A Review of Studies on the Mechanisms of Cultural Heritage Influencing Subjective Well-Being

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented an exciting topic that aligns with recent increased attention to the research on well-being and mindfulness. 

This meta-analysis of the existing research papers on the topic mentioned above has the potential to be acceptable. 

However, the paper lacks a standardized structure, which results in a partially essay-type paper and a poorly presented research process and results.

It is crucial to rewrite this paper, so it follows a proper paper structure, which includes the following chapters: Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions.   

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comment. In the new manuscript, we have organized the article according to a standardized structure and added a new Materials & Methods section to make the paper more structured.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Under the assertions that ““how to achieve human happiness is an important aim of economics research“ and that “economists gradually shifted their measure of well-being from 'income' to 'quality of life'“, the study examines “the relationship and bridges of influence between cultural heritage and subjective well-being through literature.“

In principle, the topic is not substantially original in the field, given that the work is based on previous ones, not adding significant additions to the subject area compared with other published material. However, it is recognized that its main contributions and strengths are related to the efforts to systematize information relevant on the theme.

The abstract does not provide essential issues, such as the main question addressed by the research, as well as the bases of methodological procedures and the effective analytical results. Its final sentences are relatively unclear. At the same time, some keywords could be diversified to expand the review's indexing opportunities.

However, the research question ("how do cultural heritage and its derivative activities affect subjective well-being?") is exposed in Section 1 (Introduction), which is supported by sources that are one to two decades old. In this same brief part of the manuscript, it is explained that “the study summarises the research and theories on the relationship between cultural heritage and its derivative activities and subjective well-being“, compiles its influencing factors and bridges and introduces the current status and research gaps of each one. Also provides references to the selection of topics and variables for subsequent studies.“

Presumably, Section 2 would be dedicated to the definition of well-being and cultural heritage, but the second topic is addressed in Section 3. Both subjects are discussed based on few and once again old references, which also happens with Section 4 (Theories related to culture and subjective well-being), presented in a single and long paragraph.

Section 5 (Study of the mechanism by which cultural heritage affects the subjective well-being) is oddly subdivided into a single subsection (The relationship between cultural heritage and subjective well-being). However, it is supported by more current references and ends by stating that "the article argues that unutilized cultural heritage has a very limited impact on subjective well-being, but that utilized cultural heritage is likely to have a significant positive effect on subjective well-being as cultural heritage-derived activities enhance perceptions of cultural heritage and its accessibility."

Essentially, Section 6 (The relationship between cultural heritage-derived activities and subjective well-being) points out five key elements for these interactions: quality of life, health, subjective emotions, interpersonal relations, and place attachment. Table 1 interrelates these "channels" with types and forms of heritage and their positive and negative effects according to related literature. This is one of the interesting contributions of the work.

Sections 7 and 8, focused on the relationships between intangible and tangible cultural heritage-derived activities and subjective well-being, are each fragmented into four and three succinct subsections respectively, referring to interactive, good, tourism (exclusive to intangible) and education activities. Overall, the authors conclude that "the direction of influence of intangible cultural heritage-derived activities on subjective well-being is uncertain. Moreover, research on intangible cultural heritage-derived activities has focused on subjective emotions and interpersonal elements, with less research on quality of life, health, and local attachment elements." They also consider that  "activities derived from tangible cultural heritage have a positive impact on subjective well-being. Moreover, research on activities derived from tangible cultural heritage is very focused, with most studies focusing on subjective emotions and interpersonal relationship elements, and fewer studies on quality of life, health and local attachment elements."

The discussion (Section 9) illustrates, through Figures 1 and 2, schematic diagrams of the path of influence of cultural heritage on subjective well-being (under the demand theory and heritage-derived activities, respectively). In a complementary manner, Table 2 compares the pathways of activities derived from tangible cultural heritage and those derived from intangible cultural heritage, revealing their positive and negative effects. These are again contributions to the field of knowledge, but there is no revisiting of debates based on thoughts expressed in previously cited references.

In Section 10 (Research outlook), although the conclusions are consistent with the arguments presented, it is judged that the reproduction of some statements does not find support in solidly grounded scientific findings. This condition is confirmed by the authors' own statement that "the current research on cultural heritage affecting subjective well-being mostly focuses on specific bridges in specific fields, lacking systematic research and a theoretical system."

Thus, it is recommended that specific improvements should be considered regarding the analytical methodology, with scientific procedures and control that can unequivocally prove the results and conclusions raised, even if these currently serve as answers to the research question. It is worth noting that the results are not adequately reproducible based on the details given. Anyway, the conclusions are interesting for the readership of the journal.

As structural components of the review, the references are adequate. The antiquity aspects previously indicated for sections 1 to 4 are minimized in the others. Overall, about 60% of the sources are related to the last 10 years (with 30% dated within the last five). Almost 10% are over two decades old.

The figures and tables are relevant to understanding the investigation. They could still be improved using methodological resources that would make the manuscript scientifically sound.

Sometimes, the text is not sufficiently clear and presented in a well-structured manner. There is a lot of fragmentation of its content and excessive repetitiveness of terms.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text requires a final review, including spelling and grammatical adjustments, as well as typing corrections. It also needs greater clarity in the presentation of certain contexts and the elimination of overly repetitive terms in the same sentence or paragraph.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. First, in response to the issues you mentioned, we have rewritten the abstract and keywords to make them more knock off the main issues addressed by the study and the basis of the methodological procedures. Second, in response to the issues you mentioned, we have added new literature to the Defining well-being and Cultural heritage section. Lastly, we added a new Materials & Methods section to illustrate the procedure we used.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This study explores the relationship and the pathways of influence between cultural heritage and subjective well-being through a review of the literature. The paper effectively organizes knowledge regarding the mechanisms through which cultural heritage impacts subjective well-being. Its cognitive value is high, as it offers a deeper understanding of the topic, even though it does not introduce novel elements to the ongoing discourse.   The structure of the paper is logical, with a well-chosen and appropriately applied selection of literature. However, one could debate the extent to which the selection of references is exhaustive.   The literature review methodology applied has several limitations and is more characteristic of an initial phase of research. Nonetheless, I have no significant formal objections in this regard. The paper discusses the sources used, analyzes the statements contained within those sources in relation to the research topic, and formulates observations. The somewhat general nature of the conclusions stems from the ephemeral nature of the subject matter and the research method employed. Subjective well-being is typically a transient state, influenced by numerous factors related to both the environment and individual characteristics. As such, formulating detailed conclusions is only meaningful when referring to specific populations under defined conditions. This, in turn, necessitates empirical research. Only in such cases can detailed conclusions be justified, although their validity would still be limited to the specific conditions in which the research was conducted.   If we accept that a literature review is a valid standalone research method, we must also acknowledge its inherent limitations. A literature review aids in outlining the background for future research and identifying the fundamental relationships (or lack thereof) that have previously been investigated by other authors. I believe the authors have fulfilled this task appropriately.  

 

To enhance the reception of the paper by the readers, it is essential to systematize the key insights and conclusions in the Summary, aligning them with the expectations set forth in the Introduction. Consequently, these insights and conclusions should also be briefly summarized in the Abstract. Currently, the Abstract is somewhat convoluted, which hinders comprehension and may negatively impact the readership and citation potential of the paper. As the paper does not present the results of original empirical research, it would be beneficial to indicate what type of empirical studies would be necessary and what questions they should seek to answer. Additionally, please improve the clarity of the figures, particularly Figure 2.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. First, in response to your comment, we have added a Materials & Methods section to describe the procedures we used. Second, we have rewritten the abstract to increase the readership of the paper. Finally, we redid Figure 2 to improve the clarity of the table.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review is complete as the authors have revised a vast literature regarding the subjective well-being and Cultural Heritage. Besides, it’s well organised and structured. It states clearly the impacts (positive, negative, neutral impacts) of cultural heritage and derived activities in SWB, after defining key terms, including cultural heritage and well-being.

The review topic is appropriate and trendy in the industry of Cultural Heritage, well-being and tourism. References are appropriate and cover the wide range reviewed, besides authors have included essential literature along with innovative studies. However, some suggestions are indicated below so the text can be improved:

The abstract must include the aim of the review, giving some context of its importance, as well as the methodology followed. It mainly describes the conclusions, which fit better in a conclusions section at the end of the document. Authors still have some words left to implement these aspects in the abstract and can also sum up what’s already written.

In section 4, within the first paragraph, several theoretical perspectives are indicated, although there aren’t references supporting them. At least one reference per theory has to be add in order to enhance the paragraph.

In section 6, the first paragraph should include an example to better understand each key element. A table might be use to ease its reading.

More specific comments are outlined:

In the introduction section, what does GDP mean? Define it the first time it appears (as indicated in the authors’ instructions of the journal: Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table. When defined for the first time, the acronym/abbreviation/initialism should be added in parentheses after the written-out form).

The same goes for SWB, indicate the acronym next to the words before using it alone.

Be careful with … between literal references, as they should be written between brackets […], indicating that the phrase is incomplete.

In tables, when indicating “positive, negative or nil” signs can be used to minimize their size: +/ -/ Ø, and a key if necessary.

Watch out the use of capital letter and its absence (well being in section 2.1, )

Repeated words in section 10: “[…] focuses on specific bridges in specific fields, lacking systematic research and a theoretical system. The article systematically organises the articles […]”

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comment. First, in response to your comments, we have rewritten the abstract. Second, in response to your literature question, we have added some new literature. After that, in response to the issue of examples, we have explained the relevant aspects using examples in more detail. Finally, for the text and formatting issues, we made changes to acronyms, citations, plus and minus signs, capital letters, and repeated statements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors refined their previous paper version. However, the structure of the text still has similar problems.

The authors added a Chapter on Materials and methods, which is correct. Still, in the end, information should be provided regarding how many articles have been studied and what types of articles have been studied—research papers, chapters, essays, reports, etc. The only information regarding researched articles is given in Table 1, but this is insufficient information and presentation.   

Within Chapter 3 (Results), sub-chapters 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.1 could not be counted as research results but as theoretical background. Therefore, consider adding a new chapter, even before Materials and Methods, as 2. Theoretical Background that will define the phenomena being dealt with—cultural heritage and well-being. The rest of Chapter 3, sub-chapter 3.3.2, may be converted into Chapter 3 Results. I believe the content of this sub-chapter is a product of the current meta-analysis. 

Table 1 should be placed at the beginning of the text where it has been discussed. 

Also, the Discussion and Conclusion chapters should be separate chapters.  In the current version, the discussion part is missing, the authors jumped to conclusions. Please, consider writing discussion part or skip this entire chapter.        

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, which we think are very helpful for this article and have revised the article based on them.

 

Comments 1:Still, in the end, information should be provided regarding how many articles have been studied and what types of articles have been studied—research papers, chapters, essays, reports, etc. 

Response1: Thank you very much for your comment, based on which we have added the relevant discussion at the end of the Materials & Methods section.

 

Comments 2:Therefore, consider adding a new chapter, even before Materials and Methods, as 2. 

Response 2:Thank you very much for your comment, as a result of your comment we have added a new Theoretical background section, putting the original sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3.1 into this section.

 

Comments 3: Table 1 should be placed at the beginning of the text where it has been discussed. 

Response 3: Thank you very much, and based on your comments, we have placed Table 1 at the beginning of The relationship between cultural heritage-derived activities and subjective well-being section.

 

Comments 4: In the current version, the discussion part is missing, the authors jumped to conclusions. Please, consider writing discussion part or skip this entire chapter.    

Response 4: Thank you very much for your comment, as a result of your comment we have removed the Discussion section from the header and continue to fulfill a function similar to it with the Research Outlook section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, please address the following issues: 

On page 5, at the top, it is written, "... a total of 77 articles, of which 69 are journal articles, 4 book chapters, 3 dissertations, and 1 dissertation"—Please reconsider these two categories of dissertations.

The chapter Conclusion does not have the expected structure. Consider writing subchapter 5.1 as Chapter 5. Discussion, and subchapter 5.1. as a Chapter 6. Conclusions   

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, which we think are very helpful for this article and have revised the article based on them.

 

Comments 1:Please reconsider these two categories of dissertations.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment, we had a language error here and have now revamped it.

 

Comments 2:Consider writing subchapter 5.1 as Chapter 5. Discussion, and subchapter 5.1. as a Chapter 6. Conclusions   

Response 2:Thank you for your comment, based on your comment, we have discussed Conclusions and Discussion separately to increase the standardization of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf