Archaeological Sites’ Management, Interpretation, and Tourism Development—A Success Story and Future Challenges: The Case of Bibracte, France

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is very interesting and has potential. However, in its current form it is too narrative, as if it were a chapter in a book. To acquire the form of a paper, it is necessary to be more specific, including tables, list indicators ...

The “literature review” is very instructive. However, it is too long, too extensive. I would recommend limiting it more to the specific question of the paper to move it away from a paper review.

The methodology should be expressed in a more scientific way. The description of the field study and activities carried out each day does not add scientific rigor to the paper. The paper should set out a clear methodology so that it can be used to analyze and evaluate another heritage site. The title “Archaeological sites management, interpretation and tourism development…” although it focuses on a specific case, it refers to a generality. That is why the paper must refer to these other cases through the methodology, indicators and factors to consider.

There are three investigated topics: heritage management, heritage interpretation and tourism. But it is not clear how each is analyzed and on what its evaluation is based.

It assumes the correct management of the place but is not based on concrete indicators.
A table indicating the indicators considered in each of the three factors would better explain the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Literature Review:

• There are several management frameworks proposed to minimize negative impacts of tourism in archaeological and natural sites.It would be good to mention briefly some of them (e.g.):

National Park Service. (1997). Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework: A handbook for planners and managers. Denver, CO: Denver Service Center.

Enseñat-Soberanis, F., Frausto-Martínez, O., & Gándara-Vázquez, M. (2019). A visitor flow management process for touristified archaeological sites. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 14(4), 340–357.

 Methods and materials:

• It would be helpful if the author could explain (in one line) the type of interpretive technique shown in Figure 5

Results

• Last paragraph in page 13 describe the managing problems Bibracte is facing using 3 circles and levels. It would be helpful if the author can generate a visual representation of this (a Figure).

References

• If the author is using APA format for citation, journals ‘names should be in italics

Points in favor/Positive

• The manuscript is well structured and it has a logical consistency.
• Although there are studies with similar finding in the heritage management literature, this manuscript contribute to it by describing a case study in an industrialized country where different stakeholders have diverging interests (locals, heritage managers and tourism developpers). See: McKercher, B., & Du Cros, H. (2002). Cultural Tourism: The Partnership Between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management.

To be improved:

• Although written English is quite good, there are some grammar mistakes throughout the text that should be revised and correct.
• In section 6. Findings and discussion, paragraph 1, page 14, the author mention:

 “The findings of this study appear to be in line with other studies and sites around the world (Makuvaza 2013, Alvarez 2014, Ayalew 2016, Rotherham & Ardron 2006, Hughes & Carlsen 2010, Neal & Roskams 2103)”.  

I find important that the author explain briefly the main results of these mentioned studies and compare them with his/her own results. 

Author Response

Please see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewed manuscript presents new information about interesting heritage-related experience from the archaeological locality in France. The idea of the article is great, the underlying study is sound, and the number of references is more than enough. The paper is acceptable, although I warn the author to make this paper more academic and less personal, as well as to avoid lengthy telling about general things – in other words, my principal recommendation is to update the style; some other recommendations are given below.

• Author's affiliations: please, provide full street address.
• Abstract: please, make it more focused on your findings.
• Key words: these should not repeat words from the title.
• Introduction (and may be other sections): if you write about archaeology and tourism, this work must be considered:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160738317301159

• Methodology: you do not need to say who and when accompanied you during visits to the site, but you need to write more about your methods. For instance, who were interviewed (age, gender, experience, etc.) and how, what were the themes of discussions, etc. This section needs looking more academic.
• Section 4: what do mean numbers in brackets after department names?
• Section 6: if future excavations at this site are possible, how to protect the yet undiscovered archaeological heritage from crowds of tourists, unavoidable waste storage, and other possible tourism-related damage?
• Section 6: if you write about rural degradation in the study area, you need to provide information supporting this idea.
• This manuscript needs linguistic polishing.
• The manuscript needs more accurate formatting – e.g., check the letter capitalizations (the first words in all figure captions should be capitalized), punctuation, unnecessary blank spaces, etc.
• General advice: please, work with the text to make it more compressed and scientifically-rich, to reduce redundant and trivial phrases, and to present your methodology and findings more clearly, systematically, and accented.
• A small and simple map showing the location of this site in France, as well as the schematic plan of the site is desirable.

Author Response

Please see attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Well done. Changes in the explanation of methodology, literature review, table material and some text changes have improved the paper. It is just acceptable but efforts have been made. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, your improvements have made your manuscript looking much better. Scientifically, it is acceptable, but minor technical improvements are still necessary.

1) Please, check the correspondence of citations and References. For instance, you have added Ross et al., 2017, but it is not in the list of References.

2) Linguistic and stylistic polishing are necessary, and small typos exist. For instance, Table 1: aunomous -> autonomous.

3) You need to format citations and references strictly accoridng to the journal's rules.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx