The Daily Sailing Tours Clients Experience Assessment—The Case of the “Elaphite Islands of Dubrovnik”, Croatia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The problem of the sailing tours clients experience assessment which described in the article is relevant. The topic is original and of interest. The title is clear and appropriate to the paper’s subject matter.
The text is written clearly, concisely, stylistically, and technically correctly. Actual scientific material, logically and reasonably presented. The literature used makes it possible to reveal the degree of knowledge of the problem and highlight issues that require further study.  Every reference cited in the text is also present in the reference list. The scientific argumentation of the main provisions of the article is logical and convincing.
Conclusions are correctly and logically derived from the evidence and arguments presented data.
Below are several suggestions that I hope will be helpful in the paper:
1. The purpose of the research and the conclusions (they must correspond to the purpose) are not clearly described, not highlighted.
2. Tables 1-8 need to be improved by design editing.
3. The conclusions in fact are missing including the "Conclusions" component. In conclusions we see only the description of the other related research and the example.
4. The list of references is arranged in a non-standard way and needs to form it correctly, including grammatically.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 Thank you very much for your review and comments. We have made  the modifications you have suggested (and major modifications because of the other review comments.

1.The purpose of the research and Methodology

We have explained the purpose and method in more detail, including the use of the models and the hyphotesis.

2. Table 1-8 need to be improved

We have improved the tables.

3. The conclusion is missing

From previous „ Results, Discussion and Conclusions section“, we have removed the discussion. 

We have opened a new section titled "Discussion and Conclusion"  and improved concluison.

4. The list of references is arranged in non-standard way

We have involved new sources (removed some previous sources ) and improved all references.

We have also written what are the theoretical and practical implications of the research in the same section (discussion and conclusion ).

 

We have marked in red the changes in the paper.  Please find the red marked paper in the attachment.

 

Best regards,

 

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I congratulate the authors for their courage in tackling such an interesting subject where there is such a big research gap.

Please consider my comments to improve your work.

Title:

The title is not aligned with the analysis of the research. The authors used the immersion model of Pine & Gilmore (1999), a Model applied to the typology of tourist experience, mixed with another model of satisfaction in the quality of infrastructures of marinas and ports. The lack of clarity of theoretical concepts generates many methodological errors that must be clarified. 

Abstract:

Principal objectives and methods used are absent.

 Keywords:  They are not aligned with the title or abstract.

Introduction and literature review:

The nature and scope of the problem are absent. In this paper, there is a gap in the review of relevant literature on nautical tourism. Sailing is a recreational or competitive activity that is part of nautical tourism and involves the mooring of sailing boats so there is a whole infrastructure to support nautical tourism to evaluate (being part of the quality of the experience).

In line 49 of the introduction the authors state that the aim of the research is to evaluate the experiences, I noticed that they used the model of Pine & Gilmore (1999), and I do not understand why in the methodology you talk about other theoretical models that influence the experience of the sailing activity. In the end, what theoretical model or models did you use in this research?

In the paragraph of line 84, there is a clear confusion about boat typologies, your main argument is anchored on yachts, this type of boat belongs to the motor boat category, and sailboat tours are not done on these types of boats. It seems to me that your reference 11 does not have the scientific soundness to support your argument.

The relevance of this study is absent.

Methodology

Methods are absent

There is no clarity in the theoretical model applied in this research. I suggest you make a figure to clarify this problem.

Results department

Lack of clarity in methodology undermines your results. I find the presentation of the results very confusing. The presentation of the results should respond only to the hypotheses put forward. Your present data analysis procedures within the results department (it should be in the methodology).

The results discussion department is absent.

The conclusions department is absent

The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are absent.

Create this department and the alignment with the research questions (which are absent).

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for yout time and effort to provide the comments. We have tried to improve the paper according to  the comments  and we will describe what we have done. With the red colour we will mark the parts of  the paper we have modificated (please find in the attachment)

 

1.Title 

We have changed the title to

"The daily sailing tour clients experience assesment - the case of the "Elaphite Islands of Dubrovnik", Croatia"

2. Abstract

The red colour marks the part that we have inserted in the abstract.

We have included new parts that show what we are focusing on, so a daily tour.

3.Keywords

We have added new words.

4. Introduction and literature review

   The study is based on the field of sailing, that is, on the evaluation of  customers experience of daily tours (excursions). Thus, the aim of the study is to provide scientific evidence of the influence  of the components of entertainment, education, escapism, and esthetics on the evaluation of the customer experience, as well as scientific evidence of the  relationship between age groups and the evaluation of the overall customer experience. In the revised version of this article, we have better explained the distinction between nautical tourism and yachting, and sailing. In this version of the paper we have included a new part and new sources that cover the area of nautical tourism and sailing, such as the importance of nautical tourism for Croatian tourism. We have better described what kind of sailing we have been focused on. Namely, this type of sailing is not dinghy sailing or sailing regattas, or charter sailing  . It is a daily sailing tour, that is, a half-day or full-day sailing tour (or an excursion). We focused on one type of daily sailing tour, the "Elaphite Island of Dubrovnik" sailing tour. It was explained in the introduction of the article. Regarding the observation about the length of the sailing ship, The "Elaphite Islands of Dubrovnik" tour can be organized in different ways: with catamarans, motorboats that can carry 60 people on average, speed motorboats or sailboats (they are small sailboats, so usually up to 12 people, as it is a kind of luxury tour). The client can book a private tour, which means to be alone on the sailboat, or can be together with another group. The owners of the sailboats are usually involved in providing the services in the area of Dubrovnik. We have explored the experience of customers on 12-meter sailboats on which the owners provide the service.

This is the link for such a tour

https://www.thedaysail.com/tours/#!/e/90932de81272bfed1def6fa91431f41c

 

So,  the anchorage sailboats (which are also motorboats, of course) are involved in providing this kind of service.

As for the berth and the infrastructure of the port, it is not a sailing charter, so the berth is not important in this case. Clients decide on the time they will spend at a  certain point of the itinerary, so the boat can use its own anchorage if possible (depending on the depth of the sea or similar). No overnight stay is foreseen, as it is a half or full day sailing trip (in our case). The sailboats involved in the research have sanitary facilities and cabins, and this type of 12-meter sailboat is usually used for overnight sailing trips. Some of the owners of the sailboats also rent their boats for charter or they offer the service of two-day or longer sailing tours (which includes overnight stay), but as we have outlined, overnight sailing tour is not part of our study.

Regarding the comments about the theoretical models we mentioned and the use of the Pine & Gilmore Brand Experience Model or the question "What kind of model did we use?" we would like to explain the following.

We used the components of Pine and Gilmore's brand experience model as input to the Analytic Hierarchy Process Model. So we based on four domains involved entertainment, education, escapism and aesthetic.  During the half-day or full-day sailing tour, customers are mostly on the boat, and they can choose to go ashore or not. We considered it important to find out if the evaluation of the experience is influenced by the entertainment and education components, the escapism element, and the aesthetics, and to investigate a possible relationship between the age of the customers and their overall experience assessment. We organised interviews to collect data (we used descriptive statistics to analyse the data). In the end, we created the structure of the Analytic Hierarchy Process model (as shown in Figure 1). Analytic Hierarchy Models' principles have been defined by Saaty (and explained shortly in the paper), so we have been based on them (the detailed owerview  is possible to find for example in Saaty. R.W. „The Analytic Hierarchy Process-What it is and How it is used?, Mathematical Modelling, 1987, vol 9., no. 3-5, pp.161-176.)Analytic Hierarchy Process Model enables comparasion in pairs and provides two different types of coefficients ( prioritization coefficients for each criterion-so here we can see the influence of each element, and final prioritization coefficients-so here we can see overall customer satisfaction ).  In another context, the  Pine & Gilmores' model was used, for example, in the paper written  by authors Mehmet Methmetouglu and Marit Engen, published in the "Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism", 12 (4), 2021, pp. 237-255, titled as  "Pine and Gilmore's Model concept of Experience Economy and Its Dimensions: an empirical investigation in tourism".

"Why do we mention other theoretical models?"

There is an example of the use of the Kano model. The theoretical background of the Kano model was used to evaluate customer experiences in the article "Perceived importance of and satisfaction with marina attributes in sailing tourism experiences: A Kano model approach", authors Shen, Y.; Kokkranikal, J., Paaske Christensen, K.; Morrison, A. M, published in the "Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism", Volume 35, 2012.

We decided to exclude the theoretical models part if it is confusing.

We have improved the list of references (mistakes, involved new sources)

5. Methodology

We have explained the method better, this part referring to the use of models and the hyphotesis.

 

6. Results section

From previous „Results and Discussion“  department , we have removed the discussion.

7.Results, discussion and conclusion

We have opened a new section titled "Discussion and Conclusion"

8.The theoretical and practical implications

We have also written what are the theoretical and practical implications of the research in the same section (discussion and conclusion ).

9.Research Questions

Regarding the research questions, we have already included  this part in the previous version of the paper (in the research results and discussion). Therefore, we have not included a separate part, but have better explained the interview questions. This is now in the department „Research results“, together with analysis based on the descriptive statistics provide in  tables no. 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8. The tables are  improved.

The descriptive analysis is included in the tables and serves as input for the  comparasion in pairs of the criteria according to the age groups (in this case entertainment, education, escapism and aesthetic elements represent the criteria of the model and the alternatives are  aged segmented customers (segment A, B and C). The primary analysed results are used for comparasion in pairs of criteria, too, because the Model enables  and demand it, too.  The inputs for  Analytic Hierarchy Process Model  can be based on secondary or primary data, but in this case it was primary data because the secondary data is lacking).

 

Best regards,

 

Authors

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract is huge and confusing, they only have to indicate the problem of study, the research method used, and the main results. In the introduction section, they still do not substantiate the problem of the study. Why is your study important? What is the gap in the science that your work will fill? In my previous report, I pointed out a flaw in the structure of the paper: introduction, the theoretical department with the rationale of the research questions, the methodology department, results and discussion, and main conclusions.  The methodology department is still absent. I suggest that you make a department only with the methodology. It is necessary to indicate directly which method is used, which theoretical model will support the research questions and what are the data analysis procedures. In the conclusions department, it is necessary to subdivide the theoretical and practical implications of the study as well as limitations. 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We have revised our paper according to your comments .

1. Comment-„The abstract is huge and confusing, they only have to indicate the problem of study, the research method used, and the main results“

We have reduced the amount of the text from the abstract, we have indicated the study, results and method used in the study.

      2. Comment- „In the introduction section, they still do not substantiate the problem of the study. Why is your study important? What is the gap in science that your work will fill?“

 

We have included the part referring to the goal and   importance of our study, and the gap in science our study fills.

3. Comment- „In my previous report, I pointed out a flaw in the structure of the paper: introduction, the theoretical department with the rationale of the research questions, the methodology department, results and discussion, and main conclusions.  The methodology department is still absent. I suggest that you make a department only with the methodology. It is necessary to indicate directly which method is used, which theoretical model will support the research questions and what are the data analysis procedures. In the conclusions department, it is necessary to subdivide the theoretical and practical implications of the study as well as the limitations“

       We have restructured the paper, so now we have new department titled „Methodology and Hypothesis“ and we have subdivided the conclusion into  three parts, , as you have suggested. We have also separated  the Resaults of the research  and Discussion from the Conclusion department (which enables better correlation with other  researches). We have explained methodology directly.

4. We have involved a few new sources of literature in the paper.

  Best regards,

              Authors