Use and Experience of Tourism Green Spaces in Ishigaki City before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic Based on Web Review Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have carefully reviewed your manuscript titled "Use and Experience of Tourism Green Spaces in Ishigaki City Before and During the Covid-19 Pandemic Based on Web Review Data." I appreciate the effort and contribution you have made to the field of urban tourism green spaces. Overall, the study presents interesting insights into the changes in tourists' use and experience of UTGS during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, I have several suggestions to improve the manuscript before its publication.

Firstly, in the abstract, I recommend including a concise statement summarizing the main findings of the study. This will provide readers with a clear overview of the research outcomes. Additionally, it would be beneficial to emphasize the significance and contributions of the study to the field of urban tourism green spaces.

Secondly, in the introduction, please provide a more explicit rationale for selecting Ishigaki City as the study area. This will help readers understand why this particular location was chosen and its relevance to the research objectives. Furthermore, addressing the existing gaps in the literature that your research aims to fill would strengthen the introduction and contextualize the study.

Lastly, I suggest considering the exclusion of overseas tourists' samples from the analysis, given the differences in data availability and potential biases caused by the decrease in overseas tourist numbers during the pandemic. Focusing solely on domestic tourists' evaluations before and during the pandemic will provide more accurate insights into their experiences.

Furthermore, integrating advanced modeling techniques, such as regression analysis or machine learning algorithms, would enhance the analysis. These techniques can provide deeper insights into the factors influencing the changes in tourist evaluations, making the study more robust and persuasive.

 I look forward to reviewing the revised version. Thank you for your valuable contribution to the field.

 

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which have helped to improve the quality of this manuscript.

 

Please refer to the accompanying response document (Response_to_Reviewer_1_.pdf) and the revised version (sustainability-2412311 (1).pdf / sustainability-2412311 (1).doc) for specific changes. All page and line numbers refer to the revised manuscript file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

A good paper, but there is plenty room for improvement:

1. Covid-19 is a smoked issue. Try to address the post Covid facts and data.

2. What are the theoretical and practical implications of your study? Are your findings still relevant today?

3. What do you recommend to local authorities and park owners?  

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which have helped to improve the quality of this manuscript.

 

Please refer to the accompanying response document (Response_to_Reviewer_2_.pdf) and the revised version (sustainability-2412311 (1).pdf / sustainability-2412311 (1).doc) for specific changes. All page and line numbers refer to the revised manuscript file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article compares the usage of UTGS by tourists before and after the pandemic and provides valuable insights for future public construction projects. However, there are some major issues that need to be addressed before I can recommend it for publication.

1、Abstract

The abstract states that UTGS have developed a unique tourism image and brand value, but this claim is not supported by any evidence or analysis in the article. Please add more context or explanation (e.g., statistical findings) for this assertion.

2、Introduction

（1）In the introduction, the authors mention the impact of the COVID-19 on the tourism industry and the availability of media data in studying changes in park usage. But it seems that there is little introduction of changes in park usage before and after the COVID-19. The authors should add the introduction about how park usage have changed due to COVID-19 the around the world.

Here are two articles for authors' reference.

Ugolini, F., Massetti, L., Calaza-Martínez, P., Cariñanos, P., Dobbs, C., Ostoić, S. K., ... & Sanesi, G. (2020). Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use and perceptions of urban green space: An international exploratory study. Urban forestry & urban greening, 56, 126888.

Zhang, W., & Li, J. (2023). A quasi-experimental analysis on the causal effects of COVID-19 on urban park visits: The role of park features and the surrounding built environment. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 82, 127898.

（2）The introduction mentions that UTGS are important for promoting sustainable tourism development, but there is little discussion of sustainability issues elsewhere in the article. Please expand on how the results relate to broader debates about sustainable tourism practices and policies.

3、Method

（1）The study focuses on the urban tourism green areas that best represent the tourist image and value of Ishigaki City. However, it is not clear how these areas were selected or what criteria were used to determine this representativeness. Please provide more information on this aspect of the methodology and visualize your study area.

（2）The study relies heavily on web review data to assess the use and experience of tourism green spaces in Ishigaki City, but it is not clear how representative or reliable these data are.

（3）The methodology section describes using sentiment analysis to categorize web reviews, but it is not clear how this was done or what criteria were used to determine positive or negative sentiment. Could the authors provide more detail on the sentiment analysis approach?

（4）The article mentions that the study collected online review data in Python, but it is not clear how this was done or what specific tools or techniques were used. Could the authors provide more detail on their data collection and analysis methods?

4、Result

Please redraw the line chart of the results to make it more readable. The current version has inconsistent line colors, transparency, legend content, and x-axis label layout.

5、Discussion

The authors should strengthen the "Discussion" section by comparing with previous studies.

It appears that the language is generally clear and concise. There are no obvious grammatical errors or spelling mistakes.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which have helped to improve the quality of this manuscript.

 

Please refer to the accompanying response document (Response_to_Reviewer_3_.pdf) and the revised version (sustainability-2412311 (1).pdf / sustainability-2412311 (1).doc) for specific changes. All page and line numbers refer to the revised manuscript file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I has no more suggestion.