Criteria for the Design of Mobile Applications to Cultural Heritage Tourism: The Case of Riobamba

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Contributions and strengths

The manuscript presents a valuable conceptual framework for developing cultural heritage tourism mobile applications, addressing a timely gap in destinations lacking technological promotion tools. The focus on integrating interpretative, inclusive, and immersive dimensions aligns well with contemporary digital heritage discourse. The methodology’s combination of literature review, benchmarking, and user-centered design offers a theoretically robust foundation. The paper is well structured in general and the research aim is clearly presented.

2. Issues and questions

1) Overly Abstract Criteria without Operational Metrics
While the proposed framework (interpretative/inclusive/immersive) establishes a sound conceptual structure, it remains operationally ambiguous. The criteria resemble high-level guidelines rather than measurable standards. For instance: How is the effect of "heritage storytelling" quantified? Is it measured via user engagement time, knowledge retention rates, or emotional resonance scores? Without such measurable thresholds, the framework cannot serve as a replicable implementation tool. Currently, it functions as a design philosophy, not an engineering-ready methodology.

2) Insufficient Case Study Integration and Validation
Riobamba’s selection as a testbed for validation is theoretically justified but empirically underdeveloped: Zero visual documentation: No screenshots, wireframes, or mockups illustrate how the proposed criteria translate into app interfaces. Critical elements like "physical-digital signage integration" remain hypothetical.

• Absent functionality details: The manuscript neither describes implemented features (e.g., NFC-triggered storytelling, multi-language audio tours) nor user navigation flows aligned with profiled information tiers.
• Missing implementation metrics: Real-world validation requires reporting deployment outcomes—e.g., How did UX testing inform design iteration? What localization challenges arose?
  Without these, the case study fails to evidence the framework’s applicability, reducing Riobamba to a nominal reference rather than a validating context.

3) Some formatting issues exist: line 346 to 355. Line 592 to 593.

3. Recommendations for Revision

Metricize design dimensions:
- Interpretative: Add storytelling KPIs, e.g., >90% users correctly identify 3 heritage values post-interaction.
- Inclusive: Define profile-based tiering protocols, e.g., "casual tourists" access ≤3 info layers; "experts" unlock archival datasets.

Substantiate Riobamba validation:
- Include annotated app prototypes demonstrating functional integration.
- Report field-testing results (e.g., task success rates, SUS scores).
- Compare the proposed solution outcomes with existing solutions.

4. Conclusion
The study’s theoretical groundwork is promising but requires operational precision and empirical anchoring to transition from a heuristic framework to a deployable methodology. Addressing these gaps will significantly enhance its industry relevance and academic rigor.

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript presents a valuable conceptual framework for developing cultural heritage tourism mobile applications, addressing a timely gap in destinations lacking technological promotion tools. The focus on integrating interpretative, inclusive, and immersive dimensions aligns well with contemporary digital heritage discourse. The methodology’s combination of literature review, benchmarking, and user-centered design offers a theoretically robust foundation. The paper is well structured in general, and the research aim is clearly presented.

Response 1: The authors are happy with the opinion of the reviewer.

Comment 2: Overly Abstract Criteria without Operational Metrics. While the proposed framework (interpretative/inclusive/immersive) establishes a sound conceptual structure, it remains operationally ambiguous. The criteria resemble high-level guidelines rather than measurable standards. For instance: How is the effect of "heritage storytelling" quantified? Is it measured via user engagement time, knowledge retention rates, or emotional resonance scores? Without such measurable thresholds, the framework cannot serve as a replicable implementation tool. Currently, it functions as a design philosophy, not an engineering-ready methodology.

Response 2: The authors agree with the comments and opinions of the reviewer because those will enhance the quality and rigor of the work. Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We appreciate your guidance, which has helped us strengthen the clarity and evaluative robustness of our framework. Recognizing this limitation, we have incorporated in the revised version specific evaluation metrics for each functional criterion in the revised version, thus transforming the conceptual framework into an applicable and replicable tool.

In Tables 5, 6, and 7, corresponding to the interpretative, inclusive, and immersive dimensions, the following elements are now detailed:

• Functional components associated with each criterion,
• Priority level according to the MoSCoW model,
• Measurable evaluation parameters (e.g., “≥ 90 % access content without difficulty,” “≥ 80 % correctly identify the type of narrative,” “≥ 70 % complete a customized route without errors”).

 

These metrics allow the effectiveness of each functionality to be verified in real use scenarios and serve as a basis for user validation processes, user experience (UX) assessment, and continuous improvement.

The MoSCoW methodology determines the priority of the functional component in each dimension. The evaluation of each functioning criterion has been included in Tables 5 to 7 in the Results section on pages 13 to 17, highlighted in red. The last part of the result Section was modified; all changes in the updated text are highlighted in red.

Comment 3: Insufficient Case Study Integration and Validation. Riobamba’s selection as a testbed for validation is theoretically justified but empirically underdeveloped: Zero visual documentation: No screenshots, wireframes, or mockups illustrate how the proposed criteria translate into app interfaces. Critical elements like "physical-digital signage integration" remain hypothetical.

• Absent functionality details: The manuscript neither describes implemented features (e.g., NFC-triggered storytelling, multi-language audio tours) nor user navigation flows aligned with profiled information tiers.
• Missing implementation metrics: Real-world validation requires reporting deployment outcomes—e.g., How did UX testing inform design iteration? What localization challenges arose?
  Without these, the case study fails to evidence the framework’s applicability, reducing Riobamba to a nominal reference rather than a validating context.

.

Response 3: The authors accept the reviewer's comments. We sincerely thank you for your valuable observations regarding the empirical validation of the case study. In response, the revised version of the manuscript now includes an expanded subsection within the Results section, where we detail how the evaluation criteria were translated into concrete functionalities, navigation flows, and preliminary visual schemes. These elements have been carefully aligned with the interpretive, inclusive, and immersive dimensions of the proposed framework. In this regard, the screenshots of the mobile app's functionality, including visual proposals for integrating QR codes and a smart location map, have been included in the Results Section on pages 11-12. It is worth mentioning that UX testing will be considered in future work. The new text is in red in the updated manuscript.

Comment 4: Recommendations for Revision.

Metricize design dimensions:

• Interpretative: Add storytelling KPIs, e.g., >90% users correctly identify 3 heritage values post-interaction.
• Inclusive: Define profile-based tiering protocols, e.g., "casual tourists" access ≤3 info layers; "experts" unlock archival datasets.

Substantiate Riobamba validation:
Include annotated app prototypes demonstrating functional integration.
Report field-testing results (e.g., task success rates, SUS scores).
Compare the proposed solution outcomes with existing solutions.

Response 4: The authors express sincere gratitude for your opinions. As mentioned in the previous response, three Tables in the Result Section identify the design criteria with their corresponding metrics for each dimension. The Tables and new paragraphs added are highlighted in red

Comment 5: Some formatting issues exist: line 346 to 355. Line 592 to 593.

Response 5: The authors apologize for the formatting issues. These errors have been revised in the new manuscript; actually, they are highlighted in red in lines 552 to 553 and lines 821 to 823.

Comment 6: Conclusion. The study’s theoretical groundwork is promising but requires operational precision and empirical anchoring to transition from a heuristic framework to a deployable methodology. Addressing these gaps will significantly enhance its industry relevance and academic rigor.

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response, we have reinforced the study’s operational and empirical foundations to support the transition from a heuristic framework to an applicable and deployable methodology. To address this, we have made the following improvements:

• We have included screenshots of the functional mobile prototype, now presented in Figure 2 (Results section, page 12), as visual evidence of how the proposed framework is being implemented in practice.
• An explanatory paragraph has been added to accompany Figure 2, describing how the prototype incorporates functionalities aligned with the three functional dimensions of the theoretical framework (interpretative, inclusive, and immersive).
• These functionalities were subsequently classified and prioritized using the MoSCoW method, as detailed in Tables 5, 6, and 7 (Result Section, pages from 11 to 17).
• Additionally, we have incorporated specific evaluation metrics for each design criterion, enabling the validation of operational effectiveness and establishing a foundation for replicability and continuous improvement. The evaluation metrics are presented in Tables 5, 6, and 7.

We believe these additions significantly strengthen the operational precision and empirical anchoring of the study, enhancing its relevance for both academic research and real-world application. Tables and the new text added is highlighted in red.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I congratulate you for this work on cultural tourism. I must express that I find your work interesting.

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: I congratulate you on this work on cultural tourism. I must express that I find your work interesting. Best regards.

Response 1: We sincerely thank you for your kind words and appreciation of our work. Your positive feedback is truly encouraging and reinforces our commitment to advancing research in cultural tourism. We are grateful for your time and consideration in reviewing our manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Report

It is a pleasure to review the manuscript titled “Criteria for the Design of Mobile Applications to Cultural Heritage Tourism: The Case of Riobamba,” which addresses an important and timely topic in the field of digital tourism. In the following lines, I am pleased to offer a set of constructive comments to support the enhancement of this valuable work.

Title:

The title is rather long, but it could be interesting if it included some terms that might grab the readers' attention. (This is optional) we can suggest new titles to be it more attractive:

- Enhancing Cultural Heritage Tourism: A User-Centric Framework for Mobile Application Design

- Digital Immersion in Heritage: Crafting Mobile Experiences for Cultural Tourists

- Bridging Heritage and Technology: Innovative Mobile App Criteria for Sustainable Cultural Tourism

intoduction:

While giving a broad introduction about cultural heritage tourism and the role of digital technologies in them, one has to say that it is quite long and could do more with a sharper focus. It does indeed, however, give considerable context to the topic; the research gap and justification for case studies in Riobamba could, perhaps, be made more explicit. It is far too long and general

The introduction summarizes existing studies without placing the current research in their critical context. The research needs to demonstrate what it offers in comparison to previous research in this field, and the research objectives are somewhat delayed.

Samples and methods:

To increase the reliability of the findings, it is recommended to clearly specify the selection criteria for domestic and international tourists engaged in the Riobamba case study. Clearly specifying variables such as age, digital literacy, or previous tourism behavior will facilitate a better fit with the app's intended user base. 

Result

Presentation of the established concepts, such as tourist profile and app elements, as research findings entails a structural flaw, wherein such content rightly belongs to the literature review section and not to that of findings.

 

Unoriginal use of data or analysis: These sections mainly compile existing knowledge through summary tables with little new empirical insight; thus, they significantly weaken the work's originality and scholarly contribution.

under the section entitled "3.2 Benchmarking," which seems to promise some more concrete orientation toward being empirical, quickly degenerates into a procedural description rather than yield any substantial findings. The mention of Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics and Spendolini's considerations in choosing applications are methodological details.

The Results section, in fact, has been a major disappointment. It conspicuously avoids any presentation of actual empirical findings, original data, or the outcomes of the stated method. It summarizes existing rules and methodological steps leaving a vast emptiness where one would expect the critical contributions of the research to be.

Discussion

The discussion basically restates some previous findings without going theoretical or giving critical thought over any unexpected results or contradictions.

The references cited in this paper are mostly up to date and relevant, but the discussion does not use them to support critical argumentation. It would benefit from a more strategic incorporation of sources, especially comparative or contrasting studies.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Title:

The title is rather long, but it could be interesting if it included some terms that might grab the readers' attention. (This is optional) We can suggest new titles to be it more attractive:

• Enhancing Cultural Heritage Tourism: A User-Centric Framework for Mobile Application Design
• Digital Immersion in Heritage: Crafting Mobile Experiences for Cultural Tourists
• Bridging Heritage and Technology: Innovative Mobile App Criteria for Sustainable Cultural Tourism

 

Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful comment regarding the title. We appreciate your suggestions, which are indeed engaging and reflective of the manuscript’s themes. After consideration, we have decided to retain the original title, as it aligns closely with the scope, methodology, and specific focus of the study. The current title aims to clearly reflect the framework's application to cultural heritage tourism, the emphasis on mobile digital tools, and the user-centered design approach within a specific urban heritage context. However, we recognize the value of your suggestions and have incorporated some of the proposed phrasing into the abstract and keywords to enhance visibility and relevance.

Comment 2: Introduction.  While giving a broad introduction about cultural heritage tourism and the role of digital technologies in them, one has to say that it is quite long and could do more with a sharper focus. It does indeed, however, give considerable context to the topic; the research gap and justification for case studies in Riobamba could, perhaps, be made more explicit. It is far too long and general.  The introduction summarizes existing studies without placing the current research in their critical context. The research needs to demonstrate what it offers in comparison to previous research in this field, and the research objectives are somewhat delayed.

Response 2: The authors sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable comments. We have revised the Introduction and shortened some sentences to present a clearer and more concise problem statement. However, we believe that much of the content in the Introduction is essential to provide adequate context for understanding the criteria used in designing a mobile application for community-based tourism.

Comment 3: Samples and methods. To increase the reliability of the findings, it is recommended to clearly specify the selection criteria for domestic and international tourists engaged in the Riobamba case study. Clearly specifying variables such as age, digital literacy, or previous tourism behavior will facilitate a better fit with the app's intended user base. 

Response 3: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this pertinent observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have clarified the selection criteria used for the sample of domestic and international tourists involved in the Riobamba case study.

Specifically, a purposive sampling approach was applied to include a diverse range of national and foreign tourists (from the U.S. and Europe), who participated in structured questionnaires and a focus group (Result Section, page 10). The aim was to identify their preferences regarding content, expected functionalities, and value-added elements in a cultural heritage tourism mobile application. The explanatory paragraph is in red on page 10.

We acknowledge that certain variables—such as age, digital literacy level, or prior tourism behavior—were not explicitly detailed in the original version. Therefore, we have started incorporating those variables in the revised version to strengthen alignment between the app’s design and the actual user profiles.

Comment 4: Results

Presentation of the established concepts, such as tourist profile and app elements, as research findings entails a structural flaw, wherein such content rightly belongs to the literature review section and not to that of findings.

Unoriginal use of data or analysis: These sections mainly compile existing knowledge through summary tables with little new empirical insight; thus, they significantly weaken the work's originality and scholarly contribution.

Under the section entitled "3.2 Benchmarking," which seems to promise some more concrete orientation toward being empirical, quickly degenerates into a procedural description rather than yield any substantial findings. The mention of Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics and Spendolini's considerations in choosing applications are methodological details.

The Results section, in fact, has been a major disappointment. It conspicuously avoids any presentation of actual empirical findings, original data, or the outcomes of the stated method. It summarizes existing rules and methodological steps leaving a vast emptiness where one would expect the critical contributions of the research to be.

Response 4: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their detailed and constructive feedback. In response to these observations, we have made several revisions to improve the clarity, structure, and contribution of the Results section:

• To address the structural issue, the discussion of tourist profiles and mobile app content elements has been relocated to the newly titled section “Cultural Tourism Diagnosis: The Case of Riobamba” (page 3), where it serves as contextual analysis rather than as research findings, as suggested by the reviewer.
• Regarding the lack of empirical depth, we clarify that this is an exploratory phase of the study. The prototype was developed through a triangulated methodology, combining a review of specialized literature, benchmarking of five mobile applications using Nielsen’s usability heuristics, and findings from a User-Centered Design (UCD) process conducted with domestic and international tourists. This triangulation directly informed the structure and functionalities of the prototype. Although formal UX testing has not yet been conducted, the Results section now includes annotated interface screenshots (Figure 2, page 12), as well as the proposal of specific evaluation metrics and functional prioritization using the MoSCoW method, which together establish a foundation for empirical testing in future phases.
• Concerning originality, the study contributes by integrating dispersed design criteria into a structured, dimension-based framework (interpretative, inclusive, and immersive) that is contextually grounded in the cultural tourism dynamics of Riobamba. This approach moves beyond merely compiling existing literature and offers a replicable tool for heritage destinations with similar characteristics.

We believe these revisions significantly improve the academic rigor and practical relevance of the Results section. It is worth mentioning that the last part of the Result Section was rewritten and highlighted in red.

Comment 5: Discussion.

 The discussion basically restates some previous findings without going theoretical or giving critical thought over any unexpected results or contradictions.

The references cited in this paper are mostly up to date and relevant, but the discussion does not use them to support critical argumentation. It would benefit from a more strategic incorporation of sources, especially comparative or contrasting studies.

Response 5: The authors concur with the reviewer that the original version of the Discussion section lacked critical comparison with related works and deeper theoretical reflection. We sincerely appreciate this observation, which has led to meaningful improvements.

In the revised manuscript, the Discussion section now includes a paragraph that compares the proposed framework with findings from national and international studies on mobile applications for cultural tourism. This comparison highlights the distinctive contribution of our model, which integrates interpretative, inclusive, and immersive dimensions into a unified structure tailored to heritage tourism.

Furthermore, the study explicitly acknowledges its current limitations, particularly the absence of user experience (UX) testing—and identifies this as a key avenue for future research. These adjustments reinforce the exploratory nature of the research and frame it within broader academic and practical discussions. All changes are highlighted in red in the updated Discussion section.

Comment 6: Samples and Methods: To increase the reliability of the findings, it is recommended to clearly specify the selection criteria for domestic and international tourists engaged in the Riobamba case study. Clearly specifying variables such as age, digital literacy, or previous tourism behavior will facilitate a better fit with the app's intended user base. 

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for this pertinent recommendation. In response, we have clarified the sampling strategy and user selection criteria in the revised version of the manuscript. A purposive sampling approach was applied, focusing on national and international tourists from the U.S. and Europe who visited Riobamba. Participants were selected based on their availability and willingness to contribute, and they engaged in closed-ended questionnaires and a focus group.

To improve alignment with the app’s intended user base, the revised text now includes specific variables, such as participants’ age ranges, digital literacy level, and prior travel behavior. These additions help contextualize user expectations and inform content and functionality decisions during the early design stage.

Comment 7: Result. Presentation of the established concepts, such as tourist profile and app elements, as research findings entails a structural flaw, wherein such content rightly belongs to the literature review section and not to that of findings. Unoriginal use of data or analysis: These sections mainly compile existing knowledge through summary tables with little new empirical insight; thus, they significantly weaken the work's originality and scholarly contribution. Under the section entitled "3.2 Benchmarking," which seems to promise some more concrete orientation toward being empirical, quickly degenerates into a procedural description rather than yield any substantial findings. The mention of Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics and Spendolini's considerations in choosing applications are methodological details. The Results section, in fact, has been a major disappointment. It conspicuously avoids any presentation of actual empirical findings, original data, or the outcomes of the stated method. It summarizes existing rules and methodological steps leaving a vast emptiness where one would expect the critical contributions of the research to be.

Response 7: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this comprehensive and constructive critique. In response, substantial revisions have been made to clarify the structure and enhance the originality of the Results section. First, the conceptual elements such as tourist profiles and content types were reallocated to a new contextual section, now titled “Cultural Tourism Diagnosis: The Case of Riobamba”, where they support the rationale of the study rather than being presented as results. This adjustment addresses the structural concern raised.

Second, we recognize that the previous version lacked concrete outcomes. To strengthen the empirical contribution, the Results section now presents annotated screenshots of the prototype (Figure 2) that illustrate how the triangulated methodology literature review, benchmarking, and user-centered design was operationalized into key app functionalities (e.g., audio guides, user profiles, predefined routes, cultural icons).

Additionally, the Results section includes measurable evaluation parameters aligned with each functional criterion and prioritized through the MoSCoW method, establishing a verifiable link between the theoretical framework and the implementation proposal. These additions provide a foundation for future validation and usability testing.

We believe these changes address the concerns about the lack of originality and clarify how the proposed framework translates into an actionable prototype.

Comment 8: The discussion basically restates some previous findings without going theoretical or giving critical thought to any unexpected results or contradictions. The references cited in this paper are mostly up to date and relevant, but the discussion does not use them to support critical argumentation. It would benefit from a more strategic incorporation of sources, especially comparative or contrasting studies.

Response 8: We thank the reviewer for this insightful observation. In response, we have revised the Discussion section to deepen the critical reflection and enhance the integration of theoretical and comparative elements.

A new paragraph has been added to compare the proposed framework with related studies on mobile applications for cultural heritage tourism. This comparison highlights both the strengths and limitations of previous approaches and demonstrates how the present study contributes to a structured and replicable model based on interpretative, inclusive, and immersive dimensions.

Additionally, we have strategically incorporated recent and thematically relevant sources to support critical argumentation. These references are now used not only to contextualize the study but also to contrast our findings with existing frameworks and practices.

We believe these changes reinforce the theoretical depth of the Discussion section and address the need for more critical engagement with literature. Therefore, the entire Discussion section is in red.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is well-organized and fills an important and urgent gap in research. The author has chosen a good theoretical framework that helps the study's aims. The employment of different research methodologies, such as qualitative (via literature analysis), comparative, and quantitative (through surveys), shows that the researcher is taking a careful and thorough look at the study subject. This multi-method approach makes the study more thorough and strong.

The research shows that a lot of effort and preparation went into it. I don't have any major recommendations. The paper is good enough to be published as it is.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is clear and easy to follow throughout, contributing to the overall readability of the paper.

Author Response

Third Review said:

Comment 1: The study is well-organized and fills an important and urgent gap in research. The author has chosen a good theoretical framework that helps the study's aims. The employment of different research methodologies, such as qualitative (via literature analysis), comparative, and quantitative (through surveys), shows that the researcher is taking a careful and thorough look at the study subject. This multi-method approach makes the study more thorough and stronger. The research shows that a lot of effort and preparation went into it. I don't have any major recommendations. The paper is good enough to be published as it is.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the encouraging and supportive feedback. We are grateful that the proposed method, theoretical grounding, and structure of our study have been well-received. The recognition of our multi-method approach and its contribution to filling a critical gap in cultural heritage tourism research is particularly appreciated.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is original, particularly given the scarcity of digital tools in many heritage destinations. It offers valuable insights for under-researched heritage cities. However, while the manuscript effectively focuses on Riobamba, it would benefit from a stronger comparative analysis with other heritage cities, either regionally or globally.

The methodology is clear and systematic. Nevertheless, its main weakness lies in the small survey sample size, which is not statistically representative. It is recommended to explicitly address this limitation in the discussion. Additionally, although the methodology outlines future phases for prototype implementation, it does not clearly explain how the results will translate into a functional application.

The text is overly long in certain sections, with parts of the literature review repeating similar concepts multiple times.

Overall, the manuscript is well written; however, several sentences are long and complex. These should be simplified to improve clarity and readability.

The research makes a significant and original contribution to the field of cultural heritage tourism and digital transformation. Nevertheless, before publication, the following revisions are recommended:

• Provide an explicit explanation of the limitations related to the small user sample size.

• Include a clear plan for the future implementation of the prototype.

• Improve readability by simplifying overly long sentences.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor english edits are suggested to improve the clarity of the manuscript.

Author Response

Fifth Review said:

The topic is original, particularly given the scarcity of digital tools in many heritage destinations. It offers valuable insights for under-researched heritage cities. However, while the manuscript effectively focuses on Riobamba, it would benefit from a stronger comparative analysis with other heritage cities, either regionally or globally.

The methodology is clear and systematic. Nevertheless, its main weakness lies in the small survey sample size, which is not statistically representative. It is recommended to explicitly address this limitation in the discussion. Additionally, although the methodology outlines future phases for prototype implementation, it does not clearly explain how the results will translate into a functional application.

The text is overly long in certain sections, with parts of the literature review repeating similar concepts multiple times.

Overall, the manuscript is well written; however, several sentences are long and complex. These should be simplified to improve clarity and readability.

Comment 1: The research makes a significant and original contribution to the field of cultural heritage tourism and digital transformation. Nevertheless, before publication, the following revisions are recommended:

• Provide an explicit explanation of the limitations related to the small user sample size.
• Include a clear plan for the future implementation of the prototype.
• Improve readability by simplifying overly long sentences.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive feedback, as well as for recognizing the originality and relevance of our research in the context of under-researched heritage cities. In response to the suggestions:

• Limitations of the sample size

 We agree that the limited sample of surveyed tourists constitutes a methodological limitation. While the study’s primary objective was to propose design criteria derived from literature, benchmarking, and user-centered design (UCD), we recognize the importance of making this limitation explicit. The revised manuscript now includes a clear explanation in the Discussion section stating that the current findings provide exploratory insights rather than statistically generalized results. We also specify that future validation of the prototype will require UX testing with a broader and more diverse user base.

• Future implementation of the prototype

 The revised Results section now includes annotated screenshots of the initial prototype (Figure 2), illustrating how the proposed design criteria have been translated into app functionalities. Although full-scale implementation and testing have not yet been completed, we now indicate that UX testing and iterative improvements are planned in future research phases, based on the current design foundations.

• Readability and sentence structure

 In response to the reviewer’s observation, a thorough language revision has been conducted throughout the manuscript. Overly long and complex sentences were restructured to improve clarity and flow. Additionally, redundancies were reduced—especially in the Literature Review section—to ensure better focus and readability.

All changes are marked in red in the revised version of the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version is much improved and I've no further questions.

Minor issues:

1) Section 6 is missing.

2) Some formatting issues exist in the bibliography, please recheck all the references.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for taking my suggestions into consideration. I wish you success in your future work.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the revised manuscript, I find it satisfactory and accept it in its current form.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your detailed answer, I accept the modifications you have made in the manuscript.

Best regards