Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-constructed and meets high academic standards. The selection of recent and relevant literature is appropriate and demonstrates a strong understanding of the field. The results are presented clearly, with data and findings explained in a transparent and logical way. The authors explicitly discuss the study’s limitations and suggest directions for future research. Notably, the use of a long time series (2013–2023) is a significant strength, allowing for robust analysis of trends and resilience mechanisms.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

Many thanks for your insights and constructive comments. We hope the revisions we made have improved the paper and that we are able to address your concerns. The changes are highlighted in red in the manuscript file. Thank you!

Thank you for your support and encouragement.

Comments 1: The authors explicitly discuss the study’s limitations and suggest directions for future research. Notably, the use of a long time series (2013–2023) is a significant strength, allowing for robust analysis of trends and resilience mechanisms.

Reply 1: This asymmetric analysis primarily focuses on the post-pandemic period; hence, 2022 was selected as the focal year. This aspect has also been addressed in the limitations section of the paper, with plans for subsequent analysis using longer time series to compare pre- and post-pandemic periods.

Page 22, 737-738 lines

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The topic is timely and relevant (tourism resilience in the context of recent shocks), and it is important that it analyses a long temporal window (2013–2023). I also appreciate the combination of methods (MCDA + fsQCA), which captures both levels and the asymmetric “mechanisms” of TER; the “dual-core / periphery” result is clear and coherent in the narrative. I appreciate that the “Limitations and suggestions” section acknowledges limits regarding the definition of TER, spatial coverage, and post-crisis dynamics.

The contribution of this paper is promising, and the empirical narrative is interesting, but methodological clarifications, editorial corrections, and robustness analyses are required for the conclusions to be fully supported and replicable.

- There are inconsistencies in the description of the aggregation method (entropy + weighted sum vs TOPSIS): in 2.3.2 the authors explicitly describe a weighted sum based on entropy-derived weights (“weighted summation”). (r. 206–211), whereas in 3.1 they state that they calculated the “degree of closeness to the optimal solution”, which is typical of TOPSIS. (r. 252–255), but in 3.3 they state directly “entropy-weighted TOPSIS” for subsystems. (r. 334–337) therefore I recommend unification: either TOPSIS for everything (with steps/equations), or the weighted sum; otherwise, the results are difficult to reproduce.
- In Table 1, the criterion layer appears as “Resilience” (not “Resistance”) – a terminological inconsistency. (in the Table 1 block, r. 203–204 and following)

-The numbering “Table 2” is used first for “TER Levels 2013–2023”. (r. 287–288) and again for “Necessity Analysis”.

- The numbering “Table 4” is used both for high-level TER and for low-level TER. (r. 453; r. 488)
- For the fsQCA reporting I noted a lack of elements for replication: complete truth tables are not provided,, PRI consistency, and sensitivity to thresholds (freq.=1, cons.=0.8) are not provided. (thresholds mentioned at r. 235–239), I believe you should include supplementary materials (truth table, PRI, detailed XY plots).

 

Author Response

Commets1:There are inconsistencies in the description of the aggregation method (entropy + weighted sum vs TOPSIS): in 2.3.2 the authors explicitly describe a weighted sum based on entropy-derived weights (“weighted summation”). (r. 206–211), whereas in 3.1 they state that they calculated the “degree of closeness to the optimal solution”, which is typical of TOPSIS. (r. 252–255), but in 3.3 they state directly “entropy-weighted TOPSIS” for subsystems. (r. 334–337) therefore I recommend unification: either TOPSIS for everything (with steps/equations), or the weighted sum; otherwise, the results are difficult to reproduce.

Response 1:Your suggestions are highly valued. All relevant terms have been unified under the term "entropy-weighted method".

Commets2: In Table 1, the criterion layer appears as “Resilience” (not “Resistance”) a terminological inconsistency. (in the Table 1 block, r. 203–204 and following)

 

Response2:Thank you for your valuable suggestions.

The term has been corrected to "Resistance"

Page 6, 228 lines

 

Commets3:The numbering “Table 2” is used first for “TER Levels 2013–2023”. (r. 287–288) and again for “Necessity Analysis”.

 

Response3:Thank you for your valuable suggestions.

The order of all figures and tables has been thoroughly rechecked.

Page 6, 228 lines

 

Comments4:The numbering “Table 4” is used both for high-level TER and for low-level TER. (r. 453; r. 488)

 

Response4:Thank you for your valuable suggestions.

The order of all figures and tables has been thoroughly rechecked.

Page 15, 499 lines

 

Comments5:For the fsQCA reporting I noted a lack of elements for replication: complete truth tables are not provided,, PRI consistency, and sensitivity to thresholds (freq.=1, cons.=0.8) are not provided. (thresholds mentioned at r. 235–239), I believe you should include supplementary materials (truth table, PRI, detailed XY plots).

 

Response5:Your suggestions are highly valued.

Content on data calibration, truth tables, and XY plots has been added. Tables 3, 4 and Figures 7, 8 have been incorporated into the main text.

 

Page 12-13, 419-442 lines

Page 16, 515-519 lines

Page 18, 582-583 lines

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity of reading and reviewing your interesting manuscript.

The paper addresses the need to enhance tourism ecological resilience (TER) amid disruptions like pandemics and natural disasters. It develops an evaluation index based on resistance, recovery, and innovation, applying entropy weight-TOPSIS and fsQCA methods to analyze TER in the Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Circle (2013–2023).

Findings reveal an overall upward trend but significant regional disparities, with Chongqing and Chengdu leading while others lag. The pandemic intensified subsystem imbalances, showing core-periphery differentiation. High resilience correlates with strong technology and service sectors, supported by transportation and consumption, whereas low resilience results from systemic weaknesses. Finally, the authors offers policy insights for regional tourism resilience.

Here are my comments and suggestions for improvement:

1.the first section named Introduction is more than an introduction. It provides also literature and short theoretical foundations for the research. You can enhance this part with literature or simply rename this section.

2.section 2.1 Study area does not belong to a Methods section. You should consider reorganizing the Introduction and Study area.

3.the methodology is correct and the results are reliable. This part is very good and provides valuable insights.

4.section 4.3 Limitations and suggestions seems to be more likely included in the final Conclusions section, which should be renamed accordingly.

All in all, I appreciate your paper and the interesting and relevant research.

Good luck!

Author Response

Comments1: the first section named Introduction is more than an introduction. It provides also literature and short theoretical foundations for the research. You can enhance this part with literature or simply rename this section.

 

Response1:Your suggestions are highly valued.

Additional theoretical explanations have been incorporated.

Page 12-13, 419-442 lines

 

Comments 2:section 2.1 Study area does not belong to a Methods section. You should consider reorganizing the Introduction and Study area.

 

Response 2 :Thank you for your valuable suggestions.

The Methods section has been restructured: Section 2 is now titled "Study Area and Data," and Section 3 has been renamed "Methodology".

Page 12-13, 419-442 lines

 

Comments 3:the methodology is correct and the results are reliable. This part is very good and provides valuable insights.

 

Response3: Thank you for your support and encouragement.

 

Comments 4:section 4.3 Limitations and suggestions seems to be more likely included in the final Conclusions section, which should be renamed accordingly.

 

Response4: Thank you for your valuable suggestions.

 

The structure of the Conclusion has been adjusted: Subsection "Limitations and Suggestions" has been renumbered as Section 6.2

Page 22, 724-740 lines

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf