Sustainable Development Concept of Heritage Kampung Tourism Using Novel Prioritization Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The Abstract Section only needs to briefly introduce the research method and process, and should focus on showing the research results.

2. Structure of manuscript: The structure of the manuscript is not clear. The results of the Section “4.1 Results” are too detailed (including 30 tables) and are too verbose, and there is no good summary, indicating that the authors only focused on listing the results without clarifying the internal logic of the study. This is a serious weakness of this manuscript.

3. Figure 1. No legend. Figure 2: Unclear

4. There are many basic grammatical errors (e.g. First, Second, Last) in the manuscript, so it is suggested to improve them.

5. The manuscript lacks Section of Conclusion.

6. The format of the references list does not meet the publication requirements of MDPI.

Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I find the manuscript (especially sections Introduction, Literature Review and Methodology) well-prepared.

However, I have the following suggestions and comments for the authors:

1. Figure 1 lacks a source citation for the image.

2.  

3. In lines 432, 452/453, 498/499, 547, and 592/593, there are inconsistent table numbers.

4.  

5. I recommend renaming Section 5 to "5. Discussion and Conclusions."

6.  

The Discussion section should include an assessment or comparison of the results from previous studies on the topic, address the limitations of the current study, and outline directions for future research related to the study.

1.  

2. Some sentences from the last paragraph (lines 645-659) were previously discussed in the Discussion section. Redundancy should be avoided for clarity and conciseness.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper identified the criteria of developing heritage kampung tourism in the framework of sustainability. The topic is interesting. However, I have the following questions/concerns:

1)      The title is somewhat inappropriate, which cannot fully reflect the research content.

2)      The literature review should be conducted in a broader context. For instance, informal settlements and the redevelopment (modes, criteria, etc.) in other countries such as China and India. In this way, relevant findings can be discussed in a broader context. Comparisons can be made.

3)      What is the research gap in the current literature? Namely, the contributions and novelty of this study should be highlighted in the paper.

4)      AHP or Fuzzy AHP have been employed for identifying criteria and calculating weights for years in different research field. Can it be called a novel prioritization approach?

5)      The survey, including the respondents, should be further elaborated, which reflects the reliability of the data and this research. For instance, how was the questionnaire survey conducted? When was this survey conducted? What was the sample size? What was the sampling method? Who were the respondents? were they representative? Etc.

6)      The findings of this paper and implications should be discussed in the context of relevant literature.

The language can be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

First, the presentation of the research design section is not clear. Please present the research design more specifically. For example, what is the setting of the study, the destination or the attraction, etc.?

Second, authors should explain the reason behind this research design.

Third, the measurement tools must be mentioned in the study.

Fourth, I think the social desirability effect needs to be considered.

Fifth, the introduction section should demonstrate the shortcomings or problems of the current research first. 

Sixth, some of the logic of the language needs to be improved. 

First, the presentation of the research design section is not clear. Please present the research design more specifically. For example, what is the setting of the study, the destination or the attraction, etc.?

Second, authors should explain the reason behind this research design.

Third, the measurement tools must be mentioned in the study.

Fourth, I think the social desirability effect needs to be considered.

Fifth, the introduction section should demonstrate the shortcomings or problems of the current research first. 

Sixth, some of the logic of the language needs to be improved. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The quality of the revised manuscript has been greatly improved. In order to ensure the quality of publication, it is suggested to redraw most of figures, such as Figures 2-8 and Figures 9-14 (Is this layout and title reasonable?). 

The conclusion is too long and it is recommended to condense the main results.

Author Response

To esteemed reviewer,

thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the revision below:

1. It is suggested to redraw most of figures, such as Figures 2-8 and Figures 9-14 (Is this layout and title reasonable?). 

    

   Comment: The figures had been redrawn and the title had been changed. 

2. The conclusion is too long and it is recommended to condense the main results.Comment: The conclusion had been shortened and some parts of the main results had been changed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Revisions have been made to the previous manuscript. 

Minor revisions are needed.

Author Response

To esteemed reviewer,

thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the revision below:

1. Most figures and tables and had been redrawn to provide more clarity.
2. The conclusion had been condensed.

Reviewer 4 Report

I would like to commend you on the significant improvements made in response to the reviewers' feedback during the first round of revision. The revisions have strengthened the manuscript and addressed many of the concerns raised by the reviewers.There are some minor layout suggestions for your tables.Please modify them. Thank you again. 

I would like to commend you on the significant improvements made in response to the reviewers' feedback during the first round of revision. The revisions have strengthened the manuscript and addressed many of the concerns raised by the reviewers.There are some minor layout suggestions for your tables.Please modify them. Thank you again. 

Author Response

To esteemed reviewer,

thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the revision below:

1. Most figures and tables and had been redrawn to provide more clarity.
2. The conclusion had been condensed.