Young Segment Attitudes towards the Environment and Their Impact on Preferences for Sustainable Tourism Products

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper study the responses given to a survey about sustainable tourism. The sample is small and not very heterogeneous. The results are interesting, although qualified by the limited scope of the research. However, the paper is well structured, the conceptual basis is adequate and the methodology is well developed, so in the opinion of this reviewer it could be published correcting some elements that I detail below:

- I think it is necessary to introduce a map or two that geographically contextualize(s) the study area.

- There is an entire paragraph repeated on pages 11 (lines 425-428) and 13 (lines 452-455)

- The conclusions are underdeveloped and too predictable

- On page 3 (lines 103-104) the reference must be modified, a faculty does not write papers.

Author Response

The paper study the responses given to a survey about sustainable tourism. The sample is small and not very heterogeneous. The results are interesting, although qualified by the limited scope of the research. However, the paper is well structured, the conceptual basis is adequate and the methodology is well developed, so in the opinion of this reviewer it could be published correcting some elements that I detail below:

- I think it is necessary to introduce a map or two that geographically contextualize(s) the study area.

We have introduced in the Annex a map to contextualise the area of study. See Fig. A1.

- There is an entire paragraph repeated on pages 11 (lines 425-428) and 13 (lines 452-455)

We have eliminated the first paragraph as it was a mistake in the original draft.

- The conclusions are underdeveloped and too predictable

We have rewritten the section introducing some subsections that develop some policy implications, study limitations and further research.

- On page 3 (lines 103-104) the reference must be modified, a faculty does not write papers.

We have rewritten the paragraph omitting the faculty reference.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well written and interesting to read, and the different sections are supported by comprehensive bibliography. The case study, the objectives are clearly presented, the methodology is appropriate, and the quantitative analysis is supported with tables that allow an exhaustive reading of the data. It is suggested that the concluding paragraph should be expanded with more indications on the possibilities for development and diversification of sustainable tourism products also in light of the most recent  tourism sustainability programs adopted by the local government.

Author Response

The paper is well written and interesting to read, and the different sections are supported by comprehensive bibliography. The case study, the objectives are clearly presented, the methodology is appropriate, and the quantitative analysis is supported with tables that allow an exhaustive reading of the data.

We thank the reviewer for this positive feedback

 It is suggested that the concluding paragraph should be expanded with more indications on the possibilities for development and diversification of sustainable tourism products also in light of the most recent  tourism sustainability programs adopted by the local government.

We have followed the suggestion by adding the following text: The Councillor for Tourism of the Cabildo de Gran Canaria, Carlos Álamo, affirms that "at the Tourist Board we understand that it is important to provide Gran Canaria with all possible resources that allow for the sustainable development of the island and, at the same time, serve to promote and strengthen rural or inland tourism in accordance with the values proposed by the Cabildo". He adds that "Gran Canaria has enormous potential and, with the participation of the business community and public institutions, we have a unique opportunity to promote our destination in a unique way and with the appeal of the attractions and sensations offered by active and sustainable tourism. All in all, ecotourism will be an excellent opportunity to attract those tourists who are looking for a respectful relationship with nature and who have in Gran Canaria an ideal destination to discover and enjoy".

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Greetings,

The paper is good and well written. The first thing I noticed about this paper is that citing references is not according to the template. When a reference is given, for example (Karampela et al., 2021... it is put [1] and in the bibliography at the end of the paper it is put in the first place. This means that the references are arranged as they are given in the text. Then emphasize in the introduction the objectives of the research , contribute to the research and say what was the motive for this research. The literature review is detailed and well done. The methodology is well done. When you listed the indicators, you also listed the references, which is commendable. When explaining the model, please include older references as well as some more recent ones. In the results, state how many respondents you had and their characteristics in the table.In the conclusion, state the limitations of this paper as well as guidelines for future research.

All the best.

Author Response

The paper is good and well written. The first thing I noticed about this paper is that citing references is not according to the template. When a reference is given, for example (Karampela et al., 2021... it is put [1] and in the bibliography at the end of the paper it is put in the first place. This means that the references are arranged as they are given in the text. Then emphasize in the introduction the objectives of the research , contribute to the research and say what was the motive for this research.

We have included in the introduction a sentence with the main motivation of the study. The aim of the study and its contribution were already included in the original draft. See below the added sentence.

“Thus, the main motivation of the study is to analyse whether Gran Canaria and other similar tourist destinations could promote alternative forms of tourism that benefit nature, culture and the local population.”

The literature review is detailed and well done. The methodology is well done. When you listed the indicators, you also listed the references, which is commendable. When explaining the model, please include older references as well as some more recent ones.

We have added some new references that deal with hybrid choice models.

In the results, state how many respondents you had and their characteristics in the table.

We have included the requested information at the end of Table 4.

In the conclusion, state the limitations of this paper as well as guidelines for future research.

We have introduced some limitations of the paper. See the paragraph below:

“Our findings represent a first step towards understanding the demand for sustainable tourism products in a natural setting. Nevertheless, the study is not exempt from some limitations, which can serve as areas for future research. First, our study includes two different subsamples of residents and non-residents of very young segments. Second, the context of the case study, represented by a very specific area of Gran Canaria, could be better understood by the segment of residents because they are more familiar with the rural and natural areas of the island. In addition, our results might not be easily transferable to other natural areas where ocean-based activities could not be developed.”

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank You for the opportunity to read this interesting paper. The overall impression is positive. The topic is actual and important. No matter the fact, I suggest several modifications. Please separate the Results Section form the Discussion. In the Conclusion, please add subtitles such as practical implications, limitations and proposals for future research. Also, it would be helpful to additionally emphasize the gap and the aim of this research within the introduction and the literature review (in the end of these sections). 

Also, in parts where the authors mention the GEN Z, I suggest to cite several papers:

Dragin, A. S., Majstorović, N., Janičić, B., Mijatov, M. B., & Stojanović, V. (2022). Clusters of Generation Z and Travel Risks Perception: Constraining vs. Push–Pull Factors. In The Emerald Handbook of Destination Recovery in Tourism and Hospitality (pp. 375-395). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Stojanović, V., Mijatov Ladičorbić, M., Dragin, A. S., Cimbaljević, M., Obradović, S., Dolinaj, D., ... & Marković, V. (2023). Tourists’ Motivation in Wetland Destinations: Gornje Podunavlje Special Nature Reserve Case Study (Mura-Drava-Danube Transboundary Biosphere Reserve). Sustainability, 15(12), 9598.

 

The main question addressed by the research is related to better understanding of the manner in which attitudes towards the environment could affect preferences and willingness to pay for the development of sustainable tourism products.  The study was conducted within Spanish island of Gran Canaria.  In general, the topic is relevant in the field of tourism, especially considering the psychological aspect related to the tourists’ attitudes.  Tourists’ environmental attitudes might influence their preferences, no matter the fact there is still a gap in the literature on this topic, especially considering the main constructs of this research, which were researched within this single study.  Methodology obtained adequate analyses, that respond to the main idea of the study.  References are generally well used.  They are appropriate in the context of the topics, as well as in the context of the publication years.  Besides required minor changes in terms of the conclusion (adding the subtitles regarding the practical implications, limitations and further research), it is generally consistent with the evidence and arguments presented in the previous sections of the paper.  Tables and graphs are clear and informative.

Author Response

Thank You for the opportunity to read this interesting paper. The overall impression is positive. The topic is actual and important. No matter the fact, I suggest several modifications. Please separate the Results Section form the Discussion.

We have reorganized the sections as suggested. We have further developed the discussion section.

In the Conclusion, please add subtitles such as practical implications, limitations and proposals for future research.

We have added the subsections as suggested by the reviewer

Also, it would be helpful to additionally emphasize the gap and the aim of this research within the introduction and the literature review (in the end of these sections). 

We have identified the paper's contribution and the gap it fills in the literature.

Also, in parts where the authors mention the GEN Z, I suggest to cite several papers:

Dragin, A. S., Majstorović, N., Janičić, B., Mijatov, M. B., & Stojanović, V. (2022). Clusters of Generation Z and Travel Risks Perception: Constraining vs. Push–Pull Factors. In The Emerald Handbook of Destination Recovery in Tourism and Hospitality (pp. 375-395). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Stojanović, V., Mijatov Ladičorbić, M., Dragin, A. S., Cimbaljević, M., Obradović, S., Dolinaj, D., ... & Marković, V. (2023). Tourists’ Motivation in Wetland Destinations: Gornje Podunavlje Special Nature Reserve Case Study (Mura-Drava-Danube Transboundary Biosphere Reserve). Sustainability, 15(12), 9598.

We have added the references.

The main question addressed by the research is related to better understanding of the manner in which attitudes towards the environment could affect preferences and willingness to pay for the development of sustainable tourism products.  The study was conducted within Spanish island of Gran Canaria.  In general, the topic is relevant in the field of tourism, especially considering the psychological aspect related to the tourists’ attitudes.  Tourists’ environmental attitudes might influence their preferences, no matter the fact there is still a gap in the literature on this topic, especially considering the main constructs of this research, which were researched within this single study.  Methodology obtained adequate analyses, that respond to the main idea of the study.  References are generally well used.  They are appropriate in the context of the topics, as well as in the context of the publication years.  Besides required minor changes in terms of the conclusion (adding the subtitles regarding the practical implications, limitations and further research), it is generally consistent with the evidence and arguments presented in the previous sections of the paper.  Tables and graphs are clear and informative.

We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback and the comments that have helped us to improve the paper.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Your paper addresses a relevant topic, is well-written, and follows a suitable research development. However, some aspects are not clear to me and the paper still can be improved. I'll make some suggestions.

1.  On lines 81-82 you affirm «Tourists' environmental attitudes 81 significantly influence their preferences, but limited literature on this topic exists. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap...». I think that you need to present the research gap or gaps in more detail and in a more convincing way. Later, on pages 107-108 you write «Several studies also found connections between environmental attitudes and sustainable tourism choices. An extensive review of 108 studies can be consulted in Passafaro (2020)». This means that there are studies addressing the research gap, but you prefer not to cite them, rather you leave it to the reader to consult and check which studies address connections between environmental attitudes and sustainable tourism choices, how they do it, and in which contexts. Being those studies on the topic of the research gap suggested by you, it would be crucial to explain how your research is different from previous studies and what it does differently.

2. On lines 57-60 you state «The analysis consists of integrating these attitudes, represented by a set of latent variables, into a choice model and focuses on a market segment comprised primarily of potential customers who are young residents and non-residents with a strong interest in nature tourism». My question is: if you integrate young residents and non-residents into your model, how can you speak about «sustainable tourism products»? Residents can adhere to sustainable recreational (or sports) activities, but not to «sustainable tourism products». In my view, this needs clarification.

3. Is there any theory involved in your study? As it is about attitudes, it could be the Theory of Planned Behaviour or the Theory of Reasoned Action, which explain the relationship between attitudes and behaviour. It would be enough to present one or two sentences about theory, being, however, optional.

The work cites an adequate sample of references. Maybe you could consider adding:

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEFM-05-2022-0041 (this study is about sustainable attitudes and, like your study, concludes that women demonstrate more sustainable attitudes than men. This could be used to reinforce the discussion of your findings).

 

https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.2022.180401 (Tourists' attitudes toward green product buying behaviours: the role of demographic variables). 

4. Methods are sufficiently explained. The sample is good «A total sample of 476 individuals was collected, generating 5712 valid 236 observations...». However, the reader acknowledges here that «Residents’ sample was mainly obtained from university students randomly recruited in different campus locations» and that «Sampled individuals had an average age of 23.6 years and a monthly income of 481 euros.». Considering this, your work is about young individuals with a very low income, or more precisely Generation Z. You could reflect on the possibility of adding it to the title because young individuals have different attitudes towards sustainability and their low income influences their willingness to pay.

5. The section RESULTS AND DISCUSSION presents results quite well but makes no discussion of the findings in light of the literature on the topic. You make not a single reference to other studies in order to compare your results with them. This is necessary in order to understand in which measure your results are in line with or differ from other studies on the topic. otherwise, you present results but do not respond to the so what question.  It would also reinforce explaining the originality of the study.

Managerial implications are explained here. However, I do not see theoretical implications. What was the contribution of your study to the literature? What has it revealed that was not already known? what justifies publication? I think you need to make this clear whether in this section or in the Conclusions.

6. Conclusions are OK. They include suggestions for future research. Maybe they could include also one sentence about limitations.

7. Concluding remarks: This study does contribute, and has the potential for being published after improvements have been implemented. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the English seems to be good.

Author Response

Dear authors,

Your paper addresses a relevant topic, is well-written, and follows a suitable research development. However, some aspects are not clear to me and the paper still can be improved. I'll make some suggestions.

1. On lines 81-82 you affirm «Tourists' environmental attitudes 81 significantly influence their preferences, but limited literature on this topic exists. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap...». I think that you need to present the research gap or gaps in more detail and in a more convincing way.

We have rewritten the paragraph presenting, hopefully, a more convincing way.

Tourists' environmental attitudes significantly influence their preferences, but how these could impact nature-based tourist product development is under-researched, either by the use of proper scales measuring the environmental attitudes or by the characteristics of the tourist products developed. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap by analysing how environmental attitudes, categorised into three latent variables: community support, nature interaction, and nature connection, shape nature-based tourists' preferences. In addition, the WTP figures are indirectly obtained from model parameters for a group of activities including diving/snorkelling, active hiking, cultural trails and star gazing for tourists who could be accommodated in a tent or rural house.

Thus, our study contributes to the scarce research on understanding pro-sustainable behaviour and its influence on the economic implications (Pulido-Fernández & López-Sánchez, 2016). To our knowledge, this is the first time the hybrid choice model has been applied using the environmental concern scale and the type of activities included in the analysis. The study also investigates the development of a potential commercial tourist area in Veneguera, a protected natural space located in the south of Gran Canaria that is rich in natural resources running along a beautiful ravine and pristine coastline.

Later, on pages 107-108 you write «Several studies also found connections between environmental attitudes and sustainable tourism choices. An extensive review of 108 studies can be consulted in Passafaro (2020)». This means that there are studies addressing the research gap, but you prefer not to cite them, rather you leave it to the reader to consult and check which studies address connections between environmental attitudes and sustainable tourism choices, how they do it, and in which contexts. Being those studies on the topic of the research gap suggested by you, it would be crucial to explain how your research is different from previous studies and what it does differently.

We have clarified in the above point that the research gap was referred to the use of proper scales measuring the environmental attitudes or by the characteristics of the tourist products developed. We have clarified that our research is different from previous studies because to our knowledge, this is the first time the hybrid choice model has been applied using the environmental concern scale and the type of activities included in the analysis

2. On lines 57-60 you state «The analysis consists of integrating these attitudes, represented by a set of latent variables, into a choice model and focuses on a market segment comprised primarily of potential customers who are young residents and non-residents with a strong interest in nature tourism». My question is: if you integrate young residents and non-residents into your model, how can you speak about «sustainable tourism products»? Residents can adhere to sustainable recreational (or sports) activities, but not to «sustainable tourism products». In my view, this needs clarification.

We have clarified in the paper that the experiment considers that respondents spend two nights in a rural area. It is true that residents can participate in all the activities offered on the island as excursionists, but this case is not considered in our analysis. This means that both residents and non-residents participate in the same experiment. We have clarified this by inserting the following paragraph in the text: “The context of the experiment is designed to create a simulated tourist experience for a group of four individuals over a weekend, spanning two nights. The participants are provided with opportunities to engage in various activities that enable them to appreciate and enjoy the natural environment in a sustainable manner.”

3. Is there any theory involved in your study? As it is about attitudes, it could be the Theory of Planned Behaviour or the Theory of Reasoned Action, which explain the relationship between attitudes and behaviour. It would be enough to present one or two sentences about theory, being, however, optional.

We have included the theory of Planned Behaviour in the text of the paper.

The work cites an adequate sample of references. Maybe you could consider adding:

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEFM-05-2022-0041 (this study is about sustainable attitudes and, like your study, concludes that women demonstrate more sustainable attitudes than men. This could be used to reinforce the discussion of your findings).

 

https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.2022.180401 (Tourists' attitudes toward green product buying behaviours: the role of demographic variables). 

After reviewing the papers, we included the first reference, Santos et al. (2023), but we did not include the second reference, “Pekerşen, Y., & Canöz, F. (2022). Tourists’ attitudes toward green product buying behaviours: the role of demographic variables. Tourism and Management Studies, 18(4), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.2022.180401.” The study analysed the green behaviour of tourists visiting Istanbul on a very short scale, and we consider that it is far from the context of our study.

4. Methods are sufficiently explained. The sample is good «A total sample of 476 individuals was collected, generating 5712 valid 236 observations...». However, the reader acknowledges here that «Residents’ sample was mainly obtained from university students randomly recruited in different campus locations» and that «Sampled individuals had an average age of 23.6 years and a monthly income of 481 euros.». Considering this, your work is about young individuals with a very low income, or more precisely Generation Z. You could reflect on the possibility of adding it to the title because young individuals have different attitudes towards sustainability and their low income influences their willingness to pay.

We have changed the title of the paper.

5. The section RESULTS AND DISCUSSION presents results quite well but makes no discussion of the findings in light of the literature on the topic. You make not a single reference to other studies in order to compare your results with them. This is necessary in order to understand in which measure your results are in line with or differ from other studies on the topic. otherwise, you present results but do not respond to the so what question.  It would also reinforce explaining the originality of the study.

We have included a new discussion section in our paper that comprehensively compares our research results with those of previous studies. This section highlights the unique contributions of our study and demonstrates how it fills gaps in the existing literature. By analyzing the similarities and differences between our findings and those of other studies, we have established the novelty and significance of our research. Therefore, our paper can be considered a valuable referential point for future studies in this field.

Managerial implications are explained here. However, I do not see theoretical implications. What was the contribution of your study to the literature? What has it revealed that was not already known? what justifies publication? I think you need to make this clear whether in this section or in the Conclusions.

We think that one important contribution of the paper is that we apply for the first time a hybrid choice model including an environmental concern scale interacting with attributes included in the choice experiment. These attributes could represent interesting components of future nature-based tourism packages. The WTP figures were not known, and for that reason, they have been difficult to compare. We think that this justifies publication.

6. Conclusions are OK. They include suggestions for future research. Maybe they could include also one sentence about limitations.

We have included a paragraph with some limitations of the study: “Our findings represent a first step towards understanding the demand for sustainable tourism products in a natural setting. Nevertheless, the study is not exempt from some limitations, which can serve as areas for future research. First, our study includes two different subsamples of residents and non-residents of very young segments. Second, the context of the case study, represented by a very specific area of Gran Canaria, could be better understood by the segment of residents because they are more familiar with the rural and natural areas of the island. In addition, our results might not be easily transferable to other natural areas where ocean-based activities could not be developed.”

7. Concluding remarks: This study does contribute, and has the potential for being published after improvements have been implemented. 

We thank the reviewer for all the comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thanks for the improvements' implementation. The work seems fine now.

Best regards