The Impacts of Tourism Development on Urban–Rural Integration: An Empirical Study Undertaken in the Yangtze River Delta Region
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article uses panel data from 41 cities in the Yangtze River Delta Region from 2010 to 2020. It applies a panel regression model to study the impact of tourism development on urban-rural integration and analyzes the threshold effect of economic level. Based on this, the heterogeneous impacts of tourism development on urban-rural integration at different times and city scales are studied, and robustness tests are conducted, which has practical significance.
Specific suggestions for modification:
1. In the second sentence of the abstract (Lines 11-12), “This harmonious alignment of tourist development and urban-rural integration also helps to promote tourism”, where “tourist development” promotes “tourism”. It is illogical.
2. The introduction mentions (Lines 33-34) that “The direct contribution of China's tourism industry to the GDP in 2019 was 11.0%”. The data from 2019 is somewhat outdated, are there any more updated data available?
3. This article takes the developed region of the Yangtze River Delta as the research area for studying the impact of tourism development on urban-rural integration, providing a reference for related research in developed regions. Are there any references to the impact of tourism development on urban-rural integration in less developed areas such as the central or western regions? Or can these regions currently achieve the level of impact on urban-rural integration through tourism development?
4. Formula (1) has the intercept term α0, the estimated coefficient for tourist development α1, and the control variable coefficient α. However, in the introduction to the formula later on (Line 211-212), it is said that the intercept term is β0, the estimated coefficient for tourist development is β1, and the control variable coefficient is θ.
5. The discussion below formula (2) (Lines 221) only mentions that PGDP is the threshold variable, but does not explain what this variable specifically refers to. This should be explained to clarify the meaning of the threshold variable.
6. The description of the dependent variables in Lines 224-229 is rather simplistic and lacks discussion. The selection criteria, measurement standards, and basis for selecting weights should be appropriately supplemented.
7. Regarding the selection of specific variables in Table 1, in terms of the social dimension, educational level and medical level were selected for index construction, and the number of full-time teachers per 100 primary and secondary school students and number of beds per capita in clinical and fitness establishments were selected for measurement. How does this selection reflect urban-rural integration? In addition, in terms of spatial dimension, accessibility of transportation and information were selected for index construction, and the proportion of road mileage to land area and the number of internet broadband access users per 10,000 population were selected for measurement. How does this selection reflect urban-rural integration? Also, in terms of economic dimension, income indicators were used, and the ratio of per capita disposable income of urban residents to per capita disposable profits of rural residents was further used for measurement. Can the income of urban residents and the profits of rural residents be directly compared? Also, two units of (%) appeared later on.
8. In Lines 232-238, the selection of the core independent variable uses the proportion of total tourism revenue to GDP for measurement. Is there any basis for this? In the robustness test process, the ratio of tourist population to total population was further used for measurement. Is there any basis for this?
9. In Lines 246-252, the source of data should be explained for each variable specifically.
10. The fourth variable in Table 2 and Table 3 is lneinve, why does it become lnfund in Table 3? The variables in Table 4 should be lnopen and lneinve, not the current lnope and lninv. Also, do you need to conduct a unit root test for the threshold variable lnpgdp?
11. The titles of Table 4 and Table 5 are the same? Also, “lninve” is mistakenly written as “lninv” in Table 5.
12. Remove the full stop at the end of line 429.
13. In Line 458, it is mentioned that GMM was used for robustness test, and a brief explanation should be given for why GMM was chosen for robustness test. In addition, Line 466 states that the GMM results are presented in (2), but Table 11 is labeled as (3).
14. In Lines 476-477, “The tourism industry is undergoing a transformation from a resource-centric approach to one that emphasizes coordinated and integrated development”, there should be references to relevant literature.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is interesting.
The literature review presents recent studies.
The methods are relevant.
The analysis and discussion are good and the results are based on them.
The results prove what the literature review also indicates, that tourist development can affect the relationship between urban and rural regions.
Conclusion is consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and addresses the main question posed.
References are appropriate
The tables and figures present the research results
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The topic is very attractive and interesting to read—all praise for the concept and use of modern literature and methodology.
The part from L 171 to 184, as well as from 187 to 204, must be supported with detailed literary sources.
Part 3.3. Data Sources, You must list all statistical yearbooks in detail in the references because they are the basis of the data you processed.
L 252 full stop
L 501-514 substantiate with sources.
Good Luck
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
Since tourism is not my field of expertise, I could only suggest corrections as objective reader.
Line 82: "Urban areas tend to benefit more from tourism development due to their superior infrastructure and greater visibility",
"On the one hand, tourism industry has the potential to boost economic growth, generate employment opportunities, enhance urban landscapes and urban renewal efforts, foster cultural exchanges, and promote the sustainable growth of cities",
"On the other hand, tourism can help to balance regional economic imbalances by optimizing resource allocation, adjusting industrial structure, and promoting investments"
If you could, please support this sentences with citations. This way it sound as personal opinion and such should be written in latter sections.
Line 517: "We found that tourism development have positive effects on URI in the YRDR.", should be 'We've found ...'
Line 537: 'shopping, and entertainment,' you have comma ',' before "
It should be:
... shopping, and entertainment",
Keep up good work
Regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The line mentioned by authors currently does not match the actual line where the content is located. Please provide the revised version of the manuscript using MS Track Changes. This will allow us to conveniently review your revisions.
2.Can the income of urban residents and the profits of rural residents be directly compared? One is “income”, the other is “profits”? I have check Zhang’s article (2023) and could not locate any indicators regarding the income of urban residents and the profits of rural residents.
3.In Response 8, authors explain “we have provided a thorough explanation regarding our choice of using the proportion of total tourism revenue to GDP as the main independent variable and the ratio of tourist population to total population for conducting robustness tests (Lines 244-247 and Lines 467-470)”. However, there is no relevant explanation in the original text.
4. The data source section of the report is too vague. The source of data should be explained for each variable specifically.
5. Formula (2) in line 212 contains two θm.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
