Navigating the Efficiency Landscape: A Data Envelopment Analysis of Tourist Resorts in Jiangsu Province for Optimized Socio-Economic Benefits

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, first I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review your article. After a thorough analysis of tour article, I would like to provide some constructive suggestions to enhance the clarity and impact of your work:

  

1. Introduction

 

“The tourism industry's pivotal role in stimulating consumption and driving economic growth persists, displaying characteristics of diverse demand entities and profound product demand, even amid a global economic downturn.”

 

“Tourism efficiency serves as a crucial indicator characterizing the utilization and effectiveness of tourism resources.”

 

“These destinations are designed to provide a comprehensive luxury or experiential experience for short-term tourists.”

 

“The lifecycle, development, and management of tourist resorts were prominent subjects of investigation during this period.”

 

“This shift in research perspective is evident as attention moves from the supply side to the demand side, and the research content transitions from the resort itself to the behavior and preferences of holidaymakers.”

 

Reviewer: Who said this? What studies validate these claims? The authors need to review the sentences throughout the article without references. Authors cannot assert something without confirmation from the scientific literature.

 

“The existing research on tourism efficiency and tourist resorts reveals a noticeable gap in the exploration of the efficiency of tourist resorts. Although some studies have initiated a focus on resort efficiency, they often concentrate on case studies.”

 

“Currently, there is insufficient exploration of the efficiency of tourist resorts, and several factors contribute to this gap.”

 

Reviewer: How can you be so certain? What studies validate these arguments? The authors cannot present the literature gap or justify the study without referring to previous studies that support these claims. It is not enough for the authors to simply claim, you need to verify your statements with existing studies. Additionally, the authors need to better justify the study and clarify its objectives, considering the existing literature. It is suggested that they use recent studies advocating for new research in tourism. For example, the study by Bernardo et al., 2023 - (https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.29.2.10) suggests the need for more innovative research to enhance tourism industry management through new tourism services or management attributes. On another note, the authors should clearly explain why measuring the efficiency of tourist resorts in Jiangsu is relevant. The introduction appears inconsistent, with some paragraphs lacking cohesion, giving the impression of a lack of connection. The literature review presented in the introduction is insufficient for contextualizing the study, thus, it is recommended to create a dedicated section for the existing literature. At this point, the authors are expected to discuss the literature on the study topic and other relevant issues about sustainable development that are currently being debated in tourism, aiming to enhance the scientific contribution of the study. For instance, the recent study by Sousa et al., 2022 - (https://doi.org/10.34624/rtd.v39i0.26241), surveys how various tourism segments seek to incorporate virtual reality equipment into their business models to generate greater competitiveness and sustainability in the tourism sector."

 

 2. Materials and Methods

2.1. DEA model

 

“The Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) model stands as a well-established method

for measuring efficiency in the current academic community.”

 

“Compared to traditional methods, the DEA model excels in determining whether a decision-making unit lies on the effective frontier and possesses absolute advantages in multi-input and multi-output scenarios.”

 

“Two fundamental models, namely the CCR model and BCC model, are commonly utilized in DEA methods to gauge the efficiency of similar production entities.”

 

Reviewer: Who said this? What previous studies validate this information? What absolute advantages? How do you know that CCR and BCC are commonly used? What results were obtained previously in this context that justify their use? Despite the authors' mastery of the method, the methodology employed, and the procedure, need better justification

 

4. Discussion

 

Reviewer: The study presents relevant results, therefore, it is crucial to have a clear discussion of these results. While the authors make some comparisons with the existing literature, a more in-depth reflection and discussion of the obtained results are necessary. On the other hand, it is essential to add a section dedicated to the theoretical and practical implications of the study, aiming to highlight the study’s contributions more prominently.

 

5. Conclusions

 

Reviewer: Although the authors clearly state their conclusions, this section needs to specify which literature gaps were addressed by this study and which objectives were achieved. Additionally, the authors need to highlight the study's limitations and propose ways to overcome them in future research directions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English Language just required a minor revision.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

We would like to thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our paper and providing constructive comments. We have carefully considered each of your comments and made thorough revisions of the manuscript accordingly. As a result of addressing your comments, we believe the introduction, method, results, and discussion have been significantly improved.

We are here resubmitting the revised manuscript entitled “Navigating the efficiency landscape: A Data Envelopment Analysis of tourist resorts in Jiangsu Province for optimized socio-economic benefits” for your kind consideration of its suitability for publication in Sustainability. In addition, our point-by-point responses to your comments are attached. The revisions are all highlighted in yellow in the resubmitted manuscript.

Thank you again for sharing your inspiring ideas and thoughts with us, which guide us throughout the review process. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best Regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is written interestingly. It raises many complex issues related to tourism efficiency. Data Envelopment Analysis deserves attention. The method is described clearly and the research results are well presented. This is a case study that allows us to better understand the conditions for the development of tourism in China. However, there is a lack of a broader perspective that would give the article a more universal and utilitarian character. There are many dimensions of transitions in the scientific literature on tourism. The authors describe the transition from sightseeing to leisure vacation. Is this their concept or an extension of existing concepts? The authors write in the abstract about "blind investment without due consideration for cost-benefit analysis". This is probably too superficial an approach. This issue can be described in the body of the article, not in the abstract. I lack a better theoretical and practical approach that would allow decision-makers, not only from China, to better manage the development of tourism.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

We would like to thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our paper and providing constructive comments. We have carefully considered each of your comments and made thorough revisions of the manuscript accordingly. As a result of addressing your comments, we believe the introduction, method, results, and discussion have been significantly improved.

We are here resubmitting the revised manuscript entitled “Navigating the efficiency landscape: A Data Envelopment Analysis of tourist resorts in Jiangsu Province for optimized socio-economic benefits” for your kind consideration of its suitability for publication in Sustainability. In addition, our point-by-point responses to your comments are attached. The revisions are all highlighted in yellow in the resubmitted manuscript.

Thank you again for sharing your inspiring ideas and thoughts with us, which guide us throughout the review process. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best Regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a well-written and well-organized paper on a relevant and interesting topic. However, there is room for improvement, namely in the following aspects:

• - The aims of the paper should have been placed much earlier in the introduction, and it should have presented the specific research questions;
• - The policy recommendations are too vague and general, and do not follow logically and clearly from the statistical analysis;
• - The conclusion is poor and too technical. It should have answered each of the research questions in a manner understandable to a broad audience.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

We would like to thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our paper and providing constructive comments. We have carefully considered each of your comments and made thorough revisions of the manuscript accordingly. As a result of addressing your comments, we believe the introduction, method, results, and discussion have been significantly improved.

We are here resubmitting the revised manuscript entitled “Navigating the efficiency landscape: A Data Envelopment Analysis of tourist resorts in Jiangsu Province for optimized socio-economic benefits” for your kind consideration of its suitability for publication in Sustainability. In addition, our point-by-point responses to your comments are attached. The revisions are all highlighted in yellow in the resubmitted manuscript.

Thank you again for sharing your inspiring ideas and thoughts with us, which guide us throughout the review process. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best Regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is quite long. The methodology and results are quite detailed and the literature review seems sufficient. On the other hand, I consider that the weak points are:

- The abstract is a little difficult to understand, perhaps a simpler and clearer wording indicating aim, methodology and main contribution would be better.

- For people less specialized in this type of analysis, it is not clear what contribution is made by the paper. Why is this type of analysis useful and necessary? The answer to this question should be clearer in the introduction.

- Neither in the discussion section nor in the conclusions section are the limitations of the analysis and proposals for future studies mentioned.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

We would like to thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our paper and providing constructive comments. We have carefully considered each of your comments and made thorough revisions of the manuscript accordingly. As a result of addressing your comments, we believe the introduction, method, results, and discussion have been significantly improved.

We are here resubmitting the revised manuscript entitled “Navigating the efficiency landscape: A Data Envelopment Analysis of tourist resorts in Jiangsu Province for optimized socio-economic benefits” for your kind consideration of its suitability for publication in Sustainability. In addition, our point-by-point responses to your comments are attached. The revisions are all highlighted in yellow in the resubmitted manuscript.

Thank you again for sharing your inspiring ideas and thoughts with us, which guide us throughout the review process. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best Regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made a significant improvement to the article. All that is suggested is that they provide a little better justification for the study with current literature, as some examples were given in the previous review process. The authors should also briefly review the English language. 

Good luck! 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language just needs a brief revision.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am pleased to convey that after a thorough review of your revised manuscript and the detailed responses to the referees' comments, the editorial team has concluded that your paper has been significantly improved. The enhancements and clarifications you have made in response to the feedback have addressed the concerns raised during the initial review process effectively.