Can Low-Carbon Tourism Awareness Promote Rural and Ecological Development, Create Safe Leisure Spaces, and Increase Public Happiness? A Discussion from the Perspective of Different Stakeholders

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article entitled

 Under the risk of a high pollution environment, can low-carbon tourism awareness advocacy help to build a safe leisure environment in the catchment area, promote the sustainable development of villages and natural ecology, and increase happiness!?

approaches an interesting topical issue but displays important problems that recommends its rejection from publication and that I resume below:

-          Both English writing and editing of the abstract and article have gaps. Syntax but also the way of expressing ideas prevent  the good understanding of the paper.

-          The abstract needs to be rewritten as it should introduce the topic, the study’s aim, its objectives/hypotheses and then succintly describe the method and its results.

-          Impersonal character should be favored in scientific papers instead of personal character (e.g.  We have asked local citizens in Erhai, China, for the study. We analyzed the influence of low carbon tourism awareness, attitude, and the development of catchment villages for these particular zones). Such phrases appear also in the article body.

-          The introduction and literature review should focus more on terms that are used by the authors as key words/concepts in order to formulate their hypothesis. (e.g. tourism attitude, tourism behavior…..economic, social, ecologic development induced by tourism…).

Moreover both sides of the problem should be revealed as tourism is bringing also positive effects if sustainable goals are achieved. Not only negative and / or regional aspects should be underlined as China could offer maybe a different example of tourism management in Lake areas than other regions. Results of other similar studies in China (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.01.010) or elsewhere should be known for the authors and presenting this aspect only as a limitation or future research objective in order to validate present results is not convincing.

On short, phrases are too general and deeper awareness of the problem and of its nuances further hypothesized by authors should be proved.

-          The research hypotheses are not clear. They partially overlap and can induce confusions through their formulation (what is the difference between attitude in H2 and behavior in H3; H6 and H7 partially overlap as village environmental development refers to H4, H5 and H7 – maybe H6 could be eliminated as it refers to all the others ?). At the same time their formulation doesn’t seem to problematize anything (e.g. we assumed that local citizens have various viewpoints on low-carbon tourism awareness[H1], attitude[H2], and behavior [H3] ) – of course they are different / various…). Further on in the article the formulation of hypotheses is changed (e.g. Hypothesis 1. It is assumed that people's low-carbon tourism awareness is inconsistent with the high environmental risk of pollution) – and not enough explained…what inconsistent means…inconsistent with what or with  whom ?

-         Autocitations and excessive citations of the authors  of the article should be eliminated as sometimes the cited articles are too broadly connected to the topic (e.g. [11] JH Yu, HH Lin, YC Lo, CH Hsu, Y Liang, Z An. Is the travel bubble under COVID-19 a feasible idea or not? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 2021, 18(11), 5717. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115717; [29] Jo-Hung Yu, Hsiao-Hsien Lin, Jen-Min Huang, Chien-Hung Wu, and Kuan-Chieh Tseng. (2020). Under Industry 4.0, the current status of development and trend sports industry combining with cloud technology. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 1-16. DOI: 10.1155/2020/3805373 ). The literature review should in exchange be completed with studies on lake environment development or underdevelopment under tourism influence. Studies concerning the same region in China were also not cited by the authors https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101081

-         The main problem of the article is however the inconsistency between literature review , aimed methods and results. The survey focused on inhabitants but its first part involves rather questions that should be better addressed to tourists.

-          Inconsistencies and contradictions appear also at sample level between the size declared in the abstract ( e.g. we have obtained 700 valid questionnaires) and the one described in the methods  (e.g. A total of 1,000 people participated in the study, and after excluding inappropriate samples, 828 valid questionnaires were obtained). This questions the credibility of research and a simple correction of 700 in 828 or of 828 in 700 is not convincing.

-          In the light of the above comments, the results and discussions of this paper are also not convincing

All the above recommend the rejection of this paper from publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Under the risk of a high pollution environment, can low-carbon tourism awareness advocacy help to build a safe leisure environment in the catchment area, promote the sustainable development of villages and natural ecology, and increase happiness!?

approaches an interesting topical issue but displays important problems that recommends its rejection from publication and that I resume below:

Thank you for your recognition.

 

Both English writing and editing of the abstract and article have gaps. Syntax but also the way of expressing ideas prevent  the good understanding of the paper.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have corrected and adjusted all the abstracts.

 

Both English writing and editing of the abstract and article have gaps. Syntax but also the way of expressing ideas prevent  the good understanding of the paper.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have corrected and adjusted all the abstracts.

 

The abstract needs to be rewritten as it should introduce the topic, the study’s aim, its objectives/hypotheses and then succintly describe the method and its results.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have corrected and adjusted all the abstracts.

 

The introduction and literature review should focus more on terms that are used by the authors as key words/concepts in order to formulate their hypothesis. (e.g. tourism attitude, tourism behavior…..economic, social, ecologic development induced by tourism…).

Thanks for your suggestion, I have corrected and adjusted all the abstracts.

 

Moreover both sides of the problem should be revealed as tourism is bringing also positive effects if sustainable goals are achieved. Not only negative and / or regional aspects should be underlined as China could offer maybe a different example of tourism management in Lake areas than other regions. Results of other similar studies in China (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.01.010) or elsewhere should be known for the authors and presenting this aspect only as a limitation or future research objective in order to validate present results is not convincing.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have corrected and adjusted all the abstracts.

 

On short, phrases are too general and deeper awareness of the problem and of its nuances further hypothesized by authors should be proved.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have corrected and adjusted all the abstracts.

 

The research hypotheses are not clear. They partially overlap and can induce confusions through their formulation (what is the difference between attitude in H2 and behavior in H3; H6 and H7 partially overlap as village environmental development refers to H4, H5 and H7 – maybe H6 could be eliminated as it refers to all the others ?). At the same time their formulation doesn’t seem to problematize anything (e.g. we assumed that local citizens have various viewpoints on low-carbon tourism awareness[H1], attitude[H2], and behavior [H3] ) – of course they are different / various…). Further on in the article the formulation of hypotheses is changed (e.g. Hypothesis 1. It is assumed that people's low-carbon tourism awareness is inconsistent with the high environmental risk of pollution) – and not enough explained…what inconsistent means…inconsistent with what or with  whom ?

Thanks for the suggestion, I've rewritten the hypothetical instructions in their entirety.

 

Autocitations and excessive citations of the authors  of the article should be eliminated as sometimes the cited articles are too broadly connected to the topic (e.g. [11] JH Yu, HH Lin, YC Lo, CH Hsu, Y Liang, Z An. Is the travel bubble under COVID-19 a feasible idea or not? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 2021, 18(11), 5717. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115717; [29] Jo-Hung Yu, Hsiao-Hsien Lin, Jen-Min Huang, Chien-Hung Wu, and Kuan-Chieh Tseng. (2020). Under Industry 4.0, the current status of development and trend sports industry combining with cloud technology. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 1-16. DOI: 10.1155/2020/3805373 ). The literature review should in exchange be completed with studies on lake environment development or underdevelopment under tourism influence. Studies concerning the same region in China were also not cited by the authors https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101081

Thanks to the suggestion, we have added "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101081 to this document.”

 

The main problem of the article is however the inconsistency between literature review , aimed methods and results. The survey focused on inhabitants but its first part involves rather questions that should be better addressed to tourists.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have re-edited and rewritten the full text.

 

Inconsistencies and contradictions appear also at sample level between the size declared in the abstract ( e.g. we have obtained 700 valid questionnaires) and the one described in the methods  (e.g. A total of 1,000 people participated in the study, and after excluding inappropriate samples, 828 valid questionnaires were obtained). This questions the credibility of research and a simple correction of 700 in 828 or of 828 in 700 is not convincing.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have corrected the description of the number of questionnaires.

 

In the light of the above comments, the results and discussions of this paper are also not convincing

Thanks for your suggestion, I have re-edited and rewritten the full text.

 

Finally, we sincerely thank you for presenting the revised manuscript in blue and red based on your suggestion. We believe that the manuscript will be improved with your suggestions, and we look forward to your approval of the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

you prepared a very valuable contribution that fits well to the scope of journal Water. The research aim and goal outlined well and the research design feasible. Your work falls to the social geoscience category with very strong relevance to the water management and conservation aspects of geosicences.

While I am very supportive to have such report published your work currently requires significant revision. I have provided an annotated PDF file where you can see my comments, and here I just give a condensed summary of the main issues I identified.

Overall the text is fine, but in many places uses expressions and sentence structures that made the manuscript a hard read. This is unfortunately even more valid to those section where clarity really important. I marked those parts in my reviewed file.

I think the manuscript would benefit hugely if a native speaker would read it through. The manuscript uses extensively "we" that is fine but if too much is used the text will be more like a common conversation than a scientific report. I would recommend to check this issue.

The title is really long, hence make it half would be desirable.

The Abstract suffers a lot by using too much "we". In addition the Abstract reads more like a methodology. Put more facts as results in the abstract and not just outline of the way the research was conducted.

The Introduction provides good background and outline of the problem however uses many terms that are not introduced properly. There is a dedicated Literature Review that I think forms a vital part of the research and probably should go after the Method section.

The Method section needs significant uplift. Each of the terms need proper explanation and introduction. There are key terms like village economy that has not been properly introduced hence the reader has no chance to really understand the way this terms been used. A little global outlook would also be desirable to apply to have your work more ready to be compared with other similar studies elsewhere.

The data presenting section is fine but most of the tables need proper table caption and a bit more explanation as well as editing work.

The discussion points are interesting but none of them really explored the breadth of the problem.

The conclusion is very short and based on general statement and not well linked to the data presented in this work.

The paper lack of a nice map that shows the area the watershed, the protected areas and the villages studied. A map must be provided to a study like this. I could also imagine some photo table as well as the reader really would like to see the catchment area and the specific sites you refer to in the manuscript.

Overall I think the manuscript needs major revision and also a proper English editing prior it can be consider for publication.

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

you prepared a very valuable contribution that fits well to the scope of journal Water. The research aim and goal outlined well and the research design feasible. Your work falls to the social geoscience category with very strong relevance to the water management and conservation aspects of geosicences.

Thanks for your recognition.

 

While I am very supportive to have such report published your work currently requires significant revision. I have provided an annotated PDF file where you can see my comments, and here I just give a condensed summary of the main issues I identified.

Thank you for your suggestion.

 

Overall the text is fine, but in many places uses expressions and sentence structures that made the manuscript a hard read. This is unfortunately even more valid to those section where clarity really important. I marked those parts in my reviewed file.

 

I think the manuscript would benefit hugely if a native speaker would read it through. The manuscript uses extensively "we" that is fine but if too much is used the text will be more like a common conversation than a scientific report. I would recommend to check this issue.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have re-edited and rewritten the full text.

 

The title is really long, hence make it half would be desirable.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have renamed the title.

 

The Abstract suffers a lot by using too much "we". In addition the Abstract reads more like a methodology. Put more facts as results in the abstract and not just outline of the way the research was conducted.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have revised and rewritten the abstract.

 

The Introduction provides good background and outline of the problem however uses many terms that are not introduced properly. There is a dedicated Literature Review that I think forms a vital part of the research and probably should go after the Method section.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have revised and rewritten the introduction.

 

The Method section needs significant uplift. Each of the terms need proper explanation and introduction. There are key terms like village economy that has not been properly introduced hence the reader has no chance to really understand the way this terms been used. A little global outlook would also be desirable to apply to have your work more ready to be compared with other similar studies elsewhere.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have strengthened the methodological discourse.

 

The data presenting section is fine but most of the tables need proper table caption and a bit more explanation as well as editing work.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have adjusted the description of the table in full.

 

The discussion points are interesting but none of them really explored the breadth of the problem.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have sharpened and focused the discussion.

 

The conclusion is very short and based on general statement and not well linked to the data presented in this work.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have refocused and rephrased the conclusion.

 

The paper lack of a nice map that shows the area the watershed, the protected areas and the villages studied. A map must be provided to a study like this. I could also imagine some photo table as well as the reader really would like to see the catchment area and the specific sites you refer to in the manuscript.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have added pictures of the study site.

 

Overall I think the manuscript needs major revision and also a proper English editing prior it can be consider for publication.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have re-corrected and rewritten the full text, and asked professionals to assist in English correction.

 

Finally, we sincerely thank you for presenting the revised manuscript in blue and red based on your suggestion. We believe that the manuscript will be improved with your suggestions, and we look forward to your approval of the revised manuscript.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is very well written and coherent, presenting a new approach regarding low-carbon tourism awareness. I believe that the material does not require many changes to be suitable for publication. If I were to look at the material from a critical point of view, it would be much easier to read if the following two problems were fixed:

1. The title of the article is too long and difficult for the reader to follow. This should be much more descriptive.

2. The literature review part is best moved in the introductory chapter. In this way it is much easier to follow and interpret by the reader.

The article is innovative and interesting, that's why I propose to publish it.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The article is very well written and coherent, presenting a new approach regarding low-carbon tourism awareness. I believe that the material does not require many changes to be suitable for publication. If I were to look at the material from a critical point of view, it would be much easier to read if the following two problems were fixed:

Thank you for your suggestion.

1. The title of the article is too long and difficult for the reader to follow. This should be much more descriptive.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have corrected the title again.

2. The literature review part is best moved in the introductory chapter. In this way it is much easier to follow and interpret by the reader.

Thank you for your suggestion, although your suggestion is to adjust the literature discussion, but after consideration, here I am strengthening the source of my argument, so I strengthen the argument of the introduction, and also keep the description of the literature discussion. Hope you can agree.

 

The article is innovative and interesting, that's why I propose to publish it.

Thanks for your suggestion and approval.

 

Finally, we sincerely thank you for presenting the revised manuscript in blue and red based on your suggestion. We believe that the manuscript will be improved with your suggestions, and we look forward to your approval of the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article entitled

 Can low-carbon tourism awareness promote village and ecological development, create a safe leisure space, and increase happiness??

represents an improved version of the previous paper entitled

 Under the risk of a high pollution environment, can low-carbon tourism awareness advocacy help to build a safe leisure environment in the catchment area, promote the sustainable development of villages and natural ecology, and increase happiness!?

The changes that were made are still not enough to consider the article proper for being published in Water journal. As I carefully read the new version of the paper I would resume below my comments and recommendations:

-          It is still not very clear whom is the paper focusing and why according to literature review and newly formulated study’s hypotheses. For whom  low-carbon tourism awareness is analysed and why. The term people is too general and the article is not very clear to whom the ‘differences ‘ in the hypotheses refer to.

-          For me the article should be very clear in motivating to whom the questions in the survey are addressed as obviously residents and tourists have different opinions and attitudes on the matter. The paper should also specify if the questions in the survey were the same for residents and tourists or if not .The terms participants and people are really vague and too general in describing the sample as in table 2 we have clear 2 groups of respondents tourists and residents.

-          Consequently a series of questions the authors should have better explained in the text  arise such as:

o   Is the sample balanced between the  groups of respondents and how ?

o   Which is the rationale of having them as respondents mixed together in the same sample ?

o   Are the terms “significant difference in people's awareness” in the hypotheses regarding the difference in the point of view between two groups of respondents ? (It is purely a deduction I made. For me it is not clear to what and whom the word difference refers to.) And if so what is the point in underlining these differences ? How the differences contribute to increase happiness ?

-          Besides better expressing the purpose of the study, its sampling and hypotheses the present article also misses some context explanations and concrete data or estimations.  Who is polluting the lake area and who is using it for leisure purposes and to what extent ? Are important tourists flows in the region ? and if so is there any seasonality or they are constant all the year round ? Are locals also using the area for leisure purposes ? Are tourists or rather locals the most important users of leisure resources or both.

-          In relation to the title it is also not clear if low-carbon tourism happiness concerns locals or rather tourists or both and to whose happiness increase the low-carbon awareness is supposed to contribute

-          English language and terminology should also be revised as already recommended.

All the above comments and questions are destined to further improve and clarify the issue for possible readers scholars and professionals and they demand further consistent clarifications, motivations and addings that the authors should carefully consider for the text.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

It is still not very clear whom is the paper focusing and why according to literature review and newly formulated study’s hypotheses. For whom  low-carbon tourism awareness is analysed and why. The term people is too general and the article is not very clear to whom the ‘differences ‘ in the hypotheses refer to.

Thanks for your suggestion, we have added a paragraph on the object and reason of low-carbon tourism awareness in the introduction. As in lines 76-79.

Regarding the description of the research subjects, we use "public" instead of "people".

For me the article should be very clear in motivating to whom the questions in the survey are addressed as obviously residents and tourists have different opinions and attitudes on the matter. The paper should also specify if the questions in the survey were the same for residents and tourists or if not .The terms participants and people are really vague and too general in describing the sample as in table 2 we have clear 2 groups of respondents tourists and residents.

Thanks for your suggestion, we've added a narrative on why Residents and Tourists are used. Such as lines 110-114.

 

Consequently a series of questions the authors should have better explained in the text  arise such as:

Is the sample balanced between the  groups of respondents and how ?

Thanks for your suggestion, we have added a literature on sample size requirements, and sample size balance. Such as lines 278-279.

 

Which is the rationale of having them as respondents mixed together in the same sample ?

Thanks for your suggestion, we have added a literature on sample size requirements, and sample size balance. Such as lines 278-279.

 

Are the terms “significant difference in people's awareness” in the hypotheses regarding the difference in the point of view between two groups of respondents ? (It is purely a deduction I made. For me it is not clear to what and whom the word difference refers to.) And if so what is the point in underlining these differences ? How the differences contribute to increase happiness ?

Thanks for the suggestion, our response to this question is:

The original intention was to use the total number of all samples for evaluation, and to understand the so-called public views and feelings on this issue regardless of their status (residents, tourists).

Then we will discuss this issue based on the background of different stakeholders.

So we describe it in public adjectives (originally people).

However, about your reminder and advice again. Therefore, we directly changed the manuscript to "different stakeholders", hoping to gain your approval.

 

Besides better expressing the purpose of the study, its sampling and hypotheses the present article also misses some context explanations and concrete data or estimations.  Who is polluting the lake area and who is using it for leisure purposes and to what extent ? Are important tourists flows in the region ? and if so is there any seasonality or they are constant all the year round ? Are locals also using the area for leisure purposes ? Are tourists or rather locals the most important users of leisure resources or both.

Thank you for your suggestion.

We added a narrative about the dependence of residents and tourists on local resources. Lines 79-82.

And also raised questions about the local pollution situation, the number of tourists and so on. Lines 90-93.

 

In relation to the title it is also not clear if low-carbon tourism happiness concerns locals or rather tourists or both and to whose happiness increase the low-carbon awareness is supposed to contribute

Thanks for the suggestion, we changed the title to "Discuss from the perspective of different stakeholders: Can low-carbon tourism awareness promote rural and ecological development, create a safe leisure space, and increase public happiness ?"

 

English language and terminology should also be revised as already recommended.

Thanks for the suggestion, we will work on the English language and terminology again.

 

All the above comments and questions are destined to further improve and clarify the issue for possible readers scholars and professionals and they demand further consistent clarifications, motivations and addings that the authors should carefully consider for the text.

Finally, we once again thank you for your suggestions and generous use of your time to assist in the completion of this manuscript.

We have completed the editing of this manuscript based on your suggestion. We believe that this manuscript will present a clearer and more complete report. Thanks again for your dedication and assistance.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Many thanks for revising your manuscript and taking care all the suggested points in the first Review round. You made a substantial work to comply with the reviewers' suggestions and the manuscript quality increased dramatically. I have checked the newly added sections that are far better written now than in the original version. It seems all the small issues also been tidy up and the manuscript now reached the level to be accepted. I have no further questions hence I recommend the manuscript to be accepted as it is.

Kind regards,

Author Response

Finally, we thank you again for your suggestions and for your generous use of your time to assist with the completion of this manuscript.
Based on your suggestion, we have completed the editing of this manuscript.
We also ask professionals to assist in English correction again. We believe this manuscript will present a clearer and more complete report. Thanks again for your dedication and help.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors brought clarifications even if not substantial about the recquired issues.

I consider that the article could be possible published after checking English spelling errors and an English proofreading.

I highly recommend to revise spelling errors (e.g. missing letters in the title; missing letters in references for instance on reference title number 34)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We are happy to receive your suggestion.
We have edited and edited the manuscript based on your English suggestions. Then ask a professional English language agency to assist with language correction again.
Manuscript title, reference number 34 misspelled. We have re-enhanced the syntax in the table and revised references 35-36.
Corrections in English are marked in red and blue fonts.
We believe that the text and English grammar of this manuscript have been greatly improved upon your suggestion.
We want our efforts to be recognized.
Thank you again for your willingness to participate in this review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf