The Degree of Environmental Risk and Attractiveness as a Criterion for Visiting a Tourist Destination

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review “Conditionality of visiting a tourist destination by the degree of environmental risk and attractiveness”. I believe the topics fit within the scope of "Sustainability". The issue is innovative, timely, and interesting, but the paper has several shortcomings that should be addressed if the paper is to be published.

This research establishes the influence of the psychological profiles of tourists on their decision to choose a tourist destination, using three psychographic techniques BFI-10 (Big Five Inventory), AIO (Activities, Interests, Opinions), and VALS 2 (Values and lifestyle), and a freely determined six-level scale of risk and tourist attractiveness of the imagined destinations. Literature Review and Methodology are adequate regarding the topic. However:

• The abstract does not present the most important results of this research.
• The final section in the introduction should be improved with a view to better exposing the structure of the article. The contribution of the paper should also be indicated. What it specifically contributes.

 

Regarding Conclusions, this section should be improved, highlighting the current gaps in the topic presented and where the work wants to position to overcome the gap. 

Some minor aspects need to be reviewed.

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewers' comments on how to make the manuscript better. We ask the reviewers to take into account the modifications as well as the ideas made by other reviewers, which are undoubtedly different from their own.

The most significant research findings were included to the abstract once it was edited.
The manuscript's contribution is listed.
Limiting circumstances, theoretical underpinnings, and application-specific consequences change and improve the conclusion. The theoretical implications say that the research's findings would help close the gap in the body of existing literature.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Through this work, an important parameter for choosing a tourist destination is highlighted. Some more revisions are needed for its amelioration.

The title needs further thought - shortened and more accurate and academic oriented.

The Abstract in its sub-sections needs re-organization and it does not adequately summarise the gist of the study. The goal of each subsection should be described adequately and clearly.

Also, the writing style of the manuscript is not overall academic and formal.

The article is proposed to be supplemented with a flowchart illustrating the research technique. A review of the literature is insufficient. It is critical to include some recent work (2020-) in the literature review. A literature review should be added in order to illustrate the central topic in a more detailed way.

A similar study that could be proposed to authors is the following: 

Sarigiannidis, C., Halkiopoulos, C., Giannopoulos, K., Giannopoulou, F., Politis, A., Boutsinas, B., Kollias, K. (2021). Do Hotels Care? A Proposed Smart Framework for the Effectiveness of an Environmental Management Accounting System Based on Business Intelligence Technologies. In: Katsoni V., van Zyl C. (eds) Culture and Tourism in a Smart, Globalized, and Sustainable World. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-72469-6_41

Some further explanations and interpretations are required for the results.

line 279 checking the title 3.2. section

It is recommended to include a well-organized discussion of the findings, strengths, and limitations of the present project with additional explanation/details and a conclusion with future work.

I think the submission holds promise, but comprehensive editing is required.

The authors should ask for the help of a native English-speaking proofreader because there are some linguistic mistakes that should be fixed

Also, the writing style of the manuscript is not overall academic and formal.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. We ask the reviewers to consider the changes, but also to consider the suggestions of other reviewers, which are certainly different from theirs.

Changed the title to be short and academic.

The abstract has been reorganized and modified. Each section is reorganized with the objective highlighted very clearly and adequately.
The writing style has been changed, it now matches the academic style.
The manuscript is supplemented with a diagram describing the research process.
Literature review modified, suggested reference added. The literature is recent.
Modified title 3.2.
Results revised.
Conclusion modified, with additional limitations, theoretical and practical implications. English translation checked.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the review invitation, please kindly find my comments below:

- In the introduction, the authors fail to present how and why enviornmnetal risk is important in tourism studies. In other words, why is there a need for tourism research to investigate the influence of environmental risk. 

- The authors claimed that the emplyment of imaginary destination is an innovative method of interview, yet this approach has been adopted in existing research, within and beyond tourism studies. Hence, how would the authors claim it as an innovation?

- Hypothesis 1 to 3 are writtern in three different forms, please be consistent. Also, when the hypothesis mentioned "strong", please do determine what is the meaning of strong, how strong is strong? Often, the valency, either positive or negative, is highlighted in proposed hypotheses. 

- Since AIO and VALS 2 are spearated into two independent constructs, thus hypothesis 1 must be revised into two separated hypotheses.

- Based on which theory was figure 1 established?

- What is the currency used in earning? And is it per month or per year?

- For frequency of travel, across the three choice, two have them have time specified (...a year). Yet, the first choice "I have traveled abroad several times" has no time specified. Those who chose this option, are they traveled several times per year which is same as the third choice, or they traveled several times over some year that, on average, could be once per year and this is equal to the second choice. The authors must be clear and specific with their survey and collected sample. 

- Under education, what do "faculty" refers to? Does it means bachelor degree or something else?

- For the dependent variable, "Destinations", was it measured on a binary or ordinal scale?

- 4.1 is the section measuring relationship, yet in the content, the author claimed that correlation analysis was conducted. It seems like the authors have no idea the difference between correlation and relationship analysis. Correlation value derived from correlation analysis only indicate the association between two variables with no indication on the direction of influence. In a visual diagram, correlation analysis is a two-headed arrow (A<-->B). The results only reflect how correlated, associated, or connected between two examined variables. There is no independent nor dependent variable identified in correlation analysis. ONLY regression analysis determine the relationship between two variables. In visual diagram, it is a one-headed arrow, either A->B or B->A, and the direction of arrow (->) influence the results. Thus, there is a need to determine independent and dependent variable respectively. 

- The regression results were listed in tables which lower readability as well as knowledge building. It is adviced that the authors shall revised and highlighted the results according to the research questions. 

- Limitations shall be placed at the very last paragraph.

- Based on the limitation, explanation were given to respondents, then there is interference instead of respondent's self-understanding. How does the authors accounted for this interference rather than stating it as a limitation. 

- The first limitation stated increasing sample will be more valid. Yet, in statistical analysis, a large sample size will tend to significancized proposed hypotheses, thus, fail to provide the "actual" results. Also, the authors has conducted sample size testing, mentioned in 3.1, meaning the collected sample size is sufficient. So why a larger sample size is needed? Furthermore, based on this, the authors seem to convey their findings as "invalid". 

- The author claim this study expand the research on environmental risks and tourist's behaviors, yet there is no further explanation. How does this research has expanded, and more importantly, in what ways?

Thank you for the review invitation. Below are my comments：

1. The proposed hypotheses are written non-academically, please do revise them. For instance, H1 mentioned strong relationship, what does strong define and how "strong" is strong. 

2. Table 1, Frequency of travel. Option 1 "I have traveld aboard several times" what is the duration boundary like Option 2 and 3. Without the duration boundary, respondents choose option 1 may overlap with option 2 and 3. For instance, I have traveled aboard several times over the past years that may result in averaging to once per year (option 2) or travedl aboard several time within a year and that is same as option 3. Please kindly justify. 

3. For earning, what is the currency and is it per month or per year?

4. Education, what does faculty means?

5. Section 4.1 is titled as relationship but the results presented is correlation. These are two different types of analysis, the authors must be clear of what they are analyzing and what does these resulst convey. 

6. The result section is too contented that no key point(s) were identified. There are too many tables and results presentation yet they fails to deliver the key findings of the research. The authors must be clear and consice about they ways in delivering the contents. 

7. In limitation, the authors ask for larger sample, yet the current sample is statistically fit. In other words, this sample size is adequate, so why proposed a larger sample size? In statistic, the larger the sample size, there is a tendency to significanized proposed hypotheses, hence, may offer "unreal" results. 

8. The theoretical contribution is still lacking. The authors should provide in deep discussion of how this research value add tourism and beyond tourism knowledge. How does the resulted hypotheses testing and modelling provide knowledge building or enhancement. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. We ask the reviewers to consider the changes, but also to consider the suggestions of other reviewers, which are certainly different from theirs.

1. The hypotheses were changed.
2. Table 1 amended.
3. Changed currency, added explanation.
4. Modified category of education
5. Section 4.1 has been modified according to the model used and the reviewer's suggestions. The tables have been moved to the appendix, to make it more clear.
6. The results section has been modified. The tables are explained in the text and moved to the appendix.
7. With the limitation, the authors in the methodology - sample indicated a sufficient number of respondents, and the limiting circumstance of the number of respondents who pointed out that it was not sufficient was deleted.
8. The theoretical contribution is improved.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

 

Your study is interesting but in the current form it does not bring novelty to the field. The methods are outdated.

My suggestions for improving the study are the following:

 

-          The chapter 2.3 should be enhanced by clearly presenting the methodology of research and also the model

-          The period for collecting the questionnaire is extremely short: January – March 2023, which by some researchers is considered a period of reluctance by the tourists to establish mew destinations. The period of collection should be extended.

-          Since the authors of the study come from different countries the study should be extended to those countries, as well. It is not clear which is the contribution of each author, since they are 14 authors.

-          The study is not statistically significant since it was based on very few respondents and the gender of the respondents was: 60.1% Females and 39,9% males. This becomes extremely important when analyzing risk.

-          The earning intervals seem to be not statistically significant for the results of the study.

-          The methods of analysis of the data are outdated and should be improved. The authors mentioned usage of a seven-point Likert scale but this was not further presented.

-          In order to be significant an econometric model of analysis should be deployed, as it is used in most current research in the field.

 

The English language needs minor editing and corrections. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. We ask the reviewers to consider the changes, but also to consider the suggestions of other reviewers, which are certainly different from theirs.

Chapter 2.3 was improved, the model was established, the application of psychological techniques, hypotheses were changed, and a research diagram was added in the methodology part.

- The period for collecting questionnaires has been extended.

- Since the authors of the study come from different countries, it was recommended in the discussion that the research should be expanded in the future, which would increase the importance of the research. All the authors have been in cooperation for many years, with frequent mutual visits, so for now the research was done only on the territory of Serbia. The suggestion to expand to other countries where the authors come from will be considered in the future. The contribution of each author is highlighted.

- In limiting circumstances, an explanation was given that variables such as gender, salary, etc. were not used, and a recommendation was made to do so in the future. The study would have had much more and extensive content if we had included those variables, and for now the focus is on psychological personality types and lifestyle. Salary interviews are explained below the table, they are actually constructed against the salary range, which most often ranges in Serbia.

- The comment on the methods of data analysis, which the reviewer considers to be outdated, was given in aggravating circumstances and the recommendation to use a newer model in the future. The proposed model provided by the reviewer will certainly be considered.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

NIL

NIL

Author Response

Dear,

We appreciate all the suggestions that helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript. We are sending the corrected version in the hope that we have met all expectations.

Best wishes

Authors