Research on China’s Tourism Public Services Development from the Perspective of Spatial–Temporal Interactions and Based on Resilience Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations for the article. My comments and suggestions are:

- The study should clarify the concept and scope of “tourism public service” in China and its main differences comparing with private tourism services. This is extremely important since the study is located in China which is a totally different tourism market in comparison to other countries where the role of the state in tourism services is lower, especially regarding transportation, entertainment, etc.

- The authors should correct and reformulate the phrases from line 81-86 to avoid grammar mistakes and repetition.

- The source of Figure 1 should be presented.

- Chapter 3.1.1 Regarding the model - it is not clear why some of the indicators were used and which is their direct link with tourism since some of them seem to be directed towards the population: E4, E5, S3, S4, S5, I4, C2. Usage of these indexes should be realized with caution since a high value of the indexes does not translate into a better tourism environment or a better tourism resilience. The authors should highlight which of these indexes are more important for the tourism industry (and if needed, give a bigger weight in the model to relevant indexes). This element can also be seen in chapter 4.5.1 where the major obstacles are defined to be: C1, I8, S9, I6, S2, I7, C3, I5 (lines 331-335).

- In the data analysis, the study concentrated on the data regarding tourism public service development index but did not compare it with data regarding volume and quality of tourism in the region. This can be a future case study and/or article if the task it’s too difficult for the current research.

- In the chapter 4.2 the study should compare the spatial evolution pattern of the tourism public service development index with the volume of tourism as well (number of tourists, volume, revenues, etc.). The development of tourism services described in this chapter should follow the general request for tourism public services from tourists.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The paper applies the resilience theory to define an evaluation index system of the tourism public service. More specifically, it employs the entropy weight method, Kernel density and Moran index to assess the development level of the Chinese tourism public service and to explore its evolution over space an time.

The paper needs to be revised. Below my comments.

In introduction the Authors quote a number of contributions on the relevance of resilience in the tourism sector. In particular, concerning tourism sustainability, the Authors should refer to sustainable tourism in all its possible meanings, including the social dimension (see, for instance, Cisneros-Martínez et al. 2018 “The contribution of social tourism to sustainable tourism: a case study of seasonally adjusted programmes in Spain” Journal of Sustainable Tourism; Darcy et al. 2010 “Accessible tourism and sustainability: A discussion and case study” Journal of Sustainable Tourism; Sisto et al. 2022 “Sustainable and accessible tourism in natural areas: a participatory approach” Current issue in tourism). Such a discussion could be carried out also in the theoretical analysis that currently looks quite “poor”.

Moreover, introduction should report the research question that the paper intends to address. Although it can be currently caught from the last part of the section, it is not clearly stated. Similarly, the Authors should highlight the novelty of their contribution and ends the section with a short remainder of the paper in order to guide the reader throughout the manuscript.

Descriptive statistics should be reported in Section 3.2

The conclusions need to be totally rearranged. They currently are more a summing up of the findings achieved. In contrast conclusions should focus on the implications of the results, stressing any possible shortcomings and underlying the future lines of research. A discussion concerning the possibility of extending the findings to other countries is missing.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, allow you to express satisfaction with your work and the research you conducted. 

Your research is very interesting and important. In your article, particular attention is drawn to Methodology Analysis, where you consider extremely curious and ambiguous materials.

But in your Conclusion, the conclusions that you drew from your research are too narrow. Your results should be correlated with those theories of scientists that you consider in Methodological Analysis. Otherwise, your Conclusion is too narrow and does not have much scientific significance.

In addition, I ask you to pay attention to Figure 6. It's not readable. Try to make it brighter.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I'm completely satisfied with the latest version of the manuscript.

Congratulations!