Population Decline and Urban Transformation by Tourism Gentrification in Kyoto City
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This interesting paper inserts itself in a trendy academic discourse, that of straightforwardly blaming peer-to-peer accommodation for urban gentrification and misery.
Although the paper has some shortcomings (see below), it is well structured and, apart of some typo's, well written. Moreover, the case of Kyoto is a pertinent one, that holds some important lessons for other urban destinations as well. The empirical analysis is simple but honest and the reference to the timing of events in order to test causality is in principle correct. In short, my advise is to publish the paper asking the others to address a limited number of minor issues.
First of all, and in contrast with what Ashworth and Page suggested, the dynamics of urban tourism development is addressed without offering and even less so, analyzing the process of urban development in Kyoto in a broader sense. This is reflected in the literature review, but also in the empirical analysis. In fact, the temporal angle is interesting but to decide that PtoP accommodation CAUSED gentrification some additional insights in the other triggers of development and the way they correlate with tourism and population development is needed, and for a longer period than just the 2015-2020 one. In fact, many cities knew processes of sub- and de-urbanisation long before the appearance of PtoP accommodation. A key factor here is the development of land rent and/or housing prices, with the variables studied by the authors as mere consequences of their fluctuations.
Moreover, gentrification is one of the potential collective costs of the emergence of PtoP accommodation, but there might also be plenty of collective benefits attached to it. A more detailed analysis of both the costs as well as the benefits of city centers investing in (bonafide) B&Bs might move the gentrification issue to a second position, and alter the conclusions with respect to urban policy.
Notwithstanding these suggestions I invite the authors to reflect upon, the paper is publishable already and I trust they are skilled enough to adjust the paper slightly without Sustainability asking me to check the paper again.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We appreciate the reviewer for the generous comment on the manuscript. We have attached our response letter in PDF format. We believe that the manuscript is now suitable for publication in Sustainability and look forward to hearing from you concerning your decision.
Yours sincerely
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank the authors for a very interesting topic, but I would suggest some minor corrections in terms of improving the manuscript. The authors presented the problem of the research through a very simple and clear title. The abstract contains all the necessary details, more precisely, it structurally satisfies the concept of writing an abstract. The suggestion is that the abstract does not mention the research question, only the research problem, the goal and concrete results with their significance.
However, I would suggest just shortening the number of keywords.
The introductory part contains all the elements and their theoretical assumptions. All the terms contained in the manuscript and the entire problem need concrete research, but I would suggest a reference with similar research. Given that the authors also gave an overview of the literature in the introductory part, it is necessary to reinforce that part with more definitions from other authors.
Kudos to the methodology and results section. The methodology is really comprehensive and very clearly presented to the readers through maps, figures, graphs and tables. No changes are required. The discussion part is separated from the results and the conclusion, thus the authors gave additional importance to the manuscript and very broadly explained the significance of the research as well as its implications. Limiting circumstances are outlined at the end of the manuscript.
Boost references.
Gajić, T., Vukolić, D., Petrović, M., Blešić, I., Zrnić, M., Cvijanović, D., Sekulić, D., Spasojević, A., Obradovi, A., Obradović, M., Savić, I., Jovanović, J., Gajić, M., Lukić, D., & Anđelković, Ž. (2022). Risks in the Role of Co-Creating the Future of Tourism in “Stigmatized” Destinations. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1-19, 15530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315530
After corrections, I suggest publishing.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We appreciate the reviewer for the generous comment on the manuscript. We have attached our response letter in PDF format. We believe that the manuscript is now suitable for publication in Sustainability and look forward to hearing from you concerning your decision.
Yours sincerely
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
