Spatiotemporal Evolution and the Influencing Factors of Tourism-Based Social-Ecological System Vulnerability in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
2.1 Study area
Reviewer's opinion: Please put in the brackets income in US Dollars (Row: 113, 114, 122).
In 2018, the region received a total of 564,096,800 tourists, generating a total tourism income of 261,902 million yuan.
Please, put tourism data (tourists and income) at national level (China) in the same year. Maybe separate data: domestic and international tourists of study area.
2.2 Data sources
Reviewer's opinion:
NDVI data were obtained from 151 the MODIS vegetation index product MOD13Q1 provided by NASA, with a temporal 152 resolution of 16 d and a spatial resolution of 500 m.
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) data were obtained from 151 the MODIS vegetation index product MOD13Q1 provided by NASA, with a temporal 152 resolution of 16 d and a spatial resolution of 500 m.
2.7 Geodetector
Reviewer's opinion:
This method has been extensively utilized in the literature.
Please, give some references in brackets as an example of that extensiveness.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Thank you very much for your pertinent and constructive review comments, which will help us to further revise and improve this paper. Based on your comments, we have made some clarifications and will make the following changes:
Point 1: Please put in the brackets income in US Dollars (Row: 113, 114, 122).
In 2018, the region received a total of 564,096,800 tourists, generating a total tourism income of 261,902 million yuan.
Please, put tourism data (tourists and income) at national level (China) in the same year. Maybe separate data: domestic and international tourists of study area.
Response 1: We will change the unit of tourism revenue from "yuan" to "dollar" (Row: 113, 114, 122), and put tourism data (tourists and income) at national level (China) in the same year. We have tried to collecte the number of domestic and foreign tourists and tourism income in the study area in each year through multiple channels (statistical yearbooks, telephone consultation with Municipal Statistics Bureaus and experts of the study area), but the result is that "the statistical indicators are temporarily unavailable". Therefore, it is a pity that this article cannot be improved according to your professional suggestions.
Point 2:NDVI data were obtained from 151 the MODIS vegetation index product MOD13Q1 provided by NASA, with a temporal 152 resolution of 16 d and a spatial resolution of 500 m.
Response 2: Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) becomes more profession-al under your modification, and we appreciate it very much.
Point 3: This method has been extensively utilized in the literature. Please, give some references in brackets as an example of that extensiveness.
Response 3: Thank you for your kind reminder, and we will add relevant literatures on Geodetector as an example of that extensiveness.
Reviewer 2 Report
Interesting work in terms of content. The results of the study are presented in a clear and comprehensive manner. Correctly formulated conclusions. It is suggested to refer in the conceptual part of the article to
SES-related work by other authors, for example: McGinnis, M.D .; Ostrom, E. Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol. Soc. 2014, Nyaupane, G., Poudel, S., & Timothy, D. (2018). Assessing the sustainability of tourism systems: A social-ecological approach. Tourism Review International, 22 (1), 49-66. Zhao, H. (2018) A Review on the Adaptability of Tourism and Social-Ecosystem. Journal of Service Science and Management, 11, 565-577. Article to be accepted in present form, suggested additions to the extension of the cited literature
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Interesting work in terms of content. The results of the study are presented in a clear and comprehensive manner. Correctly formulated conclusions. It is suggested to refer in the conceptual part of the article to
SES-related work by other authors, for example: McGinnis, M.D .; Ostrom, E. Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol. Soc. 2014, Nyaupane, G., Poudel, S., & Timothy, D. (2018). Assessing the sustainability of tourism systems: A social-ecological approach. Tourism Review International, 22 (1), 49-66. Zhao, H. (2018) A Review on the Adaptability of Tourism and Social-Ecosystem. Journal of Service Science and Management, 11, 565-577. Article to be accepted in present form, suggested additions to the extension of the cited literature.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your high evaluation to this paper, and for helping us to search the relevant literatures that are worth quoting in this study field. We will add these articles based on your professional opinions, and we want to express our admiration for your academic vision and spirit.
Reviewer 3 Report
It is necessary to expand the state of the art, especially the concepts of sustainability and the factors that affect the vulnerability of tourist destinations according to previous studies. The analysis of the study area should include the sources from which the data were obtained. Table 1 should define the weights of the indicators. The reasons for positive and negative vulnerability should be better stated.
There are some equations that should be better explained. The description of the quantitative approach should be improved as some readers are not used to these methodologies.
You should explain the case study better. You talk about regions that are unfamiliar to readers. The case study should be better contextualized.
Geodetector studies and applications should be included in the state of the art.
Table 2 should be better explained.
The maps should be improved, the size is not adequate and the data are not clearly reflected.
There are references in the discussion section that have not been included in the state of the art.
The usefulness of the proposed model should be highlighted. Finally, it is necessary to further explore the methodology used and to state whether there are validated cases.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Thank you very much for your constructive review comments, which will help us to further revise and improve this paper. Based on your comments, we have made some clarifications and will make the following changes:
Point 1: It is necessary to expand the state of the art, especially the concepts of sustainability and the factors that affect the vulnerability of tourist destinations according to previous studies.
Response 1: Dear reviewer, we have not fully understood your profound meaning, so we have not been able to modify and improve the article according to your guidance. If you have more detailed opinions, we will be grateful.
Point 2: The analysis of the study area should include the sources from which the data were obtained.
Response 2: The data of the study area are mainly derived from other authoritative documents related to the study area, and the sources of other data have been explained in the "data sources" section. In addition, based on your comments, we will recheck and improve the "data sources" part of the study area.
Point 3: Table 1 should define the weights of the indicators. The reasons for positive and negative vulnerability should be better stated.
Response 3: Since we preliminarily believe that the text used to explain these common indicators may lack academic significance, and there are 46 indicators in this article, if we explain these indicators one by one, the length of this article will be too long, therefore, we did not elaborate on the reasons for the positive and negative effects. However, we will listen to your opinions whether we need to add this part in the end.
Point 4: There are some equations that should be better explained. The description of the quantitative approach should be improved as some readers are not used to these methodologies.
Response 4: Dear reviewer, the entropy method and composite index method used in this study are relatively common methods, so there is no excessive explanation. However, readers may be unfamiliar with Geodetector, so this research gives more introductions and explanations on it.
Point 5: You should explain the case study better. You talk about regions that are unfamiliar to readers. The case study should be better contextualized.
Response 5: This study briefly introduced the natural geography and social-economic conditions of the study area, and expounds the tourism resources, the basic status of tourism development and the opportunities and challenges faced by the study area. If you have better writing ideas, please guide us to improve the writing level of this part.
Point 6: Geodetector studies and applications should be included in the state of the art.
Response 6: Dear reviewer, the authors have failed to fully understand your profound meaning, so we have not been able to modify and improve according to your guidance.
Point 7: Table 2 should be better explained.
Response 7: In order to be the same as the original meaning of the Geodetector’s author, the explanation in Table 2 in this study is basically the same as the original text.
Point 8: The maps should be improved, the size is not adequate and the data are not clearly reflected.
Response 8: Thank you for pointing out the map problem, the author will modify and improve figure 1. In order to facilitate readers to read and compare, and take into account the need of beautiful typesetting, so the horizontal typesetting style is adopted. In addition, we have provided some clear maps as much as possible. If journal and you still have higher requirements, we will modify it again according to your requirements.
Point 9: There are references in the discussion section that have not been included in the state of the art.
Response 9: We regret that we have not been able to fully understand your profound meaning, so we have not been able to modify and improve this article according to your instructions.
Point 10: The usefulness of the proposed model should be highlighted. Finally, it is necessary to further explore the methodology used and to state whether there are validated cases.
Response 10: Dear reviewer, this study reflects the advantages and disadvantages of Geodetector from an objective and sincere standpoint, and aims to provide some reference value for other researchers. In addition, this study will add more cases of applying the model to detect influencing factors, so as to prove the correctness of applying the model in this research.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Attached is a document with text in blue with the responses to the reviews.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
