Heritage Interpretation and Accessibility Through 360° Panoramic Tours: The Understory Art Trail and the Subiaco Hotel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper shed light on immersive technologies in reshaping heritage interpretation. It is well prepared and built in a sound way.

I would suggest considering the following aspects:

• It seems that the authors do not use the referencing style of the journal
• In section 2.1 (pp 93 ff), to indicate knowledge gaps, the statements sound very negative. The way the arguments are exposed, they undervalue previous research and publications. There is no need for this. In particular, in lines 102 -107, if the authors explore solely the “Experiences of Museum Professionals”, how can a generalizability towards a broader or differently skilled audience be achieved?
• In the following subsections the authors, to justify further gaps, use the same piece of literature. For this reason, I would suggest considering changing the language to better value previous research.
• In 4.1 - lines 276 ff - Are the effects of COVID-19 and in particular, the travel restrictions at the time, still a good argument for digital engagement? Are the technological advancements, the increasing interaction and the needs/potentials of The Understory Art and Nature Trail and the Subiaco Hotel not enough to justify the research approach?
• Is figure 1 not already published in https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6050232? This should be acknowledged. Some images of the hotel seem also to be already published.
• Many of the research limitations mentioned in 2.2 are not addressed in Discussion or 7. Conclusions. This raises the question of whether these are relevant for such a study, or if the described study was able to tackle these issues. For example, page 5 lines 149 ff “This absence restricts comprehensive insights into visitor interactions and their educational or cultural appreciation outcomes”. It seems that the authors are able to deliver such insights but these are not discussed along the paper.

Author Response

It seems that the authors do not use the referencing style of the journal.

Response:  Thanks for your note. We have updated the citations and references based on the journal’s guide.

In section 2.1 (pp 93 ff), to indicate knowledge gaps, the statements sound very negative. The way the arguments are exposed, they undervalue previous research and publications. There is no need for this. In particular, in lines 102 -107, if the authors explore solely the “Experiences of Museum Professionals”, how can a generalizability towards a broader or differently skilled audience be achieved?

In the following subsections the authors, to justify further gaps, use the same piece of literature. For this reason, I would suggest considering changing the language to better value previous research.

Response:  We have revised Section 2.1 to adjust the tone when identifying knowledge gaps, ensuring that previous research is appropriately valued while still noting its limitations. Specifically, lines 102–107 were rephrased to recognize the important contributions of Shehade and Stylianou-Lambert’s study, while clarifying that its scope limits generalizability. We also diversified the references where possible to avoid over-reliance on a single source.

 

In 4.1 - lines 276 ff - Are the effects of COVID-19 and in particular, the travel restrictions at the time, still a good argument for digital engagement? Are the technological advancements, the increasing interaction and the needs/potentials of The Understory Art and Nature Trail and the Subiaco Hotel not enough to justify the research approach?

Response:  We have revised Section 4.1 (lines 276 ff) to clarify that while COVID-19 restrictions initially accelerated adoption of digital engagement, the justification for immersive approaches lies more fundamentally in technological advancements, evolving visitor expectations, and the interpretive needs of heritage sites such as the Understory Art Trail and Subiaco Hotel. We hope, this reframing strengthens the rationale beyond a pandemic context.

Is figure 1 not already published in https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6050232? This should be acknowledged. Some images of the hotel seem also to be already published.

Response:  We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have now clearly acknowledged this in the figure caption and within the text, in accordance with MDPI’s reuse and citation guidelines. We confirm that the material is published under a CC BY license, which permits reuse with proper attribution.

Many of the research limitations mentioned in 2.2 are not addressed in Discussion or 7.

Response:  We have revised Sections 6 (Discussion) and 7 (Conclusion) to explicitly link back to the research limitations identified in Section 2.2. These revisions clarify how our study contributes to addressing gaps such as comparative platform evaluation, visitor engagement analytics, and demographic inclusivity, while also acknowledging areas that remain open for future research.

Conclusions. This raises the question of whether these are relevant for such a study, or if the described study was able to tackle these issues. For example, page 5 lines 149 ff “This absence restricts comprehensive insights into visitor interactions and their educational or cultural appreciation outcomes”. It seems that the authors are able to deliver such insights but these are not discussed along the paper.

Response:  We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful observation. As noted, our primary focus in this study was on the design and implementation of the projects, stakeholder engagement, and the execution of immersive technologies. While we incorporated preliminary user feedback and visitor statistics to evaluate accessibility and engagement, a comprehensive analysis of educational or cultural appreciation outcomes was beyond the scope of this paper. We have clarified this in Section 6 (Discussion), noting that while our findings provide indicative insights, future research should pursue more detailed, outcome-focused evaluations using longitudinal and mixed-method approaches.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript titled “Heritage Interpretation and Accessibility through 360° Panoramic Tours: The Understory Art Trail and Subiaco Hotel”.  I commend the valuable work you have undertaken in exploring how immersive technologies can support cultural heritage interpretation and digital access. The manuscript presents two detailed case studies that showcase a strong command of technical tools and workflow design, with promising implications for digital heritage communication. However, in its current form, several improvements are necessary to ensure the study meets the expectations of an international, peer-reviewed journal such as Heritage.

First, while the technical execution and descriptive richness of the study are commendable, the manuscript currently lacks a clearly articulated theoretical framework. Concepts such as “digital heritage,” “accessibility,” and “visitor engagement” are introduced descriptively, yet they are not sufficiently grounded in relevant theoretical perspectives. Integrating established frameworks—such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the Diffusion of Innovations Theory, or experience-based learning theories—would strengthen the academic depth of the paper. A more robust theoretical lens would also allow the discussion to move beyond applied outcomes and contribute more clearly to scholarly discourse.

Second, the methodology section provides a thorough account of the technical processes involved in creating the virtual tours. However, the discussion of user engagement and feedback is underdeveloped from a methodological standpoint. For instance, while qualitative feedback is mentioned, details regarding the sampling process, interview protocols, coding techniques, or analytical strategies are missing. Similarly, although visitor numbers from platforms like Google Analytics are presented, a more meaningful interpretation of those metrics—such as time spent, engagement hotspots, and user behavior—would add analytical rigor and better support the paper’s conclusions.

The structure of the manuscript could also benefit from refinement. The introduction would be strengthened by a more explicit statement of the research gap, research questions, and the study’s intended contributions to theory and practice. The conclusion should move beyond summary to offer a critical reflection on the study’s implications, theoretical advancements, and potential for future research. The discussion section, in particular, would be more impactful if the findings were systematically linked back to the reviewed literature, highlighting points of convergence or divergence.

Language-wise, the manuscript is generally written in competent academic English; however, there are several long, overly descriptive passages that affect readability. Refining these sections to prioritize analytical clarity over narrative detail would significantly enhance the manuscript’s coherence and appeal to a broader scholarly audience. Similarly, the integration of diagrams and tables is helpful, but some of the visual content may benefit from being more closely aligned with the narrative to support key arguments rather than serve a purely illustrative function.
In the current version of the manuscript, the citation “Champion et al. (2024)” is inaccurate, as there are only two authors listed for this reference. According to citation conventions, “et al.” should be used only when there are three or more authors. Please revise this citation accordingly.

I hope these suggestions are received in the constructive spirit with which they are intended and will support the development of an improved and impactful version of your study.

 

Author Response

First, while the technical execution and descriptive richness of the study are commendable, the manuscript currently lacks a clearly articulated theoretical framework. Concepts such as “digital heritage,” “accessibility,” and “visitor engagement” are introduced descriptively, yet they are not sufficiently grounded in relevant theoretical perspectives. Integrating established frameworks—such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the Diffusion of Innovations Theory, or experience-based learning theories—would strengthen the academic depth of the paper. A more robust theoretical lens would also allow the discussion to move beyond applied outcomes and contribute more clearly to scholarly discourse.

Response:  We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to strengthen the theoretical grounding. Given the applied scope of this case-study paper, we have added a concise theoretical lens based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). In Section 2.x “Theoretical Lens: TAM”, we position perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) as the key constructs shaping adoption of 360° tours. In Section 6 (Discussion), we interpret our findings through PU/PEOU—for example, Google Street View’s familiarity and simple navigation (PEOU) versus 3DVista’s richer interpretive functions (PU). We note that a full TAM measurement was beyond scope, and suggest it as a direction for future work and added new references.

 

Second, the methodology section provides a thorough account of the technical processes involved in creating the virtual tours. However, the discussion of user engagement and feedback is underdeveloped from a methodological standpoint. For instance, while qualitative feedback is mentioned, details regarding the sampling process, interview protocols, coding techniques, or analytical strategies are missing. Similarly, although visitor numbers from platforms like Google Analytics are presented, a more meaningful interpretation of those metrics—such as time spent, engagement hotspots, and user behavior—would add analytical rigor and better support the paper’s conclusions.

Response:  We have revised Section 3.3 (Data Collection and User Feedback) to provide more methodological detail, including participant sampling, interview approach, and analysis strategy. We have also expanded the interpretation of visitor analytics, clarifying how engagement metrics (time spent, navigation patterns, and interaction with hotspots) were used to assess user behavior. These additions strengthen the methodological transparency and analytical rigor of the paper.

 

The structure of the manuscript could also benefit from refinement. The introduction would be strengthened by a more explicit statement of the research gap, research questions, and the study’s intended contributions to theory and practice.

Response:  We have revised the Introduction to include a clearer articulation of the research gap, the guiding research questions, and the study’s intended contributions to both theory and practice. This strengthens the framing of the paper and signals its relevance to scholarly and applied audiences.

 

The conclusion should move beyond summary to offer a critical reflection on the study’s implications, theoretical advancements, and potential for future research.  

Response:  We have revised the Conclusion to move beyond summary, adding critical reflections on the implications of the study for both practice and theory. We also highlight how the findings extend TAM in the heritage domain and identify priorities for future research, including long-term engagement studies and cross-cultural adoption analysis.

 

The discussion section, in particular, would be more impactful if the findings were systematically linked back to the reviewed literature, highlighting points of convergence or divergence.

Response:  We have revised the Discussion to more explicitly connect the findings to the literature reviewed in Section 2, highlighting areas of convergence with prior research as well as points of divergence. These additions clarify how our study builds on existing scholarship while identifying new contributions.

Language-wise, the manuscript is generally written in competent academic English; however, there are several long, overly descriptive passages that affect readability. Refining these sections to prioritize analytical clarity over narrative detail would significantly enhance the manuscript’s coherence and appeal to a broader scholarly audience. Similarly, the integration of diagrams and tables is helpful, but some of the visual content may benefit from being more closely aligned with the narrative to support key arguments rather than serve a purely illustrative function.

Response:  We have revised the manuscript to streamline long descriptive passages and improve readability, with a stronger emphasis on analytical clarity. In addition, we have refined the integration of diagrams and tables, ensuring that each visual directly supports the discussion of findings and reinforces key arguments rather than serving only as illustration.

 

In the current version of the manuscript, the citation “Champion et al. (2024)” is inaccurate, as there are only two authors listed for this reference. According to citation conventions, “et al.” should be used only when there are three or more authors. Please revise this citation accordingly.

Response:  We thank the reviewer for noting this. We have corrected all instances of “Champion et al. (2024)”. The reference list has been updated accordingly.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the paper thoroughly examines technical and interpretive aspects, briefly touching on ethical concerns such as data ownership, privacy, and digital reproduction ethics, especially when using platforms like Google would add valuable depth. Indeed, mention of data ownership/privacy ethics could be expanded, but no major concerns.

The methodology could be enhanced with more specifics on the qualitative user feedback process such as participant numbers, interview formats, and data analysis techniques. Additionally, while visitor statistics are included, incorporating direct user feedback or quotes would provide deeper insights into engagement and impact.

 

Author Response

Although the paper thoroughly examines technical and interpretive aspects, briefly touching on ethical concerns such as data ownership, privacy, and digital reproduction ethics, especially when using platforms like Google would add valuable depth. Indeed, mention of data ownership/privacy ethics could be expanded, but no major concerns.

Response:  We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added a brief discussion on ethical concerns, including data ownership, privacy, and digital reproduction ethics, under Section 6.2 (Recommendation 6). This acknowledges the importance of sustainable and responsible digital heritage practices, while noting that such issues did not present major concerns in this study.

The methodology could be enhanced with more specifics on the qualitative user feedback process such as participant numbers, interview formats, and data analysis techniques.

Response:  We appreciate this helpful suggestion. We have revised Section 3.3 (Data Collection and User Feedback) to provide more details on the qualitative feedback process, including participant numbers, interview formats, and data analysis approach.

 Additionally, while visitor statistics are included, incorporating direct user feedback or quotes would provide deeper insights into engagement and impact.

Response:  We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. We have revised Section 4.4.2 (User Engagement – Online) and Section 5.3 (Audience Engagement and Reach) to incorporate direct user feedback and illustrative quotes from interviews. This addition provides richer context to the visitor statistics and highlights user perspectives on usability and interpretive value.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the revised version of your article titled “Heritage Interpretation and Accessibility through 360° Panoramic Tours: The Understory Art Trail and Subiaco Hotel.” First of all, thank you for carefully developing your work by taking into account the suggestions and criticisms raised during the peer review process.

I would like to note that with the revisions you have made, your work has been significantly strengthened both theoretically and methodologically. In particular, the addition of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) framework ensures that your discussions contribute to the academic literature, rather than remaining solely at the application level. The explanations you added in the methods section regarding the sample, data collection, and analysis process have increased the transparency and reliability of the study.

Clarifying the research questions and contributions in the introduction, relating the findings to the literature in the discussion section, and going beyond a summary in the conclusion to offer theoretical and practical implications are also among the important improvements. Furthermore, your simplifications in language and narration, along with integrating visuals into the text in a more analytical manner, have increased the readability of the article.

As a result of these improvements, I believe your work will make valuable contributions to the literature in the field of digital heritage and tourism. I congratulate you on your efforts and wish you success in the publication process of this work.