Decision-Making Behavior and Risk Perception of Chinese Female Wildlife Tourists

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

this is an interesting study with an interesting approach. However, there are several shortcomings which should be addressed, listed below. The two most pressing issues are the references which can't be found in the literature and happen to support some of the central arguments in the article; as well as the use of the colloquial term westerner in the article, which is innacurate and doesn't support inclusive language. The full list of comments can be found below:

Abstract

 

The results presented at the lines 21-26 seem like a disjoint string of sentences. Please make an effort to improve the writing style here. Please connect the sentences, so that the whole text part reads like one whole with the same purpose (presenting the major findings), and not like 4 random sentences, one after another.

 

 

Introduction

Lines 70-72: please revise this sentence and clearly divide your paraphrasing, the results of the previous study and eventual commentary on the author’s side. It is highly unlikely that in 2005 a study on the recent developments has been published. Moreover, this reference hasn’t been listed in the references, so it is not even possible to check this source. This non-existent source has also been cited at line 502. Please correct this. The same goes for following reference, no reference could be found at the end of the article Deng, et al. 2003, line 513. Please check this too.

 

Another, more important logical issue which needs to be addressed at this point, is whether the paper deals with (a) female trip/tourism/travel decision-making, (b) female trip/tourism/travel decision making inside a family, or (c) both? Depending on the approach explained here, please expand also the discussion/future research direction section at the end of the manuscript. Having in mind that the research approach does not differentiate between single household females, females with a partner without children, females without partner with children and females with both a partner and children, all four categories should be examined in future research separately. The non-existence of these categories in the present research is also a limitation of the research which should be addressed in the limitations section.

 

Other variables are of importance in other relevant tourism and travel decision making models, such are: cost, travel time, flexibility, privacy, air quality impact, CO2 emissions impact, reliability, availability and reputation. These should also be mentioned, either partially or fully, when developing the article’s main hypothesis. For further reference please see:

 

Mamula Nikolić, T., Pantić, S. P., Paunović, I., & Filipović, S. (2021). Sustainable Travel Decision-Making of Europeans: Insights from a Household Survey. Sustainability, 13(4). doi:10.3390/su13041960

 

 

Literature review

 

Line 115: I would recommend avoiding the classification of the research as western or eastern, let alone make a comparison based on these categories. It doesn’t support inclusive language in the article. The body of knowledge and research in English language is global by definition. It would be better to define this research as “early research”, especially having in mind that the significance of including outdated references in the present research needs to be made apparent. By classifying these older references as western research and offering them as a background literature for a research located in an eastern context, is not an optimal strategy of presenting the previous studies. Please bear this in mind while correcting lines 115-121

 

Line 123: please add a space after full stop.

 

 

Lines 152-184: The following two recent and relevant articles need to be included in the literature review and the discussion:

 

Aschauer, W. (2010). Perceptions of tourists at risky destinations. A model of psychological influence factors. Tourism Review, 65(2), 4-20. doi:10.1108/16605371011061589

Karl, M. (2016). Risk and Uncertainty in Travel Decision-Making: Tourist and Destination Perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 57(1), 129-146. doi:10.1177/0047287516678337

 

 

 

Results

 

Line 458, Table 6: The first variable cell needs to be presented in the same way as the rest of the table. Now it’s the only bolded cell. I don’t see a reason for this.

 

 

Lines 449-456: while the construct validity has been addressed by presenting the fit indices, the two important aspects of reporting SEM haven’t been included:

1. Reliability analysis- calculating Cronbach’s Alpha
2. Common Method Bias- conducting Harman’s single factor test.

 

 

Discussion

 

Lines 483-484: Again, I don’t like the concept comparing Chinese research findings with the “western tourists” preferences, because it is a conventional language not a scientific one which would be the only appropriate one in a scientific article. Firstly, the comparison could be made with the research findings of previous studies (2010 vs. 2017), which have been conducting at different point in time. Secondly, the comparison can only be made between research study findings, not between research study findings and tourists. Thirdly, west is a geographic/compass/map term, not relevant for this research. It would maybe be useful to name the country in which the study of Curtin, 2010 has taken place in order to make a comparison between the differing cultural contexts within different countries, which than influence the female tourist behavior. Again, deploying a side of the world to describe cultural phenomena is suboptimal as it tends to be very inaccurate and can lead to a bias. For example, are Australians “west” or “east” for the Chinese? The country is geographically located in the south-east direction, while such a reference to cultural differences might be misleading for the readers.

 

Line 495: there is an open bracket with no closing bracket. Please correct this.

 

Line 499: why pre-tourism? Did you mean pre-trip?

 

Line 546: please redefine western travelers

 

Line 564: please correct “sopport”

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:

 

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript entitled “Decision-making Behavior and Risk Perception of Chinese Female Wildlife Tourists”. We have made significant revisions to our manuscript in response to the comments and suggestions, which are critical, but constructive and helpful. We believe that the revised manuscript has been improved through inclusion of their insights. Please find our point-by-point responses to the concerns below. Authors’ responses are in the [AUTHOR]…[/AUTHOR] brackets. We hope that you find the responses satisfactory so that the revised manuscript will now be acceptable for publication.  

 

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

 

Reviewer #1

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.1 Dear authors,

this is an interesting study with an interesting approach. However, there are several shortcomings which should be addressed, listed below. The two most pressing issues are the references which can't be found in the literature and happen to support some of the central arguments in the article; as well as the use of the colloquial term westerner in the article, which is innacurate and doesn't support inclusive language. The full list of comments can be found below:

[Author]Reply ：Thanks for the positive comments.We have tried our best to change the text.

As the references, we have revised and double checked to make it rightly.As the “westerner”, we have changed other expression ,such as 'developed countries' and 'other'... [/AUTHOR]

 

1.2 Abstract 

The results presented at the lines 21-26 seem like a disjoint string of sentences. Please make an effort to improve the writing style here. Please connect the sentences, so that the whole text part reads like one whole with the same purpose (presenting the major findings), and not like 4 random sentences, one after another.

[Author]Reply: This section has been revised as following:

.’Tourists’ travel mode and security assurance decisions are positively affected by their perceived risks to physical security, destination selection, pre-trip itinerary, and recreation and consumption decisions are positively affected by comfort risk perceptions, while entertainment consumption decision  is positively affected by experience quality risks.’ [/AUTHOR]

1.3 Introduction

Lines 70-72: please revise this sentence and clearly divide your paraphrasing, the results of the previous study and eventual commentary on the author’s side. It is highly unlikely that in 2005 a study on the recent developments has been published. Moreover, this reference hasn’t been listed in the references, so it is not even possible to check this source. This non-existent source has also been cited at line 502. Please correct this. The same goes for following reference, no reference could be found at the end of the article Deng, et al. 2003, line 513. Please check this too. 

 [Author] Reply: The references have been added and the text has been revised.

 

Pizam, A. Research on Tourism Consumer Behavior. (Shu, B, Trans.). Dalian: Northeast University of Finance and Economics Press, 2005, 97-112.

Deng, F. G., Long, G. L., & Liu, X. S.  Two-step quantum direct communication protocol using the Einstein- Podolsky- Rosen pair block. Physical Review A,2003,68(4), 042317..[/AUTHOR]

 

1.4 Another, more important logical issue which needs to be addressed at this point, is whether the paper deals with (a) female trip/tourism/travel decision-making, (b) female trip/tourism/travel decision making inside a family, or (c) both? Depending on the approach explained here, please expand also the discussion/future research direction section at the end of the manuscript. Having in mind that the research approach does not differentiate between single household females, females with a partner without children, females without partner with children and females with both a partner and children, all four categories should be examined in future research separately. The non-existence of these categories in the present research is also a limitation of the research which should be addressed in the limitations section.

 [Author] Reply: Many thanks for the suggestion, Content has been added to the limitation and future research part as following:.

‘In addition, this study did not differentiate between single household females, females with a partner without children, females without partner with children and females with both a partner and children. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct in-depth research on each category of female tourism decision-making behavior in future research.’.[/AUTHOR]

 1.5 Other variables are of importance in other relevant tourism and travel decision making models, such are: cost, travel time, flexibility, privacy, air quality impact, CO2 emissions impact, reliability, availability and reputation. These should also be mentioned, either partially or fully, when developing the article’s main hypothesis. For further reference please see:

Mamula Nikolić, T., Pantić, S. P., Paunović, I., & Filipović, S. (2021). Sustainable Travel Decision-Making of Europeans: Insights from a Household Survey. Sustainability, 13(4). doi:10.3390/su13041960

 [Author] Reply: Many thanks for the suggestion.This has been added to the literature review.’Other variables are of importance in other relevant tourism and travel decision making models, such are: cost, travel time, flexibility, privacy, air quality impact, CO2 emissions impact, reliability, availability and reputation(Mamula ,Pantić, Paunović & Filipović,2021)’.[/AUTHOR]

 

1.6 Literature review

 

Line 115: I would recommend avoiding the classification of the research as western or eastern, let alone make a comparison based on these categories. It doesn’t support inclusive language in the article. The body of knowledge and research in English language is global by definition. It would be better to define this research as “early research”, especially having in mind that the significance of including outdated references in the present research needs to be made apparent. By classifying these older references as western research and offering them as a background literature for a research located in an eastern context, is not an optimal strategy of presenting the previous studies. Please bear this in mind while correcting lines 115-121. 

Line 123: please add a space after full stop. 

Lines 152-184: The following two recent and relevant articles need to be included in the literature review and the discussion: 

Aschauer, W. (2010). Perceptions of tourists at risky destinations. A model of psychological influence factors. Tourism Review, 65(2), 4-20. doi:10.1108/16605371011061589

Karl, M. (2016). Risk and Uncertainty in Travel Decision-Making: Tourist and Destination Perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 57(1), 129-146. doi:10.1177/0047287516678337 

[Author] Reply: Many thanks for the suggestion.Line 115 has been changed to “early research”. Line 123 has been added with a space.

The two references have been added in literature review and discussion.

Aschauer, W. Perceptions of tourists at risky destinations. A model of psychological influence factors. Tourism Review, 2010,65(2), 4-20. doi:10.1108/16605371011061589

Karl, M.  Risk and uncertainty in travel decision-making: Tourist and destination perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 2016,57(1), 129-146. doi:10.1177/0047287516678337 [/AUTHOR]

1.7 Results 

Line 458, Table 6: The first variable cell needs to be presented in the same way as the rest of the table. Now it’s the only bolded cell. I don’t see a reason for this. 

Lines 449-456: while the construct validity has been addressed by presenting the fit indices, the two important aspects of reporting SEM haven’t been included:

1. Reliability analysis- calculating Cronbach’s Alpha
2. Common Method Bias- conducting Harman’s single factor test. 

[Author] Reply: Many thanks for the suggestion.The border under the first cell has been bolded.

The construct validity value has been reported in the text.

Cronbach’s α=0.85.

Harman’s single factor test=19%[/AUTHOR]

1.8 Discussion 

Lines 483-484: Again, I don’t like the concept comparing Chinese research findings with the “western tourists” preferences, because it is a conventional language not a scientific one which would be the only appropriate one in a scientific article. Firstly, the comparison could be made with the research findings of previous studies (2010 vs. 2017), which have been conducting at different point in time. Secondly, the comparison can only be made between research study findings, not between research study findings and tourists. Thirdly, west is a geographic/compass/map term, not relevant for this research. It would maybe be useful to name the country in which the study of Curtin, 2010 has taken place in order to make a comparison between the differing cultural contexts within different countries, which than influence the female tourist behavior. Again, deploying a side of the world to describe cultural phenomena is suboptimal as it tends to be very inaccurate and can lead to a bias. For example, are Australians “west” or “east” for the Chinese? The country is geographically located in the south-east direction, while such a reference to cultural differences might be misleading for the readers.

Line 495: there is an open bracket with no closing bracket. Please correct this.

Line 499: why pre-tourism? Did you mean pre-trip? 

Line 546: please redefine western travelers 

Line 564: please correct “sopport”

[Author] Reply: Many thanks for the suggestion.Line 495 has been corrected.

“Pre-tourism” has been changed into “pre-trip”.

Line 546 has been changed: ‘western’ is replaced by ‘from developed countries’.

Line 564: “sopport” has been changed to “support”.[/AUTHOR]

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is of great interest and very detailed. In general, this is good, just indicate some suggestions for improvement:

• Section “2.2. Research Hypotheses” could be expanded with some more reference and more extensively expose the proposed causal relationships.
• In the Discussion section there are some reiterations of statements and the reading is repetitive. I would recommend checking it out.
• The Conclusions are quite brief and repeats the limitations mentioned in the discussion section. It could be expanded a bit.

There are some mistakes, such as in the citations of tables 5 and 6 (lines 451 to 453), and the format of the citations is not the one indicated by the journal.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 #

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

2.1 The paper is of great interest and very detailed. In general, this is good, just indicate some suggestions for improvement:

[Author]Reply ：Thanks for the positive comments.[/AUTHOR]

2.2 Section “2.2. Research Hypotheses” could be expanded with some more reference and more extensively expose the proposed causal relationships.

[Author]Reply ：Many thanks for the suggestion.More references have been added in the research hypotheses part as following:

‘Many related research on risk and destination choice focus on specific destinations in an isolated way, resulting in a fragmented nature in research results without a comprehensive understanding(Karl,2016).Thus, a more complete understanding of the entire process of wildlife tourism can be obtained by exploring the roles of women in the multiple stages of decision making.

Karl(2018) Subdivided the type of destination from tourist risk perception:Familiarity,(Touristic) infrastructure,Safety. and verified that tourists with varying attitudes toward risk and uncertainty in travel decision-making differ strongly with respect to ideal destinations initially, but choose rather similar destinations when it comes to the final destination choice. ‘[/AUTHOR]

2.3 In the Discussion section there are some reiterations of statements and the reading is repetitive. I would recommend checking it out.

[Author]Reply ：Many thanks for the suggestion.The discussion section has been greatly streamlined and condensed.[/AUTHOR]

2.4 The Conclusions are quite brief and repeats the limitations mentioned in the discussion section. It could be expanded a bit.

[Author]Reply ：Many thanks for the suggestion. The content in limitations and the discussion section has been revised. The discussion part has been expanded a bit.[/AUTHOR]

2.5 There are some mistakes, such as in the citations of tables 5 and 6 (lines 451 to 453), and the format of the citations is not the one indicated by the journal.

[Author]Reply ：Many thanks for the suggestion. The format has been changed. The first line has been bolded.[/AUTHOR]

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I like the way in which the Discussion and Conclusions section has developed into a well structured text with high relevance for academic readership. There is one small notion regarding the previous comments/changes:

[Author]Reply: This section has been revised as following:

.’Tourists’ travel mode and security assurance decisions are positively affected by their perceived risks to physical security, destination selection, pre-trip itinerary, and recreation and consumption decisions are positively affected by comfort risk perceptions, while entertainment consumption decision is positively affected by experience quality risks.’

 

The intention of this comment hasn’t been to literary make one sentence out of four, but to add some sence to the argument by adding connecting words at the beginning of the sentences. However, the sentence can work like this, only a semicolon instead of comma would be useful here: …pre trip itinerary; recreation…). PLease read the abstract one more time and make sure the syntax and the clarity of the argument is present.

Regards and good luck with the changes!

Author Response

Many thanks for your kind suggestion. The abstract has been changed as following:" Prior to the global pandemic, wildlife tourism was increasing rapidly globally but was in the early stages of development in China, where it faces great challenges and opportunities. Women comprise a substantial proportion of the market but their decision-making behavior and their perceptions of risk in wildlife tourism have not yet been explored. This paper explores relationships between risk perception and decision making in tourism. A survey of female tourists was undertaken at non-captive and semi-captive wildlife sites in western China, as well as through internet website posting, resulting in 415 completed questionnaires. Quantitative methods were used to examine  four sequential  stages of decision making in wildlife tourism: destination selection, trip itinerary, travel mode and security assurance, and entertainment consumption. Three dimensions of risk perception in wildlife tourism were identified: physical safety, personal comfort, and quality of experience. Decision-making behavior and risk perceptions are related. Perceived risks greatly impact tourists' travel mode and security assurance decisions. The higher the perceived risk, the greater is the likelihood of female tourists to participate in decisions on destination selection, travel methods and other entertainment activities undertaken on their wildlife tourism trips. Concerns regarding personal comfort positively influence destination selection, the trip itinerary, and recreation and consumption decisions. Assurance of acquiring a quality experience influences entertainment consumption decisions. The study contributes to the understanding of risk, decision-making behavior and gender research, and confirms the practical importance of safety considerations at wildlife destinations.  "

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction section does not indicate the research gap to be covered and  contributions to literature. It is not appropriate to incorporate popular songs into a scientific document that can be published in top-level journals. In this same heading, your research steps and the similar initiatives, so you may consider enriching, are missing.

The work lacks hypotheses of the work that you want to test.

The different stages of the wordlife tourism process that are used are sufficiently justified to us.

Limitations of the sample, it is not explained, in the case of people who answer online, how it is possible to identify that they are tourists from wildlife environments.

Some statements such as “It was recognized that when interviewing women in the field, if other members of the party, such as husbands and children, participate, then answers may be modified and the data may be contaminated are not understood or justified. Chinese women are not free to express their opinions? This behavior would condition all the results.

In relation to statistical tests, a wide proliferation of techniques, from descriptive to explanatory, without adequate justification for what purpose they are used and that contribute to the fulfillment of objectives or hypothesis testing. The results are not discussed in discussion. The SEM application is not understood to test relationship of variables two to two, it is especially useful to verify complete models.

Discussion needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular, and help us see the relevance of what authors have proposed. Author need to contextualise the findings in the literature, and need to be explicit about the added value of your study towards that literatura.

Please consider this structure for manuscript final part: Conclusion-Managerial Implication -Practical/Social Implications -Limitations and future research.

It is recommended to incorporate the application of findings to the scope of sustainability, in order to fit the topic in the aim of the journal.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:Thank you for reviewing our manuscript entitled“ Decision-making Behavior and Risk Perception of Chinese Female Wildlife Tourists”. We have made significant revisions to our manuscript in response to the comments and suggestions. Please find our point-by-point responses to the concerns below. We believe that we have addressed all of the concerns in the revised manuscript (highlighted in BLUE in the text). Please see the comments and the authors’ responses to them below. We sincerely hope that you find the responses satisfactory so that the revised manuscript will now be acceptable for publication.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

1.1	Introduction The introduction section does not indicate the research gap to be covered and contributions to literature.	This has now been addressed as follows:  “In the fierce competition for source markets, the needs and desires of women have been receiving increasing attention (Feng, 2013; Figueroa-Domecq, et al., 2015). Yang, Khoo-Lattimore, & Arcodia (2017) stressed the importance of understanding gender differences in tourism in varying circumstances. As long ago as 1982, Monk and Hanson wrote "Do not exclude half of humanity in human geography", marking feminism as one of three philosophical movements in human geography (Monk & Hanson, 1982). Gender differences in tourism had been identified prior to this (Antoine, 1998; Neil, 1999). Now there is a substantial body of work on tourists' behavior, decision making, safety perceptions, shopping, constraints and appropriate research methods (Yang, Khoo-Lattimore & Arcodia, 2018; Movono & Dahles, 2017; Lee, 2017; Seow & Brown, 2018; Uduji, Okolo Obasi & Asongu, 2020). Substantial differences in motivation and behavioral preferences have been found in association with the gender of tourists (Yang, Khoo-Lattimore & Arcodia, 2018). Research on Chinese women has focused upon marketing and consumer behavior related to the tourist gaze (Zhang & Hitchcock, 2017), and their solo travel and related risk-taking experiences (Yang, Khoo-Lattimore & Arcodia, 2017; Seow, & Brown, 2018). As Chinese female education levels and economic independence continue to increase, female decision-making powers in many aspects of life, including travel and entertainment, are increasing (Abraham, 2005). However, female roles in trip decision making and risk perception are under-explored, and have yet to be considered in wildlife tourism.”
1.2	It is not appropriate to incorporate popular songs into a scientific document that can be published in top-level journals .In this heading, your research steps and the similar initiatives, so you may consider enriching, are missing.	The content about popular songs has been deleted.
1.3	The work lacks hypotheses of the work that you want to test.	Hypotheses have been added as follows:  “2.2 Research Hypotheses In the study of tourists' participation in tourism decision making, scholars often subdivide tourism into different stages and study the specific content of tourism decision making in these stages (Antoine, 1998). Thus, a more complete understanding of the entire process of wildlife tourism can be obtained by exploring the roles of women in the multiple stages of decision making. This may explain some of the differences in results obtained in other studies (Kim et al,2010). Accordingly, the decision-making content of wildlife tourism is divided into four chronological stages, which involve different activities, thereby providing specific information for various service suppliers in wildlife tourism. Studies have confirmed that the higher the risk perception of potential tourists to a destination, the less likely that they will travel there (Sonmez & Graefe,1988). However, this relationship has not been examined previously according to different stages of decision-making behavior and with different types of risk.  In this research, the following four sequential decision-making stages are examined: pre-trip travel planning, destination selection, form of travel and safety concerns, and entertainment consumption during the trip (Antoine, 1998). Risk perception is subdivided into three types: physical safety, comfort and experience quality (Cong et al., 2017. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed: H1-1: Perceived physical safety risk significantly affects pre-trip travel planning decision making. H1-2: Perceived physical safety risk significantly affects tourism destination selection decision making. H1-3: Perceived physical safety risk significantly affects decision making regarding form of travel and safety concerns. H1-4: Perceived physical safety risk significantly affects decision making concerning entertainment consumption during the trip. H2-1: Perceived risk to comfort significantly affects pre-trip travel planning decision making. H2-2: Perceived risk to comfort significantly affects tourism destination selection decision making. H2-3: Perceived risk to comfort significantly affects decision-making regarding form of travel and safety concerns. H2-4: Perceived risk to comfort significantly affects decision making concerning entertainment consumption during the trip. H3-1: Perceived experience quality risk significantly affects pre-trip travel planning decision making. H3-2: Perceived experience quality risk significantly affects tourism destination selection decision making. H3-3: Perceived experience quality risk significantly affects decision-making regarding form of travel and safety concerns.H3-4: Perceived experience quality risk significantly affects decision-making concerning entertainment consumption during the trip. 2.3 Research model According to the literature review and the hypotheses, it is proposed that the relationships between the perceived risk of physical safety, perceived risk to comfort, and perceived risk to experience quality, and the four stages of decision making, are as shown in the figure below.”
1.4	The different stages of the wildlife tourism process that are used are sufficiently justified to us.	The four stages are chronological.
1.5	Limitations of the sample, it is not explained, in the case of people who answer online, how it is possible to identify that they are tourists from wildlife environments.	This paper combines online and offline questionnaires. The offline questionnaire survey was conducted in Wolong Giant Panda National Park and Badaling Wildlife Park in a semi-captive setting. The online questionnaire mainly investigates the overall perception and decision-making characteristics of tourists regarding their wildlife tourism experiences, rather than a specific wildlife tourism activity. Therefore, the latter survey does not distinguish whether respondents visited a wild habitat or semi-captive setting. Wildlife tourism, as defined in the study, includes tourism activities in captive, semi-captivity, and wild settings. The questionnaire is introduced and explained in the title and the introduction as being related to wildlife tourism. Visitors were invited to fill in the questionnaire according to their personal wildlife tourism experiences. While an effort was made to ensure that a diversity of experiences and locations are included, it cannot be, nor is it, claimed that the sample of 415 respondents is representative of all wildlife tourists in China. Therefore, the results of this study are indicative rather than conclusive.
1.6	Some statements such as “It was recognized that when interviewing women in the field, if other members of the party, such as husbands and children, participate, then answers may be modified and the data may be contaminated are not understood or justified. Chinese women are not free to express their opinions? This behavior would condition all the results.	Women’s answers may be affected by the influence of others. It is not necessarily that Chinese women cannot freely express their views, but when women travel with their families, their risk perceptions and decision-making participation will be affected by the presence of and concern for others. For example, it is found that women accompanied by their families have a lower financial risk perception and decision-making participation because their husbands take some of the risks and share some of the decisions.
1.7	In relation to statistical tests, a wide proliferation of techniques, from descriptive to explanatory, without adequate justification for what purpose they are used and that contribute to the fulfillment of objectives or hypothesis testimodified ng.	We have modified the methodology section to address this concern. It now reads as follows:  “A predominantly quantitative approach is employed using Excel, SPSS20.0 and AMOS24.0 software. First, descriptive statistics are used to summarize respondents’ demographic and travel behavior characteristics. Then, factor analysis is used to compress the risk perception and decision participation scales. Correlation analysis is used to explore relationships between both demographic and travel characteristics with participation in decision making. Relationships between decision-making behavior education, number of children, age, income, travel duration, travel cost and so on were tested using correlation analysis.Taking the three principal components of tourism risk perception as independent variables and the four principal components of tourism decision making as dependent variables, linear multiple regression analyses were conducted. In order to test the results of the regression analyses, AMOS24.0 software was used to test the structural equation model of the relationship between tourism risk perception and participation in tourism decision making. Several indices were used, such as χ2/df, goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), normative fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square residual (RMR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). ”
1.8	Discussion The results are not discussed in discussion.	The conclusion and discussion part has been revised.
1.9	The SEM application is not understood to test relationship of variables two to two, it is especially useful to verify complete models.	The SEM analysis has been clarified.
1.10	Discussion needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular, and help us see the relevance of what authors have proposed.	The conclusion and discussion part has been revised according to the comments.
1.11	Author need to contextualise the findings in the literature, and need to be explicit about the added value of your study towards that literatura.	The conclusion and discussion part has been revised according to the comments.
1.12	Please consider this structure for manuscript final part: Conclusion-Managerial Implication -Practical/Social Implications -Limitations and future research.	The final part of the manuscript has been restructured.
1.13	It is recommended to incorporate the application of findings to the scope of sustainability, in order to fit the topic in the aim of the journal.	The application of findings is now addressed in new section.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper tried too hard to explain such a complex phenomenon in a short article. Although this topic seems interesting. Researcher(s) of this paper need further efforts in research question proposition, especially the rationality of the research gap, and the research design. Some of the statistic methods are strange as well which could induce incorrect research results. Therefore, kindly please inform the researchers to have further revision if they do want to contribute innovation to the tourism knowledge.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:

 

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript entitled“ Decision-making Behavior and Risk Perception of Chinese Female Wildlife Tourists”. We have made significant revisions to our manuscript in response to the comments and suggestions. Please find our point-by-point responses to the concerns below. We believe that we have addressed all of the concerns in the revised manuscript (highlighted in BLUE in the text). Please see the comments and the authors’ responses to them below. We sincerely hope that you find the responses satisfactory so that the revised manuscript will now be acceptable for publication.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

2.1	This paper tried too hard to explain such a complex phenomenon in a short article. Although this topic seems interesting.	Many thanks for the positive comments
2.2	Researcher(s) of this paper need further efforts in research question proposition, especially the rationality of the research gap, and the research design.	This has now been clarified.  The research gap：“In the fierce competition for source markets, the needs and desires of women have been receiving increasing attention (Feng, 2013; Figueroa-Domecq, et al., 2015). Yang, Khoo-Lattimore, & Arcodia (2017) stressed the importance of understanding gender differences in tourism in varying circumstances. As long ago as 1982, Monk and Hanson wrote "Do not exclude half of humanity in human geography", marking feminism as one of three philosophical movements in human geography (Monk & Hanson, 1982). Gender differences in tourism had been identified prior to this (Antoine, 1998; Neil, 1999). Now there is a substantial body of work on tourists' behavior, decision making, safety perceptions, shopping, constraints and appropriate research methods (Yang, Khoo-Lattimore & Arcodia, 2018; Movono & Dahles, 2017; Lee, 2017; Seow & Brown, 2018; Uduji, Okolo Obasi & Asongu, 2020). Substantial differences in motivation and behavioral preferences have been found in association with the gender of tourists (Yang, Khoo-Lattimore & Arcodia, 2018). Research on Chinese women has focused upon marketing and consumer behavior related to the tourist gaze (Zhang & Hitchcock, 2017), and their solo travel and related risk-taking experiences (Yang, Khoo-Lattimore & Arcodia, 2017; Seow, & Brown, 2018). As Chinese female education levels and economic independence continue to increase, female decision-making powers in many aspects of life, including travel and entertainment, are increasing (Abraham, 2005). However, female roles in trip decision making and risk perception are under-explored, and have yet to be considered in wildlife tourism.” The research design： “2.2 Research Hypotheses In the study of tourists' participation in tourism decision making, scholars often subdivide tourism into different stages and study the specific content of tourism decision making in these stages (Antoine, 1998). Thus, a more complete understanding of the entire process of wildlife tourism can be obtained by exploring the roles of women in the multiple stages of decision making. This may explain some of the differences in results obtained in other studies (Kim et al,2010). Accordingly, the decision-making content of wildlife tourism is divided into four chronological stages, which involve different activities, thereby providing specific information for various service suppliers in wildlife tourism. Studies have confirmed that the higher the risk perception of potential tourists to a destination, the less likely that they will travel there (Sonmez & Graefe,1988). However, this relationship has not been examined previously according to different stages of decision-making behavior and with different types of risk.  In this research, the following four sequential decision-making stages are examined: pre-trip travel planning, destination selection, form of travel and safety concerns, and entertainment consumption during the trip (Antoine, 1998). Risk perception is subdivided into three types: physical safety, comfort and experience quality (Cong et al., 2017. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed: H1-1: Perceived physical safety risk significantly affects pre-trip travel planning decision making. H1-2: Perceived physical safety risk significantly affects tourism destination selection decision making. H1-3: Perceived physical safety risk significantly affects decision making regarding form of travel and safety concerns. H1-4: Perceived physical safety risk significantly affects decision making concerning entertainment consumption during the trip. H2-1: Perceived risk to comfort significantly affects pre-trip travel planning decision making. H2-2: Perceived risk to comfort significantly affects tourism destination selection decision making. H2-3: Perceived risk to comfort significantly affects decision-making regarding form of travel and safety concerns. H2-4: Perceived risk to comfort significantly affects decision making concerning entertainment consumption during the trip. H3-1: Perceived experience quality risk significantly affects pre-trip travel planning decision making. H3-2: Perceived experience quality risk significantly affects tourism destination selection decision making. H3-3: Perceived experience quality risk significantly affects decision-making regarding form of travel and safety concerns.H3-4: Perceived experience quality risk significantly affects decision-making concerning entertainment consumption during the trip. 2.3 Research model According to the literature review and the hypotheses, it is proposed that the relationships between the perceived risk of physical safety, perceived risk to comfort, and perceived risk to experience quality, and the four stages of decision making, are as shown in the figure below.”
2.3	Methodology Some of the statistic methods are strange as well which could induce incorrect research results. Therefore, kindly please inform the researchers to have further revision if they do want to contribute innovation to the tourism knowledge.	We have modified the methodology section to address this concern. It now reads as follows:  “A predominantly quantitative approach is employed using Excel, SPSS20.0 and AMOS24.0 software. First, descriptive statistics are used to summarize respondents’ demographic and travel behavior characteristics. Then, factor analysis is used to compress the risk perception and decision participation scales. Correlation analysis is used to explore relationships between both demographic and travel characteristics with participation in decision making. Relationships between decision-making behavior education, number of children, age, income, travel duration, travel cost and so on were tested using correlation analysis.Taking the three principal components of tourism risk perception as independent variables and the four principal components of tourism decision making as dependent variables, linear multiple regression analyses were conducted. In order to test the results of the regression analyses, AMOS24.0 software was used to test the structural equation model of the relationship between tourism risk perception and participation in tourism decision making. Several indices were used, such as χ2/df, goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), normative fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square residual (RMR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). ”

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Improvements have been made over the initial version of the article, however the article does not address any topic related to sustainability

Reviewer 2 Report

The current version has some improvement compared to the first submission. While this paper can be considered to publish unless the below points have been well revised:

1, Please carefully check the questionnaire, two variables did not show in literature review and your conceptual model figure but in your questionnaire. 

2, The perceive risk, in section 3.3  you mentioned it has three dimensions. While in the next part the construction of this variable become 4 factors. Why? Meanwhile, why you use the MLR to assess the relationship between TWO variables? And moreover, please read relevant literature about the instruments of AMOS to check what this software actually can analyze. 

3, Section 4 is important part since it is the demonstration of your data process results. However, lots of problems are in this section. For example, section 4.2.2, how could you provide such conclusion since there is no hypothesis in your research design about the link between demographic information and the tourists' decision making of participation.