Sustainability Assessment of Geotourism Consumption Based on Energy–Water–Waste–Economic Nexus: Evidence from Zhangye Danxia National Geopark
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLines 29-30: consider avoiding the overlapping of keywords with the title to expand the search.
Lines 78-82: "The research on the relationships between energy, water, waste, and the economy are an important tool for analyzing the coordinated development of economic systems and ecosystems, so as its impacts, and has become a focus of attention for many countries and 80 scholars. The relationship between energy, water, waste, and the economy significantly impacts the coordinated development of economic systems and ecosystems"
Line 97: Owen (2018)
Line 99: Becken and Susanne (2017)
Line 102: Xiong (2022)
Line 107: Shi (2013)
Line 109: Becken (2002)
Line 112: Wan (2010)
Lines 121-122: "...with relatively fewer studies focusing on geoparks or geoheritage tourism destination" - In fact, there has been a lot of research focusing on different aspects related to geotourism and geoparks, probably not so directed to the core problem addressed here…
Line 148: consider creating a single title dedicated for the study area (Zhangye Danxia National Geopark), since it should not be integrated under the title “Methods”
Line 169: “2. Methods” and “2.2. Methods” it os a repetition
Line 177: "September 30 to October 30, 2018" - data that was collected at about 6 years
Line 182: [40]
Line 196: about Tobit model, consider, at least, support the elected model, firstly mentioned by Arthur Goldberger (also named “Tobit Regression Model” or “Censored Regression Model”), with a reference, like: Tobin, J. (1958). Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. “Econometrica”, 26: 24-36.
Line 206: about the Pearson correlation coefficient, consider, at least, support it with a reference:Pearson, K. (1907). Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. XVI. On further methods of determining correlation. “Drapers' Company Research Memoirs” (Biometric Series 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (visit: https://www.quantresearch.org/1894_Pearson_Transactions_Royal_Society.pdf) OR Rupinski, M.T. & Dunlap, W.P (1996). Approximating Pearson Product-Moment Correlations from Kendall's Tau and Spearman's Rho. “Educational and Psychological Measurement”, 56 (3): 419-429.
Line 258: characteristics
Lines 270 and 273: GST-EWWE (without the previous "t")
Line 294: "...discharge, and the perception..."
Line 321: enter space after the table
Line 335: enter space after the table
Line 373: enter space after the table
Line 404: when referring to Figure 6, probably author want to mean Figure 5
Line 429: enter space after the table
Line 446: table should appear in the same page
Line 448: enter space after the table
Line 581: reference incomplete
Line 582: Gössling - reference incomplete
Line 583: Gössling
Line 605: reference incomplete
Line 589-590: reference incomplete
Line 591-592: reference incomplete
Line 599-600: reference incomplete
Lines 610-611: reference incomplete
Line 619: reference incomplete
Line 625: reference incomplete
Line 626-627: reference incomplete
Line 630: reference incomplete
Line 631-632: reference in caps lock and incomplete
Line 641: reference incomplete
Line 643-644: reference incomplete
Line 645: reference incomplete
The main question addressed
Better sustainable practices among geotourists/geovisitors according to UN Sustainable Development Goals to reduce energy and water consumption and waste production in geoparks, in this case, the Zhangye Danxia National Geopark.
Original parts
Trying to establish the relation between visiting and the environmental impacts of the visit.
The gap addressed
It focuses upon bad practices with huge environmental impacts, moreover in places extremely and naturally related with the environments, such as geoparks.
What does it add
It pinpoints some crucial elements to understand how to generate and plan better future policies for geopaks management, especially by knowing some consumer behavior, which can, in turn, be changed by educational and proactive campaigns of sensibilization.
Further improvements
It seems obvious that the data collected has long time been recorded (about 6 years). Many things change, and perhaps some improvements/changes could have been made. Yet, it is presented a coherent quantitative analysis of the recorded anwers/data.
Main questions addressed
Starting questions:
1. What are the consumer characteristics of geoheritage tourism sustainability based on energy-water-waste-economic nexus?
The distribution takes on a pyramid form, with a greater number of low-score distributions at the bottom and fewer high-score distributions at the top. Among tourists with high scores GST-EWWE, the elderly, children, and high-income tourists are notable groups, while among tourists with low and ultra-low scores, middle school students and female tourists are prominent groups.
Aceptable
2. What are the driving factors of geoheritage tourism sustainability under different consumption?
The tourists' stay duration in geopark, energy consumption, and tourism expenditure.
Tourism patterns, the impact of the tourism ecological environment, and green tourism perception have a relatively pronounced influence on GST-EWWE at different consumption levels. The indicators that are significant for GST-EWWE with different consumption levels are the duration of stay and energy consumption within the park. As the tourism consumption level rises, the marginal effect of energy consumption and the duration of stay in the park on GST-EWWE decreases. Moreover, tourists' travel mode and the consumers awareness of ecological environment action will contribute more on GST-EWWE.
Aceptable
3. How the geoheritage tourism can achieve sustainability?
This research provide a reference for sustainability assessment on geoheritage, by starting from the consumption behaviors of tourists under the framework of EWWE, which reveals more completely the interaction intensity between the economic system and the ecosystem of geoheritage tourism supply and demand.
Could be improved (the explanation)
About the references
Should be reviewed, since there are (a lot) of lack of information when listing them.
About the graphic part (figures, tables, and graphs)
- There is no call in the text for Figure 1
- Figure 1 has no mention about the used sources
- some tables are divided between pages, making it difficult to read
- some spaces after the tables missing, with the text glued after some of those elements
- Mentioned in the text Figure 6 (line 404), which does not exist; I suppose it should be replaced by Figure 5 (line 462)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear all,
1. The supplementary materials could not be accessed.
2. Regarding the bibliography, it does not fully meet the journal's requirements and is not uniform.
2. The citations from the specialized literature related to geoheritage and geoparks are not sufficient and up-to-date.
3. Why is the term geoheritage tourism used instead of geotourism?
4. In lines 78-82, a sentence is repeated in its entirety.
5. Lines 91-93 seem to be taken out of context.
6. The purpose of the work can be expressed more clearly.
7. What does landscape shapes mean?
8. The first and second maps are not clear enough. The first map is illegible and does not have a scale.
9. I believe that the subchapter Study area should be expanded to include all the geoheritage elements present here.
10. In section 2.2, the sample structure (age, gender, motivation, occupation, income, etc.) should be added.
11. Lines 181-193 need to be explained in detail. The same observation for 195-205.
12. In Table 4, the summed percentages do not add up to 100%.
13. The statistical analysis is very well done.
14. At line 504, the transition from China to Egypt is too abrupt.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
