Local Revitalization: Support from Local Residents

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are some aspects that need to be changed (e.g.Porto is in Portugal, not in France). 

The works considered relevant are not taken into account, especially those from the main flow of publications (Clarivate Analytics Web of Science or other valuable international and national indexed data bases).

Considering the above, I recommend the author to consider in the future articles the papers considered relevant, especially those in the main flow of publications 

Author Response

Review 1 Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are some aspects that need to be changed (e.g.Porto is in Portugal, not in France). 

Response: Thank you for comments. We had corrected this error.

 

The works considered relevant are not taken into account, especially those from the main flow of publications (Clarivate Analytics Web of Science or other valuable international and national indexed data bases).

Considering the above, I recommend the author to consider in the future articles the papers considered relevant, especially those in the main flow of publications 

 

Response: Thank you for comments. We had took your suggestions seriously and added some related references.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I think that the abstract should not state that it is intended to verify positive impacts on the economy and negative impacts on the environment, but rather to identify the impacts, positive and negative, on the economy and environment. The hypotheses and keywords mention more types of impact.

This sentence should not be in the abstract: "The participants were local residents, and 12 of the 600 questionnaires distributed to the residents, 529 valid questionnaires were returned, post- 13 ing a valid response rate of 88.2%."

Partial Least Squares  Do not use acronyms in the abstract

What is the source of these considerations? "For example, Naoshima in Kagawa Prefecture, Japan was initially a 35 small-scale industrial island. However, external art resources were introduced to launch 36 a series of art-based development projects. Art installations, museums, campsites, and 37 public baths were created with the intention of creating a cultural village. The area has 38 since become a renowned art hub, indicating that local revitalization can be achieved 39 through featured destination development. Nevertheless, whether local residents support 40 such development is a crucial factor influencing the success of relevant development 41 plans. Therefore, the intention of this study was to understand the negative impact of 42 tourism and its positive economic impact on resident support for featured destinations."

Porto is not a French city, but a Portuguese city.

Do not use Urlaubsregion Murtal acronym (URM) if it is no longer necessary.

I think that hypotheses should not be a separate article chapter. Maybe in a State of Art chapter.

The model should be presented in the text and Figure 1 cited in the introductory paragraph.

The results of the reliability analysis should be presented in the results and not in the methodology chapter.

No subchapters should be created without being numbered: Reliability, Convergent validity, Discriminant validity

Table 3 is not cited in the text.

The discussion chapter should include comparisons with similar studies: for example those cited in the state of the art.

The recommendations should be included in the Conclusions chapter.

Author Response

Review 1 Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think that the abstract should not state that it is intended to verify positive impacts on the economy and negative impacts on the environment, but rather to identify the impacts, positive and negative, on the economy and environment. The hypotheses and keywords mention more types of impact.

Response: Thank you for comments. We had corrected this error.

This sentence should not be in the abstract: "The participants were local residents, and 12 of the 600 questionnaires distributed to the residents, 529 valid questionnaires were returned, post- 13 ing a valid response rate of 88.2%."

Response: Thank you for comments. We had corrected this error.

Partial Least Squares  Do not use acronyms in the abstract

Response: Thank you for comments. We had corrected this error.

What is the source of these considerations? "For example, Naoshima in Kagawa Prefecture, Japan was initially a 35 small-scale industrial island. However, external art resources were introduced to launch 36 a series of art-based development projects. Art installations, museums, campsites, and 37 public baths were created with the intention of creating a cultural village. The area has 38 since become a renowned art hub, indicating that local revitalization can be achieved 39 through featured destination development. Nevertheless, whether local residents support 40 such development is a crucial factor influencing the success of relevant development 41 plans. Therefore, the intention of this study was to understand the negative impact of 42 tourism and its positive economic impact on resident support for featured destinations."

Response: Thank you for comments. We had added the reference. Please refer to lines 41-42.

Porto is not a French city, but a Portuguese city.

Response: Thank you for comments. We had corrected this error.

Do not use Urlaubsregion Murtal acronym (URM) if it is no longer necessary.

Response: Thank you for comments. We had deleted URM.

I think that hypotheses should not be a separate article chapter. Maybe in a State of Art chapter.

Response: Thank you for comments. We had combined hypotheses into introduction section.

The model should be presented in the text and Figure 1 cited in the introductory paragraph.

Response: Thank you for comments. We had cited this Figure

The results of the reliability analysis should be presented in the results and not in the methodology chapter.

Response: Thank you for comments. We had moved this part into results section.

No subchapters should be created without being numbered: Reliability, Convergent validity, Discriminant validity

Response: Thank you for comments. We had added subchapters into those sections.

Table 3 is not cited in the text.

Response: Thank you for comments. We referred to the wrong Table and corrected it this time

The discussion chapter should include comparisons with similar studies: for example those cited in the state of the art.

Response: Thank you for comments. We compared the results with previous studies. (for example, please read lines 380-386)

The recommendations should be included in the Conclusions chapter.

Response: Thank you for comments. We had combined conclusions, limitations, recommendations and suggestions for future research into the same chapter.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is overall well-written and was an interesting read. Well done. However, there were a few issues that I noticed during the review, outlined below (not in order of importance):

1. Line 47 - the end of the sentence should be "impacts" rather than "impact"

2. When considering some of the things that may influence resident opinions, some seem also to be manageable through local or central government. Often cities have by-laws that prevent tourists from engaging in certain behaviours, such as rules against drinking alcohol in public areas, fines for littering, and so on. These won't work for all adverse effects, but are worthwhile highlighting as partial solutions to negative opinions held by residents.

3. Line 85 - "unlimited" seems to be hyperbole, perhaps a word like "ample" would be more appropriate

4. I have just got to the hypothesis section and feel that perhaps the discussion thus far is too binary. Aspects of tourism are presented as either positive or negative, whereas the more likely situation is that each aspect will be perceived positively by some, and negatively by others - some aspects may also have ambivalence in opinion. Take for example the issue of changing local customs - some people like this because it makes their city more cosmopolitan and multi-cultural. However, it is painted as a universally negative aspect in the discussion. I don't disagree that this could be perceived as a negative thing by residents, and that may be the case for the majority, but the discussion does need to entertain the idea that people may have different perceptions of the same phenomena. 

5. Table 1 has some formatting issues that affect its readability - please reformat this

6. Having read through the methodology, I think you need to create a limitations and future research section. Specifically, you have asked closed likert-scale questions to participants based upon past studies. However, you did not know before asking these questions whether participants may have already had opinions. This can lead to an issue called self-generated validity, whereby opinions and beliefs are formed by participants as a result of doing the survey as opposed to the survey measuring already existing structures in long-term memory. The solution to this is to ask more open-ended questions qualitatively. For pragmatic reasons, that can be cumbersome due to the level of analysis required. For that reason, I think you can still argue for your current approach pragmatically. However, you should acknowledge the possibility that self-generated validity may be an issue with the approach in your study, and that future research examining the same issue may like to take a qualitative or mixed-method approach in order to further support the findings of this research. You may find the following sources useful:

Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 421–435.

Chandon, P., Morwitz, V. G., & Reinartz, W. J. (2005). Do intentions really predict behavior? Self-generated validity effects in survey research. Journal of marketing, 69(2), 1-14.

Henderson, I. L., Tsui, K. W. H., Ngo, T., Gilbey, A., & Avis, M. (2019). Airline brand choice in a duopolistic market: The case of New Zealand. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 121, 147-163.

7. Line 347, this is not worded logically, "This study revealed negative effects of negative sociocultural impact of tourism..." Can that be reworded?

Aside from the above, I think this paper is well-written and presents a coherent argument. Once the aforementioned issues are resolved, I think it will make a good contribution to the literature.

Author Response

Review 3 Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is overall well-written and was an interesting read. Well done. However, there were a few issues that I noticed during the review, outlined below (not in order of importance):

1. Line 47 - the end of the sentence should be "impacts" rather than "impact"

Response: Thank you for comments. We had corrected this error.

2. When considering some of the things that may influence resident opinions, some seem also to be manageable through local or central government. Often cities have by-laws that prevent tourists from engaging in certain behaviours, such as rules against drinking alcohol in public areas, fines for littering, and so on. These won't work for all adverse effects, but are worthwhile highlighting as partial solutions to negative opinions held by residents.

Response: Thank you for comments.  It seems worthy of a shot to post a penalty of littering. Please refer to lines 410-415.

3. Line 85 - "unlimited" seems to be hyperbole, perhaps a word like "ample" would be more appropriate

Response: Thank you for comments. We replaced the term with “and provide” (Please read line 51). Thank you.

4. I have just got to the hypothesis section and feel that perhaps the discussion thus far is too binary. Aspects of tourism are presented as either positive or negative, whereas the more likely situation is that each aspect will be perceived positively by some, and negatively by others - some aspects may also have ambivalence in opinion. Take for example the issue of changing local customs - some people like this because it makes their city more cosmopolitan and multi-cultural. However, it is painted as a universally negative aspect in the discussion. I don't disagree that this could be perceived as a negative thing by residents, and that may be the case for the majority, but the discussion does need to entertain the idea that people may have different perceptions of the same phenomena. 

Response: Thank you for comments. We totally agree with your opinion. Actually, we just want to know if the residents were willing to sacrifice those negative influences with economic benefits. Sadly, the answer is yes. The placemaking for rural communities should cooperate with local residents’ opinions to make it sustainable. Many cases had showed the government just constructed some featured destinations without incorporate with nearby tour spots and so when the featured destinations lost their attractions, tourists have no intention to revisit the sites. Therefore, how to attract tourists to come again really rely on local residents’ efforts. If they are willing to accept the tourists from the bottom of hears, the tourists may get warm tourism experience and are willing to come back. 

5. Table 1 has some formatting issues that affect its readability - please reformat this

Response: Thank you for comments. We had checked it and reformatted this Table.

6. Having read through the methodology, I think you need to create a limitations and future research section. Specifically, you have asked closed likert-scale questions to participants based upon past studies. However, you did not know before asking these questions whether participants may have already had opinions. This can lead to an issue called self-generated validity, whereby opinions and beliefs are formed by participants as a result of doing the survey as opposed to the survey measuring already existing structures in long-term memory. The solution to this is to ask more open-ended questions qualitatively. For pragmatic reasons, that can be cumbersome due to the level of analysis required. For that reason, I think you can still argue for your current approach pragmatically. However, you should acknowledge the possibility that self-generated validity may be an issue with the approach in your study, and that future research examining the same issue may like to take a qualitative or mixed-method approach in order to further support the findings of this research. You may find the following sources useful:

Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 421–435.

Chandon, P., Morwitz, V. G., & Reinartz, W. J. (2005). Do intentions really predict behavior? Self-generated validity effects in survey research. Journal of marketing, 69(2), 1-14.

Henderson, I. L., Tsui, K. W. H., Ngo, T., Gilbey, A., & Avis, M. (2019). Airline brand choice in a duopolistic market: The case of New Zealand. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 121, 147-163.

Response: Thank you for comments. We had added this into limitation section(included in chapter 5)

 

6. Line 347, this is not worded logically, "This study revealed negative effects of negative sociocultural impact of tourism..." Can that be reworded?

Response: Thank you for comments. We had reworded the sentence into “This study explored the negative sociocultural impacts from tourism on resident support for featured destinations” (line 380)

Aside from the above, I think this paper is well-written and presents a coherent argument. Once the aforementioned issues are resolved, I think it will make a good contribution to the literature.

Response: Thank you for comments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

3.2.3. Negative Social and Cultural Impact of Tourism Scale - I think it's 2.2.3.

3.2.6. Data analysis - I think it's 2.2.6.

You shouln't have sections with just one paragraph

6.3. Recommendations for Future Studies - I think it's 5.3. 

Please review numbered sections ans see if you need them all

You still have this kind of information in abstract. Its not relevant:This sentence should not be in the abstract: "The participants were local residents, and 12 of the 600 questionnaires distributed to the residents, 529 valid questionnaires were returned, post- 13 ing a valid response rate of 88.2%."

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

3.2.3. Negative Social and Cultural Impact of Tourism Scale - I think it's 2.2.3.

Response: Thank you for comments. We had corrected it.

3.2.6. Data analysis - I think it's 2.2.6.

Response: Thank you for comments. We had corrected it.

6.3. Recommendations for Future Studies - I think it's 5.3.

Please review numbered sections ans see if you need them all

Response: Thank you for comments. We had corrected it.

 

You still have this kind of information in abstract. Its not relevant: This sentence should not be in the abstract: "The participants were local residents, and 12 of the 600 questionnaires distributed to the residents, 529 valid questionnaires were returned, post- 13 ing a valid response rate of 88.2%."

Response: Thank you for comments. We had corrected it. We had revised the abstract and the rephrased sentences are “ A total 600 questionnaires distributed to the local residents with a valid return rate of 88.2%.”

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised version has addressed most of the issues that I raised. However, the revised version now has many more grammatical errors and needs a thorough proofread by a native speaker (or a professional editing service). There were too many issues for them to be listed out here.

Aside from that, I do not think the issue of self-generated validity has been adequately addressed. It is now mentioned in the limitations, but no citation is given of relevant papers on the topic (I suggested three in my last report, but feel free to use others if you wish to). Some readers may be unfamiliar with the term or may seek greater context. More importantly, the opportunity for future research on the same topic using a qualitative or mixed-method approach has not been mentioned under suggestions for future research. Such research could validate your findings and thus rule out self-generated validity as an issue that may have affected the results. This is a fairly easy thing to fix for the next revision.

Well done.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version has addressed most of the issues that I raised. However, the revised version now has many more grammatical errors and needs a thorough proofread by a native speaker (or a professional editing service).

Response: Thank you for the comments. We had done it.

There were too many issues for them to be listed out here.

Aside from that, I do not think the issue of self-generated validity has been adequately addressed. It is now mentioned in the limitations, but no citation is given of relevant papers on the topic (I suggested three in my last report, but feel free to use others if you wish to). Some readers may be unfamiliar with the term or may seek greater context. More importantly, the opportunity for future research on the same topic using a qualitative or mixed-method approach has not been mentioned under suggestions for future research. Such research could validate your findings and thus rule out self-generated validity as an issue that may have affected the results. This is a fairly easy thing to fix for the next revision.

Well done.

Response: Thank you for the comments. Even though we didn’t mention the self-generated validity issue in the original article, we actually adapted some tricks to avoid such issues. After reading the reference you provided, we were happy to add more knowledge to such issues and which will significantly contribute to our teachings and research. Once again, thanks for your suggestions. We really appreciate your efforts in search for real answers. We had carefully revised our article relating to this issue in this revision and added references in our article. Please refer to section 5.2. Thank you very much.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf