Research on the Spatial Network Effect of Urban Tourism Flows from Shanghai Disneyland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article aims to explore the characteristics and mechanisms of the impact of major tourism projects on the spatial pattern of urban tourism flows and propose optimization strategies from a tourism development perspective, using the spatial network analysis method and taking the Disneyland large-scale theme park recently opened in Shanghai as a case study.

The overall structure of the article is well conceived. The research question of the study is clearly expressed in the premises; the abstract is concise and exhaustive. The Introduction gives a brief but clear description of the study context and a clear statement of the problem addressed and of the paper’s content and aim. The literature review is rather essential, but in any case well referenced and relevant for the study goal. Materials and methods (Sections 3 and 4) are correctly and clearly described, but in Section 5, the analysis of network nodes after the opening (Subsection 5.1.2) is missing, as only the title and Figure 3 are present; considerations about this point should be necessarily added, consistently with Subsection 5.1.1.

The main criticality of the article lies in the weak connection between the analysis performed and the final discussion, with specific reference to the ‘Recommendation’ (6.2) and ‘Discussion’ (6.3) Subsections. The authors make recommendations about the “introduction and cultivation of major tourism projects to support the development of international tourism cities”, in order to “further optimize the spatial pattern of tourism in Shanghai” (6.2, first paragraph). In the first place, the “optimal” configuration of the pattern should be defined, i.e. it is not clear which pattern should be ‘optimum’ for the author. Furthermore, it is also unclear how exactly other major projects could positively influence the current spatial network and flows since it is not explained in the text. Recommendations in subsection 6.2 are not solidly rooted in what is analyzed in the previous sections, but rather disconnected and not supported by evidence: considerations on the effect of such developments on the relevant parameters and indices are totally missing in the section. It is also unclear why the authors propose the development of international tourism cities and theme parks with global influence, while at the same time focusing on domestic flows of tourists; this results in a rather obscure point and should be clarified.

Another weak point of the final Section is the fact that considerations on the sustainability of the suggested large-scale developments and their possible effects on the life quality of residents are totally missing, nor is this mentioned as a limitation of the study in 6.3; over-tourism, over-crowding, congested traffic are all issues that deserve specific attention given the article’s topic and the journal's main perspective.

 

For the article to be suitable for publication, my suggestion is to deeply revise Section 6, not only in the sense explained above but also in terms of formal structure and title, in order to give a more logical sequence to subsections: ‘Discussion’ should be followed by ‘Recommendations’ and finally by ‘Conclusion’.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is clearly and correctly written. It deals with an important topic.

However, there are some serious shortcomings that should be considered:

-    Interest of this study:

Beginning with the Introduction it needs a clean-up, is too vague, too long. The introduction should be the most interesting part of a paper!! You should be more clear and direct. Introduction needs to be re-addressed from scratch. At the moment, the front end of the paper is quite vague and one does not get a sense that this kind of study is really needed. A better way to begin this would be to talk about the problem in the first paragraph (explain why this research is relevant), give a brief overview of past studies in the second, show what you are doing different in the third, and use the fourth for an overview of the paper.

Literature review: 

The authors should present a more profound and exhaustive description of the more relevant theories and studies.

Conclusions:

The conclusions are brief and the results are poorly discussed. Moreover, the study implications are not presented.

In sum, this manuscript has some qualities, but important improvements are needed. Also the English should be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer Report for the Manuscript: Sustainability-1938106

“Research on the Spatial Network Effect of Urban Tourism
Flows from Shanghai Disneyland”

Journal Name: Journal of Sustainability

 

REVIEWER REPORT

Summary

The articles’ topic is interesting and it aims to analyze the influence of Disneyland, as an international mega tourism project, on the spatial network of domestic tourism flows in Shanghai using social network analysis. The research goal is that investigation of the impact of major tourism projects on the spatial pattern of intercity tourism and propose optimization strategies. The results present interesting spatial changes before and after Disneyland establishment.  However, the paper lacks some fundamental arguments on both theoretical and literature review sides to have suitable contributions in concurrent literature. Abstract, Introduction Literature review, Methodology and Conclusion and discussion sections need to be revised as proposed in the followings.

 

Title and Abstract

1-    The results presented in this section is too short and somehow vague. So it should be well presented.

Introduction

1-    One of the important lacks of this section is that it’s not clear that what is the main concern of the article and what consequences the authors are worry about in terms of overflowing tourists in Disneyland after 2016

2-    It is strongly proposed to develop discussion on urban tourism pattern of Shanghai and contributions of the present study to current literature.

3-     The article suffers from a sustainable tourism development theory so that justify the analytical process of the research.

4-    Introduction section needs a more compelling argument on the spatial effects of micro tourism destination development both domestically and internationally.

Literature review

5-    In the first paragraph authors claim that “Most researches have focused on the economic and social effects of theme parks”, however, it should be evident through citing some of them.

6-    Conducting spatial analysis of urban tourism pattern through social network analysis needs to be well documented via other scholars work as main methodology of the article   

7-    There is a very need to address the most influential theoretical backgrounds in terms of spatial patterns of urban tourism and its relationships with micro scale tourism development projects.

Research Methodology:

8-    This section suffers from a well-organized discussion on social network analysis as main methodology of the research and its supportive debates on concurrent literature in terms of analyzing spatial pattern of urban tourism

Presentation

9-    The maps presentation needs to be improved. For instance, the map presented in Fig.1 as introducing the city tourism node is vague for an international reader as they cannot follow the city location on the map.

Conclusion

10-                    The conclusion section is rather short and generally written, thereby lacking of covering all main results and contributions.

 Discussion

11-                    This section needs to be improved through some recent arguments on urban tourism competitiveness between international tourism investments and local tourism activities in Shanghai.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

First, I would like to thank the author for carefully considering my suggestions. The revised version of the paper is substantially improved overall, as are the clarity and logical structure of the work. The solidity of the literature review has benefitted from the addition of further relevant references on theme parks and tourism flows.

As for Section 5.1.2, I think that the problem is that -also in the revised version- the title of the 5.1.2 is misplaced (postponed) after the related text ("After the opening of Disneyland, the index values......"), then it should be simply moved before that text in order to solve the problem. Please, consider this detail as my very last suggestion ("minor revision"). 

With that, I compliment the authors for the revision work, which makes the article suitable for publication.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Research on the Spatial Network Effect of Urban Tourism Flows from Shanghai Disneyland" (Manuscript ID: sustainability-1938106). Those comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The responses to your comments are marked in red and presented following.

We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Ms. Wang Min

Corresponding author,

E-Mail: [email protected]

 

Point 1: As for Section 5.1.2, I think that the problem is that -also in the revised version- the title of the 5.1.2 is misplaced (postponed) after the related text ("After the opening of Disneyland, the index values......"), then it should be simply moved before that text in order to solve the problem. Please, consider this detail as my very last suggestion ("minor revision").

Response 1: Thank you again for your professional comments and suggestions, we have made modifications according to your comments. (Line 20, page 8)

Reviewer 3 Report

There are some points that need to be addressed by the authors 

- In the discussion section the contribution of the results including similarities and differences with other findings should be developed to enrich the article results for an international reader. 

- Regional tourism axes needs to be addressed to discover the relationships between Disneyland and regional tourism axes and developable potential sub regional tourism axes in Shanghai region between two identified tourism poles; Disneyland and Bund 

- It is suggested that recommendation title changes to policy implications and transform after the conclusion section

- Social network analysis needs to be understood deeply as theoretical and methodological basis of the article. Therefore, it is highly recommended to address this concept in the literature review or introduction section  

-Disneyland icon needs to be shown in different color and different symbol in the figure.1 so that it can be identifiable in the map.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Based on new improvements, the paper now can be published. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Dear editor and reviewer,

Special thanks to you for your good comments. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Ms. Wang Min

Corresponding author,

E-Mail: [email protected]