Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on comprehensive modeling research regarding the spatiotemporal dynamics and driving mechanisms of ecosystem services in karst landscapes influenced by tourism development. The study exhibits strong regional representativeness and scientific significance. Employing a multi-model integration framework combining the InVEST model, Boosted Regression Tree (BRT), and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), the research design is systematic and represents a typical study in quantitative ecosystem service assessment and mechanism analysis. However, the following issues exist:
1. Model assumptions: It is recommended to include sensitivity analysis or parameter validation explanations to enhance model reliability.
2. BRT modeling focuses solely on tourism-related factors (distance to attractions, distance to hotels, road density), neglecting the synergistic effects of natural ecological and socioeconomic variables, which may introduce bias. It is suggested to clarify the selection logic in the main text and supplement comparative results from alternative models (e.g., scenarios incorporating NDVI, slope, and population density).
3. Variables like “gd” and “nc” in Tables 5 and 6 remain unexplained in the text; some tables lack complete titles and units.
4. Although SEM fit indices are favorable, supplementary materials fail to specify path coefficients or significance levels between variables, hindering understanding of ecological mechanisms.
5. Supplementary materials list multiple model results but lack descriptions of logical relationships between models.
6. Accessible links and access dates for Gaode Map and OpenStreetMap data should be specified in Data Availability.
7. The R² squared expression in Table 4 is problematic.
8. Full forms must be provided for abbreviations upon their first appearance.
9. Language is unnatural, containing Chinese-influenced English.
10. Data sources and processing descriptions are overly brief and require detailed elaboration.
11. Font inconsistencies appear throughout the manuscript.
12. The technical workflow diagram in Figure 2 is overly simplistic and requires significant improvement; text is too small to read clearly.
Essential Revision to Figure 5: I insist on the removal of the line graph currently embedded within Figure 5. As presented, it lacks sufficient methodological explanation (e.g., data source, calculation method) and does not align cohesively with the spatial patterns displayed in the main part of the figure. Its inclusion creates confusion rather than clarity. Removing it will improve the figure's focus and interpretability.
13. Remove the section on future research directions from the conclusions.
14. Reference to Relevant Literature: To significantly improve the quality and contextual depth of the manuscript, I strongly recommend that the authors engage with and cite two key studies that are highly relevant to their research focus: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142633、https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.5506

In conclusion, while the manuscript presents an interesting study, the points above must be adequately addressed. I believe that with these major revisions, the paper has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field.

Author Response

Please check the attachment for the details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The article addresses an interesting topic and clearly identifies the research problem. The arguments are presented effectively, and the authors offer a comprehensive explanation of the applied methodology. However, for the sake of functionality and clarity, several comments are provided, the implementation and further elaboration of which could enhance the overall quality of the paper. This particularly refers to the discussion section.

• It is recommended for author to shorten the title, if feasible, in order to enhance its clarity and functionality. The location of the geopark (China) should also be specified in the title.
• It is necessary to modify the final part of the Introduction to make it more functional. Before the paragraph discussing the methodological innovations and contributions of the paper (lines 94–103), a new paragraph should be added defining the main aim of the research (lines 113–119). The paragraph concerning the selection of the Grand Canyon–Tenglongdong Cave UNESCO Global Geopark should be incorporated into the Study area.
• Instead of the “Data Sources”, the tittle “Data” would be more appropriate (Line 137). In addition to the Table 1, this part should be supplemented with a short analysis indicating that three groups of factors were used in the study (natural, socio-economic, and tourism-related), along with the corresponding indicators applied.
• It is recommended to replace the title “Analysis Methods” with “Methods” for better clarity (Line 143).
• Considering the broad research scope of the journal to which the paper has been submitted, it is necessary to provide the full names of the models alongside their abbreviations upon first mention (Lines 143-150).
• The first part of the subtitle “Identification of Influencing Factors using GTWR” appears in a different font and should be unified with the rest of the text.
• It is necessary to elaborate the sentence “The composite Ecosystem Service Index (ESI) revealed an over-all declining trend in ES from 2010 to 2020, marked by the continuous expansion of low-service-level areas, particularly in the northern part of the study region” (Lines 220–222). It is unclear whether an “over-all declining trend” is visible on the provided maps; if such a trend exists, it should be emphasized that it is not pronounced.
• If only abbreviation DEM was previously mentioned, it is not necessary to write “Digital Elevation Model (DEM)” again in this section. This should be done only at its first occurrence in the paper. Ensure this consistently throughout the paper (Line 246).
• The factors "temperature" and "land use" are not shown at the Figure 4. Please clarify whether their significance is very low, which would explain their omission from the chart or there is another reason. Also, certain labels on the Figure 4 need to be revised to improve readability and ensure consistency with the names given in Table 1 (e.g., replace “density of population” with “population density,” etc.).
• “In contrast, the contributions of topographical factors, such as Digital Elevation Model (DEM) values, exhibited fluctuating trends throughout the study period” (Fig. 4a) (Lines 245 – 247). Based on the chart and the values (Fig. 4), other factors exhibited a more pronounced fluctuating trend than the DEM - for example, aspect or precipitation. Please elaborate on this observation in the paper.
• Instead of “Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) model”, it should be written “Boosted Regression Tree model (BRT)” (Line 258).
• Figure 6 – A similar comment applies as for Figure 4: if not all listed factors were used, they should either be omitted from the methodological section or an explanation should be provided as to why they were not included in the visualizations or analyses.
• The Discussion section needs to be expanded in more detail. Before mentioning potential strategies for mitigating tourism impacts, the obtained results should be discussed in greater detail, rather than merely stating what the SEM results show. The section on the “Driving Forces of Changes in ES” is particularly interesting, especially regarding Slope, which confirms its role as a key determinant. Additionally, the results of the Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) model should also be discussed. When comparing with other studies, some specific details should be included to avoid a general discussion about how extensive tourism has affected environmental degradation. As a starting point for modifying the discussion, it can serve the three main findings of the study presented in the Conclusion part. These findings need to be elaborated more thoroughly in the Discussion section, particularly the first two, which are only minimally addressed.
• In the Conclusion, it is important to highlight the practical significance of this study. The authors should explain how the results can contribute to the further development and proper management of the Grand Canyon–Tenglongdong Cave UNESCO Global Geopark, regarding tourism.

Author Response

Please check the attachment for the details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read and reread the article, I confess with some difficulty because the model is very complex and it is not always possible to follow all the steps. The introduction is comprehensive, and the discussion, conclusion and limitations of the proposed model are also well addressed. From a modelling point of view, the doubts relate to the interaction methodology between raster data and tourism factors. Furthermore, these have been more or less defined, but the basic processing before their inclusion in the model has not been mentioned.
The area is a UNESCO Geopark, a karst geopark: it would be helpful to contextualise the case study with a short descriptive chapter, also to understand the morphological and geological characteristics of the territory. I have two questions:
1- Are the authors sure that the ecosystem services are representative of the karst area in question, also taking into account the resolution applied?
2- About the results, have tests been carried out on known sites to prove that the model works?
The article is really interesting, but it lacks a critical analysis—not from a mathematical point of view, but in relation to its application in the region—and a section on testing the validity of the method and results on known sites. I would hope for the inclusion of tests in some study areas within the 679 km².

Figure 1 would be easier to read with a few place names. There are some hyphenation errors in the text.
It would be interesting to add a figure showing the park area, topography and a few place names to help understand the characteristics of the region.

 

Author Response

Please check the attachment for the details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please cite the two papers, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EF004802 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139401, in the discussion section to further highlight the innovation of your research.After insertion, you may publish.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

After completing the second round of review and carefully checking your submitted responses, I confirm that all suggestions and required changes have been addressed correctly. The corrections have been made in the best possible manner. I have no further objections or recommendations and therefore confirm that the paper is ready to proceed to the next phase of publication.