A Study on the Role of Tourists’ Multidimensional Perceptions in Regenerative Composite Cultural Spaces and Their Influence on Travel Intentions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I have studied your study in detail. In order for the article to have greater scientific significance, it is necessary to improve the manuscript for the following corrections:
-The main title is long. It needs to be shortened and adapted to the purpose of the research and the results of the study.
-The abstract needs to be shortened. It should contain the objective, research intentions and questions, research methods, statistical software and basic research results.
-It is necessary to edit the text according to the Authors Template. References in the text are marked as follows: [1,2] or [3-5]. Please edit the complete text.
-Chapter 2. Research Hypothesis and Theoretical Framework is too long and the authors did not focus on the goal, methods and definition of the research model. This chapter needs a general overhaul. It is important to emphasize the theoretical framework of the study, the source for the co-creation of the research model, the definition of the research hypotheses, the methods used, the method of data collection, the method of data processing and presentation. The proposal is to rename this chapter to 3. Materials and Methods, and to focus only on subsections 3.1 Theoretical Framework (including source and defined hypotheses); 3.2 Background and Questionnaire Survey; 3.3 Data Collection and Analysis Methods.
-In the chapter that describes data processing and analysis, you should list the instruments you used to determine the validity of the variables and the scale to assess the reliability of the results.
-You need to explain why you chose Cronbach's alpha coefficient and Factor Loadings instruments.
-Within the Methodology, it is necessary to state the reasons for using Discriminant validity, Collinearity Analysis, Path Analysis, Predictive analysis, R2 values and Q2 values. One gets the impression that these verification instruments are disconnected and incoherent with the planned methodology. You need to edit this part of the manuscript significantly.
-The Discussion and Conclusion chapters correspond to the research objective, the theoretical framework and the practical application of the obtained results.
-All references should be listed according to the order of use of the text and should be written according to the Authors Template.
Best wishes!
Author Response
感谢您提出的宝贵意见，这极大地帮助我们改进了稿件。我们感谢您抽出时间，并已尽力处理您的所有意见。
我们希望这篇修改后的论文能够达到预期的标准，值得在本期刊上发表。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe report has great potential, but presents some critical issues:
- The description of tourism trends in cities is too generalized. It would be important to identify the types of cities in which the "McDonaldization of attractions" phenomenon is most frequent and severe. Major European capitals, for example, and beyond, are unlikely to fit the authors' description. Furthermore, the phenomenon of overtourism is intertwined with the issues described, but requires different strategies. The authors should explore these aspects further.
- The authors argue, "...the practical model of transforming idle industrial facilities into cultural tourism spaces has gradually developed into a new business model..." and immediately after, "Compared with traditional cultural tourism, regenerative tourism emphasizes deeper interaction and co-creation between tourists and destination culture, pushing tourists from passive observers to active participants and experiencers." Described in this way, the themes seem connected, but they aren't: as the authors also state, developing a new business model means acting on the supply side, while "regenerative tourism" indicates a specific target (associated with cultural and green tourism), therefore a demand-side approach. What do the authors mean? That tourists should be co-creators and work on the new business model and its implementation? The authors should explain better...
- Furthermore, "regenerative tourism," as a recent demand segment, should be contextualized: clarifying the definition (the focus is on co-creation and the activities performed by tourists, aspects that may nevertheless concern niche tourism), in which contexts it is spreading, what the numbers are, etc.
- In fact, the focus of the study seems to be summarized in the statement "The key to regenerating complex cultural spaces is enhancing tourists' perceived value," which is absolutely understandable and interesting. In this case, however, we cannot speak of "regenerative tourism" as a specific demand segment according to the definitions, but rather of "how to develop tourists' perceptions (cultural, urban, green, etc.) of regenerated/revitalized/regenerative complex cultural spaces." Ultimately, the approach to regenerative tourism is generally ambiguous. Just as it is ambiguous to refer to "regenerative tourism," a specific demand segment, rather than a more generic "participation regenerative tourism attitude." In the end, the entire report suffers from this ambiguity, which should be resolved, starting with the title.
- Regarding the survey, it's unclear whether the respondents are truly "tourists" or simply "citizens/residents": where do they come from? When did they visit the cities indicated? For what reason? etc.
- The entire report needs to be revised in light of the previous comments.
Author Response
Thank you for your informed comments, which helped us greatly improve the manuscript. We appreciate your time doing this and tried our best to address all your comments.
We hope that this revised version of the paper reaches the expected standard and is worthy of publication in this journal.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Congratulations on your successful text correction!
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have improved the report and responded satisfactorily to the comments. No further remarks.
