Evaluation and Interpretation of Tourist Satisfaction for Local Korean Festivals Using Explainable AI
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study aims to identify key variables that affect tourist satisfaction for local festivals. This study has three main contributions. First, it employed an appropriate dataset to be analyzed. Second, it employed modern regression models to predict tourist satisfaction. Finally, with the accurate regression model, SHAP was employed to explain the key variables affecting the prediction. The data analysis and modeling process sound reasonable, and the results were persuasive. However, I would like to suggest the following things to improve the original manuscript for better understanding.
1. I totally understand that this study proposed a unified framework to analyze the relationship between the tourist satisfactions and festival characteristics. However, readers of this paper may focus on the analytical results about "which festival characteristics are important to persuade people to come." So, I suggest that the authors should 1) summarize the key factors suggested by the previous works (e.g. using table) in Section 1, and 2) discuss (or compare to the previous works) the findings of this paper in Section 4 or 5.
2. There are some minor issues in the manuscript.
1) At line 88-89, the authors mentioned "the seven variables" in the "dotted box." However, each variable such as program, food is in the box with solid line in Figure 1. This may cause misunderstanding.
2) In Figure 1, the arrows point the nearby ones of each box. For example, the travel guide may affect the food directly, but I feel the travel guide affects the shopping opportunity and transport accessibility directly, while it affects food and cultural contents indirectly. I suggest the authors to improve the Figure 1 to achieve better understandings.
3) At line 99, the authors mentioned "fun" as a independent variable. But the variable "fun" was not explained in the manuscript nor did it appear in figures, except Figure 3 and 5. I think this might be caused by a mixed naming for a certain variable through the research process. I suggest authors to improve consistency.
4) Some regression models are very sensitive to hyper-parameters, and require careful setup to achieve great performances. I suggest that the authors should summarize the hyper-parameter setting for each final regression algorithm for reproducibility in Table 2.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 1’s Comments and a Summary of the Revisions
We would like to thank you for your thorough evaluation and helpful suggestions and comments. We have considered all of your comments and suggestions during the revision of our manuscript. The changes are summarized in our point-by-point responses to your itemized comments as follows. All of the changes made in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in blue font. We hope that this revised version addresses all of the concerns raised in your comments.
- This study aims to identify key variables that affect tourist satisfaction for local festivals. This study has three main contributions. First, it employed an appropriate dataset to be analyzed. Second, it employed modern regression models to predict tourist satisfaction. Finally, with the accurate regression model, SHAP was employed to explain the key variables affecting the prediction. The data analysis and modeling process sound reasonable, and the results were persuasive. However, I would like to suggest the following things to improve the original manuscript for better understanding.
Response: Thank you so much for clearly pointing out the main contributions of our study.
- 1. I totally understand that this study proposed a unified framework to analyze the relationship between the tourist satisfactions and festival characteristics. However, readers of this paper may focus on the analytical results about "which festival characteristics are important to persuade people to come." So, I suggest that the authors should 1) summarize the key factors suggested by the previous works (e.g. using table) in Section 1, and 2) discuss (or compare to the previous works) the findings of this paper in Section 4 or 5.
Response: Thank you for your valuable question. Regarding your first suggest, we summarized the key factors in the Table 1 of the Section 1. Introduction. As for the second suggestion, we have added the discussions of the findings of this paper in the 2nd paragraph of the section 5. Conclusions.
- There are some minor issues in the manuscript.
1) At line 88-89, the authors mentioned "the seven variables" in the "dotted box." However, each variable such as program, food is in the box with solid line in Figure 1. This may cause misunderstanding.
Response: Thank you for your comment. In the revised manuscript, we have revised the Figure 1 which is compatible to the mentioned description.
2) In Figure 1, the arrows point the nearby ones of each box. For example, the travel guide may affect the food directly, but I feel the travel guide affects the shopping opportunity and transport accessibility directly, while it affects food and cultural contents indirectly. I suggest the authors to improve the Figure 1 to achieve better understandings.
Response: We agree that the Figure 1 needs to be revised clearer for better understanding to the readers. As suggested, we have revised the Figure 1 with its comments.
3) At line 99, the authors mentioned "fun" as a independent variable. But the variable "fun" was not explained in the manuscript nor did it appear in figures, except Figure 3 and 5. I think this might be caused by a mixed naming for a certain variable through the research process. I suggest authors to improve consistency.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have rechecked and confirmed the consistency of the manuscript in terms of the individual indicators for tourist satisfaction.
4) Some regression models are very sensitive to hyper-parameters, and require careful setup to achieve great performances. I suggest that the authors should summarize the hyper-parameter setting for each final regression algorithm for reproducibility in Table 2.
Response: As suggested, we have included the parameter settings used in our experiments. The newly added statements are in the 311 lines.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the manuscript the authors presented an important point, although the manuscript has some drawbacks.
Main remarks:
1. Intruduction - what is the research gap?
2. Figures - in my opinion, the figures are hardly visible, e.g. figures 3, 4, 11 ... and others.
3. Discussion - in my opinion, there is no critical, in-depth discussion.
4. Conclusions - in your conclusions, write about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on local tourism. Suggested publications: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229610, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1354816620933712. In your conclusions, please also answer the following questions:
• what are the research gaps?
• what is new to this manuscript?
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 2’s Comments and a Summary of the Revisions
We would like to thank you for your thorough evaluation and helpful suggestions and comments. We have considered all of your comments and suggestions during the revision of our manuscript. The changes are summarized in our point-by-point responses to your itemized comments as follows. All of the changes made in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in blue font. We hope that this revised version addresses all of the concerns raised in your comments.
- In the manuscript the authors presented an important point, although the manuscript has some drawbacks.
Response: Thank you for your comments.
- Main remarks: 1. Intruduction - what is the research gap?
Response: Regarding the research gap, we can address the 3 major points. First, there is no empirical research was conducted with the real-world data. No study provided sufficient data and experimental results for the activation of local festivals. Second, no study addressed both the predictive and interpretable approaches to predict and identify the tourist satisfaction and its significant factors together. In our study, the explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) was used for improving accurate prediction performance and providing the valuable insights for identifying the problems or potential solutions for each festival. In the revised manuscript, we pointed out the limitations of previous research and summarized the differences of our study in the 7th paragraph of the Section 1. Introduction.
- Figures - in my opinion, the figures are hardly visible, e.g. figures 3, 4, 11 ... and others.
Response: We agreed the comment. As for Figures 3, 4, 11, …, we have recreated the figures to increase the clarity of them and increased the overall size of the figures.
- Discussion - in my opinion, there is no critical, in-depth discussion.
Response: Thank you for your comment. For sufficient discussion and description of the research topic and our contributions, we have revised thoroughly the Section 5 Conclusions with its comments. We have added the main contributions and the limitations of our study. Further, we have revised the future research.
- Conclusions - in your conclusions, write about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on local tourism. Suggested publications: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229610, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1354816620933712.
Response: As suggested, we have included the statement for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on local tourism in the Section 5. Conclusions and cited your suggested reference.
- In your conclusions, please also answer the following questions: • what are the research gaps? • what is new to this manuscript?
Response: As suggested, we have summarized the research gaps and the new findings in the Section 5. Conclusions. Thank you for your valuable questions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Good paper with extensive literature review.
Appropriate methodology
Discussion section should be elaborated and and findings better explained
Conclusion section should be extended
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 3’s Comments and a Summary of the Revisions
We would like to thank you for your thorough evaluation and helpful suggestions and comments. We have considered all of your comments and suggestions during the revision of our manuscript. The changes are summarized in our point-by-point responses to your itemized comments as follows. All of the changes made in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in blue font. We hope that this revised version addresses all of the concerns raised in your comments.
- Good paper with extensive literature review. Appropriate methodology.
Response: Thank you for your positive comments.
- Discussion section should be elaborated and and findings better explained. Conclusion section should be extended.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added the drawbacks of the previous studies and the findings of our study in the 7th paragraph of the Section 1. Introduction.
- English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Response: Regarding English language, we have received the professional editing services (from Editage) to improve logical flow and to a more native sounding tone.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept in present form. Good luck!
Author Response
- Accept in present form. Good luck!
Response: Thank you for your positive comment.
