Earthquake and Tourism Destination Resilience from the Perspective of Regional Economic Resilience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. The topic is interesting and timely, but while this paper has some merit (primarily as outlined in the first paragraph of the discussion section) as it is currently written there is a great deal more to be done to focus the discussion and to bring the manuscript up to acceptable standards.

There is a great deal of research published on destination resilience, and while the authors acknowledge some of this (e.g. the book by Hall et al, 2018; the paper by Mair et al., 2016) existing research in this field is not adequately summarised, so that the contribution of this paper is not clear. It might also be sensible to provide more of an overview of crises and disasters - perhaps narrow your focus to natural hazard events?  Currently there is discussion of covid-19 and economic crises, which confuses the argument somewhat.

There are also many sections in which the authors are quite contradictory. For example, on page three (l 135) the statement is made that there is a lack of theoretical perspective on tourism recovery and reconstruction, but then immediately lists three theoretical perspectives, none of which are discussed.  In many parts of the paper, ideas seem to be thrown together, with little in the way of connection, as just one case in point, we have mention of 'the third question (p. 4 l 189) without a first or second question.

The structure is odd too - there is contextual information about the earthquake in the findings section, which would have been useful to the reader in the introduction. Similarly, quite a lot of the material presented in the methods section seems to have little to do with the methods used in this paper. 

There is also a significant lack of rigour in the presentation of this paper. For example, many of the cited references are not in the reference list, in text dates are wrong, and most noticeably, two paragraphs from the article template appear on page 2 (ll 68- 79) raising significant doubts about the authors' statement that they all read a final version of the paper!

In conclusion, there may be something of merit in this paper, but first the authors have to develop a clear structure and framework for their paper and ensure that they build a strong and clear argument, fully discussing key concepts and providing a suitable synthesis between them.

Author Response

Point 1: There is a great deal of research published on destination resilience, and while the authors acknowledge some of this (e.g. the book by Hall et al, 2018; the paper by Mair et al., 2016) existing research in this field is not adequately summarised, so that the contribution of this paper is not clear. It might also be sensible to provide more of an overview of crises and disasters - perhaps narrow your focus to natural hazard events?  Currently there is discussion of covid-19 and economic crises, which confuses the argument somewhat.

 

Response 1: Thanks so much for your valuable comments and suggestions.（1）We further summarize and discuss the previous literature in order to highlight the value of this paper。（2）We have removed the relevant statements from covid-19 and used the subsequent impact of the Icelandic volcanic eruption to address the issue in the relevant section.（3）

 

Point 2: There are also many sections in which the authors are quite contradictory. For example, on page three (l 135) the statement is made that there is a lack of theoretical perspective on tourism recovery and reconstruction, but then immediately lists three theoretical perspectives, none of which are discussed.  In many parts of the paper, ideas seem to be thrown together, with little in the way of connection, as just one case in point, we have mention of 'the third question (p. 4 l 189) without a first or second question.

Response 2: （1）We have removed some unnecessary points and changed the narrative to make it clearer；（2）For some of the ideas we have strengthened the discussion to make the structure of their relationship with other ideas clearer。

 

Point 3：The structure is odd too - there is contextual information about the earthquake in the findings section, which would have been useful to the reader in the introduction. Similarly, quite a lot of the material presented in the methods section seems to have little to do with the methods used in this paper.

 

Response 3:（1）We have added a background description of the effects of the earthquake and changed the position of information about the earthquake in the text.（2）We removed some methods of introduction。

 

Point 4:There is also a significant lack of rigour in the presentation of this paper. For example, many of the cited references are not in the reference list, in text dates are wrong, and most noticeably, two paragraphs from the article template appear on page 2 (ll 68- 79) raising significant doubts about the authors' statement that they all read a final version of the paper!

Response 3：（1）We have re-calibrated the indexes in the text, including the dates and authors, and added to the list of citations.（2）We have removed the template part of the original text。

Thanks so much for your valuable comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

This research paper describes actual topic – Earthquake and Tourism Destination Resilience from the Perspective of Regional Economic Resilience. In their article authors notice, that Based on the perspective of regional economic resilience, the impact of the Wenchuan  earthquake is used as an example to explore the research ideas and methods for tourism destination resilience. Authors point out that he results demonstrate that tourism destination resilience analyses from the perspective of regional economic resilience mainly include four processes: Vulnerability, Shock, Recession, and Recovery.

And I would like to share with authors some doubts and remarks too: it seems important to notice, that it would be needed to concentrate on the abstract of the study, presenting more clearly the results and conclusions of the study. As well, when developing "Discussion" and "Conclusions" sections it would be needed to include to the debate more future oriented theoretical implications, thus accessing deeper discussion and concluding insights.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: It would be needed to concentrate on the abstract of the study, presenting more clearly the results and conclusions of the study.

Response 1: Thanks so much for your valuable comments and suggestions.（1）We revised the abstract to present the research process, research ideas and final conclusions in a more clear and explicit way. This not only highlights the marginal contribution of the article, but also gives us the opportunity to gain recognition from reviewers and editors. Thank you for helping us improve our writing skills.（2）The revised abstract:With the increasing uncertainty and complexity of disasters, the tourism industry in disaster-stricken areas is often hard hit, so it is urgent to improve the resilience of the tourism industry. Based on the perspective of regional economic resilience, this study takes Wenchuan earthquake as an example to explore the theoretical framework, research ideas and methods of tourist destination resilience. The industry policy should be included in the resilience construction to theoretically respond to the reasons for the improvement of the resilience of tourism industry in the post-disaster recovery. Taking Sichuan tourism as the research object, this paper estimated the impact of Wenchuan earthquake on Sichuan tourism and the effect of industrial policies on the resilience of the tourism industry in the post-disaster recovery. The results show that the total revenue loss of Sichuan tourism industry brought by Wenchuan earthquake is 87.298 billion yuan, and the post-disaster recovery window period is 7 years (2008-2014). After the earthquake, the industrial policy measures taken have effectively improved the resilience of Sichuan's tourism industry, making it reach the level that it would have been before the earthquake and assuming that there had been no earthquake.

Point 2: When developing "Discussion" and "Conclusions" sections it would be needed to include to the debate more future oriented theoretical implications, thus accessing deeper discussion and concluding insights.

Response 2: （1）We have removed some unnecessary points and changed the narrative to make it clearer；（2）For some of the ideas we have strengthened the discussion to make the structure of their relationship with other ideas clearer。

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper seems better now. Thanks for corrections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.