IoT Technology and Augmented Reality Integrated into Urban Furniture for Tourism 4.0

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the article consider an interesting and relevant example of using urban furniture to obtain data from sensors and form a data stack, on the basis of which the developed application provides the necessary information for city visitors. According to the analyzed material, it is possible to conclude about a heterogeneous architecture to ensure the functioning of this development, which the researchers position as the implementation of part of the smart city. Much of the information provided in the article details the features of creating and using the ecosystem of the system they developed. However, the introductory part of the article is overloaded with general information, to improve perception, it is advisable to reduce the generally known information and provide an example of analyzing existing concepts of using urban furniture in smart city conditions, it is advisable to conduct an analysis of modern experience, and technologies for creating similar systems. This can be done on the basis of an analysis of research publications or technical specifications from manufacturers of similar equipment or solutions or by analyzing similar mobile applications that are freely available. A comparative analysis will show the differences of the developed solution, its advantages or disadvantages. Also, the description does not provide an analysis of the selection of the stack for development, it is not entirely clear from the article why the technologies used for development and implementation were chosen. When describing the developed solution, the general concept, goal and tasks that the researchers set for themselves are not entirely clear, clarifying them will allow readers to improve their perception and understanding. Further presentation without appropriate interaction schemes and insufficient examples of real use does not allow assessing the practical value of the development, giving the impression of a pilot project that does not have mass application, which is desirable to indicate for understanding the appropriate reproduction. It is not clear under what license the presented software was developed and whether its publication on github or similar solutions is being considered for the possibility of checking the stability of the code and its reproducibility. It is desirable to provide more information on this. In general, the article creates a good impression and requires thorough revision, after which it can be re-considered by the editorial board.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

needs editorial corrections

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We would like to sincerely thank you for the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate the constructive comments and valuable suggestions provided by all reviewers.

We have carefully considered each observation and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The comments helped us to improve the clarity, methodological rigor, technical justification, and overall coherence of the paper.

Changes have been incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript. We believe these modifications have significantly enhanced the quality and scientific contribution of the work.

 

Sincerely,

Castro-Martin, Ana Pamela

On behalf of all authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work demonstrates significant scientific and practical relevance by proposing an integrated IoT-AR solution for smart urban furniture within the Tourism 4.0 framework. The prototype is technically sound, empirically validated in real-world conditions, and addresses a genuine gap in the literature - namely, the simultaneous integration of environmental sensing and immersive AR experiences within a single multifunctional urban infrastructure element. However, several technical and methodological shortcomings should be addressed prior to publication:

1. Formatting error: Table numbering inconsistency appears on page 18 (line 504), where the SUS results table is labeled "Table 1" instead of "Table 6", conflicting with the earlier functional requirements table.

2. Methodological details: The sample size for the System Usability Scale (SUS) evaluation is not specified. The number of participants (tourists and residents) and their demographic profile should be reported to ensure reproducibility and statistical validity of the usability score (80.75).

3. Energy autonomy: No analysis is provided regarding power consumption, battery life, or energy supply solutions for the sensor nodes. Given the remote deployment locations (e.g., mountain trails), this is a critical factor for long-term operational feasibility.

4. Cost-benefit assessment: The economic dimension is overlooked. A comparative cost analysis with existing smart furniture solutions would strengthen the argument for scalability and adoption in resource-constrained contexts.

5. Connectivity resilience: The system's dependency on stable internet connectivity is not discussed. In mountainous terrain like Baños de Agua Santa, signal intermittency could disrupt cloud synchronization and AR content deliver - contingency mechanisms should be addressed.

6. Environmental durability: The longevity of low-cost electronic components (ESP32, sensors) under tropical conditions—high humidity, intense UV radiation, and temperature fluctuations—is not evaluated. This raises concerns about maintenance frequency and lifecycle costs.

7. Socio-economic impact: The conclusions focus predominantly on technical performance, omitting discussion of potential social benefits (e.g., visitor engagement, local employment) or economic returns for the municipality—key considerations for smart tourism initiatives.

Addressing the points would substantially enhance the paper's methodological rigor and practical applicability.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We would like to sincerely thank you for the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate the constructive comments and valuable suggestions provided by all reviewers.

We have carefully considered each observation and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The comments helped us to improve the clarity, methodological rigor, technical justification, and overall coherence of the paper.

Changes have been incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript. We believe these modifications have significantly enhanced the quality and scientific contribution of the work.

 

Sincerely,

Castro-Martin, Ana Pamela

On behalf of all authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents an IoT–AR integrated smart urban furniture prototype to support Tourism 4.0 services in Baños de Agua Santa. The topic is timely and application-relevant; however, the current narrative remains predominantly engineering-driven, and the theoretical positioning and contribution boundaries are not yet sufficiently explicit. I recommend strengthening the “theory–gap–contribution” chain by stating clear research questions (or hypotheses) at the end of the Introduction and mapping each claimed contribution to a concrete outcome: (i) a conceptual rationale for urban furniture as a Tourism 4.0 interaction node, (ii) a methodological contribution in adapting TDDM4IoTS for tourism-oriented cyber–physical systems, (iii) a system contribution (end-to-end architecture and data loop) and (iv) empirical evidence from deployment and user evaluation. A more structured comparison against prior “IoT-only” or “AR-only” solutions would also help clarify what is genuinely new beyond co-locating two technologies.

The methodology section would benefit from greater clarity and reproducibility. While the five-phase process and layered architecture are outlined, several key design decisions are under-specified (e.g., the rationale for LoRa over alternatives, node count and placement criteria, sampling/update rates, data quality control and outlier handling, and the constraints shaping the AR triggering strategy). Please consider adding a concise process diagram or table that lists, for each phase, inputs/outputs, evaluation metrics, iteration points, and stopping criteria. Additionally, provide implementation-level details that readers can reuse: calibration procedures for sensors, communication and power parameters, server-side processing steps, database schema/logical model, and mobile client policies (polling intervals, caching, failure recovery).

Regarding validation, the paper reports communication performance, sensor comparisons, and an SUS score indicating high usability; nonetheless, the experimental design and reporting need to be more rigorous to support strong claims. Please specify participant recruitment, sample size, demographic/usage characteristics, test duration, and environmental conditions (lighting, distance, connectivity) in a way that enables replication. Where possible, report uncertainty (e.g., variance/CI) and define acceptance thresholds for “stable” communication or “reliable” marker recognition. The current limitations (low-cost sensor accuracy and connectivity dependence) are important; I encourage translating them into actionable mitigation strategies (offline tolerance, data-quality monitoring, sensor fusion/substitution, maintenance/energy planning) and clearly separating evidence for prototype feasibility from evidence required for scaled, long-term deployment.

Finally, the presentation can be tightened for scholarly coherence. In Related Work, adopt a clearer taxonomy (IoT street furniture, AR tourism applications, integrated IoT–AR systems) to sharpen the research gap. In the Conclusions, explicitly answer the research questions and align each conclusion with reported evidence, avoiding overly promotional generalizations. Please also check consistency in tables/labels (requirement codes and use-case numbering), and enrich key figures (architecture/data flow/deployment map) with legends and parameter annotations to improve readability and academic precision.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We would like to sincerely thank you for the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate the constructive comments and valuable suggestions provided by all reviewers.

We have carefully considered each observation and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The comments helped us to improve the clarity, methodological rigor, technical justification, and overall coherence of the paper.

Changes have been incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript. We believe these modifications have significantly enhanced the quality and scientific contribution of the work.

 

Sincerely,

Castro-Martin, Ana Pamela

On behalf of all authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made an attempt to improve the article, but not all recommendations were fully implemented. For example, the study of existing experience in developing similar solutions in smart cities was not conducted in a very qualitative way, the selection of development tools was justified, the mapping of the service and its binding to the area was justified, the necessity of this implementation was justified not as an experimental one, but as part of the overall ecosystem of the city, etc. This does not allow us to fully assess the relevance and novelty of this study, which is focused on solving a local problem. However, based on the general improvements and efforts of the authors, the editor-in-chief may consider the article as one that can be more qualitatively finalized (provided that it is fully finalized according to the recommendations and recommendations of the previous round of review) and published.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

needs editorial corrections

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We would like to sincerely thank you for the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate the constructive comments and valuable suggestions provided by all reviewers.

We have carefully considered each observation and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The comments helped us to improve the clarity, methodological rigor, technical justification, and overall coherence of the paper.

Changes have been incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript. We believe these modifications have significantly enhanced the quality and scientific contribution of the work.

 

Sincerely,

Castro-Martin, Ana Pamela

On behalf of all authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with this revised version.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

We would like to sincerely thank you for the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our manuscript.

Changes have been incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript. We believe these modifications have significantly enhanced the quality and scientific contribution of the work.

Sincerely,

Castro-Martin, Ana Pamela

On behalf of all authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx