Visitor Perceptions Toward Sustainable and Resilient Tourism Destination: A Quantitative Assessment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsVisitor perceptions toward sustainable and resilient tourism destination, this is a valuable study that could be instructive for its future development. However, there are some ambiguities that I hope the authors can clarify.
1.In the abstract, the authors mention there are significant gaps in environmental sustainability in some regions... This expression is too one-sided; what is the high rating? What exactly are the gaps? Outstanding performance is? It can be answered with concluding data.
2.The introductory section. 98 to 146 lines, needs to be reorganised, there is not enough direct linkage between paragraphs, and some paragraphs are only one sentence long, which is hardly convincing.
3.In Figure 1, are the three arrows above the LOCAL DESTINATION MANAGEMENTORGANISATIONS (DMOs) pointing the wrong way? Or pointing in an unknown direction? Please check carefully.
4.Figure IV, no data added, please add. Is the bar chart too simple? Could add a line graph.
5.Units are missing from the header fields of most of the tables in the article, please add them.
6.The logic of the discussion section is a bit confusing, please reorganise it. (Discussion: interprets and analyzes results, presents ideas, compares to literature, points out implications and limitations of the study.）
7.Add 5-10 more references to the article.
Author Response
Please see attachment and thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors need to define resilience in tourism destinations more clearly as theoretical foundation section.
Authors need to clearly state why difference and descriptive piece need to be inspected.
Authors need to present theoretical implication more clearly.
The research goal and statistical analysis need to be presented more logically.
Author Response
Please see attachment and thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis submission is an empirical study on the visitor perceptions toward Brighton, UK. While there are potential merits, the reviewer would like to raise the following issues, some of which are critical:
1. There needs to be a better justification on the selection of site. What does Brighton more implies about generalizable knowledge?
2. Paragraphs are too short. Please write them in academic style.
3. Typos and spelling errors are visible. (i.e. Dinning - > Dining in Figure 1)
4. Are Figures 1 and 2 really necessary?
5. Please use Greek alphabet for Delta in the equation. Also, equation should be written using the math function and not inserted as a picture.
6. Please use periods instead of commas as decimal points.
7. Is the instrument appropriate for application on this study's research question? Please provide additional justification.
8. The statistical tests are too descriptive in nature. Any potential causal relationships among the responses?
9. Please appendicize the questionnaire.
Author Response
Please see attachment and thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks to the author for the revision, I have no other comments.
Author Response
Please see file attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRevision is done well.
Author Response
Please see file attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised paper looks much improved and the reviewer would like to commend the efforts made by the authors. However, additional statistical analysis seems warranted in that the contribution can be significantly improved. Therefore, the reviewer would like to recommend another round of revision involving additional data analysis.
Author Response
Please see file attached and thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe reviewer would like to commend the authors' efforts in another successful round of revision. Good luck with the rest of the process.
