An Ecological Early Warning Indicator System for Environmental Protection of Scenic Areas
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract:
There is no information about the purpose of the research
Literature review:
63-65 lines - we can find information about search of the Chinese Academic Journal Network connected with study area in this paper.
However, these data relate to a period from 10 years ago.
In scientific articles you should look for confirmation in the latest achievements of other authors
Resarch methods:
223-225 - why only 30 questionnaires (this is too small a try) and survey results are too old
234-236 - survey results are too old
The article would be a valuable study if there were current research (literature and questionnaires) or a comparative analysis in 2008/2009 and up-to-date
General coclusion: In my opinion this paper was prepered 10 year ago for 10 years it was "hidden in a drawer"
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Manuscript ID: sustainability-466214
Title: An Ecological Early Warning Indicator System for Environmental Protection of Scenic Areas
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions which we have utilized to improve the quality of the paper. We believe it is ready for re-submission for publication.
The authors
Reviewer 1:
Point 1: Abstract:
There is no information about the purpose of the research
Response 1: Thanks for the reviewer’s comments and suggestions! We added the purpose of the research into the abstract. The purpose of this research is to construct an ecological early warning indicator system to explore the primary factors in environmental management of scenic areas, providing a basis for the design of early warning system of scenic areas. Please see Lines 13-15 on Page 1.
Point 2:Literature review:
63-65 lines - we can find information about search of the Chinese Academic Journal Network connected with study area in this paper. However, these data relate to a period from 10 years ago. In scientific articles you should look for confirmation in the latest achievements of other authors.
Response 2: Thanks for the reviewer’s support! Yes! It is updated as “in March 2019, the same search term yielded more than three thousands related articles and about one thousand of these related to problems of environmental impact at scenic attractions”. Please see Lines 66-68 on Page 2.
Point 3: Research methods:
223-225 - why only 30 questionnaires (this is too small a try) and survey results are too old.
Response 3: Thanks for the reviewer’s comments! We added that “Perneger, et al. (2015) declared that a default sample size of 30 participants is recommended” into the text. Please see Lines 216-217 on Page 5.
Perneger, T.V., Courvoisier, D.S., Hudelson, P.M., and Gayet-Ageron, A., 2015, Sample size for pre-tests of questionnaires, Quality of Life Research, 24(1), 147-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0752-2
The survey date of the pretest was not correct and it is corrected as Aug. 1 to Sep. 30, 2017. Please see Line 219 on Page 5.
Point 4:234-236 - survey results are too old
The article would be a valuable study if there were current research (literature and questionnaires) or a comparative analysis in 2008/2009 and up-to-date
Response 4: Thanks for the reviewer’s comments! The citation on Table 1 is updated. Please see Line 254-255 on Page 6.
Point 5: General conclusion: In my opinion this paper was prepared 10 year ago for 10 years it was "hidden in a drawer"
Response 5: Thanks for the reviewer’s comments! The literatures reviewed and cited are updated. The survey dates are of type errors and they are also corrected.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Manuscript ID: sustainability-466214
Title: An Ecological Early Warning Indicator System for Environmental Protection of Scenic Areas
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions which we have utilized to improve the quality of the paper. We believe it is ready for re-submission for publication.
The authors
Reviewer 2:
Point 1: The article describes a study on the development of an early warning indicator system for the environmental protection of scenic areas. The system was constructed based on the identification of 26 early warning indicators through literature review, interviews and expert knowledge. The weights of the different levels were calculated through a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process.
Comments: The article is well structured and well written, the methods are sound and clearly described. Yet the work has a very serious flaw: that is it being out dated. In fact all the literature references are older than 10 years, the most recent reference dates from 2009 (10 years ago!). Also and most importantly the questionnaires for the survey analysis were distributed in 2009. This in an important issue as due to the rapid development of the tourist industry (especially in China) the perspectives of the questionnaires’ respondents have surely changed during this period of 10 years. So I think that the results of the work are no longer valid and I do not advise publication.
Response 1: Thanks for the reviewer’s comments! The research was done in 2017. The survey dates are of type errors and they are corrected. For example, the survey date of the pretest was not correct and it is corrected as Aug. 1 to Sep. 30, 2017. Please see Line 219 on Page 5. The literatures reviewed and cited are updated.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
My comments are:
1. Typos and grammar errors should be eliminated in the work. Please check the whole paper carefully.
2. Further, some necessary comparisons with some existing results reviewed in introduction part should be provided and discussed carefully.
3. The paper should present enough original and novel research. Please clarify what is the paper contribution and what parts of the paper are original.
4. It’s better for the authors to describe how to organize the paper at the end of the introduction part.
5. The paper's structure is poor. Authors used fuzzy in the paper without providing any definition related to fuzzy concept. Definitions related to fuzzy set theory should be added in the manuscript.
6. Some Equations are not written in correct format.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Manuscript ID: sustainability-466214
Title: An Ecological Early Warning Indicator System for Environmental Protection of Scenic Areas
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions which we have utilized to improve the quality of the paper. We believe it is ready for re-submission for publication.
The authors
Reviewer 3:
Point 1: Typos and grammar errors should be eliminated in the work. Please check the whole paper carefully.
Response 1: Thanks for the reviewer’s comments! We have our manuscript proofread by a professional English editor.
Point 2: Further, some necessary comparisons with some existing results reviewed in introduction part should be provided and discussed carefully.
Response 2: Thanks for the reviewer’s comments! We have some necessary comparisons with some existing results reviewed in introduction part. Please see the first paragraph of the introduction part. Please see 29-45 on Page 1-2.
Point 3: The paper should present enough original and novel research. Please clarify what is the paper contribution and what parts of the paper are original.
Response 3: Thanks for the reviewer’s comments! We added a new paragraph of contribution of this research by present enough original and novel research at the end of “5.1 Conclusion”.
Point 4: It’s better for the authors to describe how to organize the paper at the end of the introduction part.
Response 4: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion! We added a new paragraph to organize the paper at the end of the introduction part. Please see Lines 55-60 on Page 2.
Point 5: The paper's structure is poor. Authors used fuzzy in the paper without providing any definition related to fuzzy concept. Definitions related to fuzzy set theory should be added in the manuscript.
Response 5: Thanks for the reviewer’s comments and suggestions!
We re-organized “2.3. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process” into three parts, Analytic hierarchy process (AHP), Fuzzy set theory, and Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP). Please see Lines 166-207 on Pages 4-5.
We added a new paragraph providing any definition related to fuzzy concept. Please see Lines 181-199 on Page 4-5.
Point 6: Some Equations are not written in correct format.
Response 6: Thanks for the reviewer’s comments! We have proofread all Equations in correct format.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
If the date of the questionnaire was incorrectly entered, then in the current version I accept the article for publication. All suggestions have been included in the current version.
Authors are responsible for the reliability of the presented research.
I am asking of the aim of the research in abstract and in the introduction. Currently, the same sentence is repeated twice (lines 13-15 and 30-32).
Author Response
Dear reviewer
According to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, I and my colleague have revised the manuscript “sustainability- 466214” and now believe it is ready for re-submission for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been updated and the study dates were corrected. I consider the article in good condition to be published.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
According to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, I and my colleague have revised the manuscript “sustainability- 466214” and now believe it is ready for re-submission for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks to the authors for considering the comments carefully. After examining the revised manuscript, I come to the point that this manuscript has reached to the standard of this journal. Thus, I recommend it for acceptance.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
According to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, I and my colleague have revised the manuscript “sustainability- 466214” and now believe it is ready for re-submission for publication.
