Mobile Augmented Reality Heritage Applications: Meeting the Needs of Heritage Tourists
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is an interesting and valuable addition to the body of knowledge regarding mobile augmented reality (AR) heritage attractions. This is even more valuable in light of covid-19 pandemic and the limitation of in-person visits to heritage sites. This study provides added value as tourists plan their future visitor experiences.
While the paper provides good references in the literature review, the primary weakness is in the data collection. Data from fifty respondents gathered over 28 months from 25 sites! Valuable as a qualitative case study in the use of NVivo and the themes generated, the authors do indicate the weakness that the findings cannot be generalized as this is hardly a representative study.
It is recognized that there are challenges in visitor access to the AR materials (these may be a function of the tourists' hardware and software) and the desire by tourists to have a more personalized guiding experience. The availability of having real-time updates on the level of congestion at the popular parts of the WHS and payment of admissions via the app, are 2 very valuable recommendations.
Although the engagement of tourists in the co-creation of value in the positive visitation experience is desirable; accurate, insightful and authentic information MUST be presented and not be modified for the purpose of "entertaining" tourists. The interaction between the tourists, the web app designer and the heritage content provider should produce greater value added to the AR experience.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Manuscript ID:
Title: Mobile Augmented Reality Heritage Applications: Meeting the needs of heritage tourists
Thank you very much for reviewing the manuscript. We greatly appreciate you for the precious comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Response to Reviewer 1:
Point 1: While the paper provides good references in the literature review, the primary weakness is in the data collection. Data from fifty respondents gathered over 28 months from 25 sites! Valuable as a qualitative case study in the use of NVivo and the themes generated, the authors do indicate the weakness that the findings cannot be generalized as this is hardly a representative study.
Response 1: Thank you so much for your comments.
The method and the limitations and future research directions have been revised (highlighted in Blue color).
Since tourists’ needs for developing the AR heritage applications are seldom placed within an applicable theoretical scheme in tourism literature, this study used the grounded theory (GT) approach as it is suitable when studying current phenomenon in actual existence and useful to discover respondents’ psychological conditions for understanding of tourists’ attitudes and behaviors.
According to Cresswell (1998), 20-30 samples are adequate for GT studies. However, 50 heritage tourists, which are regarded as a large sample for GT studies (Cresswell, 1998; Marshall, Cardon, Poddar, Fontenot, 2013), were interviewed from March 24, 2017 to July 8, 2019 because sampling was conducted in 10 locations of Macau’s WHSs.
<References>
Cresswell, J.W. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998.
Marshall, B.; Cardon, P.; Poddar, A.; Fontenot, R. Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of computer information systems. 2013. 54, 1, 11-22.
Point 2: Although the engagement of tourists in the co-creation of value in the positive visitation experience is desirable; accurate, insightful and authentic information MUST be presented and not be modified for the purpose of "entertaining" tourists.
Response 2: Many thanks for the comments. We agree with the opinions. However, according to the nature of heritage tourists (McKercher & Du Cros, 2002), heritage tourists have a tendency to pursue entertainment in heritage sites as well. So, we considered the entertainment in developing mobile AR heritage application.
<Reference>
McKercher, B.; Du Cros, H. Cultural tourism: The partnership between tourism and cultural heritage management. Routledge, 2002.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article deals with a topic of great interest from a tourist point of view such as heritage management. However, it is a confusing, poorly organized document and lacks the theoretical basis for supporting the different hypotheses it invokes. This results in a conventional exposure structure in scientific articles, which contributes to making it more difficult to follow and understand the study carried out. However the subject is very interesting but needs changes
Abstract
Abstract needs to beimproved. The abstract should at least include the research goal, method, conclusion and significance. Please explain the specific contribution of knowledge. specifically what conclusions you bring for academic research
Introduction
First, the introduction should begin by addressing the importance of good management in heritage tourism and citing different previous research to support the scientific interest of the work. Subsequently, a generic reference can be made to the target reference in which the study was carried out, which must be further developed in the methodology section.
Please try to add a paragraph that says the importance of this study as it is something new and clearly contributes to the improvement of the experience.
Data
It is recommended to further explain the sample size selected for the experiment. Why did you choose 50 sample size? Is this sample size reasonable?
Conclusion
They refer in passing to the increase in tourist satisfaction. Could you broaden your conclusions on this?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Manuscript ID:
Title: Mobile Augmented Reality Heritage Applications: Meeting the needs of heritage tourists
Thank you very much for reviewing the manuscript. We greatly appreciate you for the precious comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Response to Reviewer 2:
Point 1: Abstract needs to be improved. The abstract should at least include the research goal, method, conclusion and significance. Please explain the specific contribution of knowledge. specifically what conclusions you bring for academic research
Response 1: According to the comments, the abstract has been revised: This study generated new requirements for mobile AR heritage applications, which reflect the needs of Asian tourist market that are different from those of European tourist market. The characteristic of tourist empowerment and the association between co-creation and tourism were also identified. This study contributes to provide a theoretical framework for designing mobile AR heritage applications and has implications for mobile AR applications developers and tourism practitioners.
Point 2: First, the introduction should begin by addressing the importance of good management in heritage tourism and citing different previous research to support the scientific interest of the work. Subsequently, a generic reference can be made to the target reference in which the study was carried out, which must be further developed in the methodology section.
Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. The introduction part has been revised (Page 3, Highlighted in Blue color): World Heritage Sites (WHSs) with outstanding universe values tend to gain public attention, resulting in congestion. According to Mok [51], the congestion of WHSs causes the negative emotion of heritage tourists. Hence, to enhance the quality of experience of heritage tourists is the most challenging aspect in heritage tourism. In order to solve the issue, previous studies [27, 28, 29, 30, 42] reveal that technology can be used.
Pont 3: Please try to add a paragraph that says the importance of this study as it is something new and clearly contributes to the improvement of the experience.
Response 3: According to the suggestion, the introduction section has been revised (Page 5, Highlighted in Blue color): This study makes significant contributions to tourism literature in the following points. First, this study generates new requirements for mobile AR heritage applications, identifying the nature of Asian market that is different from European market. Second, this study identifies firstly the characteristic of tourist empowerment in terms of developing mobile AR heritage applications. Third, this study offers a novel perspective on the association between co-creation and tourism, identifying whether co-creation for developing mobile AR heritage applications is able to provide tourism experience to tourists.
Point 4: It is recommended to further explain the sample size selected for the experiment. Why did you choose 50 sample size? Is this sample size reasonable?
Response 4: Thank you so much for your comments.
The method section has been revised (highlighted in Blue color).
Since tourists’ needs for developing the AR heritage applications are seldom placed within an applicable theoretical scheme in tourism literature, this study used the grounded theory (GT) approach as it is suitable when studying current phenomenon in actual existence and useful to discover respondents’ psychological conditions for understanding of tourists’ attitudes and behaviors.
According to Cresswell (1998), 20-30 samples are adequate for GT studies. However, 50 heritage tourists, which are regarded as a large sample for GT studies (Cresswell, 1998; Marshall, Cardon, Poddar, Fontenot, 2013), were interviewed from March 24, 2017 to July 8, 2019 because sampling was conducted in 10 locations of Macau’s WHSs.
<References>
Cresswell, J.W. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998.
Marshall, B.; Cardon, P.; Poddar, A.; Fontenot, R. Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of computer information systems. 2013. 54, 1, 11-22.
Point 5: They refer in passing to the increase in tourist satisfaction. Could you broaden your conclusions on this?
Response 5: Thank you for the suggestions. It has been added as below (On page 19, Highlighted in BLUE):
In addition, the results of this study pave a way to satisfy the diverse needs of heritage tourists such as entertainment [90], gaining new knowledge [42], education [42], and sightseeing [90].
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
thanks for following the guidelines. I would love to see this study in other regions. This line of research is interesting
Author Response
Response to Editor Comments
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1062425
Title: Mobile Augmented Reality Heritage Applications: Meeting the needs of heritage tourists
Thank you very much for reviewing the manuscript. We greatly appreciate you for the precious comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Point 1: "The study is interesting to read and makes a contribution to existing literature. My prime concern with the current version is the sample and sample-composition. It is exclusively based on Asian tourists (are all them tourists and what definition has been used to define them as tourists?), most have high educational level, students are overrepresented, etc. The sample is thus not representative. Maybe, the sample does not need to be representative, but usually you would select your sample with a particular purpose. How was purposive sampling achieved in this study? what were the main arguments and considerations? Providing this information is necessary to
increase the trustworthiness of the study. The information is also necessary to understand and judge the generalizeability of the results. "
Response 1: Thank you so much for your comments.
According to previous studies (Garrod & Fyall, 2001; Goh, 2010; Nguyen & Cheung, 2013), heritage tourists are defined as anyone who visits a heritage attraction. In addition, most previous studies of heritage tourists’ characteristics show that they are younger or middle aged, and likely to have a good education (Huh, Uysal, & McCleary, 2006; Kerstetter, Confer, & Graefe, 2001; Timothy, 2011). Hence, the respondents who visited Macau’s World Heritage Sites are regarded as heritage tourists.
In order to make the most appropriate use of available resources, this study adopted the purposive sampling technique to select heritage tourists with a high willingness (Bernard, 2017; Etikan et al., 2016; Kensbock & Jennings, 2011; Patton Quinn, 2002; Spradley, 1979; Tan et al., 2013).
Based on this point of view, the manuscript has been revised as the attached. Please see the highlighted parts by red color for it.
<References>
Bernard, H. R. (2017). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches: Rowman & Littlefield.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4.
Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (2001). Heritage tourism: A question of definition. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(4), 1049–1052.
Goh Edmund Understanding the heritage tourist market segment Int. J. Leisure and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2010 257-270
Huh, J., Uysal, M., & McCleary, K. (2006). Cultural/heritage destinations: Tourist satisfaction and market segmentation. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 14(3), 81 –99.
Kensbock, S., & Jennings, G. (2011). Pursuing: A grounded theory of tourism entrepreneurs' understanding and praxis of sustainable tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 16(5), 489-504.
Kerstetter, D. L., Confer, J. J., & Graefe, A. R. (2001). An exploration of the specialization concept within the context of heritage tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 39(3), 267–274.
Nguyen, T. H. H. & Cheung, C. (2014). The classification of heritage tourists: a case of Hue City, Vietnam Journal of Heritage Tourism, 9(1), 35–50.
Patton Quinn, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3'rd ed. In: California: Sage Publications Inc.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston. LeCompte, MD (2000). Analyzing Qualitative Data. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 146-156.
Tan, S.-K., Kung, S.-F., & Luh, D.-B. (2013). A model of ‘creative experience’in creative tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 41, 153-174.
Timothy, D. J. (2011). Cultural heritage and tourism: An introduction. Bristol: Channel View Publications.
