The Perception of Cultural Authenticity, Destination Attachment, and Support for Cultural Heritage Tourism Development by Local People: The Moderator Role of Cultural Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors：

This paper discusses the moderating role of local perceptions of cultural authenticity, attachment to the destination, supportive culture of cultural heritage tourism development, and sustainability.

The article provides some interesting points and is generally well structured and logical. I think it is better to add one aspect:

In Section 2.1.1, the dimension and concept of authenticity are clearly explained, but the description of authenticity and place attachment seems to be a little lacking. I think if so, the overall structure of the article will be added more completely.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your positive comments and assesment of our topic.
Your comments and suggestions have been very helpful for the furher
improvement of our paper.
We greatly appreciate your feedback.
The changes which were made about the manuscript have been highlighted in our text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I read your text with interest. It is quite well grounded in the current literature, and the study was also well designed. However, I have a few doubts and comments, which I put below:

1. The nature of the sample selection is not entirely clear

2. There are repetitions (e.g. p. 6 - second line from the top) and linguistic errors, so the text should be carefully checked again for linguistic correctness.

3. Point 3.2 is misleadingly named because it also contains arguments regarding the research area and not only the research sample.

4. You cannot start the analysis with a table (as in point 4.1), first the text, then the table illustrating/supplementing it. In point 5, the table appears too late in relation to the narrative in the text. These are small details, but they will effectively distract the reader's attention.

5. Part 6. Discussion is not very convincing. Repeats too much of the introduction. I think it should be rethought and rewritten. I don't understand why the implications, which are a natural continuation of the discussion, were isolated so artificially. The implications themselves are also unconvincing. In particular, the initial arguments regarding the theoretical implications are unconvincing. After all, the Autpors used previously constructed scales. Some of the arguments are repeated in practical implications.

6. The limitations miss the issues I raised earlier - is this study representative? Are there any limitations related to sample selection?

To sum up, I encourage the authors to improve the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your positive comments and assesment of our topic.
Your comments and suggestions have been very helpful for the furher
improvement of our paper.
We greatly appreciate your feedback.
The changes which were made about the manuscript have been highlighted in our text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Cultural authenticity influences the development of cultural heritage tourism and is a key topic in cultural heritage tourism. In the research described in the article, the authors focused on assessing the impact of cultural authenticity on attachment to the destination and the development of tourism related to cultural heritage, and additionally, cultural sustainability was also tested as a moderator variable of this effect. The research was carried out in the Manavgat district of Antalya, known for many cultural and natural attractions, including the famous Manavgat Waterfall. It is reported that in Antalya in 2022 reached 23,087,209 tourists. This is a large number of tourists, please check whether it is the number of tourists or overnight stays. The link to the statistics is only described in Turkish. It would be advisable to include a map showing the location of Manavgat and the most important cultural heritage attractions.

It is necessary to explain the selection of respondents, what method and in what locations the research was carried out, and why most of the respondents are immigrants, living here for 1 to 5 years. Was their distance from attractions taken into account, which undoubtedly influences their attitude towards heritage?

The Conclusion section is located before the Discussion, so consider moving it after the Discussion and before the Implications.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your positive comments and assesment of our topic.
Your comments and suggestions have been very helpful for the furher
improvement of our paper.
We greatly appreciate your feedback.
The changes which were made about the manuscript have been highlighted in our text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf