The Feasibility of Upgrading Cultural Resource Tourism Routes in Betong District, Yala Province, Thailand, Under the Limitations of Border Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a relevant topic and is based on substantive fieldwork conducted in a socially and territorially sensitive context. The authors demonstrate strong engagement with local communities and present valuable empirical material derived from participatory processes, which reflects a genuine commitment to community-based tourism development. However, throughout the manuscript there is a recurring tension between the logic of a development or planning project and the expectations of a scientific article. While the study clearly documents a local development initiative, its analytical framing, theoretical positioning, and methodological articulation require further clarification and strengthening in order to meet the standards of an academic contribution in the social sciences.

1. Regarding the Introduction

The introduction provides a clear contextualization of the study area and effectively highlights the practical relevance of the topic. To strengthen its scientific framing, the authors are encouraged to explicitly define what is meant by “feasibility” in the context of this study. I mean: social feasibility? cultural feasibility? institutional feasibility? territorial feasibility? economic feasibility? financial feasibility? Moreover, it is necessary to formulate a clear research question derived from this definition. Doing so would help clarify the analytical focus of the manuscript and guide the subsequent methodological and interpretative sections

2. Regarding the Literature Review

A simple search in Scopus using the keywords “cultural route” AND “management*” yields several highly relevant publications for the topic addressed in this manuscript, particularly when results are ranked by citation impact. Among the most cited contributions in this field, only one is referenced in the article (Oikonomopoulou et al., 2017). Notably, several highly cited studies are directly aligned with the objectives, conceptual framing, and analytical focus of the present research, and their absence substantially weakens the theoretical grounding of the literature review.

In particular, Richards & Wilson (2006) provides a foundational perspective on cultural route and cultural tourism management by conceptualizing creativity as a managerial response to the standardization of cultural experiences, an issue closely related to the promotion of creative and community-based tourism routes in this study. Božić & Tomić (2016) offers a formal evaluation framework (CREM) for cultural routes, which is especially relevant given the manuscript’s explicit focus on feasibility but the absence of clear evaluative criteria. Øian (2019) examines cultural and pilgrimage routes as contested social spaces shaped by multiple stakeholders, a perspective highly pertinent to border and multicultural contexts such as Betong.

In addition, several other highly cited studies relevant to cultural route management, governance, spatial integration, visitor experience, and digital strategies are not considered (Liu, 2018; Valagussa et al., 2021; Li & Hu, 2019; Gou & Shibata, 2017; Zhang et al., 2021; Parrinello & Picchio, 2023).

When the same Scopus search is filtered by the most recent publications, further relevant studies published in 2025 are also absent from the literature review. These include recent contributions addressing participatory planning, governance, spatial structure, sustainability, and feasibility assessment of cultural routes (Chodkowska-Miszczuk et al., 2025; Karataş et al., 2025; Mikos von Rohrscheidt, 2025), as well as additional recent works (Orlando et al., 2025; Cimadomo et al., 2025; Costa et al., 2025; Rosser & Soler, 2025; Trono & Castronuovo, 2025; Sun, 2025; Jones, 2025).

Overall, the omission of both highly cited and recent core literature suggests a limited engagement with key academic debates and contemporary research in the field of cultural route management, affecting the rigor and completeness of the literature review.

Suggestion to the authors: Please expand and strengthen the literature review on cultural route management with greater scientific rigor, ensuring explicit engagement with both foundational and recent contributions. Once revised, we recommend synthesizing the studies directly related to your research in a table including: (i) narrative citation, (ii) research objective, (iii) theoretical framework (or explicit absence thereof), (iv) methodology, (v) main findings, and (vi) future research directions. This synthesis would help reinforce the scientific positioning of the study, clarify its theoretical contribution, align its methodology with existing research, and strengthen the academic discussion and justification of the research.

3. Regarding the Methodology

The methodology requires substantial clarification and operationalization. Please address the following points:

(1) Clearly define what “feasibility” means in this study.

(2) Specify the dimensions of feasibility assessed (social, cultural, institutional, territorial, economic or financial).

(3) Define explicit evaluation criteria for each dimension.

(4) Clarify whether any thresholds or gradation scales were applied, and how they were determined.

(5) Support the methodological design with references to established evaluation frameworks or comparable studies in the literature on cultural route management.

Without these elements, the methodology remains descriptive and does not allow the feasibility assessment to be evaluated, replicated, or compared.

4. Regarding the Results and Discussion

As a consequence of the limited rigor in the definition of the concept of “feasibility”, the literature review, and the specification of the methodological framework, both the Results and Discussion sections require substantial restructuring.

Results should be presented and organized according to the criteria, indicators, and thresholds previously defined and academically justified in the methodology.

The Discussion section should then (1) interpret the findings from a theoretical perspective grounded in the revised literature review, and (2) explicitly compare the results with those reported in existing studies in order to position the contribution of the present research within the broader scientific debate.

5. Regarding Conclusions

As with the Results and Discussion sections, the Conclusions section requires restructuring. The authors are encouraged to organize this section as follows: (1) a theoretical conclusion, explicitly grounded in the revised literature review and supported by the suggested synthesis table; (2) an empirical conclusion summarizing the main findings derived from the analysis; (3) practical implications and actionable recommendations for policy and community-based tourism management; (4) a clear statement of the study’s limitations; and (5) future research directions. This structure would help clarify the scientific contribution of the study and strengthen its overall coherence.

Overall comment

This study addresses a relevant topic and is grounded in meaningful fieldwork conducted in a complex territorial and social context. The empirical material collected through community participation provides a valuable foundation for a strong academic contribution. However, substantial revisions are required to clearly distinguish the manuscript from a development or planning report and to strengthen its scientific positioning. The authors have the opportunity to significantly enhance the analytical rigor, theoretical contribution, and overall quality of the manuscript. I encourage the authors to view these comments as guidance aimed at helping them fully realize the scholarly potential of their work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your paper to Societies. 

The manuscript addresses a topic that is potentially relevant to Societies, namely community participation and local development processes in a border-area context. The empirical setting and the intention to employ participatory approaches suggest that the study could, in principle, contribute to debates on place-based governance and collective action. I am stating "It could" as it does not at the moment. In its current form, the manuscript falls short of the standards expected for publication in a journal and requires substantial revision (I was very close to recommend rejections, but decided to suggest major revision as I respect the work you have done so far).

1. Conceptual and Theoretical Positioning

The paper lacks a clearly articulated theoretical contribution. Although concepts such as participation, trust, social capital, and sustainability are repeatedly invoked, they are not analytically developed or situated within a specific theoretical framework. The manuscript remains largely descriptive and does not prove nor convincingly demonstrate how the case advances existing scholarship (and how it innovates current world of knowledge).

You as the authors are encouraged to:

• Clearly specify the social-science debate to which the paper contributes.

• Move beyond general statements about participation and sustainability and engage more critically with theory (funnel your thinking).

• Clarify your contribution by supporting your claims with the findings. For e.g. whether the contribution is conceptual, analytical, or primarily illustrative.

Without this clarification, the manuscript risks being read as a local development report rather than a scholarly article.

2. Research Design and Methodological Clarity

The research design is insufficiently described and it is not specific enough. While community forums, interviews, and participatory mapping are mentioned, the research procedures remain vague and under-documented.

In particular:

• Research questions are not clearly stated. These represent the core of your scientific intention and your research goals.

• The concept of “feasibility” is not operationalized and appears to be used in a generic manner. And we need hard, concrete operationalization of the concept you are trying to prove.

• Key methodological details (number and structure of forums, interview protocols, analytical procedures) are missing or only superficially addressed, hence leaving too much of a doubt in minds of those who read the paper.

The lack of methodological transparency makes it difficult to assess the rigor, validity, or transferability of the findings.

3. Results and Analytical Depth

The results section is predominantly descriptive and inventory-based. While lists of resources and routes are presented, there is limited analytical engagement with the data.

To strengthen the manuscript, you should:

• Structure results around analytically meaningful themes (going back to the research intention).

• Provide evidence-based interpretation (extremely important) rather than narrative summaries.

• Include empirical material (e.g., participant quotations) to support key claims.

At present, the manuscript does not sufficiently demonstrate how empirical observations lead to the stated conclusions.

4. Discussion and Scholarly Engagement

The discussion largely reiterates general claims about participation (and this is already know and established in the academic community), sustainability, and community benefits, without critically engaging with existing literature or alternative interpretations (the value of any paper is critical thinking of the authors as well as interpretation of the data).

The authors should:

• More explicitly compare their findings with previous studies.

• Address contradictions, limitations, and contextual constraints, particularly those related to border-area governance.

• Avoid overgeneralizing conclusions beyond what the data support.

5. Use of Sources and Referencing

While the manuscript cites a substantial body of literature, references are often used in a broad or illustrative manner rather than to support precise arguments. Some citations raise concerns regarding accuracy and relevance and should be carefully reviewed.

Greater precision is needed in linking specific claims to appropriate sources.

6. Overall Mark

In its current form, the manuscript does not yet meet the standards of Societies. While the empirical context has potential, significant work is required to strengthen theoretical framing, methodological rigor, analytical depth, and academic writing quality.

Major revision is required, and acceptance would depend on substantial and demonstrable improvement across these dimensions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language, Style, and Use of AI-Assisted Writing

English in this paper is just really at the unacceptably low level. This needs to be fixed before all.

A major concern relates to the quality and authorship of the prose. Large portions of the manuscript rely on generic, repetitive, and abstract formulations that do not reflect a clear scholarly voice. Several passages read as syntactically correct but conceptually thin (!), with limited specificity or argumentative development.

These patterns are strongly consistent with extensive AI-assisted drafting or paraphrasing. While the use of AI tools for language support is not inherently problematic, in this case it appears to have resulted in prose that lacks analytical sharpness, human judgment, and disciplinary voice.

The authors are strongly advised to:

• Substantially revise the manuscript to ensure that the writing reflects genuine scholarly reasoning.

• Reduce generic formulations and normative statements.

• Rework key sections (especially the Introduction, Literature Review, and Discussion) in a more precise, critical, and human-authored academic style.

Failure to address this issue will likely hinder the manuscript’s progress, regardless of improvements in content.

To be very precise - this is not a claim that AI assisted writing has been used, nor I suggest that there is something wrong with improving your writing and English with AI tools, just the context and the substance of the sentences need to be improved.

EXAMPLE: Sentences like: "To build on sustainability, local meetings must be organized to create trust and 43 confidence among people of all ages." are just not the tone we use in academic writing. This is just too generic.

Author Response

• Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses its topic through an interesting and innovative approach, combining applied perspectives with scientific analysis. It is also commendable that the history of the region and its future development are well integrated, together with an appropriate and well-argued qualitative methodology.

However, the manuscript presents several deficiencies that currently prevent its publication. These are detailed below:

• The references are disorganized, making them difficult to follow, as they are neither presented in order of appearance nor alphabetically. This should be corrected.
• The figures provided are of very low quality and resolution. The authors are advised to include original cartography or to improve the legibility of the location map by adding a regional or continental-scale situational map. With regard to the images, their readability and clarity should also be improved, even if this requires converting the diagrams into a digital format.
• The diagram illustrating the steps for developing cultural tourism routes lacks a figure caption, as does Table 1, which does not include a caption.
• In the Introduction, Literature Review, and Discussion sections, several statements lack appropriate academic references. In addition, the text repeatedly adopts a somewhat promotional or evaluative tone rather than the scientific tone expected in an academic manuscript (e.g., lines 53–54, 92–93, 103–105, 112–114, 117–119, 409–411, 426–428, 468–469). These examples, as well as the general tone of these sections, should be revised.
• The Literature Review section provides, rather than a systematic overview of the relevant academic publications, a descriptive account of Cultural Route Management and the integration of tourism and its potential within the case study. While this is valuable, it would be more appropriate as a separate section addressing the justification or relevance of the study. As it stands, the review does not systematically engage with the existing literature related to the core themes of the manuscript, except partially.
• The concept of “feasibility” is central to both the title and the argument of the manuscript; however, its conceptualization remains vague. It is not specified whether feasibility refers to economic, social, cultural, territorial, or other dimensions. An analytical framework should be introduced to strengthen the manuscript.
• Clear research objectives and/or research questions should be specified. These should be developed in the Discussion section and addressed in the Conclusions. This process should stem from the identification of a clear research gap that the manuscript aims to address.
• The methodological section requires further detail, particularly with regard to the following aspects:
  • contextualization of the study sample and justification for its selection;
  • translation of community inputs into analytical categories and feasibility-related outcomes;
  • clarification of the distinction between data collection, analysis, and validation;
  • critical discussion of the limitations of Google Maps as a key research tool (used without additional validation), including issues of scale, accuracy, and data bias.
• There is an overlap between the contents of the Results section, as several subsections reiterate background arguments or policy narratives rather than presenting empirical findings. The Results section should focus on what was found, while interpretation and policy implications should be moved to the Discussion.
• The Results section is incorrectly numbered as Section 4 instead of Section 3.
• In Section 4.1, the authors describe the outcomes obtained through data collection using Google Maps, but no supporting evidence or graphical material is provided to accompany the explanation.
• In Section 4.2, greater emphasis is placed on explaining how the information was obtained rather than on the results themselves, leaving this section partially lacking in substantive content. A similar issue is observed in parts of Section 4.3.
• Table 1 and the preceding diagram are overly extensive and difficult to read. The information should be better synthesized and presented in a more visual and structured manner, in line with their intended interpretative function.
• The Discussion section is excessively long in comparison with the Conclusions and Recommendations, resulting in an unbalanced structure of the manuscript.
• In the Conclusions, the frequent use of tentative expressions such as “could be” or “can be” conveys a lack of firmness. Moreover, the scientific contribution of the study, the resolution of the research questions, and the achievement of the article’s objectives are not clearly stated
• References follow APA format rather than the usual MDPI reference style.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are several inconsistencies in the use of capitalization at the beginning of sentences, in lists, and after punctuation marks (e.g., 94, 131, 183, 452, etc.). The use of punctuation throughout the manuscript should be carefully revised, with particular attention to lists and enumerations of ideas. Multiple references cited together should be unified within the same set of brackets.

Many sentences in the manuscript are long and excessively complex, which hinders readability. The text should be reduced and rewritten with greater conciseness and clarity. There are clear diferences in the writing style between sections.

Repetition of words and concepts should be reviewed, using synonyms where possible.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I provide below my evaluation of the revised version of the manuscript. While some minor changes have been introduced, the revised manuscript does not adequately address several of the key issues raised in the previous review. As a result, many of the concerns regarding the conceptual framing, methodological clarity, and analytical structure of the study remain unresolved. My comments below therefore focus on the main aspects that still require substantial improvement.

1. Regarding the Introduction

Introduction now includes additional references and contextual explanations. However, the main issue raised in the previous review remains unresolved. The manuscript still does not provide a clear operational definition of the concept of feasibility, which is central to the study. The authors should explicitly clarify which dimensions of feasibility are being assessed (Social? Cultural? Territorial? Institutional? Economic?) and formulate a clear research question derived from this definition. This clarification is necessary to properly frame the analytical focus of the study.

2. Regarding the Literature Review

The literature review has been expanded and several additional references have been incorporated. However, the integration of the literature remains largely descriptive and does not yet provide a clear theoretical framing for the study. In particular, the manuscript would benefit from a more explicit engagement with key contributions on cultural route management and feasibility assessment in order to clarify the analytical framework of the research. I also reiterate the suggestion to synthesize the most relevant studies in a comparative table (objective, theoretical framework, methodology, main findings), which would help strengthen the theoretical positioning of the study and better connect the literature review with the methodological design and discussion of results.

3. Regarding the Methodology

The methodological section has been slightly expanded, but the main issue raised in the previous review remains unresolved. The manuscript still does not provide a clear operational definition of feasibility, nor does it specify which dimensions of feasibility are being assessed. Likewise, no explicit evaluation criteria, indicators, or gradation scales are presented. Without these elements, the study continues to describe the identification of cultural resources rather than conducting a structured feasibility assessment. The authors should clearly define the dimensions of feasibility considered in the study and explain how these were evaluated, ideally with reference to established frameworks in the literature on cultural route management.

4. Regarding the Results and Discussion

The analytical structure of results and discussion remains largely descriptive. As the concept of feasibility is still not operationalized in the methodology, the results are not organized according to clear evaluation criteria or indicators. The authors should restructure the Results section based on explicitly defined feasibility dimensions and corresponding criteria. The Discussion should then interpret the findings in relation to the literature and explicitly compare them with existing studies in order to clarify the scientific contribution of the research..

5. Regarding Conclusions

As in other sections of the manuscript, the authors have not fully addressed the recommendations and suggestions for improvement provided in the previous review, and therefore the Conclusions section still requires clearer restructuring. The authors should reorganize this section by distinguishing between (1) theoretical conclusions linked to the literature review, (2) empirical conclusions derived from the results, (3) practical implications for tourism planning and community-based management, (4) study limitations, and (5) directions for future research. This structure would help clarify the scientific contribution and improve the overall coherence of the manuscript.

Overall comment

As said initially, the revised version does not adequately address several of the key issues raised in the previous review. The changes introduced remain largely superficial and cannot be considered a substantive response to a major revision. In particular, revisions of this type should go beyond cosmetic modifications or the simple addition of references suggested by the reviewer. A major revision requires a substantial improvement in the conceptual, methodological, and analytical structure of the manuscript. As detailed in the comments above, the manuscript still lacks a clear operational definition of feasibility, a structured methodological framework for its evaluation, and a stronger integration between the literature review, methodology, results, and discussion. Consequently, the manuscript continues to resemble a development or planning report rather than a fully developed scientific contribution. Substantial improvements are still required to meet the expected standards of academic rigor.

Author Response

In this revision, I have made a thorough effort to edit the original document and attempted to address several issues from the previous version. Despite the workload and time constraints, I have reviewed the framework, thought process, and focus of this study as thoroughly as possible.

• Defining the Feasibility Study: The author attempts to explain the core limitations of the study, emphasizing cultural feasibility as a key point. However, only one aspect is considered; culture can branch out to include human relationships, spatial relationships, and economic aspects. This is explained in Table 2. The research question is not presented as a separate topic, but rather modified to include the crucial condition of the study's analytical framework: "This research studies feasibility before development, prioritizing community capacity for management and needs, and aiming to reduce investment costs associated with the research project."
• Literature Review: The researcher has made every effort to expand and add references to the feasibility study, including Torrieri et al. (2025), Torrieri et al. (2025), Yılmaz & Aksakal (2026), Lian et al. (2025), and Cheung & Wong (2025). This focuses on the feasibility of route development, with most studies clearly highlighting the benefits of community participation. • Related and important research on the feasibility has been synthesized, as shown in Table 1, regarding the literature review and its targeted application.
• Research Methodology: The previous explanation elaborates on the selection of feasibility, defining the data collection aspect, focusing on the trends in tourism considered by the research team. The indicators used were based on the framework of Hall, P.; Tewdwr-Jones, M. Urban and Regional Planning, 5th ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. The evaluation criteria for indicators required a score of 4-5 on a scale to be considered for route development. The researchers confirmed these results with the community through focus group meetings. This method expands the feasibility considerations in the research and broadens the research framework through further study.
• Research Results Analysis: The findings are further explained, expanding on the feasibility of the structure in section 4.1 to describe the model and the points assigned to resource bases. This includes a review of scientific research from reliable sources.
• Conclusion: The authors have revised the manuscript to the best of their ability, reorganizing and structuring the content, including theoretical aspects. This literature review includes additional content, the results of community research in this work, as well as the limitations of the study and future research plans. This research article will explore the feasibility of reducing project costs through the study of community methods.
• The overall impression is that this revised version has been thoroughly reviewed and rechecked, representing another major revision due to time constraints, including the expansion of thinking and concepts.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Theoretical Contribution Remains Weak

The revision does not meaningfully strengthen the theoretical positioning of the manuscript.

The authors continue to rely on broad concepts such as participation, sustainability, community development, and trust. However, these concepts are largely invoked in a general manner rather than analytically developed within a clear theoretical framework.

Most importantly, the manuscript still does not convincingly answer a key scholarly question:

What new knowledge about participatory governance or community-based development does this case actually contribute to existing research?

Although the literature review has been slightly expanded, it remains largely descriptive rather than analytical and does not sufficiently situate the study within a clearly defined theoretical debate.

2. Methodology – Improved but Still Under-Specified

The revised version includes some additional methodological information, which is appreciated. However, the section still lacks the level of transparency typically expected for qualitative social-science research.

Several issues remain insufficiently addressed:

• The structure and organization of the community forums are still described only in general terms.

• Interview protocols remain unclear (e.g., interview structure, duration, and analytical use of the material).

• The analytical procedures are insufficiently explained, particularly with regard to coding, theme development, and interpretation.

• The concept of “feasibility” remains insufficiently operationalized.

These issues continue to weaken the methodological robustness and credibility of the findings.

3. Results and Analysis Remain Largely Descriptive

The results section still primarily presents descriptive material such as inventories of resources, lists of sites, and narrative summaries of observations.

While this information is useful, the manuscript would benefit from a more explicit analytical structure.

In particular, the following elements are largely absent:

• thematic analysis of the qualitative material

• empirical illustration through participant quotations

• discussion of tensions, disagreements, or trade-offs that may have emerged during the participatory process

Without such analytical engagement, the manuscript remains closer to a descriptive development report than to an analytical research article.

4. Referencing – Some Improvement

The reference list has been expanded and appears somewhat improved.

However, several citations still appear only loosely connected to the arguments they are intended to support. In addition, the engagement with the literature remains somewhat superficial and would benefit from more precise integration into the analytical discussion.

Overall Assessment

The authors have clearly made an effort to address some of the reviewer comments, and the revision shows incremental improvement.

However, the revision primarily addresses surface-level aspects, while the fundamental issues identified in the first review remain largely unresolved, namely:

• insufficient theoretical contribution

• predominantly descriptive rather than analytical results

• underdeveloped methodological transparency

• overly generic academic prose that weakens the scholarly voice of the manuscript

Substantial further revision would therefore be necessary before the manuscript could meet the standards expected for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Writing Quality and AI-Assisted Language - Only marginally improved

The writing remains one of the major weaknesses of the manuscript.

Large sections still contain:

• generic academic phrasing

• repetitive constructions

• abstract statements without analytical content.

While some sentences have been edited, the overall prose still strongly resembles AI-assisted drafting rather than careful scholarly writing.

This continues to undermine the credibility and intellectual clarity of the manuscript.

Author Response

In this revision, I have made a thorough effort to edit the original document and attempted to address several issues from the previous version. Despite the workload and time constraints, I have reviewed the framework, thought process, and focus of this study as thoroughly as possible.

Details Round 2 and explanations of the revisions from Reviewer 2

• The involvement of the theory has been further explained in the expansion of additional possibilities, considering the removal of binding commitments since the previous revision. It also addresses a superficial view and attempts to refine the conceptual review to apply it more closely to possibilities for clarity. Consideration was given to removing data related to participatory governance policies, not monopolistic decentralization, as the study area is a public space for management.
• Research Methodology: This original study attempted to use more stringent analytical criteria for selecting and using higher levels of data, expanding the qualitative research approach, particularly in the area of ​​practical data analysis. A step-by-step plan was developed, referencing the results shown in Figure 1, which details the structure of various community forums. The interview and group discussion protocols aligned with the objectives and data saturation, which is verifiable. The analysis process was revised to clarify some aspects of data interpretation, and additional possibilities for practical application were identified.
• Furthermore, efforts were made to close gaps in previous studies to increase the credibility of the research data.
• Results and Analysis: As this is qualitative research, descriptive analysis was used throughout. The results, including resource lists and site lists, include a concluding summary of criteria and scaling for analysis. As observed from Table 2, the complex structural management has been fully addressed.
• We confirm that no AI processes were used in the operational plan, and field-based analysis was the primary basis for the analysis.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript shows some improvements compared to the original submission; however, not all of the deficiencies identified in the previous review have been addressed, including several that are critical for publication. These issues are detailed below:

1. Figure 2 has not been modified and remains of very low quality and difficult to read, as already noted in the previous review. This issue must be addressed. Even if the figure is the product of qualitative work and the authors wish to retain it in its original form, a clarified version, a clean diagram, or an explanatory note should be included to resolve this deficiency. Figure 1 is also of very low quality and still lacks key formal cartographic elements (north arrow, complete legend, and geographic reference).
2. The promotional tone and insufficient engagement with academic references have not been fully resolved. Some sections still retain a descriptive or evaluative tone (e.g., lines 91–93, 111–114).
3. The literature review has not been restructured. Section 2 remains largely descriptive and organized around themes related to the case study, rather than providing a systematic review of the literature or identifying a clear research gap that this article seeks to address. The manuscript should engage more directly with the state of the art, rather than presenting a descriptive account of concepts applied to the specific case.
4. A clear analytical framework must be introduced. Beyond identifying cultural feasibility as a priority, the manuscript should explain how this concept is operationalized and applied within the study.
5. Although an implicit research question appears at the end of the introduction, it is not clearly formulated. The research question(s) should be explicitly stated and subsequently addressed in the discussion and conclusions.
6. The description of Google Maps as a “Government tool” is introduced with incorrect capitalization and without prior contextualization. The authors should clarify the nature of this tool and acknowledge its potential limitations (e.g., precision, scale, bias, data reliability).
7. There remains overlap between the results and discussion sections. Lines 397–414 largely reproduce the content of lines 307–332. Section 4.3 blends empirical results with interpretative narrative, which weakens the structural clarity of the manuscript.
8. Finally, the presentation and readability of the results in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 require improvement, including the incorporation of clarifying figures and/or original maps produced by the authors. Moreover, the second section continues to read more as a description of the data collection process than as a presentation of substantive findings.

Author Response

In this revision, I have made a thorough effort to edit the original document and attempted to address several issues from the previous version. Despite the workload and time constraints, I have reviewed the framework, thought process, and focus of this study as thoroughly as possible.

Details Round 2 and explanations of the revisions from Reviewer 3

• I have made efforts to improve the manuscript to address shortcomings. The following corrections have been made:
• Figure 2: Due to the low quality of the image, the research team decided to remove it. Initial attempts to adjust the sales section did not resolve the issue, so a descriptive image was chosen as a replacement.
• Consideration was given to the tone of the sales promotion section and the insufficient academic references. Some paragraphs were removed by the researcher without distorting the sentences, and wording was adjusted in individual lines (91-114).
• The literature review was rearranged to focus on the feasibility of the data. The description focuses on analyzing facts within the theory, but it is confirmed that the writing is applied according to the summary table in Table 1. This addresses research gaps, and a strong effort was made to review the literature and present the findings in a current manner, while basing the research on the theoretical framework and the research topic of feasibility, specifically regarding border areas.
• The introduction of a framework for analyzing the content of the work, emphasizing cultural feasibility, was further explained. The researcher stated that this study will be used to explain various projects and approaches to managing projects in limited areas through community participation in further development, both in terms of methodology and application.
• The research question was placed at the end of the introduction. • Since the journal's requirements are not stated in the Research Question heading, the explanation of the conditions for formulating research questions is provided at the end of the introduction.
• Review the explanation regarding Google Maps. This is not implied to mean that it is a government tool, but rather that Google Maps was used for navigation to verify the map location. This issue has been reviewed and addressed by the research team.
• The redundancy in lines 397-414 and 307-332 has been reviewed and regrouped. This can be verified in the research results. Furthermore, the interpretation of section 4.3 has been considered, with a re-categorization of the content to create a more balanced narrative.
• In the conclusion, sections 4.1 and 4.2 have been improved, but images and illustrations were not included because low-resolution images were tested. Descriptive explanations were used instead.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made an effort to attend all the suggestions and the manuscript has improved its academic quality.

Research question could be even clearer for the readers in a separate paragraph, at the end of the introduction section. However, this is not  a properly academic suggestion, but a visually one.

Congratulations for your work.

Author Response

Details Round 3 of the revisions to the Manuscript Topic: The Feasibility of Upgrading Cultural Resource Tourism, based on feedback from experts.

Details Round 3 and explanations of the revisions from Reviewer 1

           In this revision, I have made a thorough effort to edit the original document and attempted to address several issues from the previous version. Despite the workload and time constraints, I have reviewed the framework, thought process, and focus of this study as thoroughly as possible.

• The author has attempted to review and revise the manuscript based on the recommendations of experts to improve its academic quality
• Regarding the research questions, the author has clarified them further, placing them at the end of the introduction and presenting the key issues more clearly than before to review the important questions and conditions of the research.
• Consideration has been given to removing some irrelevant information to make the content more concise
• The author would like to express gratitude for the suggestions received in this academic work, which the author has always strived to improve

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript demonstrates clear improvements compared to the previous version, particularly in the methodological section, where the research design, data collection procedures, and validation steps are now more explicitly described. The inclusion of triangulation, member checking, and a structured four-step development process significantly enhances the credibility and transparency of the study.

The paper also benefits from improved positioning within the literature, including comparative discussion of prior cultural route development approaches.

However, some limitations remain. The theoretical contribution is still relatively modest, as the study primarily presents a context-specific application rather than a generalizable model. In addition, while the qualitative methodology is appropriate, the generalizability of findings remains limited to the case context. Finally, minor language and stylistic issues should be addressed to improve clarity and academic tone.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Writing Quality and AI-Assisted Language - Only marginally improved

The writing remains one of the major weaknesses of the manuscript.

Large sections still contain:

• generic academic phrasing

• repetitive constructions

• abstract statements without analytical content.

While some sentences have been edited, the overall prose still strongly resembles AI-assisted drafting rather than careful scholarly writing.

This continues to undermine the credibility and intellectual clarity of the manuscript.

Author Response

Details Round 3 of the revisions to the Manuscript Topic: The Feasibility of Upgrading Cultural Resource Tourism, based on feedback from experts.

Details Round 3 and explanations of the revisions from Reviewer 2

           In this revision, I have made a thorough effort to edit the original document and attempted to address several issues from the previous version. Despite the workload and time constraints, I have reviewed the framework, thought process, and focus of this study as thoroughly as possible

• We would like to express our gratitude to the experts for their suggestions and improvements, which have strengthened this academic work
• The data verification process in this research has been rechecked and the data collection methods verified, including the inclusion of data from member crosschecking. This group represents key stakeholders who have a favorable perspective on the future possibilities of the cultural route and are familiar with the location of their own communities
• The author continues to emphasize the four-step data collection structure to increase data reliability and transparency in the selection and confirmation of data from the research, which is based on a Research and Development approach
• In this revision, the author has incorporated feedback from several experts into point 3.7: The process of reflecting on and confirming the feasibility of the information.
• The author has also emphasized the importance of a literature review combined with continuous discussion of the results to improve the quality of the cultural route
• Regarding limitations in participation and theoretical aspects, the process has been reviewed to avoid relying solely on model analysis but to apply models as suggested in revision 4.1.2 and Table 2 for presenting additional information
• This revision... The content regarding language and format has been revised in some aspects:
• The author has made a strong effort to explain the academic content of sentence structure
• Some redundant sentences have been removed, and some aspects of the analysis have been reviewed, emphasizing and adding more analysis starting from information in section 4.2 and in the Discussion section, where explanations and additional information have been provided.
• Ambiguous sentences have been avoided, and explanations have been added
• Efforts have been made to address weaknesses in the academic writing, particularly in ambiguous sentences, by incorporating analysis and critique
• This draft has undergone verification by a certified native speaker.
• The author has submitted the manuscript for ethical review for academic infringement and AI Detector testing
• The author has made a strong effort to create clarity and credibility in the original work

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the authors’ revision, most of the points raised in the previous review have still not been adequately addressed. Therefore, the manuscript does not yet meet the minimum standards for publication. The main issues are detailed below in relation to the previous review:

1. Some figures have been removed; however, there is still no map or cartographic reference to the case study. The absence of any map in a paper focused on tourism route mapping remains a critical deficiency.
2. There are still several statements with a promotional tone throughout the manuscript. Lines 91–93 describe Betong’s tourism model in aspirational rather than analytical terms. The phrase “Betong has good things to share” appears repeatedly without sufficient critical distance. Moreover, the discussion continues to emphasize positive outcomes without considering tensions, failures, or limitations.
3. The literature review remains organized around concepts only loosely related to the case study. There is no synthesis of findings, no clear positioning in relation to prior work, and no identification of contradictions in the analysis. Table 1 functions more as a bibliography than as a synthetic review.
4. The concept of feasibility is still not operationalized. The reader cannot clearly understand what is being assessed (e.g., score assignment, threshold criteria).
5. The research question remains implicit and should be explicitly stated, then revisited in the Discussion and/or Conclusions section.
6. The description of Google Maps as a government tool has not been corrected or contextualized.
7. There is still substantial overlap between the Results and Discussion sections, with some passages containing nearly identical wording (e.g., lines 312–319 and 413–419). This structural issue has not been resolved.
8. Section 4.2 continues to read as a step-by-step description of the data collection process rather than a presentation of findings. The results of the feasibility assessment—such as which routes are feasible, what constraints were identified, and what conclusions were drawn by the communities—are not clearly reported. Table 2 provides a useful inventory, but it is not connected to any analytical output.

Author Response

Details Round 3 of the revisions to the Manuscript Topic: The Feasibility of Upgrading Cultural Resource Tourism, based on feedback from experts.

Details Round 3 and explanations of the revisions from Reviewer 3

           In this revision, I have made a thorough effort to edit the original document and attempted to address several issues from the previous version. Despite the workload and time constraints, I have reviewed the framework, thought process, and focus of this study as thoroughly as possible.

• The author has attempted to include maps in the manuscript to show a comparison between government and community-based tools. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the pilot process in the area before more comprehensive community-based mapping was done to verify information
• In the case study, maps were added to confirm route information and tourist mapping, clearly demonstrating the work and the design process, as well as the feasibility of the routes.
• In lines 91-93, the author adjusted the content and writing style, not just presenting highlights, and removed repetitive sentences in the section on “Betong has good things to share.” The wording was adjusted and the promotion of the area was reduced
• The author made a strong effort to include a critical perspective on the work, including a discussion of the results by examining the tensions of the area, such as the problems in the three southern border provinces of Thailand, economic issues, access to information, or the pandemic that needed to be addressed. Furthermore, failures or limitations in management were not overlooked
• The author attempted to organize and present additional counterarguments that need to be considered in Table 1
• The concept of feasibility was not neglected and was continuously explained and examined in the work. In-depth analysis of the work
• Scoring criteria for site selection were established before Table 2, lines 452-460, considering the feasibility of managing tourist routes in terms of safety, transportation, facilities, and field surveys
• The authors added clear questions in the introduction and considered avoiding repetition of information in the discussion of results and conclusions as suggested
• Explanations from Google Maps were considered as a basis for the draft, and the authors added initial explanations, as observed in Figures 2 and 3, which were used as a database before arriving at Figure 5, a community map. These were all tools provided by the government to the research team
• Overlapping content was carefully corrected, taking into account the results and discussions. • All lines 312-319 and 413-419 have been revised, and the author has also considered other aspects of the entire document
• In section 4.2, the 4-step process of cross-checking data, the author has repositioned the heading "Materials and Methods" under subheading 3.7 "The process of reflecting on and confirming the feasibility of the information" to be under [another section]
• The author has completely rearranged the arrangement of Results and considered adding research pathways that can be applied by the community in the context of border areas, lines 552-566 in the research results section 4.2
• In Table 2, section 4.1, the author has added links to field results obtained using research methodology, which will connect to the useful study results in section 4.2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf