Suitability Evaluation of Popular Science Tourism Sites in University Towns: Case Study of Guangzhou University Town

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the paper titled, Suitability Evaluation of Popular Science Tourism Sites in University Towns – Taking Guangzhou University Town as an Example you provide an interesting perspective on scientific tourism in a university city, novel approach to tourism destination. This paper, after an analysis, ends with the practical application of its findings in the form of a programme of four tourist routes combined into a one-day tour around Guangzhou University town. The categories of data used in this research can be adapted to studies on other geographical regions. However, it requires reflection in accordance with the comments that came to my mind after reading it. While reading the text of the article I noticed a few aspects that could improve the proposed approach and conceptualization. These are of minor significance, and I encourage the author’/’s to introduce these minor revisions. I believe that the elements outlined in the comments are important and addressing them would help dispel any doubts related to the findings of the study. I sincerely hope you will find these helpful in improving your manuscript.

In general, the study lacks a solid grounding of the identified resources for science tourism from the European perspective. That perspective is quite narrow when we do not include the European perspective in this broad discussion. What about theoretical contributions from Europe: Oxford University, Cambridge Univ., Heidelberg Univ., Bologna Univ., Padova Univ., Prague Univ.? Do these findings enrich the literature underpinning research? I am fairly sceptical about the discussion and the contribution of the study to the literature on the role of universities in the development of the science tourism.

The literature review should be more critical and less narrative. You can show that some specific studies would show better results using discussed models and indicators or any other method/models, in your review.

The other main doubt relates to the lack of a discussion of the way university cities relate to science tourism, also: as a factor shaping tourist cities and city-university relations – beyond the third mission, especially the role of university campuses in the creation of the tourism space in science tourism.

I list some examples and I encourage author/s to consider broadening the discussion and context of the study:

 

1. den Heijer A.C., Curvelo Magdaniel F.T.J. 2018. Campus–City Relations: Past, Present, and Future. In: Meusburger P., Heffernan M., Suarsana L. (eds) Geographies of the University. Knowledge and Space, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75593-9_13
2. Hebbert, M. 2018. The campus and the city: a design revolution explained, Journal of Urban Design, 23:6, 883-897, DOI: 1080/13574809.2018.1518710
3. Rinaldi Ch., Cavicchi A. & Robinson R.N.S. 2020. University contributions to co-creating sustainable tourism destinations, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, DOI: 1080/09669582.2020.1797056
4. Tomasi, S.; Paviotti, G.; Cavicchi, A. 2020. Educational Tourism and Local Development: The Role of Universities. Sustainability, 12, 6766. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176766\
5. Cox A.M., Benson Marshall M., Burnham J.A.J., Care L., Herrick T., Jones M., 2020. Mapping the campus learning landscape, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2020.1788124.
6. Ford, M. 2002. Beyond the Modern University: Toward aConstructive Postmodern University. Westport, CT: Praeger.
7. Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K. B., Doll, C. N., & Kraines, S. B. 2014. Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Science and Public Policy, 41(2), 151–179. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct044
8. Trencher, G., Bai, X., Evans, J., McCormick, K., Yarime, M.2014. University partnerships for co-designing and co-producing urban sustainability. Global Environmental Change, 28, 153-165.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.009
9. Altynbassov, B., Myrzatayev, N., Barlykov, Y., Kozhabekov, S., Nazikova, Z., Narenova, A., & Bayanbayeva, A. 2021. The establishment of international university campuses as a key factor in the development of local tourism in the turkestan region in kazakhstan: Economic and legal aspects. Journal of Environmental Management & Tourism, 12(6), 1454-1464. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v12.6(54).03

My other doubts are connected with:

1. Introduction

• Please consider dividing the Introduction into two separate parts: “Introduction” and “Theoretical context” (lines 129-155). This second part could be devoted only to discussing land suitability evaluation.

2. Overview of the study area, research methodology and data sources

This part is very descriptive; provide greater clarification on the use of five items, indicators for the evaluation of the quality of science tourism sites in Guangzhou University Town: 1) Scale capacity, 2) Environmental level, 3) Resource level, 4) Service conditions and 5) Location conditions, construction of judgment matrix and tests.

How were field observations performed?

How many interviews with real-time pedestrian were made?

What is the scope of data on science and tourism resources and the distribution of food and beverages in commercial centres?

3. Analysis of results

• Table 2, p. 9 – I assume that the fourth column in the table titled Rate of Buildings should be called “water bodies”.

4. Conclusion and outlook

• The Conclusion summarizes and submit results, presented in the previous part of the paper.
• I would suggest, for consideration, to divide the last part of the article, titled „Conclusion and outlook,” into three parts: Conclusion, Discussion and Outlook. It might be more useful.

5. The article requires some touch of editing:

• Repetitions: lines 46 and 47: popularisation of science, science popularisation
• Several direct quotations are indicated with Authors, but without page numbers, which would indicate where the particular single quote appears in the cited material . Please double check it.
• Some sentences are too long– e.g., lines 47-42- this sentence feels like it is made-up of two sentences but there are parts that are not necessary. The same in lines: 547-554; 580-587. Special attention should be paid to shorten the sentences in the text without losing its sense.
• Sentence, started in line 618 is ridiculously long and is missing parts.
• Please double check the grammar and syntax of sentences. When reading the article, one has the impression that due to stylistic errors, the article loses its flow.
• Commas or periods at the end of the sentence are missed (e.g., line 625). Please, double check it.
• References: Not all references are prepared in accordance with the journal's guidelines; double periods, missing letters in words – please, double check it.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear Reviewer 1,

 

Re: Manuscript ID: Sustainability-1562714 and Title: Suitability Evaluation of Popular Science Tourism Sites in University Towns – Taking Guangzhou University Town as an example.

 

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Title: Suitability Evaluation of Popular Science Tourism Sites in University Towns – Taking Guangzhou University Town as an example.”. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. The responses to the reviewer's comments are 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.

Point 1. Consider the discussion and the contribution of the study to the literature on the role of universities in the development of science tourism, and the doubt relates to the lack of a discussion of the way university cities relate to science tourism, also: as a factor shaping tourist cities and city-university relations – beyond the third mission, especially the role of university campuses in the creation of the tourism space in science tourism.

 

Response 1: Thanks to your comment, we agree with them and we search for some papers which discuss the relationship between cities and their universities, such as Washington University and Seattle, Cambridge University and Cambridge; Arizona State University and the city of Phoenix, etc. We introduced them(lines 68-88) and made comparisons with a table(lines 77).

 

In these examples, Scholars have analyzed the relationship between universities and cities and the role of universities by creating a schematic diagram from the perspective of their location in cities and the resources they have. These articles have inspired our research and enriched our ideas.

 

In general, we make a summary among examples and draw a conclusion of the role of universities in urban development, and the changes they bring to urban development. At the same time, we compared the examples in western countries with Guangzhou University Town and pointed out that the current development of Guangzhou University City is fragmented from the city and will face the problem of transformation and upgrading (Lines 89-92). Based on the experience and resources in university town, we suggest that a proper way to solve this problem is popular science tourism.

 

Point 2. Consider dividing the Introduction into two separate parts: “Introduction” and “Theoretical context” (lines 129-155). This second part could be devoted only to discussing land suitability evaluation.

 

Response 2: Thanks to your comment, we divided the first part (1 Introduction) into two parts as your suggestion---1.1 The development of science tourism and the role of universities(lines 27-127)and 1.2 land suitability evaluation(lines 128-163).

 

Point 3. How were field observations performed? How many interviews with real-time pedestrian were made? What is the scope of data on science and tourism resources and the distribution of food and beverages in commercial centres?

 

Response 3: We deeply appreciate your suggestion. In part 2.4 Data sources, we introduce more about the field observations performed, interviews with real-time pedestrians and the scope of data (lines 332-348). In addition, our results also introduce some information of our observation (lines 481-511).

 

Point 4. Table 2, p. 9 – I assume that the fourth column in the table titled Rate of Buildings should be called “water bodies”.

 

Response 4: We apologize for the error in the edit and have corrected the title.

 

Point 5. I would suggest, for consideration, to divide the last part of the article, titled “Conclusion and outlook,” into three parts: Conclusion, Discussion and Outlook. It might be more useful.

 

Response 5: We are grateful for the suggestion. According to your suggestion, we divided the part titled “Conclusion and outlook” into three parts called “Suggestions for science tourism development(lines 518-569), Outlook(lines 570-600) and conclusions(lines 601-636)”.

 

Point 6. The article requires some touch of editing

Response 6: We apologize for the language problems in the original manuscript. The language presentation of the whole article was improved with assistance from a professional institution with appropriate research background. In addition, we submit the certificate of editing by the institution to the Editorial Office and please kindly check it.

 

Yours Sincerely,

GUO Wei

Reviewer 2 Report

A much-improved manuscript.  Some interesting ideas presented in a paper describing a novel approach to science tourism.  While still seemingly focussed on the geography / planning issues around a 'popular science' destination, a useful tourism contribution is made by identifying and analysing the various factors around best-placement of elements in such a destination.

The draft could be improved with reference to other successful 'popular science' institutions, such as Questacon in Canberra Australia.

The literature cited is from a narrow range of sources, and is perhaps not representative of the broader literature available in this field.  I would recommend further development of the literature review and use of a wider range of sources.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear Reviewer 2,

 

Re: Manuscript ID: Sustainability-1562714 and Title: Suitability Evaluation of Popular Science Tourism Sites in University Towns – Taking Guangzhou University Town as an example.

 

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Title: Suitability Evaluation of Popular Science Tourism Sites in University Towns – Taking Guangzhou University Town as an example.”. Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. The responses to the reviewer's comments are presented following.

 

Point 1. The draft could be improved with reference to other successful 'popular science' institutions and use of a wider range of sources.

 

Response 1: We are grateful for the suggestion. In our revised manuscript, we use a wider range of sources in America, Europe and Australia to introduce some successful universities and their role in cities. We find that quantities of universities play a complicated role in their cities, including “popular science” with a table(line 77). Compared to Guangzhou University Town, I think the experience of examples around the world is valuable to the further development of Guangzhou University Town, especially on popular science tourism since it may be the most suitable way(lines 66-92).

 

Best Regards,

GUO Wei

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revisions adequately address the issues I identified, and am now happy to support this paper for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2, 

 

Thanks to your work, wish you have a good day!

 

Best Regards, 

Wei