The Service Experience Innovation Model of Cultural Tourism in Historic Districts: A Case Study on Zhongshan Road in Quanzhou, Fujian Province of China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript titled "The Service Experience Innovation Model of Cultural Tourism in Historic Districts: A Case Study on Zhongshan Road in Quanzhou, Fujian Province of China" examines a service experience innovation model in cultural tourism within historic districts, with a focus on Zhongshan Road in Quanzhou, Fujian Province, China. It employs a methodology that combines the analysis of secondary data with on-site participation for data collection and observation related to the case study. The paper introduces the TESP model (Technological, Experiential, Systemic, and Platform dimensions) for innovative cultural tourism services in Quanzhou and offers strategies for enhancing service experiences. It aims to contribute to the research on service experience innovation and historic district tourism in Quanzhou. Nonetheless, enhancements in methodology and the application of the proposed model are suggested.

The research methodology, which blends case study approach, secondary data analysis, and on-site observations, could benefit from increased clarity and detail. Specifically, elaborating on the data collection methods, sample selection, and analysis procedures would enhance methodological transparency. While the reliance on qualitative data from interviews and observations is substantial, incorporating data triangulation with secondary, official primary data, and interviews strengthens data validity and reliability.

The paper's proposal of the TESP model for innovative cultural tourism services is a notable contribution. However, the reliance on a singular case study raises concerns about the model's generalizability. To mitigate these concerns, the authors are encouraged to abstract and generalize the model's principles further, making it more adaptable across various contexts. For example, rather than detailing specific social media platforms used in Quanzhou, the model should emphasize the broader strategy of employing diverse digital engagement channels in cultural tourism. By broadening the model with adaptable principles and strategies, the TESP framework could offer valuable insights for a wider spectrum of cultural tourism initiatives.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Comments:

The manuscript titled "The Service Experience Innovation Model of Cultural Tourism in Historic Districts: A Case Study on Zhongshan Road in Quanzhou, Fujian Province of China" examines a service experience innovation model in cultural tourism within historic districts, with a focus on Zhongshan Road in Quanzhou, Fujian Province, China. It employs a methodology that combines the analysis of secondary data with on-site participation for data collection and observation related to the case study. The paper introduces the TESP model (Technological, Experiential, Systemic, and Platform dimensions) for innovative cultural tourism services in Quanzhou and offers strategies for enhancing service experiences. It aims to contribute to the research on service experience innovation and historic district tourism in Quanzhou. Nonetheless, enhancements in methodology and the application of the proposed model are suggested.

The research methodology, which blends case study approach, secondary data analysis, and on-site observations, could benefit from increased clarity and detail. Specifically, elaborating on the data collection methods, sample selection, and analysis procedures would enhance methodological transparency. While the reliance on qualitative data from interviews and observations is substantial, incorporating data triangulation with secondary, official primary data, and interviews strengthens data validity and reliability.

AR: Thank you for the suggestion. On page 5 and 6, we have already elaborated on the data collection methods, sample selection, and analysis procedures. Also, on page 6 and page 12, we have incorporated data triangulation to strengthen data validity and reliability.

The paper's proposal of the TESP model for innovative cultural tourism services is a notable contribution. However, the reliance on a singular case study raises concerns about the model's generalizability. To mitigate these concerns, the authors are encouraged to abstract and generalize the model's principles further, making it more adaptable across various contexts. For example, rather than detailing specific social media platforms used in Quanzhou, the model should emphasize the broader strategy of employing diverse digital engagement channels in cultural tourism. By broadening the model with adaptable principles and strategies, the TESP framework could offer valuable insights for a wider spectrum of cultural tourism initiatives.

AR: Thank you for the suggestion. On page 12 and 16, we have already emphasized the broader strategy of employing diverse digital engagement channels in cultural tourism.

Reviewer 2 Report

The primary objective is to understand the process of consumer engagement and to analyze innovative approaches to the service experience at cultural events. Three research questions are presented for review and analysis. 

The methodology is clearly stated. The data collection and analysis details are adequate and easy to follow. 

The manuscript is clearly written and relevant for the field of cultural heritage and tourism. It is presented in a well-structured manner using traditional chapter sectioning. 

Although limited, the figures/images are accurate and help to convey additional information and provides clarification to the written information.

The results and conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented about the cases. 

This manuscript is accurate and well developed. I do not have any concerns as to the quality and the results/findings provided.  

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Comments:

The primary objective is to understand the process of consumer engagement and to analyze innovative approaches to the service experience at cultural events. Three research questions are presented for review and analysis. 

The methodology is clearly stated. The data collection and analysis details are adequate and easy to follow. 

The manuscript is clearly written and relevant for the field of cultural heritage and tourism. It is presented in a well-structured manner using traditional chapter sectioning. 

Although limited, the figures/images are accurate and help to convey additional information and provides clarification to the written information.

The results and conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented about the cases. 

This manuscript is accurate and well developed. I do not have any concerns as to the quality and the results/findings provided.  

AR: Thank you for your feedback. We are pleased to hear that you found the manuscript is accurate and well developed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Good structure.

Easy to follow the discussions

Adequate use of the research literature

Adequate use of the theoretical TESP model

Good discussion of the methods

Author Response

Reviewer 3 Comments:

Good structure.

Easy to follow the discussions

Adequate use of the research literature

Adequate use of the theoretical TESP model

Good discussion of the methods

AR: Thank you for your feedback. We are pleased to hear that your positive comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

The objectives of this study are indicated as “ to understand the process of consumer engagement in cultural activities in Quanzhou and to analyze innovative approaches to the service experience at cultural events in Quanzhou’s ancient city. And…  to construct a service experience innovation model integrating humanistic innovation that facilitates collaboration with promotional strategies from government cultural departments”.

However, these goals, in my opinion, have not been achieved.

Moreover, it is not very clear how the methodology used helps achieving these goals.

Although one can appreciate the theoretical part of the work, which provides a proper overview of the concept of innovation and its application in the service sector, the innovative approaches provided in this study are not clearly argumented. It is difficult to agree with the classification of the processes of development of cultural tourism identified by the authors as innovations. To a large extent, everything described by the authors is a commonly used strategy for the development of urban tourism in a historical city being rich in cultural heritage sites. After studying the article, the impression remains that the main innovation is the organization of trade on the street through which the Great Silk Road once passed, and it is proposed to organize souvenir shops, workshops and a cusine. But this can be observed in any historical  tourist city.

To my mind it will be useful if the authors could pay attention to the following aspects:

1) Describe more clearly the methodology that was used. The format and methods used in the “thematic” observation are not very clear. It would be useful to describe the observation process itself (what was observed? Counted? Studied). It would be useful to provide specific numbers and results of “observation”, rather than simply describe the methodology.

2) There is no clear logic in the study. Its format is not clear. There is no research structure (Where? When? Who? What?).

3) The use and author’s interpretation of Fig 1. Experience Cycle model (by Dubberly & Evenson, 2008), which occupies an entire page, is controversial. It would be advisable to refine this drawing and introduce something new (innovative? May be related to innovativeness).

4) It would be advisable to receive more detailed comments on the results of the study. For example, since 15 documents were analyzed, what conclusions can be drawn? Recommendations for their improvement. It would also be useful to acquaint readers with the results of the analysis of content from WeChat public accounts and official documents carried out by the authors, and not limit ourselves in the Conclusion to just justifying the significance of the results obtained. It is necessary to acquaint readers in more detail with specific results.

Author Response

Reviewer 4 Comments:

The objectives of this study are indicated as “ to understand the process of consumer engagement in cultural activities in Quanzhou and to analyze innovative approaches to the service experience at cultural events in Quanzhou’s ancient city. And…  to construct a service experience innovation model integrating humanistic innovation that facilitates collaboration with promotional strategies from government cultural departments”.

However, these goals, in my opinion, have not been achieved.

Moreover, it is not very clear how the methodology used helps achieving these goals.

Although one can appreciate the theoretical part of the work, which provides a proper overview of the concept of innovation and its application in the service sector, the innovative approaches provided in this study are not clearly argumented. It is difficult to agree with the classification of the processes of development of cultural tourism identified by the authors as innovations. To a large extent, everything described by the authors is a commonly used strategy for the development of urban tourism in a historical city being rich in cultural heritage sites. After studying the article, the impression remains that the main innovation is the organization of trade on the street through which the Great Silk Road once passed, and it is proposed to organize souvenir shops, workshops and a cusine. But this can be observed in any historical tourist city.

To my mind it will be useful if the authors could pay attention to the following aspects:

1) Describe more clearly the methodology that was used. The format and methods used in the “thematic” observation are not very clear. It would be useful to describe the observation process itself (what was observed? Counted? Studied). It would be useful to provide specific numbers and results of “observation”, rather than simply describe the methodology.

AR: Thank you for the suggestion. On page 5 and 6, we have already elaborated on the data collection methods, sample selection, and analysis procedures. Also, on page 6 and page 12, we have incorporated data triangulation to strengthen data validity and reliability.

2) There is no clear logic in the study. Its format is not clear. There is no research structure (Where? When? Who? What?).

AR: Thanks for suggestion, we have revised the methodology section to strength the logic of this article. In addition, we have increased the clarity of the connection between our research findings and the theoretical implications and practical applications (page 15). We hope to enhance the overall contribution by providing clearer links between theory and practice.

3) The use and author’s interpretation of Fig 1. Experience Cycle model (by Dubberly & Evenson, 2008), which occupies an entire page, is controversial. It would be advisable to refine this drawing and introduce something new (innovative? May be related to innovativeness).

AR: Thank you for the suggestion. On page 3 and page 4, we have revised the interpretation of Figure 1, and added new references, such as Glushko and Nomorosa. In addition, on page 13, we have already refined this drawing and introduce the new concept.

4) It would be advisable to receive more detailed comments on the results of the study. For example, since 15 documents were analyzed, what conclusions can be drawn? Recommendations for their improvement. It would also be useful to acquaint readers with the results of the analysis of content from WeChat public accounts and official documents carried out by the authors, and not limit ourselves in the Conclusion to just justifying the significance of the results obtained. It is necessary to acquaint readers in more detail with specific results.

AR: Thank you for the suggestion. On page 12 and 16, in order to acquaint readers in more detail with specific results, we have already emphasized the broader strategy of employing diverse digital engagement channels in cultural tourism.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors, thank you for taking my suggetions into account. Now the article is better. I wish you a lot of readers.