Spatial Spillover and Threshold Effects of High-Quality Tourism Development on Carbon Emission Efficiency of Tourism under the “Double Carbon” Target: Case Study of Jiangxi, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is current, however the authors should improve the following items:

 

- Put the articles in chronological order;

- Better explain the contribution of the study in relation to the existing Literature Review;

- Better explain the results (in summary) is too extensive;

- Overall the article is very long, the authors should summarize the sections. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers.:

Hello!

First of all, thank you for your valuable comments on the revision of this paper! Your advice is an important guide for my thesis writing and research work. I have carefully revised each of these comments at every opportunity, and I am pleased to attach the following item-by-item revision notes for your review. Please refer to the attachment.

I wish you good health and success in your work.

JGD

16 January 2023

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The analysis of the spatial spillover and threshold effects of high-quality tourism development on the carbon emission efficiency of the tourism industry is interesting. But there are still many problems in this study.

 1. The literature review and research background do not highlight the necessity of this study. Why study the spatial spillover and threshold effects of high-quality tourism development on the carbon emission efficiency of the tourism industry is necessary? What is the scientific problem of this study?

 2. How to integrate the dual-carbon goal into the article? At present, the article only explains the dual-carbon goal in the background, and does not really integrate into the full text.

 3. There is a big deviation between the literature review and the research topic. The literature on the relationship between tourism development and tourism carbon emissions should be the focus of the literature review, but this part of the literature is very weak

 4.  The applicability of the research method should be introduced.

5.  The input-output indicators of this study are difficult to be convincing. Please increase the selection basis of tourism carbon emission efficiency input-output indicators.

 6.  Is there a correlation between efficiency indicators and high-quality tourism development indicators? For example, Energy consumption in the tourism and Energy consumption per unit of tourism. If the two are related, how to deal with the endogenous problem?

 7.  The logical structure of the article is unreasonable and it is difficult to understand the structure of the article.

 8.  As the author said, the article has so many shortcomings, but some of them can be solved in fact.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Hello!

First of all, thank you for your valuable comments on the revision of this paper! Your advice is an important guide for my thesis writing and research work. I have carefully revised each of these comments at every opportunity, and I am pleased to attach the following item-by-item revision notes for your review. Please refer to the attachment.

I wish you good health and success in your work.

JGD

16 January 2023

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of this paper is not within the scope of my expertize but I was able to follow since everything is written in a clear and comprehensive manner. The results are important and useful and theoretical conclusions are innovative. I have only one small remark, sentences are often a bit too long. If possible, consider shortening them.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments on this paper! Your suggestions are an important guide to the revision and improvement of the thesis. I have carefully revised each and every one of these comments at the first opportunity, and I would like to invite you to review them in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Please answer the following questions and dilemmas:

1. It should be specified more clearly and already in the introductory chapters why Jiangxi Province is the subject of your research? What stands out province compared to other provinces when such research is current?

2. "Double carbon" originated in China? Is it possible to describe the project in an additional two or three sentences? Maybe you already wrote it? Sorry if I didn't see it!

3. In the chapter Methods and Data sources, it is necessary to insert the sub-section “An Overview of the Case Study Areas”. Here it is necessary to describe the region (Province) of your research geographically in a few sentences. What makes it stand out? Why is it important?

4. The findings in this paper can help enrich theories of sustainable and green development (522 line) – Explain how it can influence the (sustainable) tourism theory.

5. Jiangxi Province has distinct advantages in regional strategies, and is covered by national strategies such as the Central China Rising Plan, Yangtze River Mid-stream Urbanisation, Poyang Lake Ecological and Economic Development Zone, and is in the first batch of ecological civilisation pilot zones in the country (533-537) – Are there strategies and plans for the development of tourism? How are they integrated into general development strategies? How does it relate to your topic?

6. This created a gap between the overall level of quality tourism development and the efficiency of tourism carbon emissions and the high value economic zone in the north, thus creating a "high north, low south" difference (541-544) – What are your solutions for this problem?

7. Promote high-quality tourism development and resolve the "high north and low south" development problem. (594-595) – Is promotion the only problem or is that problem more complex?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Hello!

First of all, thank you for your valuable comments on the revision of this paper! Your advice is an important guide for my thesis writing and research work. I have carefully revised each of these comments at every opportunity, and I am pleased to attach the following item-by-item revision notes for your review. Please refer to the attachment.

I wish you good health and success in your work.

JGD

16 January 2023

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper deals with a very important topic in carbon emission efficiency of tourism under the "Double Carbon" Target, and the authors resort to an interesting methodology whose application and results are potentially useful for advancements in the research. 

Abstract

This part is very well written.

Introduction

I suggest more practical background about tourism development and carbon emission efficiency of tourism in Jiangxi Province be supplemented. The aim is to address why you choose Jiangxi as your case study.

Literature review

Subheadings may help readers understand the main points.

Study area, Methods and Variable selection

A paragraph is suggested to supplemented to explain the relationship among four variables, namely explained variable, core explanatory variable, threshold variables and control variables, in the Section of 3.3 Variable selection.

The data source should be more specific, especially the websites of statistical yearbooks should be added.

Empirical Results and Analysis

This part is very well written.

Conclusions and Discussions

More references referred in Section of Literature Review should be mentioned in discussion.

Recommendations and Future Research

This part is very well written.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments on this article! Your suggestions are an important guide for revising and improving the paper. I have carefully revised each of these comments at every opportunity, and I invite you to review them in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

1. The style should be changed into academic with no extreme adjectives like „beautiful” in line 60.

2. The idea of „bottom-up approach” in the methodological section in unclear and should be explained (lines 182‐184).

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments on this article! Your suggestions are an important guide for revising and improving the paper. I have carefully revised each of these comments at every opportunity, and I invite you to review them in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I think many problems in the article have not been effectively addressed. The author of this revision did not really solve some problems, such as question 1, question 4, question 8

Author Response

Thanks again for your valuable comments on this article! Your suggestions are an important guide for revising and improving the paper. I have carefully revised each of these comments at every opportunity, and I invite you to review them in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf