Identifying the Spatial Patterns and Influencing Factors of Leisure and Tourism in Xi’an Based on Point of Interest (POI) Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I am not a specialist in GIS analysis, therefore my comments are related to my area of expertise, which is urban tourism. I consider that the authors make a correct analysis of the distribution patterns of a set of activities related to leisure and some of them "potentially" related to tourism.

I believe that the premise from which the study is based is correct. The study argues that urban leisure and tourism spaces are spaces shared by hosts and guests and that leisure and tourism spaces are intertwined. But in my opinion, although tourists and residents can use the same services and spaces (the same POIs), in fact they do not do so for all the identified elements. That is, tourism is defined from demand, not from supply. This analysis shows the spatial distribution of the potential offer of services and places for tourists. It is more or less clear that catering services, shopping centers, parks and scenic spaces are possibly all used by local people (everyday urban leisure). However, tourists do not use all of the identified POS elements, therefore the results of the analysis refer to the spatial distribution of an offer that may be related to local leisure consumption, but not to tourism in its entirety. Massive data not verified by field work lead to generalities of this type. But given the difficulty of classifying each of the POIs in the database based on their real (and not potential) link with tourist consumption/use (that is, with consumption coming from visitors, not locals), I recommend the authors point out this fact in the discussion and conclusions to qualify the interpretation of the results. Although the authors themselves recognize in the discussion that this is a study carried out from the perspective of supply and not demand, I consider that collecting these ideas allows them to complete the final reflections on the limitations of the methodology and data sources used.

On the other hand, the results are obvious. The general distributions and for various types of leisure and tourism spaces in Xi'an present the characteristics of concentration in the central urban area and little dispersion in the surrounding urban areas. This is what happens in all cities in the world. And the explanatory factors are also obvious, where there is more population density and greater "economic development" (with higher incomes) there is more concentration of economic activity and therefore of services (including those analyzed in this article). Obviously the location of natural and cultural resources (scenic points), which are much less numerous in total, is more random because it does not depend on the current economic and demographic dynamics, but is partly inherited from historical factors. I think it could be pointed out more obviously in the discussion, how the results of this study confirm evidence already widely used in urban tourism studies. In this case, highlight how novel the methodology used may be, because the results are not novel.

Finally, I would like to comment that the bibliography related to tourism in general, and urban tourism in particular, is very dispersed. There are references to many topics that are not discussed in the article (gentrification processes in urban spaces induced by tourism, leisure-tourism connection behaviors by life stage and gender, social impacts of tourism, host perceptions of tourism development,.... ). I would like to recommend that the references be more limited and related to the approach to what is really studied, which are the spatial distribution patterns of tourist activity in urban destinations.

Author Response

Dear reviewer：

        Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions on the previous manuscript. We have revised it accordingly for improvement. Please see the attachment. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

All necessary comments and recommendations are included within the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Style in some sections should be improved; LANGUAGE IMPROVEMENTS.

Author Response

Dear reviewer：

         Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions on the previous manuscript. We have revised it accordingly for improvement. Please see the attachment. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The researchers argue that few studies consider leisure and tourism together, yet this should be done due to the numerous intersections between the two. The authors outline the research gap that at present, big data analysis and geographic information technology have not been widely used, and not in the context of both leisure and tourism. They argue the need to research the overall large-scale spatial pattern of leisure and tourism and its influence mechanisms by means of applying POI data mining, ArcGIS spatial analysis and geodetector technology to Xi'an, in China. This research reveals the principles of spatial distribution of leisure and tourism in Xi'an. The authors argue that this data can be used to optimize the spatial layout and planning of both leisure and tourism in Xi'an. It has wider relevance to other cities which want to develop leisure and tourism.

The argument that leisure and tourism should be considered together, in the context of a city such as Xi’an (and of relevance to other cities) is a good and valid argument. They present a gap in the body of knowledge as well as a methodological gap in the sense that big data analysis and geographic information technology has not been widely used, and particularly, in this case, in the context of both leisure and tourism. The paper makes a contribution of value.

Comments per section:

At the end of section 1, the research gap and the aim of the paper are very clear.

Methods: The authors state in their aim that they make use of POI data mining, ArcGIS spatial analysis and geodetector technology. While POI data mining is mentioned under Data Source, which is fine, ArcGis is only mentioned at the start of Section 3 (findings). Please include descriptions of the analysis via ArcGis in the methods section. Furthermore, while, in the introduction, you only mention geodetector technology (which comes through under methods in 2.3.4); other methods are mentioned here which were not mentioned in introduction. Is there a reason for this discrepancy? Why does the reader only find out about the other 3 methods at this point? (Section 2.3)? It must be easy to understand/follow for the average reader.  

Section 3

216 and 218: Please explain the concepts of average nearest neighbour distance (ANND) and expected average nearest neighbour distance (EANND). How is the EANND calculated? You need to consider whether methods section might be the better place to explain this.  Please remember that not all readers will be familiar with your methods.

Other than the above, I found the results to be well written and clear.

Section 4

Before Figure 3, please explain to the reader the source of these triggering factors. Where did that originate from (author?). You do say in line 465 : “…in combination with findings form relevant studies [50]”. However, since these factors form a significant part of your discussion and how you interpret your results, one needs to state clearly where they came from and why did you choose these factors (in contrast to factors identified by other researchers”. I.e. motivate this choice.

Discussion

I expected to see more comparison back to the literature in this section, i.e. a more robust discussion and comparison of your findings with that of other research. The Instructions to Authors state that, for the discussion, “Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses”. This will also emphasise the value of your study. What did others find? How do your results compare/contrast?

More exploration is needed of key points. For example, the authors state that “Consequently, the exploration of the spatial principles guiding leisure and tourism development can help Chinese tourism cities accelerate their construction of tourism and leisure sites” (line 534-535). What does this mean? In the context of the current focus on sustainable futures, is accelerated construction in an already built-up area truly the best approach? Can the data point us to other options? Another example is line 570-574 – what does this mean to the developer/ to the tourism manager? Is there not a need to create spaces outside of the business of cities for tourists and leisure opportunities? I was surprised that Figure 1f: Scenic spots shows that the concentration of these scenic spots is very central. I found this interesting, as in many cities, the scenic spots would be located more on the periphery of the city. I expected to see more discussion on this. Why is this so? Why does Xi’an not seem to have scenic attractions outside of the city centre? Remember that the reader may not know Xi’an, so this needs to be explained/ expanded on further. This links to your discussion in lines 570-574 and line 583-587. I was glad to see that both of your suggestions were in this regard. This idea/main issue needs to be introduced/ discussed earlier on, also mention it in results when you discuss Figure 1f. You could also consider a suggestion/recommendation regarding the value of ‘demarketing’ as a strategy to avoid overcrowding within the central areas and rather focus marketing efforts on the outer areas (if this is a problem in Xi’an?. The data certain points to major concentration areas, but has it yet reached proportions that are uncomfortable to residents, such as what has happened in places such as Veniece and Majorca?

Avoid repeating results e.g. line 547 onwards. Rather take the reader deeper. What do the results mean for practical future implementation? How do they compare with what other researchers found?

Importantly, what has been the value of your approach of combining leisure and tourism, in contrast to what you say in the introduction, that most authors have kept them separate?

Conclusion

Well written and pulls the paper together. I only have three comments here:

1.      The introduction makes a large deal about tourism and leisure being traditionally separated in studies. I would have expected to see the authors return to this. Since you combined the two, what was the value of this? What do we know now that we did not know before? Did the method bear fruit?

2.      Wider relevance? At the start of the paper, you state that the study has wider relevance to other cities which want to develop leisure and tourism, yet this is not explored. What are the key take-home lessons for other cities?

3.      Future research – see line 247: “The map can only obtain point data spatially and does not record social attributes such as scenic spot size, resource grade, and popularity”. Is this not worth future investigation? Have you considered the addition of qualitative studies to get more depth into the views/voices of tourists and residents?

Other

The fact that Xi’an is in China should come across in title and abstract.

Figures and tables were clear and easy to read. The writing style is of a high quality.

Bibliography contains a range of references, with several recent ones. In line with my comment about the discussion, it would be good to see more references referred to in the discussion and added to bibliography.

General comments (The number refers to the relevant line):

16: Remove the word “basically” from the abstract

37-38: Please clarify what study. Is the relationship between leisure and tourism not dealt with in this study or in previous research? I.e. are you saying that this is a gap in the research? Please clarify.

38-40: This sentence does not fit with preceding sentence. If you are stating that scholars are not making this link, this contradicts this sentence (38-40), as that establishes a link.

53: This would be clearer if you state: “In recent years, an increasing number of cities in China have begun to pay attention to the cultivation of both the leisure and tourism industry”. I suggest you make the next part (line 54 and 55 its own sentence. This deals with a different concept – it’s about the “how” of developing both leisure and tourism. It is confusing to have all this in one sentence.

59-60: How will this be further enhanced? The sentence gives the reader the idea that you will tell us how it will be enhanced, but the train of thought seems to be dropped in the next sentence.

73-85: Good summary of current state of research in this field.

100: You state “… and the existing research mostly focuses on the single format of urban leisure or tourism, such as …”. Please make this argument clearer – are you stating that existing research focuses either on leisure only or on tourism only? If yes, then rather split the sources in line 100-101 into those where the focus has been on leisure only and those where focus is on tourism only. Please lead the reader though this, which will make this research gap clearer.

124: Please seek alternative to the word “huge”.

126: What is meant by: “and is a typical representative of Chinese tourist cities”?. Please clarify. Does it mean that Xi’an is similar to other Chinese tourist cities?

129: This outlines significance of study for “ancient capital-type tourist cites”, This concept was not mentioned when you introduced aim/significance of study at the end of Section 1. If key to the study, please bring it in there. If not, rather do not mention it here. Furthermore, what is meant by “capital-type tourist cities”? Do you perhaps mean capital cities that are major tourist attractions? But then you are limiting studies to capital cities only? Please clarify.

Table 1: Rather refer to “Star-rated hotels”

 

243/244: Avoid use of “On the other hand” two sentences in a row. The same applies to line 425 and 428; 661 and 663.

387: Consider if this would make more sense – is this what you mean?: “Since scenic spots are more influenced by history and geography and shopping and commercial facilities are more influenced by business districts and location, these two categories of leisure and tourism have a lower level of ability to choose their locations and range in comparison to the other categories.

402-403: Please clarify what is meant by this sentence: “Generally, the more developed the evening economy is, the more perfect the facilities are”. I believe you try to explain it in the next line, but it is not clear.

560: Check citation format.

598: What do you mean by tertiary industry? It is mentioned for the first time in line 400. Please unpack it at first mention.

670: I suggest you rather state: “The limitations of the study are as follows: …”

678-679: I suggest you word this as: “Future research is required to try to link the …”.

The writing style is of a high quality. Minor edits necessary and some clarification of certain sentences. Please refer to my "General comments".

Author Response

尊敬的审稿人：

非常感谢您抽出宝贵时间审阅我们的稿件。非常感谢您对以前的稿件提出意见和建议。我们相应地对其进行了修订以进行改进。请参阅附件。谢谢。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx