Exploring Students’ Push and Pull Motivations to Visit Rural Educational Tourism Sites in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2444357

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Exploring Students’ Push and Pull Motivations to Visit Rural Educational Tourism in China

  

Dear Authors,

the paper has an interesting and valuable research topic, especially in the context of the development of tourism in rural areas with the aim of reducing the poverty of the local population and supporting sustainable development.

The paper analyses a very small sample of 234 students from Sichuan Province (China), so I would say that this is the dominant weakness of this research (the authors state themselves this is the major limitation of the paper).

If we put aside the weakness of the sample size the research has a good approach and methodology in analysing the push/pull motivation of the educational tourism industry in rural areas from an emerging country perspective.

For future research, I would anchorage the authors to enlarge the sample and to conduct the parallel research in a minimum of three regions so the analysis of spatial differences/similarities between regions would contribute to the understanding of the population/processes and rise the value and contribution of the research.

Also, I suggest that the following corrections and additions be done:

-                  Line 31: there are too many ANDs

-                  Figure 1.0: enlarge the text

-                  Line 83/84: support the statement with references

-                  Line 349-351: (same comment) support the statement with references

-                  Page 14, Table 4.1: if we look at the international level of the research then the income must be put also in USD and EUR (so the results can be internationally comparable and also possibly used by other researchers)

-                  Figure 4.1: enlarge the text

-                  Page 26: delete the blank page

With the listed corrections done, I think that the paper is worth publishing.

 

Kind regards

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Comments:

the paper has an interesting and valuable research topic, especially in the context of the development of tourism in rural areas with the aim of reducing the poverty of the local population and supporting sustainable development.

The paper analyses a very small sample of 234 students from Sichuan Province (China), so I would say that this is the dominant weakness of this research (the authors state themselves this is the major limitation of the paper).

If we put aside the weakness of the sample size the research has a good approach and methodology in analysing the push/pull motivation of the educational tourism industry in rural areas from an emerging country perspective.

For future research, I would anchorage the authors to enlarge the sample and to conduct the parallel research in a minimum of three regions so the analysis of spatial differences/similarities between regions would contribute to the understanding of the population/processes and rise the value and contribution of the research.

Also, I suggest that the following corrections and additions be done:

- Line 31: there are too many ANDs – As per the reviewer’s comment, the sentence has been amended accordingly (Page:1, Sec: Introduction, paragraph 1).

- Figure 1.0: enlarge the text - As per the reviewer’s comment, the picture has been enlarged where the in-text is larger as well (Page:2, Figure 1.0).

- Line 83/84: support the statement with references - As per the reviewer’s comment, the statement has been justified/supported with a reference (Page:3, paragraph: 3).

- Line 349-351: (same comment) support the statement with references - As per the reviewer’s comment, the statement has been justified/supported with a reference (Page: 10, paragraph 1).

- Page 14, Table 4.1: if we look at the international level of the research then the income must be put also in USD and EUR (so the results can be internationally comparable and also possibly used by other researchers) – As per the reviewer’s comment, the income unit has been amended to EUR (Page:15, Table 4.1).

-                  Figure 4.1: enlarge the text - As per the reviewer’s comment, the picture has been enlarged where the in-text is larger as well (Page: 18, Figure 4.1).

- Page 26: delete the blank page - As per the reviewer’s comment, the blank page has been removed.

With the listed corrections done, I think that the paper is worth publishing.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the consideration of a reviewer of this manuscript, titled “Exploring Students’ Push and Pull Motivations to Visit Rural Educational Tourism in China”. The research topic proposed by the authors is current and relevant. The paper is well-structured.

Please find my detailed comments below:

In the abstract, references are made to the purpose of the research, the data and methods, the results and its implications. In the introduction, I would recommend a more explicit mention of the authors' scientific contribution. In the literature review there are introspected the aims and results of previous studies, formulating research hypotheses. The research design is clearly stated. The authors clearly show the results. References are made to whether or not the results are in line with previous research. Several aspects should be included in the debate: study relevance - Sichuan Province was considered. To what extent can the research results be extended? the impact of the economic, social, cultural context on motivation, perceived value and satisfaction.

Conclusions cover several good points, including the limitation of the research and recommendations for future research.

I would suggest a proofreading. 

Thank you for this interesting paper.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Comments:

I appreciate the consideration of a reviewer of this manuscript, titled “Exploring Students’ Push and Pull Motivations to Visit Rural Educational Tourism in China”. The research topic proposed by the authors is current and relevant. The paper is well-structured.

Please find my detailed comments below:

In the abstract, references are made to the purpose of the research, the data and methods, the results and its implications. In the introduction, I would recommend a more explicit mention of the authors' scientific contribution (as per the reviewer’s comment, scientific contribution has been incorporated in introduction section). In the literature review there are introspected the aims and results of previous studies, formulating research hypotheses. The research design is clearly stated. The authors clearly show the results. References are made to whether or not the results are in line with previous research. Several aspects should be included in the debate: study relevance - Sichuan Province was considered – As per the reviewer’s comment, the relevance has been incorporated on the relevance of Sichuan Province as the research area (Page:10, Paragraph 1). To what extent can the research results be extended? the impact of the economic, social, cultural context on motivation, perceived value and satisfaction (incorporated in discussion and contribution section 4.4 & 5.0 – pg 20-23)

Conclusions cover several good points, including the limitation of the research and recommendations for future research.

I would suggest proofreading.  – As per the reviewer’s comment, the paper has been completed proofreading accordingly.

Thank you for this interesting paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the paper titled, Exploring Students’ Push and Pull Motivations to Visit Rural Educational Tourism in China, the author/s present/s a problem of educational tourism in rural areas, in emerging and developing country, on the example of China. In this context, the motivations and behaviours of the participants are comprehensively examined. A specific focus of the study is on the motivation of students to participate in educational tourism in rural areas and their influence on their behaviour. In my opinion, this article requires reflection in accordance with the comments that came to my mind after reading it. While reading the text of the article, I noticed a few aspects that could improve the proposed manuscript and the discussion of the reviewed research. I expressed them in the form of bullet points. I sincerely hope you will find these helpful in improving your manuscript. These are of minor significance (mainly editorial), and I encourage the author’/’s to introduce these minor revisions.

 

These aspects (suggesting minor revisions) are as follows:

-  I would recommend using term: “loyalty” instead of “willingness to recommend” in key words, as well as in the whole text.

-       The level of income is not considered in the theoretical background as a 'push motivator' in rural educational tourism. Yet it is clearly influencing, as stated in the document. As a result of the research, the authors mention and seriously consider this factor (Page 13, second paragraph).

-   Figure 2.1. There I cannot find Hypothesis H9. In the same figure, the hypothesis H11 is mentioned and placed twice.

-       Since educational tourism is a combination of learning and tourism, in some countries, e.g., in Europe (Poland, Czechia, Germany) the participation of students in educational tourism is obligatory and is an integral part of school curricula. How important is educational tourism in China, in terms of educational policy? Is it obligatory or non-obligatory element of school curricula?

-      In terms of Research methodology, authors included in the research sample students, who are 11 years old and older. How were ethical principles implemented in this study, in terms of parents’ agreement for children’s participation in research? Does parents were present when students were participating in the research and filling the form? Please describe it in the Research Methodology part.

Also, the manuscript, in general, does not include the most recent articles.

Editorial changes:

-      The article requires some touch of editing: some sentences are not clear, e.g., P. 1 line 26-28;

-   References: Not all references are prepared according to the journal's guidelines; double periods, missing letters in words, references to particular papers and studies are not prepared according to the journal rules and consecutively, for example, P. 2, line 158, P. 3. line 210, sometimes the authors use: “&” and sometimes 'and' between the author's names, for example, P. 3 Lines 209 and 233; Please double check it.

-          Double-check the grammar and syntax of sentences. When reading the article, one has the impression that due to stylistic errors, the article loses its flow.

Author Response

In the paper titled, Exploring Students’ Push and Pull Motivations to Visit Rural Educational Tourism in China, the author/s present/s a problem of educational tourism in rural areas, in emerging and developing country, on the example of China. In this context, the motivations and behaviours of the participants are comprehensively examined. A specific focus of the study is on the motivation of students to participate in educational tourism in rural areas and their influence on their behaviour. In my opinion, this article requires reflection in accordance with the comments that came to my mind after reading it. While reading the text of the article, I noticed a few aspects that could improve the proposed manuscript and the discussion of the reviewed research. I expressed them in the form of bullet points. I sincerely hope you will find these helpful in improving your manuscript. These are of minor significance (mainly editorial), and I encourage the author’/’s to introduce these minor revisions. 

 

These aspects (suggesting minor revisions) are as follows:

• I would recommend using term: “loyalty” instead of “willingness to recommend” in key words, as well as in the whole text. – As per the reviewer’s comment, the term has been amended accordingly.
• The level of income is not considered in the theoretical background as a 'push motivator' in rural educational tourism. Yet it is clearly influencing, as stated in the document. As a result of the research, the authors mention and seriously consider this factor(Page 13, second paragraph). - As per the reviewer’s comment, justification has been provided to support level of income as a factor (Page:14, Paragraph 2).
• Figure 2.1.There I cannot find Hypothesis  In the same figure, the hypothesis H11 is mentioned and placed twice. - As per the reviewer’s comment, the theoretical framework (Figure 2.1) has been amended accordingly (Page:10, Figure 2.1).
• Since educational tourism is a combination of learning and tourism, in some countries,g., in Europe (Poland, Czechia, Germany) the participation of students in educational tourism is obligatory and is an integral part of school curricula. How important is educational tourism in China, in terms of educational policy? Is it obligatory or non-obligatory element of school curricula? - As per the reviewer’s comment, provided the importance of educational tourism in China (Page:5, Paragraph:2).
• In terms of Research methodology, authors included in the research sample students, who are 11 years old and How were ethical principles implemented in this study, in terms of parents’ agreement for children’s participation in research? Does parents were present when students were participating in the research and filling the form? Please describe it in the Research Methodology part. - As per the reviewer’s comment, provided a supporting statement where parents were present with their children during their children’s participation (Page:10, Paragraph 1).

 

Also, the manuscript, in general, does not include the most recent articles.

Editorial changes:

• The article requires some touch of editing: some sentences are not clear, e.g., P. 1 line 26-28; - As per the reviewer’s comment, amended the sentence accordingly (Page:1, Sec: Introduction, paragraph 1).

 

• References: Not all references are preparedaccording to the journal's guidelines; double periods, missing letters in words, references to particular papers and studies are not prepared according to the journal rules and consecutively, for example, P. 2, line 158, P. 3. line 210, sometimes the authors use: “&” and sometimes 'and' between the author's names, for example, P. 3 Lines 209 and 233; Please double check it. - As per the reviewer’s comment, the references are made aligned and amended accordingly.

 

• Double-check the grammar and syntax of sentences. When reading the article, one has the impression that due to stylistic errors, the article loses its flow. - As per the reviewer’s comment, the paper has been completed proofreading accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The abstract should be rewritten, too much research background introduction in the abstract should focus on the main findings and significance of the paper.

2. The current literature review is clearly inadequate, the authors mainly cite the literature not partly obsolete, lacking some ideas from the latest literature, in addition the literature review should be fully compared with the previous literature to highlight the innovative points of this paper's research.

3. The applicability of the method needs to be explained in detail, and it is suggested to rewrite this section.

4. The figures in Table 3.1 need to be accepted.

5. The conclusion section should have policy implications.

6. Policy insights should be added to the conclusion section.

7. The discussion in section 5 should be put in section 4.

8. Rewrite the conclusion of the paper.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Reviewer 4 Comments:

1. The abstract should be rewritten, too much research background introduction in the abstract should focus on the main findings and significance of the paper - As per the reviewer’s comment, the abstract is rewritten to focus only on the significance.
2. The current literature review is clearly inadequate, the authors mainly cite the literature not partly obsolete, lacking some ideas from the latest literature, in addition the literature review should be fully compared with the previous literature to highlight the innovative points of this paper's research.– As per the reviewer’s comment, the latest literature has been added accordingly (Page:4, paragraph 1 and 2).
3. The applicability of the method needs to be explained in detail, and it is suggested to rewrite this section. - As per the reviewer’s comment, the applicability of the random sampling method has been incorporated (Page:10, paragraph: 1).
4. The figures in Table 3.1 need to be accepted. – As per the reviewer’s comment, the picture has been enlarged and the in-text is larger as well (Page:12, Table 3.1).
5. The conclusion section should have policy implications - As per the reviewer’s comment, incorporate the policy implications in this paper (Page:22, Section: 5.1.3).
6. Policy insights should be added to the conclusion section. - As per the reviewer’s comment, incorporated the policy insights in this paper (Page:22, Section: 5.1.3).
7. The discussion in section 5 should be put in section 4. - As per the reviewer’s comment, rearranged the section mentioned accordingly (Page:20, Section 4.4)
8. Rewrite the conclusion of the paper. - As per the reviewer’s comment, the conclusion has been readjusted to have a flow of reading (Page:22, Section 5.2).

Minor editing of English language required - As per the reviewer’s comment, the paper has been completed proofreading accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Revision of the paper is satisfactory and may be considered for acceptance for publication.