Factors Influencing the Conservation Intentions of Visitors to a World Heritage Site: A Case Study of Libo Karst
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research is very well-described and documented. However, only minor corrections are proposed. Lines 261 to 264 - too long a sentence, and the meaning is not clear. 269 - I am not sure if the processes here are suitable to be mentioned. 265 and 172 - the same meaning is repeated; 294 - twice the same sentence; 325 - Libo? (to be deleted), 504 - Lippo?
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript. These comments have been valuable in guiding the revision and improvement of our paper, and have been crucial in guiding our research. We have carefully studied these comments and made corrections which we hope will be approved. The major revisions to the paper and the responses to the reviewer's comments are as follows:
Comment 1:
Lines 261 to 264 - too long a sentence, and the meaning is not clear.
Response 1:
Thank you for your excellent suggestions to improve the accessibility of our manuscript. I have amended lines 261 to 264 to reduce the number of long sentences and to make the meaning clear.
Comment 2:
269 - I am not sure if the processes here are suitable to be mentioned.
Response 2:
Thank you for your question, I think this is the value of the Southern China Karst, a description of Southern China Karst that fits here.
Comment 3:
265 and 172 - the same meaning is repeated; 294 - twice the same sentence; 325 - Libo? (to be deleted), 504 - Lippo?
Response 3:
Thank you so much for your careful review of this article. I have gone through the article, removed the same parts and corrected errors.
Best regards,
Yours sincerely,
Kangning
Corresponding author: Kangning Xiong
E-mail: [email protected]
Reviewer 2 Report
GENERAL COMMENTS
1) In all figures and tables with abbreviations, it suggested putting them in the caption (as shown in Table 3). As there are many acronyms, it can lead to difficulties for the reader of the article.
2) It is recommended to proofread the text to avoid repetition of words or expressions. For example, between lines 559 and 565 the word "development" is quoted five times and "developed" is mentioned once.
3) It is essential to standardize the use of capital letters. Some expressions are cited in both lowercase and uppercase letters. Some acronyms also appear in lowercase (see line 387). In the text, I highlighted some cases. See line 329.
4) The WHKS name is presented in many ways throughout the article: Libo, Libo-Huanjiang, Libau Karst Heritage Site, Ribble, Libau Cone Karst World Natural Heritage Site, Lippo World Heritage Site of Southern China karst... - It is critical to standardize or explain the different names.
The article presents a relevant theme and innovatively shows a method for analyzing the public perception of the conservation of geomorphological heritage with universal value in karst areas. As a suggestion, I believe it would be convenient also to discuss based on the various articles published on geomorphosites (assessment and promotion with the purpose of geoconservation) in the form that could also support the bibliographic references presented in this paper.
In this way, the method could be applied (or adapted) to other sites with touristic use that, despite not being considered World Heritage, also deserve care for their conservation, which passes through the public understanding of science.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Line 34 – Consider inserting the day/month of consultation on the UNESCO website to give more precision to the information.
Line 108 - As it was the first time this acronym (M-R model S, O and R) was mentioned, it must be defined.
Lines 294 and 295 - Repeated frase
Line 329 - It is advisable to convert the value to a widely known currency (such as the euro or dollar) or explain the socioeconomic significance of the mentioned annual income value. Is this a high figure for China? Average? Low?
Line 436 - Why not use the word "Hypothesis" as on Page 6?
Lines 512 to 514 - Repeated frase
Lines 527 to 529: It is unclear what the authors' purpose is. How should communication with the public be? Are panels and leaflets insufficient or expendable (replaced by other methods)? In item 5.2 this subject is discussed again. Perhaps, for greater clarity of argument, this discussion could be unified.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript. These comments have been valuable in guiding the revision and improvement of our paper, and have been crucial in guiding our research. We have carefully studied these comments and made corrections which we hope will be approved. The major revisions to the paper and the responses to the reviewer's comments are as follows:
Comment 1:
In all figures and tables with abbreviations, it suggested putting them in the caption (as shown in Table 3). As there are many acronyms, it can lead to difficulties for the reader of the article.
Response 1:
Thank you so much for your advice. I've organized the abbreviations in the article and put them at the end of the article.
Comment 2:
It is recommended to proofread the text to avoid repetition of words or expressions. For example, between lines 559 and 565 the word "development" is quoted five times and "developed" is mentioned once.
Response 2:
Thank you so much for your careful review of this article. The article was proofread as you suggested to avoid duplicating text or expressions.
Comment 3:
It is essential to standardize the use of capital letters. Some expressions are cited in both lowercase and uppercase letters. Some acronyms also appear in lowercase (see line 387). In the text, I highlighted some cases. See line 329.
Response 3:
Thank you for your suggestion to make changes to such cases as appear in the main text.
Comment 4:
The WHKS name is presented in many ways throughout the article: Libo, Libo-Huanjiang, Libau Karst Heritage Site, Ribble, Libau Cone Karst World Natural Heritage Site, Lippo World Heritage Site of Southern China karst... - It is critical to standardize or explain the different names.
Response 4:
Thank you so much for your careful review of this article. I standardized the different names that appear in the text (Libo World Heritage Karst Site) to determine the standardization of names.
Comment 5:
Line 34 – Consider inserting the day/month of consultation on the UNESCO website to give more precision to the information.
Response 5:
Thank you for your excellent suggestions. I again confirmed the number of sites on the UNESCO website and recorded the exact date (March 9, 2023) to give more precision to the information.
Comment 6:
Line 108 - As it was the first time this acronym (M-R model S, O and R) was mentioned, it must be defined.
Response 6:
Thank you for the detailed review of the articles defining these abbreviations.
Comment 7:
Lines 294 and 295 - Repeated frase and lines 512 to 514 - Repeated frase
Response 7:
Thank you so much for your careful review of this article. The article was proofread as you suggested to avoid duplicating text or expressions.
Comment 8:
Line 329 - It is advisable to convert the value to a widely known currency (such as the euro or dollar) or explain the socioeconomic significance of the mentioned annual income value. Is this a high figure for China? Average? Low?
Response 8:
Thank you for your excellent suggestions. I have explained the socio-economic significance of the above annual income values, the annual income of 56.5% of visitors is concentrated between RMB 10,000-60,000, which is in the middle range of China's per capita annual income。
Comment 9:
Line 436 - Why not use the word "Hypothesis" as on Page 6?
Response 9:
Thank you very much for your suggestion. I have modified Line 436 to use the word "Hypothesis" on Page 6.
Comment 10:
Lines 527 to 529: It is unclear what the authors' purpose is. How should communication with the public be? Are panels and leaflets insufficient or expendable (replaced by other methods)? In item 5.2 this subject is discussed again. Perhaps, for greater clarity of argument, this discussion could be unified.
Response 10:
Thank you so much for your careful review of this article. For lines 527 to 529 and item 5.2, the two issues are integrated. Moreover, some supporting materials (panels, leaflets, etc.) are poorly scientific and lack methods to effectively communicate scientific concepts to the so-called general public. Therefore, tourists' perception of forms (landscape, topography, sediments, rocks, fossils), processes (tectonic activity, erosion, sedimentation) and tourism (attractions, accommodation, tours, activities, interpretation, planning and management) in WHKSs become particularly valuable. Visitor perception can be enhanced through technological measures, for example, new technologies (such as audio commentary applets, human-computer interaction, virtual reality, etc.) can be used to facilitate the absorption and perception of geomorphological values by visitors.
Best regards,
Yours sincerely,
Kangning
Corresponding author: Kangning Xiong
E-mail: [email protected]
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the paper.
The paper starts with the discussion why NWHS are important and how the visitors perceive the sites and how their psychological behaviors might be affected by learning about the site (or educated about the site) and the paper proposes the hypothesizes and then the methodology, discussion and conclusion. Well structured paper.
However,
1. The paper, unfortunately tells more about the justification of their results then the actual problem.
2. There are 9 hypotheses but only 6 are used in the paper.
3. Some of the hypotheses are already mentioned as being tested by the other authors and not clear why the author chose to test it again.
a. For example, hypothesis 6.
Perhaps the authors should ask the question if this is the case regarding this particular site rather hypothesizing the place attachments’ influence on visitors’ behavior.
I would suggest that the authors revisit the hypotheses.
4. The conclusion part of the paper mentions that;
“ The complex scientific concepts of karst landscapes (dissolution of soluble rocks by water) are not suitable for 526 tourists who are not knowledgeable about earth sciences. Moreover, some supporting materials (panels, leaflets, etc.) are poorly scientific and lack methods to effectively communicate scientific concepts to the so-called general public.”
Is this tested in the paper?
Overall, I think the authors should visit the discussion and the conclusion of the paper for clearing the main aim of the paper.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript. These comments have been valuable in guiding the revision and improvement of our paper, and have been crucial in guiding our research. We have carefully studied these comments and made corrections which we hope will be approved. The major revisions to the paper and the responses to the reviewer's comments are as follows:
Comment 1:
The paper, unfortunately tells more about the justification of their results then the actual problem.
Response 1:
We would like to thank you for your review of the paper, which has been revised to address your suggestions and, through the analysis in the main text, the results derived and discussed in the discussion for the practical issues of the Libo World Heritage Karst Site.
Comment 2:
There are 9 hypotheses but only 6 are used in the paper.
Response 2:
We would like to thank the referee for a detailed review of the paper. Hypothesis 1-6 is a direct effect, whereas Hypothesis 7-9 is a mediating effect and the Mediate Effect Check in text 4.4 is a description of Hypothesis 7-9.
Comment 3:
Some of the hypotheses are already mentioned as being tested by the other authors and not clear why the author chose to test it again. a. For example, hypothesis 6.
Perhaps the authors should ask the question if this is the case regarding this particular site rather hypothesizing the place attachments’ influence on visitors’ behavior. I would suggest that the authors revisit the hypotheses.
Response 3:
Many thanks for your suggestions, although some of these hypotheses have been tested by other authors, this paper is an analysis of the Libo World Heritage Karst Site and I felt compelled to analyze these hypotheses in this particular location.
Comment 4:
The conclusion part of the paper mentions that;“The complex scientific concepts of karst landscapes (dissolution of soluble rocks by water) are not suitable for 526 tourists who are not knowledgeable about earth sciences. Moreover, some supporting materials (panels, leaflets, etc.) are poorly scientific and lack methods to effectively communicate scientific concepts to the so-called general public.”
Is this tested in the paper?
Response 4:
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. For the content of this paragraph in the process of interviewing tourists, it was found that tourists for the supporting materials (panels, leaflets, etc.), only limited to the viewing of the guide map, and for some karst-specific concepts and terminology, it is difficult for tourists to understand, which is why the description appears.
Best regards,
Yours sincerely,
Kangning
Corresponding author: Kangning Xiong
E-mail: [email protected]
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
I find this manuscript interesting as it focuses on a complex analysis of the factors that influence visitor's willigness to preserve Libo World Natural Heritage Site, a karst area located in southern China.
I appreciate several aspects that highlight the contribution to the development of the approached topic: the authors elaborated a model empirically tested using the perception of visitors of environmental knowledge of the World Heritage Site analysed as an antecendent variable ant of the geomorphological value; they examined tourists' intention to conserve World Heritage Site according to the degree of influence of environmental knowledge perception from the psychological perspective of tourists, and introducing geomorphological value perception and local attachment as mediating variables, which enriches the research methods and objects of heritage value conservation and tourism development theories.
Introduction:
You should formulate the objectives of the study.
At the end of the introduction, you should formulate better the significance of study.
Figure 1 should be included in the Methodology section.
2.Theoretical background and hypotheses
2.3. Place attachment
You should include several new studies about place attachment as citations.
3. Study area and methods
You should insert one or two photos especially when you refer to the peculiar characteristics of Libo World Natural Heritage Site: "Southern China Karst is the largest continuous area of karst landforms in the world, and is one of the most typical areas of tropical and subtropical karst landforms in China and the world. Its heritage sites are the best preserved and most complete evolutionary sequences of subtropical carbonate rocks formed by water erosion and dissolution in the world, which have strong natural esthetic value, excellent geomorphological value, potential ecological processes, and biodiversity value [75]. Not only are they of great scientific interest, but numerous karst landscapes exhibit extraordinary natural beauty" (Lines 265-271).
3.2. Survey instrument
You mentioned that: "In this study, a self-administered questionnaire was used to collect empirical data from tourists in a karst heritage site (Libo) in southern China. The questionnaire questions were designed based on a review of literature and specific characteristics of heritage tourism". You should indicate studies used as a model for designing the questionnaire.
Discussion and Conclusion
You should present critically the results making more comparisons with previous studies to highligth similarities or differentiations.
Conclusions should be related to objectives and the research questions.
Minor comments:
You should pay attention to repetitions in the same phase (we can find synonymy to avoid repetitions):
Finally, tourism development should be developed to promote the geomorphological value conservation of karst heritage sites, to support tourism development with value conservation, and to conduct tourism development with the principle of resource conservation as the core and tourism development as the purpose [87] (Lines: 559-564).
For this title the name of the journal is missing: Bradley S. Jorgensen; Richard C. Stedman (2006). A comparative analysis of predictors of sense of place dimensions: Attachment to, dependence on, and identification with lakeshore properties., 79(3), 316-327. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.08.003
The authors have to pay more attention to the reference formating.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript. These comments have been valuable in guiding the revision and improvement of our paper, and have been crucial in guiding our research. We have carefully studied these comments and made corrections which we hope will be approved. The major revisions to the paper and the responses to the reviewer's comments are as follows:
Comment 1:
Introduction:
You should formulate the objectives of the study.
At the end of the introduction, you should formulate better the significance of study.
Figure 1 should be included in the Methodology section.
Response 1:
We thank you very much for your approval of the paper and for your detailed review. For the purposes of this paper and the meaning of the study, I have revised it and placed it at the end of the introduction, following your suggestion to place Figure 1 in the Methods section.
Comment 2:
You should include several new studies about place attachment as citations.
Response 2:
We would like to thank the referee for suggesting corrections and for citing the new study on place attachment.
Comment 3:
You should insert one or two photos especially when you refer to the peculiar characteristics of Libo World Natural Heritage Site.
Response 3:
Thank you for the suggestion, I think it is very good, and have added photos of the Lido World Heritage Karst Site in the study area and methods.
Comment 4:
You mentioned that: "In this study, a self-administered questionnaire was used to collect empirical data from tourists in a karst heritage site (Libo) in southern China. The questionnaire questions were designed based on a review of literature and specific characteristics of heritage tourism". You should indicate studies used as a model for designing the questionnaire.
Response 4:
Thank you for your suggestion. The design of the questionnaire questions is based on a review of the literature and the specific characteristics of heritage tourism, reference:
Cheng T, Wu HC. How do environmental knowledge, environmental sensitivity, and place attachment affect environmentally responsible behavior? An integrated approach for sustainable island tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 557-576.
Toudert D, Bringas-Rábago NL. Exploring the impact of destination attachment on the intentional behaviour of the us visitors familiarized with Baja California, Mexico. Curr. Issues Tour. 2018, 21, 805-820.
Qu Y, Xu F, Lyu X. Motivational place attachment dimensions and the pro-environmental behaviour intention of mass tourists: A moderated mediation model. Curr. Issues Tour. 2019, 22, 197-217.
Chubchuwong M, Beise-Zee R, Speece MW. The effect of nature-based tourism, destination attachment and property ownership on environmental-friendliness of visitors: A study in Thailand. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2015, 20, 656-679.
Kim Min-Seong, Thapa Brijesh, Kim Hany. International Tourists’ Perceived Sustainability of Jeju Island, South Korea. Sustainability, 2017, 10(2), 73-. doi:10.3390/su10010073.
Calver Stephen J. and Page Stephen J. Enlightened hedonism: Exploring the relationship of service value, visitor knowledge and interest, to visitor enjoyment at heritage attractions. J. Tourism Management, 2013, 39 : 23-36.
Ching-Fu Chen; Fu-Shian Chen. Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. 2010, 31(1), 29–35. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.008.
Wu H, Li T. A study of experiential quality, perceived value, heritage image, experiential satisfaction,and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2017, 41, 904-944.
Nian, S.; Liu, F.; Chen, M.; Cheng, G. Satisfaction of Tourism Communities in World Heritage Sites Based on Residents’ Perceptions—Study Area of Mount Sanqingshan National Park, PRC. Sustainability, 2023, 15, 533. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010533
Zhu, X.; Chiou, S.-C. A Study on the Sustainable Development of Historic District Landscapes Based on Place Attachment among Tourists: A Case Study of Taiping Old Street, Taiwan. Sustainability, 2022, 14, 11755. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811755.
Comment 5:
You should present critically the results making more comparisons with previous studies to highligth similarities or differentiations.
Conclusions should be related to objectives and the research questions.
Response 5:
We would like to thank the referee for suggesting changes in the conclusions and discussion sections to make the conclusions relevant to the objectives and research questions.
Comment 6:
You should pay attention to repetitions in the same phase (we can find synonymy to avoid repetitions).
Response 6:
We would like to thank the referee for a detailed review of the paper, where the duplicates have been corrected.
Comment 7:
The authors have to pay more attention to the reference formating.
Response 7:
Thanks to your suggestions, the formulae of the references have been re-checked and corrected.
Best regards,
Yours sincerely,
Kangning
Corresponding author: Kangning Xiong
E-mail: [email protected]
Reviewer 5 Report
Reviewer coment:
- This paper correspond for scope of journal. +
- The title corresponds to the content of the paper. +
- This study represents significant contribution for development of community to recognize and promote importance of geomorphological value of karst heritage sites, as well as contribution for improving education that tourism in karst heritage sites should be based on karst landscapes, be sustainable. Also, the tourism development should be based on geomorphological value conservation of karst heritage sites
- The aim of research is not pointed out as particular paragraph at the end of chapter of Introduction! The rule is that aim of study need write on the end of chapter of introduction.
- Should be clearly pointed out aim of investigation at the end of Chapter of introduction. *
- Key words are appropriate. +
- Scientific methodology is applied correctly. +
- Results are clearly presented..
- Tables, figures, pictures are clear.+
- Discussion should be a separate chapter
- Conclusions should be a separate chapter
- Conclusions should be write on the base of obtained results.
- This study represents complementary to the previous ones. +
In line 55 : change words poljes, dolines, with words : Fields, valleys
Manuscript is acceptable after minor corrections
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript. These comments have been valuable in guiding the revision and improvement of our paper, and have been crucial in guiding our research. We have carefully studied these comments and made corrections which we hope will be approved. The major revisions to the paper and the responses to the reviewer's comments are as follows:
Comment 1:
The aim of research is not pointed out as particular paragraph at the end of chapter of Introduction! The rule is that aim of study need write on the end of chapter of introduction.
Should be clearly pointed out aim of investigation at the end of Chapter of introduction.
Response 1:
Thanks to your suggestions, changes have been made to explicitly state the purpose of the survey at the end of the introductory chapter.
Comment 2:
Discussion should be a separate chapter
Conclusions should be a separate chapter
Conclusions should be write on the base of obtained results
Response 2:
Thank you for your detailed review of the paper. I took your suggestion and wrote the discussion part and the conclusion part separately, and revised the conclusion and discussion part.
Comment 3:
In line 55 : change words poljes, dolines, with words : Fields, valleys
Response 3:
Many thanks for your advice, as poljes, dolines, are geographical terms, and I do not think they need to be modified.
Best regards,
Yours sincerely,
Kangning
Corresponding author: Kangning Xiong
E-mail: [email protected]
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for your responses. The paper is definitely improved.
