Uncovering Impacts of Tourism on Social–Ecological Vulnerability Using Geospatial Analysis and Big Earth Data: A Karst Ethnic Village Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI carefully reviewed this article. The manuscript discusses the impact of tourism development on the social-ecological system vulnerability of ethnic villages in karst areas taking Leishan County in southwest China as an example. The authors reveal the mechanism of the impact of tourism development on social vulnerability and ecological vulnerability through geospatial analysis and big data analysis. The article is structurally complete, but needs to be revised before publication. My specific comments are as follows:
1. The first paragraph mentions that “the negative impact of human activities on rural Social-Ecological Systems (SES) is becoming increasingly significant. The first paragraph mentions “the negative impact of human activities on rural Social-Ecological Systems (SES) is becoming increasingly significant”, but does not elaborate on the specific types of these human activities. Such as overexploitation, inappropriate land use, etc. to enhance the persuasive power.
2.The introduction introduces the background of the vulnerability of social-ecological systems (SES) in karst areas. The dual challenges of ecological vulnerability and social vulnerability should be illustrated, as well as the progress of research on land use and SES. The following references are suggested to enhance the synthesis. - Multi-Scenario Simulation of Land Use Change and Ecosystem Service Value Based on the Markov-FLUS Model in Ezhou City, China; Integrating seasonal climate variability and spatial accessibility in ecosystem service value assessment for optimized NbS allocation. Integrating seasonal climate variability and spatial accessibility in ecosystem service value assessment for optimized NbS allocation; Evaluating wetland ecosystem services value and dominant functions: Insights from the Pearl River Delta
3. “3.2. EV Index and Its Spatial Distribution” mentions the spatial distribution characteristics of the EV Index, but does not analyze in detail the relationship between these characteristics and tourism development. It is suggested to explain how tourism development affects the spatial distribution of EV.
4. In the section “3.3. Independent effects of factors on vulnerability”, Tables 6 and 7 list the factors affecting SV and EV and their q-values, but do not explain in detail the specific mechanisms of these factors. It should be explained how each factor affects SV and EV, and how these factors interact with each other.
5. In the section “3.4. Effect of factor interactions on vulnerability”, the effect of factor interactions on vulnerability is mentioned, but the specific types and significance of these interactions are not explained in detail. The specific meaning of different types of interactions (e.g., two-factor enhancement, nonlinear enhancement) and their effects on vulnerability should be described.
6. In the section “4.1 Mechanism of Action”, the impact of tourism development on SV is mentioned, but the specific pathways of this impact are not described in detail. It is suggested to explain how tourism development affects SV through different pathways (e.g. infrastructure development, increased tourism activities).
7. In the section “4.2. Policy Recommendations”, a number of policy recommendations are made, but the difficulties and possible challenges in implementing these recommendations are not detailed. Possible problems and solutions to implement these recommendations should be analyzed.
Author Response
We extend our heartfelt thanks for the meticulous and professional review of our manuscript. Your insights and constructive feedback are greatly valued and have significantly contributed to the enhancement of our work.
In response to the comments and suggestions provided, we have undertaken a revision of our initial manuscript. Each point raised in the review has been carefully considered and addressed through a series of targeted amendments. To ensure clarity and transparency, we have included a detailed point-by-point response in our revision letter, which outlines the nature of the revisions and the rationale behind them.
To facilitate a seamless review process, we have utilized the track changes feature in the Word document to clearly indicate the revisions made. This approach allows the editorial team and reviewers to easily identify and assess the changes, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of how the manuscript has been improved.
Thank you for your patience and understanding throughout. Your support means a great deal to us.We appreciate your time and consideration and look forward to your feedback on our revised manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbstract – what is the explanation of poverty in the region?
How / why the mechanisms influencing social-ecological systems remain unclear?
There is a high discrepancy between north and south, would the landscape be a good explaining factor?
What do the prominent community conflicts refer to?
Rows 57-62…provide some examples for the risks, critical factors, environmental destruction, not necessarily in the text.
Please define ethnic villages, I should have started from this.
How does soil sand content influence tourism and community welfare?
Please define how karst geology is the primary disturbance of the local ecosystem? From my point of view, well, that is the ecosystem, and karst areas are nice and interesting, and can contribute to a better development of tourism.
Most important question….what statistics brings more compared to a classical approach (field studies, etc.). I have a question….show this material to a inhabitant of those villages, are the authors sure that they will understand it?
Solutions for the problems, beside indices???
Simply put, an exaggerated reference list, with many titles not fitting the subject approached.
Author Response
We extend our heartfelt thanks for the meticulous and professional review of our manuscript. Your insights and constructive feedback are greatly valued and have significantly contributed to the enhancement of our work.
In response to the comments and suggestions provided, we have undertaken a revision of our initial manuscript. Each point raised in the review has been carefully considered and addressed through a series of targeted amendments. To ensure clarity and transparency, we have included a detailed point-by-point response in our revision letter, which outlines the nature of the revisions and the rationale behind them.
To facilitate a seamless review process, we have utilized the track changes feature in the Word document to clearly indicate the revisions made. This approach allows the editorial team and reviewers to easily identify and assess the changes, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of how the manuscript has been improved.
Thank you for your patience and understanding throughout. Your support means a great deal to us.We appreciate your time and consideration and look forward to your feedback on our revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle:
Uncovering Impacts of Tourism on Social-Ecological Vulnerability Using Geospatial Analysis and Big Earth Data: A Karst Ethnic Village Perspective
Objective:
(1) Integrate tourism factors of karst ethnic villages (KEV) into vulnerability assessment by establishing a comprehensive indicator system, utilizing this as an exposure indicator to gauge its direct impact on the social vulnerability (SV) and indirect impact on the ecological vulnerability (EV); (2) evaluate the vulnerability and subsystem indices of the study area, and delineate their spatial differentiation characteristics; and (3) identify significant influencing factors and their synergistic effects on vulnerability, then analyze the underlying causes contributing to offer a more comprehensive diagnosis of the vulnerability of KEV.
Strengths:
This study is based on the Vulnerability Spectrum Diagram (VSD) model and focuses on a typical karst topography and a cluster of socio-economically disadvantaged ethnic villages in southwest China as the study area.
Notes for tables and figures:
- Figure 1: Improve the quality of the visualisation. The text in the legend may have a white background and not match the main figure.
- Table 1: Add year and spatial resolution or scale.
- Figure 2. Some tables are difficult to read. It is suggested that they be split or summarised.
Text observations:
- Line 100: The text explains the karst topography but does not refer to the geological context of the region (a reference appears in line 152).
Are the existing features characterised by the presence of caves, sinkholes and other features typical of this type of relief?
- Line 112: For foreign readers, it would be important to define what characterises an ethnic community in China, whether this name is given to a specific population or is related to the local cultural heritage.
- Lines 129 to 135: Several models are presented in this section and the criteria are described in Table 2.
The paragraph describing the directional effects (positive or negative) and the weights used is missing.
The paragraph after Figure 2 (lines 151 to 162) condenses several pieces of information.
- Lines 364 to 367:
“In general, the ecological vulnerability of villages in Leishan County exhibits a spatial distribution characterized by high sensitivity in the north, low exposure in the west, low sensitivity in the east, and high exposure in the south. This pattern is likely closely associated with the degree of tourism development in the local villages and the extent of rocky desertification within the karst region”.
The reader can recognize what is described in the results obtained (Figures 3 and 5). The starting point of the discussion should be the presentation of the region with the highest response and how the potential indicators in Figure 7 are reflected in it.
Figures 7 and 8 require the reader to go back to Table 2 to remember the meaning of the indicators (X). This makes it difficult to understand what the authors have presented.
Do the strongest drivers (degree of preservation of traditional dwellings; degree of rocky desertification; disaster response capacity) indicate conditions of vulnerability to land use intensification or climate change? Discussions could also start with the answer to this question.
Author Response
We extend our heartfelt thanks for the meticulous and professional review of our manuscript. Your insights and constructive feedback are greatly valued and have significantly contributed to the enhancement of our work.
In response to the comments and suggestions provided, we have undertaken a revision of our initial manuscript. Each point raised in the review has been carefully considered and addressed through a series of targeted amendments. To ensure clarity and transparency, we have included a detailed point-by-point response in our revision letter, which outlines the nature of the revisions and the rationale behind them.
To facilitate a seamless review process, we have utilized the track changes feature in the Word document to clearly indicate the revisions made. This approach allows the editorial team and reviewers to easily identify and assess the changes, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of how the manuscript has been improved.
Thank you for your patience and understanding throughout. Your support means a great deal to us.We appreciate your time and consideration and look forward to your feedback on our revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Authors responded to all the requests made. The text presents the improvements and better support for the reader to understand.
Comments on the Quality of English Language-
