From Perceived to Measurable: A Fuzzy Logic Index of Authenticity in Rural Tourism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses a current, relevant and scarcely treated topic in the literature. The proposal to construct an Authenticity Index that incorporates tourism perceptions in a non-binary way is original and solidly supported by relevant theoretical references and previous studies.

However, I feel that the methodological section could benefit from more clarity, especially regarding the de-diffusification process and the conversion of Likert responses into fuzzy categories. For example, although it is described that a “3” response on the scale translates to the vector (0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.25, 0.25, 0), it would be useful to include a complete case applied to one of the nine criteria, such as “meaning of authentic rural landscape”, so that the reader understands how it moves from an individual score to the final weighted mean. This would allow a better visualization of the model's contribution to the index calculation.

Also, although the nine selected authenticity criteria (landscape, architecture, furnishings, local cuisine, customs, workshops, rural tasks, typical costumes and cultural circuits) are relevant and well described, their initial justification could be strengthened. Currently, they are presented as a list, but there is no explanation as to why these were chosen and not others. Including a brief reference to the initial selection, validation or categorization process (e.g., if they are derived from previous interviews, reviewed literature or experiences) would improve the transparency of the design.

Finally, although the conclusions section acknowledges certain limitations of the study, these are addressed very briefly. Given that the sample of 214 respondents was obtained partly through online forms and partly through face-to-face visits, it would be pertinent to discuss the possible effects of this heterogeneity on data quality. It would also be valuable to reflect on the lack of geographical representativeness (limited to one case in Romania) and the influence of the urban and middle-aged profile of the participants, which the article itself acknowledges.

Author Response

Q1. However, I feel that the methodological section could benefit from more clarity, especially regarding the de-diffusification process and the conversion of Likert responses into fuzzy categories. For example, although it is described that a “3” response on the scale translates to the vector (0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.25, 0.25, 0), it would be useful to include a complete case applied to one of the nine criteria, such as “meaning of authentic rural landscape”, so that the reader understands how it moves from an individual score to the final weighted mean. This would allow a better visualization of the model's contribution to the index calculation.

Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. To improve the reader’s understanding of the fuzzy logic approach, we included a worked example applying the fuzzification and defuzzification process to one specific criterion — “Significance of the authentic rural landscape.” This example is now provided in Section 3.3, immediately after formula (1), and walks the reader through each calculation step in a natural, intuitive manner.

Q2. Also, although the nine selected authenticity criteria (landscape, architecture, furnishings, local cuisine, customs, workshops, rural tasks, typical costumes and cultural circuits) are relevant and well described, their initial justification could be strengthened. Currently, they are presented as a list, but there is no explanation as to why these were chosen and not others. Including a brief reference to the initial selection, validation or categorization process (e.g., if they are derived from previous interviews, reviewed literature or experiences) would improve the transparency of the design.

Answer: We fully agree. To clarify the origin of the selected criteria, we added a paragraph at the end of Section 2.5 explaining that the list resulted from a combination of field observations and a thematic synthesis of prior studies, such as those by Mkono, Sidali et al., Crăciun et al., and our own earlier research. This addition enhances the transparency of the conceptual design.

Q3. Finally, although the conclusions section acknowledges certain limitations of the study, these are addressed very briefly. Given that the sample of 214 respondents was obtained partly through online forms and partly through face-to-face visits, it would be pertinent to discuss the possible effects of this heterogeneity on data quality. It would also be valuable to reflect on the lack of geographical representativeness (limited to one case in Romania) and the influence of the urban and middle-aged profile of the participants, which the article itself acknowledges.

Answer: Thank you for highlighting this. We have now expanded the limitations section at the end of Section 5 – Conclusions. The new paragraph reflects on the dual nature of data collection (online and in-person), the geographical limitations (single region in Romania), and the urban, middle-aged profile of most respondents. We also indicate how future research could extend this approach to more diverse audiences and locations.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kindly find my review attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Q1. Introduction: At the end of the introduction, it is suggested to add a paragraph that clarifies the research objectives and presents the structure of the study in an organized manner.

Answer: We appreciate this insightful suggestion. In response, we have revised the final part of the Introduction to clearly articulate the research aim and provide a concise overview of the paper’s structure. The new paragraph highlights the rationale behind using a fuzzy logic-based approach to measure authenticity in rural tourism, and outlines the content and purpose of each section in the manuscript. We believe this addition improves both clarity and coherence.

The revised text can be found at the end of Section 1 (Introduction), lines [66-74].

 

Q2. Literature Review: The study would have benefited from a more extensive reference to international sources outside Romania, such as the works of MacCannell, Wang and Rickly, thus strengthening its conceptual validity. Furthermore, it would be useful to make the distinction between objective, socio-constructive and existential models of authenticity clearer.

Answer: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion regarding the inclusion of key international perspectives on authenticity. In response, we have significantly revised Section 2.1 “Understanding Authenticity in Rural Tourism”, to incorporate the theoretical contributions of MacCannell, Wang, and Rickly in more depth.

Specifically, we now clearly distinguish between the three main models of authenticity in tourism literature:

• the objective model, as illustrated by MacCannell [16],
• the constructivist model, as articulated by Wang [15], and
• the existential model, also developed by Wang,
  alongside Rickly’s [14] more emotional and phenomenological lens on authenticity.

These conceptual clarifications have been embedded into the revised literature review to strengthen the theoretical foundation of the study and to ensure broader international alignment beyond the Romanian context. We believe this addition enhances the conceptual validity of the article, as recommended by the reviewer.

 

Q3. Materials and Methods: Clarification of the sampling strategy and the degree of representativeness of the sample is required. In particular, it would be important to examine whether there were differences between participants who responded online and those who participated in person. Also, while a number of 214 responses is reported, the response rate needs clarification, especially for the research field.

Answer: Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We have revised Section 3 to clarify the sampling strategy, noting that the goal was not statistical representativeness, but to gather informed perceptions from recent rural tourists.

We now specify the use of both online (approx. 30% response rate) and in-person surveys (87% response rate from 120 approached). Additionally, we state that no significant differences were observed between the two groups in either ratings or comments.

This addition improves transparency and addresses concerns about sample quality and consistency.

 

Q4. Results and Discussion: It is recommended to add a visual tool, such as a bar chart, summarizing the importance of distribution of the nine sub-criteria, in order to facilitate the visual understanding of the findings. In addition, a clearer interpretation of the boundaries defining the “high” and “low” authenticity scores would be useful, in order to clarify their meaning. It is proposed to strengthen the theoretical contribution of the work, with an emphasis on the advantages of using fuzzy logic compared to previous models. What theoretical or methodological gaps does this approach fill?

Answer: Thank you for the constructive feedback. We have added a bar chart (Figure 1) to visually represent the importance of the nine sub-criteria, as suggested. Additionally, we clarified the meaning of “high” and “low” authenticity scores in Section 4.2 by linking the index values to real visitor perceptions. In Section 4.4, we emphasized the theoretical contribution of using fuzzy logic, which captures nuanced, non-binary judgments and complements previous models by offering a more flexible and inclusive approach to measuring authenticity.

 

Q5. Conclusions: The limitations section should be enriched and include suggestions for future research, such as the as the longitudinal application of the index or comparative studies between different countries.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion. In response, the Conclusions section has been revised to better acknowledge the study’s limitations and to suggest concrete directions for future research. These include the potential longitudinal application of the fuzzy authenticity index as well as comparative studies across different cultural and geographical contexts. These additions aim to enhance the theoretical and practical relevance of the proposed model.

Changes have been made in the final three paragraphs of Section 5 (Conclusions).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is a useful contribution to the debate on the concept of authenticity in rural tourism. The authors argue that traditional methods (Likert, scoring scales) fail to capture the complexity and indeterminacy of tourists' perceptions of authenticity. The proposed index offers a multi-dimensional approach to the analysis of visitor preferences and has potential application in rural vacation rental management as well as in the development of public policies for sustainable tourism. The methodological approach, the use of a fuzzy transformation of Likert scale responses, the weighting of the nine dimensions of authenticity according to their perceived importance and the subsequent calculation of a synthetic index is clearly explained. The study sample (n=214) is sufficient, although limited in terms of the potential for generalization of the research results, that the authors correctly reflect in the section on research limitations.

The literary research is solid. My most significant comment is on the fact that what the authors actually define as authenticity is actually a place image. Place image is mostly seen as a subjective perception of reality - a place, a destination. Each person perceives a place through certain filters of perception, which are, for example, his or her knowledge, feelings, and experiences with a given place, and these can either be formed on the basis of personal contact with the place or on the basis of mediated information about the place (see the definition of place image, place identity, and place reputation in Matlovičová, K. 2024. The Triadic Nexus: Understanding the Interplay and Semantic Boundaries Between Place Identity, Place Image, and Place Reputation. Folia Geographica 66/1, 69-102.).

Authenticity is in fact understood as the peculiarity, the genuineness, the credibility of a place. It can be linked to place identity - that is, what a place (destination) wants to be. While the resulting perception (place image) is rather a set of very subjective perceptions of the elements of a place - the identity of a place. What the authors describe as a sometimes clumsy mixing of old and new that causes confusion rather than authentic connection for tourists can be seen as creating a new identity for the tourist destination in the sense of the principle of layering identity - e.g. old traditional elements of culture (usually seen as authentic in the sense of linking to old cultural traditions, on which newer and newer elements are always layered (more in the text mentioned above). I think the above concepts and their differences and overlaps need to be reflected in the study.

Regarding sustainability, there are studies that investigate the factors influencing visitor satisfaction in rural tourism. For example, Boros, A., Korcsmáros, E. 2024 (Development Prospects of Rural Tourism Along the Danube. Key Factors of Satisfaction and the Role of Sustainability. Folia Geographica 66/2, 5-35) examine them in the Danube region, which is an important area for sustainable tourism in Central and Eastern Europe, the subject of the authors' research. Boros, and Korcsmáros used a quantitative approach - snowball sampling - and investigated the impact of sustainability practices, corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, service quality and demographic factors on tourists' satisfaction, which is motivated by the growing emphasis on sustainability in line with the EU Strategy for the Danube Region. They found that the majority of respondents perceive sustainability initiatives in a tourist destination as a significant factor influencing their overall satisfaction. In fact, they found a positive correlation between awareness of initiatives and service preferences. Likewise, they found that there were some differences between perceived and expected service quality, which they considered as predictors of overall, while perceptions of price and value did not have as significant an impact.

I would recommend considering expanding the methodology section to include validation of the tool, e.g. whether or not it has been tested in more than one location, or what are the possibilities for generalizing it.

I would recommend reading the text through a native English editor, particularly to remove minor redundancies and improve the fluency of some passages.

I propose to accept the paper after revirevisions.

Author Response

Q1. The literary research is solid. My most significant comment is on the fact that what the authors actually define as authenticity is actually a place image. Place image is mostly seen as a subjective perception of reality - a place, a destination. Each person perceives a place through certain filters of perception, which are, for example, his or her knowledge, feelings, and experiences with a given place, and these can either be formed on the basis of personal contact with the place or on the basis of mediated information about the place (see the definition of place image, place identity, and place reputation in Matlovičová, K. 2024. The Triadic Nexus: Understanding the Interplay and Semantic Boundaries Between Place Identity, Place Image, and Place Reputation. Folia Geographica 66/1, 69-102.).

Answer: We thank the reviewer for highlighting the conceptual proximity between perceived authenticity and place image. We agree that tourist perceptions are shaped by a complex mix of emotions, memories, and mediated representations, which are often studied under the framework of place image. Following this recommendation, we have revised Section 2.1 to reflect these nuances and to acknowledge the conceptual boundaries between authenticity, place identity, and place image. We cited Matlovičová (2024) to support this distinction and emphasized that while the fuzzy model captures subjective perceptions, our focus remains on the emotional, sensory, and culturally grounded aspects that visitors associate with rural authenticity.

Q2. Authenticity is in fact understood as the peculiarity, the genuineness, the credibility of a place. It can be linked to place identity - that is, what a place (destination) wants to be. While the resulting perception (place image) is rather a set of very subjective perceptions of the elements of a place - the identity of a place. What the authors describe as a sometimes clumsy mixing of old and new that causes confusion rather than authentic connection for tourists can be seen as creating a new identity for the tourist destination in the sense of the principle of layering identity - e.g. old traditional elements of culture (usually seen as authentic in the sense of linking to old cultural traditions, on which newer and newer elements are always layered (more in the text mentioned above). I think the above concepts and their differences and overlaps need to be reflected in the study.

Answer: We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment regarding the conceptual overlap between authenticity, place identity, and place image. Following this suggestion, we have expanded Section 2.1 (Understanding Authenticity in Rural Tourism) to briefly reflect the distinctions and connections between these constructs. In particular, we referenced Matlovičová (2024) to acknowledge how perceptions of authenticity may intersect with place image (as shaped by personal filters and mediated representations) and place identity (as an evolving projection of what a destination wants to be). We also introduced the idea of identity layering as part of this conceptual reflection, while maintaining the study’s primary focus on perceived authenticity in rural tourism.

Q3. Regarding sustainability, there are studies that investigate the factors influencing visitor satisfaction in rural tourism. For example, Boros, A., Korcsmáros, E. 2024 (Development Prospects of Rural Tourism Along the Danube. Key Factors of Satisfaction and the Role of Sustainability. Folia Geographica 66/2, 5-35) examine them in the Danube region, which is an important area for sustainable tourism in Central and Eastern Europe, the subject of the authors' research. Boros, and Korcsmáros used a quantitative approach - snowball sampling - and investigated the impact of sustainability practices, corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, service quality and demographic factors on tourists' satisfaction, which is motivated by the growing emphasis on sustainability in line with the EU Strategy for the Danube Region. They found that the majority of respondents perceive sustainability initiatives in a tourist destination as a significant factor influencing their overall satisfaction. In fact, they found a positive correlation between awareness of initiatives and service preferences. Likewise, they found that there were some differences between perceived and expected service quality, which they considered as predictors of overall, while perceptions of price and value did not have as significant an impact.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion and for highlighting the relevance of recent studies on sustainability in rural tourism, such as Boros and Korcsmáros (2024). While the main objective of our research was to explore perceived authenticity rather than sustainability-related satisfaction, we agree that the two dimensions are interconnected. We have now acknowledged this link in the revised Literature Review section and indicated that the fuzzy-based model could be further developed in future studies to integrate variables such as CSR practices, service quality, or sustainability initiatives, especially in the context of EU strategic priorities for rural areas.

Q4. I would recommend considering expanding the methodology section to include validation of the tool, e.g. whether or not it has been tested in more than one location, or what are the possibilities for generalizing it.

Answer: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment. While the current version of the model has been tested in a single regional context, we acknowledge the importance of validation across different settings. This limitation has been explicitly addressed in the revised Conclusions section, where we suggest that future research should apply the index longitudinally or in comparative cross-national studies to evaluate its adaptability and robustness in other cultural and geographical contexts.

Q5. I would recommend reading the text through a native English editor, particularly to remove minor redundancies and improve the fluency of some passages.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for the observation. We acknowledge the importance of linguistic clarity and fluency. The manuscript has already been thoroughly proofread internally, and we believe that the current version ensures adequate academic readability. Nonetheless, we remain open to further minor revisions during the editorial process, should the editors consider it necessary.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend to accept the manuscript in its present form.