Value Transformation and Ecological Practice: The Path to Realizing the Value of Ecotourism Products in Heritage Sites—A Case Study of the Qitai Dry Farming System in Xinjiang

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript aims at conducting an in-depth analysis relative to the possible path of realizing the value of ecotourism products in agro-cultural heritage sites; the same analysis is conducted from the perspective of farmers' behaviours. The objective pursued by authors is to reflect on the extent to which the same path provides decision-making references in line with the well-being of farmers as well as scientific basis for the sustainable development of ecosystems in agro-cultural heritage sites.

The themes at the core of the manuscript prove to be original and contribute effectively to scholarship; the section relative to data sources and methodology is well conceived and coherent with the structure of the whole manuscript. The same applies to the use of the entropy value method.

Results regard both the analysis of the differences in the transformation of tourism value into livelihood capital held by examined types of farm households as well as the composition of tourism value-transforming livelihood capital owned by the same different types of farm households.

The analysis is grounded on the theory of farmers' behaviours and the theory of externalities and leads to consistent conclusion and discussion, as outlined in the relative section of the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is overall fine. Nevertheless an extensive editing is required with reference to punctuation. Spacing between words is often absent.

Moreover punctuation is sometimes wrong (e.g. line 182 "sites; On" that is to say capital letter after semicolon).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Agricultural heritage sites is an important topic. The underlying model presented in figure 1 is very compelling. However, there seem to be fundamental problems in the way the types of capital were calculated including the weightings used at the level of capital and within each category and the variables selected to make up each type of capital. The weightings appear arbitrarily determined and this undermines the overall conclusions.  At the very least the way these weightings were determined is very poorly explained, but there may be a more fundamental problem that cannot be rectified with the way values for capital are calculated and therefore the article should be rejected. Some more specific points by line number are:

Lines 70-75. Interesting approach to characterize types of livelihood capital and identify different pathways fitting each.

Line 91. Potentially confusing table. Agricultural landscape maintenance what appear to be an ecological product or an ecosystem service. How are crops a tourism resource? More interpretation needed

Line 013. Figure 1 Very interesting and valuable framework showing types of services: regulatory, cultural and provisioning and how value is realized.

Line 130. What does "lost" mean here? Is that referring to migration

Line 190 Table 3. Weights sum to 0.95 and not to 1.00. But more importantly no explanation nor rationale for overall weightings by type of capital or of secondary indicators.  Why is natural capital about 1/5 of physical capital for example?

Table 3 "Family orientation" Does that mean "farm location"

Table 3. Almost all the weight is placed on development level of tourism resources. Is this really natural capital?

Table 3. Not valid to count all types of livestock equally. Could be e.g. in "cow units", where chicken equals 0.01 units for example or in value at sale

Table 3. But what was the level of the government subsidies? This variable is a large % of total

Table 3. Participation in cooperatives. Why is this not a 1=yes and no=0 as in skills training? Why is this assigned such a high weighting, 20 times higher than social interactions.

Lines 192-202 Lacking explanation of how weights are determined, including of entropy value method if this was used

Line 206. Impossible to interpret this score because of arbitrary way weights are determined.

Line 209. Basis for the scores and the weightings appears completely arbitrary. A better way to go would be to try to value all types of capital in a common unit of account (Yuan), then capital scores would be comparable. These are not.

Line 213. But weighting on cultivated area very low

Line 216. Table 4. Low scores for e.g. natural capital seem to reflect low weighting on this variable.

Line 228 Table 4 shows natural capital to be lower in these areas. How do you explain this difference between tables 4 and 5

Line 257. Table 5. How does this relate to scores in table 4? How is "rank average" calculated?

Line 283-292 Seems ok as general conclusion, problem is method for setting values of capital intrinsically flawed

 Line 310-318 Worthwhile conclusions

 Line 317. The externalities need explaining. How are these generated?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article needs extensive rewriting to correct English. In a few places the argument is impossible to follow because of poor English or selection of vocabulary.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title lacks an indication of the spatial scope (an example is analyzed), and the abstract lacks the temporal scope of the research.

2. I have doubts about the wording of the aim of the work, which I think is too technical (lines 71-72, if this is the aim of the work because it is not clearly indicated).

3. The proportions of the theoretical and empirical parts are imbalanced. The theoretical part should be developed/supplemented so that it constitutes a basis for understanding the research results. In their research, the authors emphasize human capital and social capital. The question arises why these issues were omitted in the theoretical part. This raises many doubts, also regarding the validity of the indicators used for these forms of capital.

4. The discussion is not a proper discussion of the results - there is no reference to the research of other authors.

5. I think the order of conclusions/discussion parts should be changed.

6. No limitations of the study indicated.

7. There are no sources of graphic elements (which is especially important for the theoretical part).

Fig. 1 illegible (quality).

I would add a graphic element that would better show the analyzed example of the area.

The article requires significant improvement and refinement in the editing layer.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to and corrected the issues raised in my earlier review and should be congratulated on an excellent and novel paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. I appreciate the authors' contribution to improving the article. I would like to refer again to the purpose of the work (lines 71-73), which seems to be obscured by the wording: ‘The intention is to try to explore’. I would consider rephrasing the language of this sentence.

2. Taking into account the research problem and the internationally renowned journal, I am surprised by the very short discussion, limited to referring to two items of literature only in Chinese. In my opinion, this should be expanded.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc