A Model for Estimating the Tourism Carrying Capacity of a Tourism Corridor: A Case Study of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this paper. The authors have done a good job in addressing this timely and relevant issue. While the paper is good overall, there are a few areas that could be enhanced.

I have the following comments:

Lines 15-16; 124-129; 141-158; 268-280; 308-326; 362-366; 380-393; 419-433: You should indicate the numbering in a different way because the equations (formulas) are numbered the same way: numbers in parentheses. Use, e.g., (i), (ii), (iii) or (I), (II), (III) etc.

Line 70: write (Wang et al., 2023) instead of (X. J. Wang et al., 2023).

Line 73: write (Hu et al., 2021) instead of (L. Hu et al., 2021).

Line 79: write (Wang et al., 2022) instead of (D. C. Wang et al., 2022).

Line 100: write (Wang et al., 2016) instead of (X. X. Wang et al., 2016).

Line 109: write (Wu et al., 2017) instead of (X. B. Wu et al., 2017).

Line 234: It looks like you have a double space before the number 2,5000,000.

Line 234: You have one extra zero in the number “2,5000,000“. 2,500,000 is correct.

Line 236: write (Gao et al., 2019) instead of (X. C. Gao et al., 2019).

Line 306: Title should be “Results“ instead of „Conclusion“.

Line 357: write space after (d).

Line 464: write (Hu et al., 2020) instead of (T. Hu et al., 2020).

Aim: Specify what the aim of your article is - in Abstract and in Introduction.

Figures / Tables: Even though the template of “Sustainability“ does not require it, I would add the source after the name of the Figure (Table), e.g., own processing, or own processing in (which software has been used).

Data and Methodology: You mention many variables in the methodology (Section 3.2). Subsequently, in Section 5, you list the sources. I would appreciate it if you could assign which variables were obtained from the given sources. For example, in parentheses after the source. You also mention the collection of primary data. Indicate the period in which the data were obtained.

Discussion and Conclusion: I recommend separating the Section 7. Conclusion and discussion into two separate main Sections, i.e., 7. Discussion, 8. Conclusion. I recommend adding more studies that dealt with similar topics to the discussion chapter. You may find similarities or differences between existing studies. Mention, e.g., studies that examined other places (localities). In Conclusion, give some theoretical and practical recommendations, mention the limitations and direction of future research.

Author Response

Comments 1：Lines 15-16; 124-129; 141-158; 268-280; 308-326; 362-366; 380-393; 419-433: You should indicate the numbering in a different way because the equations (formulas) are numbered the same way: numbers in parentheses. Use, e.g., (i), (ii), (iii) or (I), (II), (III) etc.……

Response 1： Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I have made relevant corrections to the serial number in the article.

 

Comments 2：Problems with the format of references

Response 2：Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I have made a detailed check of the references and made corrections.

 

Comments 3: Specify what the aim of your article is - in Abstract and in Introduction.

Response 3：I am glad that you can point out my shortcomings, which is essential to highlight the importance of the article.

 

Comments 4: Even though the template of “Sustainability“ does not require it, I would add the source after the name of the Figure (Table), e.g., own processing, or own processing in (which software has been used).

Response 4：Thanks for your suggestions on the title of the chart, we have added the relevant content in the article, and all the charts are drawn using Python, Photoshop and ArcGIS Pro.

 

Comments 5: You mention many variables in the methodology (Section 3.2). Subsequently, in Section 5, you list the sources. I would appreciate it if you could assign which variables were obtained from the given sources. For example, in parentheses after the source. You also mention the collection of primary data. Indicate the period in which the data were obtained.

Response 5：Thanks for your suggestion, I have added the relevant content in the "Data source and main parameter settings" section. All study data were collected in 2022. The relevant parameters section is supplemented with important references.

 

Comments 6: I recommend separating the Section 7. Conclusion and discussion into two separate main Sections, i.e., 7. Discussion, 8. Conclusion. I recommend adding more studies that dealt with similar topics to the discussion chapter. You may find similarities or differences between existing studies. Mention, e.g., studies that examined other places (localities). In Conclusion, give some theoretical and practical recommendations, mention the limitations and direction of future research.

Response 6：I fully accept your proposal. First, I split Chapter 7 into two parts: conclusion and discussion. Secondly, at the end of the paper, I pointed out the limitations and deficiencies of the research, that is, the carrying capacity of the ecological environment around the tourism corridor was not discussed too much, and provided a direction for the future research on tourism corridor. Because there has been no established research report on the carrying capacity of tourism corridors so far, the addition of other related research described in the proposal has not been discussed much in this paper.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study uses an up-to-date topic, carrying capacity in vulnerable destinations (like the investigated area), a very current research question.

The theoretical foundation of the topic is good, but at the same time it would be nice to talk about the life cycle of tourist destinations before carrying capacity. I recommend summarizing the literature findings in a separate Literature review chapter.

I absolutely agree with the methodology of the study, the presentation of the obtained results and the conclusions.

The visual elements of the study (maps, tables) are informative and help understanding.

I definitely recommend the study for publication.

Author Response

Comment 1:  The theoretical foundation of the topic is good, but at the same time it would be nice to talk about the life cycle of tourist destinations before carrying capacity. I recommend summarizing the literature findings in a separate Literature review chapter.

Response 1: Thank you for your recognition and support of our research. We have fully considered your suggestion and added the life cycle theory of tourism destination into the discussion part of the paper, further deepening the importance of studying tourism carrying capacity for the sustainable development of tourism destination. Relevant content can be found in lines 469-474. We believe that the addition of this theory plays an important role in improving the significance of the article, and thank you for your suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The evaluation of Tourism Carrying Capacity (TCC) is necessary to prepare the ground for sustainable tourism. The authors construct an innovative set of indicators to evaluate the TCC of the tourism corridor. They use the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau as their case study and arrive at critical conclusions that underline the usefulness of their research. However, the paper needs some revisions before being published in Sustainability.

1. The paper emphasizes the need for a more comprehensive description and analytical appraisal of tourism corridors, as they are a fundamental aspect of the research. This area requires immediate attention and further exploration.
2. It would be helpful if the authors provided some tourism data for the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (number of overnights, spending, etc.).
3. In addition, it would be helpful for policymakers to associate TCC with the SDGs.
4. In their endeavour to link their research with sustainable development, the authors highlight sustainable tourism's crucial role. They have to introduce a brief discussion on sustainable development to engage the readers. Moreover, it is highly recommended to include references to the following two papers: 'Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy', New Political Economy, 27(5), pp. 866-878, and 'History, Knowledge, and Sustainable Economic Development: The Contribution of John Stuart Mill’s Grand Stage Theory', Sustainability, 13 (3).
5. What are the limitations of this research?

 

 

Minor points

1. Please correct the citation MANSFELD & JONAS (2005) and write the authors' names with non-capitalised letters.
2. It is not Figure 3,4,5,6,7 but Maps 3,4,5,6,7.
3. Section 6 should be renamed to "Discussion"
4. Figure 1 on page 14 should be renamed in Graph 1

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Thank you for your careful review of the article. We fully agree with your revisions and have made significant revisions to the relevant content of the article, specifically as follows:

 

Comment 1: It would be helpful if the authors provided some tourism data for the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (number of overnights, spending, etc.).

Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion, which has prompted us to make new discoveries in our research. In lines 383-390, we compared the estimated carrying capacity with the actual tourism data, and found that from the annual scale, the current tourism activities on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau did not exceed the carrying capacity, only 64.7% of the upper limit. However, considering the problem of tourism off-peak season, we found that the daily tourism activities in the peak season are very close to the upper limit of the tourism carrying capacity, and even some areas have overload problems. This also confirms the "regional local overload" problem we described in section 6.4.

 

Comment 2 : In addition, it would be helpful for policymakers to associate TCC with the SDGs.

Comment 3 : In their endeavour to link their research with sustainable development, the authors highlight sustainable tourism's crucial role. They have to introduce a brief discussion on sustainable development to engage the readers. Moreover, it is highly recommended to include references to the following two papers: 'Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy', New Political Economy, 27(5), pp. 866-878, and 'History, Knowledge, and Sustainable Economic Development: The Contribution of John Stuart Mill’s Grand Stage Theory', Sustainability, 13 (3).

Response 2 and 3: Thank you for your advice, we also learned a lot. These two suggestions have been fully integrated into the discussion section of Chapter 8, and relevant references have been added. We believe that the supply and demand relationship in the stage development theory of classical economics can provide a theoretical basis for sustainable development. Secondly, both Mill's stage development theory and SDGs goal 11 emphasize that the improvement of life quality and stock optimization are the prerequisites for achieving a higher level of sustainable development at this stage, and tourism is the most intuitive manifestation of high-quality life. The two articles you recommended played an important role in explaining the relationship between carrying capacity research and sustainable development. Thank you again for your suggestions.

Comment 4: What are the limitations of this research?

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestions, which are discussed at the end of the discussion section (lines 522-532). Due to the special environment of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, most of the areas are nature reserves, and tourists' tourism activities are strictly limited to the surrounding areas of the tourism corridor, which has negligible impact on the regional ecological environment. However, in other regions, the ecological environment carrying capacity of tourism needs to be considered, which is also a major limitation of this study. We suggest that it should be taken into account in future studies to further optimize the method proposed in this paper.

 

Comment 5: Minor points: (1)Please correct the citation MANSFELD & JONAS (2005) and write the authors' names with non-capitalised letters. (2) It is not Figure 3,4,5,6,7 but Maps 3,4,5,6,7. (3)Section 6 should be renamed to "Discussion" (4)Figure 1 on page 14 should be renamed in Graph 1.

Response 5: Thanks for your suggestions, we have further modified and improved the details in the article to prevent this series of errors from happening again.

 

Comment 6: Moderate editing of English language required

Response 6: Thank you for your comments. We have further optimized and improved the relevant expressions of the article through relevant institutions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your efforts in revising your manuscript. I appreciate the time and effort you have put into addressing the comments and suggestions provided in the previous round of reviews. The improvements you have made have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of the paper.

Overall, the manuscript is now much clearer and well-structured. The added details and corrections have made the study’s contributions to the field more evident.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The authors addressed my previous comments and improved their manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language is required.