Evaluation of Urban Traditional Temples Using Cultural Tourism Potential
Anna Górka
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
Please see the comments and suggestions in the atach document.
Best regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article entitled
Evaluation of Urban Traditional Temples Using Cultural Tourism Potential
focuses on an interesting topic for tourism development in South Korea.
The paper has several gaps that need further improvements in view of publication that I resume below:
1. One main gap of this paper is that it doesn’t properly describe its aim, objectives or research questions. Failing expressing and explaining its purpose in its context it misses also explanations on its utility (scientifically which gaps aims to fill in or practical / applicative). This should be clarified by authors since introduction.
2. research methods should be moved and largely explained on a dedicated chapted entitled methodology to be placed between current chapter 3 and 4. Please explain indicators selections and how their measurability was envisaged based on the evaluation grill further presenting results of each study case. How study cases were selected on which criteria, from what pool of similar monuments within what territory and for what reasons should also be explained. A general map punctually locating each temple on a larger territory would also be a plus. Cases selection should be therefore expanded and be part of the methodology chapter. The scale of evaluation analysis grid should be clearly explained for each criteria also on methodology (why choosing 2 instead of 3 for one criterion or another seem rather subjective).
3. Further chapter 5 on results could present a synthetic table with points instead of bullets corresponding to the three-step scale for each temple. If needed the synthetic comparative table could be presented on the landscape format of a whole page….this would help comparative comments…also needed for the analysis. The evaluation is rather a sum of descriptive comments…which is undoubtedly interesting but need to be further problematized.
4. For further problematization I would recommend a discussion chapter which should discuss main issues from current perspectives (opportunities and / or barriers) for each main criterion of analyses for the discussed case studies and their context.
5. Figure 7 and Table 13 and associated evaluation are part of the results chapter which could include a comparative analysis and could be reiterated as part of this discussion chapter.
6. Conclusions should explain utility of this highly descriptive analysis and of selected case studies. If results are of any utility and to whom …if they may be generalized and how
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor English editing is needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article makes a qualitative assessment of the tourist potential of 5 traditional Buddhist temples in Seoul based on 5 adopted criteria, which were assigned 16 indicators. Each factor can reach a numerical value of 1 or 2 or 3. The results are compared to the number of tourists per year in each temple and the average annual number of destination searches. The study requires significant completion and clarification in terms of research assumptions and context, materials and methodology, results, discussions and conclusions.
Characteristic features of the spatial structure of traditional temples should be described in the Introduction. Now, their role in the urban life, including greenery, is not understandable to a foreign readers. Table 1 and Table 2 do not add anything to the study. Subsections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. belong rather to the Introduction.
The Abstract and Introduction are inconsistent with the research which is not about a procedure of identifying indicators and correlations but about evaluation according to the adopted indicator values.
An aim and procedure of the literature review and conclusions from the review should be formulated (only subsection 2.2 belongs to the Literature Review). The Authors mention models but do not describe them and do not provide appropriate citations (lines 133-134).
The methodology should be described clearly. Factor values appear blurry or arbitrary. How were they determined? How were the „composition”, "adequacy" or "sufficiency" assessed?
The selection of temples should be explained more precisely. Without reference to an overall model-based classification of urban traditional temples, the selection of the 5 cases remains arbitrary. There are too few of them for the conclusions to be reliable.
A map with the location of temples could be useful. The included figures with the temple layout maps do not contribute anything. They are illegible.
The conclusions are trivial (lines 307-309) or the described results do not support the conclusions (lines 314-327).
Discussion of results is missing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is original and well written. I'm an empirical researcher. Hence, my focus is on the analysis of the selected temples and, particularly, concerning the evaluation criteria presented in Table 5.
Many of the classification criteria (for example the road width for accessibility and the number of treasures) seem to be arbitrary and not fully supported by the litertaure.
The adoption of quanttative criteria (more or less than the median) should give more robustness in classification.
What I mean is that the authors are invited to better justify their choices in the evaluation process, in order to make less arbitrary the conclusions.
The remaining part of the manuscript is fine
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe second variant of the article entitled
Evaluation of Urban Traditional Temples Using Cultural Tourism Potential
Integrated certain comments and suggestions made in my previous report.
Essential gaps were however not consistently treated and I maintain the opinion that the paper needs MAJOR CHANGES for the following reasons:
The paper broadly describes its aim and one very general research question (lines 71-77, 90-96). However my kind suggestion is to describe and better clarify and express aim and objectives or research questions and mostly METHODOLOGY (scattered now among introduction….literature review…. results chapters and even conclusions through new lines 447-483).
- A map and supplementary descriptions were added for case study in subchapter 4.1 in results but there is not a proper methodology chapter in the paper. My PREVIOUS COMMENTS were “Please explain indicators selections and how their measurability was envisaged based on the evaluation grill further presenting results of each study case” and “The scale of evaluation analysis grid should be clearly explained for each criteria also on methodology (why choosing 2 instead of 3 for one criterion or another seem rather subjective)” The evaluation scale and how it was chosen should be explained…please also bring or move certain references if needed. A SUPPLEMENTARY GAP when describing methodology was identified in introduction which states “The research methods include (1) conducting a theoretical review through a literature review on traditional temples, general temples, urban temples, and mountain temples as cultural tourism resources,” The reader is very much confused as the Chapter literature review seems rather part of the methodology or we do not understand if literature review is part of results.
Please do not waste most of the time to answer my report comments but clarify these aspects and make consistent changes accordingly on the paper.
- MAINLY scholars reading the paper need to clearly understand the AIM + Research QUESTIONs (one or more) of this study in its context LITERATURE REVIEW (for theoretic concepts) METHODOLOGY (explaining why choosing it, explaining criteria…grids…and choosing marks /levels…. – ALL these further reflected in results – discussion and conclusion.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is fine.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments
The Authors have improved many elements of the paper. They better explained the goals, context and methodological assumptions or partially results. However, in my opinion, the weakness of the study is still the small number of urban traditional temples assessed, which limits the usefulness of the results. Currently, the study can only be treated as a test of the method.
Moreover, the selection of attributes seems arbitrary. Based on the results of the literature review (Table 3), other sets of values can also be imagined (this is also confirmed by the erroneous appearance of "popularity" in line 200 instead of "diversity" used in the assessment). In order to further refinement, it would be necessary to formulate on a literature review an Authors’ definition of tourist resources containing attributes. The significance of the study could be also increased by observing the variability of factors over time.
The results should be presented in a way that makes the conclusions clear. The results from Table 13 should be re-analyzed. In my opinion, the conclusions regarding Integration (lines 465-469) and Diversity (lines 478-483) are incorrect.
I encourage the Authors to improve the research.
Specific comments
A caption should be added to the map with the location of temples. The content of the map should be supplemented with all 25 pre-selected locations and 5 finally selected ones (6 temples were marked as selected). Without these additions, the note in line 366 about excluded objects is incomprehensible. Is "mineral" correct in the section title on line 355?
The acronyms used should be explained (line 175, line 494).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe third variant of the article entitled Evaluation of Urban Traditional Temples Using Cultural Tourism Potential is a much improved version of the initial manuscript.
As possible minor further changes suggested for the authors I may say below:
- The denomination of the last chapter could be better transformed into Discussion and conclusion
- A possible limitation of the methodology which could be also mentioned, beside the chosen criteria – which might be debatable, is a certain degree of subjectivity imposed by the scales and measurability of each considered criterion. This limits also the reliability of the methodology as the offered explanations considered logical and valid for this study could not necessarily work for all criteria in another context.
All in all major changes were brought to the paper according previously made comments and convincing explanations for the changes they considered important were brought by the authors. I therefore recommend the current version of this paper for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish has minor gaps. Proofreading of the paper is needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments
After the revision, the description regarding temple attributes is clear. However, the formulation of the research objective and conclusions should be improved.
Based on the literature review, the features of temples logically related to their tourist attractiveness were selected and the degree of their development in individual temples were assessed. The importance of individual attributes for tourists were not identify! Then the number of tourists visiting these temples were monitored and its increase was proved (with one exception), thus confirming the importance of the topic. But what can be reliably concluded based on a simple comparison of expert assessment of the temples and the number of tourists? Results require an in-depth analysis and explanation. Recommendations should be strengthened.
The conclusions regarding the importance of individual factors are sometimes completely incomprehensible. The conclusions were not sufficiently supported and are too far-reaching. What does it mean that a factor has greater or lesser importance and influence? Maybe breakdowns of the percentage of individual factors in the assessment are needed.
In my opinion, this study could have compared the share of individual attributes of the most popular temples and could led to the conclusion that it may be diverse. There are obvious recommendations associated with this.
The structure of the text requires improvement. I suggest moving the assessments of individual temples (section 5.2.1-5.2.7) to Appendix and Table 17 to part 5. Analysis of Characteristics of Cultural Tourism Resources, which should contain the results. Figure 2 also belongs to this part (to the Case Selection section). Currently, the Conclusion section mixes the usual content of the Results, Discussion and Conclusion. This should be sorted out or devided.
Specific comments
How were the results „normalized” (line 804) and „correlated” (line 706) ?
It should be underlined in Discussion which hypothesis turned out to be true.
Now there are 15 not 16 sub-factors (line 12).
Line 836-841: These are guesses. You can only recommend further tests.
Abbreviations with the initials of the Authors should be removed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 4
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments
Yes! Although the text lacks a bit of conciseness and remaines lengthy it is clear. The research now meets the requirements for scientific studies. Easy-to-remove flaws remain.
There is no classic part that would provide a comprehensive description of the materials and methodology so I suggest as follows:
- lines 127-138: Please, inform readers in which sections you deal with the mentioned issues and add the type of methods to points 4-5.
- line 490 - Change the title of this part. There is no description of the entire methodology here, but only a project for evaluation of the factors.
- line 727 - The current part 5.2 Case Analysis belongs to the Results section. It describes the results of the expert evaluation of temple resources (which are then statistically analyzed).
Specific comments
- line 11: Each of the 5 attributes has 3 (not 15) sub-factors.
- Figure 4: The upper part of the illustration can be omitted. The second diagram is sufficient.
- In the "Testing Research Hypothesis 1" section, it is worth recalling the result of evaluation (Table 10) and organizing the description of the results: from the first to the next.
- Table 11 should be included in the current section 6.2.1., point (4).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
