Study on the Coordinated Development of Tourism Industry–Regional Economy–Ecological Environment in the Yili River Valley

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper tries to understand the correlation between 3 sustainable pillars, which is a good idea. However, I feel it needs some further clarifications before it can be accepted:

 

First sentence in the abstract is too long, and not clear where is the end of the sentence. 

 

Line 33 – country’s total tourism revenue.. Which country? When starting to reading a paper it is not clear that Yili River Valley is located in China.

 

I believe the readers would benefit by adding a paragraph to explain what is geo-spatial research? Or what is a spatial-mismatching research?

 

Materials and Methods:

- What it means 22 4A-level ? 2 5 A level?

- At the end of this paragraph (line 133) would be beneficial to see why is Yili River Valley a good fit for this kind of research? Why exactly there?

 

In Data sources paragraph is becomes clear that this research uses a secondary research data. I believe this needs to be pointed out somewhere earlier. Also, which data from the sources you list did you use? Which variables, parameters?

 

In the Indicator System you explain you did a systematic review of literature? Which literature? Where is the list of the literature? How did you select the literature?

 

Would be nice to see a model of this research, how the secondary data were used, how the literature was used, what was selected to use and what was removed (and by which criteria?).

 

In the discussion, you do not cite even one paper? So, does this research has any value, if it is not related to previous research? I would recommend explaining your results by at least citing papers you used for the systematic literature review (domestic literature as you call it).

Good luck with revision. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

some sentences are too long and not clear

Author Response

请检查附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

I commend the authors for their diligent work, showcasing a robust understanding of the subject matter. Nevertheless, the composition of the text poses a significant challenge to the reader. While the effort is commendable, a clearer writing style is essential to enhance the overall depth and impact of the study to meet the stringent standards for publication in Sustainability. The sentences are excessively lengthy, and coherence is lacking at times, hindering reader comprehension. Additionally, there are instances of erroneous punctuation, such as the dot in line 501, disrupting the flow of the text. Furthermore, discrepancies in the use of quotation marks are noted, exemplified by the phrase '13th five-year plan,' enclosed in quotation marks in line 468 but lacking them in line 475.

Specific Comments

Introduction:

1.     “In recent years, the tourism industry has been developing rapidly, and the concept of mass tourism has taken root in people's hearts”. Mass tourism has been widely prevalent for several decades. Clarification on the specific basis for asserting recent development in this context would enhance the transparency and robustness of the argument.

2.     “Data from the National Bureau of Statistics show that the country's total tourism revenue in 2019 was 6.57 trillion yuan, an increase of 4.18 times over 2010”. Kindly provide clarification on the specific country under consideration.

3.     “However, at the same time, China's socio-economic costs have increased, the consumption of natural resources is serious, and the pressure on the environmental carrying capacity has intensified, and other problems have become increasingly prominent”. The statement appears overly general without specific details. To enhance the robustness of the argument, it is advisable to incorporate relevant sources and numerical data. This would provide a more solid foundation for the assertions made in the text and contribute to the overall scholarly rigor of the discussion  

4.     “As a frontier area of the Silk Road Economic Belt construction of the Yili River Valley, with beautiful natural landscape, long history and culture and unique folk customs, to promote the coordinated development of the tourism industry in the counties and cities of the Yili River Valley, the regional economy and the ecological environment system, not only to ensure that the "Beautiful China" construction is better planned and implemented, but also to ensure the development of the region”. The length of the statement is considerable, and there is a lack of coherence with the preceding text. Consider breaking down the information into more concise segments for improved clarity and ensure a seamless connection with the preceding content to maintain overall cohesion in the narrative.

Materials and Methods:

I believe it is essential to incorporate a conceptual diagram illustrating the methodological framework of the study. The overall writing style, in my opinion, does not facilitate reader comprehension, and such a diagram would contribute to a clearer understanding of the methodological approach.

Results:

1.     In Section 3.1, I believe there is a need for a more in-depth analysis of the variations in indicators. For instance, a deeper exploration of the implications of these changes on the SMI index would provide valuable insights.

2.     The text references data related to Table 4, such as the statement "average number of occurrences of each indicator is 6.7 times," which is not presented in the table. It may be beneficial to consider incorporating additional details into Table 4 to align with the information provided in the text.

Discussion:

At certain points in the text, additional references are necessary. For instance, citations are warranted in lines 458-468 and 472-473 to support the information presented in these sections.

I hope that my comments will be helpful to the authors.

Sincerely,

Author Response

请检查附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

ok

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to review this manuscript. At the same time, thank you very much for your previous comments and professional advice. These views help to improve the quality of our articles. In the second round of review, you gave us a positive reply to our previous revision, so that we have a certain confidence in the revision of this paper. Thank you again.

However, in the second round of revision,in addition to revising the opinions of the reviewers, in order to make the sentences of the article more smooth, we also adjusted and modified some sentences throughout the article, and large areas of modification have been highlighted. The specific position is as follows:

1、Line 86 on page 2 to line 101 on page 3, this part is similar to the description of the structure of the article (line 103 to 123 on page 3), so we have modified it.

2、Line 607 to line 613 on page 18 is the third conclusion of the paper. The previous sentence is too long and tedious, so we have modified it.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, I commend the authors for their diligent work, however, I would like to bring to their attention a crucial aspect that I believe requires further attention before the paper is finalized for publication. I observed that the newly introduced Figure 1 in your manuscript has not been addressed within the text. Although the figure has been included in the manuscript, its content, and significance have not been explicitly discussed in the corresponding section of the paper.

Author Response

请参阅附件

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf