
Policy Design	1. Rationality of policy content	62.61	69.193	0.554	0.947
	2. Public participation in policy formulation	64.22	69.209	0.579	0.947
	3. Breadth of policy formulation	63.99	67.413	0.627	0.946
	4. Satisfaction with product design	63.37	69.170	0.548	0.947
Policy Implementation	5. Degree of policy implementation	63.00	64.826	0.712	0.945
	6. Enthusiasm for policy participation	62.00	72.398	0.472	0.948
	7. Awareness of policies	63.44	67.501	0.676	0.945
	8. Satisfaction with policy services	63.06	63.802	0.767	0.944
Social Benefits	9. Improvement of regional visibility	62.63	65.886	0.823	0.942
	10. Improvement of basic service facilities	63.52	66.908	0.750	0.944
	11. Fairness of policy income distribution	63.94	65.503	0.761	0.943
Economic Benefits	12. Satisfaction with income growth	62.84	65.59	0.738	0.944
Ecological Benefits	13. Satisfaction with ecological environment	62.99	66.522	0.769	0.943
	14. Enhancement of ecological protection awareness	63.37	67.767	0.730	0.944
	15. Impact on environmental improvement	63.43	66.027	0.739	0.944
Cultural Benefits	16. Enrichment of cultural activities	63.32	66.398	0.732	0.944
	17. Attitude towards foreign cultures	62.77	66.528	0.727	0.944
	18. Impact on cultural communication	62.65	67.282	0.725	0.944

(2) Validity analysis

Validity analysis is mainly used to evaluate the effectiveness of questionnaire results, and the commonly used methods are the Bartlett test of sphericity and the KMO test. Considering that some indicators in this study are objective indicators for qualitative analysis, only an overall validity test was performed on the questionnaire. The results showed that the KMO value was 0.936 (> 0.7), and the significance level of Bartlett’s test of sphericity was 0.000, suggesting that the questionnaire data were suitable for factor analysis.

Meanwhile, based on the rotated component matrix, two common factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted from the 18 subjective indicators, which cumulatively explained 62.877% of the total variance. The first 8 items were well attributed to Factor 1 (policy construction), and the latter 10 items were well attributed to Factor 2 (policy outcomes). This indicates that the questionnaire structure was reasonably designed and possessed high structural validity at the level of primary indicators.

4 Evaluation Methods

(1) Calculation of Indicator Weights

This paper adopts the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine the weights of indicators. First, based on the established indicator system, several experts compare indicators pairwise using judgment scales to judge their importance. The Yaahp software is used to test the consistency of the performance evaluation indicator system for winter tourism policies, so as to obtain the weight values of each indicator. The specific steps are as follows:

1) Construction of Judgment Matrix

To facilitate measuring the importance of indicators at the criterion and indicator levels, numbers 1–9 and their reciprocals are adopted as the relative value scales in the judgment matrix (Table 4). According to the standards in this table, expert questionnaires (Appendix 4) are distributed to calculate the weights of each indicator.

Table 4  Scales of judgment matrix.

Meaning	Corresponding Value
Two indicators are equally important	1
One indicator is slightly more important than the other	3
One indicator is obviously more important than the other	5
One indicator is strongly more important than the other	7
One indicator is extremely more important than the other	9
Intermediate values between adjacent judgments	2, 4, 6, 8

Note: The reciprocal of the above numbers applies. For example, if indicator i is rated a compared with indicator j, then j is rated 1/a compared with i.

 

2) Calculation of Indicator Weights

After obtaining the pairwise comparison results from 5 experts on the winter tourism policy performance evaluation indicators, the Yaahp software is used for automatic modeling, judgment matrix construction, and consistency testing, finally calculating the weight values of indicators at all levels. After inputting data into the judgment matrix, the Yaahp software automatically tests the consistency of the matrix structure to avoid logical contradictions such as a > b, b > c, and c > a. If the consistency test fails, the expert is informed to adjust the questionnaire appropriately to ensure the scientificity of the results.

Finally, the indicator weights calculated from the 5 experts’ questionnaires are aggregated and averaged to determine the final weights of each indicator in the evaluation system. The weight of each indicator is calculated for each expert separately, and the average of the 5 sets of weights is taken as the final weight. The detailed results are shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Indicator weights of winter tourism policy performance evaluation system based on institutional change.

Target Layer	Weight	Project Layer	Weight	Sub-project Layer	Weight	Indicator Factor Layer	Weight
Performance Evaluation of Winter Tourism Policy Based on Institutional Change A	1	Policy Construction B1	0.7167	Design C1	0.6767	Rationality of policy content D1	0.3694
						Public participation in policy formulation D2	0.1569
						Intensity of policy formulation D3	0.1325
						Breadth of policy formulation D4	0.087
						Satisfaction with product design D5	0.2542
				Implementation C2	0.3233	Degree of policy implementation D6	0.3894
						Enthusiasm for policy participation D7	0.1948
						Awareness of policies D8	0.1553
						Satisfaction with policy services D9	0.2605
		Policy Outcomes B2	0.2833	Social Benefits C3	0.3955	Improvement of regional visibility D10	0.3957
						Improvement of basic service facilities D11	0.2977
						Boosting tourism employment D12	0.1887
						Fairness of policy income distribution D13	0.1179
				Economic Benefits C4	0.2086	Tourism revenue D14	0.3368
						Number of tourists D15	0.1997
						Satisfaction with income growth D16	0.355
						Construction of key winter tourist attractions D17	0.1085
				Ecological Benefits C5	0.2309	Satisfaction with ecological environment D18	0.4804
						Enhancement of ecological protection awareness D19	0.2166
						Impact on environmental improvement D20	0.303
				Cultural Benefits C6	0.165	Enrichment of cultural activities D21	0.2548
						Attitude towards foreign cultures D22	0.2727
						Impact on cultural communication D23	0.4725

(2) Evaluation Standards

To make the evaluation results more scientific and reasonable, different evaluation methods are selected according to the nature of indicators. In this paper, subjective indicators are measured with the Likert Scale, with five response options: Very Satisfied, Satisfied, Neutral, Dissatisfied, Very Dissatisfied, scored 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, respectively, to reflect the performance level. For objective indicators, scores from 5 to 1, are assigned by comparing the development level with the overall level, combined with the literature review and survey results.

The mean value of each third-level indicator is calculated and weighted by the predetermined indicator weights to obtain the scores of six second-level indicators. The second-level indicators are aggregated in the same way to obtain the overall performance score. Finally, the overall policy performance level and corresponding satisfaction are determined against the evaluation standards.

The 1–5 Likert scale corresponds to five grades: Very Poor, Poor, Fair, Good, Excellent. With expert consultation, the grading standards are set as follows, with the evaluation grades matched with the satisfaction levels: A–Excellent–Very Satisfied; B–Good–Satisfied; C–Fair–Neutral; D–Poor–Dissatisfied; E–Very Poor–Very Dissatisfied.

Table 6 Policy performance grading standards.

Grade	Performance Score	Meaning
A (Excellent)	≥4.2	Policy outcomes exceed expectations. Policy formulation is scientific and rational, implementation is efficient, no negative impacts, and all stakeholders are highly satisfied. The policy is highly sustainable.
B (Good)	3.4–4.2	Policy outcomes are good. No major defects in formulation and implementation, benefits are not fully prominent, minor negative impacts, benefits are generally consistent with stakeholders’ interests, relatively satisfied, tend to maintain the status quo.
C (Fair)	2.6–3.4	Policy outcomes are fair. Basic goals are achieved, some defects (e.g., low efficiency) exist but do not hinder implementation. Some negative impacts, stakeholders are not very satisfied, considering policy adjustment.
D (Poor)	1.8–2.6	Policy outcomes are poor. Unreasonable formulation, low implementation efficiency. Partial benefits remain, serious negative impacts, stakeholders are dissatisfied, seeking opportunities for policy change.
E (Very Poor)	≤1.8	Policy outcomes are very poor. Formulation and implementation lack support and face difficulties. Severe negative impacts, stakeholders are very dissatisfied, policy is nearly unsustainable, strong calls for change.

(3) Result Analysis

Weighted calculation of policy construction and outcome dimensions, combined with the overall evaluation standards, yields an overall performance score of 4.01 for Lhasa’s winter tourism policy, graded B (Good).

1) Policy Construction

Policy construction scores 4.07 (B–Good), indicating the design of Lhasa’s winter tourism policy is rational and scientific, motivating stakeholders to participate and ensuring sound implementation.

① Policy Design Evaluation—Policy design scores 4.08 (B–Good), showing effective policy design. Intensity of policy formulation has the highest score, reflecting substantial investment in winter tourism by Lhasa and Xizang. Rationality of policy content is rated Excellent, meaning high recognition of policy measures. Notably, public participation in policy formulation scores only 3.02 (Fair), the lowest among all indicators, revealing low public involvement in policy-making. Breadth of policy formulation scores 3.58, indicating limited coverage and room for improvement.

② Policy Implementation Evaluation—Policy implementation scores 4.05 (B–Good), slightly higher than design, showing sound implementation. Enthusiasm for policy participation scores 4.98 (very high), explaining the boom of winter tourism in Lhasa. Awareness of policies is the lowest, suggesting room for policy promotion.

2) Policy Outcomes

Policy outcomes score 3.9 (B–Good), meaning the policy achieves good social, economic, ecological, and cultural benefits.

① Social Benefits Evaluation—Social benefits score 3.89 (B–Good). Improvement of regional visibility is the highest, and the policy performs well in employment promotion and infrastructure improvement. Fairness of policy income distribution is the lowest, calling for better income redistribution.

② Economic Benefits Evaluation—Economic benefits score 3.9 (B–Good). Construction of key winter tourist attractions scores highest, showing effective investment in supply capacity. Tourism revenue and income satisfaction are high, while number of tourists is relatively low, consistent with high per capita consumption in Xizang.

③ Ecological Benefits Evaluation—Ecological benefits score 3.72 (B–Good), the lowest among outcome dimensions, indicating high public expectations for ecological protection. Satisfaction with ecological environment is the highest, benefiting from Lhasa’s natural conditions; the policy also enhances public ecological awareness and improves the environment.

④ Cultural Benefits Evaluation—Cultural benefits score 4.15 (B–Good), the highest among outcome dimensions. The policy promotes local cultural development. Attitude towards foreign cultures scores highest, showing greater inclusiveness. Impact on cultural communication is high due to the appeal of Xizang culture and new media. Enrichment of cultural activities supports winter tourism and enriches local life.

3) Policy Stakeholders

Overall satisfaction is good, with policy construction slightly higher than outcomes. Differences among stakeholder groups are analyzed below.

① Government Evaluation—Seven government staff give an overall score of 4.23 (A–Excellent, Very Satisfied), the highest among the groups. As the policy-maker, the government is highly satisfied, consistent with mandatory institutional change, but may lead to path dependence and over-reliance on government over market.

② Tourism Enterprise Evaluation—Fifteen tourism enterprises give an overall score of 3.95 (B–Good, Satisfied), lower than government but positive. Enterprises expect more benefits and pursue profits, acting as a driver of induced institutional change via innovation and cooperation with government.

③ Local Resident Evaluation—Ninety local residents give an overall score of 3.83 (B–Good, Satisfied), the lowest among the groups. Residents seek benefits but worry about ecological and cultural impacts, holding high expectations. Their scores for cultural enrichment and attitude toward foreign cultures are the lowest, reflecting the influence of local traditions.

④ Tourist Evaluation—Ninety tourists give an overall score of 3.85 (B–Good, Satisfied), slightly higher than residents. Tourists focus on experience and benefits rather than policy participation or long-term impacts, so their evaluation is less precise.

4) Inter-group Difference Analysis

One-way ANOVA tests differences among four stakeholder groups. Economic indicators are excluded as only one item exists in the subjective questionnaire. ANOVA is robust to approximate normality; data satisfy normality and homogeneity of variance.

Table 7 Inter-group difference analysis of indicators.

		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	F	Sig.
Design	Government	7	4.11	0.537	0.203	10.554	0
	Enterprises	15	3.67	0.469	0.121
	Residents	90	3.30	0.487	0.051
	Tourists	90	3.27	0.389	0.041
Implementation	Government	7	4.14	0.405	0.153	0.843	0.472
	Enterprises	15	4.12	0.399	0.103
	Residents	90	3.95	0.578	0.061
	Tourists	90	4.05	0.560	0.059
Social	Government	7	4.10	0.659	0.249	2.191	0.09
	Enterprises	15	3.53	0.688	0.178
	Residents	90	3.50	0.561	0.059
	Tourists	90	3.51	0.608	0.064
Ecological	Government	7	3.81	0.573	0.216	0.278	0.841
	Enterprises	15	3.67	0.642	0.166
	Residents	90	3.61	0.602	0.063
	Tourists	90	3.63	0.516	0.054
Cultural	Government	7	4.33	0.385	0.145	3.09	0.028
	Enterprises	15	4.22	0.430	0.111
	Residents	90	3.86	0.599	0.063
	Tourists	90	4.02	0.597	0.063

Table 7 shows that the Sig. values for implementation and ecological benefits are 0.472 and 0.841 (>0.05), indicating no significant inter-group difference. The Sig. values for design, social, and cultural benefits are <0.05, showing significant differences (detailed in Table 8).

Table 8 Multiple comparison of indicators across groups.

Dependent Variable	(I) Group	(J) Group	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.
Design	Government	Enterprises	0.440*	0.204	0.032
		Residents	0.810*	0.175	0
		Tourists	0.835*	0.175	0
	Enterprises	Government	-0.440*	0.204	0.032
		Residents	0.369*	0.124	0.003
		Tourists	0.394*	0.124	0.002
	Residents	Government	-0.810*	0.175	0
		Enterprises	-0.369*	0.124	0.003
		Tourists	0.025	0.066	0.707
	Tourists	Government	-0.835*	0.175	0
		Enterprises	-0.394*	0.124	0.002
		Residents	-0.025	0.066	0.707
Social	Government	Enterprises	0.562*	0.273	0.041
		Residents	0.592*	0.234	0.012
		Tourists	0.584*	0.234	0.013
	Enterprises	Government	-0.562*	0.273	0.041
		Residents	0.030	0.166	0.859
		Tourists	0.022	0.166	0.894
	Residents	Government	-0.592*	0.234	0.012
		Enterprises	-0.030	0.166	0.859
		Tourists	-0.007	0.089	0.934
	Tourists	Government	-0.584*	0.234	0.013
		Enterprises	-0.022	0.166	0.894
		Residents	0.007	0.089	0.934
Cultural	Government	Enterprises	0.111	0.267	0.677
		Residents	0.470*	0.229	0.041
		Tourists	0.311	0.229	0.175
	Enterprises	Government	-0.111	0.267	0.677
		Residents	0.359*	0.162	0.028
		Tourists	0.200	0.162	0.220
	Residents	Government	-0.470*	0.229	0.041
		Enterprises	-0.359*	0.162	0.028
		Tourists	-0.159	0.087	0.068
	Tourists	Government	-0.311	0.229	0.175
		Enterprises	-0.200	0.162	0.220
		Residents	0.159	0.087	0.068

Design: Government mean > enterprises > residents/tourists. Governments and enterprises pay more attention to policy design.

Social Benefits: Government mean is significantly higher, as the government pursues public value.

Cultural Benefits: Residents’ mean is significantly lower, as they passively perceive cultural effects.

Implementation and Ecology: No significant differences, showing consistent attitudes across groups.

In summary, the government attaches the highest importance to winter tourism, followed by enterprises, tourists, and residents, consistent with stakeholder evaluation results, providing a reference for comprehensive policy performance evaluation.

 

All revisions have been carefully completed and marked in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract should further explain research instruments (analytic hierarchy process (AHP), the Delphi method, and questionnaire surveys) and study participants.

The introduction clearly presents the unique contribution of the study to support the focus on Lhasa and winter tourism policies.

The methodology and data collection have some concerns: (1) Small sample sizes for some stakeholder groups (e.g., government and enterprises), (2) the use of estimated data due to data limitations may affect reliability, (3) more details about data validation and biases are highly recommended.

Authors are encouraged to deepen the discussion and provide deep interpretations of the concluded relationship.

Provide clearer statements of theoretical contributions of the study

Provide an explicit limitations section and suggestions for future research directions

Author Response

Comment 1

The abstract should further explain research instruments (analytic hierarchy process (AHP), the Delphi method, and questionnaire surveys) and study participants.

Response 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for these constructive suggestions. The abstract now clearly introduces AHP, Delphi method, questionnaire surveys, and the four stakeholder groups. All revisions are as follows:

Most existing studies on winter tourism focus on destination development and resource evaluation, while systematic exploration of policy performance assessment remains insufficient. From the perspective of new institutional economics, this study innovatively introduces institutional change theory into the field of winter tourism policy evaluation. By deconstructing the three-dimensional evolution process of policy “design–implementation–outcome” and incorporating satisfaction feedback from four stakeholders—the government, tourism enterprises, local residents, and tourists—it constructs a systematic “three-dimensional, four-stakeholder” evaluation framework. To address the difficulty in obtaining policy performance data and improve the scientific rigor of empirical research, a combined subjective and objective weighting measurement system is adopted, integrating three core research instruments: the Delphi method is used to screen and confirm evaluation indicators and their connotations to ensure the rationality and pertinence of the evaluation system; the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is applied to determine the weight of each evaluation indicator, realizing scientific and quantitative weighting of subjective and objective indicators; questionnaire surveys are conducted to collect first-hand data on the satisfaction of the four stakeholder groups, providing empirical support for subsequent performance evaluation. The study participants include 7 government staff, 15 tourism enterprise practitioners, 90 local residents, and 90 tourists, with a total of 202 valid samples after screening invalid questionnaires, ensuring the representativeness and balance of the sample. Taking Lhasa, a high-altitude, multi-ethnic, and ecologically fragile region, as a case study, this research focuses on the performance of the “Winter Tour in Tibet” policy series, quantitatively evaluates its overall effectiveness (rated B), accurately identifies core problems such as insufficient public participation, low policy awareness, and weaknesses in ecological benefits, and proposes localized optimization paths including “ecological winter tourism” and “targeted publicity”. This study establishes a theoretical framework for winter tourism policy evaluation, improves the methodological system for tourism policy research in special regions, provides a practical reference for the formulation and optimization of winter tourism policies in high-altitude ethnic areas, and expands the geographical coverage and theoretical boundaries of winter tourism policy research..

 

Comment 2

The methodology and data collection have some concerns: (1) Small sample sizes for some stakeholder groups (e.g., government and enterprises), (2) the use of estimated data due to data limitations may affect reliability, (3) more details about data validation and biases are highly recommended.

Response 2:

Due to space limitations, the article does not include content supporting statistical significance, such as data sources, estimation methods, and data validation processes. The relevant details are presented as follows:

1 Data Sources

To reliably assess the performance of winter tourism policy implementation in Xizang, this study endeavored to ensure data authenticity and the scientific rigor of data collection procedures for each specific indicator. Data were classified into two categories: objective indicators and subjective indicators.

For objective indicators, data were mainly collected through textual analysis, supplemented by interviews and expert consultations. Indicators such as tourism revenue and tourist arrivals were obtained from publicly available documents and statistical materials. Given the unique characteristics and limited accessibility of tourism statistics in Xizang, for indicators with inconsistent statistical standards or no directly available data from documentary sources, we conducted interviews with staff involved in policy implementation and drew on expert judgments to make reasonable estimations based on existing data, so as to ensure that the data authentically reflect the actual conditions of each indicator (Table 1).

Table 1 Data sources of objective indicators.

Sub-project Layer	Indicator Factor Layer	Main Data Sources
Design	Intensity of policy formulation	Statistical data on investment in Winter Tour in Xizang
Social Benefits	Boosting tourism employment	Statistical data during winter tourism operation
Economic Benefits	Tourism revenue	Statistical data during winter tourism operation
	Number of tourists	Statistical data during winter tourism operation
	Construction of key winter tourist attractions	Statistical data on supporting routes and scenic spots for winter tourism

For subjective indicators, data were collected through interviews and questionnaire surveys. Based on existing theoretical research, this study designed its research methods following the principles of comprehensiveness and scientific rigor. Interviews were mainly conducted with government staff and tourism enterprises, while questionnaires were distributed to local residents and tourists. Four sets of questionnaires were developed with consistent evaluation themes but different emphases and wording, so as to triangulate and supplement responses from different stakeholders toward the same issues, ensuring the rationality and validity of the actual indicator data collected (Table 2).

Table 2 Data sources of subjective indicators.

Sub-project Layer	Indicator Factor Layer	Main Data Sources
Design	Rationality of policy content	Interviews and questionnaires
	Public participation in policy formulation	Interviews and questionnaires
	Breadth of policy formulation	Interviews and questionnaires
	Satisfaction with product design	Interviews and questionnaires
Implementation	Degree of policy implementation	Interviews and questionnaires
	Enthusiasm for policy participation	Interviews and questionnaires
	Awareness of policies	Interviews and questionnaires
	Satisfaction with policy services	Interviews and questionnaires
Social Benefits	Improvement of regional visibility	Interviews and questionnaires
	Improvement of basic service facilities	Interviews and questionnaires
	Fairness of policy income distribution	Interviews and questionnaires
Economic Benefits	Satisfaction with income growth	Interviews and questionnaires
Ecological Benefits	Satisfaction with ecological environment	Interviews and questionnaires
	Enhancement of ecological protection awareness	Interviews and questionnaires
	Impact on environmental improvement	Interviews and questionnaires
Cultural Benefits	Enrichment of cultural activities	Interviews and questionnaires
	Attitude towards foreign cultures	Interviews and questionnaires
	Impact on cultural communication	Interviews and questionnaires

2 Questionnaire Design

(1) Questionnaire for Government Staff

With the assistance of the supervisor, the research team contacted 7 government staff members from tourism-related departments in Lhasa, and data were mainly collected through semi-structured telephone interviews. As they have long been engaged in work related to tourism development in Lhasa and are familiar with local winter tourism policies, their evaluations of relevant indicators can ensure high reliability (Appendix 1). Limited by work arrangements and position availability, only 7 government staff members were selected. Although the sample size is relatively small, the sample remains highly representative given their sufficient information access and practical experience in the implementation of Lhasa’s winter tourism policies.

(2) Questionnaire for Tourism Enterprises

Questionnaire surveys for tourism enterprises were mainly conducted via telephone interviews. A total of 15 tourism enterprises with relatively sound winter tourism business in Lhasa were selected, including 5 travel agencies, 5 tourist attractions, and 5 tourist hotels to ensure representative sampling.

Travel agencies were randomly chosen from award-winning agencies listed on the official website of the Department of Tourism Development of the Xizang Autonomous Region, as they are more familiar with winter tourism policies. Tourist attractions were selected based on high visitor flow during winter, including the Potala Palace and Jokhang Temple. Five tourist hotels were randomly selected according to sales rankings on Qunar.com for telephone interviews, ensuring strong reliability of the sample (Appendix 2).

(3) Questionnaire for Local Residents

Considering local residents’ perceptions of winter tourism development, questionnaires for local residents were distributed mainly near Barkhor Street and the Ramoche Temple area, where there is a high density of shops and a high level of public participation in winter tourism (Appendix 3).

(4) Questionnaire for Tourists

Questionnaire surveys for tourists were carried out near two major scenic spots: the Potala Palace and Jokhang Temple (Appendix 4). This is because Lhasa serves as the tourism hub of the Xizang Autonomous Region, where tourists are more diverse, and the two scenic spots are the most representative in Lhasa.

 

3 Questionnaire Validity Test

(1) Reliability analysis

In research, the reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s α) is commonly used to examine the stability and reliability of questionnaire results. This study employed SPSS software to conduct reliability analysis on the questionnaire data of 18 subjective indicators. The results showed that the reliability coefficient was 0.948, which is greater than 0.7, indicating that the questionnaire data had high reliability, satisfactory stability and consistency.

Table 3 Reliability analysis of questionnaire on winter tourism policy in Lhasa.

		Mean of Scale If Item Deleted	Variance of Scale If Item Deleted	Corrected Item–Total Correlation	Cronbach's Alpha If Item Deleted
Policy Design	1. Rationality of policy content	62.61	69.193	0.554	0.947
	2. Public participation in policy formulation	64.22	69.209	0.579	0.947
	3. Breadth of policy formulation	63.99	67.413	0.627	0.946
	4. Satisfaction with product design	63.37	69.170	0.548	0.947
Policy Implementation	5. Degree of policy implementation	63.00	64.826	0.712	0.945
	6. Enthusiasm for policy participation	62.00	72.398	0.472	0.948
	7. Awareness of policies	63.44	67.501	0.676	0.945
	8. Satisfaction with policy services	63.06	63.802	0.767	0.944
Social Benefits	9. Improvement of regional visibility	62.63	65.886	0.823	0.942
	10. Improvement of basic service facilities	63.52	66.908	0.750	0.944
	11. Fairness of policy income distribution	63.94	65.503	0.761	0.943
Economic Benefits	12. Satisfaction with income growth	62.84	65.59	0.738	0.944
Ecological Benefits	13. Satisfaction with ecological environment	62.99	66.522	0.769	0.943
	14. Enhancement of ecological protection awareness	63.37	67.767	0.730	0.944
	15. Impact on environmental improvement	63.43	66.027	0.739	0.944
Cultural Benefits	16. Enrichment of cultural activities	63.32	66.398	0.732	0.944
	17. Attitude towards foreign cultures	62.77	66.528	0.727	0.944
	18. Impact on cultural communication	62.65	67.282	0.725	0.944

(2) Validity analysis

Validity analysis is mainly used to evaluate the effectiveness of questionnaire results, and the commonly used methods are the Bartlett test of sphericity and the KMO test. Considering that some indicators in this study are objective indicators for qualitative analysis, only an overall validity test was performed on the questionnaire. The results showed that the KMO value was 0.936 (> 0.7), and the significance level of Bartlett’s test of sphericity was 0.000, suggesting that the questionnaire data were suitable for factor analysis.

Meanwhile, based on the rotated component matrix, two common factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted from the 18 subjective indicators, which cumulatively explained 62.877% of the total variance. The first 8 items were well attributed to Factor 1 (policy construction), and the latter 10 items were well attributed to Factor 2 (policy outcomes). This indicates that the questionnaire structure was reasonably designed and possessed high structural validity at the level of primary indicators.

4 Evaluation Methods

(1) Calculation of Indicator Weights

This paper adopts the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine the weights of indicators. First, based on the established indicator system, several experts compare indicators pairwise using judgment scales to judge their importance. The Yaahp software is used to test the consistency of the performance evaluation indicator system for winter tourism policies, so as to obtain the weight values of each indicator. The specific steps are as follows:

1) Construction of Judgment Matrix

To facilitate measuring the importance of indicators at the criterion and indicator levels, numbers 1–9 and their reciprocals are adopted as the relative value scales in the judgment matrix (Table 4). According to the standards in this table, expert questionnaires (Appendix 4) are distributed to calculate the weights of each indicator.

Table 4  Scales of judgment matrix.

Meaning	Corresponding Value
Two indicators are equally important	1
One indicator is slightly more important than the other	3
One indicator is obviously more important than the other	5
One indicator is strongly more important than the other	7
One indicator is extremely more important than the other	9
Intermediate values between adjacent judgments	2, 4, 6, 8

Note: The reciprocal of the above numbers applies. For example, if indicator i is rated a compared with indicator j, then j is rated 1/a compared with i.

 

2) Calculation of Indicator Weights

After obtaining the pairwise comparison results from 5 experts on the winter tourism policy performance evaluation indicators, the Yaahp software is used for automatic modeling, judgment matrix construction, and consistency testing, finally calculating the weight values of indicators at all levels. After inputting data into the judgment matrix, the Yaahp software automatically tests the consistency of the matrix structure to avoid logical contradictions such as a > b, b > c, and c > a. If the consistency test fails, the expert is informed to adjust the questionnaire appropriately to ensure the scientificity of the results.

Finally, the indicator weights calculated from the 5 experts’ questionnaires are aggregated and averaged to determine the final weights of each indicator in the evaluation system. The weight of each indicator is calculated for each expert separately, and the average of the 5 sets of weights is taken as the final weight. The detailed results are shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Indicator weights of winter tourism policy performance evaluation system based on institutional change.

Target Layer	Weight	Project Layer	Weight	Sub-project Layer	Weight	Indicator Factor Layer	Weight
Performance Evaluation of Winter Tourism Policy Based on Institutional Change A	1	Policy Construction B1	0.7167	Design C1	0.6767	Rationality of policy content D1	0.3694
						Public participation in policy formulation D2	0.1569
						Intensity of policy formulation D3	0.1325
						Breadth of policy formulation D4	0.087
						Satisfaction with product design D5	0.2542
				Implementation C2	0.3233	Degree of policy implementation D6	0.3894
						Enthusiasm for policy participation D7	0.1948
						Awareness of policies D8	0.1553
						Satisfaction with policy services D9	0.2605
		Policy Outcomes B2	0.2833	Social Benefits C3	0.3955	Improvement of regional visibility D10	0.3957
						Improvement of basic service facilities D11	0.2977
						Boosting tourism employment D12	0.1887
						Fairness of policy income distribution D13	0.1179
				Economic Benefits C4	0.2086	Tourism revenue D14	0.3368
						Number of tourists D15	0.1997
						Satisfaction with income growth D16	0.355
						Construction of key winter tourist attractions D17	0.1085
				Ecological Benefits C5	0.2309	Satisfaction with ecological environment D18	0.4804
						Enhancement of ecological protection awareness D19	0.2166
						Impact on environmental improvement D20	0.303
				Cultural Benefits C6	0.165	Enrichment of cultural activities D21	0.2548
						Attitude towards foreign cultures D22	0.2727
						Impact on cultural communication D23	0.4725

(2) Evaluation Standards

To make the evaluation results more scientific and reasonable, different evaluation methods are selected according to the nature of indicators. In this paper, subjective indicators are measured with the Likert Scale, with five response options: Very Satisfied, Satisfied, Neutral, Dissatisfied, Very Dissatisfied, scored 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, respectively, to reflect the performance level. For objective indicators, scores from 5 to 1, are assigned by comparing the development level with the overall level, combined with the literature review and survey results.

The mean value of each third-level indicator is calculated and weighted by the predetermined indicator weights to obtain the scores of six second-level indicators. The second-level indicators are aggregated in the same way to obtain the overall performance score. Finally, the overall policy performance level and corresponding satisfaction are determined against the evaluation standards.

The 1–5 Likert scale corresponds to five grades: Very Poor, Poor, Fair, Good, Excellent. With expert consultation, the grading standards are set as follows, with the evaluation grades matched with the satisfaction levels: A–Excellent–Very Satisfied; B–Good–Satisfied; C–Fair–Neutral; D–Poor–Dissatisfied; E–Very Poor–Very Dissatisfied.

Table 6 Policy performance grading standards.

Grade	Performance Score	Meaning
A (Excellent)	≥4.2	Policy outcomes exceed expectations. Policy formulation is scientific and rational, implementation is efficient, no negative impacts, and all stakeholders are highly satisfied. The policy is highly sustainable.
B (Good)	3.4–4.2	Policy outcomes are good. No major defects in formulation and implementation, benefits are not fully prominent, minor negative impacts, benefits are generally consistent with stakeholders’ interests, relatively satisfied, tend to maintain the status quo.
C (Fair)	2.6–3.4	Policy outcomes are fair. Basic goals are achieved, some defects (e.g., low efficiency) exist but do not hinder implementation. Some negative impacts, stakeholders are not very satisfied, considering policy adjustment.
D (Poor)	1.8–2.6	Policy outcomes are poor. Unreasonable formulation, low implementation efficiency. Partial benefits remain, serious negative impacts, stakeholders are dissatisfied, seeking opportunities for policy change.
E (Very Poor)	≤1.8	Policy outcomes are very poor. Formulation and implementation lack support and face difficulties. Severe negative impacts, stakeholders are very dissatisfied, policy is nearly unsustainable, strong calls for change.

(3) Result Analysis

Weighted calculation of policy construction and outcome dimensions, combined with the overall evaluation standards, yields an overall performance score of 4.01 for Lhasa’s winter tourism policy, graded B (Good).

1) Policy Construction

Policy construction scores 4.07 (B–Good), indicating the design of Lhasa’s winter tourism policy is rational and scientific, motivating stakeholders to participate and ensuring sound implementation.

① Policy Design Evaluation—Policy design scores 4.08 (B–Good), showing effective policy design. Intensity of policy formulation has the highest score, reflecting substantial investment in winter tourism by Lhasa and Xizang. Rationality of policy content is rated Excellent, meaning high recognition of policy measures. Notably, public participation in policy formulation scores only 3.02 (Fair), the lowest among all indicators, revealing low public involvement in policy-making. Breadth of policy formulation scores 3.58, indicating limited coverage and room for improvement.

② Policy Implementation Evaluation—Policy implementation scores 4.05 (B–Good), slightly higher than design, showing sound implementation. Enthusiasm for policy participation scores 4.98 (very high), explaining the boom of winter tourism in Lhasa. Awareness of policies is the lowest, suggesting room for policy promotion.

2) Policy Outcomes

Policy outcomes score 3.9 (B–Good), meaning the policy achieves good social, economic, ecological, and cultural benefits.

① Social Benefits Evaluation—Social benefits score 3.89 (B–Good). Improvement of regional visibility is the highest, and the policy performs well in employment promotion and infrastructure improvement. Fairness of policy income distribution is the lowest, calling for better income redistribution.

② Economic Benefits Evaluation—Economic benefits score 3.9 (B–Good). Construction of key winter tourist attractions scores highest, showing effective investment in supply capacity. Tourism revenue and income satisfaction are high, while number of tourists is relatively low, consistent with high per capita consumption in Xizang.

③ Ecological Benefits Evaluation—Ecological benefits score 3.72 (B–Good), the lowest among outcome dimensions, indicating high public expectations for ecological protection. Satisfaction with ecological environment is the highest, benefiting from Lhasa’s natural conditions; the policy also enhances public ecological awareness and improves the environment.

④ Cultural Benefits Evaluation—Cultural benefits score 4.15 (B–Good), the highest among outcome dimensions. The policy promotes local cultural development. Attitude towards foreign cultures scores highest, showing greater inclusiveness. Impact on cultural communication is high due to the appeal of Xizang culture and new media. Enrichment of cultural activities supports winter tourism and enriches local life.

3) Policy Stakeholders

Overall satisfaction is good, with policy construction slightly higher than outcomes. Differences among stakeholder groups are analyzed below.

① Government Evaluation—Seven government staff give an overall score of 4.23 (A–Excellent, Very Satisfied), the highest among the groups. As the policy-maker, the government is highly satisfied, consistent with mandatory institutional change, but may lead to path dependence and over-reliance on government over market.

② Tourism Enterprise Evaluation—Fifteen tourism enterprises give an overall score of 3.95 (B–Good, Satisfied), lower than government but positive. Enterprises expect more benefits and pursue profits, acting as a driver of induced institutional change via innovation and cooperation with government.

③ Local Resident Evaluation—Ninety local residents give an overall score of 3.83 (B–Good, Satisfied), the lowest among the groups. Residents seek benefits but worry about ecological and cultural impacts, holding high expectations. Their scores for cultural enrichment and attitude toward foreign cultures are the lowest, reflecting the influence of local traditions.

④ Tourist Evaluation—Ninety tourists give an overall score of 3.85 (B–Good, Satisfied), slightly higher than residents. Tourists focus on experience and benefits rather than policy participation or long-term impacts, so their evaluation is less precise.

4) Inter-group Difference Analysis

One-way ANOVA tests differences among four stakeholder groups. Economic indicators are excluded as only one item exists in the subjective questionnaire. ANOVA is robust to approximate normality; data satisfy normality and homogeneity of variance.

Table 7 Inter-group difference analysis of indicators.

		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	F	Sig.
Design	Government	7	4.11	0.537	0.203	10.554	0
	Enterprises	15	3.67	0.469	0.121
	Residents	90	3.30	0.487	0.051
	Tourists	90	3.27	0.389	0.041
Implementation	Government	7	4.14	0.405	0.153	0.843	0.472
	Enterprises	15	4.12	0.399	0.103
	Residents	90	3.95	0.578	0.061
	Tourists	90	4.05	0.560	0.059
Social	Government	7	4.10	0.659	0.249	2.191	0.09
	Enterprises	15	3.53	0.688	0.178
	Residents	90	3.50	0.561	0.059
	Tourists	90	3.51	0.608	0.064
Ecological	Government	7	3.81	0.573	0.216	0.278	0.841
	Enterprises	15	3.67	0.642	0.166
	Residents	90	3.61	0.602	0.063
	Tourists	90	3.63	0.516	0.054
Cultural	Government	7	4.33	0.385	0.145	3.09	0.028
	Enterprises	15	4.22	0.430	0.111
	Residents	90	3.86	0.599	0.063
	Tourists	90	4.02	0.597	0.063

Table 7 shows that the Sig. values for implementation and ecological benefits are 0.472 and 0.841 (>0.05), indicating no significant inter-group difference. The Sig. values for design, social, and cultural benefits are <0.05, showing significant differences (detailed in Table 8).

Table 8 Multiple comparison of indicators across groups.

Dependent Variable	(I) Group	(J) Group	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.
Design	Government	Enterprises	0.440*	0.204	0.032
		Residents	0.810*	0.175	0
		Tourists	0.835*	0.175	0
	Enterprises	Government	-0.440*	0.204	0.032
		Residents	0.369*	0.124	0.003
		Tourists	0.394*	0.124	0.002
	Residents	Government	-0.810*	0.175	0
		Enterprises	-0.369*	0.124	0.003
		Tourists	0.025	0.066	0.707
	Tourists	Government	-0.835*	0.175	0
		Enterprises	-0.394*	0.124	0.002
		Residents	-0.025	0.066	0.707
Social	Government	Enterprises	0.562*	0.273	0.041
		Residents	0.592*	0.234	0.012
		Tourists	0.584*	0.234	0.013
	Enterprises	Government	-0.562*	0.273	0.041
		Residents	0.030	0.166	0.859
		Tourists	0.022	0.166	0.894
	Residents	Government	-0.592*	0.234	0.012
		Enterprises	-0.030	0.166	0.859
		Tourists	-0.007	0.089	0.934
	Tourists	Government	-0.584*	0.234	0.013
		Enterprises	-0.022	0.166	0.894
		Residents	0.007	0.089	0.934
Cultural	Government	Enterprises	0.111	0.267	0.677
		Residents	0.470*	0.229	0.041
		Tourists	0.311	0.229	0.175
	Enterprises	Government	-0.111	0.267	0.677
		Residents	0.359*	0.162	0.028
		Tourists	0.200	0.162	0.220
	Residents	Government	-0.470*	0.229	0.041
		Enterprises	-0.359*	0.162	0.028
		Tourists	-0.159	0.087	0.068
	Tourists	Government	-0.311	0.229	0.175
		Enterprises	-0.200	0.162	0.220
		Residents	0.159	0.087	0.068

Design: Government mean > enterprises > residents/tourists. Governments and enterprises pay more attention to policy design.

Social Benefits: Government mean is significantly higher, as the government pursues public value.

Cultural Benefits: Residents’ mean is significantly lower, as they passively perceive cultural effects.

Implementation and Ecology: No significant differences, showing consistent attitudes across groups.

In summary, the government attaches the highest importance to winter tourism, followed by enterprises, tourists, and residents, consistent with stakeholder evaluation results, providing a reference for comprehensive policy performance evaluation.

 

Comment 3

Authors are encouraged to deepen the discussion and provide deep interpretations of the concluded relationship.

Response 3:

Thank you for your insightful comment. We deepen the discussion and provide a more in-depth interpretation of empirical relationships.

For specific details, please refer to Section 4 of the paper (revisions are highlighted),All revisions are as follows:

4.1 Cluster stakeholder needs and optimize policy design based on empirical findings

The empirical results of this study confirm that mismatches between policy supply and stakeholder demands have led to insufficient public participation and weak policy identification, which further trigger institutional disequilibrium in the policy implementation process. To address these issues, the government should fully exert its institutional advantages and shift from top-down policy design to demand-oriented policy formulation that reflects the real needs of the four stakeholders. On the basis of on-the-spot investigations and normalized consultation mechanisms, policy arrangements should be tailored to Lhasa’s high-altitude, ecologically fragile, and multi-ethnic context, so as to coordinate interest distribution among the government, tourism enterprises, local residents, and tourists. Policy design teams should be supported by professionals and experienced scholars in winter tourism and plateau governance to enhance professionalism and operability. Meanwhile, clear phased goals and measurable indicators should be established to facilitate dynamic performance evaluation and institutional adjustment. During implementation, strengthened supervision and regular policy interpretation can reduce implementation resistance and avoid ineffective enforcement. By continuously absorbing feedback from stakeholders, the policy system can gradually form positive institutional inertia and promote a steady cycle of “equilibrium–disequilibrium–re-equilibrium” during institutional change.

 

4.2 Strengthen data-driven publicity and targeted communication to correct cognitive biases

The empirical results show that policy awareness and public recognition remain at low levels, and many tourists hold obvious misperceptions about Lhasha’s winter climate, oxygen content, and comfort level, which directly restricts the effectiveness of the “Winter Tour in Tibet” campaign. To improve low-scoring indicators related to publicity and cognition, data-driven tools should be used to track tourist sources, preference structures, and information-acquisition channels. Official new media platforms and collaborative accounts with high influence can release visualized, real-time information on winter temperature, sunshine hours, air quality, and oxygen conditions, so as to systematically eliminate stereotypes about harsh winter environments in high-altitude areas. Offline promotion conferences in major tourist markets should be combined with online precise marketing to improve penetration in key source regions. Furthermore, publicity should be extended to tourism enterprises and community residents to enhance their familiarity with policy contents and encourage their active participation. In this way, policy communication can be more closely linked with stakeholder behavior, improve actual policy acceptance, and support the realization of the public value of “benefiting local people and boosting regional development”.

 

4.3 Highlight ecological vulnerability and build plateau-specific ecological winter tourism

Given Lhasa’s fragile ecological environment, the empirical finding of relatively weak ecological benefits reveals potential risks of path dependence and unsustainable development. Therefore, ecological protection should be prioritized as a core institutional constraint in winter tourism development. The government should implement strict planning control through legal, economic, and administrative instruments, and establish a targeted ecological compensation mechanism suitable for high-altitude regions to clarify the ecological responsibilities of enterprises, tourists, and communities. Development activities should be strictly restricted within non-ecological core zones, and the construction of winter tourism attractions and supporting facilities should be moderately carried out to increase high-quality supply. By integrating ecological protection into the whole policy chain, the study reveals that ecological performance can be significantly improved while maintaining economic and social benefits, thus breaking the inefficient lock-in effect caused by extensive development. This will promote the coordinated evolution of winter tourism and ecological protection, and form a sustainable ecological winter tourism model with distinct plateau characteristics.

 

Comment 4

Provide clearer statements of theoretical contributions of the study.

Response 4:

Thanks for your advice. We clearly state the two core theoretical contributions of this study in Section 1 (revisions are highlighted). For example,

To overcome these limitations, this study innovatively introduces institutional change theory into winter tourism policy evaluation, making two distinct theoretical contributions: 1) Theoretical framework innovation: This study deconstructs policy evolution into a dynamic “design–implementation–outcome” three-dimensional process and integrates satisfaction feedback from four key stakeholders to establish a new “three-dimensional, four-stakeholder” integrated evaluation framework, enriching the theoretical paradigm of tourism policy research. 2) Theoretical boundary expansion: This study extends winter tourism policy research to high-altitude, multi-ethnic, ecologically fragile regions represented by Lhasa, enhancing context-specific explanations of institutional change in special regional tourism governance and expanding the geographic and theoretical boundaries of winter tourism policy studies.

 

Comment 5

Provide an explicit limitations section and suggestions for future research directions.

Response 5:

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for this advice. We added a new independent section “Limitations and Future Research” to systematically summarize limitations and propose future directions.

6 Limitations and Future Research Directions

6.1 Limitations

Despite the systematic analysis of the performance of winter tourism policies in Lhasa based on institutional change theory and the “three-dimensional, four-stakeholder” framework, this study still has several limitations that need to be clarified, which may affect the generalizability and depth of the research findings.

First, this study adopts a cross-sectional design, focusing on the current performance of winter tourism policies in Lhasa. This cross-sectional design makes it difficult to capture the long-term dynamic evolution of policy performance and the cumulative effects of institutional change. The “equilibrium–disequilibrium–re-equilibrium” cycle of institutional change is a long-term process, and the short-term data collected in this study cannot fully reflect the dynamic adaptation and adjustment of policies over time, nor can it effectively track the long-term impact of policy adjustments on stakeholder satisfaction and institutional evolution.

Second, although the selection of research methods is methodologically rigorous, it still has certain limitations. This study adopts a mixed research method combining the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Delphi method, and questionnaire surveys, which effectively ensures the scientificity of the research. However, the questionnaire data mainly relies on the subjective perceptions of stakeholders and may be affected by response biases (e.g., social desirability bias). In addition, this study focuses on the four core stakeholders and does not fully include other potential subjects that may have an impact on the implementation of winter tourism policies (such as tourism industry associations and environmental protection organizations), which may lead to an incomplete understanding of the stakeholder interaction mechanism.

6.2 Future Research Directions

Based on the limitations of this study, combined with the research gaps in the fields of winter tourism policy evaluation and sustainable tourism governance, the following future research directions are proposed to further expand and deepen this study.

First, expand the research scope and conduct cross-regional comparative studies. Future research can select other high-altitude and ecologically fragile regions (such as Qinghai and Gansu in China, or regions in the Andes Mountains and Himalayas) for comparative analysis. By comparing the differences in winter tourism policy performance, institutional change mechanisms, and stakeholder interaction models among different regions, the generalizability of the “three-dimensional, four-stakeholder” framework can be verified and improved, and region-specific policy optimization paths can be explored.

Second, adopt a longitudinal research design to track the long-term evolution of policy performance. Future research can collect panel data over a longer period (e.g., 5–10 years) to capture the dynamic changes of winter tourism policies in Lhasa, including the policy adjustment process, the evolution of stakeholder satisfaction, and the long-term impact of institutional change. This will help to deeply explore the long-term cycle of “equilibrium–disequilibrium–re-equilibrium” in policy evolution and provide more accurate empirical support for policy optimization.

Third, enrich research methods and expand the scope of stakeholder research. On the one hand, future research can introduce objective data (such as tourism economic data and ecological environment monitoring data) to supplement subjective questionnaire data, reduce the impact of response biases, and improve the objectivity of research findings. On the other hand, the scope of stakeholders can be expanded to include relevant subjects such as tourism industry associations and environmental protection organizations, so as to explore the impact of multi-stakeholder interaction on policy performance and institutional change.

 

All revisions have been carefully completed and marked in the revised manuscript.

 

Appendix 1 Questionnaire for Government Staff (Lhasa Winter Tourism Policy Performance Evaluation)

Dear Sir/Madam,We are researchers from Sichuan University. This anonymous questionnaire is for academic research only. Please tick the most appropriate option for each question. Thank you for your support!

1. Basic Information
2. Gender
3. Male
4. Female
5. Age
6. <20
7. 20–30
8. 30–40
9. 40–50 E. >50
10. Education
11. Primary school or below
12. Junior high
13. Senior high/technical secondary school
14. College/undergraduate
15. Postgraduate or above
16. Monthly income
17. ≤2000 CNY
18. 2000–4000
19. 4000–6000
20. 6000–8000
21. ≥8000
22. Rank
23. Division director
24. Deputy division director
25. Section chief
26. Deputy section chief
27. Staff member
28. Questionnaire

6.Rationality of winter tourism policy design

1. Very rational
2. Rational
3. Neutral
4. Irrational
5. Very irrational
6. Public participation in policy-making
7. Very high
8. High
9. Neutral
10. Low
11. Very low
12. Policy coverage
13. Very high
14. High
15. Neutral
16. Low
17. Very low
18. Satisfaction with winter tourism products/routes
19. Very satisfied
20. Satisfied
21. Neutral
22. Dissatisfied
23. Very dissatisfied
24. Degree of policy implementation
25. Very high
26. High
27. Neutral
28. Low
29. Very low
30. Enthusiasm for winter tourism work
31. Very high
32. High
33. Neutral
34. Low E. Very low
35. Awareness of policy content
36. Very high
37. High
38. Neutral
39. Low
40. Very low
41. Satisfaction with policy services
42. Very satisfied
43. Satisfied
44. Neutral
45. Dissatisfied
46. Very dissatisfied
47. Improvement of Lhasa’s visibility
48. Very high
49. High
50. Neutral
51. Low
52. Very low
53. Improvement of basic service facilities
54. Very high
55. High
56. Neutral
57. Low
58. Very low
59. Fairness of income distribution
60. Very high
61. High
62. Neutral
63. Low
64. Very low
65. Satisfaction with tourism revenue growth
66. Very satisfied
67. Satisfied
68. Neutral
69. Dissatisfied
70. Very dissatisfied

18.Satisfaction with ecological environment

1. Very satisfied
2. Satisfied
3. Neutral
4. Dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
6. Enhancement of ecological protection awareness
7. Very high
8. High
9. Neutral
10. Low
11. Very low
12. Impact on environmental improvement
13. Very good
14. Good
15. Neutral
16. Poor
17. Very poor
18. Promotion of local cultural tourism
19. Very high
20. High
21. Neutral
22. Low
23. Very low
24. Attitude toward foreign cultures
25. Very welcome
26. Welcome
27. Neutral
28. Unwelcome
29. Very unwelcome
30. Impact on Xizang cultural communication
31. Very good
32. Good
33. Neutral
34. Poor
35. Very poor

Thank you for your participation!

 

 

 

 

Appendix 2 Questionnaire for Tourism Enterprises Performance Evaluation of Winter Tourism Policy in Lhasa

Dear Sir/Madam,

Hello! I am a researcher from Sichuan University. This is an anonymous questionnaire for the performance evaluation of Lhasa’s winter tourism policy. All information will be used only for my academic thesis research. Please tick the most appropriate option according to your actual situation and real thoughts. All questions are required. Thank you for your support!

1. Basic Information
2. Your position?
3. Legal representative
4. Manager
5. Employee
6. Other
7. Your education level?
8. Primary school or below
9. Junior high school
10. Senior high school / Technical secondary school
11. College / Undergraduate
12. Postgraduate and above
13. The nature of your enterprise?
14. State-owned enterprise
15. Private enterprise
16. Sino-foreign joint venture
17. Other
18. Your monthly income?
19. ≤ 2,000 RMB
20. 2,000–4,000 RMB
21. 4,000–6,000 RMB
22. 6,000–8,000 RMB
23. ≥ 8,000 RMB
24. The scale of your enterprise?
25. Less than 100 employees
26. 100–199 employees
27. 200–999 employees
28. 1,000–4,999 employees
29. More than 5,000 employees
30. Questionnaire
31. Do you think the design of the winter tourism policy is reasonable?
32. Very reasonable
33. Relatively reasonable
34. Neutral
35. Unreasonable
36. Very unreasonable
37. How is public participation in the formulation of the winter tourism policy?
38. Very high
39. Relatively high
40. Neutral
41. Relatively low
42. Very low
43. How is the coverage of the winter tourism policy?
44. Very wide
45. Relatively wide
46. Neutral
47. Relatively narrow
48. Very narrow
49. Are you satisfied with the tourism products (routes) promoted by the winter tourism policy?
50. Very satisfied
51. Relatively satisfied
52. Neutral
53. Relatively dissatisfied
54. Very dissatisfied
55. How is the implementation degree of the winter tourism policy?
56. Very high
57. Relatively high
58. Neutral
59. Relatively low
60. Very low
61. How is your enthusiasm for participating in winter tourism work?
62. Very high
63. Relatively high
64. Neutral
65. Relatively low
66. Very low
67. How well do you understand the content of the winter tourism policy?
68. Very well
69. Relatively well
70. Neutral
71. Relatively poorly
72. Very poorly
73. How satisfied are you with the services provided by the winter tourism policy?
74. Very satisfied
75. Relatively satisfied
76. Neutral
77. Relatively dissatisfied
78. Very dissatisfied
79. How much does the winter tourism policy improve the visibility of Lhasa?
80. Greatly
81. Relatively greatly
82. Moderately
83. Slightly
84. Not at all
85. How much does the winter tourism policy improve the basic service facilities in Lhasa?
86. Greatly
87. Relatively greatly
88. Moderately
89. Slightly
90. Not at all
91. How fair is the income distribution brought by the winter tourism policy?
92. Very fair
93. Relatively fair
94. Neutral
95. Relatively unfair
96. Very unfair
97. Are you satisfied with the growth of tourism income brought by the winter tourism policy?
98. Very satisfied
99. Relatively satisfied
100. Neutral
101. Relatively dissatisfied
102. Very dissatisfied
103. Are you satisfied with the ecological environment during winter tourism?
104. Very satisfied
105. Relatively satisfied
106. Neutral
107. Relatively dissatisfied
108. Very dissatisfied
109. How much does the winter tourism policy enhance your awareness of ecological protection?
110. Greatly
111. Relatively greatly
112. Moderately
113. Slightly
114. Not at all
115. How is the impact of the winter tourism policy on environmental improvement?
116. Very good
117. Relatively good
118. Neutral
119. Relatively poor
120. Very poor
121. How much does the winter tourism policy promote local cultural tourism?
122. Greatly
123. Relatively greatly
124. Moderately
125. Slightly
126. Not at all
127. What is your attitude towards foreign cultures during the implementation of the winter tourism policy?
128. Very welcome
129. Relatively welcome
130. Neutral
131. Relatively unwelcome
132. Very unwelcome
133. How is the impact of the winter tourism policy on the communication of Tibetan culture?
134. Very good
135. Relatively good
136. Neutral
137. Relatively poor
138. Very poor

Thank you again for your participation!

 

 

 

Appendix 3 Questionnaire for Local Residents Performance Evaluation of Winter Tourism Policy in Lhasa

Dear Sir/Madam,

Hello! I am a researcher from Sichuan University. This is an anonymous questionnaire for the performance evaluation of Lhasa’s winter tourism policy. All information will be used only for my academic thesis research. Please tick the most appropriate option according to your actual situation and real thoughts. All questions are required. Thank you for your support!

1. Basic Information
2. Your gender?
3. Male
4. Female
5. Your age?
6. Under 18
7. 19–30
8. 31–45
9. 46–55
10. Over 56
11. Your education level?
12. Primary school or below
13. Junior high school
14. Senior high school / Technical secondary school
15. College / Undergraduate
16. Postgraduate and above
17. Your monthly income?
18. ≤ 2,000 RMB
19. 2,000–4,000 RMB
20. 4,000–6,000 RMB
21. 6,000–8,000 RMB
22. ≥ 8,000 RMB
23. Your occupation?
24. Farmer
25. Business person
26. Company employee
27. Civil servant E. Other
28. Questionnaire
29. Do you think the design of the winter tourism policy is reasonable?
30. Very reasonable
31. Relatively reasonable
32. Neutral
33. Unreasonable
34. Very unreasonable

7.How is your participation in formulating the winter tourism policy?

1. Very high
2. Relatively high
3. Neutral
4. Relatively low
5. Very low
6. How is the coverage of the winter tourism policy?
7. Very wide
8. Relatively wide
9. Neutral
10. Relatively narrow
11. Very narrow

9.Are you satisfied with the tourism products (routes) promoted by the winter tourism policy?

1. Very satisfied
2. Relatively satisfied
3. Neutral
4. Relatively dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
6. How is the implementation degree of the winter tourism policy?
7. Very high
8. Relatively high
9. Neutral
10. Relatively low
11. Very low
12. How is your enthusiasm for participating in winter tourism work?
13. Very high
14. Relatively high
15. Neutral
16. Relatively low
17. Very low
18. How well do you understand the content of the winter tourism policy?
19. Very well
20. Relatively well
21. Neutral
22. Relatively poorly
23. Very poorly
24. How satisfied are you with the services provided by the winter tourism policy?
25. Very satisfied
26. Relatively satisfied
27. Neutral
28. Relatively dissatisfied
29. Very dissatisfied
30. How much does the winter tourism policy improve the visibility of Lhasa?
31. Greatly
32. Relatively greatly
33. Moderately
34. Slightly
35. Not at all
36. How much does the winter tourism policy improve the basic service facilities in Lhasa?
37. Greatly
38. Relatively greatly
39. Moderately
40. Slightly
41. Not at all
42. How fair is the income distribution brought by the winter tourism policy?
43. Very fair
44. Relatively fair
45. Neutral
46. Relatively unfair
47. Very unfair
48. Are you satisfied with the growth of tourism income brought by the winter tourism policy?
49. Very satisfied
50. Relatively satisfied
51. Neutral
52. Relatively dissatisfied
53. Very dissatisfied
54. Are you satisfied with the ecological environment during winter tourism?
55. Very satisfied
56. Relatively satisfied
57. Neutral
58. Relatively dissatisfied
59. Very dissatisfied
60. How much does the winter tourism policy enhance your awareness of ecological protection?
61. Greatly
62. Relatively greatly
63. Moderately
64. Slightly
65. Not at all
66. How is the impact of the winter tourism policy on environmental improvement?
67. Very good
68. Relatively good
69. Neutral
70. Relatively poor
71. Very poor
72. How much does the winter tourism policy enrich local cultural activities?
73. Greatly
74. Relatively greatly
75. Moderately
76. Slightly
77. Not at all
78. What is your attitude towards foreign cultures during the implementation of the winter tourism policy?
79. Very welcome
80. Relatively welcome
81. Neutral
82. Relatively unwelcome
83. Very unwelcome
84. How is the impact of the winter tourism policy on the communication of Tibetan culture?
85. Very good
86. Relatively good
87. Neutral
88. Relatively poor
89. Very poor

Thank you again for your participation!

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 4 Questionnaire for Tourists Performance Evaluation of Winter Tourism Policy in Lhasa

Dear Sir/Madam,

Hello! I am a researcher from Sichuan University. This is an anonymous questionnaire for the performance evaluation of Lhasa’s winter tourism policy. All information is used only for my academic thesis research. Please tick the most appropriate option based on your actual situation and real thoughts. All questions are required. Thank you for your support!

1. Basic Information
2. Your gender?
3. Male
4. Female
5. Your age?
6. Under 18
7. 19–30
8. 31–45
9. 46–55
10. Over 56
11. Your education level?
12. Primary school or below
13. Junior high school
14. Senior high school / Technical secondary school
15. College / Undergraduate
16. Postgraduate and above
17. Your monthly income?
18. ≤ 2,000 RMB
19. 2,000–4,000 RMB
20. 4,000–6,000 RMB
21. 6,000–8,000 RMB
22. ≥ 8,000 RMB
23. Your occupation?
24. Student
25. Company employee
26. Government / Public institution
27. Freelancer
28. Other
29. Questionnaire
30. Do you think the design of the winter tourism policy is reasonable?
31. Very reasonable
32. Relatively reasonable
33. Neutral
34. Unreasonable
35. Very unreasonable
36. How is your participation in formulating the winter tourism policy?
37. Very high
38. Relatively high
39. Neutral
40. Relatively low
41. Very low
42. How is the coverage of the winter tourism policy?
43. Very wide
44. Relatively wide
45. Neutral
46. Relatively narrow
47. Very narrow
48. Are you satisfied with the tourism products (routes) promoted by the winter tourism policy?
49. Very satisfied
50. Relatively satisfied
51. Neutral
52. Relatively dissatisfied
53. Very dissatisfied
54. How is the implementation degree of the winter tourism policy?
55. Very high
56. Relatively high
57. Neutral
58. Relatively low
59. Very low
60. How is your enthusiasm for participating in winter tourism?
61. Very high
62. Relatively high
63. Neutral
64. Relatively low
65. Very low
66. How well do you understand the content of the winter tourism policy?
67. Very well
68. Relatively well
69. Neutral
70. Relatively poorly
71. Very poorly
72. How satisfied are you with the services provided by the winter tourism policy?
73. Very satisfied
74. Relatively satisfied
75. Neutral
76. Relatively dissatisfied
77. Very dissatisfied
78. How much does the winter tourism policy improve the visibility of Lhasa?
79. Greatly
80. Relatively greatly
81. Moderately
82. Slightly
83. Not at all
84. How much does the winter tourism policy improve the basic service facilities in Lhasa?
85. Greatly
86. Relatively greatly
87. Moderately
88. Slightly
89. Not at all
90. How fair is the income distribution brought by the winter tourism policy?
91. Very fair
92. Relatively fair
93. Neutral
94. Relatively unfair
95. Very unfair
96. Are you satisfied with the tourism benefits brought by the winter tourism policy?
97. Very satisfied
98. Relatively satisfied
99. Neutral
100. Relatively dissatisfied
101. Very dissatisfied
102. Are you satisfied with the ecological environment during winter tourism?
103. Very satisfied
104. Relatively satisfied
105. Neutral
106. Relatively dissatisfied
107. Very dissatisfied
108. How much does the winter tourism policy enhance your awareness of ecological protection?
109. Greatly
110. Relatively greatly
111. Moderately
112. Slightly
113. Not at all
114. How is the impact of the winter tourism policy on environmental improvement?
115. Very good
116. Relatively good
117. Neutral
118. Relatively poor
119. Very poor
120. How much does the winter tourism policy promote local cultural tourism?
121. Greatly
122. Relatively greatly
123. Moderately
124. Slightly
125. Not at all
126. How was the attitude of local people toward you during winter tourism?
127. Very good
128. Relatively good
129. Neutral
130. Relatively poor
131. Very poor
132. How is the impact of the winter tourism policy on the communication of Tibetan culture?
133. Very good
134. Relatively good
135. Neutral
136. Relatively poor
137. Very poor

Thank you again for your participation!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents a well-structured and empirically grounded analysis of winter tourism policy performance in Lhasa, drawing on institutional change theory within the framework of new institutional economics.
The manuscript makes a meaningful contribution by proposing a comprehensive “three-dimensional” framework—policy design, implementation, and outcomes—combined with the perspectives of four key stakeholders: government, tourism enterprises, local residents, and tourists. This integrated approach offers a systematic way to evaluate tourism policy performance. Furthermore, the empirical focus on Lhasa, a high-altitude, ecologically fragile, and multi-ethnic region, enhances the contextual relevance and practical value of the study, particularly in the field of sustainable tourism governance.
Several strengths of the manuscript are noteworthy. The application of institutional change theory enables a dynamic understanding of policy evolution as a process of equilibrium–disequilibrium–equilibrium. In addition, the use of a mixed-methods approach—combining the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Delphi method, and survey data—demonstrates methodological rigor and strengthens the credibility of the findings. The multidimensional evaluation across social, economic, ecological, and cultural domains is also effective in identifying both strengths and limitations of the current policy.
At the same time, there are several areas where the manuscript would benefit from further development and refinement.
First, although institutional change theory is adopted as the core framework, its application remains somewhat descriptive. The manuscript would be strengthened by a deeper theoretical engagement that explicitly explains how Lhasa’s unique contextual characteristics—particularly its high-altitude conditions and ecological fragility—function as structural variables within the process of institutional change. Elaborating on how these factors influence institutional equilibrium, disequilibrium, and adaptation would enhance the conceptual contribution of the study.
Second, the discussion of stakeholder dynamics requires further theoretical elaboration. The manuscript identifies issues such as low public participation and implementation inertia; however, these phenomena are not sufficiently analyzed within a clear theoretical framework. In particular, it would be valuable to examine whether these issues are driven by path dependence or by lock-in effects associated with top-down governance structures. A more critical exploration of these institutional mechanisms would significantly improve the analytical depth.
Third, while the empirical results are clearly presented, their interpretation could be strengthened. For example, the practical implications of the overall performance score (4.01, Grade B) should be more explicitly articulated. In addition, low-scoring indicators, such as policy awareness, should be linked more directly to stakeholder behavior and real-world policy outcomes.
Fourth, the proposed policy recommendations are relevant but somewhat general. These suggestions would benefit from a closer alignment with the empirical findings. Providing more concrete and context-specific strategies—for instance, explaining how data-driven approaches can address tourists’ misperceptions of winter climate conditions—would enhance their practical applicability.
Fifth, the manuscript would benefit from a broader discussion on generalizability. Expanding the discussion to include comparisons with other high-altitude or ecologically fragile regions, such as those in the Andes or the Himalayas, would increase the international relevance and academic impact of the study.
Finally, minor revisions are recommended to improve clarity, consistency, and academic tone. This includes refining sentence structure, ensuring consistent terminology, and incorporating more recent international literature to strengthen engagement with current scholarship.
In conclusion, this manuscript presents a well-designed and relevant empirical study with clear potential for publication. With further development in theoretical framing, analytical depth, and practical interpretation, the paper can make a valuable contribution to the literature on sustainable tourism policy.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally understandable and conveys the main ideas effectively. However, the quality of English language requires further improvement to meet the standards of an international academic journal.

First, several sentences are overly long and complex, which reduces readability and clarity. It is recommended to break down long sentences into shorter, more concise structures to improve the overall flow of the manuscript.

Second, there are recurring issues with grammatical accuracy and syntactic structure. For example, subject–verb agreement, article usage, and preposition selection should be carefully reviewed and corrected throughout the manuscript.

Third, some expressions appear to be direct translations, resulting in unnatural or non-idiomatic academic phrasing. Revising these expressions using standard academic English conventions would enhance the professionalism of the paper.

Fourth, the consistency of terminology should be improved. Key concepts such as “institutional change,” “policy performance,” and “stakeholder satisfaction” should be used consistently across sections to avoid ambiguity.

Overall, a thorough language editing process by a professional English editor or a native-level academic writer is strongly recommended to improve clarity, coherence, and academic tone.

Author Response

Comment 1

Although institutional change theory is adopted as the core framework, its application remains somewhat descriptive. The manuscript would be strengthened by a deeper theoretical engagement that explicitly explains how Lhasa’s unique contextual characteristics—particularly its high-altitude conditions and ecological fragility—function as structural variables within the process of institutional change. Elaborating on how these factors influence institutional equilibrium, disequilibrium, and adaptation would enhance the conceptual contribution of the study.

Response 1:

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comments. However, we respectfully hold a different view regarding the comment that the application of institutional change theory in this study remains merely descriptive and lacks in-depth theoretical engagement. Our explanation is as follows:

First, concerning the view that the application of institutional change theory is “descriptive”: this study does not simply describe research phenomena but closely integrates the core logic of institutional change theory with the context of winter tourism policies in Lhasa. We have clearly matched the three-dimensional evaluation framework of “design–implementation–outcome” with the dynamic cycle of institutional change and elaborated on how the “equilibrium–disequilibrium–re-equilibrium” mechanism in institutional change theory affects the performance of winter tourism policies. The reason it might be perceived as descriptive is that we have fully considered Lhasa’s reality (high altitude and ecological fragility), avoided excessive theoretical deduction, and focused more on the practical applicability of the theory rather than mechanically applying it.

Second, regarding the requirement to “explain how Lhasa’s unique contextual characteristics function as structural variables in the process of institutional change”, this logic has been implicitly integrated into our analysis rather than left unaddressed. Specifically, in the Discussion section, we clearly pointed out that Lhasa’s high-altitude conditions and ecological fragility are not only the realistic background of the study but also important factors influencing the formulation and implementation of winter tourism policies. These unique characteristics have been fully reflected in the construction of the evaluation framework and the setting of indicators. For instance, policy design fully accounts for the difficulties of infrastructure construction under high-altitude conditions, and ecological protection requirements are highlighted in performance evaluation indicators, which essentially reflects the role of these regional characteristics as structural variables in the process of institutional change.

In addition, this study is practice-oriented, aiming to solve practical problems in the implementation of winter tourism policies in Lhasa. On the premise of ensuring scientific rigor, we have avoided excessive theoretical expansion and emphasized the integration of theory and practice, so that the findings can better guide the formulation and optimization of local winter tourism policies. Therefore, we believe that the application of institutional change theory in this study is not merely descriptive; instead, it achieves an organic combination of theory and practice, which effectively supports the conclusions and reflects the unique value of the study.

We thank the reviewer again for the careful review and constructive suggestions, which will help us continuously focus on the application of institutional change theory in future research to further enhance the theoretical and practical value of the study.

Comment 2

The discussion of stakeholder dynamics requires further theoretical elaboration. The manuscript identifies issues such as low public participation and implementation inertia; however, these phenomena are not sufficiently analyzed within a clear theoretical framework. In particular, it would be valuable to examine whether these issues are driven by path dependence or by lock-in effects associated with top-down governance structures. A more critical exploration of these institutional mechanisms would significantly improve the analytical depth.

Response 2:

To address the reviewer’s comment regarding the need for further theoretical elaboration on stakeholder dynamics, this section has been revised to analyze the identified phenomena (low public participation and policy implementation inertia) within the clear theoretical framework of institutional change theory, with a focus on exploring whether these issues are driven by path dependence or lock-in effects associated with top-down governance structures, thereby enhancing the analytical depth of institutional mechanisms.

As the core theoretical basis of this study, institutional change theory emphasizes that the evolution of institutional systems is closely intertwined with stakeholder interactions and institutional mechanisms such as path dependence and lock-in effects. The empirical findings of this study indicate that low public participation and implementation inertia are prominent problems in the implementation of winter tourism policies in Lhasa, and these two phenomena are not isolated but are jointly shaped by path dependence and lock-in effects derived from top-down governance structures, which can be elaborated through in-depth theoretical analysis as follows:

2.2 A “three-dimensional, four-subjects” winter tourism policy performance assessment framework

Among the models related to institutional change established by the new institutional economics school, the most representative is North’s model of institutional change, which holds that institutional change originates in the subject's pursuit of potential profits. Since most of these potential profits are external profits that the subject cannot obtain in the existing institutional arrangements, the subject must make institutional rearrangements to internalize the external profits. The process of internalizing external profits is a process of institutional change and innovation. North explains institutions as a dynamic process and suggests that both institutional change and technological progress are a way and means for actors to maximize profits [21].

In the field of tourism, a large number of studies have verified the role of institutional change theory in the field of tourism research, scholars based on the theory of institutional change, from the perspective of the system, institutions, policies and their changes for tourism research puts forward a new perspective, from the analysis of the main body of institutional change, the process and the results of the analysis fully verified the applicability of the theory of institutional change to policy research [22-24]. Therefore, the theory of institutional change can be used as an important tool for winter tourism policy research, especially in interpreting the dynamic interaction between stakeholders and policy evolution, as well as the institutional mechanisms behind the problems in policy operation.

2.2.1 Process deconstruction of “three-dimensional” policy evolution

According to North, a representative scholar of new institutional economics, institutions are not static and rigid systems but undergo a dynamic and continuous process of emergence, development, and change. Driven by stakeholders’ inherent pursuit of potential profits and interest maximization, institutions constantly adjust and evolve, producing diverse and context-specific outcomes. This dynamic evolutionary logic is highly consistent with the inherent law of policy operation, which naturally includes three core links: policy design, policy implementation, and policy outcome formation. On this theoretical basis, this study deconstructs the complete evolutionary process of winter tourism policies into three interrelated and mutually restrictive dimensions, which together constitute the “three-dimensional” analytical framework for policy performance evaluation (Fig. 1) [25].

This “three-dimensional” analytical framework is not arbitrarily constructed but is theoretically rooted in institutional change theory, whose core operational mechanism lies in the dynamic cycle of equilibrium–disequilibrium–re-equilibrium. This cycle runs through the entire process of policy evolution and institutional adjustment, and is the fundamental driving force for the dynamic advancement of winter tourism policies. Notably, this cycle is closely intertwined with two key institutional mechanisms in institutional change theory—path dependence and lock-in effects—which are crucial for interpreting the problems of low public participation and policy implementation inertia identified in practice, and will be elaborated in combination with each policy dimension below.

The first dimension: policy design.

When stakeholders, including the government, enterprises, and residents, recognize that the existing institutional arrangements cannot meet their interest demands or realize potential development profits, they will take the initiative to promote institutional innovation and adjustment. Accordingly, the government, as the core policy-maker and interest coordinator, designs targeted winter tourism policies by comprehensively balancing the diverse demands of various stakeholders, reconciling interest conflicts, and integrating development goals. However, the policy design process is often constrained by path dependence—a key concept in institutional change theory referring to the tendency of institutional development to be limited by historical choices and maintain the existing path once formed. In the long-term governance practice of high-altitude ethnic regions such as Lhasa, the top-down policy-making model has become a stable institutional path, where the government dominates policy design while other stakeholders (especially local residents and tourists) lack sufficient channels to participate in the design process. This path dependence leads to insufficient public participation in policy design, making it difficult to fully integrate the diverse demands of multiple subjects into policy arrangements, which lays a hidden danger for subsequent policy implementation inertia and demand mismatches. Therefore, policy design not only represents the initial institutional arrangement of winter tourism development but also serves as the logical starting point of the entire policy evolution process, laying a foundation for subsequent policy implementation and effect formation.

The second dimension: policy implementation.

In line with the core viewpoint of institutional change theory, stakeholders engage in continuous and repeated interest games during the process of policy implementation. When the distribution of interests among all parties and the structure of power reach a relatively stable and balanced state, the policy system achieves institutional equilibrium. However, as external conditions (such as economic environment, market demand, and ecological constraints) and subjective expectations of stakeholders change, new interest conflicts and demand mismatches will gradually emerge, breaking the original equilibrium state and pushing the policy system into a state of disequilibrium. The repeated cycle of equilibrium–disequilibrium–re-equilibrium drives the dynamic advancement of policy implementation and promotes the continuous optimization of policy content. However, in practice, this cycle is often hindered by two interrelated problems: low public participation and policy implementation inertia, whose deep-seated causes can be attributed to path dependence and lock-in effects associated with top-down governance structures.

Specifically, low public participation in policy implementation is mainly driven by path dependence formed by long-term institutional evolution. The top-down governance model in Lhasa’s winter tourism policies has long positioned local residents and tourists as passive recipients, making them form inertial cognition of “government-led policy implementation” and lack the awareness and channels to actively participate in supervision and feedback. At the same time, the government, accustomed to the traditional governance model, has not established a sound mechanism to encourage public participation, further consolidating this path-dependent pattern. On the other hand, policy implementation inertia is mainly caused by lock-in effects derived from the top-down governance structure. Lock-in effect refers to the phenomenon where an institutional system falls into an inefficient state due to the solidification of existing interest patterns and institutional arrangements, making it difficult to adjust spontaneously. In the top-down implementation process, the government dominates resource allocation and implementation rules, while the demands of tourism enterprises, local residents, and other stakeholders are not fully integrated. This leads to administrative inertia in policy enforcement, making it difficult to flexibly adjust implementation methods according to actual needs, and the imbalance of power structure among stakeholders further prevents effective policy adjustment, thus forming implementation inertia. Therefore, evaluating the effect of policy implementation requires not only focusing on the intensity and efficiency of policy enforcement but also attaching great importance to the participation degree and satisfaction of stakeholders [26], as well as the institutional mechanisms (path dependence and lock-in effects) that affect their participation and policy operation.

The third dimension: policy outcome.

Policy outcomes are the concentrated reflection of the comprehensive effects of institutional operation after the implementation of winter tourism policies, covering economic benefits (such as tourist volume and tourism revenue growth), social benefits (such as employment promotion and cultural inheritance), and ecological benefits (such as ecological protection and sustainable development). Once a policy enters a stable operation path, it may form path dependence and implementation inertia—two key institutional mechanisms that directly affect the sustainability of policy outcomes. If the policy can continuously generate incremental benefits and meet the interest demands of all stakeholders, it will maintain a virtuous cycle of development and avoid falling into inefficient lock-in; otherwise, the path dependence of the existing policy model and the lock-in effect of the top-down governance structure will further aggravate the problems of low public participation and implementation inertia, making the policy fall into an inefficient “lock-in” state, which is not conducive to the long-term development of winter tourism. For example, if the policy fails to effectively respond to the ecological demands of local residents and the experience demands of tourists due to implementation inertia, it will lead to low satisfaction among these stakeholders, further reducing their willingness to participate in policy supervision and feedback, and forming a vicious cycle of “low participation → inertia → poor outcomes → lower participation”.

In practice, despite the significant growth in tourist numbers and tourism revenue brought by the implementation of winter tourism policies in many regions, there are still prominent problems such as insufficient market vitality, inadequate policy design, and uneven benefit distribution. These problems essentially reflect the uncoordinated interests among stakeholders and insufficient satisfaction with policy implementation effects, which are essentially driven by path dependence and lock-in effects. These problems will further trigger the next round of institutional adjustment and policy iteration, highlighting the importance of exploring these institutional mechanisms in depth. Therefore, timely and scientific policy performance evaluation is essential to avoid inefficient lock-in, correct policy deviations, and maximize the development dividends brought by winter tourism policies.

The three dimensions of policy design, implementation, and outcome are closely interrelated, mutually promoting, and mutually restricting, forming a complete and closed-loop policy evolution process. Since the entire evolution process is driven by the interest demands of stakeholders and their satisfaction feedback, and is constrained by path dependence and lock-in effects, the performance evaluation of winter tourism policies cannot be separated from the analysis of stakeholders’ subjective perceptions and the in-depth exploration of these institutional mechanisms, which also lays a foundation for the subsequent “four-subject” satisfaction evaluation.

2.2.2 Evaluation and analysis of the satisfaction of the “four subjects”

Satisfaction, as a key quantitative indicator reflecting the gap between individual subjective expectations and objective practical experiences, can effectively measure the public’s perceptions, attitudes, and recognition toward public policies, serving as a direct and reliable reference for evaluating policy effectiveness [27]. As a typical public policy aimed at promoting the high-quality development of winter tourism and safeguarding the interests of multiple groups, winter tourism policy cannot be separated from the feedback and supervision of the public and relevant stakeholders. In the context of institutional change theory, satisfaction is closely linked to the dynamic cycle of “equilibrium–disequilibrium–re-equilibrium”: high satisfaction among stakeholders means that the current policy arrangement is consistent with their interest demands, so they lack the intrinsic motivation to promote institutional change, indicating that the policy system is in a state of institutional equilibrium; by contrast, low satisfaction fully reveals the mismatches between policy supply and stakeholder demand, as well as the imbalance of interest distribution, which will further stimulate stakeholders to put forward demands for institutional adjustment and policy revision, pushing the policy system into a state of “disequilibrium”. Therefore, stakeholder satisfaction not only serves as an important criterion for measuring policy performance but also acts as a crucial signal and core driving force that triggers institutional adjustment and promotes policy iteration.

Notably, stakeholder satisfaction is also an important window to reflect path dependence and lock-in effects in policy evolution. Low satisfaction with policy participation channels reflects the path dependence of the top-down policy model; low satisfaction with policy implementation flexibility reveals the lock-in effect of the rigid governance structure. Exploring the relationship between the four subjects’ satisfaction and these two institutional mechanisms can further deepen the understanding of stakeholder dynamics and provide a theoretical basis for solving the problems of low public participation and implementation inertia.

This study, based on the characteristics of winter tourism development and the practical context of Lhasa’s winter tourism policies, identifies four core stakeholders closely involved in the formulation, implementation, and outcome of winter tourism policies: the government, tourism enterprises, local residents, and tourists. These four subjects have different interest demands and roles in the policy evolution process, and their satisfaction levels exert distinct but interrelated impacts on institutional change and policy optimization, as well as on the formation and evolution of path dependence and lock-in effects:

1. A) The government and relevant regulatory agencies, as the main enforcers and managers of winter tourism policies, bear the responsibility of formulating policy frameworks, supervising policy implementation, and coordinating multi-stakeholder interests. Their satisfaction with policy design and implementation effects directly affects the sustainability of policies, the intensity of policy enforcement, and the willingness to promote policy optimization [28]. High satisfaction will strengthen the government’s determination to implement existing policies, which may reinforce path dependence; while low satisfaction will prompt the government to adjust policy tools and optimize policy content, helping to break the lock-in effect caused by rigid governance. For example, if the government recognizes the low satisfaction of local residents due to insufficient participation channels, it may establish a public participation mechanism, which is an important measure to break path dependence in policy design and implementation.
2. B) Tourism enterprises, including scenic spots, hotels, travel agencies, and other related market entities, are important carriers of policy implementation and the direct practitioners of winter tourism development. They are highly sensitive to policy dividends and operational costs: their dissatisfaction with policy support intensity, market guidance, and profit space may induce them to put forward suggestions for institutional innovation, promote the government to revise policies to adapt to market changes, and even become key subjects driving induced institutional change—helping to break the lock-in effect of inefficient policy arrangements. For example, the Tourism Development Committee of the Tibet Autonomous Region has formed a promotion alliance with many tourism enterprises, which is essentially a result of enterprises’ demand for policy optimization and institutional innovation driven by satisfaction feedback, and also a concrete practice to break the lock-in effect of single government-led governance.
3. C) Local residents and tourists, as the direct beneficiaries or affected parties of winter tourism policies, are relatively in a “passive recipient” position in the process of institutional change, but their satisfaction is the most direct reflection of policy performance and the key to breaking path dependence. Local residents’ satisfaction is related to the impact of winter tourism development on their living environment, employment opportunities, and cultural protection, while tourists’ satisfaction is closely linked to the quality of tourism services, travel experience, and policy convenience. Their negative feedback (e.g., dissatisfaction with insufficient participation channels, rigid policy implementation) will directly expose the defects caused by path dependence and lock-in effects, and their positive recognition will provide strong support for policy continuity. Moreover, when their cumulative dissatisfaction reaches a certain level, it will force the government to adjust policies, promoting the breaking of path dependence and inefficient lock-in, thus becoming an important coordinating force for institutional change and policy optimization.

The satisfaction of these four stakeholders is not isolated but interacts and influences each other throughout the entire process of policy evolution, and together affects the formation and evolution of path dependence and lock-in effects. Specifically, in the policy design stage, if the government fully listens to the demands of tourism enterprises, local residents, and tourists, and formulates policies that meet the interests of multiple subjects, higher satisfaction will be obtained, which can effectively reduce the resistance in the policy implementation process and avoid the formation of path dependence; in the policy implementation stage, effective coordination of the interests of the four subjects and improvement of their satisfaction with the coordination effect will help smooth the policy implementation process, reduce implementation inertia, and prevent the emergence of lock-in effects; in the policy outcome stage, positive satisfaction feedback from the four subjects will provide a solid practical basis for the formulation of the next round of policies, helping to develop more scientific, inclusive, and targeted winter tourism policies, and further breaking the existing path dependence and inefficient lock-in.

In summary, stakeholder satisfaction runs through all three dimensions of policy evolution (design, implementation, and outcome) and is specifically reflected through the four core subjects involved in winter tourism policies. The implementation of winter tourism policy is essentially a dynamic process of institutional change, in which the three-dimensional policy evolution process, the four-subject satisfaction feedback, and the two institutional mechanisms (path dependence and lock-in effects) are mutually embedded, cyclically interactive, and inseparable. Therefore, based on institutional change theory, this study integrates the three-dimensional policy evolution process and the four-subject satisfaction evaluation, and establishes a comprehensive “three-dimensional, four-subjects” framework for winter tourism policy performance evaluation. This framework integrates policy formulation, implementation, outcome, multi-stakeholder feedback, and institutional mechanism analysis into a systematic analytical structure, which can comprehensively, objectively, and dynamically evaluate the performance of winter tourism policies, and deeply interpret the institutional causes behind the problems such as low public participation and implementation inertia, thereby enhancing the analytical depth of the study as suggested by the reviewer.

 

Comment 3

While the empirical results are clearly presented, their interpretation could be strengthened. For example, the practical implications of the overall performance score (4.01, Grade B) should be more explicitly articulated. In addition, low-scoring indicators, such as policy awareness, should be linked more directly to stakeholder behavior and real-world policy outcomes.

Response 3:

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive comment. We have strengthened the interpretation of the empirical results by more explicitly explaining the practical implications of the overall performance score of 4.01 (Grade B). In addition, we have directly linked low-scoring indicators such as policy awareness to stakeholder behavior and actual policy outcomes, so as to improve the depth and practical relevance of the analysis. The corresponding revisions have been highlighted in the manuscript, as shown below:

3.2.2 Analysis of the results of the evaluation level measurement of Lhasa’s winter tourism policy performance

Based on the comprehensive “three-dimensional, four-subjects” assessment index system and performance evaluation criteria established in this study, the performance of Lhasa’s winter tourism policy is measured separately from the dimensions of policy construction and policy outcomes.

1)Dimensions of policy constructs

Policy construction constitutes the foundation of policy evolution, including two secondary indicators: policy design and policy implementation. The satisfaction levels of the “four subjects” reflect their respective expectations regarding the planning and design of winter tourism policies, the intensity of implementation, and the coordination effects during implementation. The questionnaire results of the four stakeholder groups were weighted to calculate the overall score of the policy construction dimension (Fig. 3). The results show that the overall evaluation of the policy construction dimension is relatively positive. The indicator “strength of policy formulation” in the design dimension receives the highest score, reflecting the remarkable investment and attention devoted by Lhasa and Xizang to winter tourism development. Similarly, the reasonability of policy content is well recognized, indicating that the measures for winter tourism development in Lhasa are widely accepted by stakeholders.

In contrast, the indicator “public participation in policy development” is rated Grade C (general), revealing insufficient public engagement in the policy-making process. Although the breadth of policy coverage is acceptable, its score is only 3.58, suggesting that the coverage and reach of policy implementation still need to be improved. At the implementation level, the performance score of policy implementation is slightly higher than that of policy design, indicating that Lhasa’s winter tourism policies have been effectively implemented. Among implementation indicators, “enthusiasm for policy participation” scores the highest at 4.98, demonstrating strong stakeholder willingness to participate in winter tourism activities, which partly explains the recent revitalization and momentum of Lhasa’s winter tourism. However, “degree of policy awareness” scores the lowest, indicating that stakeholders lack sufficient knowledge and understanding of relevant policies. This low policy awareness directly weakens the effectiveness of policy transmission, reduces the initiative of public participation, and may lead to misalignment between policy supply and actual behavioral responses, thus limiting the full realization of policy objectives.

2)Dimensions of policy outcomes

Policy outcomes most directly reflect stakeholders’ overall evaluation of policy effects. The “four subjects” assessed the extent to which winter tourism policy implementation meets their expectations across social impacts, economic development, ecological environment, cultural activities, attitudes toward foreign cultures, and cultural dissemination. After weighting the evaluation scores of each group, the results are presented in Fig. 4. The overall performance of policy outcomes is relatively favorable, indicating that Lhasa’s winter tourism policy has largely achieved its intended social, economic, ecological, and cultural goals and generated comprehensive benefits. The four secondary dimensions all receive satisfactory evaluations, suggesting that Lhasa’s winter tourism has attained relatively sound outcomes across these fields.

Regarding social benefits, “improvement in regional visibility” scores the highest, whereas “fairness of income distribution” scores the lowest, implying that winter tourism policies should pay greater attention to the balanced redistribution of tourism benefits while pursuing economic growth. In terms of economic benefits, “construction of key winter tourism scenic spots” achieves the highest score, reflecting effective investment in winter tourism destinations and positive stakeholder perceptions of revenue growth. By contrast, “tourist arrival volume” scores the lowest, consistent with the reality of high per capita tourism consumption in Xizang.

Ecologically, this dimension receives the lowest overall score compared with the other three dimensions, indicating that ecological protection still needs to be strengthened in winter tourism policy design and implementation. However, “satisfaction with the ecological environment” is relatively high, which reflects that the development of winter tourism benefits from Lhasa’s high-quality natural resources and climatic conditions. Culturally, the cultural benefit dimension scores the highest at 4.15, demonstrating that winter tourism policies have strongly promoted local cultural development in Lhasa. The indicator “attitude toward foreign cultures” achieves the highest score, reflecting the high tolerance of local residents toward external cultures, supported by the distinctiveness of Xizang culture and the wide dissemination via new media.

3)Results of the performance evaluation

Based on the indicator weights shown in Fig. 3, the overall performance score of Lhasa’s winter tourism policy is 4.01, corresponding to Grade B. Practically, this score indicates that Lhasa’s winter tourism policy has achieved good overall performance and effectively matches the current stage of tourism development in the region. The policy has successfully revitalized off-season tourism, stimulated market vitality, and promoted the coordinated, year-round and region-wide balanced development of Lhasa’s tourism industry. Nevertheless, the Grade B evaluation also reveals clear limitations: the policy system is not yet fully mature, and bottlenecks such as low public participation, insufficient policy awareness, uneven benefit distribution, and inadequate ecological governance still exist. These shortcomings restrict the further improvement of policy effectiveness and mean that considerable potential remains for optimizing policy design, enhancing implementation efficiency, and strengthening multi-stakeholder engagement to achieve higher-level institutional equilibrium and sustainable development.

 

Comment 4

The proposed policy recommendations are relevant but somewhat general. These suggestions would benefit from a closer alignment with the empirical findings. Providing more concrete and context-specific strategies—for instance, explaining how data-driven approaches can address tourists’ misperceptions of winter climate conditions—would enhance their practical applicability.

Response 4:

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comment. We have refined the policy recommendations by aligning them more closely with the empirical findings, and supplemented more concrete, context-specific strategies to enhance their practical applicability. The corresponding revisions have been highlighted in the manuscript, as shown below:

4.1 Cluster stakeholder needs and optimize policy design based on empirical findings

The empirical results of this study confirm that mismatches between policy supply and stakeholder demands have led to insufficient public participation and weak policy identification, which further trigger institutional disequilibrium in the policy implementation process. To address these issues, the government should fully exert its institutional advantages and shift from top-down policy design to demand-oriented policy formulation that reflects the real needs of the four stakeholders. On the basis of on-the-spot investigations and normalized consultation mechanisms, policy arrangements should be tailored to Lhasa’s high-altitude, ecologically fragile, and multi-ethnic context, so as to coordinate interest distribution among the government, tourism enterprises, local residents, and tourists. Policy design teams should be supported by professionals and experienced scholars in winter tourism and plateau governance to enhance professionalism and operability. Meanwhile, clear phased goals and measurable indicators should be established to facilitate dynamic performance evaluation and institutional adjustment. During implementation, strengthened supervision and regular policy interpretation can reduce implementation resistance and avoid ineffective enforcement. By continuously absorbing feedback from stakeholders, the policy system can gradually form positive institutional inertia and promote a steady cycle of “equilibrium–disequilibrium–re-equilibrium” during institutional change.

 

4.2 Strengthen data-driven publicity and targeted communication to correct cognitive biases

The empirical results show that policy awareness and public recognition remain at low levels, and many tourists hold obvious misperceptions about Lhasha’s winter climate, oxygen content, and comfort level, which directly restricts the effectiveness of the “Winter Tour in Tibet” campaign. To improve low-scoring indicators related to publicity and cognition, data-driven tools should be used to track tourist sources, preference structures, and information-acquisition channels. Official new media platforms and collaborative accounts with high influence can release visualized, real-time information on winter temperature, sunshine hours, air quality, and oxygen conditions, so as to systematically eliminate stereotypes about harsh winter environments in high-altitude areas. Offline promotion conferences in major tourist markets should be combined with online precise marketing to improve penetration in key source regions. Furthermore, publicity should be extended to tourism enterprises and community residents to enhance their familiarity with policy contents and encourage their active participation. In this way, policy communication can be more closely linked with stakeholder behavior, improve actual policy acceptance, and support the realization of the public value of “benefiting local people and boosting regional development”.

 

4.3 Highlight ecological vulnerability and build plateau-specific ecological winter tourism

Given Lhasa’s fragile ecological environment, the empirical finding of relatively weak ecological benefits reveals potential risks of path dependence and unsustainable development. Therefore, ecological protection should be prioritized as a core institutional constraint in winter tourism development. The government should implement strict planning control through legal, economic, and administrative instruments, and establish a targeted ecological compensation mechanism suitable for high-altitude regions to clarify the ecological responsibilities of enterprises, tourists, and communities. Development activities should be strictly restricted within non-ecological core zones, and the construction of winter tourism attractions and supporting facilities should be moderately carried out to increase high-quality supply. By integrating ecological protection into the whole policy chain, the study reveals that ecological performance can be significantly improved while maintaining economic and social benefits, thus breaking the inefficient lock-in effect caused by extensive development. This will promote the coordinated evolution of winter tourism and ecological protection, and form a sustainable ecological winter tourism model with distinct plateau characteristics.

 

Comment 5

The manuscript would benefit from a broader discussion on generalizability. Expanding the discussion to include comparisons with other high-altitude or ecologically fragile regions, such as those in the Andes or the Himalayas, would increase the international relevance and academic impact of the study.

Response 5:

We sincerely appreciate the constructive suggestion on enhancing the generalizability of this study. Given the focus of this paper, we have not yet conducted a comparative analysis with other high-altitude or ecologically fragile regions such as the Andes or the Himalayas. We fully agree that such cross-regional comparisons would significantly improve the international relevance and academic impact of the research, and we will definitely carry out in-depth comparative studies in our future work to further enrich the generalizability of the findings.

 

Comment 6

Minor revisions are recommended to improve clarity, consistency, and academic tone. This includes refining sentence structure, ensuring consistent terminology, and incorporating more recent international literature to strengthen engagement with current scholarship.

Response 6:

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestions. We have carefully revised the manuscript to improve clarity, logical consistency, and academic tone. Specifically, we have optimized sentence structures, unified key terminology, and supplemented recent international research to enhance dialogue with the latest academic research.

 

All revisions have been carefully completed and marked in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision is fine. However, the authors have to explain why readers must read this article. It should be addressed in Introduction. The current version is still not clear.

Author Response

Comment 1

However, the authors have to explain why readers must read this article. It should be addressed in Introduction. The current version is still not clear.

 

Response 1:

Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We fully agree with your suggestion that it is crucial to clearly explain why readers must read this article in the Introduction section.

In response to your comment, we have revised the Introduction by adding a dedicated paragraph to explicitly address this point. Specifically, we have clarified the significance of this study from the perspectives of academic gaps, practical needs, and global relevance: 1) We emphasized that winter tourism, especially in high-altitude, ecologically fragile, and multi-ethnic regions like Xizang, is not only an economic driver but also a key means to promote ecological protection, cultural inheritance, and balanced regional development, which is of great concern to global readers engaged in sustainable tourism research and practice; 2) We pointed out that the lack of systematic theoretical examination and empirical evaluation of existing winter tourism policies has led to unclear policy effects and institutional barriers, making this study’s rigorous evaluation and optimization suggestions urgently needed; 3) We highlighted that the innovative evaluation framework and research findings of this study can provide a replicable reference for global policymakers, researchers, and destination managers, helping them solve similar challenges in sustainable winter tourism development.

These revisions have been integrated into the Introduction section to ensure that readers can clearly understand the necessity and value of reading this article. We have carefully checked the revised content to avoid ambiguity and ensure it aligns with the overall logic of the Introduction.

Thank you again for your constructive comment, which has significantly improved the quality and clarity of our manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all comments and concerns about the manuscript. 

Author Response

Thank you again for your positive comments and recognition of our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After examining the revised manuscript, I find that the major concerns raised in the previous review have been addressed satisfactorily, and the overall quality of the paper has been significantly improved.
In particular, the manuscript now demonstrates stronger theoretical depth, clearer interpretation of empirical findings, and more concrete policy implications. The revised version presents a more convincing application of institutional change theory and substantially strengthens the connection between theoretical concepts and practical policy analysis.
First, the theoretical framing has been notably improved. In the previous version, the application of institutional change theory remained somewhat descriptive. In the revised manuscript, however, the authors more clearly explain the dynamic process of policy evolution through the framework of equilibrium–disequilibrium–re-equilibrium and successfully integrate the concepts of path dependence and lock-in effects into the analysis. This significantly enhances the conceptual rigor and originality of the study.
Second, the unique contextual characteristics of Lhasa—particularly its high-altitude conditions, ecological fragility, and multi-ethnic environment—are now more explicitly incorporated into the theoretical framework. This revision strengthens the contextual relevance of the study and improves the explanatory power of the institutional analysis.
Third, the discussion of stakeholder dynamics has been greatly strengthened. The manuscript now provides a much clearer explanation of how the long-term top-down governance structure contributes to low public participation and implementation inertia. The analysis of path dependence and lock-in effects offers a more critical and theoretically grounded interpretation of these institutional barriers, which considerably improves the analytical depth of the paper.
Fourth, the practical meaning of the empirical results is now better articulated. The overall performance score of 4.01 (Grade B) is no longer presented merely as a numerical outcome, but is clearly interpreted in terms of policy effectiveness and remaining structural limitations, such as insufficient public participation, low policy awareness, uneven benefit distribution, and weak ecological governance. In addition, the low score for policy awareness is directly linked to reduced stakeholder engagement and weakened policy implementation effectiveness.
Fifth, the policy recommendations have become more specific and closely aligned with the empirical findings. The proposed strategies—such as stakeholder-oriented policy design, data-driven targeted publicity, and the development of ecological winter tourism—are more practical and context-sensitive. In particular, the discussion on correcting tourists’ misperceptions of winter climate conditions in Tibet through real-time visualized information and digital communication is a meaningful improvement.
Sixth, the manuscript now includes a clearer discussion of limitations and future research directions. The authors appropriately acknowledge the limitations of the cross-sectional design, reliance on subjective survey data, and restricted stakeholder scope. Furthermore, the suggestion to extend future research to comparative studies involving other high-altitude and ecologically fragile regions such as the Andes and the Himalayas significantly improves the international relevance and generalizability of the study.
Overall, the revised manuscript reflects a serious and constructive response to the reviewer comments. The major issues identified in the previous round have been addressed appropriately, and the paper now presents a stronger theoretical contribution and clearer practical implications.
Only minor issues remain, particularly regarding English language refinement, sentence conciseness, and the removal of some repetitive expressions. A final round of professional language editing would further improve the readability and academic tone of the manuscript.
In conclusion, I believe that the manuscript has been substantially improved and is now suitable for publication after minor revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally understandable and conveys the main ideas effectively. However, the quality of English language requires further improvement to meet the standards of an international academic journal.

First, several sentences are overly long and complex, which reduces readability and clarity. It is recommended to break down long sentences into shorter, more concise structures to improve the overall flow of the manuscript.

Second, there are recurring issues with grammatical accuracy and syntactic structure. For example, subject–verb agreement, article usage, and preposition selection should be carefully reviewed and corrected throughout the manuscript.

Third, some expressions appear to be direct translations, resulting in unnatural or non-idiomatic academic phrasing. Revising these expressions using standard academic English conventions would enhance the professionalism of the paper.

Fourth, the consistency of terminology should be improved. Key concepts such as “institutional change,” “policy performance,” and “stakeholder satisfaction” should be used consistently across sections to avoid ambiguity.

Overall, a thorough language editing process by a professional English editor or a native-level academic writer is strongly recommended to improve clarity, coherence, and academic tone.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

Only minor issues remain, particularly regarding English language refinement, sentence conciseness, and the removal of some repetitive expressions. A final round of professional language editing would further improve the readability and academic tone of the manuscript.

 

Comment 1

Several sentences are overly long and complex, which reduces readability and clarity. It is recommended to break down long sentences into shorter, more concise structures to improve the overall flow of the manuscript.

Response 1:

Thank you sincerely for your valuable comment. We fully agree with your suggestion that some sentences in the manuscript are overly long and complex, which affects readability and clarity. In response to this issue, we have carefully revised the entire manuscript, focusing on identifying and breaking down long and complex sentences. Specifically, we have split lengthy compound and complex sentences into shorter, more concise structures while ensuring the original meaning and logical coherence are not lost. We have also adjusted the sentence rhythm and connection words to enhance the overall flow and readability of the manuscript. The detailed revisions are marked and available in the highlighted sections of the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comment2

There are recurring issues with grammatical accuracy and syntactic structure. For example, subject–verb agreement, article usage, and preposition selection should be carefully reviewed and corrected throughout the manuscript.

Response 2:

Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We fully agree that there are recurring problems with grammatical accuracy and syntactic structure in the original manuscript, including improper subject–verb agreement, article usage, and preposition collocation. In response to your suggestion, we have thoroughly reviewed and revised the entire manuscript sentence by sentence. We have carefully checked and corrected all grammatical errors, syntactic flaws, subject–verb agreement, article application, and preposition selection throughout the paper. All revised contents have been clearly marked in the highlighted parts of the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comment 3

Some expressions appear to be direct translations, resulting in unnatural or non-idiomatic academic phrasing. Revising these expressions using standard academic English conventions would enhance the professionalism of the paper.

Response 3:

Thank you very much for your constructive comment. We fully agree that several expressions in the original manuscript read like literal translation and sound unnatural in academic English. We have carefully examined the full text and revised all awkward and non-idiomatic expressions in accordance with standard academic writing conventions. We have replaced rigid literal translations with professional, idiomatic academic phrasing to improve the academic tone and professionalism of the manuscript. All related revisions are clearly highlighted in the revised version.

 

Comment 4

The consistency of terminology should be improved. Key concepts such as “institutional change,” “policy performance,” and “stakeholder satisfaction” should be used consistently across sections to avoid ambiguity.

Response 4:

Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We fully agree that the consistency of professional terminology in the original manuscript needs to be improved. In response to this suggestion, we have carefully checked and unified all key academic concepts throughout the paper. Core terms including “institutional change”, “policy performance” and “stakeholder satisfaction” have been used consistently in every section to avoid ambiguity and confusion. All revisions concerning terminology unification are marked in the highlighted parts of the revised manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf