What are the Factors affecting Tourist Behavior based on the Perception of Risk? Romanian and Serbian Tourists’ Perspective in the Aftermath of the recent Floods and Wildfires in Greece
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The main question addressed by the research is well focused and interesting: the link between tourists’ individual characteristics and their behavior based on perceived risks is a very much current issue. The same question can be applied to the global situation of tourism during/after the pandemic crisis due to Covid-19.
It can be considered an original topic because it is centered on a specific case study. It adds to the subject of risk in tourism behavior the point of view of Serbian and Romanian tourists.
The paper is well written and the text clear and easy to read.
The conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, providing some contributions to theory and practice and addressing the main question posed.
Author Response
We would like to thank to reviewer for reading our paper and providing such positive comments. We appreciate your opinion and we are glad that you consider our paper relevant and well written.
Reviewer 2 Report
The prevention of risk perception is a innovative topic. Thus I agree it should be study in differents aspect such as risk and other of human behaviors.
The paper is suitable for presentation in the journal. I believe has demostrated a significant review ot the literature. Additionally, they could improve the document, including more contribution from the last two year (2019,2020).
Generally, the results are very suitable for the purpose of the study. In this way, the results are according to the objetives of the work, were very well explained the composition of the regression models. In order to check the hypotheses, they might used regression models and this methodology combined with the software PLS-SEM to have better composition and quality researching. I have failed to read further discussion with contributions from other authors.
The quality of communication is clear and I could read without any problems and the paper gives a correct explanation in order to accep and reject the hypothesis.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for useful comments.
We have added some recent references (2019, 2020) regarding risk perception and tourism to the Introduction and Theoretical background and hypothesis section: please see lines 72-78, lines 195-198, lins 214-205, lines 221-224, lines 257-262, lines 265-268.
Fourie, J., Rosselló-Nadal, J., & Santana-Gallego, M. (2020). Fatal attraction: how security threats hurt tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 59(2), 209-219.
Kim, J., &Seo, Y. (2019). An evolutionary perspective on risk taking in tourism. Journal of travel research, 58(8), 1235-1248.
Laura Perpiña, Lluís Prats & Raquel Camprubí (2020): Image and risk perceptions: an integrated approach, Current Issues in Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2020.1715355
Rosselló, J., Becken, S., & Santana-Gallego, M. (2020). The effects of natural disasters on international tourism: A global analysis. Tourism management, 79, 104080.
Wang, J., Liu-Lastres, B., Ritchie, B. W., & Pan, D. Z. (2019). Risk reduction and adventure tourism safety: An extension of the risk perception attitude framework (RPAF). Tourism Management, 74, 247-257.
Regarding the software proposed, we appreciate the suggestion for using the software PLS-SEM. However, as our research model also contains a lot of categorial variables such as gender, age, education, nationality etc. we found it more appropriate this type to conducts regression models plus analysis of variance in SPSS. However, as our future research plans are to test single regression model of personality traits and travel behaviour based on the perceived risk on a sample of many different nationalities, we found it as a great suggestion to apply the PLS-SEM analysis in SMART-PLSor AMOS in such study, as it will assist us in checking a moderation/mediation role of nationality. We have added this in future research of our conclusion. (lines 692-696).
Reviewer 3 Report
The issue of risk perceived by consumers has been my main scientific interest for years. That is why I am very happy to have the opportunity to read an interesting article on this topic.
The article is well-written and has a research character. The Authors should be appreciated for the research reliability and methods used. The strong points of this article are also its layout and the clarity of presented contents.
In my opinion, the Authors should expand subsection 3.2. Participants, explaining why the sample was 431 units? How was it selected? What measurement error should be expected? Why was there such a large majority of women among the respondents? Moreover, in the Conclusions section, it would be worth referring to the previously formulated hypotheses more clearly, especially because there are as many as 13 of them.
The references are impressive and closely related to the topic of the article. Taking advantage of the fact that both Authors and me are passionate about the problem of consumer risk, I would like to draw their attention to two works that can enrich the discussion of results, especially in the context of the role of nationality in tourist behaviour based on the perceived risk. Here they are:
- Maciejewski, G. The meaning of perceived risk in purchasing decisions of the polish customers. Scientific Annals of the “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iasi, Economic Sciences 2011, 58, 280-304. Available at http://anale.feaa.uaic.ro/anale/ro/arhiva202011%20maciejewski/405
- Maciejewski, G. Perceived risk in purchasing decisions of the polish consumers – Model-based approach. Journal of Economics & Management 2012, 8, 37-52. Available at JEM: https://www.ue.katowice.pl/fileadmin/user_upload/wydawnictwo/JEM_Artyku%C5%82y_1_30/JEM_08/03.pdf
Good luck!
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and useful suggestions. We have made requested changes, as follows:
Regarding suggestion to expand the subsection 3.2. Participants, we have added some information about how the sample was selected: "The sample was convenient, based on the respondents’ willingness to participate (with condition they are over 18 years old and from Serbia or Romania). Moreover, a snowball convenience sample technique was also applied, as respondents were asked to share the questionnaire with their friends or acquaintances from Serbia and Romania. Researchers tended to collect similar number of respondents from Serbia and Romania, in order to enable reliable comparison between the groups, and still the satisfactory sample size to perform the required statistical analysis". (lines 297-302)
Regarding the number of women in the sample, the questionnaire has been sent to the approximately equal number of man and women, however, the women have shown a higher responsive rate (which is quite typical for quantitative studies, as women tend to be more willing to participate in surveys (Moore &Tarnai, 2002;Singer et al 2000; Smith, 2008; Mulder & de Bruijne, 2019). We have added the explanation to the participants sections. (lines 305-307).
Moore, D. L., &Tarnai, J. (2002). Evaluating nonresponse error in mail surveys. In: Groves, R. M., Dillman, D. A., Eltinge, J. L., and Little, R. J. A. (eds.), Survey Nonresponse, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 197–211.
Singer, E., van Hoewyk, J., & Maher, M. P. (2000). Experiments with incentives in telephone surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 64: 171–188.
Smith, G. (2008). Does gender influence online survey participation?: A record-linkage analysis of university faculty online survey response behavior. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 501717.
Mulder, J., & de Bruijne, M. (2019). Willingness of Online Respondents to Participate in Alternative Modes of Data Collection. SurvPract, 12(1), 1-11.
Regarding the suggestion about Conclusions section, we had now summarized the results of the hypotheses testing in conclusions, while they are in more detailed discussed in the discussion part of the paper. (lines 636-654)
Thank you for suggestion the papers regarding consumer risk perception. We have found some useful information about influence of gender and education on purchasing decision regarding tourist services and we have added it to the theoretical and discussion part of the paper. (lines 214-215, 261-262, 568-570).
