From Place-Branding to Community-Branding: A Collaborative Decision-Making Process for Cultural Heritage Enhancement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article constructs a procedure for the enhancement of cultural heritage, called “community branding”, and explains its implementation to the case of the “Pisticci Sustainable Urban Laboratory” (Italy).

The originality of the research lies in the eclecticism of the proposed procedure, which combines concepts and approaches from several research traditions -namely, place branding, place marketing, community planning and community impact evaluation-, and in the deployment of a diversity of models and tools, used in the implementation of the proposed procedure.

However, the paper, the written communication of the research can be improved. Principally, the authors should try to observe the usual contents in the sections of research papers (IMRD: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion; https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions). Especially, the Methods section is a mixture of theoretical framework, methods, results, and discussion. These contents might be separated in the corresponding sections. Also, the extent of the sections is imbalanced: the Methods section occupies two thirds of the paper, while the Results section hardly occupies one page.

Additionally, the readability of the text could be improved, by means of a review of the organization of paragraphs and links among paragraphs. Finally, there is a profusion of empirical details, that may be relevant locally, but that have no clear significance in a broader context, and that obscure the text. The research is so complex, combining so many approaches, methods, tools, and steps, that an effort should be made to simplify the explanation and be more concise.

Introduction

• Improve the structure of the literature review. Summarize the central concepts of the research traditions on which the study is based, clearly and in an orderly manner.
• Assess deficiencies of former approaches.
• Specify how the proposed model improves the former approaches (hypotheses?). What are the advantages of the proposed procedure? What is its contribution?
• Establish objectives and sub-objectives. Formulate questions, if appropriate.

Materials and Methods

This section occupies two thirds of the paper. Much of its contents should be in the Introduction section (literature review), Results (implementation of the model) and Discussion (implications of results). Reallocate contents to the proper sections.

Results

In the article this section is very brief (because many results are presented in the Materials and Methods section).

Highlight the results in relation to the hypotheses, objectives and/or questions formulated in the Introduction section. Are hypotheses accepted or rejected?

Discussion

This section of the article almost has not citations.

Here, the results should be interpreted in the perspective of previous studies and the hypotheses, objectives and/or questions. What do the results mean? What are their implications? Why are they relevant? How do they contrast with the results obtained in previous studies? They corroborate or contradict previous studies? In which sense? How? Why? Have the objectives been achieved?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

first of all, I would thank you for the all revisions provided that are very interesting and useful for enhancing my paper. Below I would give some comments to explain the manuscript’s changes made following your suggestions:

"the paper, the written communication of the research can be improved. Principally, the authors should try to observe the usual contents in the sections of research papers (IMRD: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion; https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions). Especially, the Methods section is a mixture of the theoretical framework, methods, results, and discussion. These contents might be separated into the corresponding sections. Also, the extent of the sections is imbalanced: the Methods section occupies two thirds of the paper, while the Results section hardly occupies one page."

I have redefined the structure of the paper by inserting parts of Section 2 in the introduction from line 255 to line 294 and part in Section 3 (results) from line 665 to line 737.

"Additionally, the readability of the text could be improved, by means of a review of the organization of paragraphs and links among paragraphs. Finally, there is a profusion of empirical details, that may be relevant locally, but that have no clear significance in a broader context, and that obscure the text. The research is so complex, combining so many approaches, methods, tools, and steps, that an effort should be made to simplify the explanation and be more concise."

I’ve improved the readability of the text within section 1 for synthesizing the whole process and simplify the explanation. See from line 255 to line 294.

Introduction

• "Improve the structure of the literature review. Summarize the central concepts of the research traditions on which the study is based, clearly and in an orderly manner."

I’ve better explained my urban planning and evaluation PhD path: it is started from a literature study on urban planning theories, on alternative economic models and on place branding discipline (see changes from line 35 to line 123) for responding to the problem of gentrification and historic urban centers decay.

From my research question and research objectives, it emerges the need to do an experiment on field: Matera European Capital of Culture 2019 and the surrounding territory of Basilicata as a case study.

For the experimental on field, I’ve summarized place brand theories and approaches from line 205 to line 246.

• "Assess deficiencies of former approaches."

Considering my research field (urban planning and evaluation), I’ve highlighted that the previous approaches probably deal with this issue through the exclusive use of urban planning tools or resource management tools (see from line 48 to line 49). Furthermore, from line 205 to 230 you can see previous place branding frameworks with different steps and it emerged that aren’t many approaches opened to co-evaluation and co-planning since the first step of the process (lines 222 and 223). The citizens and stakeholders are often only consulted but not always involved in the process as main actors of urban change.

• "Specify how the proposed model improves the former approaches (hypotheses?). What are the advantages of the proposed procedure? What is its contribution?"

Because the research is based on the definition of a Collaborative Decision-Making Process for Cultural Heritage Enhancement, the topic of evaluation is crucial, as you can see in the literature on the evaluation of local identity and image (from line 231 to 241).

The analysis of these approaches and tools allowed to define with experts and community members which were the most suitable for each “community branding” step, from collaborative urban planning point of view: this is the main advantage of the proposed procedure (form line 242 to 246).

• "Establish objectives and sub-objectives. Formulate questions, if appropriate."

I’ve clarified my research objectives from line 139 to 142.

Materials and Methods

"This section occupies two thirds of the paper. Much of its contents should be in the Introduction section (literature review), Results (implementation of the model) and Discussion (implications of results). Reallocate contents to the proper sections."

In the introduction, you can read approaches and tools’ literature of each community branding step from line 247 to 294. Within section 3 (results) you can read these changes from line 668 to 729, 736-737, 751-758.

Results

"In the article this section is very brief (because many results are presented in the Materials and Methods section)."

Within section 3 (results) you can read these changes from line 668 to 729, 736-737, 751-758.

"Highlight the results in relation to the hypotheses, objectives and/or questions formulated in the Introduction section. Are hypotheses accepted or rejected?"

For each step, you can see that the process try to respond to the three case study research questions (from line 751 to line 760)

Discussion

"This section of the article almost has not citations. Here, the results should be interpreted in the perspective of previous studies and the hypotheses, objectives and/or questions. What do the results mean? What are their implications? Why are they relevant? How do they contrast with the results obtained in previous studies? They corroborate or contradict previous studies? In which sense? How? Why? Have the objectives been achieved?"

The responses of these questions are highlighted from 766 to line 814 and 859-864 in the Section 4.

Many thanks and I hope that you will find these revisions helpful in improving the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author,

I've read the manuscript with interest and I must say that I'm particularly impressed with and interested in the "community branding" approach that is being described.

However, the description of the approach itself I found much less interesting. Arguably, the academic interested in the method is more or less lost now.  (based on what academic foundations and choices and how and why this would be a viable solution?) and especially the validation of the approach in the current version of the manuscript raises more questions than answers.

• in the paragraph on the problem formulation I find quite difficult to understand. The problem behind the problem is not described. So line 43-46 fails to present an underlying argumentation why combinations of various disciplines would be neccesary
• I miss an in-depth description of the method that would lead me to understand what is meant by "collaborative" and what actually is signalling the change from place branding to communicty branding. In other words, I fail to see what exactly is different here. What is innovative? are there really any real differences in the approach or does the difference perhaps lie with the result that is being sought. If so, this raises other tyes of questions of course
• Also, I would like to see a better positioning of this line of argumentation (about the need or requirement for the design of a new approach) with other literature with regard to marketing and (place) branding literature. For example, see recent articles in this journal for oversight articles that show trends and developments in literature on these issues etc.
• I find the main research question to be far too applied to be of interest to the audience of this journal.  Also the connection with the other questions which you pose I find hard to line up.
• I would prefer to read more about he literature and concepts underlying the design of the method itself. And especially the methods that are being employed to develop the method itself would actually be highly to read about. Also more context info would be needed to better understand the type of situation in which this approach was being developed (because a key question that sticks with me is the generalizability of the suggested approach).
• I find the use of terms and concepts quite vague: for example what is meant by the expression "activate territorial production processes that create added value and competitive advantage". What are we talking about? And for what group of actors does this apply? An entire community (how can you 'proove that') or perhaps a selection of actor groups in that community (e.g. those in the hospitality industry). Again I fail to see clearly explained how the aim of the author is being achieved as a proper distinction between the ffects of marketing and/or branding are not clearly described.
• I find particulalry problematic the fact that on the one hand the developed solution is presented as a solution to a problmatic situation brought about by capitalism and the fact that the solution that is being presented is being taylor made to fit within the overal capitalist and competitive system which competes with the efforts of other cities. In other words, how is this tool a 'solution' the source of the problems and unwanted effects that are being described as the starting point for this research?
• The claim that community branding is a tailor-made strategy for local communities is not entirely convincing after reading about the 'approach/method'. In fact in order to make such a claim, the description of the development of the approach would need to consist more of an analysis of the context in which the method was developed and pay much more attention to the way in which the decisions regarding the development of the method were reached rather than the current informative but also unargumented description of steps in the development of the method.
• The description of the steps does currently not succeed in informing the reader of the steps that were taken and especially why these steps were taken, by whom and via what decisions. Also they steps are described in a highly mechanistic way. This raises many questions as it seems that if only these steps are taken 'success' is assured. A more in-depth description the process in the development of the branding experiments and issues that were raised bring more to the table. In short: an outcome is presented but the actual topic of interest how this outcome was reached and how this was done in terms of whom to involve etc is not provided.
• There are quite a number of normative claims in the text which seem awkward (e.g. line 142-144).
• The validation now seems to consist of interviews with representatives of organizations (co-)involved in the development of the method, and a quantitative analysis of some sort (unclear for me based on what emperical data) and seems to lack objective criteria.

In short: my main recommendation would be to shift the focus of the manuscript from reiterating the results towards the discussion and explanation of the development of the method rather than the description of the steps. Especially since currently there is no argumentation or clear concinvincing evidence why these steps would be relevant for achieving the desired goal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

first of all, I would thank you for all revisions provided that are very interesting and useful for enhancing my paper. Below I would give some comments to explain the manuscript’s changes made following your suggestions:

“ the description of the approach itself I found much less interesting. Arguably, the academic interested in the method is more or less lost now.(based on what academic foundations and choices and how and why this would be a viable solution?) and especially the validation of the approach in the current version of the manuscript raises more questions than answers.”

I’ve better explained my urban planning and evaluation PhD path: it is started from a literature study on urban planning theories, on alternative economic models, and on place branding discipline (see changes from line 35 to line 123) for responding to the problem of gentrification and historic urban centers decay.

From my research question and research objectives, it emerges the need to do an experiment on field: Matera European Capital of Culture 2019 and the surrounding territory of Basilicata as a case study.

For the experimental on field, I’ve summarized place brand theories and approaches from line 205 to line 246.

• “in the paragraph on the problem formulation, I find quite difficult to understand. The problem behind the problem is not described. So line 43-46 fails to present an underlying argumentation why combinations of various disciplines would be necessary.”

I’ve tried to better explain the problem formulation and the need of combinations of various disciplines from lines 35 to 60.

• “I miss an in-depth description of the method that would lead me to understand what is meant by "collaborative" and what actually is signalling the change from place branding to community branding. In other words, I fail to see what exactly is different here. What is innovative? are there really any real differences in the approach or does the difference perhaps lie with the result that is being sought. If so, this raises other tyes of questions of course”

Starting for the reformulation of the research question and showing research objectives, I tried to better underline why the approach is collaborative from line132 to 153, and innovative from line 295 to 299.

• “Also, I would like to see a better positioning of this line of argumentation (about the need or requirement for the design of a new approach) with other literature with regard to marketing and (place) branding literature. For example, see recent articles in this journal for oversight articles that show trends and developments in literature on these issues etc.”

You can read these updates from line 94 to 123 and from 205 to 246. For recent articles in this journal that show trends and developments in the literature on these issues see references 58, 59, 60.

• “I find the main research question to be far too applied to be of interest to the audience of this journal.  Also the connection with the other questions which you pose I find hard to line up.”

I’ve updated and focalized the research question and objectives and the relationship with research questions on the field from line 132 to 174.

• “I would prefer to read more about the literature and concepts underlying the design of the method itself. And especially the methods that are being employed to develop the method itself would actually be highly to read about. Also more context info would be needed to better understand the type of situation in which this approach was being developed (because a key question that sticks with me is the generalizability of the suggested approach).”

You can read the literature of different methods from line 205 to 294 and the explanation of possible generalizability and replicability from 859 to 864.

• “I find the use of terms and concepts quite vague: for example what is meant by the expression "activate territorial production processes that create added value and competitive advantage". What are we talking about? And for what group of actors does this apply? An entire community (how can you 'prove that') or perhaps a selection of actor groups in that community (e.g. those in the hospitality industry). Again I fail to see clearly explained how the aim of the author is being achieved as a proper distinction between the effects of marketing and/or branding are not clearly described.”

Considering my research field (urban planning and evaluation), I’ve highlighted that the approach is co-created with the community as you can see from line 146 to 153. The community sectors are selected from the main actors of urban regeneration and cultural heritage enhancement in Pisticci (from line to 259 to 262, 427-429, 451-453). The key effects of this kind of urban planning/evaluation approach are that the citizens and stakeholders are not only consulted but always involved in the process as main actors of urban change: so they can create their own community brand experiences.

• “I find particulalry problematic the fact that on the one hand the developed solution is presented as a solution to a problmatic situation brought about by capitalism and the fact that the solution that is being presented is being taylor made to fit within the overal capitalist and competitive system which competes with the efforts of other cities. In other words, how is this tool a 'solution' the source of the problems and unwanted effects that are being described as the starting point for this research?”

I’ve better focused the research problem from line 32 to 54 line and the approach aim at building a collaborative process for increasing the attractiveness of a territory by its community.

• “The claim that community branding is a tailor-made strategy for local communities is not entirely convincing after reading about the 'approach/method'. In fact in order to make such a claim, the description of the development of the approach would need to consist more of an analysis of the context in which the method was developed and pay much more attention to the way in which the decisions regarding the development of the method were reached rather than the current informative but also unargumented description of steps in the development of the method.”

You can read the changes suggested here from line 154 to 174, from 339 to 353, 425-550, 655-714, 751-760.

• “The description of the steps does currently not succeed in informing the reader of the steps that were taken and especially why these steps were taken, by whom and via what decisions. Also they steps are described in a highly mechanistic way. This raises many questions as it seems that if only these steps are taken 'success' is assured. A more in-depth description the process in the development of the branding experiments and issues that were raised bring more to the table. In short: an outcome is presented but the actual topic of interest how this outcome was reached and how this was done in terms of whom to involve etc is not provided.”

I’ve better explained each step in the introduction Section (247-294) but also in the Methods Section (339-648), results (751-758), and discussion (826-875).

The community sectors involved consist of the main actors of urban regeneration and cultural heritage enhancement in Pisticci (from line to 259 to 262, 427-429, 451-453).

• “There are quite a number of normative claims in the text which seem awkward (e.g. line 142-144).”

I’ve deleted this as you can see from lines 307 to 309.

• “The validation now seems to consist of interviews with representatives of organizations (co-)involved in the development of the method, and a quantitative analysis of some sort (unclear for me based on what empirical data) and seems to lack objective criteria.”

Please read these updates from lines 273 to 283, 535-542, 554-560, and 691-693.

“In short: my main recommendation would be to shift the focus of the manuscript from reiterating the results towards the discussion and explanation of the development of the method rather than the description of the steps. Especially since currently there is no argumentation or clear convincing evidence why these steps would be relevant for achieving the desired goal.”

It was highlighted in the whole Section 4 (Discussion and conclusions).

Many thanks and I hope that you will find these revisions helpful in improving the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

There is much about the paper ‘From place Branding to Community branding’ that I appreciate and I find that it has several merits. I find that the study has set ambitious and very interesting aims. I agree with the approach to community building and I find it very suitable to integrate knowledge from branding, marketing and community planning. In my view, this is a route worth taking and the proposed shift from place branding to community branding has the potential to make a significant contribution to the literature.

In order to strengthen its contribution and the whole argument, I find that the paper will benefit from a series of revisions. Please consider the following points:

• The introduction is good and sets the scene for the paper and the adopted approach.
• The overall Research Question presented at the top of page 3 is very broad and not entirely clear. On the contrary, the three Research Questions presented a little later (middle of same page) are really clear and interesting and they seem to be the ones actually addressed in the study. My feeling is that the main one was guiding the PhD thesis that the author mentions, but it does not fit well with this paper. I would recommend dropping it and only including the other three.
• On page 3, the author mentions survey and on-site experiment. which one was it?
• The author has chosen to adopt as the basis of the whole study a suggestion of the place branding process as found in The Place Brand Observer website’s ‘Quick Guides’. I am personally very familiar with this suggestion and indeed find it useful as an introduction to what the place branding process might entail. However, it is surprising to see this choice for this study. There are many more suggestions of such a process and, of course, published in much more credible, peer-reviewed, academic sources and not in Quick Guides, indeed by several authors that are cited in the paper. For instance, the book Place Branding by Govers and Go (2009) (as the authors will know, the whole Place Brand Observer suggestion is based on this book), the article in Journal of Travel Research by Kavaratzis and Hatch (2020) The ATLAS wheel of place brand management; the article in Journal of Business Research by Konecnik & De Chernatony, 2013, Developing and Applying a Place Brand Identity Model: The Case of Slovenia; the article in Journal of Marketing Management by Hanna and Rowley 2011, Towards a Strategic Place Brand Management Model and there are many more (e.g. Cai, 2002; Hankinson, 2005; Zenker and Braun, 2010; Moilanen and Rainisto, 2009). It is very important for the academic credibility of this study to explain why the Place Brand Observer suggestion is the best one and chosen for this study. Please note that I am not suggesting that you shouldn’t use this process. However, you need to show that you are aware of other suggestions and you have critically evaluated them and you need to explain in detail the reasons that make you choose the one process over all others. Otherwise, the link of the study to the literature will remain weak.
• I find that the project described in the paper is interesting and indeed I think that it is a novel approach. In my reading, the study has produced several interesting ideas for each step of the process and it is nice to see them in the case study. In my reading the presentation of all the findings can be a little more focused, but, in general, I find that the study produces some good findings.
• In my view, the methodology used in this study needs to be clarified. It is now rather confusing. The paper outlines several steps of the project, but it is not clear who did what. Did the author do all this work on their own? There have been a) desk research, b) ‘walk abouts’, c) a survey, d) the establishment of the PLUS platform, e) the ‘world café’ method, f) the Business model canvas method, g) all the various actions in the implementation stage, h) the qualitative evaluation of these with the PROMETHEE method, i) all the financial calculations described later (and probably some more that I am missing). Was this all done by the author, or did the author participate in some? Did the author only observe these? It is absolutely necessary to clarify the research design for the paper.
• Table 1 is very long, perhaps it can be shortened and edited to look a little better?
• The conclusions are reasonable, but I think that it will be very beneficial for the paper to include a discussion of how the results relate to existing literature. In other words, to include an academic discussion on the findings and the whole project.

I hope that you will find these comments helpful in your effort to improve the paper and I wish you good luck with your work!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

first of all, I would thank you for the all revisions provided that are very interesting and useful for enhancing my paper. Below I would give some comments to explain the manuscript’s changes made following your suggestions:

“There is much about the paper ‘From place Branding to Community branding’ that I appreciate and I find that it has several merits. I find that the study has set ambitious and very interesting aims. I agree with the approach to community building and I find it very suitable to integrate knowledge from branding, marketing and community planning. In my view, this is a route worth taking and the proposed shift from place branding to community branding has the potential to make a significant contribution to the literature.”

I’ve tried to better explain my urban planning and evaluation PhD path: it is started from a literature study on urban planning theories, on alternative economic models, and on place branding discipline (see changes from line 35 to line 123) for responding to the problem of gentrification and historic urban centers decay.

From my research question and research objectives, it emerges the need to do an experiment on field: Matera European Capital of Culture 2019 and the surrounding territory of Basilicata as a case study.

For the experimental field, I’ve summarized place brand theories and approaches from line 205 to line 246.

• “The introduction is good and sets the scene for the paper and the adopted approach.
• The overall Research Question presented at the top of page 3 is very broad and not entirely clear. On the contrary, the three Research Questions presented a little later (middle of same page) are really clear and interesting and they seem to be the ones actually addressed in the study. My feeling is that the main one was guiding the PhD thesis that the author mentions, but it does not fit well with this paper. I would recommend dropping it and only including the other three.”

I tried to better focus the general research question so that it could be clearer and more concise (lines 132-134) and refer directly to the next three research questions.

• “On page 3, the author mentions survey and on-site experiment. which one was it?”

You can read more details on on-site experiment and interviews about Matera 2019 from lines 158 to 174.

• “The author has chosen to adopt as the basis of the whole study a suggestion of the place branding process as found in The Place Brand Observer website’s ‘Quick Guides’. I am personally very familiar with this suggestion and indeed find it useful as an introduction to what the place branding process might entail. However, it is surprising to see this choice for this study. There are many more suggestions of such a process and, of course, published in much more credible, peer-reviewed, academic sources and not in Quick Guides, indeed by several authors that are cited in the paper. For instance, the book Place Brandingby Govers and Go (2009) (as the authors will know, the whole Place Brand Observer suggestion is based on this book), the article in Journal of Travel Research by Kavaratzis and Hatch (2020) The ATLAS wheel of place brand management; the article in Journal of Business Research by Konecnik & De Chernatony, 2013, Developing and Applying a Place Brand Identity Model: The Case of Slovenia; the article in Journal of Marketing Management by Hanna and Rowley 2011, Towards a Strategic Place Brand Management Model and there are many more (e.g. Cai, 2002; Hankinson, 2005; Zenker and Braun, 2010; Moilanen and Rainisto, 2009). It is very important for the academic credibility of this study to explain why the Place Brand Observer suggestion is the best one and chosen for this study. Please note that I am not suggesting that you shouldn’t use this process. However, you need to show that you are aware of other suggestions and you have critically evaluated them and you need to explain in detail the reasons that make you choose the one process over all others. Otherwise, the link of the study to the literature will remain weak.”

From line 205 to 230 you can see the updates suggested with an explanation of previous place branding frameworks and steps. These significant frameworks try to give guidelines for experts and practitioners, but my research tries to select a framework that could be open to co-evaluation and co-planning since the first step of the process (lines 222 and 223). So it was selected the Govers & Go (2009) framework also collected by a knowledge platform so-called Place brand observer (lines 221-225).

• “I find that the project described in the paper is interesting and indeed I think that it is a novel approach. In my reading, the study has produced several interesting ideas for each step of the process and it is nice to see them in the case study. In my reading the presentation of all the findings can be a little more focused, but, in general, I find that the study produces some good findings.”

I’ve tried to improve the presentation of all the findings from Section 3 (results) to Section 4 (discussion and conclusions)

• “In my view, the methodology used in this study needs to be clarified. It is now rather confusing. The paper outlines several steps of the project, but it is not clear who did what. Did the author do all this work on their own? There have been a) desk research, b) ‘walkabouts’, c) a survey, d) the establishment of the PLUS platform, e) the ‘world café’ method, f) the Business model canvas method, g) all the various actions in the implementation stage, h) the qualitative evaluation of these with the PROMETHEE method, i) all the financial calculations described later (and probably some more that I am missing). Was this all done by the author, or did the author participate in some? Did the author only observe these? It is absolutely necessary to clarify the research design for the paper.”

This research-action process was realized during my three years of Ph.D. path. I’ve done the all work on my own but with strong support by local organizations (especially Imbianchini di Bellezza, Pisticci Municipality, Legambiente Pisticci, Lucania Film Festival, etc.), that helped to co-create the different steps, tools, and events e.g. “walk about”, the roundtable events and so on.

I’ve tried to clarify this from 149 to 153, 171-174, 245-271, 425-455, 800-802, 846-847

• “Table 1 is very long, perhaps it can be shortened and edited to look a little better?”

See new table shortened at line 552.

• “The conclusions are reasonable, but I think that it will be very beneficial for the paper to include a discussion of how the results relate to existing literature. In other words, to include an academic discussion on the findings and the whole project.”

This is highlighted from 766 to line 814 and 859-864 in Section 4.

“I hope that you will find these comments helpful in your effort to improve the paper and I wish you good luck with your work!”

Many thanks and I hope that you will find these revisions helpful in improving the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

In my opinion the review has improved the paper, and most of the changes have gone in the right direction.

But, I also consider that some more effort should be put in improving the readability of the article. In this vein, the paper would benefit from a further review, particularly:

Improve the writing of the whole paper: words, sentences, paragraphs. Simplify, order, structure, clarify (see comments in first review).

Refine the contents of the sections because there is still some mixture of contents (see comments in first review).

Increase the internal coherence among parts of the paper (see comments in first review).

Best wishes,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

many thanks for your comments and suggestions. I’ve improved the whole readability of the article.

I’ve tried to simplify the paper according to the following points:

1. Introduction: state of the art, research demand, and methodological approach innovative aspects.
2. Materials and methods, the methodological approach, and its steps description.
3. Results: description of results step by step and the first discussion on these.
4. Discussion and Conclusions: this represents the explanation of critical issues and potentialities.

Below I would explain the manuscript’s changes following your comments:

Improve the writing of the whole paper: words, sentences, paragraphs. Simplify, order, structure, clarify (see comments in the first review).

I’ve improved the writing of the whole paper and simplify order and structure of sentences (see lines 116-123; 131-136; 172-176; 179-183; 233-277; 288-303; 356-360; 371-379; 398-399; 466-475; 501-526; 532-535; 561-573; 619-623; 663-669; 670-686).

Refine the contents of the sections because there is still some mixture of contents (see comments in the first review).

The introduction was too long and some methodology parts were moved into materials and methods (see lines 311-325; 579-594; 605-610; 624-630; 642-652; 812-816). The brief description at the beginning of Section 2 was moved in the Discussion (Section 4) of the whole process (lines 712-727).

Increase the internal coherence among parts of the paper (see comments in first review).

I’ve reallocated and better explained some contents into the proper sections for increasing the internal coherence of the paper.

I hope that you will find these revisions helpful in improving the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author,

Thank you for the substantial improvement made in the work.

By and large they have turned a paper about which I had some doubts into a publishable article. However, I still have a number of issue that I would like to raise/mentiond for the final version of the article.

• First of all I still find the message too complex. You claim I think over three goals. Clearly this is simply to much for an article. Try to decomplixfy the article even more.

• So reading lines 49 to 51 the reason why that would be a sensible and/or particularly useful or even desirable strategy is not being discussed.

  I guess the core point would be what is different about this whole identification of a brand while reading the article? Where is the genuine influence of stakeholder groups. Also thinking about inclusiveness, were all stakeholders involved? Where the inhabitants really involved or only the locals who had a particular interest? Could a decision have been to even reduce the attractiveness (as a result of sustainability considerations or the issues mentioned earlier in the article)? And, if not, how is the method that was developed more or less 'more of the same'?

• Reading back to line 61 and 62. What is being changed for the community? After reading the entire manuscript I felt that I had read about a joint process to develop a new place branding concept to compete in the 'battle' for tourism. However I did not see how the efforts were simultanuously creating new added value to community development.

• A small suggestion. Line 222. remove the reference to your PhD trajectory. I would make it another research

• Based on line 225-227. How co-creative was this process actualy? Seems fairly top-down or expert-driven rather than a proper co-development process and nowt really developed by the local community.

•  

  For me especially a discussion of the outcomes of the whole design seem a bit unclear still? What did the process generate in terms of knowledge of engaing communities? What was learned of the added value of their input? How was it different from that proposed by the usual suspects at the start of the process? And how can such a process be considered a success? What type of criteria were used? I had the feeling the current criteria were based on those set by the various steps in the process (so a viable business case, a multi-stakeholder approach. However all of them in themselves do not necessarily lead towards a successful approach.

  how the method created added value or new insights that were above and beyond normal place branding researches.

• so reading from lines 272-276 I learn that the whole goal of the new approach is to stimulate and create new capacity building and community engagement..... but of whom? And did this succeed? How can we tell?
  And also, how can we argue that the results have been succesful or not? How come the current way of working is actually more 'beneficial than a more traditional version?

• line 526-531. How can we tell whether this was succesful or not?

•  

  step 4 is for me somewhat problematic in that apparently this is forwarded as an essential piece of the 'success'-story. It is used a a way to calculate the relevance of a brand. What about the actual goal: community building?

  lines 590-592? What emperical evidence was used here? Was it based on evidence or are these simple projections which for example are no longer valid given the current COVID situation? And what conflicts and coalitions can be observed?

• Can we conclude that what is claimed in lines 628-631 is achieed and why?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

many thanks for your comments and suggestions. I’ve improved the whole readability of the article.

I’ve tried to simplify the paper according to the following points:

1. Introduction: state of the art, research demand, and methodological approach innovative aspects.
2. Materials and methods, the methodological approach, and its steps description.
3. Results: description of results step by step and the first discussion on these.
4. Discussion and Conclusions: this represents the explanation of critical issues and potentialities.

Below I would explain the manuscript’s changes following your comments:

• First of all, I still find the message too complex. You claim I think over three goals. Clearly, this is simply too much for an article. Try to decomplixfy the article even more.

I’ve improved the writing of the whole paper and simplify order and structure of sentences (see lines 116-123; 131-136; 172-176; 179-183; 233-277; 288-303; 356-360; 371-379; 398-399; 466-475; 501-526; 532-535; 561-573; 619-623; 663-669; 670-686).

The introduction was too long and some methodology parts were moved into materials and methods (see lines 311-325; 579-594; 605-610; 624-630; 642-652; 812-816). The brief description at the beginning of Section 2 was moved in the Discussion (Section 4) of the whole process (lines 712-727).

• So reading lines 49 to 51 the reason why that would be a sensible and/or particularly useful or even desirable strategy is not being discussed. I guess the core point would be what is different about this whole identification of a brand while reading the article?

The reason why that would be a sensible and/or particularly useful approach is clarified from line 51 to line 71.

Where is the genuine influence of stakeholder groups? Also thinking about inclusiveness, were all stakeholders involved? Where the inhabitants really involved or only the locals who had a particular interest?

This part is clarified especially from line 619 to line 623.

Could a decision have been to even reduce the attractiveness (as a result of sustainability considerations or the issues mentioned earlier in the article)? And, if not, how is the method that was developed more or less 'more of the same'?

This part is clarified in these parts: see lines 51-55, 65-68, 708-727.

• Reading back to lines 61 and 62. What is being changed for the community? After reading the entire manuscript I felt that I had read about a joint process to develop a new place branding concept to compete in the 'battle' for tourism. However, I did not see how the efforts were simultaneously creating new added value to community development.

You can read this explanation in lines 65-68, 561-573, 812-816.

• A small suggestion. Line 222. remove the reference to your Ph.D. trajectory. I would make it another research.

I’ve removed this. See line 227.

• Based online 225-227. How co-creative was this process actually? Seems fairly top-down or expert-driven rather than a proper co-development process and now really developed by the local community.

I’ve clarified this from line 311 to 325, 356-360.

For me, especially a discussion of the outcomes of the whole design seems a bit unclear still? What did the process generate in terms of knowledge of engaging communities? How was it different from that proposed by the usual suspects at the start of the process? And how can such a process be considered a success? What type of criteria were used? I had the feeling the current criteria were based on those set by the various steps in the process (so a viable business case, a multi-stakeholder approach. However, all of them in themselves do not necessarily lead to a successful approach.

Please, see lines 472-475, 490-493, 561-573, 579-630, 642-652.

• so reading from lines 272-276 I learn that the whole goal of the new approach is to stimulate and create new capacity building and community engagement..... but of whom? And did this succeed? How can we tell?
  And also, how can we argue that the results have been successful or not? How come the current way of working is actually more 'beneficial than a more traditional version?

I’ve clarified this from lines 605 to 610, 619-630, 712-727, and 761-762.

step 4 is for me somewhat problematic in that apparently this is forwarded as an essential piece of the 'success-story. It is used a way to calculate the relevance of a brand. What about the actual goal: community building?

See lines 522-526, 532-534 642-652 and 670-671.

lines 590-592? Was it based on evidence or are these simple projections which for example are no longer valid given the current COVID situation? And what conflicts and coalitions can be observed?

The process was tested in a pre-COVID situation so it is difficult to affirm that it could be valid in the current situation, but probably it could be a follow up of this research. For coalitions and conflicts see line 605-610 and 663-669.

• Can we conclude that what is claimed in lines 628-631 is achieved and why?

See lines from 812 to 816.

I’ve reallocated and better explained some contents into the proper sections for increasing the internal coherence of the paper.

I hope that you will find these revisions helpful in improving the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for revising the manuscript. In my view, you have done a good job in addressing the reviewers' comments. The paper is now clearer and its structure is more balanced. It makes an interesting argument and I think it is an interesting case as well. 

The only thing I would recommend at this stage is to have another very close look at the paper in terms of language and style. It is a rather complicated paper to read so any effort to simplify it and make sure the reader finds it easy to follow would be helpful.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

many thanks for your comments and suggestions. I’ve improved the whole readability of the article.

I’ve tried to simplify the paper according to the following points:

1. Introduction: state of the art, research demand, and methodological approach innovative aspects.
2. Materials and methods, the methodological approach, and its steps description.
3. Results: description of results step by step and the first discussion on these.
4. Discussion and Conclusions: this represents the explanation of critical issues and potentialities.

Below I would explain the manuscript’s changes following your comments:

I’ve improved the writing of the whole paper and simplify order and structure of sentences (see lines 116-123; 131-136; 172-176; 179-183; 233-277; 288-303; 356-360; 371-379; 398-399; 466-475; 501-526; 532-535; 561-573; 619-623; 663-669; 670-686).

The introduction was too long and some methodology parts were moved into materials and methods (see lines 311-325; 579-594; 605-610; 624-630; 642-652; 812-816). The brief description at the beginning of Section 2 was moved in the Discussion (Section 4) of the whole process (lines 712-727).

I’ve reallocated and better explained some contents into the proper sections for increasing the internal coherence of the paper.

I hope that you will find these revisions helpful in improving the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

"Accepted in present form".

Best wishes,