Neighborhood Spatio-Temporal Impacts of SDG 8.9: The Case of Urban and Rural Exhibition-Driven Tourism by Multiple Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

Congratulations for your work! It is a complex paper, with  a main advantage in its methodology.

While your analysis and the results obtained are sound, I consider the paper has major issues in the way it is written, which may at some points diminish the value of the scientific contribution. Below there are several observations and suggestions for the improvement of the manuscript:

1. It is mandatory that you have your paper checked by a native English speaker. Reading the paper has been really difficult due to the style of writing and to incoherencies throughout the text. In many cases it was almost impossible to understand the meaning of the text because of how the ideas were expressed. Below I give you a series of examples of such situations, but I insist that the entire manuscript has to be checked for such issues:

a. Line 106 - it is unclear what the phrase ”Others studied rural tourism with a lifestyle, livelihood, and artistic career” implies. The phrase seems unfinished, incomplete.

b. Line 117 - do you mean Spain (the country) or Spanish (the language)??

c. Line 271 - what does ”tourist periodontal” mean?

d. Line 167 - unusual use of words ”Lee et al studied that tourism from...”

e. Line 142 - what do you mean by ”and the parts of the local economy”

f. lines 86-89 - the entire phrase is incoherent and difficult to follow (there are many other such cases in the manuscript)

g. Line 59 - very unclear what you mean by ”is a new attempt at the tourism industry”

h. All the expressions around the sustainable development goal with the number 8.9 are somehow unusual - For example Line 31 ”with the target 8.9 from SDGs” - maybe you should use something like ,,in relation to the 8.9 goal from the SDGs” or something similar, if this is the meaning. Also, Line 258 - ”with SDGs 8.9 were evaluated” - the expression seems unusual, unclear, incomplete

i. Lines 40-41 - the phrase starting from ”Economic....” is unclear - to what do you refer by ,,economic”, ”social” ? I think a subject is missing here.

2. In the Literature review the is too little critical appreciation of the literature - in many cases, you simply mention that a certain paper studied a particular topic, without making it clear how that paper contributed or what is most important about it. I think that for more papers you should better emphasize why you included that paper in your review. For example (but not only) the papers mentioned in lines 228-231 should be elaborated a little more, it is essential that for the case of these papers you indicate which are the results they obtained - and how will they be relevant to your study, since these paper refer to the same events that you study. At the end of the paper maybe you should come back to these results and discuss them in relation to your own results.

3. Line 233 - you say there are almost no such previous papers - since it is almost and not completely absent, you should mention which these papers are, as they should be highly relevant for your study.

4. Is there a relevant reason why there was such a long period without the ETAT event between 2012 and 2018? Maybe it should be discussed in the paper, if it has any implications for the study.

5. Line 242 - ”According to previous research” - you should cite this previous research

6. Line 239 - whose ”social roles” were examined? 

7. Section 2.2 - you mainly discuss about other studies on the topic, but in lines 108-110 you introduce some information about Japan that is not related to any particular empirical results and it is unconnected from the rest of the information in this section. You should pay more attention to how you structure the information.

8. You should better explain table 1 - it is difficult for the reader to understand exactly what data you refer to there. From this table and from the explanation before the table it is impossible to understand what YES, NO and BETWEENNESS mean. 

9. I think it could be useful if you would better emphasise why you chose to use so many different methods and how they complement each other. You could insist on this in the conclusions section. While all these methods bring an advantage to the paper and make it more valuable from a scientific point of view, I think you could justify more your choice of methods and why you considered it necessary to combine all of them - what does this combination of methods bring new?  

Minor writing mistakes: line 99, the word First is repeated, Line 84 - the brackets are not introduced appropriately.

Good luck with all your work! 

Author Response

Dear authors,

Congratulations for your work! It is a complex paper, with a main advantage in its methodology.

While your analysis and the results obtained are sound, I consider the paper has major issues in the way it is written, which may at some points diminish the value of the scientific contribution. Below there are several observations and suggestions for the improvement of the manuscript:

Dear Reviewer 3,

Hope all is well.

We are very grateful for your comments about the manuscript. According to your advice, we amended the relevant parts of the manuscript. All revisions to the manuscript have been revised in the manuscript. After these revisions (your professional and excellent comments), the quality of this article has been dramatically improved. Thank you very much again.

1. It is mandatory that you have your paper checked by a native English speaker. Reading the paper has been really difficult due to the style of writing and to incoherencies throughout the text. In many cases it was almost impossible to understand the meaning of the text because of how the ideas were expressed. Below I give you a series of examples of such situations, but I insist that the entire manuscript has to be checked for such issues:

1     Response:

We are very grateful for your comments about the language issue. Moreover, thank you for allowing us to improve our English. We have revised some issues of the style of writing before we resubmitted. Moreover, we will send it to be checked by a native English speaker before we submit the final manuscript.

1. Line 106 - it is unclear what the phrase ”Others studied rural tourism with a lifestyle, livelihood, and artistic career” implies. The phrase seems unfinished, incomplete.
2. a) Response:

Thank you very much for the comments about this issue. It enables us to disseminate our work at the highest possible quality. We revised it as follows:

On line 106: Recently, the leading arts festivals emerged as ‘bottom‐up’ and developed organically in urban and rural areas [20]. Therefore, some scholars studied the rural tourism through lifestyle, livelihood, and artistic career [21]. For example, Wise et al. [22] studied the local tourism economy with a sense of rural community, potential industry opportunities, and social impacts.

1. Line 117 - do you mean Spain (the country) or Spanish (the language)??

1. b) Response:

Thank you very much for the comments about this issue. And apologies for the mistake. We revised it on line 117:

“They evaluated the state of art exhibitions held in Spain.”.

1. Line 271 - what does ”tourist periodontal” mean?

1. c) Response:

Thank you very much for the comments about this issue. And apologies for the mistake. We revised it on line 271:

“The current study collected data on tourist numbers and its growth rate / tertiary industry/ per capita income.”.

1. Line 167 - unusual use of words ”Lee et al studied that tourism from...”

1. d) Response:

Thank you very much for the comments about this issue. And apologies for the mistake. We revised it on line 167:

“Lee and Kang [58] studied that tourism from tertiary industries improves the lower–income class more than the primary and secondary.”.

1. Line 142 - what do you mean by ”and the parts of the local economy”
2. e) Response:

Thank you very much for the comments about this issue. And apologies for the mistake. We revised it on line 142:

“Chhabra et al. [38] pointed out that festivals are usually a strategic choice for rural economic growth. Still, the economic impact of festivals depends on the characteristics of the festival, such as the number of days the festival is held and the parts of the local economy that are assembled (the different products from the rural areas can be sold during the festival).”.

1. lines 86-89 - the entire phrase is incoherent and difficult to follow (there are many other such cases in the manuscript)

1. f) Response:

Thank you very much for the comments about this issue with “incoherent and difficult to follow”. And apologies for the mistake. We revised it on line 86:

“The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) attached to sustainable tourism and its economic significance. The SDG has become the focus of researching the tourism contribution to the sustainability of the entire tourism industry [5][8].”.

And we also checked and revised the similar issues around the manuscript.

1. Line 59 - very unclear what you mean by ”is a new attempt at the tourism industry”

1. g) Response:

Thank you very much for the comments about this issue. And apologies for the “unclear”. We revised it on line 57:

“As an SDG response-study, the current paper using quantitative empirical analysis for the art events–driven tourism (unlike traditional conferences & exhibitions or festivals) is a new attempt for study in the tourism industry and sustainable cities.”.

8. All the expressions around the sustainable development goal with the number 8.9 are somehow unusual - For example Line 31 ”with the target 8.9 from SDGs” - maybe you should use something like ,,in relation to the 8.9 goal from the SDGs” or something similar, if this is the meaning. Also, Line 258 - ”with SDGs 8.9 were evaluated” - the expression seems unusual, unclear, incomplete

1. h) Response:

Thank you very much for the comments about this issue about the expressions. And apologies for the mistake.

We revised it on line 31:

“Art Event Tourism in local and neighborhood areas in relation to the 8.9 goal from the SDGs was evaluated.”.

On line 57:

“The positive impacts of urban and rural Art Event Tourism in local and neighborhood areas were evaluated for SDG 8.9 (Figure 1).”.

1. Lines 40-41 - the phrase starting from ”Economic....” is unclear - to what do you refer by ,,economic”, ”social” ? I think a subject is missing here.

1. i) Response:

Thank you very much for the comments about this issue of expressions. And apologies for the mistake.

We revised it on line 40:

“In previous studies, the different present situations in economic, policy, people, social culture, and environmental protection were the principal impact items of festivals [2][3].”.

2. In the Literature review the is too little critical appreciation of the literature - in many cases, you simply mention that a certain paper studied a particular topic, without making it clear how that paper contributed or what is most important about it. I think that for more papers you should better emphasize why you included that paper in your review. For example (but not only) the papers mentioned in lines 228-231 should be elaborated a little more, it is essential that for the case of these papers you indicate which are the results they obtained - and how will they be relevant to your study, since these paper refer to the same events that you study. At the end of the paper maybe you should come back to these results and discuss them in relation to your own results.

2     Response:

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript again. I greatly appreciate your contribution and time, which assisted the journal in reaching its goals and enabled us to disseminate our work at the highest possible quality. Your comment, “In the Literature review the is too little critical appreciation of the literature,” is an excellent suggestion that would help us greatly. You helped us discover some of the main issues in the literature review part of our manuscript. Without the dedication of Reviewers like you, it would be impossible to manage an efficient peer review process and maintain the high standards necessary for a successful journal.

We revised these issues.

One line 228:

“ETAT stemmed from the county–level incentive mechanism that encourages regions to overcome the socio–economic recession by relying on the particularity of their environment [10]. But there are almost no previous papers that studied the quantitative economic impact of ETAT. For example, Ahn [69] studied the ETAT's cultural and artistic impact on the hosting areas. In this exhibition, Klien [4] and Kitagawa [82,83] explored the correlations between art and nature. Favell and Boven et al. [84,85] studied abandoned schools and their reuse to promote sustainable goals in ETAT. These papers lacked some empirical data. And they only focused the descriptive statistics. After that, Cai et al. [10] showed that the ETAT positively impacted sustainable tourism in its hosting areas. This paper selected panel data for a new view to study the impacts of the ETAT. Therefore, finding the relationship using the quantitative analysis of ETAT is essential.”.

And at the end of the paper, we also come back to these results and discuss them in relation to our own results. We revised these issues on line 589:

“The current paper shows the positive impacts of exhibition-driven tourism from the quantitative analysis: (1) the rural arts events were mainly aimed at local and regional revitalization with developing economies, which can change the shrinkage of the population. (2) urban arts events have more power with changing population shrinkage. SDG 8.9 is also empirically confirmed in the results.

However, we all know that the reasons affecting the economy and population are very complex. Being some limitations of the current study, this paper only conducts empirical research on two art events with three aspects. The scope needs to be expanded for further investigation. Moreover, the same and different impacts of rural art events and urban Art Event Tourism will be an essential research direction in the future with sustainable development goals.”.

3. Line 233 - you say there are almost no such previous papers - since it is almost and not completely absent, you should mention which these papers are, as they should be highly relevant for your study.

3     Response:

Thank you very much for the comments about this issue in the literature. We revised these issues on line 233:

“ETAT stemmed from the county–level incentive mechanism that encourages regions to overcome the socio–economic recession by relying on the particularity of their environment [10]. But there are almost no previous papers that studied the quantitative economic impact of ETAT. For example, Ahn [69] studied the ETAT's cultural and artistic impact on the hosting areas. In this exhibition, Klien [4] and Kitagawa [82,83] explored the correlations between art and nature. Favell and Boven et al. [84,85] studied abandoned schools and their reuse to promote sustainable goals in ETAT. These papers lacked some empirical data. And they only focused the descriptive statistics. After that, Cai et al. [10] showed that the ETAT positively impacted sustainable tourism in its hosting areas. This paper selected panel data for a new view to study the impacts of the ETAT. Therefore, finding the relationship using the quantitative analysis of ETAT is essential.”.

4. Is there a relevant reason why there was such a long period without the ETAT event between 2012 and 2018? Maybe it should be discussed in the paper, if it has any implications for the study.

4     Response:

Thank you very much for the comments about this issue.

Rural Art Event Tourism: Echigo–Tsumari Art Triennale (ETAT) is hosted in Tokamachi (No.5) & Tsunan (No.4) in 2000/ 2003/ 2005/ 2009/ 2012/ 2018.

The panel data was selected from the statistical yearbook and county survey of Niigata (1997–2019): (1) tourist number and its growth rate, (2) total income/tertiary industry income/ per capita income and their growth rate, and (3) total population/ labor population/ household number and their growth rate. The panel data (1997-2019) of tourists, income, and population in Niigata was evaluated by multiple empirical methods with descriptive correlation statistics (simple linear regression (SLR) and one-way ANOVA) and spatial analysis (Moran’s I). The positive impacts of urban and rural Art Event Tourism in local and neighborhood areas were evaluated for SDG 8.9.

5. Line 242 - ”According to previous research” - you should cite this previous research

5     Response:

Thank you very much for the comments about this issue. We revised these issues on line 247:

“According to previous research [10], exhibitions are rarely used as social forces to comprehensively evaluate and demonstrate their role in the exhibition–driven tourism.”.

6. Line 239 - whose ”social roles” were examined?

6     Response:

Thank you very much for the comments about this issue. We revised these issues on line 244:

“Koizumi [86] examined the "social roles" of WLNAF in a shrinking society with a decreasing population, in the hosting areas.”.

7. Section 2.2 - you mainly discuss about other studies on the topic, but in lines 108-110 you introduce some information about Japan that is not related to any particular empirical results and it is unconnected from the rest of the information in this section. You should pay more attention to how you structure the information.

7     Response:

Thank you very much for the comments about this issue in section 2.2. And apologies for the mistake. I greatly appreciate your contribution and time, which assisted the journal in reaching its goals and enabled us to disseminate our work at the highest possible quality.

We revised it on line 99:

“First, events depend on positive perceptions of the destination and tourism products [17], including the art Triennale and festival. Events tourism may be associated with the specific spatial resources with attracting and planning related to natural and other tourist mental values [18]. The first article, specifically about event tourism in JTR, was published by J.R.B. Ritchie and Beliveau in 1974 [18]. Kersulić et al. [19] reviewed the strategic planning sustainability elements from the broader sport-tourism events. Recently, the leading arts festivals emerged as ‘bottom‐up’ and developed organically in urban and rural areas [20]. Therefore, some scholars studied the rural tourism through lifestyle, livelihood, and artistic careers [21]. For example, Wise et al. [22] studied the local tourism economy with a sense of rural community, potential industry opportunities, and social impacts.”.

8. You should better explain table 1 - it is difficult for the reader to understand exactly what data you refer to there. From this table and from the explanation before the table it is impossible to understand what YES, NO and BETWEENNESS mean.

8     Response:

Thank you very much for the comments. This excellent suggestion helped us a lot. You helped us discover some of the main issues in the table part of our manuscript. Your comments also helped us improve the quality of the manuscript.

We revised these issues on line 274:

“(1) categorical data included the year before the hosting of the exhibition (hereafter NO); for example, the years before 2000 were shown as NO; (2) the hosting year of the ETAT (hereafter Y1); for example, the years 2000/ 2003/ 2006 were shown as YES; (3) the years between the hosting of the ETAT (hereafter B1); for example, the years 2001/ 2002/ 2004/ 2005/ 2007/ 2008 were shown as B1; (4) categorical data included the hosting year of the ETAT & WLNAF (hereafter Y2); the years 2009/ 2012/ 2015/ 2018 were shown as Y2; (5) the years between the hosting of the ETAT & WLNAF (hereafter B2); or example, the years 2010/ 2011/ 2013/ 2014/ 2016/ 2017were shown as B2.”.

9. I think it could be useful if you would better emphasise why you chose to use so many different methods and how they complement each other. You could insist on this in the conclusions section. While all these methods bring an advantage to the paper and make it more valuable from a scientific point of view, I think you could justify more your choice of methods and why you considered it necessary to combine all of them - what does this combination of methods bring new?

Minor writing mistakes: line 99, the word First is repeated, Line 84 - the brackets are not introduced appropriately.

9     Response:

Thank you very much for the comments. This excellent suggestion helped us a lot. You helped us discover some of the main issues in the methods part of our manuscript. Your comments also helped us improve the quality of the manuscript.

We revised these issues on line 253 (4. Methods):

“The panel data was selected from the statistical yearbook and county survey of Nii-gata (1997–2019): (1) tourist number and its growth rate, (2) total income/tertiary industry income/ per capita income and their growth rate, and (3) total population/ labor population/ household number and their growth rate. The panel data (1997-2019) of tourists, income, and population in Niigata was evaluated by multiple empirical methods with descriptive correlation statistics (simple linear regression (SLR) and one-way ANOVA) and spatial analysis (Moran's I). The positive impacts of urban and rural Art Event Tourism in local and neighborhood areas were evaluated for SDG 8.9 (Figure 1). The panel data is complex that needs a multiple methods analysis than others. Therefore, the current paper selected descriptive statistics, simple linear regression (SLR), one–way ANOVA analysis, and Moran's I. Simple linear regression (SLR) and one–way ANOVA analysis were used for the time series data from panel data. Moran's I was used for the spatial sequence data.”.

We revised these issues on line 590 (6. Discussion and Conclusion):

“Third, from the results of both tourists, economics, and population by SLR, ANOVA, and spatial Moran's I, hosting rural and urban art events positively impacts local and neighborhood areas. It shows that the holding of the exhibition has positively affected the increase in the local population's income. This meets and achieves the goal of "promoting local by sustainable tourism" in SDGs. Moreover, the panel data is studied with a multiple-methods analysis. It brings an advantage to the paper and makes it more valuable from a scientific point of view from spatio-temporal impacts.”.

Thank you very much for the comments about the details of our manuscript. We revised these issues on line 84:

After destinations such as Venice (e.g., as one of the exhibition–driven tourism: Venice Biennale) produced a series of adverse reactions to tourism growth, concerns about the contribution of tourism to sustainable development have also become issues of local scale (e.g., World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) ).

On line 99: First, events depend on positive perceptions of the destination and tourism products [17], including the art Triennale and festival.

Good luck with all your work!

Thank you for reviewing the above-referenced manuscript again. I greatly appreciate your contribution and time, which not only assisted the journal in reaching its goals, but also enables us to disseminate our work at the highest possible quality. Without the dedication of Reviewers like you, it would be impossible to manage an efficient peer review process and maintain the high standards necessary for a successful journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author(s),
Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper entitled Neighborhood Spatio-Temporal Impacts of SDGs 8: The Case of Urban and Rural Exhibition-driven Tourism by Multiple Methods in Japan.

I found this paper interesting. The topic of this paper is interesting but some improvements would be appreciated.

Introduction

Comment 1

What is the main goal of the paper?

Conclusion

Comment 2

The conclusion section needs to be improved. Focus on showing the originality of your work. Novelty? What are theoretical contributions? Management implications?  What are the limitations? These segments are missing.

Once again thank you very much for the opportunity to read this interesting article. The manuscript has really nice results, but improvements would be appreciated.

Wish you all the best!

Sincerely,

Reviewer 

Author Response

Dear Author(s),
Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper entitled Neighborhood Spatio-Temporal Impacts of SDGs 8: The Case of Urban and Rural Exhibition-driven Tourism by Multiple Methods in Japan.

I found this paper interesting. The topic of this paper is interesting but some improvements would be appreciated.

Dear Reviewer 2,

Hope all is well.

We are very grateful for your comments about the manuscript. According to your advice, we amended the relevant parts of the manuscript. All revisions to the manuscript have been revised in the manuscript. After these revisions (your professional and excellent comments), the quality of this article has been dramatically improved. Thank you very much again.

Introduction

Comment 1

What is the main goal of the paper?

Response 1:

Thank you very much for the comments. This sound and excellent suggestion helped us a lot. You helped us discover some of the main issues in the introduction part of our manuscript. Your comments also helped us improve the quality of the manuscript. This paper attempts to evaluate the effects of urban and rural art event tourism in local and neighborhood areas from SDG 8 in Niigata, Japan. Echigo-Tsumari Art Triennale and Water & Land Niigata Art Festival were chosen to be the case study. The panel data (1997-2019) of tourists, income, and population in Niigata was evaluated by multiple empirical methods with descriptive correlation statistics (simple linear regression (SLR) and one-way ANOVA) and spatial analysis (Moran’s I). Through the multiple methods analysis, the positive impacts of urban and rural Art event tourism in local and neighborhood areas in relation to the 8.9 goal from the SDGs was evaluated.

Conclusion

Comment 2

The conclusion section needs to be improved. Focus on showing the originality of your work. Novelty? What are theoretical contributions? Management implications?  What are the limitations? These segments are missing.

Response 2:

We are very grateful for your comments about the issue in the conclusion section. Moreover, thank you for allowing us to improve our work. We revised the problem of this part as follows:

6.1. Implications for Theory

First, an event may significantly increase local economic activity. Still, the net impact within the neighboring areas and cities may be more significant than the local (hosting areas) impact (e.g., the big/national effect often exceeds the small/state effect); And the impact on the local /hosting areas even maybe negative [46][47]. It shows that after the drive of rural and urban art events (ETAT+WLNAF) tourism over these years, the surrounding neighborhood areas have also demonstrated solid economic development powers. It may be a good positive change in the future. It shows that hosting urban art events (WLNAF) tourism has a more substantial positive spatial impact on both local/hosting areas and its neighborhood areas than rural art events (ETAT) tourism. Moreover, it shows that before or after the drive of rural and urban art events (ETAT+WLNAF) tourism over these years, the attractiveness of urban to populations is still more potent than that of rural areas.

Second, the results with economic in spatial Moran's I show that after the drive of rural and urban art events (ETAT+WLNAF) tourism over these years, the surrounding neighborhood areas have also demonstrated solid economic development powers. It may be a good positive change in the future. The results with the population in spatial Moran's I show that hosting urban art events (WLNAF) tourism has a more substantial positive spatial impact on both local/hosting areas and its neighborhood areas than the rural art events (ETAT) tourism. Moreover, it shows that before or after the drive of rural and urban art events (ETAT+WLNAF) tourism over these years, the attractiveness of urban to populations is still more potent than that of rural areas.

Third, from the results of both tourists, economics, and population by SLR, ANOVA, and spatial Moran's I, hosting rural and urban art events positively impacts local and neighborhood areas. It shows that the holding of the exhibition has positively affected the increase in the local population's income. This meets and achieves the goal of "promoting local by sustainable tourism" in SDGs. Moreover, the panel data is studied with a multiple-methods analysis. It brings an advantage to the paper and makes it more valuable from a scientific point of view from spatio-temporal impacts.

6.2. Implications for Practitioners and Policy Makers

The current paper shows the positive impacts of exhibition-driven tourism from the quantitative analysis: (1) the rural arts events were mainly aimed at local and regional revitalization with developing economies, which can change the shrinkage of the population. (2) urban arts events have more power with changing population shrinkage. SDG 8.9 is also empirically confirmed in the results. The changes in the world have exceeded our expectations. Therefore, a new evaluation for exhibition-driven tourism needs to be established. Although this process may be controversial, this study has taken a step to try to fill the gaps in the spatiotemporal impacts of the exhibition-driven tourism industry. The findings in this article will help to guide operators/practitioners in the tourism industry to get market research support for improvement measures as soon as possible. At the same time, it also has a policy support role for the government or non-governmental policy makers in the tourism industry.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

However, we all know that the reasons affecting the economy and population are very complex. Being some limitations of the current study, this paper only conducts empirical research on two art events with three aspects. The scope needs to be expanded for further investigation. Moreover, the same and different impacts of rural art events and urban art event tourism will be an essential research direction in the future with sustainable development goals.

Once again thank you very much for the opportunity to read this interesting article. The manuscript has really nice results, but improvements would be appreciated.

Wish you all the best!

Sincerely,

Reviewer 

Thank you for reviewing the above-referenced manuscript again. I greatly appreciate your contribution and time, which not only assisted the journal in reaching its goals, but also enables us to disseminate our work at the highest possible quality. Without the dedication of Reviewers like you, it would be impossible to manage an efficient peer review process and maintain the high standards necessary for a successful journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank all the authors for their nice work. The followings are the few points to further improve the paper.  

1) In the introduction section, the gap (neither contextual nor theoretical gap) of the study was not discussed. For any empirical study, it is crucial to discuss the research gap(s) which demonstrate the importance of the study. Thus authors are requested to address the research gap in detail. Although, the authors have provided little information related to the gap at the end of the literature. 

2) Also, authors are requested to add significance to this research at the end of the introduction part because it will enhance the importance of the study.

3) In line number 99 the word "first" has been used twice. 

4) The methods and the findings were presented very well. 

5) Please add the theoretical contribution in the discussion and conclusion section of this study, though the practical contributions were provided. 

Best wishes. 

Author Response

I would like to thank all the authors for their nice work. The followings are the few points to further improve the paper.  

Dear Reviewer 3,

Hope all is well.

We are very grateful for your comments about the manuscript. According to your advice, we amended the relevant parts of the manuscript. All revisions to the manuscript have been revised in the manuscript. After these revisions (your professional and excellent comments), the quality of this article has been dramatically improved. Thank you very much again.

• In the introduction section, the gap (neither contextual nor theoretical gap) of the study was not discussed. For any empirical study, it is crucial to discuss the research gap(s) which demonstrate the importance of the study. Thus authors are requested to address the research gap in detail. Although, the authors have provided little information related to the gap at the end of the literature. 

Response 1:

Thank you very much for the comments. This sound and excellent suggestion helped us a lot. You helped us discover some of the main issues in the introduction part of our manuscript. Your comments also helped us improve the quality of the manuscript.

We revised it on line 36-73:

The rural arts events (Triennale/festivals) were mainly aimed at local and regional revitalization, hoping to develop the economy and change the shrinkage of population and aging population. Moreover, urban arts events (Triennale/festivals) mainly aim at cultural development and revitalization [1]. In previous studies, the different present situations in economic, policy, people, social culture, and environmental protection were the principal impact items of festivals [2][3]. Meanwhile, sustainable development has become tourism policymakers' and researchers' main focus [4]. Sustainable development, combined with mainstreaming tourism, economic, and social responsibility, has been made one of the main headings of the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) target [5]. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an urgent call for action by all countries. No. 8.9 is “By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products”. Therefore, this paper attempts to evaluate the effects of urban and rural Art Event Tourism in local and neighborhood areas from SDG 8.9.

As an SDG response-study, the current paper using quantitative empirical analysis for the art events–driven tourism (unlike traditional conferences & exhibitions or festivals) is a new attempt for study in the tourism industry and sustainable cities. After the economic recession in the 1990s, more than 120 art exhibitions aimed at revitalizing these areas through art and local resources (attracting tourists) began appearing throughout the Japanese territory. Niigata is one of Japan's earliest and most important art exhibitions hosting regions [10]. And Niigata is the only prefecture in Japan where two art events, including rural and urban, are held simultaneously in its areas. Thus, Echigo–Tsumari Art Triennale (ETAT)( in Tokamachi and Tsunan) and Water&Land Niigata Art Festival (WLNAF) in Niigata city ), were selected for the empirical evaluation. The concept of a Triennale means that exhibitions are hosted once three years [11]. Figure 1 shows the structure of the current paper. Through the multiple methods analysis, the positive impacts of urban and rural Art Event Tourism in local and neighborhood areas from SDG 8 were evaluated. Although this process may be controversial, a new evaluation for exhibition-driven tourism needs to be established. The current paper attempts to take a step to try to fill the gaps in the spatiotemporal impacts of the exhibition-driven tourism industry.

• Also, authors are requested to add significance to this research at the end of the introduction part because it will enhance the importance of the study.

Response 2:

We are very grateful for your comments about the issue in the introduction part. Moreover, thank you for allowing us to improve our work. We revised it on line 56:

As an SDG response-study, the current paper using quantitative empirical analysis for the art events–driven tourism (unlike traditional conferences & exhibitions or festivals) is a new attempt for study in the tourism industry and sustainable cities. After the economic recession in the 1990s, more than 120 art exhibitions aimed at revitalizing these areas through art and local resources (attracting tourists) began appearing throughout the Japanese territory. Niigata is one of Japan's earliest and most important art exhibitions hosting regions [10]. And Niigata is the only prefecture in Japan where two art events, including rural and urban, are held simultaneously in its areas. Thus, Echigo–Tsumari Art Triennale (ETAT)( in Tokamachi and Tsunan) and Water&Land Niigata Art Festival (WLNAF) in Niigata city ), were selected for the empirical evaluation. The concept of a Triennale means that exhibitions are hosted once three years [11]. Figure 1 shows the structure of the current paper. Through the multiple methods analysis, the positive impacts of urban and rural Art Event Tourism in local and neighborhood areas from SDG 8 were evaluated. Although this process may be controversial, a new evaluation for exhibition-driven tourism needs to be established. The current paper attempts to take a step to try to fill the gaps in the spatiotemporal impacts of the exhibition-driven tourism industry.

• In line number 99 the word "first" has been used twice. 

Response 3:

Thank you very much for the comments about the details of our manuscript. We revised this issue on line 99:

First, events depend on positive perceptions of the destination and tourism products [17], including the art Triennale and festival.

4) The methods and the findings were presented very well. 

Response 4:

We are very grateful for your comments

5) Please add the theoretical contribution in the discussion and conclusion section of this study, though the practical contributions were provided. 

Response 5:

Thank you very much for the comments. This sound and excellent suggestion helped us a lot. You helped us discover some of the main issues in the discussion and conclusion section of our manuscript. Your comments also helped us improve the quality of the manuscript. We revised this issue on line 570-598:

6.1. Implications for Theory

First, an event may significantly increase local economic activity. Still, the net impact within the neighboring areas and cities may be more significant than the local (hosting areas) impact (e.g., the big/national effect often exceeds the small/state effect); And the impact on the local /hosting areas even maybe negative [46][47]. It shows that after the drive of rural and urban art events (ETAT+WLNAF) tourism over these years, the surrounding neighborhood areas have also demonstrated solid economic development powers. It may be a good positive change in the future. It shows that hosting urban art events (WLNAF) tourism has a more substantial positive spatial impact on both local/hosting areas and its neighborhood areas than rural art events (ETAT) tourism. Moreover, it shows that before or after the drive of rural and urban art events (ETAT+WLNAF) tourism over these years, the attractiveness of urban to populations is still more potent than that of rural areas.

Second, the results with economic in spatial Moran's I show that after the drive of rural and urban art events (ETAT+WLNAF) tourism over these years, the surrounding neighborhood areas have also demonstrated solid economic development powers. It may be a good positive change in the future. The results with the population in spatial Moran's I show that hosting urban art events (WLNAF) tourism has a more substantial positive spatial impact on both local/hosting areas and its neighborhood areas than the rural art events (ETAT) tourism. Moreover, it shows that before or after the drive of rural and urban art events (ETAT+WLNAF) tourism over these years, the attractiveness of urban to populations is still more potent than that of rural areas.

Third, from the results of both tourists, economics, and population by SLR, ANOVA, and spatial Moran's I, hosting rural and urban art events positively impacts local and neighborhood areas. It shows that the holding of the exhibition has positively affected the increase in the local population's income. This meets and achieves the goal of "promoting local by sustainable tourism" in SDGs. Moreover, the panel data is studied with a multiple-methods analysis. It brings an advantage to the paper and makes it more valuable from a scientific point of view from spatio-temporal impacts.

Best wishes. 

Thank you for reviewing the above-referenced manuscript again. I greatly appreciate your contribution and time, which not only assisted the journal in reaching its goals, but also enables us to disseminate our work at the highest possible quality. Without the dedication of Reviewers like you, it would be impossible to manage an efficient peer review process and maintain the high standards necessary for a successful journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

I appreciate that overall, you considered the suggestions and corrections that had to be made. Still, as it has also been mentioned by yourself, the text needs the intervention of a native English speaker, which will definitely improve the paper, respectively the quality of presentation. Apart from this intervention that still has to be done, I consider your paper is suitable for being published in this journal.

Best regards

Author Response

Please provide a point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments and either enter it in the box below or upload it as a Word/PDF file. Please write down "Please see the attachment." in the box if you only upload an attachment. 

Response:
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript again. I greatly appreciate your contribution and time, which assisted the journal in reaching its goals and enabled us to disseminate our work at the highest possible quality. Your comment is an excellent suggestion that would help us greatly. You helped us discover some of the leading English issues in our manuscript. Without the dedication of Reviewers like you, it would be impossible to manage an efficient peer review process and maintain the high standards necessary for a successful journal. 

We revised the English through the MDPI English servers:

"English-edited-59158"

Hope all is well.
And HAPPY CHINESE NEW YEAR!