The Influence of World Heritage Sites on Tourism Dynamics in the EU 27 Nations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please, find the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. The article is interesting; the researched problem has scientific potential and may be of interest to potential readers.

The paper aims to analyze the impact of cultural heritage, specifically UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHS), on international tourism across 27 EU countries from 2001 to 2022. This extended period allows a thorough understanding of how cultural heritage influences tourism over time, making the results robust and applicable to various settings. It offers recommendations that can guide policymakers in leveraging cultural heritage for economic benefits. The study contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence of the positive relationship between cultural heritage and tourism.

Although I evaluate the paper positively, I suggest you consider the following points:

·         While the paper discusses the positive impact of WHS on tourism, it does not sufficiently address the negative consequences, such as over-tourism and environmental degradation, in-depth. The discussion could be strengthened by providing more balanced insights into the potential risks of WHS designation, such as damage to cultural sites or adverse effects on local communities. This would give a more balanced perspective and highlight the importance of sustainable tourism practices.

·         The explanation of econometric models could be simplified for readers unfamiliar with advanced statistical techniques. A more intuitive presentation of the results, along with more precise explanations of how the coefficients relate to the tourism industry, would increase the accessibility of the findings to a broader audience.

·         The paper focuses heavily on economic factors like GDP per capita and bed capacity. A more balanced inclusion of sociocultural variables, such as local community engagement and preserving intangible cultural heritage, would enrich the analysis.

·         The paper is entirely quantitative, which provides a solid statistical foundation, but it lacks qualitative insights into how tourists experience cultural heritage sites. Including surveys or case studies from tourists could offer a more nuanced understanding of the motivations behind cultural tourism and how WHS status affects tourist perceptions. This would complement the quantitative findings and offer a more holistic view of the tourism dynamics surrounding WHS.

·         The conclusion should list the practical implications, shortcomings, and limitations of the study.

·         Pay attention to the incorrect referencing. For example, [14] discovered... (line 76) or [19] showed that.... (line 206). Begin the sentence with the author's last name, not the reference number.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors for addressing all my comments. While I still don't fully agree with how the article mainly focuses on the World Heritage Sites and seems to overlook other variables in the study, I can accept it for now. I just suggest the authors include this in their future research agenda to highlight the importance of other factors.

Also, I recommend moving the flowchart from Appendix 1 into the main text, as it helps readers better understand the methodology. Also, I recommend improving the quality and resolution of all the materials in the appendix section.

With these two minor changes, I'm happy to recommend to accept the article as it is.

Author Response

Comments 1:Thanks to the authors for addressing all my comments. While I still don't fully agree with how the article mainly focuses on the World Heritage Sites and seems to overlook other variables in the study, I can accept it for now. I just suggest the authors include this in their future research agenda to highlight the importance of other factors.

Respond 1: We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for their valuable and constructive input. The conclusion section (lines 504-507) suggests the use of different variables for future studies. Furthermore, we would like to include other factors in our agenda for future research.

Comments 2: Also, I recommend moving the flowchart from Appendix 1 into the main text, as it helps readers better understand the methodology. Also, I recommend improving the quality and resolution of all the materials in the appendix section. 

Respond 2: The flowchart has been relocated to line 321 within the data and variables section. Additionally, the figures in the Appendix have been organized into a table format to enhance clarity. The recent revisions are highlighted in yellow.

Comments 3: With these two minor changes, I'm happy to recommend to accept the article as it is.

Respond 3: Thank you for dedicating your valuable time to provide an evaluation.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript has been significantly improved, and you made a great effort to correct the previous version of the paper. All technical deficiencies have been corrected, and the Introduction, Discussion and Conclusion have been significantly expanded. Thank you for considering my suggestions. I propose to publish the paper.

Author Response

Comments 1: The manuscript has been significantly improved, and you made a great effort to correct the previous version of the paper. All technical deficiencies have been corrected, and the Introduction, Discussion and Conclusion have been significantly expanded. Thank you for considering my suggestions. I propose to publish the paper.

Responds 1: Thank you for taking the time to provide your valuable feedback and constructive comments on the article.