Social Media as a Medium to Promote Local Perception Expression in China’s World Heritage Sites

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for your manuscript. Using big data to assess the degree of community participation is informative and useful to authorities, private sector and civil society. Please find few comments based on your research:

1-It is advisable to revise the title. The current title suggests that Social Media is the one promoting community engagement while social media is the medium through which the community expressed its perceptions and opinions regarding heritage.   

2-In your findings, you demonstrate that the users paid more attention to the traditional chinese buildings. It would be interesting to reflect this in your conculsions in terms of policy aimed at preserving and protecting the traditional heritage and enhancing/promoting the know-how connected to it.

3-in your conclusions, you mention the gap between the Western theoretical frameworks and the need for more empirical research and theoretical speculation context based which is absolutely correct. This is not reflected niether in your introduction nor in section 3. It would be useful to elaborate further and connect the dots.

-Finally, there are small typos to be corrected at the following lines:

122, 129, 533, 562-563 ("different" is mentioned too many times).

Congratulations on your work!

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Community Engagement Promoted by Social Media in China World Heritage Sites”. (Manuscript ID: Land- 1703604).

Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments are as flowing:

To reviewer 1:

Point 1: It is advisable to revise the title.

Response 1: We’ve done it. We have renamed the study with “Social Media as a Medium to Promote Local Perception Expression in China World Heritage Sites”.

Point 2: In your findings, you demonstrate that the users paid more attention to the traditional chinese buildings. It would be interesting to reflect this in your conculsions in terms of policy aimed at preserving and protecting the traditional heritage and enhancing/promoting the know-how connected to it.

Response 2: We have modified the conclusion part with reflections from social media utilization, design guiding, and policy making aspects.

Point 3: In your conclusions, you mention the gap between the Western theoretical frameworks and the need for more empirical research and theoretical speculation context based which is absolutely correct. This is not reflected niether in your introduction nor in section 3. It would be useful to elaborate further and connect the dots.

Response 3: We have re-edited the first three parts of the article, as well as the conclusion part.

Point 4: There are small typos to be corrected at the following lines: 122, 129, 533, 562-563 ("different" is mentioned too many times).

Response 4: We have replaced those words with other expression.

We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and we sincerely hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

You can also find the this notes in the file of attchment. Please see the attachment.

The Corresponding Author for All Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for this opportunity to review this article, as it is a good example of why we need more interdisciplinary, international research collaborations. The article’s rationale is to leverage social media meta data related to world heritage sites in China. China offers a unique research site, in terms of its massive population size and the way the Chinese government, heritage professionals and citizens respond to certain locations and promote certain heritage values. The authors made good use of the data available, for example page 12 discussed the lack of ‘empowering engagement’, and page 14 on the over-representation of traditional buildings as cultural heritage (as these buildings provide an eye-catching backdrop). The authors offered sound conclusions. In particular, the comment that ‘The interior design of the building has little effect on the overall urban landscape’, potentially provides an opportunity to include heritage-based commercial ventures? Furthermore, it also provides opportunity for the cultural heritage sector to pass on the stories, e.g. promote the intangible cultural heritage associated with the preservation of China’s World Heritage Sites (the significant facades, temples, buildings etc).

Before publication, there are things to check, mostly stylistic, plus some sentences that need another edit...please see attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Community Engagement Promoted by Social Media in China World Heritage Sites”. (Manuscript ID: Land- 1703604).

Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments are as flowing:

To reviewer 2:

Point 1: Figure 1, Impact Column, 6th box down, replace ‘... to be pride of place’ with ‘feel’ or ‘experience’ pride of place

Response 1: We’ve replaced the figure according to the suggestion.  

Point 2: Detailed suggestion on words and phrases correction in both the text body and references.

Response 2: Thank you for the hand-to-hand tutorial level advices. We have corrected all of the written mistakes carefully.

We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and we sincerely hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

You can also find this notes in the attachment. Please see the attachment.

The Corresponding Author for All Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

• The topic of the article is interesting and has value for publication. The methodology of collecting and filtering data is sound, though the analysis and interpretation have some inconsistencies (see more specific comments below).
• Overall, the data need further contextualisation as the presentation and interpretation of the data have little to do with the specific circumstances of the selected sites (except for their population size). They also need to be interpreted in a broader context as Weibo is not the only popular social media platform used in China and social media is not the only means for participation, engagement, and empowerment.
• While Section 2 mentioned some of the examples of using social media in heritage management and the article referenced many relevant sources, there needs to be a comprehensive but succinct literature review on some of the key concepts and debates of the article. For example, throughout the article, the notions of 'community' and 'public' are not clearly defined. They seem to have been used interchangeably at times. This issue is crucial as the means, degree, and power of these actors' participation can vary significantly. Similarly, participation or engagement should also be clearly defined.
• Relevant to the last point, Section 3's first sentence mentioned AHD but there is no elaboration or further debate related to this concept. It is not clear what the sentence is meant to convey. More importantly, how AHD is defined within the Chinese context (and the specific topic of this article) and how that may or may not have played a role in the public's opinions on social media are not addressed.
• While the methods of collecting and filtering data are detailed in the article, it has not addressed or reflected upon the limitations of the data sources and the methods critically. It seems a miss not to mention that the social media environment (such as Weibo) in China is strictly monitored and censored. While some complaints can still emerge, criticisms that are perceived to be more 'serious' can be censored. This is particularly significant when it comes to urban heritage conservation and management. It is not uncommon for posts criticising the destruction of historic urban areas to be censored. This issue should be addressed with nuance.
• Following the last point, it is not entirely convincing that Macau should be selected as one of the sites. It is not surprising that much fewer data could be collected through Weibo on Macau as most of its local community might have used other social media platforms that are banned in mainland China. 
• There need to be further critical reflections on why the empowerment level (on social media and general) in decision-making is low (either within specific communities or the general public, which should be differentiated). Questions such as whether social media is an appropriate platform for meaningful participation in heritage decision-making should be further addressed.
• The relevance and appropriateness of some of the data filters are questionable. From the way the article was written, it seems like the study has excluded data related to people's memories, emotions, and collective actions in and around the heritage environment, which seem to be important aspects when discussing heritage. There might be a good reason to do so but it is lost in translation or not clearly explained. 
• Some parts of the Results section seem to fit better in the methodology section, such as the explanation of what each category of the data refers to, which can also be more succinct using tables or diagrams. 
• The conclusion is not very well justified - it should summarise and stem from the previous analysis and discussion. At present, the conclusion (particularly the suggestions) seems rather disconnected from the rest of the article.
• Minor suggestions: Acronyms such as ICT should be in full form the first time it is mentioned, which would be appreciated by readers who are not familiar with the term. The pinyin of the keywords used in the data collection and analysis should be included. 
• The writing needs to be more precise at times. For example, the 'Luoyang Method' should be explained succinctly if it is relevant to the topic of the article. Similarly, 'spontaneous civil organisations' should be exemplified. Wording such as 'some studies' should be avoided to enhance precision.
• Line 149-150: It is appreciated by whom?
• Line 155-158: How were these collaborations organised? Why are they good? Who views them as positive endeavours?

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Community Engagement Promoted by Social Media in China World Heritage Sites”. (Manuscript ID: Land- 1703604).

Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments are as flowing:

To reviewer 3:

Point 1: Overall, the data need further contextualization as the presentation and interpretation of the data have little to do with the specific circumstances of the selected sites (except for their population size). They also need to be interpreted in a broader context as Weibo is not the only popular social media platform used in China and social media is not the only means for participation, engagement, and empowerment.

Response 1: The reasons to select heritage sites only from Chinese urban areas are stated in part 2.2 “Cultural Heritage Management in Chinese Cities: The Need to Involve Social Media” as part of the contextualization. Other Chinse Social Media platforms are studied and the reason to choose Weibo is listed in 2.3 “The Interpretation of Chinese Social Media Platforms: The Choice of Weibo”.

Point 2: While Section 2 mentioned some of the examples of using social media in heritage management and the article referenced many relevant sources, there needs to be a comprehensive but succinct literature review on some of the key concepts and debates of the article. For example, throughout the article, the notions of 'community' and 'public' are not clearly defined. They seem to have been used interchangeably at times. This issue is crucial as the means, degree, and power of these actors' participation can vary significantly.

Response 2: Section 2 is major revised with three well-structured subtheadings. Despite a brief introduction on ICTs that encourage the public to take part in heritage conservation, “2.1 Current ICTs which Enhance Cultural Heritage Participatory Management” focuses more on social media’s role in cultural heritage management.

Point 3: Relevant to the last point, Section 3's first sentence mentioned AHD but there is no elaboration or further debate related to this concept. It is not clear what the sentence is meant to convey. More importantly, how AHD is defined within the Chinese context (and the specific topic of this article) and how that may or may not have played a role in the public's opinions on social media are not addressed.

Response 3: The sentence on AHD is removed from Section 3. It is an important aspect of the cultural heritage field, but it is not necessary to openly discuss it in the current study.

Point 4: While the methods of collecting and filtering data are detailed in the article, it has not addressed or reflected upon the limitations of the data sources and the methods critically. It seems a miss not to mention that the social media environment (such as Weibo) in China is strictly monitored and censored. While some complaints can still emerge, criticisms that are perceived to be more 'serious' can be censored. This is particularly significant when it comes to urban heritage conservation and management. It is not uncommon for posts criticising the destruction of historic urban areas to be censored. This issue should be addressed with nuance.

Response 4: Thank you for the valuable suggestion. We have supplemented it as a limitation of the study in 5.4 Limitations. It is a very important restriction on accessing the Weibo open dataset for obtaining all the personal information and catching all the possible posts.

Point 5: Following the last point, it is not entirely convincing that Macau should be selected as one of the sites. It is not surprising that much fewer data could be collected through Weibo on Macau as most of its local community might have used other social media platforms that are banned in mainland China. 

Response 5: Thank you for this kind reminding. We have responded to this note in 4.1 The general state of Weibo Posts and Posters with a sentence as follows: It is not surprising that much fewer data could be collected through Weibo on Macau as most of the local might have used other social media platforms that are banned in mainland China.

Point 6: There need to be further critical reflections on why the empowerment level (on social media and general) in decision-making is low (either within specific communities or the general public, which should be differentiated). Questions such as whether social media is an appropriate platform for meaningful participation in heritage decision-making should be further addressed.

Response 6: We have replied to this advice in part 5.4 Limitations with “Some misestimation of the users' perception may have been caused by the dataset of the study, which is not based on their self-evaluation. A mass survey on the cultural heritage preservation and management process, such as online questionnaires, is still needed to fill this gap.” There are also some echoes in the Conclusion part highlighting the study based on social media dataset offers a new perspective but cannot be applied as a comprehensive research on public attitudes.

Point 7: The relevance and appropriateness of some of the data filters are questionable. From the way the article was written, it seems like the study has excluded data related to people's memories, emotions, and collective actions in and around the heritage environment, which seem to be important aspects when discussing heritage. There might be a good reason to do so but it is lost in translation or not clearly explained.

Response 7: We have stated the reason as “The subject of content selection is also restricted to government-citizen communication and collaboration related texts under the holistic cultural heritage management topic.” in section 3.3.

Point 8: Some parts of the Results section seem to fit better in the methodology section, such as the explanation of what each category of the data refers to, which can also be more succinct using tables or diagrams.

Response 8: We have replaced the explanation on what each category of the data refers to from the Result to the Methodology section.

Point 9: The conclusion is not very well justified - it should summarise and stem from the previous analysis and discussion. At present, the conclusion (particularly the suggestions) seems rather disconnected from the rest of the article.

Response 9: The conclusion is re-edited. The first paragraph is a brief description of the whole article. The second paragraph summaries the further strategy on urban heritage management from three aspects: the necessity of social media platform utilization, design guidance, and policy making.

Point 10: Minor suggestions: Acronyms such as ICT should be in full form the first time it is mentioned, which would be appreciated by readers who are not familiar with the term. The pinyin of the keywords used in the data collection and analysis should be included.

Response 10: Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) is written in full form in the first paragraph of Section 1 as the first time mentioning.

Point 11: The writing needs to be more precise at times. For example, the 'Luoyang Method' should be explained succinctly if it is relevant to the topic of the article. Similarly, 'spontaneous civil organisations' should be exemplified. Wording such as 'some studies' should be avoided to enhance precision. Line 149-150: It is appreciated by whom? Line 155-158: How were these collaborations organised? Why are they good? Who views them as positive endeavours?

Response 11: Although the 'Luoyang Method' and parts of the mentioned cases are eliminated in the final version the precision in this writing is carefully checked and enhanced by an English professor.

We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and we sincerely hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

You can also find this notes in the file in the attachment. Please see the attachment.

The Corresponding Author for All Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

I think despite my somewhat harsh comments this is indeed a valuable contribution to our knowledge and should be published. But before that let me suggest you some improvements of the paper.

First, I assume all data collection and privacy protection rules and regulations have been met. Maybe a clarifying sentence in the methods section would clear this question.

Second, I’d advise to completely rewrite the first three sections of the paper, up until the methods. This is the part of the paper where you should create the context for your study, explain why it is necessary to study this problem and what has been done so far. As it stands now it seems to be a rather random collection of quotes and examples from all over the globe that leave the reader confused and does not give any guideline to your own study. Somewhere here you should also formulate a clear research question you are seeking answer to.

The abstract needs some minor rephrasing. The reference is placed awkwardly and creates a confusion as if the study just references somebody else’s results. Try replacing the first word of line 20 to ‘this study’ or ‘the current study’.

Section 4. Keep this section only for methods. Exclude all general comments and reasoning and give them in previous sections. Here just describe what did you do, so that somebody else in some other place could follow your example.

Finally, the conclusions could be better linked to your own findings. And since in the current version the research question is somehow diluted make sure in the revised version the question is also clearly answered.

To sum it up, the problems are more with the presentation of the study and nto with its methodology or results.

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Community Engagement Promoted by Social Media in China World Heritage Sites”. (Manuscript ID: Land- 1703604).

Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments are as flowing:

To reviewer 4:

Point 1: I assume all data collection and privacy protection rules and regulations have been met. Maybe a clarifying sentence in the methods section would clear this question.

Response 1: Thank you for this kind reminding. We have supplemented this sentence in the first paragraph of Method.

Point 2: I’d advise to completely rewrite the first three sections of the paper, up until the methods. This is the part of the paper where you should create the context for your study, explain why it is necessary to study this problem and what has been done so far. As it stands now it seems to be a rather random collection of quotes and examples from all over the globe that leave the reader confused and does not give any guideline to your own study. Somewhere here you should also formulate a clear research question you are seeking answer to.

Response 2: The first three sections are largely rewritten. The discussion and conclusion part are also re-structured and re-edited.

Point 3: The abstract needs some minor rephrasing. The reference is placed awkwardly and creates a confusion as if the study just references somebody else’s results. Try replacing the first word of line 20 to ‘this study’ or ‘the current study’.

Response 3: The abstract is revised according to the suggestion. The reference is also removed from this part.

Point 4: Section 4. Keep this section only for methods. Exclude all general comments and reasoning and give them in previous sections. Here just describe what did you do, so that somebody else in some other place could follow your example.

Response 4: We have replaced the explanation on choosing urban heritage instead of general landscape or rural heritage from the Methodology to the Background section, as well as the importance statement of the KOL as an indicator.

Point 5: The conclusions could be better linked to your own findings. And since in the current version the research question is somehow diluted make sure in the revised version the question is also clearly answered.

Response 5: The conclusion is re-edited. The first paragraph is a brief description of the whole article. The second paragraph summaries the further strategy on urban heritage management from three aspects: the necessity of social media platform utilization, design guidance, and policy making.

We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and we sincerely hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

You can also find this notes in the file in the attahment. Please see the attachment.

The Corresponding Author for All Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I have reviewed the revised version of the article and have made comments on the PDFs. Please find below some overall comments:  

Although the authors had addressed some of the comments, some of the most important things remain unaddressed. The five 'case studies' remain not contextualised as the data collected from these cities are not analysed in the specific contexts of these cities. It would perhaps be more appropriate to say that the data are sampled from these cities but they are certainly not 'case studies'.   

There are still limited reflections on the reasons behind the lack of empowerment of the general public. The paragraph in the discussion only provides some suggestions rather than a discussion on the data analysis. This argument is crucial to the article and therefore, it is important that it is well justified, otherwise, the suggestions would also appear unconvincing. It is also not very clearly explained in the article why this research shows that social media platforms can be beneficial for facilitating meaningful participation of the public in heritage decision making.   

The authors should not simply copy my comment into the article - it is unethical to do so. More importantly, copying my comment into the article does not justify the appropriateness of including Macau as one of the cities (please see further explanation in the PDF).   

If the authors can address the above, I think the article can be published, though I would leave the final decision to the editor(s).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you again for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Social Media as a Medium to Promote Local Perception Expression in China World Heritage Sites”. (Manuscript ID: Land- 1703604).

Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in the revised manuscript. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments are as flowing:

To reviewer 3:

Point 1: Section 1 Introduction, Line 37-39: This is not an example of 'Chinese government' using ICT though. It's exactly the opposite.

Response 1: We have corrected this sentence by supplementing an example of a government-supporting digital platform's application in the conservation process of Dashilar, Beijing.

Point 2: Section 1, Line 41: “wishful thinking” is not very academic language

Response 2: We have replaced it with “There is a lot of optimism in this emerging field of study however, little quantitatively validated knowledge available to support this view.”

Point 3: Section 2.3, Line 176-178: The language is probably not the main reason for the limitation.

Response 3: We have re-edited the reason part.

Point 4: Section 4.1, Line 329-331: You cannot copy-paste my comment on to your article. Please paraphrase. Also, the comment was to question the appropriateness of Macau being included in the list of case studies. Adding this sentence does not justify that, but the opposite.

Response 4: We have re-edited the Macau part. It has echoes also in the latter part 5.1 section as “As a medium, social media has certain limitations and cannot be used as a representative of the collective consciousness of local people, but it can still reflect the current public attitude and participation status to a certain extent”.

Point 5: Section 4.1, Line 332-339: Please add the pinyin of these keywords.

Response 5: Pinyin version of keywords is added both in the texts and table 3.

Point 6: Section 4.2, Line 391-414: This part should be in methodology and would be more clearly presented in a table.

Response 6: We have moved it to section 3.3 as table 2 with some texts editing.

Point 7: Section 5.1, Line 502: This should be discussion of the issue based on the data analysis rather than providing suggestions out of thin air. The connection between these suggestions and the research outcome is unclear.

Response 7: We have added two explanatory paragraphs in section 5.1 to connect the result and suggestions better.

Point 8: Section 5.3, Line 539-542: Not a sentence

Response 8: The sentence has been carefully rephrased.

We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and we sincerely hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

The Corresponding Author for All Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This is a much better version now. The presentation is clearer and the points you want to make come out pretty well. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you again for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Social Media as a Medium to Promote Local Perception Expression in China World Heritage Sites”. (Manuscript ID: Land- 1703604).

Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. 

We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

The Corresponding Author for All Authors