Sustainability Assessment of Cultural Heritage in Shandong Province

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, 

The presented research paper, "Sustainability Assessment of Cultural Heritage in Shandong Province: Spotting on the Spatiotemporal Dynamic of Cultural Heritage and its Correlations with Tourism and Capital Input," aims to explore whether knowledge of sustainable cultural heritage development is still limited due to the lack of research and assessment in various cities. 

The research topic presented is very important for the development of sustainable tourism. Cultural heritage in cities testifies to the history, tradition and culture of a region. Its evaluation can contribute to sustainable development. 

Title: in my opinion is too long. It should be clearer to the reader.   

Abstract: 

The abstract should be revised according to the journal's guidelines. 

Keywords: the keywords should be arranged according to the journal's guidelines, e.g. research area is placed last. 

After reading the paper, I have the following comments and suggestions to improve the paper: 

The article is too long at 36 pages, I suggest shortening it. 

The chapter that is missing is LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BASIS. 

LITERATURE REVIEW  

The literature review mainly refers to literature from China. I suggest supplementing with foreign literature. Also cite information about heritage research in the world, especially in Europe, e.g. Rome, Athens, etc.  

W DATA AND METHODS 

The chapter is well presented, but should be shortened to the necessary minimum. The text can be presented in the form of a diagram of the research procedure.  

Results 

The results are presented and described in a good way and are very interesting. However, this chapter is too long. Not all diagrams are needed. It is not necessary to repeat the same messages in the form of text and tables and figures. The description of the monuments is too detailed. 

It is enough to write the most important conclusions. 

In the Discussion chapter, the authors should discuss and explain the findings and results of the work in more detail.  This would contribute to a high evaluation of the work. The authors should compare their project and results with the results of similar studies conducted on this topic from other parts of Europe and the world. 

In this chapter, the authors presented the results of the study instead of a real discussion.     

 

The chapter should still answer the question: what tangible benefits has this study brought to the development of innovation and make recommendations.  

Technical errors to be corrected:  

The literature list needs to be improved according to the journal's guidelines.  

In conclusion, I recommend this work for publication in the journal Sustainability after making significant changes.  

Kind regards,   

Reviewer 

 

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Comments of Reviewer 1

The presented research paper, "Sustainability Assessment of Cultural Heritage in Shandong Province: Spotting on the Spatiotemporal Dynamic of Cultural Heritage and its Correlations with Tourism and Capital Input," aims to explore whether knowledge of sustainable cultural heritage development is still limited due to the lack of research and assessment in various cities.

The research topic presented is very important for the development of sustainable tourism. Cultural heritage in cities testifies to the history, tradition and culture of a region. Its evaluation can contribute to sustainable development.

Our response: Thank you very much for your recognition of our manuscript entitled “Sustainability Assessment of Cultural Heritage in Shandong Province: Spotting on the Spatiotemporal Dynamic of Cultural Heritage and its Correlations with Tourism and Capital Input” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-1956380). Meantime, thank you for your constructive and valuable suggestions and reminding, which are all very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. Considering both you and other reviewer’s suggestions, we have streamlined the content of the manuscript and deepen the literature review and theoretical basis. In addition, we have re-written Section 4.1.2. “Time domain dynamics of different types of cultural units” to avoid repetition of the charts and text. We hope you will find the modified manuscript better.

Below, we describe in detail the changes we have made to the manuscript on a point-by-point basis. Comments from reviewers are highlighted in black and my response in blue. Meantime, the changes we have made in our manuscript are highlighted in red.

1. Referee comment: [Title] in my opinion is too long. It should be clearer to the reader.

Our response: Thank you for your suggestion. The original title was “Sustainability Assessment of Cultural Heritage in Shandong Province: Spotting on the Spatiotemporal Dynamic of Cultural Heritage and its Correlations with Tourism and Capital Input”, which aimed to clarify the target and major approaches of this study. For simplification, we have deleted the expanded information. Accordingly, the updated title has been changed to "Sustainability Assessment of Cultural Heritage in Shandong Province". We believe it’s enough to represent the topic of this study.

2. Referee comment: [Abstract] The abstract should be revised according to the journal's guidelines.

Our response: Thank you very much for your kind reminding. Based on the journal’s guidelines, we have shortened the abstract to less than 200 words. In the modified abstract, we firstly highlight the purpose of the study, then introduced the research methods, and finally listed our main findings and conclusions. Please find them in Line 18-31. We hope you will find it better.

3. Referee comment: [Keywords] the keywords should be arranged according to the journal's guidelines, e.g. research area is placed last.

Our response: Thank you for your kind reminding. We have adjusted and replaced the keywords according to the journal’s guidelines. The updated keywords are “Cultural Heritage; Tourism Development; Capital input; Sustainability; Shandong Province”. They can be found in Lines 32-33 of the modified manuscript.

4. Referee comment: The article is too long at 36 pages, I suggest shortening it.

Our response: Thank you for your advice. According to your suggestions (i.e., Referee comment 6 and 7), we have re-organized the description of methods and results. In the modified manuscript, case long illustrations of the research procedure have been replaced by the diagram. Meantime, some explanations, those repeated in both texts and diagrams, have been deleted. And we only summarized the major findings and conclusions. The revisions are mainly in Section 3 “Material and methodology” and Section 4 “Results”, e.g., Line 155-159, Line 169-171, Line 197-198, Line 225-232, Line 257-270, Line 277-314, and so on. Especially, the major revisions can be found in Section 3.3.3 and Section 4.1.2. We hope you will find the modified manuscript reads better.

5. Referee comment: [Introduction] The chapter that is missing is LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BASIS. The literature review mainly refers to literature from China. I suggest supplementing with foreign literature. Also cite information about heritage research in the world, especially in Europe, e.g. Rome, Athens, etc.

Our response: Thank you for very much for your constructive advice. According to your suggestions, we re-organized the Section 1 by considering three aspects of research significance, literature review and research tasks. The literature review involves the studying objects, methods, major conclusions and limitations. Despite the literatures from China, we have also supplemented and summarized the literatures of other nations, such as French, Spain, Poland and United Kingdom. The major revisions can be found in Line 83-118 of the modified manuscript. We hope you will find the updated Introduction reads better.

6. Referee comment: [DATA AND METHODS] The chapter is well presented, but should be shortened to the necessary minimum. The text can be presented in the form of a diagram of the research procedure.

Our response: Thank you for your helpful suggestions. In the modified manuscript, we have deleted some sentences which have similar information with the figures and tables. Especially, we have the main steps of building a coupling coordination evaluation model in Section 3 and expressed it in the form of a flow chart (Figure 3). We hope you will find the modified Section 3 reads better.

7. Referee comment: [Results] The results are presented and described in a good way and are very interesting. However, this chapter is too long. Not all diagrams are needed. It is not necessary to repeat the same messages in the form of text and tables and figures. The description of the monuments is too detailed. It is enough to write the most important conclusions.

Our response: Thank you for your recognition of our research results. According to your valuable suggestions, we have carefully modified Section 4. The existing data in the chart has been avoided in the text, and only important conclusions are retained. In particular, Section 4.1.2 has been significantly modified. The details can be found in Line 257-270 and Line 277-314.

8. Referee comment: [Discussion] In the Discussion chapter, the authors should discuss and explain the findings and results of the work in more detail. This would contribute to a high evaluation of the work. The authors should compare their project and results with the results of similar studies conducted on this topic from other parts of Europe and the world. In this chapter, the authors presented the results of the study instead of a real discussion. The chapter should still answer the question: what tangible benefits has this study brought to the development of innovation and make recommendations.

Our response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have re-organized Section 5 to discuss and explain the findings and results of the work in more detail. The modified Discussion mainly include two aspects, i.e., (1) discussion on the sustainability of culture heritage in Shandong Province compared to other regions, and (2) discussion on the sustainable development assessment of culture heritage. In Section 5.1, we have combed and summarized the results of similar studies conducted on the cultural heritage protections in European cities and countries, as well as other provinces in China. We conducted that the tourism development of cultural heritages in Shandong was relatively weak compared to other regions, which might constrain the tourism income for cultural heritage protection to a certain degree. Thereby, we suggest policy makers pay attention to balance the tourism development of cultural units in Shandong Province and design more suitable capital input measures for each city. In Section 5.2., we put forward the outlook of building a more comprehensive framework for estimating the sustainability of cultural heritages. The re-organized sentences are in Line 443-516 of the modified manuscript. We hope you will find the modified Discussion reads better.

 

9. Referee comment: [Reference] The literature list needs to be improved according to the journal's guidelines.

Our response: Thank you for your advice. We have changed the format of references according to the guidelines of the journal. We hope you will find the updated lists of References better.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors should check the reference list in terms that all cited references must be present in the text and vice versa – all mentioned documents must be listed as references.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Comments of Reviewer 2

Authors should check the reference list in terms that all cited references must be present in the text and vice versa – all mentioned documents must be listed as references.

Our response: Thank you very much for your recognition of our manuscript entitled “Sustainability Assessment of Cultural Heritage in Shandong Province: Spotting on the Spatiotemporal Dynamic of Cultural Heritage and its Correlations with Tourism and Capital Input” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-1956380). According to your kind reminding, we have carefully checked the entire manuscript and supplemented the citations or websites for all mentioned documents and datasets. In addition, we have supplemented the link for each reference. The revisions include but not limited to Line 319-320, Line 382 and Line 560-660 of the modified manuscript. The revisions have been highlighted in red. We hope you will find the revised manuscript reads better.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper proposes a sustainability assessment of the cultural heritage sites in Shandong Province (China). Using some statistical analysis techniques, the paper has the aim of evaluating if and how tourism development can support heritage protection in a sustainable perspective.

Content of the paper:

Although the reviewer shares the authors' thesis about the importance of studying the sustainability of cultural heritage development, it is equally important to discuss why and how the specific approach chosen by the authors can contribute. This pivotal point seems to underestimate by the authors, without even a brief review of the literature that can help the reader to contextualize this research in a broader research methodology path. Adding an overview of the application of the statistical analysis methods chosen by the authors to these kinds of studies (or to a similar one) can bring the paper to a broader audience.

Methodology:

- There is no explanation for why some indices are primary while others are secondary; the reviewer suggests adding some details on this point;

- In Table 2: the reviewer suggests introducing the references for each indicator near them in the table (and not only in the text, at line 205), therefore the readers can easily refer to the rights papers for deepening;

The four sections of the results are well structured and documented by tables and graphs. Nevertheless, some suggestions to improve the clarity are given:

- It can be useful to define “scenic spot” in paragraph 4.2.1; the reviewer believes that is not clear for the readers to understand the meaning that the authors give to it in this context;

- Figure 8: the reviewer suggests using a plan chart pie and putting in order the results based on the capital investments, from higher to lower;

- Add some references to the source of the data, if it is possible (e.g., lines 442-443);

Conclusions:

Although the conclusions are properly structured, brief, and clear, the reviewer encourages the authors to expand them. For example, in the end, the authors could add some considerations on the future development of this kind of research and the possibilities opened by the results presented in the papers.

 

Form of the paper (structure, writing, and images):

The article is organized properly and easy to follow, despite the complexity of the statistical analysis.

 

The article is well-written and easy to understand. Nevertheless, numerous minor revisions should be done to ensure the best readability (e.g., line 178: it is better to say, “numerous sites considered as cultural heritage”, then just “numerous cultural heritage”).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

Comments of Reviewer 3

The paper proposes a sustainability assessment of the cultural heritage sites in Shandong Province (China). Using some statistical analysis techniques, the paper has the aim of evaluating if and how tourism development can support heritage protection in a sustainable perspective.

Our response: Thank you very much for your comments of our manuscript entitled “Sustainability Assessment of Cultural Heritage in Shandong Province: Spotting on the Spatiotemporal Dynamic of Cultural Heritage and its Correlations with Tourism and Capital Input” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-1956380). These comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. In the modified manuscript, we have collected more detailed literature research on the research object and research method in Section 1 “Introduction”. We further explained the indicators that were not clearly stated in Section 3.2. We hope you will find the modified manuscript reads better.

Below, we describe in detail the changes we have made to the manuscript on a point-by-point basis. Comments from reviewers are highlighted in black and my response in blue. Meantime, the changes we have made in our manuscript are highlighted in red.

1. Referee comment: Although the reviewer shares the authors' thesis about the importance of studying the sustainability of cultural heritage development, it is equally important to discuss why and how the specific approach chosen by the authors can contribute. This pivotal point seems to underestimate by the authors, without even a brief review of the literature that can help the reader to contextualize this research in a broader research methodology path. Adding an overview of the application of the statistical analysis methods chosen by the authors to these kinds of studies (or to a similar one) can bring the paper to a broader audience.

Our response: Thank you for your valuable advice. In accordance with the constructive suggestions of all reviewers, we have reframed Section 1. The updated Introduction was organized by considering three aspects of research significance, literature review and research tasks. Among them, the literature review involves the studying objects, methods, major conclusions and limitations. Despite the literatures from China, we have also supplemented and summarized the literatures of other nations, such as French, Spain, Poland and United Kingdom. In view of theses existing publications, we find that the spatiotemporal analysis methods (e.g., GIS spatial analysis and regression analysis) have been widely applied to such investigations and exhibited high feasibility. However, as an available method which can well describe the interaction between two or more subsystems and explain the sustainable development of systems, the coupling coordination evaluation model was seldomly applied to assess the sustainability of cultural heritages. The major revisions can be found in Line 83-118 of the modified manuscript. We hope you will find the updated Introduction reads better.

 

2. Referee comment: There is no explanation for why some indices are primary while others are secondary; the reviewer suggests adding some details on this point.

Our response: We are sorry for not clearly present the information of Table 2. Actually, we selected the tourism-related indexes from three dimensions, i.e., the tourism industry scale,    tourism economic effect and tourism social function. Regarding to the tourism industry scale, we considered two aspects of resource endowment and market demand, which applied the number of scenic spots and the number of domestic tourists as the indices, respectively. So as to the other two dimensions. In purpose of avoiding misunderstanding, we have re-organized the table and supplemented the references of each index. Accordingly, we reframed the relevant illustrations of Table 2. The detailed revisions are in Line 197-206 of the modified manuscript.

3. Referee comment: In Table 2: the reviewer suggests introducing the references for each indicator near them in the table (and not only in the text, at line 205), therefore the readers can easily refer to the rights papers for deepening.

Our response: Thank you for your kind reminding. Reference of each index has been added to Table 2 in the modified manuscript.

4. Referee comment: It can be useful to define “scenic spot” in paragraph 4.2.1; the reviewer believes that is not clear for the readers to understand the meaning that the authors give to it in this context.

Our response: Thank you very much for your kind reminding. We applied the illustration in the book “Tourism: Principles and Practice” written by Chris Cooper, who defined the “scenic spot” as the tourist attraction that may be formed naturally or artificially. In the modified manuscript, we have supplemented the definition and citation of the term “scenic spot” in Line 319-320.

5. Referee comment: Figure 8: the reviewer suggests using a plan chart pie and putting in order the results based on the capital investments, from higher to lower.

Our response: Thank you for your helpful advice. We have reframed this figure and ordered the cities according to their capital investments from higher to lower. In the modified manuscript, the figure number has been changed to Figure 9.

6. Referee comment: Add some references to the source of the data, if it is possible (e.g., lines 442-443);

Our response: Thank you for your suggestion. The relevant data is obtained from Shandong Provincial Department of Culture and Tourism website. In the modified manuscript, we have supplemented the website in Line 382.

7. Referee comment: Although the conclusions are properly structured, brief, and clear, the reviewer encourages the authors to expand them. For example, in the end, the authors could add some considerations on the future development of this kind of research and the possibilities opened by the results presented in the papers.

Our response: Thank you for your constructive advice. We have expanded the Conclusion related to the considerations on the future development of this kind of research and the possibilities opened by the results presented in this paper. By summarizing the major findings, advantages and limitations of this research, we suggest to pay more attention on establishing a more scientific, comprehensive, multi-index, small-scale sustainable development assessment system for cultural heritage appears indispensable. The supplemented information can be found in Line 538-547 of the modified manuscript.

 

8. Referee comment: The article is well-written and easy to understand. Nevertheless, numerous minor revisions should be done to ensure the best readability (e.g., line 178: it is better to say, “numerous sites considered as cultural heritage”, then just “numerous cultural heritage”).

Our response: Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions. We are sorry for our inaccurate description. In the modified manuscript, we have checked and modified the entire content with the help of native English speakers. The revisions include but not limited to Line 169-172. We hope you will find the modified manuscript reads better.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors were very diligent in correcting the article. They made the change according to the reviewer's suggestion. I do not make any comments. I recommend the paper for publication. Regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

    Thank you very much for your recognition of our modified manuscript!

   Thank you again for all your construction suggestions which greatly promoted the quality of our manuscript! 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have completed a deep review of the sections where the reviewer pointed out occasions for improvements. 

Just one more note: the reviewer suggests paying attention to Figure 9; the name and data about the city between Linyi and Rizhao are no longer visible.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

      Thank you again for all your construction suggestions which greatly promoted the quality of our manuscript!

      Thank you very much for your recognition of our modified manuscript! We have supplemented the necessary information of Figure 9. The information of City Heze is visible now.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx