Research on the Influence Mechanism of Heritage Value Perception and Place Identity on Heritage Responsibility Behavior—A Case Study of the Shaanxi Section of Baocheng Railway Industrial Heritage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a thorough and well-structured investigation into the intrinsic relationship between heritage value perception, local identity, and heritage responsibility behaviour, with the industrial heritage of the Baocheng Railway in Shaanxi Province serving as the focal case study. The research design is robust, employing questionnaire surveys in combination with structural equation modelling (SEM) to examine the proposed relationships. The processes of data collection and analysis are rigorous, and the findings carry both theoretical significance and practical relevance. Nevertheless, to further enhance the depth, breadth, and scholarly impact of the study, the following suggestions are offered for consideration.

First, the geographical scope of the research is confined to the Shaanxi section of the Baocheng Railway, and the sample size is relatively modest. Future studies could extend the analysis to other sections, such as the Sichuan segment, to enable comparative examinations of how urban–rural contexts may shape heritage value perception, thereby improving the generalisability of the conclusions. Moreover, incorporating participants from diverse occupational backgrounds and age cohorts would provide a more comprehensive representation of stakeholder heterogeneity in value perception.

Second, with respect to methodology, the study currently relies predominantly on questionnaire surveys and SEM analysis. While these methods are well-suited for testing hypothesised relationships, the integration of qualitative approaches—such as in-depth field interviews and eye-tracking experiments—could yield deeper insights into the psychological underpinnings of stakeholders’ perceptions of industrial heritage, particularly the affective and memory-related dimensions that are less amenable to quantitative measurement. A multi-method design would allow for a more nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between heritage value perception and responsible behaviour.

Third, in terms of theoretical grounding, although the study draws on cognitive evaluation theory, it offers limited exploration of the intricate emotional and social interaction mechanisms linking local identity to heritage responsibility behaviour. Incorporating perspectives from social psychology, particularly community participation theory, could strengthen the analytical framework by elucidating how community-level dynamics shape individual responsibility behaviours. Such integration would not only deepen the understanding of behavioural motivations but also broaden the theoretical contribution of the research.

Finally, regarding practical application, the study’s conclusions hold valuable implications for the conservation of industrial heritage. Nevertheless, the practical relevance could be further enhanced by proposing more detailed and targeted conservation strategies tailored to different stakeholder groups, such as policymakers, local residents, and tourists. For example, policy-oriented recommendations could be formulated for government agencies, while participatory conservation initiatives could be designed for residents and visitors, thereby fostering sustainable preservation and utilisation of industrial heritage resources.

In sum, this paper offers fresh perspectives and methodological innovations to the study of industrial heritage conservation. Addressing the above points would further enhance its academic rigour, theoretical richness, and practical utility.

Author Response

Comments 1:First, the geographical scope of the research is confined to the Shaanxi section of the Baocheng Railway, and the sample size is relatively modest. Future studies could extend the analysis to other sections, such as the Sichuan segment, to enable comparative examinations of how urban–rural contexts may shape heritage value perception, thereby improving the generalisability of the conclusions. Moreover, incorporating participants from diverse occupational backgrounds and age cohorts would provide a more comprehensive representation of stakeholder heterogeneity in value perception.

Response 1: [The research mainly focuses on stakeholders of the Baocheng Railway Shaanxi section, and the sample coverage is relatively limited. The comparative data of other sections such as the Sichuan section is not fully included, it may affect the universality of the conclusion.] ①We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions. We fully agree with your limitation that the research scope mainly exists in the Shaanxi section. In fact, I have added this issue to section “5.4 Limitations and Prospects” ,however, due to the large research scope and long research period, there are certain research difficulties in the current revision period. In the future, we will continue to improve this part of the content and expand our research on the Sichuan section.②We strongly agree with your proposal to include participants from different professional backgrounds and age cohorts,this section has been written in “3.1. Sample Characteristics Analysis”. Thank you again for your valuable suggestion!

[①Page 20, paragraph 6, line 796.②Page 11, paragraph 3, line 430]

Comments 2: [Second, with respect to methodology, the study currently relies predominantly on questionnaire surveys and SEM analysis. While these methods are well-suited for testing hypothesised relationships, the integration of qualitative approaches—such as in-depth field interviews and eye-tracking experiments—could yield deeper insights into the psychological underpinnings of stakeholders’ perceptions of industrial heritage, particularly the affective and memory-related dimensions that are less amenable to quantitative measurement. A multi-method design would allow for a more nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between heritage value perception and responsible behaviour.]

Response 2: [future research on value perception and behavioral intention can attempt to combine eye tracking experiments, neuroscience, and other methods to deepen the exploration and development of subconscious value perception.]We sincerely appreciate the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewer. We fully agree with your suggestion to combine qualitative research methods such as in-depth interviews and eye tracking experiments to better reveal the psychological basis of stakeholders' understanding of industrial heritage. This issue is also clearly pointed out in “5.4.Limitations and Prospects”, and we will prioritize considering this research content in future studies.

{Page 21, paragraph2, line 807]

Comments 3: [Third, in terms of theoretical grounding, although the study draws on cognitive evaluation theory, it offers limited exploration of the intricate emotional and social interaction mechanisms linking local identity to heritage responsibility behaviour. Incorporating perspectives from social psychology, particularly community participation theory, could strengthen the analytical framework by elucidating how community-level dynamics shape individual responsibility behaviours. Such integration would not only deepen the understanding of behavioural motivations but also broaden the theoretical contribution of the research.]

Response 3: [①This alignment is also consistent with Social Identity Theory[65]. Social value is directly linked to the collective identity question of “who we are.” When stakeholders perceive that the heritage reinforces their social identity—such as “I am a descendant of the railway community” or “We are inheritors of the resilient Baocheng Spirit”—this sense of group belonging and distinctiveness strongly enhances self-esteem and self-efficacy, thereby most directly and powerfully integrating into their place identity.In contrast, the perceptions of conservation-utilization value, historical value, scientific-technological value, and artistic value exhibit similar degrees of influence. These belong to more specific, functional, or knowledge-based cognitions. Understanding a glorious history (historical value), marveling at an engineering miracle (technological value), appreciating industrial aesthetics (artistic value), or recognizing its future practical potential (Protection-utilization value) all enhance an individual's sense of uniqueness and pride in the place, thus strengthening identity. However, as these values do not directly engage core identity in the way social value does, their impact is relatively weaker and more comparable to each other.][②Prioritize enhancing the communication of social values. Organize community participatory activities, such as collecting oral histories of the railway and hosting forums for retired employees, to emphasize the railway's role in connecting communities and perpetuating collective memory.]

We sincerely appreciate the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewer. We fully agree with your suggestion to introduce community participation theory from a social psychology perspective to improve the analytical framework. However, we will revise the existing theoretical framework from three aspects: variable setting, experimental design, and theoretical framework. Nevertheless, we have fully listened to your professional opinions and conducted an in-depth analysis of the impact mechanism of heritage responsibility behavior from a social psychology perspective based on social identity theory and community participation theory, ultimately proposing practical and feasible practical strategies.

[①Page 16, paragraph 2, line 593.②Page20, paragraph2, line 752]

Comments 4:[Finally, regarding practical application, the study’s conclusions hold valuable implications for the conservation of industrial heritage. Nevertheless, the practical relevance could be further enhanced by proposing more detailed and targeted conservation strategies tailored to different stakeholder groups, such as policymakers, local residents, and tourists. For example, policy-oriented recommendations could be formulated for government agencies, while participatory conservation initiatives could be designed for residents and visitors, thereby fostering sustainable preservation and utilisation of industrial heritage resources.]

Response 4: [At the policy level:①Prioritize enhancing the communication of social values. Organize community participatory activities, such as collecting oral histories of the railway and hosting forums for retired employees, to emphasize the railway's role in connecting communities and perpetuating collective memory.②Utilize place identity as a lever to promote conservation actions. First, integrate "identity" into the core of conservation policies, for instance, by introducing a "Railway Guardian" certification for residents and establishing community volunteer patrols. Second, develop localized educational programs,collaborate with schools to conduct thematic studies on "Railway and Hometown," fostering a sense of identity among the younger generation.③ Differentiate the allocation of conservation resources. Prioritize funding for carriers of social value (e.g., community railway memorial halls), historical value (e.g., monuments commemorating flood control and railway protection), and technological value (e.g.,  the Guanyin Mountain Cableway Experience Center). For carriers of artistic value (e.g., landscape features along the route), social capital can be introduced through tourism development to alleviate fiscal burdens. For local residents:①Strengthen the "railway-community" bond. Encourage residents to actively participate in building the Baocheng Railway Memory Archive, such as by contributing old photographs and physical artifacts, to reinforce their identity as "heritage inheritors." Establish a self-governed railway culture association and organize community festivals, such as a market to commemorate the opening of the Baocheng Railway, to enhance a sense of belonging.②Transform identity into sustainable actions. First, encourage residents to shift from "passive compliance" to "active guardianship," such as by monitoring destructive behaviors and participating in daily maintenance. Second, develop railway-themed livelihoods, such as family-run railway-themed restaurants and handmade railway model workshops, achieving a win-win outcome for cultural preservation and income generation. For tourists:①Guide tourists to experience the core "social value" of the Baocheng Railway. Design immersive social narrative experiences, such as "A Day in the Life of a Railway Worker" or participating in "Railway Teahouse Storytelling Sessions," where they can listen to residents' oral histories.②Foster responsible behavior through identity resonance. Incorporate role-playing elements into tours, such as distributing "One-Day Railway Soldier" task cards and awarding badges after completing heritage conservation knowledge quizzes.③ Develop products that translate responsible behavior into action. For example, implement a "trash-for-treasure" program where litter collected along the railway can be exchanged for railway-themed cultural and creative products, or introduce "public crowdfunding tickets" where a portion of the ticket revenue is allocated to emergency heritage conservation efforts.] We sincerely appreciate the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewer.We fully agree with your valuable opinions on practical applications and have tailored more detailed and targeted protection strategies for different stakeholders. [Page20, paragraph2, line 752]

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made every effort to revise the manuscript and hope that the revised version will be accepted by you.

Response 1: [The effectiveness of industrial heritage conservation relies on the collaborative efforts of multiple stakeholders. However, existing research lacks systematic exploration of stakeholders' perception of heritage value and the pathways through which such perception translates into conservation behaviors. This study takes the Shaanxi section of the Baocheng Railway, a typical linear industrial heritage, as a case study. Based on the "Cognitive Appraisal Theory of Emotions” (CATE) theory, it examines the mechanism between heritage value perception, place identity, and heritage responsibility behavior. Through structural equation modeling analysis of 414 questionnaire responses, the study finds that heritage value perception of the Baocheng Railway's Shaanxi section not only significantly positively influences stakeholders' place identity but also directly promotes the formation of heritage responsibility behavior. Among these, the perception of social value has the most pronounced impact on place identity and responsibility behavior. Furthermore, place identity plays a key mediating role between value perception and responsibility behavior.This study introduces the CATE theory into industrial heritage research, revealing the mechanism of behavior generation from the path of "cognition → emotion → behavior".By focusing on linear industrial heritage sites, it broadens the scope of heritage research and highlights the central role of social value perception in driving conservation intentions and behaviors. The study further enriches research on heritage responsibility behavior, and the proposed theoretical model and findings can provide theoretical references for the management and conservation of industrial heritage.]

5. Additional clarifications

[No further clarification is needed. Thank you for the valuable feedback provided by the reviewer. We hope the revised paper can be accepted by you.]

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposes a CATE-based pathway—value perception → place identity → heritage responsibility behavior—and tests it with SEM on 414 respondents. The dataset is useful, and the general direction fits Land. However, the manuscript does not yet establish what “place identity” specifically means for an industrial railway corridor, nor does it show which site-level attributes (stations, bridges/tunnels, depots, residential/service areas, scenic segments) generate identity and, in turn, behavior. As a result, the current acceptance of hypotheses lacks an explanation of the driving elements behind the effects.

1
Conceptual and operational definitions of place identity are missing
The manuscript calls place identity the “affective” node in CATE, but does not define it for the Baocheng industrial-heritage context. Different value lenses (historical, social, technological, artistic, protection-utilization) imply different identity essences.

2.
Individually, the place-identity values should be mapped to behavioral manifestations
At present, we know the paths are significant, but not why. Readers need to see which value dimension feeds which identity facet and what concrete responsibility behaviors follow.

3.
The authors should treat each site as an analytical unit; show site-level heterogeneity. Each industrial-heritage “site” is an independent entity with distinct attributes; identity is likely site- or type-dependent. Without this granularity, the mechanism remains underspecified.
The authors should compile an inventory of surveyed sites with attributes: year/phase, authenticity & integrity, engineering typology, aesthetic cues, conservation/use status, and access/connectivity.
The authors should cluster sites into 3–4 types (e.g., community-memory/station; engineering/technology; landscape-aesthetics; reuse-activation), and run multi-group SEM (configural→metric→scalar invariance) by site type (and, if power allows, by stakeholder group: residents/passengers/tourists/staff). Test whether key paths (Social→Identity; Technological→Identity; Identity→Behavior) differ across types.

4.
The authors should provide evidence that identity drives behavior, and through which facet. You report mediation, but not which identity subdimension carries which value to behavior.

5.
The authors should reveal the essential drivers behind accepted hypotheses. Readers should see which items/elements (authenticity, integrity, techniques, layout, access, reuse) actually move the constructs. Thus, the authors should run relative-importance (dominance/relative weight) analyses for the five value constructs predicting identity and behavior. Through optional MIMIC, the authors should demonstrate site attributes to have direct effects on selected indicators (e.g., authenticity → His2/His4), thereby explaining why historical value is strong in certain sites.

6. 
Regarding scope, generalizability, and transparency, your own limitations section notes Shaanxi-only coverage. The authors should explicitly plan cross-segment comparisons (e.g., Sichuan section) and indicate what attributes they expect to differ. The authors should clarify sampling (very high effective response rate), recruitment, consent/IRB, incentives, and non-response checks.

7. 
Since the results appear overwhelmingly positive, adjusting the difficulty of the questionnaire items would be helpful to capture more nuanced differences and thereby clarify the true nature of place identity.

8.
Your conclusions are clear at a macro level, but the manuscript does not yet show the mechanism: which site attributes and which identity facets convert which value perceptions into which responsibility behaviors. Adding a precise definition, a site-level framework, analyses, and facet-level mediation is required.

Author Response

Comments 1: [1Conceptual and operational definitions of place identity are missing
The manuscript calls place identity the “affective” node in CATE, but does not define it for the Baocheng industrial-heritage context. Different value lenses (historical, social, technological, artistic, protection-utilization) imply different identity essences.]

Response 1: [In the specific context of Baoji-Chengdu Railway industrial heritage conservation, Place Identity refers to the multi-layered, dynamic process of emotional belonging, value recognition, and identity construction formed through continuous interaction, interpretation, and meaning-making between individuals, groups, and society and the heritage itself and its environment—from the perspectives of core values such as historical, social, technological, artistic, and protection-utilization.Different value perspectives imply different essences of identity:The historical value perspective signifies identity as “guardians of historical memory”;The social value perspective signifies identity as “upholders of social value”;The technological value perspective signifies identity as “admirers of industrial civilization”;The artistic value perspective signifies identity as “experiencers of industrial aesthetics”;The protection-utilization value perspective signifies identity as “co-creators of the heritage’s future.] We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions. We strongly agree and supplement the definition of place identity in the context of Baocheng Railway Industrial Heritage, and point out the essence of identity from different value perspectives.

[Page 4, paragraph 2, line 156]

Comments 2:[2.Individually, the place-identity values should be mapped to behavioral manifestations.At present, we know the paths are significant, but not why. Readers need to see which value dimension feeds which identity facet and what concrete responsibility behaviors follow.]

Response 2: [Place identity plays the role of “internalization” and “motivational transformation” in this process.Value perception pertains to “external” attributes, such as stakeholders recognizing the historical or technological value of this railway. Place identity, on the other hand, is an “internal” self-definition, such as stakeholders viewing themselves as “part of the story of this railway.” When mediation occurs, it means external values are absorbed by the individual and become part of their self-concept. Protecting heritage is no longer merely about safeguarding an “external object” but about preserving an “extended self.” This constitutes a deeper and more fundamental behavioral motivation.The behavioral motivation shifts from an externally normative sense of obligation—”I should do”—to an intrinsically identity-driven necessity—”I want to do” or “I must do.”Taking Yangjiawan Station and Qingshiya Station as examples, the perception of historical value, centered on authenticity (His1) and integrity (His2), fosters a role identity as “guardians of historical memory,” thereby triggering daily, ongoing monitoring behaviors and knowledge transmission activities.The Guanyinshan spiral loop and Qinling tunnel complex, as key manifestations of engineering typicality (Sci2), evoke stakeholders' perception of scientific-technological value, eliciting admiration and awe. This translates into an identity as “admirers of industrial civilization,” motivating responsibility behaviors focused on research, documentation, and promotion.Through the perception of conservation-utilization value at Qinling Station and Xujiaping Railway Town, a sense of hope and optimism emerges, forming an identity as “co-creators of the heritage’s future.” This, in turn, inspires entrepreneurial and participatory consultation-based responsibility behaviors.]We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions. We fully agree with your suggestion on how local identity can map heritage responsibility behavior. We have analyzed and supplemented its impact path.

[Page 17, paragraph 3, line 649]

Comments 3:[3.The authors should treat each site as an analytical unit; show site-level heterogeneity. Each industrial-heritage “site” is an independent entity with distinct attributes; identity is likely site- or type-dependent. Without this granularity, the mechanism remains underspecified.The authors should compile an inventory of surveyed sites with attributes: year/phase, authenticity & integrity, engineering typology, aesthetic cues, conservation/use status, and access/connectivity.The authors should cluster sites into 3–4 types (e.g., community-memory/station; engineering/technology; landscape-aesthetics; reuse-activation), and run multi-group SEM (configural→metric→scalar invariance) by site type (and, if power allows, by stakeholder group: residents/passengers/tourists/staff).Test whether key paths (Social→Identity; Technological→Identity; Identity→Behavior) differ across types.]

Response 3: We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We fully agree with your suggestion of conducting a field survey checklist and conducting multiple sets of SEM experiments. At present, we have supplemented the field survey checklist in Appendix A. However, regarding the suggestion of conducting experiments on multiple sets of SEM experiments, due to the long research period, there are still some difficulties in solving this problem during this revision stage. In future research, we will prioritize improving this part of the content. Thank you again for your professional guidance!

[Page 21, line 832]

Comments 4:[4.The authors should provide evidence that identity drives behavior, and through which facet. You report mediation, but not which identity subdimension carries which value to behavior.]

Response 4: [①Heritage Responsibility Behavior is a type of pro-social and altruistic behavior, which is most suitably explained by the Norm Activation Mode (NAM)[66]. This model posits that the occurrence of responsible behavior requires three conditions:Awareness of Consequences: Recognizing that inaction will lead to negative outcomes.Ascription of Responsibility: Attributing the responsibility for preventing these negative outcomes to oneself.Personal Norm: The activation of an internalized sense of moral obligation, thereby generating behavioral motivation.Social Value Perception: Most strongly activates ascription of responsibility. When individuals perceive heritage as a community bond, collective honor, and identity symbol, they tend to believe that "protecting it is our shared responsibility," fostering a strong sense of collective duty. This group identity-based responsibility is one of the most powerful drivers of behavior.Historical Value Perception: Primarily activates awareness of consequences. The recognition that "this is an irreplaceable, unique historical witness—if lost, it is gone forever" strongly motivates protection. It triggers a moral obligation associated with the role of "historical inheritor." Technological Value Perception: Functions through admiration and awe. Astonishment at the wisdom and engineering achievements of predecessors translates into a guardian mindset: "such a great accomplishment must not be destroyed in our generation." This emotion can also activate awareness of consequences and personal norms.Artistic Value Perception did not significantly influence responsibility behavior. One theoretical explanation is that artistic value leans more toward personal aesthetic enjoyment, evoking a consumer mindset rather than a sense of responsibility, making it less likely to activate the moral responsibility chain in NAM.Protection-Utilization Value Perception may involve utilitarian purposes, potentially driving "utilization" behavior rather than purely "responsibility" behavior.This result is related to Pandža Bajs I[67]、Fu, Y[50]The research results are consistent with the viewpoint.].[②It demonstrates that value perception does not directly translate into responsibility behavior but rather requires the critical mediating bridge of place identity. Place identity plays the role of “internalization” and “motivational transformation” in this process.Value perception pertains to “external” attributes, such as stakeholders recognizing the historical or technological value of this railway. Place identity, on the other hand, is an “internal” self-definition, such as stakeholders viewing themselves as “part of the story of this railway.” When mediation occurs, it means external values are absorbed by the individual and become part of their self-concept. Protecting heritage is no longer merely about safeguarding an “external object” but about preserving an “extended self.” This constitutes a deeper and more fundamental behavioral motivation.The behavioral motivation shifts from an externally normative sense of obligation—”I should do”—to an intrinsically identity-driven necessity—”I want to do” or “I must do.”Taking Yangjiawan Station and Qingshiya Station as examples, the perception of historical value, centered on authenticity (His1) and integrity (His2), fosters a role identity as “guardians of historical memory,” thereby triggering daily, ongoing monitoring behaviors and knowledge transmission activities.The Guanyinshan spiral loop and Qinling tunnel complex, as key manifestations of engineering typicality (Sci2), evoke stakeholders' perception of scientific-technological value, eliciting admiration and awe. This translates into an identity as “admirers of industrial civilization,” motivating responsibility behaviors focused on research, documentation, and promotion.Through the perception of conservation-utilization value at Qinling Station and Xujiaping Railway Town, a sense of hope and optimism emerges, forming an identity as “co-creators of the heritage’s future.” This, in turn, inspires entrepreneurial and participatory consultation-based responsibility behaviors.]We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions. We fully agree with your opinion and have made supplements to these two aspects. Thank you for your suggestion!

[①Page 17, paragraph 3, line 612.②Page 17, paragraph 3, line 647]

Comments 5:[5.The authors should reveal the essential drivers behind accepted hypotheses. Readers should see which items/elements (authenticity, integrity, techniques, layout, access, reuse) actually move the constructs. Thus, the authors should run relative-importance (dominance/relative weight) analyses for the five value constructs predicting identity and behavior. Through optional MIMIC, the authors should demonstrate site attributes to have direct effects on selected indicators (e.g., authenticity → His2/His4), thereby explaining why historical value is strong in certain sites.]

Response 5: [As shown in Figure 1, both Soc3“a sense of social identity and belonging toward the industrial heritage”and Soc4 “the spiritual value of the industrial heritage“significantly influence the perception of the Baocheng Railway's social value. This indicates that “social identity and sense of belonging (Soc3)” and “spiritual value (Soc4)” constitute the core dimensions of the social value perception of the Baocheng Railway.The social value of the Baocheng Railway lies in its status as“China’s first electrified railway,”carrying profound historical memories and industrial cultural significance. It fostered the “Baocheng Spirit”—characterized by perseverance, resilience, and dedication—breaking the geographical isolation of the Qinba Mountain area,while driving economic development in the mountainous regions along its route, including agricultural product transportation and tourism, and enhancing public transportation convenience. As a spiritual symbol, it evokes a strong sense of collective identity. The indicators His1 ”authenticity” and His2 “integrity”significantly influence the perception of the Baocheng Railway's historical value, indicating that “authenticity” and “integrity” are critical factors constituting the perception of its historical value. The historical value stems from the railway’s role as New China’s first electrified railway, completed in 1958. It ended the millennia-old challenge of “the perilous roads to Shu” by connecting northwest and southwest China for the first time, marking a pioneering achievement in the nation’s railway network.It serves as authentic and comprehensive evidence of New China's ability to overcome extremely challenging natural geographical conditions, achieve breakthroughs in railway electrification technology, and construct a strategic southwestern national corridor during a specific historical period. The indicators Tec2 “the industrial heritage exhibit typical technological features of its time”and Tec3 ”the industrial heritage in promoting technological innovation and industry development” significantly influence the perception of the Baocheng Railway's scientific and technological value. This indicates that “typical technological (Tec2)” and “industry driving force (Tec3)” are key dimensions in perceiving the railway's scientific and technological value.As China's first electrified railway, its technological value lies in the highly representative era-specific and engineering significance of the integrated mountain railway construction and electrification technologies applied in extremely complex geographical environments,and fundamentally promoting the leapfrog development of railway electrification in China.]We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions. We fully agree with your question about revealing the core driving factors. We have identified the core driving factors behind the perception of a certain heritage value through the analysis of the path coefficients in Figure 1, and have supplemented this part of the content in the article.

[Page 15, paragraph 2, line 526]

Comments 6:[6. Regarding scope, generalizability, and transparency, your own limitations section notes Shaanxi-only coverage. The authors should explicitly plan cross-segment comparisons (e.g., Sichuan section) and indicate what attributes they expect to differ. The authors should clarify sampling (very high effective response rate), recruitment, consent/IRB, incentives, and non-response checks.]

Response 6:[①Administered by the Xi'an Railway Bureau, this 240-kilometer segment traverses the Qin Ba Mountain region, where the ancient Shu Road famously described as “more difficult than ascending to heaven” runs nearby. This section represents the most technologically significant portion of the entire railway, boasting the richest cultural and natural landscape resources.][②This study strictly adhered to the ethical guidelines for social science research involving human subjects. Prior to the survey, all participants were informed of the research purpose, content, and data usage. Participation was voluntary and based on explicit informed consent. The research protocol was approved by the relevant authorities.][③Data collection relied on self-report scales. Although reliability and validity tests were conducted, the results may still be subject to certain common method bias and social desirability bias.]We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions. We fully agree with your question about clarifying the comparative analysis of planning areas. This part has been written in section 2.1. Study Area and the research scope has been illustrated. Regarding the issue of supplementing sample information and distinguishing features, it has been addressed in “2.3 Data Collection” and “5.4 Limitations and Prospects” has been supplemented. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

[①Page 9, paragraph 1, line 371.②Page 11, Paragraph 1, Line 399.③Page 21, paragraph 1, line 800]

Comments 7:[7. Since the results appear overwhelmingly positive, adjusting the difficulty of the questionnaire items would be helpful to capture more nuanced differences and thereby clarify the true nature of place identity.]

Response 7:[In terms of questionnaire design, the difficulty of questionnaire items will be adjusted for future research to capture more subtle differences in research conclusions, thereby more accurately clarifying the relationship between heritage value perception, place identity, and heritage responsibility behavior.]

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions. We fully agree with your suggestion to adjust the difficulty of the questionnaire. However, adjusting the difficulty of the questionnaire requires adjustments to the entire experimental process and the entire manuscript content. The current revision deadline poses certain difficulties in resolving this issue, which we have included in section “5.4. Limitations and Prospects,” future research will improve this section. Thank you for your suggestions!

[Page 21, Paragraph 2, Line 812]

Comments 8:[8.Your conclusions are clear at a macro level, but the manuscript does not yet show the mechanism: which site attributes and which identity facets convert which value perceptions into which responsibility behaviors. Adding a precise definition, a site-level framework, analyses, and facet-level mediation is required.]

Response 8: [It demonstrates that value perception does not directly translate into responsibility behavior but rather requires the critical mediating bridge of place identity. Place identity plays the role of “internalization” and “motivational transformation” in this process.Value perception pertains to “external” attributes, such as stakeholders recognizing the historical or technological value of this railway. Place identity, on the other hand, is an “internal” self-definition, such as stakeholders viewing themselves as “part of the story of this railway.” When mediation occurs, it means external values are absorbed by the individual and become part of their self-concept. Protecting heritage is no longer merely about safeguarding an “external object” but about preserving an “extended self.” This constitutes a deeper and more fundamental behavioral motivation.The behavioral motivation shifts from an externally normative sense of obligation—”I should do”—to an intrinsically identity-driven necessity—”I want to do” or “I must do.”Taking Yangjiawan Station and Qingshiya Station as examples, the perception of historical value, centered on authenticity (His1) and integrity (His2), fosters a role identity as “guardians of historical memory,” thereby triggering daily, ongoing monitoring behaviors and knowledge transmission activities.The Guanyinshan spiral loop and Qinling tunnel complex, as key manifestations of engineering typicality (Sci2), evoke stakeholders' perception of scientific-technological value, eliciting admiration and awe. This translates into an identity as “admirers of industrial civilization,” motivating responsibility behaviors focused on research, documentation, and promotion.Through the perception of conservation-utilization value at Qinling Station and Xujiaping Railway Town, a sense of hope and optimism emerges, forming an identity as “co-creators of the heritage’s future.” This, in turn, inspires entrepreneurial and participatory consultation-based responsibility behaviors.]We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions. We fully agree with your question about clarifying the path for the transformation of inheritance responsibility behavior, and we will address it in “4. Discussion” has been supplemented with this content. Thank you for your suggestion!

[Page 17, paragraph 3, line 648]

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the theoretical framework of Cognitive Appraisal Theory of Emotion (CATE), this study constructs a theoretical model that elucidates the mechanism by which stakeholders’ perceptions of heritage value, place identity, and heritage responsibility behavior interact. The research methods are appropriate, and the structure of the paper is well-organized. The following revisions are suggested:

 

1. Lines 85–87 mention “Study 1: Qualitative exploration of value cognition dimensions and measurement items among stakeholders (residents, passengers, tourists, and relevant workers), culminating in scale development,” as distinct from Study 2. However, the main body of the methodology does not elaborate separately on “Study 1,” lacking necessary detail. Labeling parts of the research as “Study 1” may mislead readers into believing that Study 1 and Study 2 are independent investigations. As the current manuscript primarily presents a standard procedure for structural equation modeling, the term “Study 1” should either be revised or accompanied by a detailed description of the qualitative study.

 

2. The section on the study area could benefit from the inclusion of an overview map of the research region and illustrative images showcasing the local railway-related heritage. This would greatly enhance accessibility for international readers.

 

3. There may be potential multicollinearity risks in the significance of the variable paths reported. The author should include a multicollinearity diagnostic report, such as VIF values and tolerance levels.

 

4. In the discussion section, the author merely provides conclusive statements regarding significant paths. It is recommended to enhance the theoretical explanation of these paths. For instance, how does social value significantly affect responsible behavior according to the CATE framework? What specific mechanisms link emotional arousal to behavioral motivation?

 

5. It is suggested to include comparative case studies of similar international research in the discussion, such as the preservation of industrial heritage in Europe.

Author Response

Comments 1:[Lines 85–87 mention “Study 1: Qualitative exploration of value cognition dimensions and measurement items among stakeholders (residents, passengers, tourists, and relevant workers), culminating in scale development,” as distinct from Study 2. However, the main body of the methodology does not elaborate separately on “Study 1,” lacking necessary detail. Labeling parts of the research as “Study 1” may mislead readers into believing that Study 1 and Study 2 are independent investigations. As the current manuscript primarily presents a standard procedure for structural equation modeling, the term “Study 1” should either be revised or accompanied by a detailed description of the qualitative study.]

Response 1:[To address these questions, a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative and quantitative research was employed: First, qualitative exploration was conducted on the value perception dimensions and measurement items of stakeholders (residents, passengers, tourists, and related workers) to develop a scale. Subsequently, based on the cognitive appraisal theory of emotion and using structural equation modeling (SEM), a quantitative examination of the influencing mechanisms was performed.] We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions. We fully agree with your suggestion and have made modifications to the issue of research ①. Thank you for your suggestion!

[Page 3, Paragraph 1, Line 103]

Comments 2: [The section on the study area could benefit from the inclusion of an overview map of the research region and illustrative images showcasing the local railway-related heritage. This would greatly enhance accessibility for international readers.]

Response 2:We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions.We have added an overview map of the research area. Thank you for your valuable suggestion! 

[Page 9, paragraph 1, line 384]

Comments 3:[ There may be potential multicollinearity risks in the significance of the variable paths reported. The author should include a multicollinearity diagnostic report, such as VIF values and tolerance levels.]

Response 3:[3.3. Multicollinearity analysis of independent variables The results of multicollinearity diagnosis are listed in Table 5（Table 5）. The value of VIF is 1.833(＜5), and the lowest value of TOL is 0.546(＞0.2), indicating that there is no multicollinearity among the independent variables.] Thank you for your valuable suggestions.We have supplemented the content of multicollinearity analysis.

[Page 13, paragraph 2, line 463]

Comments 4: [In the discussion section, the author merely provides conclusive statements regarding significant paths. It is recommended to enhance the theoretical explanation of these paths. For instance, how does social value significantly affect responsible behavior according to the CATE framework? What specific mechanisms link emotional arousal to behavioral motivation?]

Response 4:[①This alignment is also consistent with Social Identity Theory[65]. Social value is directly linked to the collective identity question of “who we are.” When stakeholders perceive that the heritage reinforces their social identity—such as “I am a descendant of the railway community” or “We are inheritors of the resilient Baocheng Spirit”—this sense of group belonging and distinctiveness strongly enhances self-esteem and self-efficacy, thereby most directly and powerfully integrating into their place identity.In contrast, the perceptions of conservation-utilization value, historical value, scientific-technological value, and artistic value exhibit similar degrees of influence. These belong to more specific, functional, or knowledge-based cognitions. Understanding a glorious history (historical value), marveling at an engineering miracle (technological value), appreciating industrial aesthetics (artistic value), or recognizing its future practical potential (protection-utilization value) all enhance an individual's sense of uniqueness and pride in the place, thus strengthening identity. However, as these values do not directly engage core identity in the way social value does, their impact is relatively weaker and more comparable to each other.][②Heritage Responsibility Behavior is a type of pro-social and altruistic behavior, which is most suitably explained by the Norm Activation Mode (NAM)[66]. This model posits that the occurrence of responsible behavior requires three conditions:Awareness of Consequences: Recognizing that inaction will lead to negative outcomes.Ascription of Responsibility: Attributing the responsibility for preventing these negative outcomes to oneself.Personal Norm: The activation of an internalized sense of moral obligation, thereby generating behavioral motivation.Social Value Perception: Most strongly activates ascription of responsibility. When individuals perceive heritage as a community bond, collective honor, and identity symbol, they tend to believe that "protecting it is our shared responsibility," fostering a strong sense of collective duty. This group identity-based responsibility is one of the most powerful drivers of behavior.Historical Value Perception: Primarily activates awareness of consequences. The recognition that "this is an irreplaceable, unique historical witness—if lost, it is gone forever" strongly motivates protection. It triggers a moral obligation associated with the role of "historical inheritor." Technological Value Perception: Functions through admiration and awe. Astonishment at the wisdom and engineering achievements of predecessors translates into a guardian mindset: "such a great accomplishment must not be destroyed in our generation." This emotion can also activate awareness of consequences and personal norms.Artistic Value Perception did not significantly influence responsibility behavior. One theoretical explanation is that artistic value leans more toward personal aesthetic enjoyment, evoking a consumer mindset rather than a sense of responsibility, making it less likely to activate the moral responsibility chain in NAM.Protection-Utilization Value Perception may involve utilitarian purposes, potentially driving "utilization" behavior rather than purely "responsibility" behavior.This result is related to Pandža Bajs I[67]、Fu, Y[50]The research results are consistent with the viewpoint.][③It demonstrates that value perception does not directly translate into responsibility behavior but rather requires the critical mediating bridge of place identity. Place identity plays the role of “internalization” and “motivational transformation” in this process.Value perception pertains to “external” attributes, such as stakeholders recognizing the historical or technological value of this railway. Place identity, on the other hand, is an “internal” self-definition, such as stakeholders viewing themselves as “part of the story of this railway.” When mediation occurs, it means external values are absorbed by the individual and become part of their self-concept. Protecting heritage is no longer merely about safeguarding an “external object” but about preserving an “extended self.” This constitutes a deeper and more fundamental behavioral motivation.The behavioral motivation shifts from an externally normative sense of obligation—”I should do”—to an intrinsically identity-driven necessity—”I want to do” or “I must do.”Taking Yangjiawan Station and Qingshiya Station as examples, the perception of historical value, centered on authenticity (His1) and integrity (His2), fosters a role identity as “guardians of historical memory,” thereby triggering daily, ongoing monitoring behaviors and knowledge transmission activities.The Guanyinshan spiral loop and Qinling tunnel complex, as key manifestations of engineering typicality (Sci2), evoke stakeholders' perception of scientific-technological value, eliciting admiration and awe. This translates into an identity as “admirers of industrial civilization,” motivating responsibility behaviors focused on research, documentation, and promotion.Through the perception of conservation-utilization value at Qinling Station and Xujiaping Railway Town, a sense of hope and optimism emerges, forming an identity as “co-creators of the heritage’s future.” This, in turn, inspires entrepreneurial and participatory consultation-based responsibility behaviors.]We greatly appreciate and agree with your valuable suggestions on strengthening the explanation of path theory. We have added them in “ 4. Discussion.” Thank you again for your suggestions.

[①Page 16, paragraph 2, line 593.②Page 17, paragraph 2, line 612.③Page 17, paragraph 3, line 647]

Comments 5:[It is suggested to include comparative case studies of similar international research in the discussion, such as the preservation of industrial heritage in Europe.]

Response 5:[Similar to the "Baocheng Spirit" of the Baocheng Railway, the German Ruhr Industrial Region has also developed a unique "industrial cultural spirit." The key to its successful transformation lies in preserving the region's industrial identity. The Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex in Essen, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, not only conserved the industrial architecture but, more importantly, retained the memories and sense of identity of the mining community. This spiritual identity has become the cultural foundation for the region's revitalization.] Thank you for your suggestion on supplementing relevant international research cases. We have already supplemented this section.

[Page 16, paragraph 2, line 574]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses an important topic in industrial heritage conservation, with a sound methodological foundation and relevant findings—especially regarding the role of social value perception and the mediating effect of place identity. However, the manuscript would benefit from clearer integration of the literature and theoretical framework, greater methodological transparency (sample details, construct measurement, ethics), more accessible presentation of results, deeper engagement in the discussion (including limitations), and a conclusion that synthesizes rather than repeats results.

Please refer to the attached file for detailed, section-by-section comments and specific suggestions for improvement.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: [The abstract succeeds in outlining the topic, theoretical framing, methodology, and key findings in a way that signals the study’s academic rigor and contextual specificity. Nevertheless, the overall readability and impact are hindered by overly long sentences, dense clustering of information, and an assumption of familiarity with certain theoretical concepts. Breaking down complex sentences, briefly contextualizing the CATE framework for readers unfamiliar with it, and using more active and direct phrasing would all help to make the abstract more engaging. Moreover, the final lines could more clearly articulate the novelty of the study—whether in integrating CATE with heritage studies, focusing on a linear heritage site, or revealing the primacy of social value perception—and specify practical implications for heritage managers. This would not only enhance the abstract’s persuasiveness but also underline its relevance beyond a purely academic audience.]

Response 1: [The effectiveness of industrial heritage conservation relies on the collaborative efforts of multiple stakeholders. However, existing research lacks systematic exploration of stakeholders' perception of heritage value and the pathways through which such perception translates into conservation behaviors. This study takes the Shaanxi section of the Baocheng Railway, a typical linear industrial heritage, as a case study. Based on the "Cognitive Appraisal Theory of Emotions” (CATE) theory, it examines the mechanism between heritage value perception, place identity, and heritage responsibility behavior. Through structural equation modeling analysis of 414 questionnaire responses, the study finds that heritage value perception of the Baocheng Railway's Shaanxi section not only significantly positively influences stakeholders' place identity but also directly promotes the formation of heritage responsibility behavior. Among these, the perception of social value has the most pronounced impact on place identity and responsibility behavior. Furthermore, place identity plays a key mediating role between value perception and responsibility behavior.This study introduces the CATE theory into industrial heritage research, revealing the mechanism of behavior generation from the path of "cognition → emotion → behavior".By focusing on linear industrial heritage sites, it broadens the scope of heritage research and highlights the central role of social value perception in driving conservation intentions and behaviors. The study further enriches research on heritage responsibility behavior, and the proposed theoretical model and findings can provide theoretical references for the management and conservation of industrial heritage.] Thank you for your valuable suggestions in the abstract section. We fully agree with your viewpoint and have made revisions to the abstract section.

[Page 1, Paragraph 1, Line 14]

Comments 2: [That said, the introduction sometimes reads more like a compressed literature catalogue than a guided argument. A number of studies are cited in close succession, often with minimal commentary on their relevance or how they interconnect. This risks leaving the reader with fragmented impressions rather than a cohesive understanding of the knowledge gap. A more deliberate synthesis—grouping references around thematic subpoints and drawing out trends or contradictions—would make the literature review portion more persuasive and set up the study’s contribution more clearly.  The theoretical framing, particularly the choice of the Cognitive Appraisal Theory of Emotions (CATE), is introduced, but not sufficiently anchored in the context of industrial heritage. While the abstract signals this theory’s central role, the introduction could benefit from one or two sentences explaining why CATE is an especially suitable lens here—what dimensions of stakeholder behavior it illuminates that other models might not. Without this bridge, the appearance of CATE feels abrupt and risks being perceived as imported from another field without full integration.  When the authors move towards defining the research gap, the need for systematic exploration of differences in stakeholders’ value perceptions and behavioral transformation pathways is indeed compelling. Yet the “gap” is stated more as a lack of previous work than as a concrete problem that the present study can solve. Framing it as a practical and theoretical problem—perhaps with a brief example of misaligned stakeholder perceptions leading to conservation challenges—would help the reader grasp the urgency and relevance.  Finally, the research objectives and contributions are stated, but they would have more impact if clearly separated from the literature review and framed in concise, active terms. Explicitly signaling the novelty (“This 2  is the first study to...”) and the dual contribution (theoretical model + empirical case) would sharpen the section’s persuasive power. A brief preview of the paper’s structure could also help orient the reader and improve flow.]

Response 2: [①CATE offers a novel perspective for interpreting the formation mechanism of heritage responsibility behaviors. This theory posits that an individual's cognitive appraisal of the environment triggers emotional responses, which subsequently drive specific behavioral intentions. It is particularly effective in explaining the divergence in behavioral motivations caused by differences in value perception. Within the context of industrial heritage, CATE can effectively reveal how diverse stakeholders develop differentiated emotional attachments based on their multidimensional perception of heritage values , ultimately influencing their behavioral intentions to engage in conservation.Compared to other theoretical models, CATE emphasizes a dual-path driving mechanism involving perception and affect, making it especially suitable for analyzing the intrinsic connections among “value perception → emotional response → behavioral intention.” It provides critical theoretical support for addressing the dual challenges of “unclear value perception” and “lack of responsibility” in current conservation practices. Although this framework has been applied in studies on resident and tourist behaviors at cultural heritage sites [16], its applicability in the context of industrial heritage remains to be tested, particularly its generalizability to diverse stakeholder groups.Therefore, the question of how stakeholders' perception of industrial heritage value, place identity, and heritage responsibility behavior interact through specific mechanisms warrants further exploration and research.][②Despite the fruitful research results, there are still three limitations in existing studies: firstly, the research subjects mostly focus on traditional heritage,such as historic and cultural districts [5]and World Cultural Heritage sites[2] , while attention to linear industrial heritage remains insufficient; second, the studied groups primarily consist of residents and tourists, with a lack of systematic research on diverse stakeholders; third, theoretical explorations often remain at the level of descriptive analysis, and empirical investigations into the internal mechanisms of 'cognition-affect-behavior' are still relatively weak, particularly regarding the validation of the mediating role of place identity.[③This study represents the first application of CATE to the research of railway industrial heritage, establishing a comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding the mechanisms through which stakeholders' value perception influences behavioral intentions. The findings can provide practical guidance for the conservation practices of railway industrial heritage. These theoretical and empirical contributions enhance the scientific basis for localized preservation strategies and ensure the long-term sustainability of the heritage values of the Baocheng Railway.]

We fully agree with your viewpoint and have made comprehensive revisions to the introduction content. Secondly, we emphasized the current blank status of Cognitive Appraisal Theory of Emotions research in the field of industrial heritage, and clarified the research direction and innovative value from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Sincerely thank you for your meticulous guidance!

[Page 2, paragraph 2, line 62. Page 2, paragraph 3, line 71. Page 3, Paragraph 1, Line 109]

Comments 3: [The sampling strategy is reported with specificity, including the number of distributed and valid questionnaires (414), which demonstrates transparency. However, there is limited discussion of how the sample reflects the diversity of stakeholder groups. The text names categories (e.g., residents, tourists, heritage managers) but could elaborate on their proportional representation, recruitment method, and potential biases in who responded. Without this, the reader is left uncertain about the sample’s representativeness and the generalizability of the findings.  The section describing the questionnaire design is functionally clear but could be improved by providing more rationale for the measurement choices. While the heritage value perception variables, place identity, and heritage responsibility behaviors are each operationalized, the link between their specific items and the underlying theory (CATE) is not always explicit. Including one or two examples of questionnaire items for each construct—especially where the wording captures key theoretical elements—would improve transparency and allow readers to better judge construct validity.  The choice of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) as the primary analysis tool is appropriate given the hypothesized mediating effects and multiple latent constructs. The statistical procedures (e.g., reliability, validity tests, fit indices) are mentioned, but their order and integration could be smoother. As it stands, the reporting of tests feels fragmented; grouping them under subheadings (e.g., “Reliability and Validity Assessment,” “Model Fit Evaluation”) would improve readability. Additionally, a brief justification of why SEM is preferable over alternative analytical methods in this context—perhaps referencing its ability to model complex causal pathways—would strengthen the methodological argument.  One potential weakness is the lack of discussion of ethical considerations. Although the study involves human participants, there is no mention of informed consent procedures, anonymity, or institutional ethics approval. This omission could raise concerns for some readers, especially in journals that expect explicit statements on research ethics.]

Response 3:[①Through a comprehensive evaluation of multiple indices, all metrics met the established test criteria, indicating that the model exhibits a good goodness-of-fit, reasonable specification, and strong statistical reliability.]

Thank you for your valuable suggestions on 'The Materials and Methods'. We fully agree with your viewpoint. And the following modifications were made to it:

①we have written about the proportion of the sample in section “3.1.Sample Characteristics Analysis,” and have supplemented it with a series of sample issues such as potential bias.

②we have strengthened the expression of the correlation between specific items and the fundamental theory (CATE).

③In section 2.4. Data Analysis Methods, we will supplement the advantages of SEM.

④The classification of "reliability and validity evaluation" and "model fit evaluation" has been written in the form of subheadings.

⑤Finally, we have supplemented the issue of academic ethics in the "2.3 Data Collection".

Thank you for your valuable suggestions and careful guidance!

[①Page 9, paragraph 2, line 39.②Page 11, paragraph 2, line 417.③Page 11, Paragraph 1, Line 399]

Comments 4: [That said, the section reads at times as if it were written for statisticians rather than for a broader heritage management audience. Many of the results are reported in purely numerical form, with limited interpretive commentary. While the technical detail is valuable, adding short, plain-language summaries after each statistical table would make the implications clearer to non-specialists. For instance, instead of only stating “β = 0.532, p < 0.001,” the text could briefly interpret this as “a strong and statistically significant influence of social value perception on place identity.” 3  The tables themselves are informative, but they could benefit from slightly more descriptive titles, specifying what each set of coefficients represents (e.g.,“Direct Effects of Heritage Value Perception on Place Identity and Responsibility Behavior” rather than simply “Path Coefficients”). This small change would make the section more navigable.  Another weakness is that the results are sometimes presented without immediate connection to the underlying research questions or hypotheses. For example, the finding that social value perception has the strongest effect is central to the study’s narrative, but it only appears as a number in a table before being highlighted in the discussion. Explicitly flagging key findings in the Results section, rather than leaving all interpretation for later, would give the section more punch.  Finally, although the model fit indices are reported, there is little discussion of their meaning. A short explanation—perhaps noting that the fit indices meet commonly accepted thresholds—would help confirm for the reader that the model is statistically sound without requiring them to consult external references.]

Response 4:[①It is worth noting that social value perception has the most significant and statistically significant impact on place identity and heritage responsibility behavior.][②β:The direct impact of the dependent variable on the independent variable.][③Through a comprehensive evaluation of multiple indices, all metrics met the established test criteria, indicating that the model exhibits a good goodness-of-fit, reasonable specification, and strong statistical reliability.]

Thank you for your valuable suggestions on “The Results”. We fully agree with your viewpoint and have made the following improvements and modifications:

①We have supplemented the research results by linking them to the core research questions in a timely manner.

②Added brief definitions to the table information.

③We have supplemented the explanation of the model fitting index.

Thank you for your valuable suggestions and careful guidance!

[①Page 13, paragraph 3, line 473.②Page 14, line 503.③Page 14, Paragraph 1, Line 499]

Comments 5: [However, the integration of literature feels uneven. In some places, the discussion draws effectively on existing studies to contextualize findings; in others, it presents results in isolation, with only cursory reference to prior work. This can give the impression that certain claims—such as the prominence of social value—are entirely novel, even when similar patterns might have been observed in related heritage contexts. A more systematic comparison between the current findings and previous studies (both in China and internationally) would strengthen the discussion’s credibility and highlight the study’s contribution more sharply.  The section’s treatment of the mediating role of place identity is insightful, but somewhat brief given its theoretical significance. Since this finding directly supports the use of CATE in the heritage field, expanding this part to explore the psychological mechanisms at play would add depth. For instance, discussing how shared identity narratives or emotional attachment to place could transform abstract heritage values into concrete conservation actions would bridge the theory-behavior gap more clearly.  One notable weakness is the lack of engagement with potential counter-interpretations or limitations of the results. The discussion assumes that the observed relationships are universally applicable, without considering cultural, historical, or stakeholder-specific variables that might alter these dynamics. A short reflection on whether these patterns might differ in other types of industrial heritage or in non-Chinese contexts would not only add nuance but also increase the study’s relevance for an international audience.  The practical implications are present but could be made more actionable. While the authors state that the findings offer guidance for heritage management, these recommendations remain at a high level (e.g., “strengthen social value perception”) without concrete strategies. Translating these into specific policy or management actions—such as community engagement programs, heritage interpretation initiatives, or participatory conservation planning—would make the discussion more useful for practitioners.]

Response 5:[①This alignment is also consistent with Social Identity Theory[65]. Social value is directly linked to the collective identity question of “who we are.” When stakeholders perceive that the heritage reinforces their social identity—such as “I am a descendant of the railway community” or “We are inheritors of the resilient Baocheng Spirit”—this sense of group belonging and distinctiveness strongly enhances self-esteem and self-efficacy, thereby most directly and powerfully integrating into their place identity.In contrast, the perceptions of conservation-utilization value, historical value, scientific-technological value, and artistic value exhibit similar degrees of influence. These belong to more specific, functional, or knowledge-based cognitions. Understanding a glorious history (historical value), marveling at an engineering miracle (technological value), appreciating industrial aesthetics (artistic value), or recognizing its future practical potential (protection-utilization value) all enhance an individual's sense of uniqueness and pride in the place, thus strengthening identity. However, as these values do not directly engage core identity in the way social value does, their impact is relatively weaker and more comparable to each other.][②Heritage Responsibility Behavior is a type of pro-social and altruistic behavior, which is most suitably explained by the Norm Activation Mode (NAM)[66]. This model posits that the occurrence of responsible behavior requires three conditions:Awareness of Consequences: Recognizing that inaction will lead to negative outcomes.Ascription of Responsibility: Attributing the responsibility for preventing these negative outcomes to oneself.Personal Norm: The activation of an internalized sense of moral obligation, thereby generating behavioral motivation.Social Value Perception: Most strongly activates ascription of responsibility. When individuals perceive heritage as a community bond, collective honor, and identity symbol, they tend to believe that "protecting it is our shared responsibility," fostering a strong sense of collective duty. This group identity-based responsibility is one of the most powerful drivers of behavior.Historical Value Perception: Primarily activates awareness of consequences. The recognition that "this is an irreplaceable, unique historical witness—if lost, it is gone forever" strongly motivates protection. It triggers a moral obligation associated with the role of "historical inheritor." Technological Value Perception: Functions through admiration and awe. Astonishment at the wisdom and engineering achievements of predecessors translates into a guardian mindset: "such a great accomplishment must not be destroyed in our generation." This emotion can also activate awareness of consequences and personal norms.Artistic Value Perception did not significantly influence responsibility behavior. One theoretical explanation is that artistic value leans more toward personal aesthetic enjoyment, evoking a consumer mindset rather than a sense of responsibility, making it less likely to activate the moral responsibility chain in NAM.Protection-Utilization Value Perception may involve utilitarian purposes, potentially driving "utilization" behavior rather than purely "responsibility" behavior.This result is related to Pandža Bajs I[67]、Fu, Y[50]The research results are consistent with the viewpoint.][③Similar to the "Baocheng Spirit" of the Baocheng Railway, the German Ruhr Industrial Region has also developed a unique "industrial cultural spirit." The key to its successful transformation lies in preserving the region's industrial identity. The Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex in Essen, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, not only conserved the industrial architecture but, more importantly, retained the memories and sense of identity of the mining community. This spiritual identity has become the cultural foundation for the region's revitalization.][④Taking the perception of social value as an example, the Baocheng Railway, as a remarkable collective achievement, enables individuals to perceive its social value by categorizing themselves into social groups such as “inheritors of railway culture” or “resilient residents of the Qinba Mountains,” thereby fostering positive group self-esteem. The cognitive pathway unfolds as follows: recognizing that the Baocheng Railway is “New China’s first electrified railway” and “a breakthrough that overcame the historical challenges of the Shu Route” → generating the cognition that “this land/this group has achieved greatness” → internalizing this into a positive identity of “I belong to this great collective/place.” Such cognitions evoke feelings of pride, honor, and belonging, which form the emotional core of place identity. These positive emotions transform abstract cognitions into concrete emotional attachments, making the identity more stable and enduring.] [⑤The comparative data of other sections such as the Sichuan section is not fully included, it may affect the universality of the conclusions, and there may be differences in value perception among different stakeholders.Data collection relied on self-report scales. Although reliability and validity tests were conducted, the results may still be subject to certain common method bias and social desirability bias.][⑥At the policy level:①Prioritize enhancing the communication of social values. Organize community participatory activities, such as collecting oral histories of the railway and hosting forums for retired employees, to emphasize the railway's role in connecting communities and perpetuating collective memory.②Utilize place identity as a lever to promote conservation actions. First, integrate "identity" into the core of conservation policies, for instance, by introducing a "Railway Guardian" certification for residents and establishing community volunteer patrols. Second, develop localized educational programs,collaborate with schools to conduct thematic studies on "Railway and Hometown," fostering a sense of identity among the younger generation.③ Differentiate the allocation of conservation resources. Prioritize funding for carriers of social value (e.g., community railway memorial halls), historical value (e.g., monuments commemorating flood control and railway protection), and technological value (e.g.,  the Guanyin Mountain Cableway Experience Center). For carriers of artistic value (e.g., landscape features along the route), social capital can be introduced through tourism development to alleviate fiscal burdens.

For local residents:①Strengthen the "railway-community" bond. Encourage residents to actively participate in building the Baocheng Railway Memory Archive, such as by contributing old photographs and physical artifacts, to reinforce their identity as "heritage inheritors." Establish a self-governed railway culture association and organize community festivals, such as a market to commemorate the opening of the Baocheng Railway, to enhance a sense of belonging.②Transform identity into sustainable actions. First, encourage residents to shift from "passive compliance" to "active guardianship," such as by monitoring destructive behaviors and participating in daily maintenance. Second, develop railway-themed livelihoods, such as family-run railway-themed restaurants and handmade railway model workshops, achieving a win-win outcome for cultural preservation and income generation.

For tourists:①Guide tourists to experience the core "social value" of the Baocheng Railway. Design immersive social narrative experiences, such as "A Day in the Life of a Railway Worker" or participating in "Railway Teahouse Storytelling Sessions," where they can listen to residents' oral histories.②Foster responsible behavior through identity resonance. Incorporate role-playing elements into tours, such as distributing "One-Day Railway Soldier" task cards and awarding badges after completing heritage conservation knowledge quizzes.③ Develop products that translate responsible behavior into action. For example, implement a "trash-for-treasure" program where litter collected along the railway can be exchanged for railway-themed cultural and creative products, or introduce "public crowdfunding tickets" where a portion of the ticket revenue is allocated to emergency heritage conservation efforts.]

Thank you for your valuable suggestions in the discussion section. We fully agree with your viewpoint and have made the following modifications to the content:

①We have strengthened the theoretical support in the discussion section.

②We have introduced similar cases from abroad for analysis.

③We will supplement and improve the discussion on place identity.

④Regarding the issue of default universality in discussions, we have supplemented it in "Limitations and Prospects" to address deviations caused by cultural differences, historical backgrounds, and stakeholder characteristics.

⑤Regarding practical measures, we will discuss them in section 5.3 Practical Implications propose specific practical measures for different stakeholders.

Thank you for your valuable suggestions and careful guidance!

[①Page 16,paragraph 2, line 593.②Page 17, paragraph 2,line 612.③Page 16, Paragraph 2, Line 574.④Page 16, Paragraph 2,563.⑤Page 20, paragraph 6,line 797.⑥Page 20, paragraph 2,line 752.]

Comments 6: [However, the section reads more like an extended summary of results than a true conclusion. It largely repeats earlier points without offering new synthesis, broader reflection, or a strong forward-looking perspective. A well-crafted conclusion should not only encapsulate the study but also clearly articulate its theoretical and practical contributions, address limitations, and outline specific avenues for future research. At present, these elements are either missing or only hinted at.  For example, while the abstract and discussion suggest that the integration of CATE into heritage studies is a significant contribution, the conclusion does not explicitly claim this as a novel theoretical advancement. Similarly, practical recommendations for heritage managers—particularly those involving stakeholder engagement and the cultivation of social value—could be stated more forcefully here to leave a lasting impression on practitioners.  The section also omits any discussion of methodological constraints, such as the regional specificity of the sample or the reliance on self-reported data, which could affect the generalizability of findings. A brief acknowledgment of these limitations, paired with targeted suggestions for how future research could address them (e.g., comparative studies in different heritage contexts, longitudinal tracking of behavior changes), would strengthen the credibility of the conclusion.  Finally, the conclusion could end with a more compelling, high-level statement that captures the broader significance of the work—something that connects the empirical findings to the enduring challenge of balancing heritage preservation with community engagement and political realities. Such a closing note would give the paper a stronger sense of purpose and memorability.]

Response 6:[①In summary, this study through an investigation of stakeholders in the Shaanxi section of the Baocheng Railway, reveals a clear pathway of influence: heritage value perception → place identity → heritage responsibility behavior. This not only confirms that place identity is a key mediator in motivating public conservation behaviors but also profoundly highlights that, among various value dimensions, the perception of the Baocheng Railway's social value is the most critical factor in fostering place identity.This finding offers important insights for addressing current practical challenges in heritage conservation: successful heritage governance cannot rely solely on an expert-led “elite discourse”emphasizing historical, artistic, and technological values. Instead, it must shift toward a people-centered, inclusive model that prioritizes community well-being and social benefits. Only when local residents genuinely perceive the heritage as “ours” and believe it can contribute to “our” quality of life will spontaneous and sustainable conservation behaviors emerge. Therefore, future policies should focus on exploring and leveraging the social value of heritage. By strengthening place identity, we can resolve the tension between conservation and development, ultimately achieving the dual goals of sustainable heritage preservation and synergistic community development.] [②At the policy level:①Prioritize enhancing the communication of social values. Organize community participatory activities, such as collecting oral histories of the railway and hosting forums for retired employees, to emphasize the railway's role in connecting communities and perpetuating collective memory.②Utilize place identity as a lever to promote conservation actions. First, integrate "identity" into the core of conservation policies, for instance, by introducing a "Railway Guardian" certification for residents and establishing community volunteer patrols. Second, develop localized educational programs,collaborate with schools to conduct thematic studies on "Railway and Hometown," fostering a sense of identity among the younger generation.③ Differentiate the allocation of conservation resources. Prioritize funding for carriers of social value (e.g., community railway memorial halls), historical value (e.g., monuments commemorating flood control and railway protection), and technological value (e.g.,  the Guanyin Mountain Cableway Experience Center). For carriers of artistic value (e.g., landscape features along the route), social capital can be introduced through tourism development to alleviate fiscal burdens.

For local residents:①Strengthen the "railway-community" bond. Encourage residents to actively participate in building the Baocheng Railway Memory Archive, such as by contributing old photographs and physical artifacts, to reinforce their identity as "heritage inheritors." Establish a self-governed railway culture association and organize community festivals, such as a market to commemorate the opening of the Baocheng Railway, to enhance a sense of belonging.②Transform identity into sustainable actions. First, encourage residents to shift from "passive compliance" to "active guardianship," such as by monitoring destructive behaviors and participating in daily maintenance. Second, develop railway-themed livelihoods, such as family-run railway-themed restaurants and handmade railway model workshops, achieving a win-win outcome for cultural preservation and income generation.

For tourists:①Guide tourists to experience the core "social value" of the Baocheng Railway. Design immersive social narrative experiences, such as "A Day in the Life of a Railway Worker" or participating in "Railway Teahouse Storytelling Sessions," where they can listen to residents' oral histories.②Foster responsible behavior through identity resonance. Incorporate role-playing elements into tours, such as distributing "One-Day Railway Soldier" task cards and awarding badges after completing heritage conservation knowledge quizzes.③ Develop products that translate responsible behavior into action. For example, implement a "trash-for-treasure" program where litter collected along the railway can be exchanged for railway-themed cultural and creative products, or introduce "public crowdfunding tickets" where a portion of the ticket revenue is allocated to emergency heritage conservation efforts.]

Thank you for your valuable suggestions in the "The Conclusion" section. We fully agree with your viewpoint and have made the following modifications:

①We will supplement and improve the conclusion section of the paper.

②The theoretical value, practical contribution, and limitations sections have been written as separate chapters, especially for section 5.3. Practical Implications. We have provided specific suggestions for different stakeholders.

Thank you for your suggestions and careful guidance!

[①Page 19,paragraph 2, line 709.②Page 20, paragraph 2,line 752.]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer thinks that revisions are completed partially. Nevertheless, the reviewer still has a point about the matters of this manuscript. While I appreciate the authors’ acknowledgment that they will “adjust the difficulty of the questionnaire items in future research,” deferring this issue undermines the credibility of the present findings. The uniformly high scores suggest ceiling effects and acquiescence, which obscure true variation in place identity and its links to behavior. In practice, not all cultural-heritage sites simultaneously excel in Soc3 (social belonging) and Soc4 (spiritual value), nor do they all exhibit perfect His1 (authenticity)/His2 (integrity) or Tec2 (typical technological features)/Tec3 (innovation/industry development). Because real sites vary on these elements, the current “all-positive” pattern likely reflects measurement difficulty that is too low and/or response-style bias, rather than genuine equivalence across value dimensions. 
Thus, the authors should build a short hard-item composite for each value construct and re-test the SEM paths as a robustness check.
In other words, the reviewer thinks the survey items appear too easy, leading most respondents to give uniformly high ratings. As a result, the measured values may not reflect genuine differences among stakeholders. Therefore, the reviewer suggests the following:
“Construct a set of hard-item composites for each value dimension and re-test the SEM paths with these more discriminating items. This will reduce measurement bias and verify whether the proposed pathway—Value → Place Identity → Behavior—remains valid.”

Author Response

Comments 1: [The reviewer thinks that revisions are completed partially. Nevertheless, the reviewer still has a point about the matters of this manuscript. While I appreciate the authors’ acknowledgment that they will “adjust the difficulty of the questionnaire items in future research,” deferring this issue undermines the credibility of the present findings. The uniformly high scores suggest ceiling effects and acquiescence, which obscure true variation in place identity and its links to behavior. In practice, not all cultural-heritage sites simultaneously excel in Soc3 (social belonging) and Soc4 (spiritual value), nor do they all exhibit perfect His1 (authenticity)/His2 (integrity) or Tec2 (typical technological features)/Tec3 (innovation/industry development). Because real sites vary on these elements, the current “all-positive” pattern likely reflects measurement difficulty that is too low and/or response-style bias, rather than genuine equivalence across value dimensions. 
Thus, the authors should build a short hard-item composite for each value construct and re-test the SEM paths as a robustness check.
In other words, the reviewer thinks the survey items appear too easy, leading most respondents to give uniformly high ratings. As a result, the measured values may not reflect genuine differences among stakeholders. Therefore, the reviewer suggests the following:
“Construct a set of hard-item composites for each value dimension and re-test the SEM paths with these more discriminating items. This will reduce measurement bias and verify whether the proposed pathway—Value → Place Identity → Behavior—remains valid.”]

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the valuable suggestions from the reviewer and fully agree with your viewpoint of "constructing a set of hard-item composites for each heritage value and retesting the SEM path". However, the addition of questionnaire items requires comprehensive modifications in experimental design, data collection, data analysis, model construction, and other aspects. Due to the long experimental period, we have some difficulties in solving this problem within the current revision deadline. However, we are aware that your suggestions are very helpful for our future research, and I will fully consider them in future studies. In fact, we would like to provide the following three explanations to the reviewer: firstly, regarding the questionnaire design on the perception of heritage value, we have revised the Gaofei "Chinese Eastern Railway Industrial Heritage Value Evaluation Research" scale based on important references such as the "National Industrial Heritage Management Measures". Through reliability and validity testing, we have confirmed that the questionnaire has high reliability and validity; Secondly, in this study, we will focus on the Shaanxi section of the Baocheng Railway, with the main objective of exploring stakeholders' overall recognition and evaluation of the heritage value of the Baocheng Railway Shaanxi section, as well as the relationship between heritage value perception, place identity, and heritage responsibility behavior.Your viewpoint on exploring the differences in various heritage resources is highly consistent with our next research plan. Based on the research foundation of this project, we will continue to deepen this part of the content; Thirdly, the research team conducted multiple on-site investigations on the entire Baocheng Railway, and we are very familiar with the basic situation of the Shaanxi section. The Baocheng Railway Shaanxi section crosses the Qinba Mountain area and has the "difficult to climb" ancient Shu Road passing nearby, making it the section with the highest engineering and technical value, as well as the richest cultural and natural landscape resources. At the same time, as a public welfare line, the Baocheng Railway Shaanxi section is an important link for people's livelihood services in the remote mountainous areas of Qinba. We not only conducted sufficient questionnaire surveys on stakeholders, but also conducted appropriate interviews with them. Most of them have deep emotional attachment  and identification with the Baocheng Railway Shaanxi section. Although we have stated in research limitations that the research results may have certain biases due to various factors, it does not affect the fairness and objectivity of the research results presented in the experiment. Thank you again for the valuable suggestions from the reviewer!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully examined your revised manuscript and your detailed responses to the first-round review comments. Overall, the revisions are thoughtful, thorough, and substantially strengthen the clarity and scholarly contribution of the paper.

• Abstract and Introduction: The abstract is now clearer and more concise, with explicit emphasis on novelty and practical implications. The introduction has been reorganized to provide a better synthesis of the literature and to situate the use of CATE more convincingly within the industrial heritage field.

• Methods: Your clarifications on sampling proportions, questionnaire design, and the rationale for SEM significantly improve methodological transparency. The addition of an ethics statement and clearer structuring of the “Reliability and Validity” and “Model Fit” assessments are also welcome.

• Results: The integration of plain-language summaries alongside statistical outputs makes the section more accessible to a broader readership. The more descriptive table titles and the explicit highlighting of key findings (e.g., the primacy of social value perception) are effective improvements.

• Discussion: The discussion now engages more systematically with prior research, both national and international, and expands on the mediating role of place identity. The inclusion of comparative cases and a more nuanced reflection on limitations strengthen the credibility of the section. Importantly, the practical recommendations have been expanded into concrete and actionable strategies for different stakeholder groups, which increases the applied relevance of your study.

• Conclusion: The conclusion has been rewritten to emphasize theoretical contribution (integration of CATE into industrial heritage research), practical implications, and limitations with avenues for future research. This creates a stronger sense of closure and impact.

Remaining Minor Issues
At this stage, only small points remain:

• The manuscript would still benefit from a light round of professional English editing for stylistic consistency.

• Figures and tables should be harmonized in terms of layout and labeling to ensure full technical consistency.

Final Remark
Your revisions satisfactorily address the previous concerns, and the manuscript is now in publishable form after minor editorial corrections.

Author Response

Comments 1: [I have carefully examined your revised manuscript and your detailed responses to the first-round review comments. Overall, the revisions are thoughtful, thorough, and substantially strengthen the clarity and scholarly contribution of the paper.

Abstract and Introduction: The abstract is now clearer and more concise, with explicit emphasis on novelty and practical implications. The introduction has been reorganized to provide a better synthesis of the literature and to situate the use of CATE more convincingly within the industrial heritage field.

Methods: Your clarifications on sampling proportions, questionnaire design, and the rationale for SEM significantly improve methodological transparency. The addition of an ethics statement and clearer structuring of the “Reliability and Validity” and “Model Fit” assessments are also welcome.

Results: The integration of plain-language summaries alongside statistical outputs makes the section more accessible to a broader readership. The more descriptive table titles and the explicit highlighting of key findings (e.g., the primacy of social value perception) are effective improvements.

Discussion: The discussion now engages more systematically with prior research, both national and international, and expands on the mediating role of place identity. The inclusion of comparative cases and a more nuanced reflection on limitations strengthen the credibility of the section. Importantly, the practical recommendations have been expanded into concrete and actionable strategies for different stakeholder groups, which increases the applied relevance of your study.

Conclusion: The conclusion has been rewritten to emphasize theoretical contribution (integration of CATE into industrial heritage research), practical implications, and limitations with avenues for future research. This creates a stronger sense of closure and impact.

Remaining Minor Issues
At this stage, only small points remain:

The manuscript would still benefit from a light round of professional English editing for stylistic consistency.

Figures and tables should be harmonized in terms of layout and labeling to ensure full technical consistency.

Final Remark
Your revisions satisfactorily address the previous concerns, and the manuscript is now in publishable form after minor editorial corrections.]

Response 1: [① World Heritage represents a global endeavor aimed at highlighting outstanding universal value and fostering consensus among diverse stakeholders from various cultural backgrounds[1].][② It is particularly effective in explaining variations in behavioral motivation arising from differences in value perception.][③The study reveals that stakeholders' perceptions of social value, historical value, and technological value are more significantly than their perceptions of artistic value and protection-utilization value. ][④The Baocheng spirit of "not afraid of hardship, not willing to give up, and not ambiguous" has been nurtured][⑤its technological value lies in being the first electrified railway in China. In extremely complex geographical environments, the integrated application of mountainous railway construction technology and electrification technology has strong era typicality and engineering representativeness, fundamentally promoting the leapfrog development of China's railway electrification industry.]We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions.We fully agree with your point of view and have made consistent modifications to the layout and labels of the table. At the same time, in terms of English, we have improved the consistency of text content and language quality. [It needs further explanation that we have not copied the modifications made to the tables and a small portion of the manuscript here, but they have been made in the manuscript. Thank you for the reviewer's suggestions and careful guidance!–①page 2, paragraph 1, and line 1.②page 2, paragraph 3, and line 74.③page 15, paragraph 2, and line 514.④page 15, paragraph 2, and line 527.⑤page 15, paragraph 2, and line 548.]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf