Comparative Study of Cultural Landscape Perception in Historic Districts from the Perspectives of Tourists and Residents

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read the article “Comparative Study of Cultural Landscape Perception in Historic Districts from the Perspectives of Tourists and Residents” with great interest. In general, the topic addressed is intriguing and aligns with the ongoing discussion about the diverse positions, attitudes, and valuations held by different social groups toward heritage or cultural landscapes.

The manuscript largely adheres to the established norms for articles in this publication regarding organization and length. However, based on the current version of the manuscript, I believe some improvements are necessary. Please take note of the following:

- Abstract: Clarify the purpose and objectives of the study; separate main findings with a semicolon; and include one or two lines about the main implications of the study to enhance the abstract.

- Theoretical Background: The manuscript lacks a proper theoretical foundation to support the study. While a synthetic literature review is presented in the introduction, the significance of the topic warrants its own dedicated literature review section, separate from the introduction, and should be more thoroughly explored.

- Research Methodology: Provide more information about the historic district under study, including its area, number of neighborhoods, demographic size and characteristics, and the size of tourist demand. In my opinion, section 2.2 could be incorporated into the literature review. Additionally, clarify whether the questionnaire was developed by the authors or derived from others already applied by different authors on the same subject.

- References: The reference list needs improvement.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your insightful feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your suggestions to enhance the quality and clarity of our research. Our point-to-point response is marked blue as follows.

 

Best wishes,

 

Jiang Liu

 

 

Reviewer 1:

I read the article “Comparative Study of Cultural Landscape Perception in Historic Districts from the Perspectives of Tourists and Residents” with great interest. In general, the topic addressed is intriguing and aligns with the ongoing discussion about the diverse positions, attitudes, and valuations held by different social groups toward heritage or cultural landscapes.

The manuscript largely adheres to the established norms for articles in this publication regarding organization and length. However, based on the current version of the manuscript, I believe some improvements are necessary. Please take note of the following:

- Abstract: Clarify the purpose and objectives of the study; separate main findings with a semicolon; and include one or two lines about the main implications of the study to enhance the abstract.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have thoroughly revised the abstract to clarify the purpose and objectives of the study. Main findings have been separated with semicolons for improved readability. Additionally, we added the main implication of the study (Line 11-25)

 

- Theoretical Background: The manuscript lacks a proper theoretical foundation to support the study. While a synthetic literature review is presented in the introduction, the significance of the topic warrants its own dedicated literature review section, separate from the introduction, and should be more thoroughly explored.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. In accordance with your advice, we have restructured the manuscript to include a dedicated literature review as Section 2. This section provides a comprehensive synthesis of relevant research findings, ensuring a stronger theoretical foundation for our study. According to your suggestion, the content regarding cultural landscape identification in Section 2.2 has been moved to the new Section 2 (Line 105-201).

 

- Research Methodology: Provide more information about the historic district under study, including its area, number of neighborhoods, demographic size and characteristics, and the size of tourist demand. In my opinion, section 2.2 could be incorporated into the literature review. Additionally, clarify whether the questionnaire was developed by the authors or derived from others already applied by different authors on the same subject.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have incorporated additional information about the historic district under study, including its area, number of neighborhoods, demographic characteristics, and tourist demand (Line 204-221. Furthermore, we have clarified that the questionnaire used in the study was developed by the authors based on the results of cultural landscape identification (Line 248-257).

 

- References: The reference list needs improvement.

Response: Thank you for the comments. We have improved the reference list by adjusting the number and format of references to ensure compliance with academic standards.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Cultural landscape genes theory represents a promising theoretical framework for research. Please present it in more detail (author, main descriptive/explanatory/predictive sentences).

Some pictures of the area under investigation would be useful.

Figures 2 and 3 require more explanation regarding the content.

In the title it is about historical districts - plural. Please show why the extrapolation of the results to other historic districts is justified, or state the limitations of the research that the conclusions cannot be extrapolated.

The presented correlations are often accompanied by possible explanations. Please specify that it is about research suspicions, that these suspicions have not yet been tested (possibly at Research Limitations??).

Please highlight better the relationship between the research results and the strategies you propose in the Discussions. How do those strategies and not others match the characteristics of tourists and residents of historic districts?

References must be formatted according to Land templates.

I believe that with these changes/completions the article can be considered for publication.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your insightful feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your suggestions to enhance the quality and clarity of our research. Our point-to-point response is marked blue as follows.

Best wishes,

Jiang Liu

 

Reviewer 2:

Cultural landscape genes theory represents a promising theoretical framework for research. Please present it in more detail (author, main descriptive/explanatory/predictive sentences).

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added a dedicated literature review section that provides a detailed explanation of the Cultural Landscape Genes Theory, including the author, main descriptive, explanatory, and predictive sentences (Line 105-201).

Some pictures of the area under investigation would be useful. Figures 2 and 3 require more explanation regarding the content.

Response: We have incorporated two additional pictures of the research area to provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of our study context (Figure 4). Additionally, we have revised the explanations for Figures 1 (formerly Figures 2) and 3 to offer clearer insights into the content presented (Line 107-154) (Line 232-244).

In the title it is about historical districts - plural. Please show why the extrapolation of the results to other historic districts is justified, or state the limitations of the research that the conclusions cannot be extrapolated.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have justified the extrapolation of our research results to other historic districts by discussing the similarities found in related studies within the field (Line 600-606.

The presented correlations are often accompanied by possible explanations. Please specify that it is about research suspicions, that these suspicions have not yet been tested (possibly at Research Limitations??).

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The results presented by the study are objective. In the preceding section of data interpretation, we described the presentation of the data. The hypotheses about possibilities are speculations we made about the reasons for the phenomenon observed on-site. we used a hypothetical inference approach in this section. We have clarified in the manuscript that the correlations presented are based on research suspicions and hypotheses, which have not yet been fully tested (Line 632-644).

Please highlight better the relationship between the research results and the strategies you propose in the Discussions. How do those strategies and not others match the characteristics of tourists and residents of historic districts? 

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. In the Discussion section, we have highlighted the relationship between our research results and the proposed strategies for historic district planning and preservation. We have also explained how these strategies align with the characteristics of tourists and residents in such districts (Line 620-643).

References must be formatted according to Land templates. I believe that with these changes/completions the article can be considered for publication.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have adjusted the formatting of the references according to Land templates, ensuring adherence to the required style.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The article, entitled Comparative Study of Cultural Landscape Perception in Historic Districts from the Perspectives of Tourists and Residents, aims to provide a theoretical basis for carrying out protection and renewal planning of historic districts from a human-centric perspective, through the theory of cultural landscape genes. The paper presents an interesting and relevant subject for studies in the area of tourism and culture.

 

It is unclear why the authors chose not to present a chapter on theoretical frameworks, since the topic has already been widely studied. For example, the issue of residents has been studied since the 1970s and several authors have identified demographic differences related to the impacts of tourism. These studies can be cited when the issue of individual differences is presented (from line 83 onwards). 

 

The absence of a justification chapter also makes the structure of the article confusing. For example, subchapter 2.2 is dedicated to presenting the theory used. It could, together with the rationale for tourists and residents, be presented in a more theoretical framework chapter.

 

Specifically in the methodology chapter, it was not reported which statistical techniques were used to analyse the data. Cronbach's alpha and KMO were mentioned. As well as citing these results, it is important to explain why they were carried out.  Figure 4 is presented at the end of the methodology chapter, but there is no reference to it in this chapter, nor is there any analysis of the data presented.

 

Table 2 analyses the following statement: "Both residents and tourists scored around 3.5 points in their perception of architectural features and cultural customs, indicating that these two types of cultural landscape genes 209 are well perceived during their experience in the historical district". What criteria are used to say that 3.5 points indicates well perceived? Still on this board. Has a statistical test been used to see if there are significant differences between the averages for tourists and residents?

 

In analysing the data, you state that you applied a PCA, but the results are not clear. Where are the 19 variables that were scaled into 3? On line 266, you state "In the non-parametric test results". What was this test?

 

In the discussion chapter, you present a good analysis, but you don't discuss this analysis with the previous literature.

 

Although it has an interesting topic with relevant data, it is important to review the structure of the paper, including a theoretical framework chapter, with the possibility of better exploring previous studies on the subject. With regard to the data, it is necessary to highlight the tests used and better present the PCA. Finally, in the discussions, it is important to link the results with previous studies.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your insightful feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your suggestions to enhance the quality and clarity of our research. Our point-to-point response is marked blue as follows.

 

Best wishes,

 

Jiang Liu

 

 

Reviewer 3

The article, entitled Comparative Study of Cultural Landscape Perception in Historic Districts from the Perspectives of Tourists and Residents, aims to provide a theoretical basis for carrying out protection and renewal planning of historic districts from a human-centric perspective, through the theory of cultural landscape genes. The paper presents an interesting and relevant subject for studies in the area of tourism and culture.

It is unclear why the authors chose not to present a chapter on theoretical frameworks, since the topic has already been widely studied. For example, the issue of residents has been studied since the 1970s and several authors have identified demographic differences related to the impacts of tourism. These studies can be cited when the issue of individual differences is presented (from line 83 onwards). 

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added a dedicated literature review section, which includes a more detailed explanation of the theory of cultural landscape genes. This addition provides a stronger theoretical basis for our study and enhances the clarity of the article's structure (Line 105-201).

 

The absence of a justification chapter also makes the structure of the article confusing. For example, subchapter 2.2 is dedicated to presenting the theory used. It could, together with the rationale for tourists and residents, be presented in a more theoretical framework chapter.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have clarified the structure of the article and addressed the absence of a justification chapter. Subchapter 2.2, along with the rationale for tourists and residents, has been integrated into the theoretical framework chapter to improve coherence (Line 105-201).

 

Specifically in the methodology chapter, it was not reported which statistical techniques were used to analyse the data. Cronbach's alpha and KMO were mentioned. As well as citing these results, it is important to explain why they were carried out.  

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have enriched the methodology chapter to provide a more detailed explanation of the research methods used (Line 297-307).

 

Figure 4 is presented at the end of the methodology chapter, but there is no reference to it in this chapter, nor is there any analysis of the data presented.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Figure 5(formerly Figures 4) is now referenced and analyzed in the text (Line 286-294).

 

Table 2 analyses the following statement: "Both residents and tourists scored around 3.5 points in their perception of architectural features and cultural customs, indicating that these two types of cultural landscape genes 209 are well perceived during their experience in the historical district". What criteria are used to say that 3.5 points indicates well perceived? Still on this board.

Response: When designing the questionnaire, a score of 4 represents a good perception, while 3 indicates a moderate perception. Therefore, an average score of 3.5 is considered to be associated with good perception, whereas a score of 3 suggests a perception that is less pronounced.

 

Has a statistical test been used to see if there are significant differences between the averages for tourists and reside？

Response: Thank you for your concern. We did conduct statistical tests to assess whether there were significant differences between the averages for tourists and residents across three major dimensions. The results indicated that there were no significant differences observed in these broad dimensions. Consequently, the average scores obtained for this particular aspect can only be utilized to describe the overall situation. However, it's essential to note that in instances where significant differences were identified, we have explicitly addressed these in other sections of the paper. Detailed explanations regarding these significant differences have been provided separately in the manuscript (Line 331-355).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

The comments are in atach flie.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Thank you very much for your insightful feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your suggestions to enhance the quality and clarity of our research. Our point-to-point response is marked blue as follows.

 

Best wishes,

 

Jiang Liu

 

 

Reviewer 4

Dear Authors.

It was a great pleasure to read your paper and congratulations on your work The focus ofthis article is an important thematic of investigation: the tourists and residents perceptions about cultural landscape in historical districts, with the particularity of analyse one case study: the historical district of Zhangzhou Ancient City, in China.This subject has aroused increasing interest in the international scientific community, not only in tourism studies but also in other scientific areas (e.g. architecture, planning or land management). Methodological procedures of data collection and processing are adequate, based on “860 valid questionnaires, consisting of 389 from residents and 471from tourists"), and give a good support to the work. In order to enhance the value of the article, I leave the following suggestions:

Explain in the abstract of the text the methodology that was used in the research. 

Response: Thank you very much for your kind comments and the suggestion. We have included a brief explanation of the methodology used in the research in the abstract, providing readers with a clearer understanding of our approach (Line 12-15).

 

Present the social. economic and/or cultural characteristics of the respondents.as it is very important for a better understanding of the results obtained.

Response: Following your advice, we have supplemented the manuscript with additional details regarding the social, economic, and cultural characteristics of the respondents. This includes factors such as demographic profiles, educational backgrounds, duration of residency or visit, and any other pertinent information that may influence their perceptions and responses (Line 286-294).

 

Isn't it possible to include more authors who have done research and presented results on this topic in the discussion?

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have identified and included additional authors who have conducted research and presented results on similar topics in the discussion section. This broader comparison enhances the context and relevance of our study within the existing literature (Line 563-630).

 

Identify/reinforce the main theoretical (for the advancement of knowledge) and practical (for spatial planners and managers) implications of the study. I renew my congratulations on your work and I hope that in the future you will be able to develop more research on this topic.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have reinforced the main theoretical implications for the advancement of knowledge and practical implications for spatial planners and managers in the discussion section. This clarification aims to highlight the significance of our findings for both academic research and real-world application (Line 600-630).

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your paper. The work done by the Authors resulted in its substantial improvement. Congratulations on that. Please, to the final version, in line 127 remove comma after reference 16; in line 151 is conducive or conductive?

 

 

Author Response

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The comma is removed. The word in line 151(line 162 now) is "conducive", to describe how research facilitates or contributes to achieving more precise resource allocation and arrangement in the process of urban environmental construction, and indicates that the research is favorable or advantageous for attaining a specific goal or outcome.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have attached a document with the comments related to stage 2 of the review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments again. We have addressed your concerns in the revised manuscrit, which is marked in yellow. Please see the detailed response as attached. 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf