Technological Use from the Perspective of Cultural Heritage Environment: Augmented Reality Technology and Formation Mechanism of Heritage-Responsibility Behaviors of Tourists

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper effectively integrates augmented reality (AR) technology into the realm of cultural heritage tourism, offering both theoretical insights and practical recommendations.

The focus on utilizing augmented reality (AR) in cultural heritage tourism within the post-pandemic context addresses a critical need for innovation in the tourism industry to support recovery and sustainability. The use of the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) model provides a robust theoretical foundation to explore the causal relationships between AR attributes and tourist behaviors. The paper thoroughly discusses key AR attributes such as interactivity, vividness, novelty, and augmentation quality, and their impact on perceived usefulness and enjoyment. The discussion on practical applications of AR in museums and cultural sites offers actionable insights for stakeholders in the tourism and cultural heritage sectors. It provides clear guidelines for cultural heritage institutions on leveraging AR technologies, which can drive strategic decision-making for enhancing visitor engagement and promoting sustainability.

While authors seem to discuss key concepts such as environmental stimulation, perceived usefulness, perceived enjoyment, and heritage responsibility behaviors, the level of critical analysis in these areas is likely insufficient.

The SOR (Stimulus-Organism-Response) model provides a useful framework; however, the paper does not critically engage with its limitations or consider alternative models. The SOR model may not fully capture the complexity of human behavior in a heritage tourism context. A more nuanced approach, perhaps integrating other psychological or sociological theories, could provide deeper insights. Relying solely on the SOR framework may oversimplify the multifaceted interactions between tourists, AR, and cultural heritage sites.

The paper may focus more on the positive aspects of AR without adequately addressing the potential limitations, negative consequences, or varying perceptions among different user groups.

Although authors may discuss how AR attributes like interactivity and vividness contribute to environmental stimulation, they likely do not delve into the negative aspects of environmental stimulation. For example, how excessive reliance on AR could lead to sensory overload or disengagement from the actual cultural site. Additionally, the potential for AR to detract from the visitor’s appreciation of the natural and historical environment might be underexplored.

The paper does not explore the ethical implications of using AR in cultural heritage contexts. Ethical concerns, such as the potential for cultural appropriation, the commercialization of heritage, and the potential intrusion of privacy (through data collection and tracking), are critical aspects that are overlooked. Addressing these issues would lead to a more comprehensive and responsible approach to AR implementation.

The authors likely emphasize how AR can improve learning, offer more context, and enhance the accessibility and engagement of cultural heritage experiences. However, the critique may overlook situations where AR may not be deemed useful, such as when the technology fails to integrate smoothly with the cultural narrative or when the digital content does not provide substantial value. The authors may not delve into the potential risks of AR being seen as merely a novelty or how its effectiveness could differ significantly among various user demographics.

There might be insufficient critique regarding the potential for AR to detract from enjoyment if the technology is poorly implemented, too complex, or if it becomes a distraction rather than an enhancement. Furthermore, the paper might not fully explore how different user preferences, such as those favoring traditional, non-digital experiences, could lead to varied levels of enjoyment.

The authors probably do not critically examine whether AR might inadvertently promote behaviors that are less responsible, such as focusing more on the digital experience than on the conservation of the physical site. There may also be a lack of discussion on how AR could potentially commercialize or trivialize heritage, which might undermine genuine respect and responsibility. Additionally, the ethical implications of using AR in sacred or sensitive cultural sites are often underexplored.

The paper does not adequately address how AR might affect the authenticity of cultural heritage experiences. While AR can enhance engagement, there is a risk that it could overshadow or distort the authentic cultural narratives and artifacts. Over-reliance on digital overlays might lead to a superficial understanding of cultural heritage, where the focus shifts from the physical site to the technological experience.

There is little discussion on the potential learning curve associated with AR technologies, particularly for less tech-savvy visitors. AR technology can be challenging for some users, especially older adults or those unfamiliar with such technology. The paper does not address how these users might struggle with the interface, which could limit the inclusiveness of AR applications in heritage sites.

Providing a balanced view that includes both the benefits and limitations of AR ensures a more comprehensive and credible analysis.

Informed Decision-Making: Stakeholders, such as cultural heritage site managers and policymakers, need to understand the potential challenges and limitations to make informed decisions about investing in AR technology.

User-Centered Design: Understanding limitations can assist in designing more user-friendly and effective AR applications that can overcome or mitigate these challenges.

The proposed framework is not compared against existing models or best practices in the field. Evaluating the proposed framework against existing models or best practices can highlight its unique contributions and potential shortcomings, ensuring it stands up to established standards. Comparative analysis might reveal opportunities to integrate successful elements from other models, enhancing the proposed framework's robustness and applicability.

A more comprehensive critique would necessitate a balanced discussion that encompasses both the advantages and the potential drawbacks of incorporating AR into cultural heritage tourism. Addressing evaluation aspects is essential to ensure that the framework is not only theoretically robust but also practically feasible and adaptable to real-world challenges in the realms of augmented reality, heritage tourism, and museology.

Overall, the paper presents a well-rounded and insightful analysis of AR’s potential in cultural heritage tourism, supported by a solid theoretical framework and empirical approach. Addressing the noted weaknesses, such as generalizability, potential biases, and practical implementation challenges, would further strengthen the study and enhance its applicability and impact in the field.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is well-written and syntactically correct.

Authors should carefully control the references to avoid mistakes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript describes a survey conducted for 336 visitors who used the Anhui Museum's 410 handheld AR guide application during April 2021 to March 2022. The survey examined the correlations between their perceptions of the AR's attributes (interactivity, vividness, novelty, and augmentation quality), their perceived usefulness and enjoinment, and their indentation for heritage responsible behavior. The results demonstrated that almost all of the AR's attributes were positively correlated with perceived usefulness and enjoynment, and that perceived usefulness and enjoynment were positively correlated with their indentation for heritage responsible behavior.

The manuscript is interesting and well-written. However, I found it hard to justify the study's scientific merit. A questionnaire about the subjective evaluation of each of these components and their correlations is not new, as the authors themselves demonstrated. Whether or not it is performed within the scope of tourism/museums does not seem very important. In addition, it is very possible that other factors which were not studied in the questionnaire affected the results.

Specific comments:

1. The term "digital tourism" that appears in the abstract and in the introduction is not accurate since the study is about physical tourism.

2. Introduction:

- It is necessary to define what AR is - the acronym and the term- and explain the different forms in which it must be realized.

- The paragraph in lines 64-86 is supposed to link all the research topics: using AR to develop responsible behavior for cultural heritage for tourists, but it is confusing and does not adequately review each topic separately and the relationship between them. Therefore, what is said in the following paragraph is not understood - it is not clear why research in this field is important and what the gaps are in the field.

 

- Line 89: SOR is mentioned without explaining the acronym and without having a previous reference to it.

3. Literature review:

 

To start with SOR is not appropriate. This is a theoretical framework that seems indeed appropriate, but it is not the main thing, more helpful in the methodology.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English Language is quite good.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title of the paper is informative and aligned with the content. The abstract successfully provides essential information about the objectives and main findings of the study. The paper is well-structured, and the organization of the Literature Review section is highly appreciated, as it is divided into well-balanced subchapters that present the most important information about the variables from the Research Model. From this perspective, the hypotheses are justified given what is already known about the topic. They are clearly formulated, and the Research Model is also clear and well explained.

However, there are minor issues that the authors are invited to address. Source 13, regarding medical tourism, seems inappropriate to include. If it is retained, the authors should better explain its relevance. The same observation applies to reference 105 (what is the link between heritage and museum tourism and street food?).

Overall, the paper is very well written and well-linked with the literature review, with Data Analysis being another strength. For future similar studies, it is suggested to consider other relevant variables, such as empathy and entertainment, as they are also relevant in connection with AR and museums.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript "Comparing the Impact of Green Supplier Selection and Integration on Environmental Performance: An Analysis of the Moderating Role of Government Support" is interesting, and its issues are current. However, there are still some issues that require attention. Below is a list of suggestions for enhancing the manuscript:

The introduction includes several points and notions, which may dilute the emphasis. It is critical to identify the central research problem and objectives early on.

Some concepts are repeated, such as the advantages of integrating and selecting green suppliers. The introduction could be rendered more succinct by simplifying these concepts.

The introduction includes elements that are more appropriate for a literature review section, such as comprehensive citations and exhaustive descriptions of existing research. In order to maintain the introduction's emphasis on establishing the context for the research, these items could be condensed or relegated to the literature review section.

Certain sections in Literature review are excessively detailed and could be condensed to emphasise the primary points. It is imperative to emphasise the primary discoveries from the literature and their correlation with your hypotheses.

Certain points are reiterated, particularly in relation to the advantages of selecting and integrating green suppliers. Reducing redundancy will contribute to the preservation of reader interest and clarity.

The discourse regarding government assistance is somewhat repetitious and could be more succinct. Furthermore, it would be advantageous to establish a more direct connection to the overarching argument and theoretical framework to preserve the reader's interest and clarity.

The distinction is established between green supplier selection, which is a static, one-way decision-making process, and green supplier integration, which is a dynamic, two-way cooperative process. The study, however, does not delve into the implications of this distinction or the effective transition of firms from static to dynamic processes.

The primary emphasis of the investigation is the moderating influence of government support. Future research should investigate the interactions between supplier selection and integration processes and other environmental factor mechanisms, including market, economic, and technological environments. This would offer a more comprehensive comprehension of the variables that affect environmental performance.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to clarify that the review comments appear to be associated with a different manuscript, as the title does not correspond to my submission. I have already communicated this issue to the MDPI editorial office, who have acknowledged my concerns and provided an updated set of feedback from the reviewers. Regardless of this misunderstanding, I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to the review process.  

Thank you once again for your understanding and support. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded carefully to the comments and recommendations of the reviewer.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your suggestions for revising our manuscript, which have significantly improved its quality and rigor. Your recommendations also provide valuable guidance for our future research on AR in museums. Additionally, we would like to thank you for your support and encouragement regarding our research work.

 

Best Regards,

Yuanshu Tian

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

T thank the authors for their cover letter and notable effort in revising the manuscript. The theoretical background for the research and the explanation of the different terms are much clearer. However, my major concern is that the study examined correlations between variables, not cause-and-effect relationships. Hence, it could be speculated that the same people who thought that, e.g., their experience was interactive, also experienced high levels of enjoyment, and their indentation for heritage responsible behavior was high. However, this does not support the authors' hypothesis that, e.g., "AR attributes affect perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment". We can not sure that the relationships are affect relationships, since the study did not manipulate any of the AR's attributes. In addition, the authors added to the SOR framework the digital narrative framework, but this does not, in my opinion, contribute to a better justification for the reported reserach, since they are both too general and are not linked directly with the research's aim and research questions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English Language is quite good. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx