Do the Social Responsibility Efforts of the Destination Affect the Loyalty of Tourists?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have had the opportunity to read the manuscript carefully. The authors tried to explore the relationships among Destination social responsibility, destination image, and tourist loyalty with survey method approaches. The article presents some interesting ideas that are potentially of interest to both academics and practitioners. However, there are some theoretical and methodological issues which in my mind limit the present contribution in its present form. 1. For H6, I agree that there could be cultural differences in the Tourists’ Perception. Authors could introduce more relevant and current studies regarding culture impacts on tourism destination images. But, present reviews in line 213-230 are from too conceptual textbooks. 2. I can’t find model fit indices for SEM. They should be presented. 3. All hypotheses in the model are confirmed. Does it mean this study lacks originality? What are main distinct contributions comparing previous researches? Thus, this study should explain why this study is so important to us with appropriate research backgrounds and should provide in-depth discussion with above questions. Overall, I enjoyed reading this study and found it interesting. It could make a contribution to sustainable tourism study literature at micro level. I hope my comments help in revising and rethinking this research and wish the authors the best with this line of scholarship.Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments.
Thank you very much for your insightful review. We have revised our paper according to your comments. Please find our responses to your specific comments below.
#Comment 1.
For H6, I agree that there could be cultural differences in the Tourists’ Perception. Authors could introduce more relevant and current studies regarding culture impacts on tourism destination images. But, present reviews in line 213-230 are from too conceptual textbooks.
# Answer 1:
We appreciate your detailed review. In response to your comments, we revised the part of the cultural differences and the effect on tourist perception and behavior. Please find our revised part as follows (From line 215 to 239).
(Original manuscript)
“The perception of tourist varies depending on cultural differences [58,59]. Tourists from different countries put emphasis on varying aspects of the tourism service, and it is likely that they have different level of satisfactions with the same service. Therefore, understanding the tourists’ cultural backgrounds will help the destinations to design culture-oriented marketing and service [60-62]. There is substantial empirical evidence on differences of the cultural value patterns between Eastern and Western societies [38]. For instance, the cultural differences in values among various countries have also been examined by Hofstede [63]. He described four dimensions along which cultural value systems can be ordered: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism, and masculinity-femininity. Kaplan and Montiel [64] studied how companies located in Western and Eastern regions present their corporate sustainability strategies to their stakeholders. They found that differences in the corporate sustainability strategies they report can be related to geo-political and socio-cultural differences as described by Hofstede. Culture is purported to have an influence on how people experience an environment [65]. For example, in terms of humankind’s relationship with nature, Eastern cultures are more likely to be concerned about a harmonious relationship with nature than Western cultures. These relationship structures reflect Hofstede’s [66] feminine (nurturing) versus masculine (dominating) cultural values [67]. Hence, it is hypothesized as follow:
H6. The relationships among DSR, destination image, and tourist loyalty are different between Asian tourists and Western tourists.”
(Revised manuscript)
The perception of tourists varies depending on cultural differences [58,59]. Tourists from different countries place emphasis on varying aspects of services offered at the destination, and it is likely that they have different levels of satisfaction, even if experiencing the same service [58, 60-61]. Therefore, understanding the tourists’ cultural backgrounds will help destinations design culture-oriented marketing and services [62-64]. There have been many studies examining differences in tourist perceptions and behaviors due to cultural differences [65]. Tourism motivations vary based on these cultural differences. You et al. [66] identified the difference between Japanese and U.K tourists using Dann’s push and pull theory. In an experimental study conducted by Levy [67], the overall satisfaction, word-of-mouth referrals, and the intention to repeat a visit also vary between Asians and Westerners. Tsang and Ap [68] identified the differences in relational quality experiences between Asian and Western tourists using Hofstede’s study. In a study by Kim and Malek [45], the relationship between the destination image and the tourist loyalty in Asian tourists were stronger than that of their Western tourists. However, the relationship that was apparent between the self-congruity and tourist loyalty was reversed. This is attributed to the preferences inherent between individualistic and collectivist cultures. In other words, Western tourists belong to a more individualistic culture, so they are more likely to be satisfied and loyal when they are allowed to do things themselves. Choi & Chu [69] also found that Asian and Western tourists place different importance levels on hotel service items. Asian tourists generally consider value for money to be the most important, while Western tourists consider it to be the room quality as the most important aspect. The hotel facilities also play a part in hotel satisfaction, with different amenities being valued based on different cultural demands [70]. In addition, there are also notable differences in services, brand personality perceptions, visit intentions, tourist satisfaction, tourist behaviors, etc., in terms of their cultural backgrounds [58, 65, 69, 71, 72]. DSR is defined as the collective activities of destination stakeholders to conduct socially responsible tourism [10,11]. The perception of what is DSR can vary depending on their culture. Different cultures show different degrees of importance on various components of DSR. These differences cause differences in the relationship between the destination image and tourist loyalty. Hence the hypothesis is as follows:
H6. The relationships among DSR, destination image, and tourist loyalty are different between Asian tourists and Western tourists.
#Comment 2.
I can’t find model fit indices for SEM. They should be presented.
#Answer 2:
We are grateful for your comment about the model fit indices for SEM. This study adopts PLS-SEM to explore the relationships between DSR, destination image, and tourist loyalty. PLS-SEM uses a regression-based address squares test method and a model that combines exploratory factor analysis and path analysis. PLS-SEM is used primarily for exploratory studies. Unlike CB-SEM, PLS-SEM does not calculate model fit indices separately. This is because PLS-SEM is suitable for research that is “in the situation of high complexity but low theoretical information” (Henseler et al., 2009). On the other hand, this approach verifies the convergent validity, internal consistency reliability, and discriminant validity of the model before testing the hypothesis. We presented the results and measurements of the model evaluation from line 321 to 339, including table 2.
(Manuscript)
To ensure the appropriateness of the research instrument, we examined convergent validity, internal consistency reliability, and discriminant validity before the researchers tested the hypotheses. Convergent validity was verified using an outer loading relevance, an average barrier extraction, and an indicator reliability. Internal consistency reliability was verified using composite reliability (CR), Cronbach’s α, Dijkstra-Hensler's rho_A. And the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) was used to verify discriminant validity.
The result of testing measurement model is as follows. First, the outer of loading relevance of the seventh item of the economic responsibility measurement, the second item of the environmental responsibility measurement, the third and fourth items of the legal responsibility measurement items, and the fifth item of ethical responsibility measurement were less than the acceptance criterion (> 0.7) [92]. And the HTMT of legal responsibility and ethical responsibility contained more than 1.0, indicating that it did not have discriminant validity. In order to ensure the appropriateness of the empirical model, this study removed the low-loading items of economic, environmental, legal, and ethical responsibility and the two constructs, regal and ethical responsibility, which did not secure discriminant validity. In the re-test of the measurement model evaluation, all of the criteria were met. In this study, the results of the first measurement model evaluation are presented in Table 2. And table 3 reports the correlations between latent variables. The highest correlation was 0.483 with philanthropic responsibility and tourist loyalty, indicating that there is no multicollinearity.
Table 2. Summary of the First Measurement Model Evaluation
Constructs | Items | Convergent Validity | Internal Consistency Reliability | Discriminant | ||||
Outer loading relevance | Indicator Reliability | AVE | Cronbach’ α | rho_A () | CR | HTMT | ||
>0.70 | >0.50 | >0.50 | 0.60 ~0.90 | >0.70 | 0.60 ~0.90 | >1.0 | ||
Economic | Economic 1 | 0.858 | 0.736 | 0.681 | 0.896 | 0.949 | 0.929 | Secure |
Economic 2 | 0.881 | 0.776 | ||||||
Economic 3 | 0.908 | 0.824 | ||||||
Economic 4 | 0.897 | 0.805 | ||||||
Economic 5 | 0.888 | 0.789 | ||||||
Economic 6 | 0.914 | 0.835 | ||||||
Economic 7 | 0.066 | 0.004 | ||||||
Environmental | Environment 1 | 0.779 | 0.607 | 0.549 | 0.836 | 0.888 | 0.884 | Secure |
Environment 2 | 0.117 | 0.014 | ||||||
Environment 3 | 0.787 | 0.619 | ||||||
Environment 4 | 0.789 | 0.623 | ||||||
Environment 5 | 0.785 | 0.616 | ||||||
Environment 6 | 0.822 | 0.676 | ||||||
Environment 7 | 0.830 | 0.689 | ||||||
Legal | Legal 1 | 0.876 | 0.767 | 0.410 | 0.294 | 0.783 | 0.563 | Not Secure |
Legal 2 | 0.916 | 0.839 | ||||||
Legal 3 | 0.104 | 0.011 | ||||||
Legal 4 | -0.154 | 0.024 | ||||||
Ethical | Ethical 1 | 0.865 | 0.748 | 0.505 | 0.697 | 0.894 | 0.806 | Not Secure |
Ethical 2 | 0.887 | 0.787 | ||||||
Ethical 3 | 0.829 | 0.687 | ||||||
Ethical 4 | 0.899 | 0.808 | ||||||
Ethical 5 | 0.016 | 0.000 | ||||||
Ethical 6 | 0.017 | 0.000 | ||||||
Philanthropic | Philanthropic 1 | 0.890 | 0.792 | 0.805 | 0.919 | 0.923 | 0.943 | Secure |
Philanthropic 2 | 0.907 | 0.823 | ||||||
Philanthropic 3 | 0.866 | 0.750 | ||||||
Philanthropic 4 | 0.924 | 0.854 | ||||||
Cognitive Image | Cognitive 1 | 0.884 | 0.781 | 0.769 | 0.939 | 0.940 | 0.952 | Secure |
Cognitive 2 | 0.869 | 0.755 | ||||||
Cognitive 3 | 0.877 | 0.769 | ||||||
Cognitive 4 | 0.923 | 0.852 | ||||||
Cognitive 5 | 0.794 | 0.630 | ||||||
Cognitive 6 | 0.909 | 0.826 | ||||||
Affective Image | Affective 1 | 0.830 | 0.689 | 0.755 | 0.837 | 0.846 | 0.902 | Secure |
Affective 2 | 0.914 | 0.835 | ||||||
Affective 3 | 0.860 | 0.740 | ||||||
Tourist Loyalty | Loyalty 1 | 0.812 | 0.659 | 0.719 | 0.902 | 0.905 | 0.927 | Secure |
Loyalty 2 | 0.855 | 0.731 | ||||||
Loyalty 3 | 0.792 | 0.627 | ||||||
Loyalty 4 | 0.869 | 0.755 | ||||||
Loyalty 5 | 0.905 | 0.819 | ||||||
In addition, the methodology adopted was explained in detail from line 273 to 291. The suitability of SEM in this study was discussed and we presented the reasoning why PLS-SEM was adopted after comparing the characteristics of CB-SEM and PLS-SEM approaches.
(Manuscript)
To explore the relationship between DSR, destination image, and tourist loyalty, this study employs a structural equation model (SEM). SEM models are useful for dealing with latent constructs and complex models, analyzing direct, indirect and total effects, and assessing structural models [84]. SEM is generally divided into two differing approaches [85]. The first is the covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) used primarily for theoretical verification, and the second is the partial least square SEM (PLS-SEM) used in exploratory studies. CB-SEM estimates causal relationships based on the maximum likelihood (ML) estimation process, which combines both confirmation factor and path analysis. PLS-SEM uses a regression-based address squares test method and a model that combines exploratory factor analysis and path analysis [86]. This study adopts PLS-SEM via the SmartPLS v3.2.7 program, which has been widely employed in recent tourism research [87,88]. This is due to the fact that DSR is a relatively modern concept and lacks empirical data on its various subcomponents. Previous studies on DSR (e.g., [9,10,12]) all measured DSR in one single dimension. The methodology used here is far more appropriate, especially considering that PLS-SEM focuses on explaining the latent constructs’ variance through minimizing the error term and maximizing the R-squared (R2) values of a model to identify possible relationships between constructs. In addition, PLS multi-group analysis was conducted to identify the impact of DSR while taking into account the cultural differences between Asian and Western tourists. Unlike CB-SEM, PLS-SEM does not focus on accounting for measurement item covariance [89]. Consequently, the hypotheses are tested based on the structural model only after evaluating the measurement model.
#Comment 3.
All hypotheses in the model are confirmed. Does it mean this study lacks originality? What are main distinct contributions comparing previous researches? Thus, this study should explain why this study is so important to us with appropriate research backgrounds and should provide in-depth discussion with above questions.
#Answer 3:
We would like to thank you for your thoughtful comment about the contributions of this study. The originality presented in this study examines the structural relationship between DSR, destination image, and tourist loyalty, while measuring DSR in a multi-dimensional way to identify how this structural relationship is perceived differently depending on the cultural background of the tourists.
Our predictions were that all five factors were independent constructs, and they affected the destination image. However, unlike our expectations, only three factors (Economic, Environmental, Philanthropic responsibilities) were found to be suitable for the model, and the direction of those relationships were as expected. Legal responsibility and ethical responsibility did not obtain a discriminant value. However, in a study by Tran et al. (2018), DSR was divided into four components. This means that the present DSR measurement scale needs to be improved. The measurement of DSR based on CSR theory may not be completely suitable for all tourism destinations. This is an aspect of further research.
Additionally, this study is the first attempt to identify the difference in the relationship between DSR, destination image, and tourist loyalty according to cultural differences. Only differing predictions would be possible before the empirical analysis. The results of this study show how and why such differences occur.
In response to your comments, we revised the manuscript to highlight the originality. Please find our revised part as follows (From line 417 to 423 and line 424 to 426).
(Original manuscript)
In addition, DSR was found to be multidimensional and the impact of DSR on destination image was different with each dimension. The cognitive image of the destination was most influenced by the philanthropic responsibility and the affective image was most influenced by the economic responsibility. Also, in the study of Tran et al. [11], the impacts of DSR on tourists’ satisfaction were differently by each of the dimensions.
(Revised manuscript)
è DSR is found to be multidimensional and the impact of DSR on destination image differed. Most literature, except Tran et al. [11], on DSR measured this construct within a single dimension even though DSR is conceptually comprised of different components including environmental, economic, ethical, and philanthropic aspects [9,10,12,16]. The multidimensionality of DSR plays an important role in managing tourism destinations because it can contribute to accurately conveying the identity of destination to tourists. This study has originality as it contributes to identifying the multidimensionality of DSR.
And,
(Original manuscript)
The results of the comparison between the Asian and the Western group on the structural relationships of the perceived DSR, destination image, and tourist loyalty show that different cultures show different degrees of importance for components of DSR.
(Revised manuscript)
è The comparison between Asian and Western groups on the structural relationships of the perceived DSR, destination image, and tourist loyalty is another aspect of originality. The results show that different cultures apply different degrees of importance to each component of DSR.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
This article is very interesting. Here are some recommendations:
- on line 6 - add Destination Social Responsibility (DSR)
- at line 298 - May you add an appendix with the questionnaire applied to the tourists?
This attachment is required because readers of this article will be able to better understand this research you've done. May you explain the representativeness of the sample for this study?
- at line 331 - Are you sure this value (0.192) is correct? May you check this value?
- at line 336 - I guess you expect the assumptions from 1 to 5 to be supported?
It's not like that? However, what is the novelty of this study? What is the relevance of this study?
-at Figure 2 - Where is the "legal" dimension? But the "ethical" dimension?
I wish you good luck!
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments.
Thank you very much for your insightful review. We have revised our paper according to your comments. Please find our response to your specific comments below.
#Comment 1.
on line 6 - add Destination Social Responsibility (DSR)
#Answer 1:
We appreciate your detailed review. We marked the abbreviation on line 6, for DSR as you pointed out.
#Comment 2.
at line 298 - May you add an appendix with the questionnaire applied to the tourists? This attachment is required because readers of this article will be able to better understand this research you've done.
#Answer 2:
We are grateful for your comment. The measurements of all the variables were presented in table 1 on line 268 to help readers to better understand the concept of this research. If necessary, we will present the questionnaire as an appendix.
Table 1. Measurement Items
Constructs | Measurement items | References |
Economic Responsibility | “I thought that local authority, service providers and companies in Hoi An…” 1. tried to generate tourism profits. 2. improved the quality of their services and products. 3. made contributions to the national and local economy through their businesses. 4. tried to generate employment through their operations. 5. established long-term plans for their businesses. 6. tried to attract more tourists. 7. encouraged tourists to consume/use local products. | [11,80] |
Environmental Responsibility | 1. were concerned with protecting the environment. 2. used energy efficiently to protect the environment. 3. recycled waste. 4. used environmentally friendly products. 5. offered environment-friendly products and travel programs. 6. encouraged tourists to be environmentally friendly. 7. communicated to tourists about their environmental practices. | [11,75, 80] |
Legal Responsibility | 1. protected consumers and took responsibility for their products/ services. 2. resolved service problems promptly. 3. observed legal responsibility and standards. 4. treated customers honestly and ethically. | [11,81] |
Ethical Responsibility | 1. did not practice exaggerated and false advertisements. 2. provided full and accurate information about products/ services to customers. 3. held tourists’ satisfaction as highly important for them. 4. established ethical guidelines for business activities. 5. tried to become ethically trustworthy service providers. 6. provided a healthy and safe working environment for employees. | [11,76] |
Philanthropic Responsibility | 1. did charity activities. 2. played a role in society that goes beyond mere profit generation. 3. tried to fulfill their social responsibility. 4. actively participated in social and cultural events. | [11,82,83] |
Cognitive Image | 1. Hoi An has beautiful scenery. 2. Natural Environment is attractive 3. Hoi An has unique environmental characteristics 4. Hoi An has an atmosphere conducive to relaxation and rest 5. Hoi An has unique historic/cultural heritage sites 6. Hoi An has unique traditional architecture. | [21,48,78,79] |
Affective Image | “Through experience in Hoi An, …” 1. I felt happy. 2. I felt relaxed. 3. I felt excited. | |
Tourist Loyalty | 1. If I had to decide again, I would choose Hoi An 2. I will revisit Hoi An. 3. I will encourage friends and relatives to visit Hoi An 4. I will recommend Hoi An to friends and relatives. 5. I will say positive things about Hoi An to other people | [37] |
(Questionnaire)
First of all, I would like to thank you very much for spending your time to take part in this survey.I am collecting data for my master thesis entitled ‘The Effects of Destination Attributes and Destination Social Responsibility on Tourists’ behavior intentions in Hoi An”. Research results will be used as a reference to create better tourist experiences in order to better meet international visitors’ expectations in the future. Your data is confidential and will be used for academic research purposes only. If you have any further inquiries, please contact the researcher via email [email protected]. Thank you very much.Tran Huynh Anh Thu -Department of International Business & Trade –Graduate School – KyungHee University, Seoul, Korea.Advised by Dr. Yun Seop Hwang – Tel: +82-02-961- 0645
Part 1. Cognitive Image - The following questions are related to your evaluation about cognitive image of Hoi An as a tourist destination. Please mark the number that best describes your opinion. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral AgreeStrongly Agree1Hoi An has beautiful scenery.①②③④⑤2Natural environment is attractive.①②③④⑤3Hoi An has unique environment characteristics.①②③④⑤4Hoi An has pleasant climate for tourism.①②③④⑤5Hoi An has the atmosphere for relaxation and rest.①②③④⑤6Hoi An has unique historic/ cultural heritage sites.①②③④⑤7Hoi An has unique traditional architecture.①②③④⑤
Part 2. Affective Image - The following questions are related to your evaluation about affective image of Hoi An as a tourist destination. Please mark the number that best describes your opinion. To what extent do you agree with following statement?“Through experience in Hoi An,...Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral AgreeStrongly Agree1I felt happy①②③④⑤2I felt relaxed①②③④⑤3I felt excited①②③④⑤
Part 3. Destination Social Responsibility - The following questions are related to your evaluation about social responsibility practices being implemented in Hoi An. Please mark the number that best describes your opinion. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?“I think that local authority, service providers and companies in Hoi An…” Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree1try to generate tourism profits.①②③④⑤2improve the quality of their services and products.①②③④⑤3make contributions on the national and local economy through their businesses.①②③④⑤4try to generate employment through their operations.①②③④⑤5establish long-term plans for their businesses.①②③④⑤6try to attract more tourists.①②③④⑤7encourage tourists to consume/use local products.①②③④⑤8are concerned with protecting environment.①②③④⑤9use energy efficiently to protect the environment.①②③④⑤10waste recycling (ex: waste sorting bins,…).①②③④⑤11use environmentally friendly products (ex: bikes, eco-bags, …).①②③④⑤12offer environment-friendly products and travel programs. (ex: nature material handcrafts, eco-tours,…).①②③④⑤13encourage tourists be environmentally friendly in nature.①②③④⑤14communicate to tourists about their environmental practices.①②③④⑤15protect consumers and take responsibility for their products/services.①②③④⑤16resolve service problems promptly. (ex: refunds, complaints,…).①②③④⑤17observe legal responsibility and standards.①②③④⑤18treat customers honestly and ethically.①②③④⑤19do not practice exaggerated and false advertisements.①②③④⑤20provide full and accurate information about products/services to customers.①②③④⑤21tourists’ satisfaction is highly important for them.①②③④⑤22establish ethical guidelines for business activities.①②③④⑤23try to become the ethically trustworthy service providers.①②③④⑤24provide a healthy and safe working environment for employees. (without discrimination, regardless of gender, race, origin,…).①②③④⑤25do charity activities. (ex: supporting the poor, offering scholarships for children…).①②③④⑤26play a role in society that goes beyond mere profit generation.①②③④⑤27try to fulfill its social responsibility.①②③④⑤28actively participate in social and cultural events.①②③④⑤
Part 4. Tourist Loyalty - The following questions are about your future behavioral intentions toward Hoi An. Please mark the number that best describes your opinion. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?Strongly disagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly agree1If I had to decide again, I would choose Hoi An.①②③④⑤2I will revisit Hoi An.①②③④⑤3I will encourage friends and relatives to visit Hoi An.①②③④⑤4I will recommend Hoi An to friends and relatives.①②③④⑤5I will say positive things about Hoi An to other people.①②③④⑤
Part 5. Basic Information - The following questions aim to collect basic data about your visit in Hoi An. Please mark at the relevant responses.
1. What is your nationality?................................... 2. What is your gender? ① Male ② Female
3. What is your age? ①Below 19 ②20-29 ③30-39 ④40-49 ⑤50-59 ⑥60 and older
4. What is the highest level of education you have completed? ①Under high school ②High school ③College/University ④Graduate school
5. How many times have you visited Hoi An (including this time)? ①1 ②2-4 ③More than 4 times
6. With whom have you visited Hoi An? ①Alone ②Friends/Colleague ③Family/Relatives ④Group
7. How long is your trip in Hoi An this time? …….……. days.
8. What was your main purpose of visiting Hoi An? Leisure Visiting Friends/Relatives Business Others
9. When did you decide to visit Hoi An? About ………… weeks ago.
10. What was the major source of information for the trip to Hoi An this time? Referral from friends and family SNS Guidebooks Ads about Hoi An Travel agents News and TV programs Previous experiences Others…………….
11. What is your annual household income? Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $29,999 $30,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $69,999 $70,000 to $99,999 more than $100,000
Once again, thank you very much for visiting Hoi An and taking part in this survey. |
#Comment 3.
May you explain the representativeness of the sample for this study?
#Answer 3:
We agree that it is very important to secure the representativeness in sample-based research, as stated in your comment. The collection of data was conducted on-site from August 23, 2017, to September 8, 2017, and was focused on foreign tourists visiting Hoi An. Using a convenient sampling method, we tried to extract a representative sample of the foreign tourists visiting Hoi An. Although no detailed statistics on Hoi An's foreign visitor profile are available, we can deduce them using the 2008 UNESCO report, which showed the visitors to Hoi An by nationality. According to the report, there are many Westerners, including those from France, Australia, Germany, the United States, and the United Kingdom, that visited Hoi An in 2007. However, according to Vietnamnet (Last Update 12:42:12/11/2018), the number of tourists from Europe and the United States has recently diminished, while the number of Asian tourists, including those from China and Korea, had increased. Of the respondents in this study, 34.5% of the visitors are Asian and 65.5% are Western visitors. Therefore, we consider that the data collected is a representative sample of the cultural background of visitors to Hoi An.
#Comment 4.
at line 331 - Are you sure this value (0.192) is correct? May you check this value?
#Answer 4:
We are grateful again for your detailed review. We conducted the analysis again to confirm the values you pointed out. The value of the explanatory power of our model is 0.192 (19.2%). This is because Tourist Loyalty is influenced by various variables, as well as DSR. Many studies exist on the antecedents of tourists’ loyalty, including motivation, destination image, trip quality, perceived value, and satisfaction, in different settings such as country, states, city, and islands (see Bigné, Sanchez, and Sanchez 2001; Chen and Tsai 2007; Chi and Qu 2008; Huang and Hsu 2009; Prayag 2009).
#Comment 5.
at line 336 - I guess you expect the assumptions from 1 to 5 to be supported? It's not like that? However, what is the novelty of this study? What is the relevance of this study?
#Answer 5:
We would like to thank you for your thoughtful comment about the contributions of this study. The originality presented in this study examines the structural relationship between DSR, destination image, and tourist loyalty, while measuring DSR in a multi-dimensional way to identify how this structural relationship is perceived differently depending on the cultural background of the tourists.
Our predictions were that all five factors were independent constructs, and they affected the destination image. However, unlike our expectations, only three factors (Economic, Environmental, Philanthropic responsibilities) were found to be suitable for the model, and the direction of those relationships were as expected. Legal responsibility and ethical responsibility did not obtain a discriminant value. However, in a study by Tran et al. (2018), DSR was divided into four components. This means that the present DSR measurement scale needs to be improved. The measurement of DSR based on CSR theory may not be completely suitable for all tourism destinations. This is an aspect of further research.
Additionally, this study is the first attempt to identify the difference in the relationship between DSR, destination image, and tourist loyalty according to cultural differences. Only differing predictions would be possible before the empirical analysis. The results of this study show how and why such differences occur.
In response to your comments, we revised the manuscript to highlight the originality. Please find our revised part as follows (From line 417 to 423 and line 424 to 426).
(Original manuscript)
In addition, DSR was found to be multidimensional and the impact of DSR on destination image was different with each dimension. The cognitive image of the destination was most influenced by the philanthropic responsibility and the affective image was most influenced by the economic responsibility. Also, in the study of Tran et al. [11], the impacts of DSR on tourists’ satisfaction were differently by each of the dimensions.
(Revised manuscript)
DSR is found to be multidimensional and the impact of DSR on destination image differed. Most literature, except Tran et al. [11], on DSR measured this construct within a single dimension even though DSR is conceptually comprised of different components including environmental, economic, ethical, and philanthropic aspects [9,10,12,16]. The multidimensionality of DSR plays an important role in managing tourism destinations because it can contribute to accurately conveying the identity of destination to tourists. This study has originality as it contributes to identifying the multidimensionality of DSR.
And,
(Original manuscript)
The results of the comparison between the Asian and the Western group on the structural relationships of the perceived DSR, destination image, and tourist loyalty show that different cultures show different degrees of importance for components of DSR.
(Revised manuscript)
The comparison between Asian and Western groups on the structural relationships of the perceived DSR, destination image, and tourist loyalty is another aspect of originality. The results show that different cultures apply different degrees of importance to each component of DSR.
#Comment 6.
at Figure 2 - Where is the "legal" dimension? But the "ethical" dimension?
#Answer 6.
One of the purposes of this study is to examine the structural relationship between DSR, destination image, and tourist loyalty while measuring DSR in a multi-dimensional way. This study uses the partial least square SEM to explore the relationship among DSR, destination image, and tourist locality. This is because DSR is a relatively up-to-date concept and lacks empirical studies on subcomponents.
For measurement model evaluation, convergent validity, internal consistency reliability, and discriminant validity were examined to ensure the appropriateness of the research instrument before the researchers tested the hypotheses. The convergent validity was verified using an outer loading relevance, an indicator reliability, and an average barrier extraction. The internal consistency reliability was verified using Cronbach’s α, Dijkstra-Hensler's rho_A, and composite reliability (CR). Discriminant validity was verified using the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT).
The result of testing measurement model is as follows. The outer of loading relevance of the seventh item of the economic responsibility measurement, the second item of the environmental responsibility measurement, the third and fourth items of the legal responsibility measurement items, and the fifth item of ethical responsibility measurement were less than the acceptance criterion (> 0.7). And the HTMT of legal responsibility and ethical responsibility contained more than 1.0, indicating that it did not have discriminant validity. In order to ensure the appropriateness of the empirical model, this study removed the low-loading items of economic, environmental, legal, and ethical responsibility and the two constructs, regal and ethical responsibility, which did not secure discriminant validity. Therefore, only the economic, environmental, and philanthropic responsibilities among DSR were used in the hypothesis test. The results related to DSR measurement were presented as the limit points of this study (line from 468-473).
Previous studies measured DSR in one single dimension except Tran et al. (2018), even though DSR is conceptually comprised of different subcomponents including environmental, economic, ethical, and philanthropic aspects. In Tran et al. (2018) using CB-SEM, unlike the researchers' expectations, DSR was found to be a component of four. This means that the present DSR measurement scale needs to be improved. The measurement of DSR based on CSR theory may not be completely suitable for all tourism destinations.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This article explores the relationship between destination loyalty and destination social responsibility in part through the concept of destination image. The article is well-written and sets out the argument clearly, using appropriate literature to define the relationships between DSR, destination loyalty and destination image. The contribution of the research both in application and to broader knowledge in the field is clearly stated. There is a clear linkage established between DSR and sustainability. The theoretical background is well-organized and has a logical flow. The SOR seems appropriate and is well-explained and the use of SEM fits with the research objectives and approach. One suggestion is to reorganize section 2.2 and 2.3 a bit to move H-1 and H-2 into 2.3. I suggest this because it is confusing to the reader to see H-1 and 2 refer to cognitive and affective before it is introduced. The discussion and conclusion section is well-written and the comparison between Asian and Western tourists is particularly interesting. I also appreciate that the authors address the managerial implications in a thoughtful way.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments.
Thank you very much for your insightful review. We have revised our paper according to your comments. Please find our response to your specific comments below.
#Comment 1.
One suggestion is to reorganize section 2.2 and 2.3 a bit to move H-1 and H-2 into 2.3. I suggest this because it is confusing to the reader to see H-1 and 2 refer to cognitive and affective before it is introduced.
#Answer 1:
We are grateful for your detailed review. In response to your comments, we reorganized section 2.2 and 2.3 in the manuscript. The content related to the definition and components of the destination image, originally in section 2.3, was moved to section 2.2. Hypothesis 3 was also moved to section 2.2. This reorganization will help readers to better understand the article without confusing H1 and H2 as they refer to the terms cognitive and affective before they are introduced. Please find the revised parts as follows (manuscript line 149 to 179).
(Original manuscript)
2.2 The Impacts of DSR on Destination Image and Tourist Loyalty
Like any other consumer product, not only is tourism destination a package of tourism facilities and services, but also is composed of a number of attributes [17] and consists of an amalgam of products and services that are available in one location and are capable of drawing visitors where it spatially confines [18]. Hence, destination can shape the tourists’ perception and attitude with various factors such as demographic, natural, technological, political and cultural [19,20]. Baloglu and McCleary [21] presented a general framework of destination image formation, suggesting that destination image is formed by stimulus and personal factors. Variables of the stimulus factors include information sources, previous experiences, and distribution. The examples of personal factors are tourists’ social and psychological factors such as value, motivations, personality, age, education, and so forth.
While focusing the perspective of the entire destination, Su et al. [22] proposed DSR based on prior CSR studies in the tourism industry. Thus, DSR is the collective activities of all the relevant stakeholders in the destination to minimize negative effects in terms of economy, environment, and social culture and to maximize benefits with which destinations provide tourists. These entire efforts are delivered to tourists and have an influence on tourists’ experiences through tourism programs, attractions, accommodations, operating staff, and the overall atmosphere. From this point of view, DSR is seen as one of the fundamental stimuli, forming destination image.
The evaluation of DSR by tourists affects their perceptions toward their destination in a variety of ways [6]. First, tourists may feel anxious about their well-being being undermined. Tourists are not only likely to avoid polluted tourism destinations, but also likely to consider the level of crime, an incidence of locality, noise pollution, etc. Therefore, tourists who recognize the destination as a place with a high level DSR certainly will have a positive image of the tourism destination. In addition, a high level of DSR implies that destinations have well preserved natural, historical and cultural tourist attractions. Different attractions will provide tourists with a variety of experiences, which is difficult for tourists to feel in daily life. In the end, these versatile experiences will bring them a positive image of the tourism destination. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that some tourists want to avoid any situation that their activities in the tourism destinations have a negative impact on the places. In this case, these tourists’ perceptions toward DSR, can minimize the potential of a negative impact, will create a positive image of the tourism destination. Finally, tourists who positively perceive tourism destination are more likely to revisit there or recommend to their neighbors. As a consequence, there will be a positive relationship between destination image and tourist loyalty [23-25].
This study borrows the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) framework proposed by Mehrabian and Russell [26] to explain the relationship between DSR (S), destination image (O), and tourist loyalty (R) [10]. Therefore, this study sets destination image as a mediator, explaining the mechanism how DSR affects tourist loyalty [27]. The tourists’ perceived DSR is a cognitive antecedent of tourists’ destination image and this image ultimately affects tourist loyalty [12,28]. Based on the discussions above, we formulate the following hypotheses.
H1. The perception of DSR has a positive impact on cognitive destination image.
H2. The perception of DSR has a positive impact on affective destination image.
(Revised manuscript)
2.2 The Impacts of DSR on Destination Image and Tourist Loyalty
Like any other consumer product, not only is a tourism destination a package of tourism facilities and services, but it is also composed of a number of attributes [17] and consists of an amalgam of products and services that are available in one location and are capable of drawing visitors to where it spatially confines them [18]. Hence, a destination can shape the tourists’ perception and attitude with various demographic, natural, technological, political and cultural aspects [19,20]. Baloglu and McCleary [21] presented a general framework of destination image formation, suggesting that a destination’s image is formed by both stimulus and personal aspects. Variables of the stimulus aspects include information sources, previous experiences, and distribution. The examples of personal aspects are tourists’ social and psychological aspects such as value, motivations, personality, age, education, and so forth.
While focusing their perspective on the entire destination, Su et al. [22] proposed DSR based on prior CSR studies in the tourism industry. Thus, DSR is the collective activities of all the relevant stakeholders in the destination to minimize negative effects in terms of economy, environment, and social culture and to maximize benefits with which the destinations provide tourists. The entirety of these efforts are delivered to tourists and have an influence on tourists’ experiences through tourism programs, attractions, accommodations, operating staff, and overall atmosphere. From this point of view, DSR is seen as one of the fundamental stimuli, forming a destinations image.
The evaluation of DSR by tourists affects their perceptions toward their destination in a variety of ways [6]. First, tourists may feel anxious about their well-being being undermined. Tourists are not only likely to avoid polluted tourism destinations, but also likely to consider the level of crime, incidences of locality, noise pollution, etc. Therefore, tourists who recognize a destination as a place with a high level of DSR will certainly have a positive image of it. In addition, a high level of DSR implies that destinations have well preserved natural, historical, and cultural tourist attractions. Different attractions will provide tourists with a variety of experiences, which is something that is difficult for tourists to feel in daily life. In the end, these versatile experiences will bring them a positive image of the tourism destination. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that some tourists want to avoid any situation in which their activities at the tourism destination have a negative impact on the area. In cases such as this, these tourists’ perceptions toward DSR can minimize the potential of negative impact and will create a positive image of the tourism destination. Finally, tourists who positively perceive a tourism destination are more likely to revisit there or recommend it to their neighbors. As a consequence, there will be a positive relationship between destination image and tourist loyalty [23-25].
This study borrows the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) framework proposed by Mehrabian and Russell [26] to explain the relationship between DSR (S), destination image (O), and tourist loyalty (R) [10]. Therefore, this study sets destination image as a mediator, explaining the mechanism of how DSR affects tourist loyalty [27]. The tourists’ perceived DSR is a cognitive antecedent of the tourists’ destination image and this image ultimately affects tourist loyalty [12,28].
The definition of tourism destination image varies slightly among scholars [29]. Hunt [30] defined tourism destination image as ‘impressions that a person or persons hold about a state in which they do not reside,’ and Crompton [31] defined it as ‘the sum of the beliefs, ideas, and impressions that a person has of a destination.’ Similarly, Kim and Richardson [32] defined it as ‘a totality of impressions, beliefs, ideas, expectations, and feelings accumulated toward a place over time.’ Sahin and Baloglu [33] saw it as ‘the perception of a person or a group of people regarding a place.’ Despite these subtle differences, the majority of previous studies agreed that destination image is one of the main aspects in determining the success of destination management, marketing, and branding [34] since the image perceived by tourists plays a crucial role not only in pre-visit behaviors but also post-visit behaviors [21, 35-38].
When tourists make a decision regarding the travel options, the destination image that people have toward a specific destination is directly associated with other aspects such as motivations, interests, cultural background, emotional state, and self-image [36]. Hence, decision making regarding travel is based on perceptions rather than rational and logical judgment [39,40]. In other words, tourists often choose destinations based on awareness of information rather than what the information is[41]. As such, it is necessary for destinations to create positive images for tourists for successful marketing. In this sense, Echtner and Ritchie [34] insisted a destination must differentiate itself from its competitors in an advantageous manner or increase their positive mindshare. Every place has a specific image that plays an important role in attracting tourists [42].
In tourism literature, several researchers have regarded destination image as a multidimensional composition, with the two main dimensions being cognitive and affective [43-45]. The cognitive component refers to the beliefs and the knowledge held by tourists regarding a destination’s attributes [46] and the affective component is defined by their feelings or emotional responses [47]. From a theoretical point of view, there is a general agreement that the cognitive component is an antecedent of the affective component [48-52]. For instance, Lin et al. [49] demonstrated that tourists develop feelings about a destination only after they cognitively evaluate it. Based on the discussions above, we can formulate the following hypotheses.
H1. The perception of DSR has a positive impact on cognitive destination image.
H2. The perception of DSR has a positive impact on affective destination image.
H3. Cognitive destination image is positively associated with affective destination image.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I found that authors tried to incorporate the reviewers’ suggestion, and that this article was neatly revised.