Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Model to Unlock Sustainable Heritage Tourism Potential

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments on the revision of the article

 

This paper studies the potential of heritage tourism, and the topic selection is relatively novel and has certain research significance. The research method combines multi-standard decision-making analysis (MCDM) with geographic information system (GIS) to build a comprehensive and refined heritage tourism potential assessment framework by integrating multi-dimensional factors such as network connectivity, tourism attractions, climatic conditions, geological landform characteristics, and facilities and services. The result is clear, which provides a strong basis for the planning of heritage tourism. However, this article analyzes its own problems and puts forward revision suggestions from several aspects such as：

Question 1: The significance of topic selection

The article points out that heritage tourism is one of the fastest growing tourism types, and emphasizes the importance of world heritage sites in tourism. However, research on specific landmark heritage and its potential as a tourist attraction has not been fully explored. The explanation of the contributions and innovations in the overall field of heritage tourism is not prominent enough, and there is a lack of detailed description of the shortcomings of existing research.

 

Revision suggestions: In the introduction, the relevant research in the field of heritage tourism should be reviewed in more detail, and the shortcomings in the current research should be clearly pointed out, such as the lack of research on the evaluation of tourism potential for specific types of heritage. At the same time, the differences between this research and other existing similar studies are emphasized, so as to enhance the innovation and importance of topic selection.

 

Question 2: Research Purpose and Method

1. This study explores the potential of a specific type of heritage as a tourist attraction. Although the goal is clear, it does not fully explain the advantages and uniqueness of the framework compared with other similar evaluation methods, and how to better serve the development of sustainable heritage tourism.

2. The paper adopts the method of multi-standard decision-making analysis (MCDM) combined with geographic information system (GIS), but when introducing the research method, the specific operation and logical connection of each step are not clear enough.

3. In the research data source section, although the data is listed from the website, it does not detail the quality and reliability verification process of the data, which may affect the credibility of the research results.

 

Revision suggestions: When explaining the research purpose, we should compare the existing heritage tourism potential assessment methods in more detail and highlight the innovation of this research framework. Combined with geospatial analysis technology and multi-standard decision-making method (BMW-WLC model), it can more comprehensively consider the impact of geography, climate, facilities and other factors on the potential of heritage tourism, and provide a more targeted and scientific assessment tool for the sustainable development of heritage tourism.

 

In the steps of multi-standard decision-making analysis of research methods, it is clearly explained how to select standards, how to construct a comparative matrix, and how to evaluate the weight of standardized data.

 

Question 3: Research results

The in-depth analysis of the research results of the thesis is insufficient. For example, although some heritage sites are higher in the overall ranking, their differences under different standards and the impact of these differences on tourism development strategies are not discussed in detail.

In particular, the analysis of the impact of different standards (such as climatic conditions, geological disasters, etc.) on tourism potential is not in-depth enough, and there is a lack of discussion on the interaction between standards.

Although the chart is presented by visualization, it is not fully explained and analyzed in words.

 

Question 4: Research conclusions and suggestions

Although the main findings of the study are summarized in the conclusion, the specific contribution and significance of these findings for the sustainable development of heritage tourism are not explained in depth enough, and the theoretical guidance for heritage tourism management and policy formulation in the future needs to be improved.

Some of the suggestions put forward are relatively broad and lack relevance and operability. The outlook for the future research direction is not clear enough, and the limitations of this research and the prospects that can be further explored in the future research are not pointed out.

 

In general, this paper has certain innovation and practical significance in the study of the potential assessment of heritage tourism, but it still needs to be further improved in terms of the meaning of topic selection, the description of research methods, the analysis of results, and the depth and relevance of conclusions and suggestions. I hope that the author will revise and improve this paper according to his own research and the above suggestions, and also hope that some suggestions can help the smooth publication of this paper.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We appreciate your time and efforts for providing valuable comments on our paper. We find them very constructive and helpful to improve the quality of our paper. We did our best to address your comments as precisely as possible and provided the following responses for the comments. We hope that the revised version of the paper is satisfactory to you.

Please see the attached file.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The theme of the manuscript "Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Model to Unlock sustainable Heritage Tourism Potential" is very interesting and inspiring both for potential tourists and researchers. The results are very well presented. The used mathematical model is not clearly presented and it can be marked as the main shortcoming of the paper.

The reviewer proposes the main revision.

The reviewer read the paper very carefully. The reviewer's suggestions are further provided.

1. The Section 1 is excellently written. It is divided into three parts according to the problems under consideration.
2. Section 2 is a great presentation, too. The given pictures of the considered tourist locations are very interesting for potential tourists.
3. The input data (Section 3.1) is excellently written.
4. Defining the set of criteria according to which the considered tourist locations are evaluated are clearly presented.
5. The authors stated that they used BWM for the determined weights of criteria and sub-criteria under each criterion. In that case, equation (1) is not correct. It is necessary to clearly present the algorithm of the BWM method. In that case, it is necessary to introduce a notation.
6. Which method was used for the ranking of considered tourist locations? Based on equation (4), the reviewer concludes that the authors used the SAW method. It is incorrect, but it must be stated. It is necessary to clearly write the used MCDM algorithm
7. The results and discussion are excellently written.
8. Finally, the main shortage of this manuscript is the lack of algorithms of used MCDM. The reviewer believes that it is necessary to eliminate this deficiency.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We appreciate your time and efforts for providing valuable comments on our paper. We find them very constructive and helpful to improve the quality of our paper. We did our best to address your comments as precisely as possible and provided the following responses for the comments. We hope that the revised version of the paper is satisfactory to you.

Please see the attached file.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After thorough review, this paper addresses a significant theoretical and practical topic. The research focuses on evaluating the tourism potential of UNESCO World Heritage caravanserais, effectively responding to current demands in heritage tourism development. The paper is articulated in clear, precise, and scholarly language, demonstrating the authors' strong academic proficiency and writing skills.

In terms of innovation, the authors have creatively developed a robust assessment model based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). The BMW-WLC model is methodologically sound, with detailed and comprehensive evaluation criteria, effectively evaluating the sustainable tourism development potential of eight newly inscribed UNESCO caravanserais in Isfahan Province, Iran.

Furthermore, the discussion is thorough and detailed, covering multiple dimensions such as network connectivity, tourist attraction, climatic conditions, geomorphological features and hazards, and facilities and services. The conclusions drawn are clear, contributing significantly both academically and practically.

The structure, figures, tables, and references of the paper comply fully with the journal's formatting standards and are presented in a professional manner.

In summary, this paper meets the academic standards required by the journal, and I recommend it for acceptance and publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We appreciate your time and efforts for providing valuable comments on our paper. We find them very constructive and helpful to improve the quality of our paper. We did our best to address your comments as precisely as possible and provided the following responses for the comments. We hope that the revised version of the paper is satisfactory to you.

Please see the attached file.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We appreciate your time and efforts for providing valuable comments on our paper. We find them very constructive and helpful to improve the quality of our paper. We did our best to address your comments as precisely as possible and provided the following responses for the comments. We hope that the revised version of the paper is satisfactory to you.

Please see the attached file.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a model for assessing the tourism potential of archaeological sites that have cultural contexts associated with highly mobile populations. These sites are caravanserais in the province of Isfahan, Iran. The manuscript presents a broad cultural and chronological context for understanding the sites to which the model is applied. With regard to the proposed model, which includes a spatial analysis, the model considers five criteria (network connectivity and access, tourist attractions, climatic conditions, geomorphological features and hazards, facilities and services) each with variables. This model makes it possible to construct an indicator that shows, in spatial terms, which areas are suitable for tourism and which are not. It would be very important, on the basis of the analyses carried out, to include in the conclusions the results for each of the sites, in such a way that it is clear, according to the score obtained, what type of use could be given and whether the sites with negative indicators could be intervened in order to improve the score and, from this perspective, could be used for tourism.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We appreciate your time and efforts for providing valuable comments on our paper. We find them very constructive and helpful to improve the quality of our paper. We did our best to address your comments as precisely as possible and provided the following responses for the comments. We hope that the revised version of the paper is satisfactory to you.

Please see the attached file.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf