How Ski Tourism Involvement Promotes Tourists’ Low-Carbon Behavior?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting topic. This a good sample considering that the sample collection lasted only one month. Good concept work. Methodologically correctly done work. Authors should take care and carefully check all the literature used - all the references listed at the end of the paper are not included in the paper itself. Also, attention should be paid to the way of citing references in the paper itself (it was not done according to the instructions for the authors).

Author Response

Thank you. We appreciate your constructive feedback. Please find below our detailed responses to your comments.

We have checked all the literature used – all the references listed at the end of the paper and added the paper references.

Please the attachement (Manuscript and response.docx)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. I find the current manuscript interesting. I appreciate that there has been a lot of reading and ground covered. 

However, I have a few suggestions to improve the manuscript:

Abstract

I would suggest that the author mention methods and limitations sections in a few sentences, and those sentences should be more specific instead of general.

Introduction

First page, second paragraph, several sentences need in-text references or citations. For example, most studies (who are those please be specific) and few studies (just put e.g. and cite them and closed parenthesis). We should be more careful with in-text citations or references, especially when we are emphasizing or showing the importance of something, such as "popular." Hence, find those sentences and similar sentences and add a citation at the end of the sentence.

P.4 after line 192, please consider changing "our." You can use the current study or the current research. 

Literature Review

What is the theory that supports your model? Please, create a section and at least write two paragraphs to explain that section.

Methods:

What kind of sampling technique did they use?

What kind of software program did they use to test paths or hypotheses? 

Did you translate the Questionnaire?  

How long did the authors spend time for data collection?

Is there any specific study site that authors can share with us?

Results & Discussion:

There is no concern about the results. However, the authors should explain to us what the results mean to readers. 

Conclusion:

As a final suggestion, author(s) only wrote the result of the study and didn't compare them with previous studies in detail. In other words, I would like to know what those studies found, where they did in their study, and what they explored and how they are similar or oppose with the current study.

 

 

Overall, a very interesting, well-written, and justified manuscript. I wish the author(s) the best of luck with the revision.

 

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. We appreciate your feedback and are glad to hear that you find the current manuscript interesting.

The revised article and reponse were uploaded as attachement. Please see the file Manuscript and response.docx

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Upon reviewing the manuscript titled "The Influence of Tourism Involvement on Low-Carbon Behavior: A Comparative Study of Indoor and Outdoor Ski Resorts in China," I suggest several improvements that could strengthen the research's overall quality and impact.

I recommend a more specific title to clearly delineate the study's core focus areas. An elaboration of the abstract would also be beneficial, particularly concerning the methodology and key theoretical concepts. Specifically, the research methods employed, such as observational data and questionnaire surveys, need to be distinctly mentioned, and the role of the structural equation model in the analysis should be explicated.

In the introduction, more comprehensive background context regarding the environmental impact of the Chinese ski tourism industry and existing low-carbon initiatives would substantiate the relevance of the research. Precisely identifying the gaps in the literature this study addresses, and delineating the potential implications of these gaps would further enhance this section.

The methods section could be more robust by detailing the data collection and validation processes. It would be advantageous to clarify the sample selection process, elaborate on the data collection techniques used, and describe measures taken to ensure data reliability and validity. Clear elaboration on the statistical tests used and how they influenced the findings would also bolster this section.

The presentation of results could be made more reader-friendly by employing tables or visual aids and using clear headings for each key finding. I advise the inclusion of definitions or explanations of any statistical terms or abbreviations for the benefit of non-specialist readers.

The discussion section would gain depth by drawing comparisons and contrasts with pre-existing research, demonstrating how the results align or diverge. Further exploration into explaining the observed results, with reference to theoretical frameworks or prior research, would provide readers with richer insights.

The paper's theoretical contributions and practical implications sections would profit from greater specificity. For instance, concrete examples of how businesses can implement low-carbon facilities or how Destination Marketing Organizations (DMOs) can collaborate with cities to launch low-carbon tourism programs would be beneficial.

In the section detailing limitations and future research, discussing potential issues such as response bias, inaccuracies due to self-reported data, and the challenges of generalizing the results would contribute to the paper's credibility and reliability.

Lastly, I strongly recommend a formal conclusion to succinctly summarize the findings, re-emphasize the problem statement, and spotlight the study's contributions to the existing literature. This would help readers to quickly recall the main points and understand the study's significance.

In my opinion, these suggestions aim to heighten the paper's readability, consolidate its argument, and enhance its contribution to the body of existing knowledge.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback on the manuscript. We appreciate your suggestions to strengthen the research.

The revised article and reponse were uploaded as attachement.

Please see the file Manuscript and response.docx

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Now, it seems that it is much better than the first version (the author(s) made a huge effort to improve the manuscript). I would like to congratulate the author(s) for their scientific efforts and specific contribution to the literature. It would be a quality addition to the Sustainability. 

Reviewer 3 Report

I consider that the authors have correctly applied all the references and that there is a substantial improvement in the work