Tourist Behavior and Sustainable Tourism Policy Planning in the COVID-19 Era: Insights from Thailand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Reference needed for the first paragraph of Introduction.
2. reference needed for Line 81 - 82
3. The authors spend huge sections in the introduction to present the background of pandemic, yet there is no explanation on why it is important to understand the factor affecting travel behaviors?
4. The connection among the three paragraphs of literature review is very weak.
5. The content of 2.1 is purely descriptive. What is the theoretical supporting or framework that the 5A theory has offered to this study?
6. Line162 - incorrect reference
7. What is the result of common method bias?
8. The Cronbach's alpha and AVE of ACCE, ACCO, AME, PF, FF, and CE fail to meet the minimum threshold value of 0.70 and 0.50 respectively. How did the authors take these into consideration? Although some literature offer the acceptance of 0.50 in reliability analysis, but it is regarded as questionable. Stated in Line 368, AVE must achieved 0.50. The reference used is in the area of science education which differ from social science or tourism context.
9. What is the theoretical enhancement of this study to the mentioned theory?
10. What is novel or uniqueness of this research comparing to the existing ones?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is interesting, but the title of the manuscript is not quite clear. Many phases are unclear. I have the following comments.
In the abstract, there are a few vague phrases that need clarification. For example, you mentioned that "tourism potential" and "tourism logistics efficiency" are variables, but the latter phrases are not. Additionally, the title of the manuscript does not seem to reflect the focus of the study accurately. You suggest that the authors investigate the impact of tourists' behavior on policy, but the abstract indicates that the study is examining the factors affecting tourists' behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The study focuses on Thailand, but it lacks context and background information. To provide a better understanding of the Thai tourism policy towards COVID-19, the authors should discuss the policy in more detail. Additionally, the introduction should clearly explain the purpose of the study.
"Tourism potential" and "tourism logistics efficiency" are introduced in the abstract but not explained in the introduction. The introduction should provide a clear explanation of what these terms mean and how they relate to the study's purpose.
The literature review is weak, and the study must show the research gap and novelty affecting tourism behavior. The authors should focus on reviewing the literature related to tourism behavior rather than the impact of COVID-19 on the tourism industry. Additionally, there are too many references in section 2.1, and some can be removed.
I suggest that Figure 1 should be revised, as it is generally accepted that latent variables are denoted by a circle, while a square denotes measured variables. As far as I understand, CP and CE are latent variables that represent decision-making or behavior. However, I have some doubts about this since it's unclear how the impact of COVID-19 on tourism potential and logistics efficiency is related to decision-making. In addition, the meaning of the scale (1 Very Low – 5 Very High) in line 229 is unclear. It would be helpful if the authors could clarify these issues in the revision.
The Measured variables are missing from figure 1 as well.
The capitalization of "CE" and "CP" should be corrected in lines 280 and 281.
The "Adapted from" column in Table 2 is not clear and can be removed.
Overall, there are several flaws in the manuscript that need to be addressed. The English need to be improved, the analysis needs clarification, and the decision variables need more explanation. The authors should revise the manuscript to clarify their variable explanations, review the relevant literature, and provide a better background for the study's focus on Thailand. In particular, the measurement and latent variable of decision
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
English editing needed.
Author Response
Following your comment on the English language, we sought clarification from the MDPI English editing team. They responded that the journal's editorial team would submit the paper for further English editing before publication. We will ensure that the final version is free from minor spelling errors.
Reviewer 2 Report
While I appreciate the improvements made, I have yet to come across any reviews specifically focused on tourism behavior in relation to COVID-19. Please keep in mind that this study aims to investigate the impact of various factors on tourists' decision-making processes during the ongoing pandemic. Therefore, it is crucial that the reviews provided are relevant to the scope of this research rather than solely focusing on the industry reviewed in section 2.3.
Author Response
Following your comment about the lack of reviews specifically focused on tourism behavior in relation to COVID-19, we have taken this feedback into account and have incorporated additional literature that emphasizes the impact of the pandemic on tourists' decision-making processes. In particular, we have expanded the discussion in section 2.3 to include recent studies that explore the role of COVID-19 in shaping tourism behavior.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
I am ok with this revision. One more comment, in Figures 4 and 1, the box and circle must be consistent.
Author Response
We have revised the manuscript as per your comments.
