The Riverside Roads of Culture as a Tool for the Development of Aitoloakarnania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with a proposition of two cultural touristic routes in Greece, their 'smart promotion' and their benefit to the overall sustainable development of the region. Neverthesless, given the missing/unclear research questions (and other shortcomings), the article yields no new insights to this research field.

Overall the article lacks academic 'grounding' in form of references, a theory section and a proper discussion of the case studies findings. The references in regard to circular economy and sustainable development, building the theoretic frame of the applied research, remain vague and therefore the discussion section offers no new academic insights. A conclusion section is missing completely.

The methodology section is not offering an idea of how or by which critera the proposed routes were chosen, the analysis of the case-study is superficial, as institutions, actors and relevant organisation estabishing such a route within and beyond the region are not highlighted or explained.

While the overall question of opportunities (and limits) of cultural heritage route development for regional sustainability is very relevant also for this journal, in its current structure and content, the article is seen as unfit for publication and requires major structural and content-wise changes.

Author Response

The article deals with a proposition of two cultural touristic routes in Greece, their 'smart promotion' and their benefit to the overall sustainable development of the region. Neverthesless, given the missing/unclear research questions (and other shortcomings), the article yields no new insights to this research field.

Response: Indeed, this research field is vast and rather exhaustively analysed in the relevant literature. The revised study has address the above comment, i.e. that it does not yield no new insights to the field. It has been extensively revised, certain sections have been extended, and new sections added. The aim of this study was to highlight the conceptual framework relevant to exploiting the cultural heritage and natural heritage assets of a region to enhance the region’s development efforts. The new insight regards the specific issues pertinent to the case of underdeveloped or rural areas, and how these regions can adapt the concepts of cultural tourism and cultural route to address their needs and limitations. In this sense, the study now offers a new insight on this particular type of regions. The use case of Aitoloakarnania serves to show how these issues are applied.

Overall the article lacks academic 'grounding' in form of references, a theory section and a proper discussion of the case studies findings. The references in regard to circular economy and sustainable development, building the theoretic frame of the applied research, remain vague and therefore the discussion section offers no new academic insights. A conclusion section is missing completely.

Response: The whole article has been extensively revised. Twentysix references have been added to support the issues discussed. The whole study has been structured accordingly, i.e. from a general discussion about cultural heritage, its interaction and role for cultural tourism, the concept of cultural routes, towards the peculiariuties involved in the case of underdeveloped or rural areas. The use case of Aitoloakarnania functions as an example how these principles and concepts can be applied, and what limitations emerge. The conclusion has been revised to reflect these changes in the study.

The methodology section is not offering an idea of how or by which critera the proposed routes were chosen, the analysis of the case-study is superficial, as institutions, actors and relevant organisation estabishing such a route within and beyond the region are not highlighted or explained.

Response: We believe that the revised study now follows a logical progression from the general issues involved in this field to the more specific issues relevant to the case of underdeveloped or rural regions. In each cultural route a brief discussion has been added to present the criteria for the selection of the points of interest and what this route has to offer in the overall development efforts of the region.

While the overall question of opportunities (and limits) of cultural heritage route development for regional sustainability is very relevant also for this journal, in its current structure and content, the article is seen as unfit for publication and requires major structural and content-wise changes.

Response: Following the extensive revision of the article, in order to address all comments from the reviewer, and the clearer description of what this study was refering to (i.e. how different is the incorporation and development of cultural routes in the case of underdeveloped or rural regions – as in Aitoloakarnania), we hope that the article is now fit for publication. In this framework we thank the reviewers for their invaluable comments and suggestions

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Following the analysis of the paper "The riverside roads of culture as a tool for the development of Aitoloakarnania" the following conclusions were drawn:

- there is no logical sequence and a clear correlation between introduction, research methodology, results and discussions;

- the introduction is treated briefly, without making an incursion in the specialized literature, from the last period of time;

- the methodology is not clearly explained, so that the experiment can be repeated;

- the results and discussions do not result from the proposed methodology;

- the figures are illegible;

- in conclusion, in terms of content and approach, this study does not meet the scientific standards necessary for its publication;

Best regards!

Author Response

Following the analysis of the paper "The riverside roads of culture as a tool for the development of Aitoloakarnania" the following conclusions were drawn:

- there is no logical sequence and a clear correlation between introduction, research methodology, results and discussions;

Response: The paper has been significantly expanded (almost doubled in size, with additional images to aid the understanding of the routes), to address these concerns. The work is now reorganized from the more generic concept to the use-case specific issues. A whole new section, specific to underdeveloped and rural regions (as in the case of the prefecture of Aitoloakarnania) has been added to function as the interlink from the general concepts to the use case specific issues, offering a logical sequence in the discussion.

- the introduction is treated briefly, without making an incursion in the specialized literature, from the last period of time;

Response: The introduction has been expanded to briefly discuss the institutional framework for Cultural tourism and the role of CH on its impact in the society.

- the methodology is not clearly explained, so that the experiment can be repeated;

Response: The methodology and the issues involved is extensively described in the renumbered and expanded section 2. The “experiment” is separate in section 3, with a corresponding description of the use-case specific issues. Thus, through the preceding discussion, similar regions can utilize the methodogy discussed herein.

- the results and discussions do not result from the proposed methodology;

Response: The presented cultural routes are now accompanied by a brief description of their design rationale. This rationale is effectively the application of the preceding general discussion (methodology) covering the relevant issues, as these are applied in the case of underdeveloped or rural regions.

- the figures are illegible;

New figures have been added, of improved quality to support the understanding of the routes.

- in conclusion, in terms of content and approach, this study does not meet the scientific standards necessary for its publication;

Best regards!

Response: Following the useful remarks of the reviewers, this study has been extensively revised and extended in size, including more references, in order to highlight the complex and wide range of issues relevant to cultural tourism, cultural routes and how these can contribute to the development of rural areas such as the use case of Aitoloakarnania. We sincerely hope that the revised study currently fully meets the scientific standards necessary for its publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

This research paper describes the interesting topic – The riverside roads of culture as a tool for the development of Aitoloakarnania. Authors notice, that the region of Aitoloakarnania is the poorest prefecture of Greece and the utilization of the cultural and architectural heritage of the prefecture can be based on the identification, documentation and the reveal of paths of cultural tourism along the riverside axes of the prefecture’s two main rivers. Authors argue, that this amalgamation of different types of cultural sites, integrated into a single cultural entity, provide the means for the local and regional development in a sustainable approach, while ensuring and disseminating the region’s brand and history.

And I would like to share with authors some doubts and remarks too: it seems important to notice that the abstract is not very clear, as some information about used methods and about the findings is needed here as well, thus the abstract seems too general now. As well, it seems important to notice, that it would be needed to concentrate on the discussion and conslusions of the study. Thus, when developing seperate sections of "Discussion" and "Conclusions" it would be needed to include to the debate more newest future oriented theoretical implications, thus accessing deeper discussion and concluding insights.

Author Response

This research paper describes the interesting topic – The riverside roads of culture as a tool for the development of Aitoloakarnania. Authors notice, that the region of Aitoloakarnania is the poorest prefecture of Greece and the utilization of the cultural and architectural heritage of the prefecture can be based on the identification, documentation and the reveal of paths of cultural tourism along the riverside axes of the prefecture’s two main rivers. Authors argue, that this amalgamation of different types of cultural sites, integrated into a single cultural entity, provide the means for the local and regional development in a sustainable approach, while ensuring and disseminating the region’s brand and history.

And I would like to share with authors some doubts and remarks too: it seems important to notice that the abstract is not very clear, as some information about used methods and about the findings is needed here as well, thus the abstract seems too general now. As well, it seems important to notice, that it would be needed to concentrate on the discussion and conslusions of the study. Thus, when developing seperate sections of "Discussion" and "Conclusions" it would be needed to include to the debate more newest future oriented theoretical implications, thus accessing deeper discussion and concluding insights.

Response: The abstract has been revised to reflect the more generic, less case specific nature of the revised paper.

Prior to the description of the selected cultural routes, an extensive discussion has been added, to describe the methodology and the relevant issues for cultural routes. In addition, in each route, a brief description of the aims and scopes of each route are discussed, and details about their limitations.

The discussion section, i.e. the renumbered section 5, effectively discusses the role of the cultural and environmental reserve. The discussion is spread out in section 2, and made more specific per cultural route in section 3.

The conclusion section has been revised and extended. The theoretical implications and the general debates and insights have been addressed by the expansion of the references (26 new added), as explained in the main text in the preceding sections

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with tourism route development in a more rural part of Western Greece. Compared to the previous version the article has improved by a margin, nevertheless still needs further adjustment. The following points need to be taken in consideration, before the piece is ready for publication:

• Overall, the text is too long, various section are now too extensive and contain too much unnessary information not directly linked to the main point of the article. Connected to this: The article also still doesn't really contain a proper research question, albeit the discussion section (sections 4+5) try to answer somewhat some questions - which were not posed in the introduction - I suggest to use these two aspects as proper research questions in section 1 - and clearly add them there
• The abstract is now too long, please focus on summarising scope and main results
• 2.1 and 2.2. are improved by adding relevant information, but are both now far too long and contain multiple info that is not needed later in the text. There are also double infos which is an editing mistake when inserting the new text fragments ('route of Santiago') - shorten and focus these chapters, so they support the argument of the discussion and conclusion sections later
• Methods are now very general. Again: How did the authors now concretely tackle their task? Field visits, GIS, desk research....?
• The discussion section is now split in two different sections, which are only very loosely connected to the theory part. I would suggest unifying the two sections as a proper discussion section, inserting proper research questions in chapter 1 and answering them in this section (see comment above).
• Again the conclusion should be linked clearer to section 1 - do not introduce new aspects such as CER in the conclusion, if they have not been already introduced in the theory section

Reviewer 2 Report

Following the re-examination of the works ”The riverside roads of culture as a tool for the development of Aitoloakarnania” it was found briefly:

- the introduction was treated appropriately, the authors making an incursion in the specialized literature, from the last period of time;

- the methodology was clearly explained, it was experimented to be able to be repeated;

- the way of rendering the results has been much improved, in close relation with the proposed methodology;

- the conclusions were partially rewritten;

- therefore, in view of the need for the research, the methodology used, the logical sequence and the results obtained, the public support of the article entitled “The riverside roads of culture as a tool for the development of Aitoloakarnania” in its current form, with minor modifications, formally imposed by the requirements of the journal.

I congratulate the research team for their concerns and achievements. Best regards!

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations for your efforts to review the article. It's seems better now.