Megalithic Stone Heritage Trail Mapping Using GIS as Tourism Product for Cultural Sustainability in Tambunan
, Oliver Valentine Eboy 1,*, Jacqueline Pugh-Kitingan 2, Baszley Bee Basrah Bee 1, Awangku Hassanal Bahar Pengiran Bagul 3 and Zainuddin Baco 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all, I would like to say that this manuscript focuses on a very interesting research problem. The article covers the topics included in the main subjects of Sustainability Journal and I recommend to be considered for the publication after a revision.
TITLE
The article’s title is suitable with the content of the paper and the comparative analysis is welcome in line with both the text body and the main findings of the research.
ABSTRACT
The abstract is well-designed and briefly express the present research thus being of interests and readable thus capturing the reader’s attention. It present in an appropriate manner the main research hypothesis, the problem statement, the methods and the main findings.
KEY WORDS
The key words are appropriate to the present research and are clearly stated.
ORIGINALITY
The article meets a high level of originality argued by the main research theme and the research hypothesis. Furthermore, the originality of the paper is highlighted by the main results of the paper.
The authors construct a well-designed theoretical background closely related to the current specialised literature in the field. A short recommendation I would like to made, it is stated in the final part of this review form.
THE PAPER S STRUCTURE
The structure of the paper is correct in line with the journal standards and meet the publication requirements considering the paper logic. The objectives seem to be clear formulated as well as the investigation is drawn. The core argument of the paper illustrates the paper relevance and the research originality. The results are clearly express and well connected both to the theoretical framework and discussions.
The paper should be organized into the following sections: 1) Introduction; 2) Literature review; 3) Research methods; 4) Study area; 5) Results; 6) Discussion; 7) Summary.
THE METHODS
The methodological design is appropriate and the methods fit well to the present investigation. The comparative analysis highlight well the main processes and characteristics in spatial planning in the rwo sampled case studies. GIS are methods of a large interest in the present academic research when it comes about the issues of cultural heritage. The methods used in the study are well expressed both in the graphical form as well as in the main text of the manuscript.
THE MAIN ANALYSIS
The main research is well design.
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions fit well summarising the main ideas of the present analysis.
THE GRAPHICAL SUPPORT
The graphical support is well formatted, appropriate illustrating the text content.
However in fig 1 the legend is missing what the red square means.
In Figs 4-7, the north sign and coordinates will appear. The north sign is not necessary when using coordinates. It suggests either north sign or coordinates.
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
I think the English is ok as far as I could see. I enjoyed to read this paper in English and the language seems well but I think that an opinion of a native English speaker is welcomed. In other words, if the authors used a specialised proofreading services and they could prove this aspect I trust the opinion and the work of this proofread service. On the other hand, I put my trust regarding the English language on the journal editors but I repeat the language seems well.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In the introduction, I suggest the authors to refer to the process of protecting cultural heritage in the research area.
“Cultural heritage should be subject to special protection in spatial planning, Often the same monument is preserved, but its surroundings makes the historical value of the functioning of the object, after all, among the other buildings and structures are lost forever “ (Rząsa K., Ogryzek M., Kulawiak M., Cultural Heritage in Spatial Planning, 2016 Baltic Geodetic Congress (Geomatics), 2016, 85-89. https://doi.org/10.1109/bgc.geomatics.2016.24).
On the other hand (Feilden, Jokilehto 1993) they pointed out that not only objects inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List should be protected.
Tunbridge et al. (Tunbridge, J. E.; Ashworth, G. J.Dissonant heritage: the management of the past as a resource in conflict. Dissonant heritage: the management of the past as a resource in conflict. Wiley, 1996 ) call cultural heritage a commodity, and Navrud and Ready (Navrud S., Ready RC.. Valuing cultural heritage: applying environmental valuation techniques to historic buildings, monuments and artifacts. Wiley, 2002) and Salazar and Marques (Salazar S., Marques M.,. 2005. Valuing cultural heritage: the social benefits of restoring and old Arab tower. Journal of Cultural Heritage Volume 6, Issue 1, , Pages 69–77) evaluate the value of monuments by converting it to the possibility of obtaining profit from tourism or methods of assessing the replacement value.
I also suggest adding a sentence about the purpose of the research and describing the contribution to science. Realizing that cartography is an art, not every reviewer or reader can intuitively understand after reading the article what is the author's power in science and why they made such research and maps.
Finally, I recommend the publication of this paper with some minor revision considering the above mentioned aspects, references and citations.
I want to see the revised version of this paper before publication for a final acceptance and to ensure that the revision has been completely and carefully made.
Author Response
Point 1: In fig 1 the legend is missing what the red square means. In Figs 4-7, the north sign and coordinates will appear. The north sign is not necessary when using coordinates. It suggests either north sign or coordinates.
Response 1: The red square in Figure 1 represents the location of the study are (Tambunan) and I already rectify it in the legend. I also erased the north sign in Figure 4-7.
Point 2: In the introduction, I suggest the authors to refer to the process of protecting cultural heritage in the research area.
Response 2: I already include this in the introduction and use some of your suggested reference sources in the writing. Thank you for this.
Point 3: I also suggest adding a sentence about the purpose of the research and describing the contribution to science. Realizing that cartography is an art, not every reviewer or reader can intuitively understand after reading the article what is the author's power in science and why they made such research and maps.
Response 3: The contribution of this paper is more on the culture and tourism but the usage of GIS especially with the latest technique applied in this study can become as an added knowledge to science. I included this in the conclusion. I hope this is ok.
Thank you for your review and I really appreciate it.
Reviewer 2 Report
In my view, this manuscript shed light about how to makes profitable the ancient traditions to the today people living there. The idea and conceptualization are pretty good; however, the manuscript still has the following problems, which seriously affect the level of the manuscript.
1. This manuscript have not addressed adequately the context of megaliths in the Asian South East, neither show the chronology of the remains cited in the text. Perhaps, may it be useful read this literature:
Tara Steimer-Herbet, 2018. Indonesian Megaliths: A Forgotten Cultural Heritage (Laboratoire d'archéologie préhistorique UNIGE).
Anna Källén, 2015, Stones Standing: Archaeology, Colonialism, and Ecotourism in Northern Laos (UCL Institute of Archaeology Critical Cultural Heritage Series) (Volume 11) 1st Edición.
2. The manuscript lacks necessary reference to specific software and versions used to mapping. Also, not mention the coordinate system used. It is recommended to use UTM system. In the same way, there are no specific mention to the equipment used in the survey (gps 140).
3. Although the methodology mentions the use of the KDE, no histograms are provided in the dataset. All that is shown is a buffer area. Perhaps, may it be useful read this literature:
Fix, E. & Hodges, J.L. (1951). Discriminatory analysis. Non parametric discrimination; consistency properties. Report Number 4, Project Number 21-49-004, USAF Schoolof Aviation Medicine,Randolph Field, Texas. (Reprinted as pp 261-279 of Agrawala, 1977).
Stanisław Węglarczyk, Kernel density estimation and its application, https://doi.org/10.1051/itmconf/20182300037
4. The information in table 1 is not relevant in the way it exposes the fields of the attribute table.
5. In the discussion I don't know where the time it takes to walk the trails comes from, there are no calculations. Perhaps a reclassification of slopes from a DTM should be provided.
6. In image 4 the legend is not in English. Symbols appear in the legend that are not visible on all maps. In figure 6 there is no accessibility, no restaurant, no attractions, I do not know why a route is proposed if it was specified that these elements were the ones that would vertebrate the routes and there is an almost total absence. Plan 7 should be rotated.
7. The epigraph 6 is repeat in result, indeed the sequential points are incorrect 7,8,..
Author Response
Point 1: This manuscript have not addressed adequately the context of megaliths in the Asian South East, neither show the chronology of the remains cited in the text.
Response 1: We include the context of megaliths in South East Asia in a new subtopic “Megalithic Stones in South East Asia” (pg 2).
Point 2: The manuscript lacks necessary reference to specific software and versions used to mapping. Also, not mention the coordinate system used. It is recommended to use UTM system. In the same way, there are no specific mention to the equipment used in the survey (gps 140).
Response 2: We include the additional info for this in the paper. We mentioned the coordinate system in page 5. The mapping software and the equipments used in this study also included in a new sub-topic of “Study tools” (pg 7).
Point 3: Although the methodology mentions the use of the KDE, no histograms are provided in the dataset.
Response 3: We include a new figure in figure 3 (pg 8) to show the usage of kernel density with density level information. I hope this is ok.
Point 4: The information in table 1 is not relevant in the way it exposes the fields of the attribute table.
Response 4: The authors feel the information is relevant as it describes the type of attribute data used in this study before it is analysed and displayed in the map. Some researchers might want to see this for future study.
Point 5: In the discussion I don't know where the time it takes to walk the trails comes from, there are no calculations.
Response 5: The estimated walking time was actually based on the ground measurement of the trail by the researchers during revisit of the place. The author add the information about this in page 12.
Point 6: In image 4 the legend is not in English. Symbols appear in the legend that are not visible on all maps. In figure 6 there is no accessibility, no restaurant, no attractions, I do not know why a route is proposed if it was specified that these elements were the ones that would vertebrate the routes and there is an almost total absence. Plan 7 should be rotated.
Response 6: The authors rectify the mistake for the legend in figure 1 and change the orientation of the map in figure 8. The route proposed in the map as it still near to at least one of the tourism elements. Road is also consider one of the elements in terns of accessibility and we add this information in page 4.
Point 7: The epigraph 6 is repeat in result, indeed the sequential points are incorrect 7,8,..
Response 7: The authors rectify the mistake for the numbering of our figures.
Thank you for your review and pointed out our mistake. We really appreciate it and we hope that the corrections that we made are sufficient.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments on the review
First of all, it would be necessary to unify the bibliographical references, so that they are all included as a numerical citation at the end of the article and not in the text as the authors' last names in parentheses.
Likewise, it would be advisable to include a title in the figures and tables, in addition
to the source from which the information or authorship of the elaboration is extracted. In the introductory part, prominent authors such as McCannell (2003) and hisconcept of represented authenticity, Alempud and Armstrong (1996) with their
typology of tourist attractions (natural, historical, cultural and artificial) and Crouch
and Ritchie (1999) that analyze the motivations of tourists. In this way, the
promotional possibilities and tourist exploitation that is the object of study could be
anticipated. In this sense, the article lacks a more extensive section dealing with precisely
this aspect, although line 174 expressly alludes to the fact that it is important to
guarantee that tourists are interested in visiting the megalithic stones. In the
methodological part, the use of unstructured interviews with the local population is
explained, but nothing is said about the profiles of tourists (real or potential), their
motivations, etc. On the other hand, in the conceptualization prior to the investigation, it would be
necessary to briefly clarify the differentiation between tourist resources and tourist
attractions, between product and offer and, finally, between product and service, as
proposed by Kotler (1992). The selection of the geographical study area should include some other argument,
apart from the existence of a megalithic heritage, that 86% of the population is Kadazan
Dusun or that it is an unexplored place. There are other factors with a lot of influence for
tourist exploitation. The application of the GIS and LCPA can be useful tools to systematize the location
and characteristics of the megalithic heritage remains, as well as the establishment
of routes based on their difficulty of access (low, medium or high), also based on the
5 determinant elements of cultural tourism. In any case, it would be necessary to
clarify what the authors of the article refer to when they allude to the concept "cost":
economic, accessibility, time, etc.? In the maps, within the section called "attribute data", it would have been interesting
to provide a cartography that had an impact on the available tourist resources. That is,
beyond its location or spatial location, it would be a piece of information to take into
account the identification of the property (public or private), the quality and the price,
for example, of accommodation, restaurants and means of transport. Finally, the content that refers to the discussion section is more typical of the results,
since it describes and completes the information on the characteristics of the megalithic heritage
of the proposed routes. The discussion should focus, perhaps, on the exploitation potential,
the promotion and commercialization needs according to the cultural typology, the installation of heritage
interpretation centers complementary to the routes, possible difficulties or perceived deficiencies, etc.
Author Response
Point 1: It would be necessary to unify the bibliographical references, so that they are all included as a numerical citation at the end of the article and not in the text as the authors' last names in parentheses.
Response 1: The correction has been done accordingly based on the reference guideline given by the editor. Thank you pointing it out.
Point 2: It would be advisable to include a title in the figures and tables, in additionto the source from which the information or authorship of the elaboration is extracted.
Response 2: The authors already make the necessary adjustments for this. Thank you.
Point 3: In the introductory part, prominent authors such as McCannell (2003) and his concept of represented authenticity, Alempud and Armstrong (1996) with their typology of tourist attractions (natural, historical, cultural and artificial) and Crouch and Ritchie (1999) that analyze the motivations of tourists. In this way, the promotional possibilities and tourist exploitation that is the object of study could be anticipated. In this sense, the article lacks a more extensive section dealing with precisely this aspect, although line 174 expressly alludes to the fact that it is important to guarantee that tourists are interested in visiting the megalithic stones.
Response 3: This is not actually the focus of our study but we have made some changes regarding this. We unable to obtain the reference as you suggested but we added other sources in the introduction such as Rzasa et al. (2016) and Feilden & Jokilehto (1993) which stated that cultural heritage must be given protection eventhough it is not included in the UNESCO heritage list. Navrud & Ready (2002) and Salazar & Marques (2005) has evaluate the worth of monuments as the potential for profit from tourism. Other than that, we also include Homburg and Giering (2001), in which age can influence the strength of the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty of visitors to tourism activities as this is relevant to the different types of heritage trail based on difficulties produced from this study. I hope this is ok.
Point 4: In the methodological part, the use of unstructured interviews with the local population is explained, but nothing is said about the profiles of tourists (real or potential), their motivations, etc. On the other hand, in the conceptualization prior to the investigation, it would be necessary to briefly clarify the differentiation between tourist resources and tourist attractions, between product and offer and, finally, between product and service, as proposed by Kotler (1992).
Response 4: We added some information about it from Line 220 at Page 6. We briefly mentioned who will be the potential tourists and how they benefit with the type of product produce from this study. I hope this is ok.
Point 5: The selection of the geographical study area should include some other argument, apart from the existence of a megalithic heritage, that 86% of the population is Kadazan Dusun or that it is an unexplored place. There are other factors with a lot of influence for tourist exploitation.
Response 5: We added some information about this in Research Area on page 4. We include the distance from capital to the study area, the climate, the attraction and the main source income of Tambunan.
Point 6: The application of the GIS and LCPA can be useful tools to systematize the location and characteristics of the megalithic heritage remains, as well as the establishment of routes based on their difficulty of access (low, medium or high), also based on the 5 determinant elements of cultural tourism. In any case, it would be necessary to clarify what the authors of the article refer to when they allude to the concept "cost": economic, accessibility, time, etc.? In the maps, within the section called "attribute data", it would have been interesting to provide a cartography that had an impact on the available tourist resources. That is, beyond its location or spatial location, it would be a piece of information to take into account the identification of the property (public or private), the quality and the price, for example, of accommodation, restaurants and means of transport.
Response 6: The “cost” mentioned in this paper regarding the proposed route for the megalithic trail in which the tourist can choose based on their suitability. We do not take into account the quality and cost of the tourism elements in the area as it is not within the context of this study. We only want to show its location within the vicinity of the megalithic trail. However, we add some information regarding the current average price of the accommodation in the area just to give a bit information for the potential tourist (page5). I hope this is ok.
Point 7: Finally, the content that refers to the discussion section is more typical of the results, since it describes and completes the information on the characteristics of the megalithic heritage of the proposed routes. The discussion should focus, perhaps, on the exploitation potential, the promotion and commercialization needs according to the cultural typology, the installation of heritage interpretation centers complementary to the routes, possible difficulties or perceived deficiencies, etc.
Response 7: The discussion focuses mainly on the findings based on the result which is regarding the suitability of the heritage trail. However, we include the suggested input by the reviewer regarding the promotion, commercialization, installation of heritage interpretation and possible difficulties in the conclusion (page 13). I hope this is ok.
Thank you for your review and I really appreciate it for us to improve our paper.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The corrections that authors made are sufficient.
