COVID-19 Impacts on the Spatial Network of City Tourism in Fujian Province, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the article is relevant, and might contribute to the existing academic knowledge, however the logic and structure need revision in order to be clear and stating the value of the study. 

Abstract: after revision of the article, I would suggest to make it more clear. Implication mentioned here are too general. 

There are a lot of relevant studies about spatial imbalances in tourism (within a destination, among destinations, overvisitation of certain city areas etc.), the literature should be extended accordingly. 

Context: it should be clarified why Fujian province is the appropriate destination for addressing this issue. Once it is explained, this could lead towards being a research paper, and not a practical case study. 

406,805,100 domestic travellers: this is really a high volume. Are they all overnight tourists? What is the share of travellers coming from the Fujian region? 

Observed variables: it is not clear whether the indicators are related to cities involved? Furthermore how the links between cities have been measured? 

A-class scenic spots: please, explain what does it mean exactly. 

Results section: there are more explanation that could be better placed into the discussion section (e.g. ...Zhangzhou is experiencing rapid tourism development..., or ...One explanation is that none of the cities...). Please, check this section, and put relevant text into discussion. 

Implications: very general, this should be much more rigorous and clearly stating the added value of the study. For example, how cities should work together? What can it mean exactly in practice? 

My overall evaluation is that the study has its merits, current state should be developed in order to be published as an academic research paper. 

Author Response

We appreciate your constructive comments very much and seriously considered your feedback when we modified the manuscript. For clarity, in the following form, we have taken the liberty of replicating your comments, followed by an overall response and point-to-point explanations of how we have dealt with your pertinent concerns and valuable comments in detail. All the changes have been marked in bold text in this report and the revised manuscript. Thank you once again for your critiques and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript. Your guidance has led us to extensively revise the manuscript and significantly improve its overall quality. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article provides a substantial amount of theoretical and empirical context, particularly in integrating the modified gravity model and social network analysis within the framework of urban tourism impacted by COVID-19. This demonstrates an awareness of and engagement with existing theoretical backgrounds.

However, while the article does a commendable job of situating its research within the broader context of existing literature, there could be room for a more detailed comparison with previous studies, especially those focusing on the impacts of global crises on urban tourism networks. This would help in better understanding the unique contributions and positioning of this study in the current body of knowledge. In literature review emphasize a more critical analysis of the existing literature, perhaps highlighting gaps or inconsistencies that your study addresses.

The study’s methodological approach, particularly the use of the modified gravity model and social network analysis, is well-explained and adds to the empirical research on the topic. However, a more thorough discussion of how this methodology builds upon or diverges from existing methods in the field could enhance the contextualization. More detail on the data collection process and any challenges faced would enhance this section.

In terms of empirical research, the study's focus on Fujian, China, provides valuable insights. However, a more explicit linkage between these findings and the broader global context of urban tourism and pandemic impacts would enhance its relevance and applicability. Including more discussion on the implications of these results in real-world scenarios within this section could provide additional depth.

Discussion could be enriched by comparing the findings with international cases, thus broadening the scope.

Overall, the quality of English in the article is good

Author Response

We appreciate your constructive comments very much and took your feedback into serious consideration when we modified the manuscript. For the sake of clarity, in the following form, we have taken the liberty of replicating your comments, followed by an overall response and point-to-point explanations of how we have dealt with your pertinent concerns and valuable comments in detail. All the changes have been marked in bold text in this report and the revised manuscript. Thank you once again for your critiques and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript. Your guidance has led us to extensively revise the manuscript and significantly improve its overall quality. Please see attchment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form