Evaluation of the Sustainable Development of Traditional Ethnic Village Tourist Destinations: A Case Study of Jiaju Tibetan Village in Danba County, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is very well written and the overall merit is extensive.
I would like to set my concerns about the paper on the qualitative part of it.
My first concern is about the introduction part. Since the authors state conclusions such as "..reasonable planning and use of land resources.....for the development of rural tourism" references should be added. Please reform the introduction part by adding the required support of academic or statistical references
My second concern is about the indicators and their connection with the notions of Carrying Capacity and Level of Acceptable Change. How did you come up with those five categories of indicators and the thirteen subcategories? the core of my concern is to avoid any mixture with CC and LAC regarding the indicators in general. If you used the DELPHI method, please give more details about the process.
Please try to build more on the part of choosing the indicators (and subcategories as well)
My third concern regards the sentence (p.7/21, subparagraph 4.1) "..5 invalid questionnaires" Please try to explain what is the meaning and why did you add those 5 invalid questionnaires to the overall sum. This could also have severe implications for the determination of weight (w) and (u) as well.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author(s),
I really appreciate the opportunity to review this paper.
The article proposes an interesting evaluation of sustainable development of traditional ethnic village tourist destination with focus on the case study of Jiaju Tibetan Village in Danba County (China).
According to the current version of the paper, I want to suggest some changes to improve the readability and critical contribution of this valuable research.
1. The abstract should be shorter, precise and concise. I recommend to the author(s) the formula: a bit introduction/background, objectives, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion.
2. The section entitled “Literature Review” needs to be reinforced, according to my view, by adding a section directly related to sustainable development and tourist destinations. Here some examples:
Park, C., Lee, S., Lee, C. K., & Reisinger, Y. (2022). Volunteer tourists’ environmentally friendly behavior and support for sustainable tourism development using Value-Belief-Norm theory: Moderating role of altruism. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 25, 100712.
Penagos-Londoño, G. I., Rodriguez–Sanchez, C., Ruiz-Moreno, F., & Torres, E. (2021). A machine learning approach to segmentation of tourists based on perceived destination sustainability and trustworthiness. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 19, 100532.
Pérez-Calderón E, Miguel-Barrado V, Sánchez-Cubo F. Tourism Business in Spanish National Parks: A Multidimensional Perspective of Sustainable Tourism. Land. 2022; 11(2):190. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020190
Torres-Moraga, E. I., Alonso-Dos-Santos, M., Arboleda, D. Q., & Carvajal-Trujillo, E. (2021). The role of experience and trustworthiness on perception sustainable touristic destinations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 49, 471-480.
3. I also suggest some changes on the methodology used by the author(s). I have only been able to read the usage of AHP analysis method and “the results assessed by experts”. What does it mean? Have the author(s) conducted in-depth interviews with the experts? Have focus groups been deployed in this research? Anyway, and in my view, the methodology should be complemented by a qualitative research technique. Otherwise, we will be faced with an enumeration of results from the application of a mathematical formula. I really believe that we must go further by deploying a research technique that allows us to interpret the results obtained in the most quantitative phase of this research.
4. I encourage the author(s) to expand the conclusions section. In my view, the discussion section is too long, whilst the conclusions are too short. Often, the conclusions represents the most critical contribution of any research to the knowledge.
5. In general terms, the article seems too long. I believe that author(s) should make every effort to concentrate the most relevant contribution of their research in fewer pages. Otherwise, it seems that context information is emphasized more, to the detriment of the important findings that can be read in this research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author(s), Thank you for submitting the revised version of your paper. I'm very happy to announce you that, in my opinion, the paper has been considerably improved.
