Fostering Sustainable Urban Tourism in Predominantly Industrial Small-Sized Cities (SSCs)—Focusing on Two Selected Locations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author selected two small cities in Serbia and Russia, Zlianianin and Satka, with an industrial background as the research objects. They used structural equation modeling and structured interviews to study the development prospects of tourism in these small cities, and further proposed corresponding measures for sustainable development of tourism, demonstrating a certain degree of innovation and contribution. However, I believe there are several areas that need improvement. Here are my detailed comments:

1.The abstract section needs to highlight the key research content and clarify the logical relationship between the contents. For example, this study explores the development prospects of tourism in industrial small cities, evaluates how to incorporate tourism into urban planning, and then describes the methods used to analyze data. The logical relationship is confusing, and it is recommended to reorganize this part of the content.

2. In terms of conceptual background and hypothesis statement, I believe it is a definition of urban tourism and a literature review. However, overall, the author only reviewed the important role and challenges that the tourism industry plays in urban development, as well as the transformation measures of the tourism industry in industrial cities. However, there is relatively little research on the evaluation and review of the sustainable development of the tourism industry in industrial small cities. For example, what aspects do scholars currently evaluate the sustainable development of the tourism industry from, and how do they select evaluation indicators? And will the selection of indicators for industrial small cities differ from other cities? Therefore, I suggest supplementing the content of this section.

3. Overall, the results section is only an analysis of the model's accuracy and validity test results, which I believe is inaccurate. It is necessary to analyze the important results developed through the use of structural equations to analyze the survey questionnaire. This part of the content is described in the discussion in Part 5, but I believe it is not correct in terms of logical relationships. It is recommended to reorganize the content of Parts 4 and 5. In addition, the main research subjects of this study are Zilianianing and Satka, but the results are not specifically proposed for these two cities, but rather a universal research result.

4. In the fifth discussion, the actual results of this study and the hypotheses proposed in the previous text were described in detail, and compared with the research results of various scholars. However, the content is too cumbersome. It is recommended to extract the main research results of this study, and discuss the common issues in contribution and limitations between this study and previous studies, as well as the innovations and contributions that distinguish it from other studies.

5.The conclusion emphasizes the practical and theoretical significance of this study, as well as its shortcomings, but does not discuss the actual results of the study. The article is divided into sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 for elaboration, which I believe is too cumbersome. I suggest simplifying the content and only using 1-2 paragraphs to describe it.

 

In summary, although the author has done a lot of work and achieved certain relevance and contributions, there is still great room for improvement in the logical structure and depth of research content. Therefore, I suggest rejecting this paper.

Author Response

Comments 1: The author selected two small cities in Serbia and Russia, Zlianianin and Satka, with an industrial background as the research objects. They used structural equation modeling and structured interviews to study the development prospects of tourism in these small cities, and further proposed corresponding measures for sustainable development of tourism, demonstrating a certain degree of innovation and contribution. However, I believe there are several areas that need improvement. Here are my detailed comments:

Response 1: Thank you for your detailed analysis and constructive comments regarding our paper. Your suggestions are highly valued and have significantly contributed to the further improvement of the quality of our research. Below, we have addressed your specific concerns and explained the steps we have taken to enhance our work. We also want to note that we have incorporated corrections based on the requirements of other reviewers, which we had to consider and address. The statistical analysis is logical and accurate, as the program generated the data, and we have presented it accordingly.

Comments 2: The abstract section needs to highlight the key research content and clarify the logical relationship between the contents. For example, this study explores the development prospects of tourism in industrial small cities, evaluates how to incorporate tourism into urban planning, and then describes the methods used to analyze data. The logical relationship is confusing, and it is recommended to reorganize this part of the content.

Response 2: The abstract section has been reorganized to highlight the key research content and clarify the logical relationship between the components of the study. It now clearly outlines the development prospects of tourism in industrial small cities, evaluates how to incorporate tourism into urban planning, and describes the methods used to analyze the data. This reorganization ensures a more logical flow of information.

Comments 3: In terms of conceptual background and hypothesis statement, I believe it is a definition of urban tourism and a literature review. However, overall, the author only reviewed the important role and challenges that the tourism industry plays in urban development, as well as the transformation measures of the tourism industry in industrial cities. However, there is relatively little research on the evaluation and review of the sustainable development of the tourism industry in industrial small cities. For example, what aspects do scholars currently evaluate the sustainable development of the tourism industry from, and how do they select evaluation indicators? And will the selection of indicators for industrial small cities differ from other cities? Therefore, I suggest supplementing the content of this section.

Response 3: Conceptual background and hypothesis statement: We have supplemented the conceptual background and hypothesis statement section with additional content that addresses the evaluation and review of sustainable development in industrial small cities. Specifically, we have detailed the aspects from which scholars currently evaluate the sustainable development of the tourism industry and how they select evaluation indicators. We also discussed how the selection of indicators for industrial small cities might differ from other cities, thus providing a comprehensive review and analysis.

Comments 4: Overall, the results section is only an analysis of the model's accuracy and validity test results, which I believe is inaccurate. It is necessary to analyze the important results developed through the use of structural equations to analyze the survey questionnaire. This part of the content is described in the discussion in Part 5, but I believe it is not correct in terms of logical relationships. It is recommended to reorganize the content of Parts 4 and 5. In addition, the main research subjects of this study are Zilianianing and Satka, but the results are not specifically proposed for these two cities, but rather a universal research result.

Response 4: The results section has been expanded to include a detailed analysis of the important findings derived from the use of structural equations to analyze the survey questionnaire. We have highlighted the key factors contributing to the sustainability of urban tourism in SSCs and discussed the implications of these findings for both analyzed locations (Zrenjanin and Satka). This reorganization ensures that the results are logically presented and specific to the main research subjects of this study.

Comments 5: In the fifth discussion, the actual results of this study and the hypotheses proposed in the previous text were described in detail, and compared with the research results of various scholars. However, the content is too cumbersome. It is recommended to extract the main research results of this study, and discuss the common issues in contribution and limitations between this study and previous studies, as well as the innovations and contributions that distinguish it from other studies.

Response 5: The discussion section has been revised to extract and highlight the main research results, compare them with previous studies, and discuss common issues in contributions and limitations. We have also discussed the innovations and contributions that distinguish this study from others. This revision ensures that the content is more concise and focused, addressing the common issues and highlighting the unique aspects of this study.

Comments 6: The conclusion emphasizes the practical and theoretical significance of this study, as well as its shortcomings, but does not discuss the actual results of the study. The article is divided into sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 for elaboration, which I believe is too cumbersome. I suggest simplifying the content and only using 1-2 paragraphs to describe it.

Response 6: The conclusion section has been condensed and focused to emphasize the study's practical and theoretical significance while discussing the actual results. We simplified the content to use only 1-2 paragraphs, providing a clear and concise summary of the study's findings and implications. This ensures that the conclusion is more straightforward and easier to understand.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Methodologically impeccable, I think, but the essay needs to consider that most small industrial towns lack resources for securing potential tourists: the demand side of the equation requires, I think some comment. Is there really much in the article that gives practical advice to such communities, apart from improving municipal services? A more condensed and focused  conclusion would be helpful.

Author Response

Comments 1: Methodologically impeccable, I think, but the essay needs to consider that most small industrial towns lack resources for securing potential tourists: the demand side of the equation requires, I think some comment. Is there really much in the article that gives practical advice to such communities, apart from improving municipal services? A more condensed and focused conclusion would be helpful.

Response 1: Thank you for your detailed analysis and constructive comments regarding our paper. Your suggestions are highly valued and have significantly contributed to further improving the quality of our research. Below, we have addressed your specific concerns and explained the steps we have taken to enhance our work. Please also consider the reviews of other reviewers that we also had to correct, and they may not all agree.

To address your concern about the lack of resources in small industrial towns to attract potential tourists, we have added practical recommendations in the "Discussion" section. These include strategies such as developing partnerships, leveraging digital marketing, and organizing community events, which go beyond merely improving municipal services. Additionally, we have revised the "Conclusion" section to make it more condensed and focused. The updated conclusion now emphasizes the importance of addressing disparities between countries and provides practical advice for small industrial towns.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study conducted a comparative analysis of the modern approaches to the integration of sustainable tourism in two countries with different industrial backgrounds based on the model established by SEM. Through the analysis and model validation of various data and indicators, the importance of inclusive development and community engagement, as well as their value in sustainable tourism, were illustrated.

The only concern is that the two countries have significant differences in terms of national size and industrial base, as well as notable distinctions in spatial geographical distribution. The tendency to use average statistical data may obscure specific details and differences. Therefore, although the model results indicate a high degree of correlation and similar characteristics between them, there are slight flaws in interpretability. It is recommended that the author consider the impact of scale differences in subsequent research.

Author Response

Comments 1: The study conducted a comparative analysis of the modern approaches to the integration of sustainable tourism in two countries with different industrial backgrounds based on the model established by SEM. Through the analysis and model validation of various data and indicators, the importance of inclusive development and community engagement, as well as their value in sustainable tourism, were illustrated.

Response 1: Thank you for your detailed analysis and constructive comments related to our work. Your suggestions are greatly appreciated and have contributed to further improving the quality of our research. Below, we have provided responses to your requests, explaining the steps we have taken to respond to your comments and improve our work. Please also consider the reviews of other reviewers that we also had to correct, and they may not all agree.

Comments 2: The only concern is that the two countries have significant differences in terms of national size and industrial base, as well as notable distinctions in spatial geographical distribution. The tendency to use average statistical data may obscure specific details and differences. Therefore, although the model results indicate a high degree of correlation and similar characteristics between them, there are slight flaws in interpretability. It is recommended that the author consider the impact of scale differences in subsequent research.

Response 2: We agree with your comment that there are significant differences between the two countries in terms of national size, industrial base, and spatial geographical distribution. To address this concern, we have made the following additions to our paper: Section "3.3 Data Analysis", Section "5. Discussion", Section "6. Conclusion". These additions address the concern regarding the differences between the countries and their impact on the interpretation of the results, thereby improving the clarity and quality of our work. Thank you once again for your valuable suggestions.

We look forward to further improving our research and welcome any additional feedback you may have.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a methodologically sound study of sustainable urban tourism in a small industrial city, using a well-executed mixed methods and SEM analysis. The paper is well written and the following suggestions may be useful to the authors:

1. Was data preprocessing used? Describe the steps of data processing, including the handling of missing data, outliers, and data transformations, as these steps are critical to the accuracy of the results. If there are outliers or anomalies in the results, discuss their impact and explain how they were addressed.

2. Was the robustness of the model considered, such as using methods such as bootstrapping to assess the stability of model parameter estimates and ensure that the results are not affected by sample specificity?

3. In machine learning methods, cross-validation is often used to split the dataset into training and test sets to assess the predictive and generalization capabilities of the model. Have the authors considered this approach?

4. The authors may consider empirical testing of mediation and moderation effects using analytical methods such as the PROCESS macro to assess potential mediation and moderation effects and report associated confidence intervals.

5. The authors may consider conducting sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of changes in key assumptions on the model results.

6. Figure 1 is incomplete and should include (H3a, b, c, d) under IDCV → CI, EI, ENI, SI. The font size in Figure 4 is too large; a smaller font size is recommended.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Comments 1: This paper presents a methodologically sound study of sustainable urban tourism in a small industrial city, using a well-executed mixed methods and SEM analysis. The paper is well written and the following suggestions may be useful to the authors:

Response 1: We sincerely thank you for your detailed analysis and constructive comments regarding our paper. Your suggestions are highly valued and have significantly contributed to the further improvement of the quality of our research. Below, we have responded to all your requests, explaining in detail the steps we have taken to address your comments and enhance our work. We would also like to note that we had to consider the requirements of other reviewers, which may not align with yours, and we have tried to harmonize all suggestions and make the necessary corrections in the paper.

Comments 2: Was data preprocessing used? Describe the steps of data processing, including the handling of missing data, outliers, and data transformations, as these steps are critical to the accuracy of the results. If there are outliers or anomalies in the results, discuss their impact and explain how they were addressed.

Response 2: Yes, data preprocessing was utilized to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the dataset. Specifically, we applied multiple imputation methods to handle missing data, using the Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) algorithm. This approach allowed us to estimate missing values based on observed data, thereby minimizing potential biases. Outliers were identified through Grubbs' test for single outliers and Iglewicz and Hoaglin's test for multiple outliers. Identified outliers were adjusted to fall within three standard deviations from the mean, ensuring they did not disproportionately affect the results. Data transformations, including logarithmic and square root transformations, were applied to normalize skewed data. After these transformations, skewness and kurtosis values were checked and confirmed to fall within the acceptable range of -1 to 1, indicating approximate normality.

Comments 3: Was the robustness of the model considered, such as using methods such as bootstrapping to assess the stability of model parameter estimates and ensure that the results are not affected by sample specificity?

Response 3: The robustness of the model was thoroughly considered. We employed bootstrapping methods to evaluate the stability of parameter estimates, generating 1,000 bootstrap samples. This approach provided bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) confidence intervals, ensuring that our results were not overly influenced by the specific sample used. Additionally, we conducted sensitivity analyses by varying key assumptions within a reasonable range to assess the impact on model results. This confirmed the robustness of our findings across different scenarios.

Comments 4: In machine learning methods, cross-validation is often used to split the dataset into training and test sets to assess the predictive and generalization capabilities of the model. Have the authors considered this approach?

Response 4: Yes, cross-validation techniques were implemented to validate the predictive accuracy and generalizability of our model. We utilized 10-fold cross-validation, dividing the dataset into ten equal subsets. The model was trained on nine subsets and tested on the remaining subset, repeating this process ten times. Each subset served as the test set once, allowing for a comprehensive evaluation of the model's performance across different data segments. This method demonstrated consistent model performance, confirming its generalizability.

Comments 5: The authors may consider empirical testing of mediation and moderation effects using analytical methods such as the PROCESS macro to assess potential mediation and moderation effects and report associated confidence intervals.

Response 5: We conducted empirical tests for mediation and moderation effects using the PROCESS macro for SPSS, developed by Andrew F. Hayes. The analysis was performed using Model 4 for mediation and Model 1 for moderation. This allowed us to test complex models involving indirect and interaction effects. Results, including direct, indirect, and total effects with associated confidence intervals obtained through bootstrapping (1,000 samples), are summarized in Tables 7 and 8 of the manuscript.

Comments 6: The authors may consider conducting sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of changes in key assumptions on the model results.

Response 6: Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of changes in key assumptions on model results. By varying critical parameters within a reasonable range, we observed the effects on the output, ensuring that our conclusions were robust and not overly dependent on specific assumptions. This analysis confirmed the consistency of our results under different scenarios.

Comments 7: Figure 1 is incomplete and should include (H3a, b, c, d) under IDCV → CI, EI, ENI, SI. The font size in Figure 4 is too large; a smaller font size is recommended.

Response 7: Figure 1 has been updated to include the missing hypotheses (H3a, b, c, d) under IDCV → CI, EI, ENI, SI. Additionally, the font size in Figure 4 has been reduced as recommended to enhance readability. The updated figures are now aligned with the suggestions provided.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form