Evaluating the Sustainable Development of Red Cultural Tourism in Yunnan, China, Using GIS and Machine Learning Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with the Sustainable Development of Red Cultural Tourism in Yunnan region in China. The manuscript is well-written and in understandable language and no obvious mistakes were found. In general, both theoretical and practical parts are organized and developed in a structured form. The figures given are also very helpful, and by applying few minor changes that are proposed below can enhance the quality of the paper.

So, minor changes can be made as follows:

In Introduction, the terms "red cultural tourism" and "Long March tourism" are given. It is suggestedthat the authors give some historical background or/and some definitions of the terms so that the readers understand better the subject of the study. Maybe some images of some of the landsmarks/monuments too.

Figure 1: Although it is very helpful, the graph at the lower right part is not visible. The authors must re-arrange the Figure so that the reader can easily export the information from the graph.

Table 1: It is suggested that the table fit in one page, so that the information will be gathered.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful comments, which have greatly helped us improve the overall quality of this manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This manuscript investigates tourism development under social, ecological models by using GIS spatial analysis, K-means, XGBoost, and SHAP interpretability methods and evaluates the development of red cultural tourism resources in Yunnan Province. The findings reveal significant spatial disparities, show influential factors such as traffic accessibility, precipitation, and temperature. Finally it proposes a social–ecological synergy mechanism for sustainable development.

There are some points that need to be clarified in my view:

The authors can shorten the title while retaining core elements to draw readers attention, in this current form it is a bit long.

Abstract is fine, I do not have any recommends.

1.Introduction:

Many sentences exceed 40–50 words, making the text difficult to follow. It would be nice if authors shorten and split sentences to improve readability.

While many studies are cited, the review is descriptive rather than critical. It summarizes prior works but does not analyze their limitations. I suggest to group case studies thematically such as governance, economic impact, tourist experience instead of listing them. It makes a streamline literature review and makes easy to follow.

The authors can highlight the research gap a bit more critically. You can explain why the gap needs attention.

I recommend adding 1–2 sentences situating the study within sustainable development discourse, for example how social-ecological synergy supports long-term resilience of tourism destinations.

The authors can use linking sentences between national policy context and literature review and Yunnan as a regional case. In this current form, the introduction suddenly moves from national policy to red cultural tourism studies, then to Yunnan and then back to methods. It would be great if the transitions could smoother.

2. Study Area and Data

2.1. Overview of the Study Area

Although this section provides a rich historical and geographical description of Yunnan, the narrative is too descriptive and lengthy. For instance, lines 121-143 provided geographical details could be shortened to avoid burden.

Could you explain the link between topography and climate and tourism resources, lines 135-138?

Could you explain the connection between the geography of Yunnan and the spatial distribution of red cultural sites, for example how landscape diversity affects accessibility?

2.2. Data and Preprocessing

In line 157, could you explain a bit data standardization and data translation? In this current form it is not clear.

Could you clarify the use of mixed-year data why 2020 GDP with 2025 tourist ratings? Is there any special reason?

3.Methodology

Could you explain why K-means and XGBoost t were chosen over alternatives such as hierarchical clustering, random forests etc? The authors can briefly discuss the reason for selecting these models and provide references.

The methodology refers to different dataset that indicated in Section 2 including tourism resource POI, transportation networks, social influence indicators, and ecological carrying capacity indicators. However, I cannot see details about how these datasets were cleaned.

The section is heavy with formulas but lacks narrative explanation about how outputs from one stage feed into the next. The authors can add short transition sentences at the start or end of each subsection to reinforce how the steps connect.

Make a connection and to strength connections between subsections can improve readability.

4.Results

I recommend shortening text with the summarization of key trends instead of narrating every regional variation. Since long passages cover repetitive figure captions, so it makes text overly descriptive.

Presented results are mostly descriptive, with limited discussion of why certain spatial differences exist including socio-political context, historical significance etc. The authors can add more interpretation and make connections between findings about red cultural tourism characteristics and broader sustainability debates.

This section could highlight implications for regional planning and tourism management. The authors can briefly mention practical relevance before moving into discussion.

5.Discussion

In most part, the authors provide summary of the results instead of critical discussion. I recommend to merge findings with literature on red tourism, cultural heritage studies and socio-ecological systems. One idea is discussing why these disparities are issue in Yunnan.

5.1.Region-Specific development

I would expect to see critical reflection on broader tourism literature instead of descriptive reporting. Reframe these details in terms of generalizable lessons such as clustering of resources as a scalable model.

5.2. Social-Ecological Synergistic Mechanism

I recommend to provide more balanced coverage of all case cities and connect findings to the proposed “synergy mechanism” more explicitly in theory-building terms. For example, Kunming and Zhaotong are discussed in detail, while Dali and Qujing are more superficially treated. It causes unbalance analysis.

6.Conclusions

The main issue in this section is that it lacks a strong articulation of theoretical implications and clear policy recommendations.

I cannot see the limitations and future recommendations.

The authors can add a synthesis paragraph to make a connection between findings and sustainable tourism literature.

I hope these suggestions will be helpful.

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful comments, which have greatly helped us improve the overall quality of this manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I appreciate how carefully you addressed the comments from the previous round.

It is clear that you put in a lot of effort to respond to the feedback.

I do not have any further suggestions or comments at this stage, congratulations!