Impact of Urbanization on Eco-Efficiency of Tourism Destinations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting, it deals with an important topic of the impact of urbanization on eco-efficiency of tourist attraction in a very suggestive country-context (China), and it is my pleasure to review it.

The paper is detailed, well-organized, and uses a solid scientific and logical tool. Methodology and approaches are interesting and comprehensive. The proposed model and the following analysis are laborious and impressive in technique and interpretation of the results. The Conclusions are well summarized, clear and substantiated.

However, I would have some considerations and suggestions for improving the quality of the article.

What are the research hypotheses and how do the authors structure the argumentation based on these hypotheses?

The Highlight paragraph (Highlights?) placed at the beginning of the article, after the Abstract and before the Introduction, is not a common academic practice. If these ideas were not/cannot be integrated in the Abstract, we recommend to be inserted in the final Conclusions, as a brief outline of the main findings of the research.

Although we understand that the authors employ a large volume of data, analysed in multiple contexts, the paper is oversized. In fact, not only Chapter 3. Results is very large (about 11-12 pages!), but also the other chapters are excessive. We recommend summarizing the information and reducing the work to reasonable sizes. This is not a formal (quantitative) recommendation but a qualitative one - in many cases the information is redundant, it repeats and resumes ideas and deductions already presented, also practical cases are excessively detailed.

This is very important to keep the interest of the readers, to value the quality and the essence of the research, and, implicitly, to ensure a correct dissemination among practitioners and researchers/academics of the otherwise valuable results of this research.

Small formal errors that must be checked and corrected

-commas instead of full stops, capitalized words inside sentences;

- Different fonts and sizes;

- references attached to adjacent words,

- blank pages (page 21)

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article and good luck!

.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript

Summary comments

This is a very detailed analysis at a high level of important issues in connecting economic performance and environmental performance at geographic locations, again linked to urbanisation (as noted at line 300 - 01).

In a long manuscript, great efforts are clear on developing and presenting a model and then testing it on a national level in one country.

Results provide useful insights and data on the issues raised.

Several novel approaches are introduced, including: the very detailed statistical analysis using regressions; innovative use of the Getis-Ord 'hot spot analysis'; and coupling analysis, from physics.

The results will be of use to researchers, practitioners and planners seeking to bring together environmental and economic analysis 

However, I'd point out a number of significant issues

This is a very ambitious paper.  Though providing extensive data and analysis, i wonder if trying to tie together environment / economic performance / urbanisation in the article is too much, resulting in key aims and results being lost.

For example, though using 'tourism' in the article title, and throughout the manuscript, it is unclear that you have adequately addressed the vast literature on tourism or sufficiently considered tourism concepts and issues.  For example, there seems to be an interchangeability between 'attraction' and 'scenic spot' in the manuscript.  In fact 'scenic spots' are but one (often minor) part of tourism attractions. There are no (that I can see) references to tourism sources in the reference list.  Indeed, the sources cited are from environmental, forestry, agricultural mathematical etc., journals and other sources.

Specific references relied on are very specific indeed, and in my view do not provide sufficient support for the points made about tourism and / or sustainability broadly; for example in one passage (Lines 74 - 84) use is made of articles focused on primates (Ref 23), engineering (24) and transport (25) to support very general points about tourism....

Very broad statements about tourism to me appear inaccurate and unsupported by the material presented; for example Line 86 ff: 'First, the unscientific development and operation of tourist attraction[s] do have a negative impact on the economic efficiency and eco-efficiency of Gansu'.

I can point to some useful sources on tourism which would provide useful background and context for this paper.  Some useful introductory material would include the following texts:

Cooper C (2021) Essentials of Tourism. 3rd Edn. Sage

McKercher B & Prideaux (2020) Tourism Theories, Concepts & Models. Goodfellow.

These general texts provide useful overviews, while:

Mason P (2021) Tourism Impacts, Planning & Management. 4th Edn. Routledge

would provide more specific materials on tourism, sustainability, impacts etc.

Morrison A M (2019) Marketing & Managing Tourism destinations. 2nd Edn. Routledge

would provide more specific information. context and perspectives on tourist attractions and their host communities and destination visitor economies.

While not specifically mentioning climate change, references to the carbon economy of tourism and attractions would be strengthened by effective use of at least some of the vast literature on tourism and climate change,

Useful sources here could include the work of Susan Becken, such as:

Becken S & Hay J E (2012) Climate Change & Tourism From Policy to Practice. Earthscan.

The authors have not really defined 'sustainability' or considered its elements, which is another area for further work.  Just one element to mention - the idea of 'balance' between economic and environmental factors is mentioned (e.g., Line 92 ff).  This approach does not address the very significant literature on 'integrating' not only environmental and economic factors, but also social / cultural in the Triple Bottom Line model literature.  The even larger issue of values is not considered, a crucial one in this debate.

In using such novel approaches, particularly in analysis you may lose your audience, who may be unconvinced or not understand the analysis and thus unclear about your results.

This last point prompts the question - who is your work aimed at?

If tourism industry or academics, the issues raised above will provide a barrier to acceptance and use.

If more broadly aimed at the economic / environment interface, perhaps another approach would be to de-emphasise the reliance on tourism attractions as the effectively case study used in the manuscript.

If the paper focused on presenting data and analysis on this key issue (env / economic performance) it may be clearer and more effective.  Perhaps the urbanisation issue could be retained, or perhaps even this could be best considered in a separate paper.

I now offer some more specific comments on the manuscript.

Suggested resequencing

I'd suggest section 2.3.3 Data Source(s?) (currently Line 381 ff) be moved up to before data analysis begins - perhaps to between s 2.2.1 (Research Method) and s 2.2.2 (Model) - say around Line 259?

Grammar

Suggested word changes and further explanations

Line 38: Perhaps spell out 'DEA' and 'SBM' at this point, rather than later in the paper (e.g., 'SBM' isn't explained till line 264)

Line 191: Figure 1 - add explanations for the columns (currently labeled '2019' in the figure legend - what dos this refer to

Line 191: Figure 1: add an explanation for the diagonal red line in the figure

Line 181: Instead of 'Until', do you mean 'In'?

Line 434: Explain 'M trend' and its significance

Line 512: Figure 4 - first part  (16 maps of China) - consider providing further explanation for these, and perhaps use a larger scale to be able to read more clearly?

Line 512: Figure 4 - second part (two side by side figures) - consider adding axes to each, providing more explanation (maybe have these in a separate figure?) and enlarge to make more readable

Line 537 - 38: Figure 5 - Consider separating out element for readability, including further explanation and axes descriptors

Line 561 - 12: Figure 6 - As above

Line 583 - 84: Figure 7 - as above

Line 775: I think this your third (not repeated second) point

Line 865: close up space between 'proposed:' and 'Accelerate'

Singular and plurals

Add 's' in -

Line 2: 'attractionS'

Line 39: 'attractionS'

Line 40: 'attractionS'

Line 42: 'attractionS'

Line 192: 'attractionS'

Line 747: 'attractionS'

Incomplete sentences

There are a number of passages in the manuscript which appear to be incomplete / truncated:

Line 296 - 97: sentence beginning ' To judge...' appears to be incomplete

Line 942 - 43, beginning 'In future research...'

Line 945 - 46, beginning '...impact mechanism  of tourist attraction, Put forward...'

References

Many of the sources cited in the reference list are incomplete - refs 2, 4, 5, 8, 12, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 56, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65 (here the date is doubled too), 67, 70,  

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review this paper.  There is much of significance in the work presented, and a reconsideration of the materials and target audience could only strengthen the effectiveness of the paper and the impact of the results.

In general, this is fine - see some specific comments above.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, the manuscript is sound. There is a lot of research coming out related to eco-efficiency. This manuscript does a great job of providing context, methodology, results, and conclusion.

There are a few issues that require minor editing. Examples include:

1) "commas followed by upper case" ( , The). These should be lower case. (Lines 174, 183, 445, etc.)

2) incorrect use of semi-colon (Lines 440, 476, 488, etc.)

3)  one space between word and citation (Lines 841, 842)

4) Table should be upper case for first word Ten/ten (Line 311)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review your revised manuscript.

I can see the amendments you have made and support many of the changes you have made.

However, I believe the paper needs further work.

In particular:

Terms, such as the crucial 'scenic spots' are not well (or at all) defined and will confuse many readers, especially from the tourism academy and industry practitioners.  A crucial one is 'scenic spots'.  This term does not have currency in the tourism field in the way it is used here;  a 'definition' provided (at Line 282-83) - '[i]n this paper, China's scenic spots are regarded as a complete ecological economic system..' is a new and novel approach and should be either further defined with regard to the relevant literature or a new term substituted. 

Much of the research used in support of the article and its background comes from a very limited range of sources which do not connect with the wider arena of tourism and sustainability. References relevant to the tourism field (many suggested by me in my earlier review comments) appear to be just inserted without consideration or effective use.  this is emphasised by the poor referencing of these these sources 9such as refs. 4, 5, 6, 16etc.)

Situating your terms and argument in the context of the broader international sustainable tourism literature / discourse would also make it more accessible and relevant to a broader readership.  this in turn would increase the value of the findings and the paper more useful to researchers and practitioners.

Other comments

'Typical and special' - Line 159:  What do you mean here?  Can you explain further, and why this is important and relevant?

Levels of scenic spots - Line 161: What is this?  A classification scheme? If so, what does it mean and how relevant is it to your research here?

Second stage regression - Lines 313 ff:  Not sure you can define the 'external drivers of the scenic pots are mainly from the economic and social environment...'.  What about the environmental elements?

Overall trends - Lines 341 ff:  several statements here are not supported by relevant literature.

Spatial distribution (Section 3.2): This section reads more like a policy paper - is this where it originated?

In the same section, some very generous and again unsupported value judgements are made - such as '...good development' (Line 347), '.. online tourism platforms matured' (line 350); '... most optimistic' (Line 357).

While noting a citation made (to Ref. 54) I do not support the statement '... environmental damage is irreversible' (line 361) being used without extensive qualification - what is the basis for the statement? what sort of 'damage'? how severe? impacts? remedial measures considered?....

Table 6 (and relevant text): While understanding the use of proxies for complex phenomena and measurements, I believe using 'numbers of beds in health institutions' as a proxy for 'social security' is a gross simplification, as is 'housing area of urban residents' and 'total postal...' as proxies to measure 'quality of life for urban residents' (Line 485).

Line 506: 'smart scenic spots' - not sure what you mean here (see also my comments on the definition of 'scenic spots', above.

Lines 570 ff: This section reads like more policy proposals - '[w]e should always remember that "green water...'

Further typographical suggestions

Text

Line 192: '...Professor J. ith Ord..'??

Line 477: Is there something missing here? Sentence reads 'In environmental factors'. ???

Sources

Several key data sources are cited in the text, but not referenced in section 2.2.2 Data source (lines 228 - 238)

References

Correctly references refs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 16.

Ref  55 is incomplete

Figures

Figure 1: There seems to be a discrepancy between the legend for this figure and the content (see also Line 164). Do you mean 'growth' in scenic spots from 2000 - 2019?  Also, what do you mean by '... sometimes the level of urbanization' in the legend?

Figure 3: Need to provide detail for the items in the figure legend;  need to put a title on the y-axis; could put a title on the x-axis (e.g., 'years') too.

Figure 4: As queried in my round 1 comments - not clear you need so many maps, especially as they are mentioned (as far as I can see) only once in the text (at Line 308). if you believe you do, then perhaps you could separate the top set (Line 411) from the bottom set (Line 412) into separate figures. 

Also - both bottom figures (Line 412) are inverted (!).

Figure 5: Again, this figure seems to be mentioned only once (at Line 418).  Also, I suggest you break this large and complex figure into two.

Figure 6: I again suggest this be broken into two figures for clarity and readability.

This manuscript has many useful concepts and with further work it could make a significant contribution.

See comments above.  While some changes have been made, more needs to be done.

An alternate approach would be a more root-and-branch reconsideration could be usefully made to reduce / remove the focus on 'tourism' and make it simply about efficiency at geographic locations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review your revised paper.

I think the new draft is stronger, and here I make a number of suggestions to develop it further.

In particular, I'm still not sure the paper is clear about the tourism elements depicted. 

1. In previous comments I suggested NOT using 'scenic spots' but now think 'tourist attractions' is also not what you are addressing.  Given the strong spatial dimension to the paper, I suggest you use a spatial term like 'destination' instead of 'attraction'. 

Thus I suggest you substitute 'tourism destination' for 'tourism attraction' at each occurrence in the manuscript.  This would emphasis you are talking about spatial elements of tourism operations at specific locations.

2. You make a very good point at Line 39-40: 'Tourism is an environmentally dependent sector and the relationship is a fluid and changing one'.  This is one of the central features of tourism - its dependence on its 'operating environment' - physical, economic, social, political, health (demonstrated so dramatically during the Covid pandemic), etc.  I'd add a reference here to support this point, such as:

'Leiper (1979), quoted in Cooper (2021)  [5]'

If you adopt this approach, I'd suggest a further amendment at Line 152, by adding 'and attractions are primarily located (and drive visitation to) tourism destinations' before ... [2]'.

3. Clarify what you mean by 'which is the same as the research results of the tourism industry [68]' at lines 343 - 44. I also think you will need further support for this statement, beyond the reference quoted.

4. I think 'must' is too strong a word (line 354) for efforts to reduce Green House Gas emissions.  This is a very much contested point with many arguments around words such as 'should', 'could' 'must' etc., particularly when there is a perceived cost (especially financial or economic) to taking action; for example Becken & Hay (2012) - Ref 21

Clarifications and unresolved issues

Line 374: Figure 3 -the amended figure title is good, but I'd add explanations in the legend for each term used there - EC, EE, etc. I suggest you add units to the two y-axes: what are the units for 'Efficiency' (left hand side) and 'Growth rate' (right hand side)??

Also, the only reference in the text i can see to this figure is at Line 343.  I suggest you expand the text at Line 343 to explain a bit more what this figure shows, refer to the terms used and add more detail as to why it adds to your argument.

Line 403: Figure 4 - what do the labels in each segment of the top part of the figure mean ? It would be good to set out what (a2) 2019, (b1) 200, etc mean.

I'd again suggest you present the top part of this figure (Line 403) separately to the bottom half (line 404).  As it stands this is a very large figure and the size makes it difficult to read individual components

As with Figure 3, there seems to be a single reference to this figure (at Line 381) which inadequately describes what the figure shows and it's significance to your argument.

Such explanation would provide strong support for the following interpretation and discussion based on the figure (Line 382 ff).

Also, as previously mentioned, there are no labels on the x- and y-axes of the bottom part of this figure (Line 404).  Finally, the x-axis is at the top of the diagram (usual practice would be at the bottom) and is inverted!

Line 390: The concept 'barycentre' seems to arise suddenly here.  I suggest you define and explain the significance of the term for your argument.

Line 423: Figure 5 - it's good to have an expanded figure title, but i'd increase the size (and thus readability) of this figure, provide units for both x- and y-axes labels.

I'd also add further explanation (say at Line 410ff) on how you identified the types so prominently set out in the diagram.

Line 436: Figure 6 - same suggestions.

Minor grammatical suggestions

Line 12: Remove excess full stops at the end of the first sentence

Line 38: Suggest using lower case 'c' in the word 'Climate'

Line 47: Suggest replacing 'space carrier' with something like 'location for most'

Line 293: You have two different spellings for 'Labor' - 'labor' and 'Labour'; I'd suggest you use 'labor'

Line 382: Suggest substituting lower case 'e' in 'Eco' in 'Eco-efficiency' (for both instances here)

Line 387: Suggest substituting lower case 'e' in 'Economic' in the phrase 'Economic efficiency'

Line 388: Suggest substituting lower case 'e' in 'Eco' in 'Eco efficiency'

Line 391: Same for the 'e' in 'Economic' in 'Economic efficiency'

Line 401: Same for 'e' in 'Eco' in 'Eco efficiency'

Line 412: Same point for 'e' in 'Economic efficiency' and "Eco-efficiency'

Line 595: Incomplete sentence - 'According to previous research'.

Minor issues - see above.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf