Spatiotemporal Variation in Carbon Emissions in China’s Tourism Industry during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Ecological Compensation Mechanism
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript presents the changes in carbon emissions in the tourism industry by leveraging the background of reduced human activities during the COVID-19 pandemic, providing a reference for the minimum carbon reduction in the tourism sector. The study on ecological compensation for tourist attractions offers ecological compensation schemes for tourist attractions and nature reserves affected by public events. It is recommended to make revisions to the following issues.
1. In line 19 of the article, there should be a space after the period before continuing the text. The corrected sentence would be: "reductions in 2020 compared to 2019. Furthermore..."
2. In lines 33-35 of the article, consider removing "the" and "process" to make the sentence clearer. The revised sentence would be: "Transportation mode, accommodation choices, and activities undertaken by tourists are the primary sources of energy consumption and carbon emissions in the tourism industry".
3. In lines 35-37 of the article, consider deleting "conducted a comprehensive estimation of" to make the sentence more concise. The revised sentence would be: "In 2008, integrated literature research and a bottom-up approach estimated carbon emissions in China's tourism industry".
4. L37-39, "played a significant role in" should be delete.
5. L70：it is better to remove of "a means of".
6. Why did the article choose NEP vegetation carbon sink as the basis for ecological compensation calculation instead of using carbon stock as the standard for ecological compensation?
7. Why does the article use the density aggregation method to extract the calculation range of vegetation carbon sinks in scenic areas, and why is the density aggregation range smaller in natural scenic areas such as Xinjiang and Tibet in Figure 2b?
8. L341, "sceni0c" is wrong. Please correct it.
9. L381, The correlation between X1 and X6 is 0.731. Why X6 is directly chosen as the variable for the calculation of ecological compensation instead of X1?
10. L400, How to explain "the higher the Engel coefficient, the less the area of natural scenic spots in the region"?
Author Response
Thank you very much for your thorough review and constructive comments on our manuscript. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The submitted paper is of good technical level and offers a very interesting investigation of the carbon emissions in China’s tourism industry during the COVID-19 pandemics, reflecting on potential ecological compensation trade-offs. The paper approaches a recent and global impacting topic, provides interesting reflections on carbon emissions influences in tourism and points to important future research directions.
However, there are some issues that need to be addressed and improved, in my opinion.
1 Although the theme of the article is of obvious importance for the environment, I feel the need to clearly point the implications of the findings to sustainability aspects, since this is the scope of the Journal. In this respect, I suggest to clearly state the impact or to comment on the implications of the findings on sustainability in all sections of this article (abstract, introduction, results and discussion and conclusions)
2. Sections 3 and 4 have the same title – results and discussion. The conclusion section is missing. Please correct this aspect.
3. Line 378 in section 3.3.2. refers to Table 7, but the discussion on results actually points to information in Table 5. Please check and correct.
4. Significance levels for the correlation matrix results in Table 5 need to be provided, and, if relevant, commented on.
5. In the last part of the study, maybe in the conclusion section, please insert a paragraph that compares this study’s results to other recent research findings.
6. Please describe in English reference 23 and check it’s relevance to the paper.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your thorough review and constructive comments on our manuscript. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This is very important research with strong statistical and spatial evidence well done.
However the paper is hard to follow and read. This needs to be addressed to the wider international readers.
The title needs to be reflected throughout the paper.
Research aims need to be clearly stated and detailed in the beginning of the paper.
Please define and explain with international examples what you mean by ecological compensation (EC) and also trade offs
Establish a strong argument and support for the EC and extent of damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in each province see 2.3
2.3. Ecological Compensation Calculation Method " Considering the extent of damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in each province"
Tables are generally difficult to read and follow. Please remove X1 to X8 and replace with descriptive variable see table 5 and 7 etc.
Take time to discuss the Ecological Compensation Trade-offs and how it relates to your research aims in your analysis and conclusion
Author Response
Thank you very much for your thorough review and constructive comments on our manuscript. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your response and for the revised form of the article that implemented the previous recommendations.
Reviewer 3 Report
good edits and changes
