PONE-D-23-30994How Much Can Air Pollution Influence Tourism? Examination of 284 Chinese Prefecture-level CitiesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lee,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 15 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nikeel Nishkar Kumar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: How Much Can Air Pollution Influence Tourism? Examination of 284 Chinese Prefecture-level Cities

Reviewer report:

Congratulations on the comprehensive work presented in this manuscript. However, before this can make it to press, I have several questions and suggestions that require clarification:

1. How was the weighting system for tourism resources (e.g., world cultural heritage, national scenic spots) determined, and what was the rationale behind assigning specific weights to each category?

2. Given that there are multiple sources to obtain PM2.5 concentration data, such as direct information from China’s environmental bureau and the LandScan method, how do you ensure consistency and accuracy in the PM2.5 measurements used in this study?

3. The study references the use of the artificial impervious area dataset by Gong et al. (2020) for specifying the spatial coverage of urban areas. How does this dataset compare with other available methods, such as the GHS build-up grids, in terms of capturing the true essence of urban built-up areas in China?

4. With respect to the transportation infrastructure variables, how did you handle cities that might have multiple railway stations or airports of different grades? For instance, if a city has both a third and fifth-level railway station, how is that incorporated into the model?

5. The study controls for various socioeconomic factors like GDP and the ratio of public fiscal expenditure to GDP. Are there any potential confounding variables that were not included in the model, and how might they influence the findings?

Empirical Method:

6.

• The method assumes observations are independent, which can be problematic for time-series or spatial data.

• With multiple coefficients for each quantile, the interpretation and comparison of results can be intricate.

• Have you considered simpler alternatives, such as Median Regression? This approach targets the median (or 50th quantile) of the dependent variable and offers a robust analysis without assuming specific error distributions. Not only is it less computationally intensive, but it also provides a more parsimonious view of the data, focusing on the median's relationships.

Could you kindly elaborate on your choice of QR over such alternatives and address the aforementioned concerns?

7. Your analysis mentioned that in cities with low tourist visit numbers (TOV), higher PM2.5 is associated with an increase in TOV, which contradicts the findings of Shah et al. (2022). Could you elaborate on the potential factors or unique circumstances present in these cities that might account for this positive correlation between air pollution and tourism? Additionally, how do you reconcile this with the prevailing literature that often associates increased air pollution with a reduction in tourism?

8. Given that the interaction effect between PM2.5 and TOU on tourist visits (TOV) is non-linear, how does the magnitude of this effect vary across different percentiles (Q10, Q50, and Q75) and what implications does this have for tourism development in regions with varying air pollution levels?

9. The study highlights the potential dangers of the "resource curse" in the context of tourism development. How can cities with abundant tourism resources, such as Shanxi, ensure they capitalize on their historical and cultural assets without falling victim to the pitfalls of over-reliance on a single industry

Reviewer #2: - This is a interesting paper.

- Gap and Contribution: The paper needs to improve the indentification of the gap and its contribution. The arguement used for a cotrasting view is based on two different context of papers. One is based on people's perception and the other uses secondary data. Therefore to make the arguement, both contrasting views should be based on the same type of data.

- Policy implications based on findings: The findings are interesting and therefore the author(s) need to provide appropriate and specific policy implications based on this research.

- Please follow the journal's formatting guidelines.

- All the best.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Antony Andrews

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-23-30994R1How Much Can Air Pollution Influence Tourism? Examination of 284 Chinese Prefecture-level CitiesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lee,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 21 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nikeel Nishkar Kumar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: How Much Can Air Pollution Influence Tourism? Examination of 284 Chinese Prefecture-level Cities

Thanks for responding to my quieries – I am generally satisfied, just have couple of points to address before it cn make it to press:

1. Authors Response: Thank you for the question. Yes, factors such as weather conditions,

wind speed, and Air Quality Index (AQI) could potentially influence our findings.

These factors have been shown in prior studies to impact air pollution and tourism

development in individual cities or smaller samples. Regrettably, acquiring such

granular data is difficult in large-scale studies. Hence, we haven’t incorporated these

factors into this study.

Reviewer’s Response: Thank you for your response. I appreciate your acknowledgment of the potential influence of external factors like weather conditions, wind speed, and Air Quality Index (AQI) on your study's findings. It's understandable that acquiring granular data for such variables can be challenging in large-scale studies. Your decision to exclude these factors seems reasonable given the logistical difficulties in obtaining this detailed information.

However, it might be beneficial to discuss these limitations in your paper. Addressing the absence of these variables could provide readers with a clearer understanding of the study's scope and the context in which your findings are situated. This would also help in setting future research directions where such data might be more readily available or in smaller scale studies where the impact of these factors can be more feasibly assessed.

2. My other question is about your model itself, and I am sorry to bring this up during the second review, but it is important for the credibility of your findings:

In the context of examining the relationship between air pollution and tourism development across a substantial number of cities over a decade, I have some concerns and questions regarding the handling of potential non-stationarity and trend components in your data:

Accounting for Linear Trends: The data spans 284 cities over a period from 2008 to 2018, which is a substantial time frame. However, it appears that linear trends have not been explicitly accounted for in your model. Could you elaborate on how your model addresses or accommodates potential linear trends in both the tourism development and air pollution variables over this period?

Potential Non-Stationarity Issues: Given the longitudinal nature of your data, there is a possibility of non-stationarity within the panel dataset. Non-stationarity can lead to biased and inconsistent coefficient estimates. How do you ensure that the variables in your panel data are stationary, or how do you mitigate the effects of potential non-stationarity?

Implications of Omitting Trend Components: If linear trends are not adequately accounted for, this might lead to spurious regression problems. Can you discuss the potential implications of this omission on the interpretation of your results, particularly regarding the coefficients' magnitude and significance?

Strategies for Trend and Non-Stationarity Adjustment: Have you considered using detrending methods or incorporating a trend variable in your model? Additionally, are there other econometric techniques, such as first differencing or cointegration analysis, that you have employed or could employ to address these issues?

You'll likely need to revise several models. A practical starting point would be conducting unit root tests specifically designed for panel data. For instance, using Stata, you can perform the Levin-Lin-Chu (LLC) test, Im-Pesaran-Shin (IPS) test, and Fisher-type tests based on augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) tests. If you prefer EViews, it also supports tests like the LLC, IPS, and Maddala and Wu's Fisher-type tests for such analyses. Moreover, the R programming language offers robust packages like plm and urca for panel data analysis, which include unit root tests such as the LLC and IPS tests.

I recommend applying these unit root tests to all your OLS models. Ideally, we won't find any unit roots, as their presence could complicate matters, potentially requiring significant revisions. Even if the tests for unit roots are negative, consider including a trend variable in your models, possibly both linear and quadratic trends, to enhance the robustness of your analysis.

Good luck with revision

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Antony Andrews

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-23-30994R2How Far Can Air Pollution Affect Tourism in China? Evidence from Panel Unconditional Quantile RegressionsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lee,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 02 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nikeel Nishkar Kumar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Good work. But believe it's essential to include a trend component in the regression model. Despite the authors having conducted unit root tests, my previous comment underscored the importance of incorporating trend variables, possibly both linear and quadratic, to strengthen the robustness of your analysis. It would be advisable for the authors to present two sets of results: one that includes the trend component and another without it. We want to make sure that your coefficients do not change very much. I strongly believe that the authors should include a trend component in their model to derive the coefficient, which could provide insights into technological progress or total factor productivity, depending on their interpretation. Good luck :)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Antony Andrews

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

How Far Can Air Pollution Affect Tourism in China? Evidence from Panel Unconditional Quantile Regressions

PONE-D-23-30994R3

Dear Dr. Lee,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Nikeel Nishkar Kumar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE