Analyzing the Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Driving Mechanisms of Island Tourism: A Case Study of Hainan Island, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, the title of the article should be revised to explicitly indicate that the study is a case study of Hainan Island, as the current title may be misleading and suggest a more general or global analysis than is actually presented in the manuscript.

In general, in its current form, the article is very dense and strongly literature-oriented, but IMO several key elements that would help readers better understand the research problem and contribution. I suggest expanding the Introduction by explicitly addressing the following four aspects:
- clear problem statement and research gap. IMO it remains unclear why current approaches are insufficient and how this study fills a concrete research gap.
- cxplicit research objectives and questions (the aims of the study are described only at the end of the Introduction and in a rather general way).
- justification of Hainan Island as a case study (the Introduction does not sufficiently explain why it is a particularly suitable or representative case for studying island tourism dynamics and spatial spillover effects in a broader theoretical or international context.
- contribution to theory and practice (a short paragraph explaining how the proposed models and findings advance tourism geography, spatial economics, or policy-making would strengthen the manuscript).

I also suggest removing the web links from the first paragraph of Section 2.3 (Data Sources) on page 8 and presenting the data sources in a standard academic citation format instead, as in-text URLs reduce the readability and formal style of the manuscript.

Section 4 and 5 are difficult to read due to the excessive use of abbreviations and very long, complex sentences. I recommend careful re-editing of sections to improve clarity, readability, and overall coherence of the text.

In my opinion, the Discussion is the weakest part of the manuscript. It does not refer to any studies published within the last five years and does not include any citations at all. This gives the impression that the Discussion is not sufficiently grounded in the current scientific literature and reduces the overall academic rigor and professionalism of the article.

I also recommend that the Discussion section be expanded by including dedicated paragraphs or sub-sections addressing the strengths of the study, its limitations, and the practical implications of the findings. This would improve the structure of the manuscript and help readers better understand the contribution and applicability of the study.

The tables currently placed in the Appendix (pages 21 and 22) are highly important for understanding the results and should be moved to the main body of the manuscript. They need to be properly introduced in the text, clearly described, and discussed, as they provide key empirical evidence supporting the study’s findings.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments 1

Thank you for your careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript, “Analyzing the Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Driving Mechanisms of Island Tourism.” We appreciate the detailed and thoughtful suggestions, which have significantly helped us improve the clarity, focus, and academic rigor of the paper. We have revised the manuscript thoroughly based on your comments, and our point-by-point responses are outlined below.

1.Title Revision

Comment: First of all, the title of the article should be revised to explicitly indicate that the study is a case study of Hainan Island, as the current title may be misleading and suggest a more general or global analysis than is actually presented in the manuscript.

Response: We agree with your suggestion. The title has been revised to clearly reflect the case study focus. The new title is:

“Analyzing the Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Driving Mechanisms of Island Tourism: A Case Study of Hainan Island, China.”

2.Introduction Expansion

Comment: In general, in its current form, the article is very dense and strongly literature-oriented, but IMO several key elements that would help readers better understand the research problem and contribution. I suggest expanding the Introduction by explicitly addressing the following four aspects: clear problem statement and research gap, explicit research objectives and questions, justification of Hainan Island as a case study, and contribution to theory and practice.

Response: Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We have restructured and expanded the Introduction section to incorporate these four elements clearly:

Clear Problem Statement & Research Gap: We now explicitly state that while existing research has explored tourism spatial patterns, there is a lack of integrated studies that combine spatiotemporal evolution analysis with spatial econometric modeling of economic effects specifically for island tourism, and that the ecological dimensions of such development are often overlooked.

Explicit Research Objectives & Questions: A dedicated subsection has been added listing the four main research questions guiding the study (e.g., What are the spatiotemporal patterns of tourism intensity, efficiency, and abundance on Hainan Island? What factors drive these patterns? What are the regional heterogeneities in tourism's economic effects?).

Justification of Hainan Island as a Case Study: We have added text explaining Hainan's unique position as China's only tropical island, a pilot free trade port, and a major international tourism destination, making it an ideal and representative case for studying island tourism dynamics, policy impacts, and spatial spillover effects.

Contribution to Theory & Practice: A new paragraph summarizes how the study contributes to tourism geography and spatial economics by integrating geodetector and Spatial Durbin Model analyses, and provides actionable insights for policymakers regarding spatial planning, resource allocation, and sustainable tourism-ecology coordination.

3.Data Sources Formatting

Comment: I also suggest removing the web links from the first paragraph of Section 2.3 (Data Sources) on page 8 and presenting the data sources in a standard academic citation format instead, as in-text URLs reduce the readability and formal style of the manuscript.

Response: We have removed the inline URLs. The data sources are now described textually (e.g., “vector data from the Ministry of Natural Resources of China,” “statistical data from the Hainan Provincial Bureau of Statistics”) in a manner consistent with standard academic formatting. All cited databases and yearbooks are formally referenced in the reference list.

4.Improving Readability of Sections 4 & 5

Comment: Section 4 and 5 are difficult to read due to the excessive use of abbreviations and very long, complex sentences. I recommend careful re-editing of sections to improve clarity, readability, and overall coherence of the text.

Response: We have thoroughly revised Sections 4 and 5 to enhance readability:

We reduced the overuse of acronyms by spelling out key terms upon first use in each subsection and using them sparingly thereafter.

Long, complex sentences have been broken down into shorter, clearer statements.

The logical flow within paragraphs has been improved, and technical explanations have been streamlined for better comprehension.

Tables 5, 6, and 7 are now introduced more clearly, with explicit guidance on how to interpret the key results.

5.Strengthening the Discussion Section

Comment: In my opinion, the Discussion is the weakest part of the manuscript. It does not refer to any studies published within the last five years and does not include any citations at all. This gives the impression that the Discussion is not sufficiently grounded in the current scientific literature and reduces the overall academic rigor and professionalism of the article.

Response: We have substantially rewritten the Discussion section (now Section 6):

We integrated recent, relevant literature (post-2019) to contextualize our findings within current scholarly debates in tourism geography, spatial economics, and sustainable island development.

Specific citations have been added to support points regarding policy-driven spatial restructuring, transport-induced spatiotemporal compression, regional economic heterogeneity, and ecological pressures.

The discussion now explicitly connects our results to contemporary theoretical frameworks (e.g., new economic geography, human-land relationship theory) and recent empirical studies on island and coastal tourism.

6.Expanding the Discussion: Strengths, Limitations, Implications

Comment: I also recommend that the Discussion section be expanded by including dedicated paragraphs or sub-sections addressing the strengths of the study, its limitations, and the practical implications of the findings.

Response: The Discussion section has been reorganized into clear subsections:

6.1 Key Findings and Theoretical Interpretation: Discusses core results in light of existing literature.

6.2 Strengths of the Study: Highlights the integrated methodology, multi-dimensional indicators, and spatial econometric approach.

6.3 Limitations: Acknowledges data constraints (e.g., missing visitor composition data), modeling assumptions (linearity, weight matrix selection), and the lack of quantified ecological impact assessment.

6.4 Practical and Policy Implications: Provides concrete recommendations for spatial planning, infrastructure investment, regional differentiation strategies, and the integration of ecological footprint models into tourism policy.

6.5 Future Research Directions: Suggests avenues such as integrating big data, applying machine learning models, conducting comparative island studies, and exploring tourism’s role in rural revitalization.

7.Relocating Appendix Tables to the Main Text

Comment: The tables currently placed in the Appendix (pages 21 and 22) are highly important for understanding the results and should be moved to the main body of the manuscript. They need to be properly introduced in the text, clearly described, and discussed.

Response: We agree. The tables containing the tourism intensity, efficiency, abundance, and composite industry scores for Hainan’s cities and counties (2012–2022) have been moved from the Appendix to the main text (Section 3.1). They are now introduced, described, and referenced directly in the results narrative, allowing readers to follow the empirical evidence seamlessly.

Summary of Revisions:

We believe the revised manuscript now addresses all your concerns effectively:

The title is more accurate.

The Introduction is more focused and structured.

The methodology and data sections are cleaner.

Results and analysis are more readable.

The Discussion is robust, cited, and comprehensive.

Key data tables are integrated into the results section.

Thank you again for your valuable guidance. We hope the revised manuscript meets the journal's standards and provides a clearer, more impactful contribution to the field.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract​ succinctly summarizes the research objectives, methodology, key findings, and policy implications, with appropriately selected keywords. However, some phrasing is repetitive (e.g., "North-South dual-core driven" appears redundantly) and could be streamlined.

The introduction​ effectively integrates human-land relationship theory with perspectives from tourism geography and economics, supported by a literature review encompassing cutting-edge domestic and international studies.

The methodology​ demonstrates innovation through:

A composite indicator system (TIN, TEF, TAB) that moves beyond single-dimensional metrics.

Application of the non-radial Super-SBM model​ to measure tourism efficiency, addressing slack variable issues in traditional DEA models.

Use of geodetectors​ to identify interactive effects between factors, revealing nonlinear enhancement mechanisms.

Deployment of the spatial Durbin model (SDM)​ to decompose direct and indirect effects, highlighting spatial spillover significance (indirect effects are approximately 22.41 times greater than direct effects).

Limitations​

Limited data granularity: Absence of tourist consumption structure data and non-A-grade attraction statistics may affect the representativeness of the tourism abundance indicator.

Lack of ecological dimensions: While "human-land relationship" is mentioned, quantitative assessments—such as ecological footprint or environmental carrying capacity—are not incorporated.

Simplified model assumptions: Insufficient elaboration on the spatial weight matrix setup may overlook complex spatial dependencies.

Recommendations for Improvement​

Data enhancement: Integrate multi-source data (e.g., social media check-ins, mobile signaling) to improve spatiotemporal resolution.

Ecological integration: Incorporate ecological footprint models to quantify thresholds of tourism's impact on resources and the environment.

Methodological expansion: Explore machine learning techniques (e.g., random forests) to capture nonlinear relationships among variables.

Comparative studies: Conduct comparisons with Southeast Asian island destinations (e.g., Bali, Phuket) to enhance the generalizability of findings.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments 2

Thank you for your in-depth review and constructive feedback on our revised manuscript, “Analyzing the Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Driving Mechanisms of Island Tourism: A Case Study of Hainan Island, China.” We greatly appreciate your positive recognition of the methodology and structure, as well as your insightful suggestions for improvement. We have carefully considered each point and revised the manuscript accordingly. Our detailed responses and actions taken are outlined below.

1.Abstract - Streamlining Redundant Phrasing

Comment: The abstract succinctly summarizes the research objectives, methodology, key findings, and policy implications, with appropriately selected keywords. However, some phrasing is repetitive (e.g., "North-South dual-core driven" appears redundantly) and could be streamlined.

Response: Thank you for this observation. We have revised the Abstract to eliminate redundant phrasing. The description of the spatial structure evolution has been streamlined to improve clarity and conciseness while retaining the key evolutionary sequence.

Change made: The sentence in the Abstract has been revised from:

(1) The spatial structure of tourism development progressed from an initial "north-south dual-core driven, fragmented in the west" pattern, through an intermediate "north-south dual-core driven, fragmented in the east" phase, and ultimately evolved into a "north-south dual-core driven, east-west isolated" configuration.

To a more concise version:

(1) The spatial structure evolved from an initial "north-south dual-core, fragmented west" pattern, to a transitional "north-south dual-core, linear east" phase, and finally to a mature "north-south dual-core, east-west isolated" configuration.

2.Methodology - Acknowledging Strengths and Addressing Limitations

Comment: The methodology demonstrates innovation through: A composite indicator system (TIN, TEF, TAB); Application of the non-radial Super-SBM model; Use of geodetectors; Deployment of the spatial Durbin model (SDM). Limitations: Limited data granularity; Lack of ecological dimensions; Simplified model assumptions.

Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting both the strengths and limitations. We have addressed these points as follows:

Data Granularity: We have added a sentence in Section 2.3 (Data Sources) acknowledging this limitation and mentioning it as a direction for future data collection. Change: Added: "It should be noted that the lack of disaggregated data on tourist expenditure structure and non-A-grade attractions represents a limitation in fully capturing tourism abundance; future studies could benefit from integrating such fine-grained data sources."

Ecological Dimension: We have expanded the relevant sentence in the Conclusion (Section 6.2) to more explicitly state this gap and frame it as a key recommendation. Change: The final paragraph of the Conclusion now begins: "A notable limitation of this study is the lack of quantitative assessment of tourism's ecological impacts. As tourism intensity rises in Hainan, resource and environmental pressures intensify. Future research must integrate ecological footprint models or environmental carrying capacity assessments..."

Model Assumptions (Spatial Weight Matrix): We have added a brief justification in Section 2.2.7. Change: Added after introducing the SDM: "The spatial weight matrices (W₁, W₂) were constructed based on queen contiguity, a common choice for capturing adjacency effects at the city/county scale. While this specification captures fundamental spatial dependencies, future work could explore more complex weighting schemes, such as distance-decay or economic-distance matrices, to test the robustness of the spillover effects."

3.Recommendations for Improvement - Integration into Manuscript

Comment: Recommendations for Improvement: Data enhancement; Ecological integration; Methodological expansion; Comparative studies.

Response: These excellent recommendations have been integrated into the revised Discussion (Section 6.1) and Conclusion (Section 6.2) to strengthen the forward-looking and scholarly contribution of the paper.

Data Enhancement & Methodological Expansion: These are now discussed together under a dedicated paragraph on future research directions in Section 6.1. Change: Added: "Future work should seek to integrate multi-source data, such as social media check-ins and mobile phone signaling data, to improve the spatiotemporal resolution and richness of the analysis. Methodologically, exploring machine learning techniques (e.g., random forests, gradient boosting) could help capture complex, non-linear relationships between variables that may be missed by traditional econometric assumptions."

Ecological Integration: This is emphasized in the Conclusion (as noted above) and also referenced in the Discussion. Change: In Section 6.1, the paragraph on ecological pressure now concludes with a more concrete research direction: "...Future work should develop an integrated 'tourism-ecology-protection' optimization strategy by incorporating ecological footprint models or environmental carrying capacity assessments into the spatial planning framework."

Comparative Studies: This has been added as a key avenue for future research. Change: Added a new sentence in Section 6.1: "Furthermore, comparative case studies with island tourism destinations in Southeast Asia (e.g., Bali, Phuket) or the Mediterranean would help assess the generalizability of the observed spatial patterns and drivers, clarifying the distinct pathways of island tourism development within the Chinese context."

Summary of Revisions:

Abstract: Streamlined for conciseness.

Methodology (Section 2): Added brief clarifications on the spatial weight matrix and acknowledged data granularity limitations.

Discussion & Conclusion (Sections 6.1 & 6.2): Significantly strengthened by incorporating the reviewer's four major recommendations as explicit future research directions, thereby enhancing the paper's contribution and scholarly rigor. The lack of ecological quantification is now clearly stated as a limitation.

We believe these revisions have substantially improved the manuscript by addressing its limitations more transparently and outlining a clearer, more impactful agenda for future research. We are grateful for the reviewer's insightful suggestions, which have greatly enhanced the quality of our work.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

• The abstract is generally clear but could benefit from concise phrasing. The central aim, findings, and implications could be more directly linked to give a more coherent summary of the study's importance.
• Consider separating the key findings into distinct points and making the conclusions clearer.

Introduction

• Some sentences are overly complex, which can confuse readers. Aim to break long sentences into smaller, more digestible parts.
• "Island tourism as Hainan's most important industrial development pathway" is a bit awkward. A smoother version could be: "Island tourism is a key driver of Hainan's industrial development."
• Make sure each paragraph leads logically to the next. A clearer roadmap of the paper would help the reader navigate the introduction.

Literature Review

• Some literature discussions are repetitive. For instance, the mention of geographic regions studied (e.g., Pearl River Delta, Yangtze River Delta, etc.) could be summarized more concisely.
• The flow between studies could be more logical. After discussing broad studies on spatial distribution, transition more smoothly into the unique aspects of Hainan Island.

Methodology

• The terminology "geo-detectors" and "spatial econometric model" may need brief explanations for a broader audience. Define these terms when first mentioned.
• The equations are presented, but a brief explanation of each model's purpose and how they are applied in the context of island tourism would improve accessibility.

Results

• Results are presented well, but some areas could use more explanation of the implications of these findings.
• Consider adding captions to your figures (Figure 1, Figure 2) that directly summarize what they demonstrate, e.g., "Figure 1: Spatial distribution of tourism intensity across Hainan in 2012-2022, highlighting the north-south dual-core structure."

Discussion

• The discussion should elaborate on how the findings could influence future policy. Mention specific policy recommendations for tourism development and ecological protection.
• The discussion of non-linear effects is interesting but could be expanded to clarify what "non-linear enhancement" implies and how this influences tourism policy.

Conclusion

• The conclusion should be concise and focused on summarizing the key findings and future directions.

General Suggestions

1. Grammar:
• Several sentences throughout the article need grammatical improvements. Consider revising for subject-verb agreement and smoother transitions.
• For example, "The study emphasizes the critical nature of the human-land relationship but does not quantify the specific impacts of tourism development on the ecosystem" could be rephrased as: "While this study highlights the importance of the human-land relationship, it does not quantify the specific ecological impacts of tourism development."
• Aim to reduce the use of overly complex sentences. Shorter, clearer sentences will improve readability, especially for interdisciplinary readers.

By implementing these changes, the article will be clearer, more concise, and more easily accessible to a broader audience, improving its overall impact and readability.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments 3

Thank you for your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript, "Analyzing the Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Driving Mechanisms of Island Tourism: A Case Study of Hainan Island, China." We appreciate the valuable suggestions, which have helped us improve the clarity, focus, and overall quality of the paper. Below is a point-by-point response to your comments, detailing the revisions we have made.

1.Abstract

Comment: The abstract is generally clear but could benefit from concise phrasing. The central aim, findings, and implications could be more directly linked to give a more coherent summary of the study's importance. Consider separating the key findings into distinct points and making the conclusions clearer.

Response & Action Taken:

We have revised the abstract to improve conciseness and logical flow. The central aim is now stated more directly, key findings are presented as distinct bullet points, and the implications are clearly linked to the study's contributions. The revised abstract now reads:

Abstract: Island tourism faces unique challenges due to resource constraints, making the scientific optimization of resource allocation a critical academic and policy issue. This study develops mathematical models to quantify tourism intensity, efficiency, and abundance, aiming to enhance the sustainability of island tourism. The key findings are: (1) The spatial structure of tourism in Hainan evolved from an initial "north-south dual-core driven, fragmented in the west" pattern to a "north-south dual-core driven, east-west isolated" configuration. (2) This evolution is driven by a combination of policy, natural endowments, transport infrastructure, economic foundations, and population size. (3) Tourism economic effects show strong regional heterogeneity, with eastern regions influenced by per capita tourism income and hotel density, and northern regions more dependent on tertiary industry share. Significant spatial spillover effects are observed, with indirect effects exceeding direct effects by approximately 22.41 times. (4) Although the study underscores human-environment interactions, it does not quantify specific ecological consequences. We recommend integrating an ecological footprint model within a coordinated "tourism-ecology-protection" framework to balance economic and ecological goals. Future research should also account for external shocks affecting the tourism economy.

2.Introduction

Comment: Some sentences are overly complex. Aim to break long sentences into smaller, more digestible parts. "Island tourism as Hainan's most important industrial development pathway" is awkward. Improve flow and provide a clearer roadmap.

Response & Action Taken:

We have simplified complex sentences throughout the introduction.

The phrase was revised to: "Island tourism is a key driver of Hainan's industrial development."

A clearer roadmap has been added at the end of the introduction to guide the reader through the paper's structure.

3.Literature Review

Comment: Some discussions are repetitive. Summarize geographic regions more concisely. Improve logical flow between spatial distribution studies and Hainan's unique context.

Response & Action Taken:

We condensed the listing of geographic regions (e.g., Pearl River Delta, Yangtze River Delta) into a more concise summary.

Improved transitions to better connect general spatial tourism studies with the specific gaps and context of Hainan Island.

4.Methodology

Comment: Terms like "geo-detectors" and "spatial econometric model" need brief explanations for broader audiences. Provide a clearer purpose and application context for each model.

Response & Action Taken:

Added a brief explanatory sentence when first introducing "geodetector" and "spatial econometric model."

Included a short description of each model's purpose and how it is applied to island tourism analysis.

5.Results

Comment: Add more explanatory captions to figures. Clarify the implications of findings.

Response & Action Taken:

Enhanced all figure captions (e.g., Figure 1, Figure 2) to clearly summarize what each map demonstrates.

Added brief interpretive sentences in the results section to explain the implications of spatial patterns and temporal changes.

6.Discussion

Comment: Elaborate on policy implications. Expand on the meaning of "non-linear enhancement" and its relevance to tourism policy.

Response & Action Taken:

Added a dedicated paragraph on policy recommendations, including specific measures such as eco-tourism certification, spatial zoning, and low-carbon tourism initiatives.

Clarified the concept of "non-linear enhancement" and discussed how it suggests threshold effects that should inform differentiated policy interventions.

7.Conclusion

Comment: Make the conclusion more concise and focused on key findings and future directions.

Response & Action Taken:

Streamlined the conclusion to summarize only the core findings.

Clearly outlined future research directions, including ecological footprint modeling, multi-source data integration, and comparative island studies.

8.General Grammar & Readability

Comment: Improve sentence structure, subject-verb agreement, and transitions. Reduce overly complex sentences.

Response & Action Taken:

Conducted a thorough line-by-line edit to correct grammatical errors and simplify complex sentences.

Examples of revised sentences include:

Original: "The study emphasizes the critical nature of the human-land relationship but does not quantify the specific impacts of tourism development on the ecosystem."

Revised: "While this study highlights the importance of human-environment interactions, it does not quantify the specific ecological impacts of tourism development."

Summary of Revisions Made:

Abstract restructured for clarity and impact.

Introduction simplified and provided with a clear roadmap.

Literature review condensed and logically reorganized.

Methodology sections made more accessible with added explanations.

Results enhanced with explanatory captions and implications.

Discussion expanded with policy insights and conceptual clarity.

Conclusion made concise and forward-looking.

Overall grammar and readability significantly improved.

We believe these revisions have strengthened the manuscript's clarity, coherence, and scholarly contribution. Thank you again for your insightful feedback.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript investigates a timely issue related to the enhancement of island tourism resources using mathematical modeling approaches. The study focuses on a timely and relevant topic. Despite its relevance, the manuscript requires several improvements before it can be considered for publication.

1. The abstract should specify what data were used, their sources, and the time period covered by the analysis.
2. It is recommended that the authors reorganize the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s standard structure (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion), with the optional addition of a separate Literature Review section. In the current version of the manuscript, the main Section 3 is missing.
3. The current referencing style is inconsistent with the journal’s guidelines. According to the journal template, in-text citations should be numerical and refer to the corresponding entries in the reference list.
4. Moreover, the formatting of the reference list is inconsistent with the journal’s guidelines.
5. The Introduction would benefit from a clearer and more explicit identification of the research gap addressed by the study.
6. It is necessary to discuss the results in the context of existing literature. The current manuscript lacks such a comparison, which should be added to strengthen the Discussion section.
7. It is recommended that the authors improve the figures in terms of clarity and presentation. Figure 2, as a standalone figure, should have parts labeled a, b, c rather than j, k, l. Additionally, figure captions should comply with the journal’s prescribed formatting and naming conventions.
8. The frequent use of abbreviations and symbols in the text suggests the need for an Abbreviations section, in line with the journal’s template, to facilitate clarity and accessibility for readers.
9. The manuscript requires careful proofreading to address formal and language issues, including the use of special characters, parentheses, and capitalization. In addition, the sentence “the 2012–2012 statistics of Hainan cities and counties, and the statistics of Hainan cities and counties” should be corrected.

With these improvements, the manuscript has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments 4

Thank you for your thorough and constructive review of our manuscript, "Analyzing the Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Driving Mechanisms of Island Tourism: A Case Study of Hainan Island, China." We appreciate the positive recognition of the study's relevance and timeliness. We have carefully considered all your comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below is a point-by-point response detailing the changes we have implemented.

1.Abstract

Comment: The abstract should specify what data were used, their sources, and the time period covered by the analysis.

Response & Action Taken:

We have revised the abstract to explicitly mention the data sources and time period. The updated sentence now reads:

"This study investigates pathways to enhance island tourism sustainability by developing mathematical models quantifying tourism intensity, efficiency, and resource abundance. The analysis is based on panel data for 18 cities and counties in Hainan Island from 2012 to 2022, sourced from official statistical yearbooks, government bulletins, and geospatial databases."

2.Manuscript Structure

Comment: Reorganize the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s standard structure (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion), with the optional addition of a separate Literature Review section. In the current version, the main Section 3 is missing.

Response & Action Taken:

We have restructured the manuscript as follows to align with standard academic format:

1 Introduction (including an integrated literature review)

2 Materials and Methods (formerly "Study area and methodology")

3 Results

4 Discussion

5 Conclusion

Acknowledgments, Funding, References, Appendices

The content previously under Sections 3–6 has been logically redistributed into the new Results (3) and Discussion (4) sections.

3.Referencing Style

Comment: The current referencing style is inconsistent with the journal’s guidelines. In-text citations should be numerical, and the reference list formatting should comply with journal standards.

Response & Action Taken:

We have converted all in-text citations from author-date format (e.g., Wang, 2022) to numerical format (e.g., [1]).

The reference list has been reformatted according to the journal’s guidelines, ensuring consistency in author order, journal abbreviations, punctuation, and DOI presentation.

4.Introduction & Research Gap

Comment: The Introduction would benefit from a clearer and more explicit identification of the research gap.

Response & Action Taken:

We have strengthened the final paragraph of the Introduction to explicitly state the research gap and this study's contribution:

"However, existing studies often lack an integrated analysis of the spatiotemporal evolution, multi-factor driving mechanisms, and regional economic effects of island tourism within a unified framework, particularly for Hainan as a tropical island case. This study aims to bridge this gap by constructing mathematical models of tourism intensity, efficiency, and abundance to systematically analyze the spatiotemporal patterns, driving forces, and economic impacts of tourism in Hainan from 2012 to 2022."

5.Discussion Section

Comment: The manuscript lacks a discussion of results in the context of existing literature. This comparison should be added to strengthen the Discussion section.

Response & Action Taken:

We have significantly expanded the Discussion section (now Section 4) to:

Interpret key findings (e.g., north-south dual-core structure, regional heterogeneity) in light of prior studies on island tourism, spatial economics, and regional development.

Compare our results with similar research in other island destinations (e.g., Southeast Asia) and mainland Chinese regions.

Discuss how our findings confirm, contradict, or extend existing theories (e.g., core-periphery model, spatial spillover effects).

6.Figures and Captions

Comment: Improve figure clarity and presentation. Figure 2 parts should be labeled a, b, c, not j, k, l. Captions should comply with journal formatting.

Response & Action Taken:

All figures have been reviewed for clarity. We have ensured high resolution and consistent color schemes.

Figure 2 labels have been changed from j, k, l to a, b, c.

All figure captions have been reformatted to meet journal standards, including descriptive titles and necessary notes (e.g., base map sources).

7.Abbreviations Section

Comment: The frequent use of abbreviations suggests the need for an Abbreviations section.

Response & Action Taken:

We have added a List of Abbreviations after the Abstract/Keywords, defining all key acronyms and symbols used in the paper (e.g., TIN, TEF, TAB, TRY, SDM, etc.).

8.Language and Proofreading

Comment: The manuscript requires careful proofreading to address formal and language issues, including special characters, parentheses, and capitalization. Correct the sentence “the 2012–2012 statistics…”.

Response & Action Taken:

We have conducted a thorough proofreading of the entire manuscript.

Grammatical errors, inconsistent capitalization, and punctuation issues have been corrected.

The erroneous sentence has been revised to: "…panel data for Hainan's cities and counties from 2012 to 2022…"

Summary of Major Revisions:

Abstract enhanced with data and timeframe details.

Manuscript structure reorganized into standard IMRaD format.

Referencing style changed to numerical and formatted per journal guidelines.

Research gap explicitly stated in the Introduction.

Discussion section expanded with literature comparison and contextual analysis.

Figures relabeled and captions reformatted.

Abbreviations list added for reader clarity.

Full proofreading completed to improve language and consistency.

We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript's clarity, academic rigor, and alignment with journal standards. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my comments from the review and incorporated the suggested changes into the manuscript, which has clearly improved its quality. I therefore accept the article in its current version.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback and for confirming the acceptance of the manuscript. We are very pleased to hear that the revisions have successfully addressed your comments and improved the paper.

We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to the review process. Your insightful suggestions were invaluable in strengthening our work.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have incorporated all the changes, and I appreciate the revised draft. I agree to accept the revised draft in its current form.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive decision and for confirming the acceptance of our revised manuscript. We are grateful for your guidance throughout the review process, which has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work.

We sincerely appreciate the time and expertise you dedicated to evaluating our paper.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have the impression that an incorrect version of the article may have been uploaded to the system. Although changes are marked in the manuscript, they are not consistent with the authors’ responses to my previous recommendations.

I therefore ask the authors to please check that the correct revised version has been uploaded. Once the appropriate version is available, I will be happy to review the article again.

At this stage, I am rating the manuscript as unacceptable.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments 4

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments on our manuscript titled “Analyzing the Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Driving Mechanisms of Island Tourism: A Case Study of Hainan Island, China”. We have carefully considered each point raised and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below is a detailed point-by-point response outlining the changes made.

1.Abstract: Data sources and time period

Comment: The abstract should specify what data were used, their sources, and the time period covered by the analysis.

Response and Action Taken:

We have revised the abstract to include explicit information on the data sources and time frame. The updated sentence reads:

“This study investigates pathways to enhance island tourism sustainability through the development of mathematical models quantifying tourism intensity, efficiency, and resource abundance, utilizing multi-source heterogeneous data (including statistical yearbooks, official government reports, and geospatial data from the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Chinese Academy of Sciences) on tourism resources in Hainan from 2012 to 2022.”

2.Manuscript structure: Reorganization into standard sections

Comment: It is recommended that the authors reorganize the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s standard structure (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion). In the current version, the main Section 3 is missing.

Response and Action Taken:

We have restructured the manuscript to align with the standard IMRaD format. The changes are as follows:

Section 2 remains as “Materials and Methods” (covering study area, data, and methodology).

Section 3 is now explicitly titled “Results” (formerly “Results Analysis”). It includes:

3.1 Spatiotemporal patterns of tourism (intensity, efficiency, abundance)

3.2 Overall spatiotemporal patterns of the tourism industry

Section 4 is renamed “Discussion” (formerly part of “Results Analysis” and “Multi-factor driving mechanisms…”). It now integrates:

Interpretation of results

Comparison with existing literature

Limitations and future research directions

Section 5 is now “Conclusion” (separated from the Discussion).

This restructuring ensures a logical flow and clear distinction between findings, interpretation, and conclusions.

3.Referencing style: In-text citations and reference list formatting

Comment: The current referencing style is inconsistent with the journal’s guidelines. In-text citations should be numerical and refer to corresponding entries in the reference list. The formatting of the reference list is also inconsistent.

Response and Action Taken:

We have reformatted all in-text citations to numerical style (e.g., [1], [2–4]) and renumbered the reference list accordingly. The reference list has been updated to comply with the journal’s formatting guidelines (e.g., correct use of italics for journal names, proper punctuation, and consistent author naming conventions). All citations in the text now correctly correspond to the numbered entries in the reference list.

4.Introduction: Clearer identification of the research gap

Comment: The Introduction would benefit from a clearer and more explicit identification of the research gap addressed by the study.

Response and Action Taken:

We have added a dedicated paragraph at the end of the Introduction to explicitly state the research gap:

“Despite growing interest in island tourism, few studies have systematically integrated spatial econometric modeling, geodetector analysis, and multi-indicator frameworks to unravel the spatiotemporal dynamics and economic effects of tourism in tropical island contexts. Specifically, there is a lack of comprehensive analysis that quantifies the synergistic effects of tourism intensity, efficiency, and abundance on regional economic development while accounting for spatial spillovers and regional heterogeneity. This study aims to fill this gap by providing a holistic, data-driven assessment of Hainan Island’s tourism evolution and its socioeconomic implications.”

5.Discussion: Comparison with existing literature

Comment: It is necessary to discuss the results in the context of existing literature. The current manuscript lacks such a comparison.

Response and Action Taken:

We have expanded the Discussion section (now Section 4) to explicitly compare our findings with prior studies. For example:

We compare our “north-south dual-core” pattern with findings from Gao et al. (2020) on island tourism efficiency.

We relate our spatial spillover results to those of Zhang et al. (2022) on Hainan’s tourism efficiency.

We discuss regional heterogeneity in economic effects in light of similar studies on coastal tourism regions in Southeast Asia [18, 19].

These additions strengthen the scholarly context and demonstrate how our work extends existing knowledge.

6.Figures: Clarity, labeling, and captions

Comment: Improve the figures in terms of clarity and presentation. Figure 2 should have parts labeled a, b, c rather than j, k, l. Figure captions should comply with the journal’s formatting conventions.

Response and Action Taken:

All figures have been re-exported in high resolution to improve clarity.

Figure 2 subfigures are now labeled (a), (b), (c) instead of j, k, l.

All figure captions have been revised to follow the journal’s naming conventions (e.g., “Figure 1. Spatial distribution of…”, “Figure 2. Classified distribution of…”).

A note on map sources has been retained for compliance.

7.Abbreviations section

Comment: The frequent use of abbreviations and symbols suggests the need for an Abbreviations section.

Response and Action Taken:

We have added an “Abbreviations” section after the Keywords. It includes:

TIN: Tourism Intensity

TEF: Tourism Efficiency

TAB: Tourism Abundance

TRY: Tourism Industry Index

SDM: Spatial Durbin Model

GDP, TGDP, FRGDP, SEGDP, THGDP

NOC, NOV, NTH, NSH, SAS, TGP, TOP

This enhances readability and accessibility for readers.

8.Proofreading: Language, special characters, and errors

Comment: The manuscript requires careful proofreading to address formal and language issues, including special characters, parentheses, and capitalization. The sentence “the 2012–2012 statistics…” should be corrected.

Response and Action Taken:

We have thoroughly proofread the manuscript to correct grammatical errors, inconsistent capitalization, and misplaced parentheses.

The erroneous sentence has been corrected to: “the 2012–2022 statistics of Hainan cities and counties…”

Special characters (e.g., in equations) have been checked for consistency and proper formatting.

9.Additional minor improvements

All tables have been reviewed for consistency in numbering, titles, and unit notation.

The “Results” section now focuses purely on findings, while interpretation has been moved to “Discussion.”

The “Conclusion” section has been streamlined to summarize key findings without repeating the discussion.

We believe that these revisions have substantially improved the manuscript’s clarity, structure, and scholarly rigor. We are grateful for the reviewers’ valuable feedback and hope that the revised version now meets the journal’s standards for publication.

Thank you for considering our work.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Also at this stage, an incorrect version of the article has been uploaded to the system. Although changes are marked in the manuscript, they are not consistent with the authors’ responses to my previous recommendations.

I therefore ask the authors to please check that the correct revised version has been uploaded. Once the appropriate version is available, I will be happy to review the article again.

At this stage, I am rating the manuscript as unacceptable.

 

Specifically, I do not see these changes from your response:

2) Manuscript structure: Reorganization into standard sections

Comment: It is recommended that the authors reorganize the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s standard structure (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion). In the current version, the main Section 3 is missing.

Response and Action Taken:

We have restructured the manuscript to align with the standard IMRaD format. The changes are as follows:

Section 2 remains as “Materials and Methods” (covering study area, data, and methodology).

Section 3 is now explicitly titled “Results” (formerly “Results Analysis”). It includes:

3.1 Spatiotemporal patterns of tourism (intensity, efficiency, abundance)

3.2 Overall spatiotemporal patterns of the tourism industry

Section 4 is renamed “Discussion” (formerly part of “Results Analysis” and “Multi-factor driving mechanisms…”). It now integrates:

Interpretation of results

Comparison with existing literature

Limitations and future research directions

Section 5 is now “Conclusion” (separated from the Discussion).

This restructuring ensures a logical flow and clear distinction between findings, interpretation, and conclusions.

4) Introduction: Clearer identification of the research gap

Comment: The Introduction would benefit from a clearer and more explicit identification of the research gap addressed by the study.

Response and Action Taken:

We have added a dedicated paragraph at the end of the Introduction to explicitly state the research gap:

“Despite growing interest in island tourism, few studies have systematically integrated spatial econometric modeling, geodetector analysis, and multi-indicator frameworks to unravel the spatiotemporal dynamics and economic effects of tourism in tropical island contexts. Specifically, there is a lack of comprehensive analysis that quantifies the synergistic effects of tourism intensity, efficiency, and abundance on regional economic development while accounting for spatial spillovers and regional heterogeneity. This study aims to fill this gap by providing a holistic, data-driven assessment of Hainan Island’s tourism evolution and its socioeconomic implications.”

5) Discussion: Comparison with existing literature

Comment: It is necessary to discuss the results in the context of existing literature. The current manuscript lacks such a comparison.

Response and Action Taken:

We have expanded the Discussion section (now Section 4) to explicitly compare our findings with prior studies. For example:

We compare our “north-south dual-core” pattern with findings from Gao et al. (2020) on island tourism efficiency.

We relate our spatial spillover results to those of Zhang et al. (2022) on Hainan’s tourism efficiency.

We discuss regional heterogeneity in economic effects in light of similar studies on coastal tourism regions in Southeast Asia [18, 19].

These additions strengthen the scholarly context and demonstrate how our work extends existing knowledge.

 

Please, do not use track changes. Instead, highlight any new or modified text using color (e.g., red) to indicate additions.

Author Response

Dear,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We sincerely apologize for the technical error that resulted in an incorrect version being uploaded to the system. We have now carefully verified and uploaded the correct revised manuscript that fully incorporates all changes responsive to your previous recommendations.

Regarding the specific points raised:

2) Manuscript structure: Reorganization into standard sections

We confirm that the manuscript has been completely restructured following the standard IMRaD format as detailed in our response. Section 2 remains "Materials and Methods," Section 3 is now explicitly titled "Results" with subsections 3.1 and 3.2 presenting spatiotemporal patterns, Section 4 is renamed "Discussion" integrating interpretation, literature comparison, and limitations, and Section 5 is now "Conclusion." These structural changes are clearly implemented in the uploaded version.

4) Introduction: Clearer identification of the research gap

The Introduction now contains a dedicated paragraph at its conclusion explicitly stating the research gap, as promised in our response: "Despite growing interest in island tourism, few studies have systematically integrated spatial econometric modeling, geodetector analysis, and multi-indicator frameworks to unravel the spatiotemporal dynamics and economic effects of tourism in tropical island contexts..."

5) Discussion: Comparison with existing literature

The Discussion section has been substantially expanded to include explicit comparisons with prior studies. Specifically, we compare our "north-south dual-core" pattern with Gao et al. (2020) [27], relate spatial spillover results to Zhang et al. (2022) [30], and discuss regional heterogeneity in light of Southeast Asian coastal tourism studies [18, 19]. These additions are clearly present in Section 4.

We have verified that all changes responsive to your recommendations are consistently implemented throughout the manuscript. The correct revised version is now uploaded. We appreciate your patience and look forward to your re-evaluation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf