The Influence of Perceived Physical and Aesthetic Quality of Rural Settlements on Tourists’ Preferences—A Case Study of Zhaoxing Dong Village

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the abstract and replaced the new result part description as follows:

Text revised (line 13-20): The results indicate that when considering only environmental physical quality factors, most of the physical quality is significantly correlated with tourists' preferences. Among them, "Visual quality" shows the highest correlation, followed by "Facility" and "Maintenance", while "Security" shows the lowest correlation. When aesthetic quality factors are added to the model as independent variables, it enhances the explanatory power of the model and exhibits more significant associations compared to the relationship between physical quality and preferences. Among the aesthetic quality factors, "Multisensory" and "Sublime" demonstrate the highest correlation, whereas 'diversity' shows the lowest correlation.

Thank you for the suggestions. We have deleted the subtitle of the Introduction chapter for a cohesive presentation of the content.

Thanks for this review.

However, as we have already covered the background, scientific, methodological feasibility, and current research gaps of this study in the Introduction. Therefore, in order to provide a clearer and more coherent presentation of the background, our manuscript does not have a separate section on the literature review.

In response to this review, we have continued to add more information and citations about the background, and we hope that the current version of the Introduction chapter provides sufficient background as well as foundational knowledge.

Text added (line 73-80): In the study of Sojasi Qidari et al. (2016), it is also proved that there is a relationship between environmental quality and tourism attractiveness, that the improvement of physical quality and aesthetic quality plays a positive role in improving the attractiveness of rural tourism, and will affect users' tourism choices[23]. Therefore, studying the influence of environmental quality on tourists' preference is very important to the improvement of rural settlement environment, tourism attractiveness, service management and planning decision-making[24].

Text added (line 114-117): For example, tourists can perceive the artificial facilities conditions (physical quality factors) and the diversity of scenery (aesthetic quality factors) at the same time, so that they can make a more comprehensive and accurate evaluation of the environment of the scenic area[48].

Text added (line 120-124): In conclusion, environmental quality comprises both physical quality and aesthetic quality, both of which jointly influence individuals' perception and evaluation of the environment. Previous research on environmental quality has mostly focused on urban streets[49], building interior[50], blue-green space[51] and other areas, with less emphasis on the study of rural settlement environments.

Thank you very much for your suggestion, which is of great help to the optimization of our paper. In response to this comment, we have enhanced our discussion section by adding more about how the current results compare to the previous results literature.

Details are as follows:

Text added (line 345-354): This study selected the physical and aesthetic quality factors in line with the environmental characteristics of rural settlements, and selected Zhaoxing Dong Village for on-site investigation, and measured tourists' perception and evaluation of rural settlement environmental quality through a designed questionnaire. The impact of environmental quality factors on tourists' preference was measured by hierarchical linear regression analysis. The overall model results show that all environmental quality factors are significantly positively correlated with preference, and facility, multisensory, protective, historical, familiarity and sublime have a significant impact on tourists' preference. The analysis of these results and findings as well as the significance of this study will be elaborated below. 

Text added (line 381-385): In terms of management and maintenance, previous research has indicated that the maintenance of buildings and artificial facilities is a dominant factor influencing users' landscape preferences[68]. In Zhaoxing Dong Village, some aging facilities and buildings have not received timely maintenance and renovation, which might be a reason for the lower evaluations from tourists.

Text added (line 418-423): A study on the environmental quality of urban parks by Wan et al. (2020) also confirmed this point, that is, in the interaction between users and urban parks, most of the psychological factors have a greater impact on the outcome variables than physical factors[48]. Whether in urban space or rural settlements, aesthetic experience dominates users' perception and evaluation of the environment to a large extent.

Text added (line 461-471): Unexpectedly, some environmental quality factors that were expected to significantly influence preferences did not show a significant effect in this study, such as security, diversity, and sense of harmony. Previous research has demonstrated a close correlation between a sense of security and tourist preferences[60]. However, for tourists visiting Zhaoxing Dong Village for short-term travel, they may have a more positive perception of locally distinctive environmental elements. Therefore, a sense of security might not be a primary factor influencing tourist preferences in this location. Additionally, Ran (2019) proposed that diversity is one of the dominant factors affecting Chinese tourists' landscape preferences[68]. However, this relationship may not be evident in our study site, as tourists generally have higher expectations for unified historical buildings and cultural landscapes in Zhaoxing Dong Village.

Text added (line 489-492): People who have positive views on the environment may be more positive to perceive the environment, thus forming a new understanding and evaluation of the environment. Therefore, it is worth considering to adopt intervention strategies that can improve people's cognition of rural settlements.

Text added (line 497-500): In addition, the construction of rural facilities needs to be paid attention to, and the optimization of local transportation, accommodation, commerce and catering conditions will have a positive impact on the perception and evaluation of tourists.

Text revised (line 504-509): For newly built or redesigned sites, it is worth considering to explore and make full use of the existing natural and biological resources to create scenic spots that allow tourists to enjoy multi-sensory experience. In addition, planners can reasonably set up garbage treatment stations and sewage treatment facilities according to the wind environment of the settlement, and plant fragrant plants to enrich tourists' sense of smell.

Text added (line 521-524): In the future, this study can be used to guide rural managers and planners to formulate intervention strategies and development plans, and designers can also predict the environmental value of rural settlements through extensive research on user preferences.

Thanks for point this out. In the revised version, we have adapted the citation style to the journal guidelines. 

Thank you for your reminder and advice. We have already added these contents to the end of the manuscript.

Thanks for this helpful comment. We have deleted the subtitle of the Introduction chapter.

Thanks for point this out. We have added the reference in the revised version.

Reference as follow:

-Qi, J., Zhou, Y., Zeng, L., & Tang, X. Aesthetic heterogeneity on rural landscape: Pathway discrepancy between perception and cognition. Journal of Rural Studies, 2022, 92, 383-394.

Thanks for point this out. We have added the reference in the revised version.

Reference as follow:

-Cattaneo, T., Giorgi, E., & Ni, M. Landscape, architecture and environmental regeneration: A research by design approach for inclusive tourism in a rural village in China. Sustainability, 2018, 11(1), 128.

Thanks for point this out. Author and data source information has been added to the figure 1.

Thanks for point this out. Author and data source information has been added to the figure 2. In addition, we believe that Figure 2 helps the reader to understand more clearly the process of our questionnaire collection, so we would like to keep Figure 2.

Thank you very much for your suggestion, which is of great help to the optimization of our paper. In response to this comment, we have enhanced our discussion section by adding more information and discussion about how the current results.

Details are as follows:

Text added (line 345-354): This study selected the physical and aesthetic quality factors in line with the environmental characteristics of rural settlements, and selected Zhaoxing Dong Village for on-site investigation, and measured tourists' perception and evaluation of rural settlement environmental quality through a designed questionnaire. The impact of environmental quality factors on tourists' preference was measured by hierarchical linear regression analysis. The overall model results show that all environmental quality factors are significantly positively correlated with preference, and facility, multisensory, protective, historical, familiarity and sublime have a significant impact on tourists' preference. The analysis of these results and findings as well as the significance of this study will be elaborated below. 

Text added (line 381-385): In terms of management and maintenance, previous research has indicated that the maintenance of buildings and artificial facilities is a dominant factor influencing users' landscape preferences[68]. In Zhaoxing Dong Village, some aging facilities and buildings have not received timely maintenance and renovation, which might be a reason for the lower evaluations from tourists.

Text added (line 418-423): A study on the environmental quality of urban parks by Wan et al. (2020) also confirmed this point, that is, in the interaction between users and urban parks, most of the psychological factors have a greater impact on the outcome variables than physical factors[48]. Whether in urban space or rural settlements, aesthetic experience dominates users' perception and evaluation of the environment to a large extent.

Text added (line 461-471): Unexpectedly, some environmental quality factors that were expected to significantly influence preferences did not show a significant effect in this study, such as security, diversity, and sense of harmony. Previous research has demonstrated a close correlation between a sense of security and tourist preferences[60]. However, for tourists visiting Zhaoxing Dong Village for short-term travel, they may have a more positive perception of locally distinctive environmental elements. Therefore, a sense of security might not be a primary factor influencing tourist preferences in this location. Additionally, Ran (2019) proposed that diversity is one of the dominant factors affecting Chinese tourists' landscape preferences[68]. However, this relationship may not be evident in our study site, as tourists generally have higher expectations for unified historical buildings and cultural landscapes in Zhaoxing Dong Village.

Text added (line 489-492): People who have positive views on the environment may be more positive to perceive the environment, thus forming a new understanding and evaluation of the environment. Therefore, it is worth considering to adopt intervention strategies that can improve people's cognition of rural settlements.

Text added (line 497-500): In addition, the construction of rural facilities needs to be paid attention to, and the optimization of local transportation, accommodation, commerce and catering conditions will have a positive impact on the perception and evaluation of tourists.

Text revised (line 504-509): For newly built or redesigned sites, it is worth considering to explore and make full use of the existing natural and biological resources to create scenic spots that allow tourists to enjoy multi-sensory experience. In addition, planners can reasonably set up garbage treatment stations and sewage treatment facilities according to the wind environment of the settlement, and plant fragrant plants to enrich tourists' sense of smell.

Text added (line 521-524): In the future, this study can be used to guide rural managers and planners to formulate intervention strategies and development plans, and designers can also predict the environmental value of rural settlements through extensive research on user preferences.

Thanks to this helpful comment, we've added more about the limitations and implications in the Discussion section.

Details as follows:

Text added (line 547-568): Through the field investigation of rural settlements with specific environmental characteristics, this study investigates tourists' perception and evaluation of the environmental quality of rural settlements, and analyzes the relationship between environmental quality and tourist preferences. Building upon previous research, two scales were used to measure visitors' perception of the physical and aesthetic quality of rural settlements. The reliability results indicate that the composition of the 12 questionnaire items is acceptable. In the results, we found that eight components significantly influence visitors' environmental preferences in rural settlements. Among them, site visual quality had the highest impact, followed by multisensory aesthetics and sublimity. Infrastructure conditions, management and maintenance, and historical significance had a moderate influence, while factors such as conservation value and familiarity had a relatively minor impact. Factors like safety and security, diversity, undisturbed surroundings, and harmony were found to have a slight influence on visitor preferences. Through this study, we identified key environmental components that affect visitor preferences in rural settlements, deepening our understanding of the factors relevant to rural settlements. Although this study may be limited by research population, climate change, sampling methods and so on, it still has a lot of considerable significance in terms of the current research situation. This research can provide guidance on how to effectively utilize natural and artificial resources in rural settlements and inform the environmental design of rural settlement spaces. Importantly, these findings can benefit managers, policymakers, planners, and designers in their decision-making processes.

Thank you for your reminder and suggestions. More than ten old references have been reduced, and the recent relevant references have been replaced and added in the revised version.

Thanks for point this out. In the revised version, we have adapted the citation style to the journal guidelines.

Thanks for this useful suggestion. In response to this comment and the suggestions of other reviewers, we have revised the structure of the Introduction chapter and removed the subtitle.

Thank you for point this out. We have removed "numerous" from 142 line.

Detail as follow:

Text revised (line154-156): It has a rich historical heritage and cultural landscape, attracting a large number of tourists for sightseeing and cultural experiences.

Your comments are of great value to our manuscript. The problem of unclear description in the questionnaire may be the deviation caused by translation, so we re-translate and proofread the topic description in the questionnaire. The revised item description will be easier to understand. For more details, please refer to the modified version of Table 1.

Thank you for your reminder and suggestions. We have already added the mean value in number on figure 3. For more details, please refer to the modified version of figure 3.

Thank you for pointing this out. We have replaced "discussing" with "considering" in the revised version.

Detail as follow:

Text revised (line 417): This can be attributed to the fact that the correlation between physical environmental quality factors and preference became weak when considering physical and aesthetic qualities simultaneously.

Thanks for this thoughtful comment.

However, as we have already covered the background, scientific, methodological feasibility, and current research gaps of this study in the Introduction. Therefore, in order to provide a clearer and more coherent presentation of the background, our manuscript does not have a separate section on the literature review.

In response to this review, we have continued to add more information and citations about the background, and we hope that the current version of the Introduction chapter provides sufficient background as well as foundational knowledge.

Detail as follow:

Text added (line 73-80): In the study of Sojasi Qidari et al. (2016), it is also proved that there is a relationship between environmental quality and tourism attractiveness, that the improvement of physical quality and aesthetic quality plays a positive role in improving the attractiveness of rural tourism, and will affect users' tourism choices[23]. Therefore, studying the influence of environmental quality on tourists' preference is very important to the improvement of rural settlement environment, tourism attractiveness, service management and planning decision-making[24].

Text added (line 114-117): For example, tourists can perceive the artificial facilities conditions (physical quality factors) and the diversity of scenery (aesthetic quality factors) at the same time, so that they can make a more comprehensive and accurate evaluation of the environment of the scenic area[48].

Text added (line 120-124): In conclusion, environmental quality comprises both physical quality and aesthetic quality, both of which jointly influence individuals' perception and evaluation of the environment. Previous research on environmental quality has mostly focused on urban streets[49], building interior[50], blue-green space[51] and other areas, with less emphasis on the study of rural settlement environments.

Thank you for your reminder and suggestions. We have already added some content to the discussion section in Section 3.2 to facilitate reader understanding. In addition, we marked the value of each factor on the picture to make the expression clearer.

Detail as follow:

Text added (line 279-296): The perception data are presented in Figure 3. Overall, in terms of physical environmental quality, the Security dimension received the highest rating, with a mean score of 5.64 (±0.9), followed by the Visual quality 5.54 (±0.91) and the Facility 5.47 (±0.96), which suggests that visitors feel safer here and are more satisfied with the quality of the landscape and the facilities. The lowest rating was given to the Maintenance, with a mean score of 5.32 (±0.97), it is necessary to strengthen the maintenance of local landscape, buildings, and facilities. Regarding aesthetic quality, the highest rating was given to the Protective dimension, with a mean score of 6.19 (±0.88), followed by a sense of history and multisensory beauty, with mean scores of 5.95 (±0.92) and 5.72 (±0.92) respectively, which means protecting the local natural environment and cultural heritage, and keep the historical atmosphere of the village as well as multisensory would be important for the experience and preference of tourists. The dimension of Harmonious, Unspoiled, Diversity, and Sublime received moderate ratings, with mean scores of 5.71 (±0.88), 5.66 (±0.94), 5.31 (±1.07), and 5.07 (±1.11) respectively. The Familiarity received the lowest rating 4.97 (±1.32), this may be due to the fact that most tourists live in urban settings and have less experience of the rural settlement environment . Additionally, we validated the reliability of all components, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.735 to 0.913, indicating high internal consistency.

Thank you for this helpful comment. We have added more relevant content to Section 4.4, as follows.

Text added (line 489-492): People who have positive views on the environment may be more positive to perceive the environment, thus forming a new understanding and evaluation of the environment. Therefore, it is worth considering to adopt intervention strategies that can improve people's cognition of rural settlements.

Text added (line 521-524): In the future, this study can be used to guide rural managers and planners to formulate intervention strategies and development plans, and designers can also predict the environmental value of rural settlements through extensive research on user preferences.

Thank you for this helpful comment. We have added relevant content to Section 4.3 and 4.4 of the revised version.

Thanks for point this out. In the revised version, we have adapted the citation style to the journal guidelines.

Your comments are of great value to our manuscript. The problem of unclear description in the questionnaire may be the deviation caused by translation, so we re-translate and proofread the topic description in the questionnaire. The revised item description will be easier to understand. For more details, please refer to the modified version of Table 1 and Table 2.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the unclear and inaccurate descriptions in the paper so that readers can understand them. The specific modifications are as follows:

Text revised (line 165-168): Therefore, this study evaluates a variety of environmental qualities in rural settlement space and analyzes their impact on tourists' evaluation for this environment setting (that is, the extent to which the environment is liked, and it represents the individual's preference for this environment).

Text revised (line 547-550): Through the field investigation of rural settlements with specific environmental characteristics, this study investigates tourists' perception and evaluation of the environmental quality of rural settlements, and analyzes the relationship between environmental quality and tourist preferences.

Thank you very much for your suggestion, which is of great help to the optimization of our paper. We have made changes to all the problems mentioned in the document.

The specific modifications are as follows:

(1) We have revised the unclear and inaccurate descriptions in the paper so that readers can understand them.

(2) Some statistics on tourist traffic in this village are provided.

(3) The problem of unclear description in the questionnaire may be the deviation caused by translation, so we re-translate and proofread the topic description in the questionnaire. The revised item description will be easier to understand. For more details, please refer to the modified version of Table 1.

(4) Strengthen the discussion section.

(5) Text added (line 538-543): Forth, this study employed random sampling, which is a non-probability sampling method and has been widely used in social science research. However, there are some potential limitations to this method, such as the lower probability of underage and elderly groups being surveyed due to the restricted population source of tourists. Also, some populations that are not interested in the topic of this survey are potentially excluded.

(6) Strengthened the conclusion part.