Navigating Time: A Comparative Analysis of Senior Tourists’ Intentions and Length of Stay in Italy Pre-, during, and Post-COVID-19

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review: Navigating time: a comparative analysis of senior tourists' intentions and length of stay in Italy pre, during, and post-Covid-3 19

This study analyzes the impact of COVID-19 on senior tourism, a promising but pandemic-affected market. Using national statistical data from Italy, it assesses the vacation intention and length of stay of senior tourists. The methodology employs a Probit model with sample selection, breaking down the decision-making process into pre-, during and post-pandemic phases. The results indicate a strong correlation between the decision to travel and length of stay before the pandemic, but post-pandemic dynamic changes highlight other factors influencing length of stay.

After an exhaustive review of the article, it is evident that it presents a significant advance in the field of study addressed. The research provides solid and robust data, supported by an appropriate methodology that strengthens the validity and reliability of the results obtained. The careful selection of data and methodological rigor provide a solid basis for the conclusions of the study, thus consolidating its valuable contribution to knowledge in the field.

However, a number of adjustments need to be made by the authors.

Since the data analyzed are fundamental to achieving the results, it is necessary that they be deposited in an open repository or otherwise made accessible. You may include a link at the end of your paper.

In the methodology, I would like to know why the authors use

-        more than four days, long trip

-        the reason why the analysis is quarterly, not monthly (in travel time)

Major changes (structure).

First present the results, and then the discusión of results will be presented.

The authors present a very extensive section on conclusions. This section should be divided into a discussion of the results and more specific and less extensive conclusions. For example, the limitations of the study should

Some minor changes

1.     Funding. If the authors have not received funding for their study, this section should be deleted.

2.     If the authors have used a questionnaire to collect information from individuals, mention should be made of respect for data protection and that the respondent knew that these data would be used for scientific purposes.

 

In sum, this is an interesting article that in my opinion should be accepted for publication after the minor requested adjustments.

Best regards,

Author Response

This study analyzes the impact of COVID-19 on senior tourism, a promising but pandemic-affected market. Using national statistical data from Italy, it assesses the vacation intention and length of stay of senior tourists. The methodology employs a Probit model with sample selection, breaking down the decision-making process into pre-, during and post-pandemic phases. The results indicate a strong correlation between the decision to travel and length of stay before the pandemic, but post-pandemic dynamic changes highlight other factors influencing length of stay.

After an exhaustive review of the article, it is evident that it presents a significant advance in the field of study addressed. The research provides solid and robust data, supported by an appropriate methodology that strengthens the validity and reliability of the results obtained. The careful selection of data and methodological rigor provide a solid basis for the conclusions of the study, thus consolidating its valuable contribution to knowledge in the field.

Authors response: We greatly appreciate the Reviewer’s consideration of our study. The suggestions provided have allowed us to better reflect on many aspects of this study and its quality. We carefully addressed each comment, resulting in throughout improvements in the overall quality of the work. We aim to meet the high standards set by the Journal.

However, a number of adjustments need to be made by the authors.

Since the data analyzed are fundamental to achieving the results, it is necessary that they be deposited in an open repository or otherwise made accessible. You may include a link at the end of your paper.

Authors response: We appreciate your valuable observation. While it is not possible to deposit the data in an open repository, we want to assure you that the data are accessible. They can be downloaded for free after registering on the ISTAT website. We have included the link to download reduced versions of the surveys https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/178670.https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/178670  Thank you for understanding.

In the methodology, I would like to know why the authors use

-        more than four days, long trip

Authors response: We thank you the Reviewer for this comment. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our decision to use a 4-night threshold to classify longer stays in a tourism destination. Our choice is rooted in the work of Salmasi et al. (2012), specifically their study on "Length of Stay: Price and Income Semi-Elasticities at Different Destinations in Italy." Salmasi et al. (2012) employed a 4-day threshold to distinguish between short and longer stays, providing a clear precedent for our decision. At our knowledge, there are few studies that try to pursue this line of research, highlighting short- and long-holiday makers’ preferences, with different authors using varied criteria. Consequently, in the literature lacks a consensus on the division between short and longer stays. Recognizing this gap, we aimed to contribute to the field by adopting a threshold that has been substantiated by a previous study.

-        the reason why the analysis is quarterly, not monthly (in travel time)

Authors response: We thank the reviewer for their inquiry regarding the choice of a quarterly analysis instead of a monthly one in our study. Quarterly analyses provide a more consolidated and comprehensive view, allowing for a clearer identification of trends and patterns over a longer time frame. This approach also helps mitigate the potential impact of short-term fluctuations, providing a more stable basis for decision-making. Additionally, quarterly data collection and analysis may align with broader reporting schedules, facilitating a more seamless integration of travel time insights into organizational strategies. Overall, the decision to adopt a quarterly approach is rooted in the need for a robust and strategic perspective on travel time dynamics. We appreciate your consideration and hope this clarification addresses your query.

Major changes (structure).

First present the results, and then the discusión of results will be presented.

Authors response: We thank the Reviewer for Her/His feedback and suggestions regarding the presentation of results and discussion in our paper.

Our decision to combine the presentation of results and discussion in a single section was intentional rand aligned with the specific nature of our research questions. By doing so, we aimed to provide a seamless narrative that directly addresses the research questions and ensures clarity in the interpretation of our findings.

The integration of results and discussion in a cohesive section allows us to present a comprehensive understanding of the data as we answer the 3 (RQ1; RQ2; RQ3) research questions. This approach facilitates a direct connection between the observed outcomes and the subsequent interpretation, enhancing the logical flow of our paper.

We understand your suggestion to separate these sections. However, we believe that the current approach contributes to the overall coherence and effectiveness of our paper.

The authors present a very extensive section on conclusions. This section should be divided into a discussion of the results and more specific and less extensive conclusions. For example, the limitations of the study should

Authors response: We appreciate the time and effort the Reviewer has dedicated to providing constructive feedback.

However, regarding your suggestion to divide the conclusions section into a discussion of the results and more specific, less extensive conclusions, we carefully considered your recommendation. However, after careful deliberation, we have decided to maintain the current structure of the conclusions section because on our opinion it emphasizes the holistic understanding of results and implications.

Indeed, the structure of the section highlights both the theoretical and managerial implications and the limitations and future research agenda. However, to enhance clarity, these aspects have been better highlighted by organizing them as distinct subsections.

We understand the importance of balancing specificity and conciseness, and we believe that our current approach effectively captures the essence of our study's outcomes. We hope you understand our decision and appreciate your understanding of the choices we've made in structuring the conclusions section.

Some minor changes

1. Funding. If the authors have not received funding for their study, this section should be deleted.

Authors response: We thank the Reviewer for this suggestion. We done it.

2. If the authors have used a questionnaire to collect information from individuals, mention should be made of respect for data protection and that the respondent knew that these data would be used for scientific purposes.

Authors response: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. We employed a national statistical data source for our study, specifically utilizing two sub-samples from each round of four repeated cross-sectional surveys derived from the “Trips and holidays” section of the Household Budget Survey. However, we have revised this point in “The Data subsection” according to the suggestion of other Reviewers.

ISTAT (2022) Tavole di dati. Il conto satellite del turismo in Italia–anno 2019. https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/265443

https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/178670

In sum, this is an interesting article that in my opinion should be accepted for publication after the minor requested adjustments.

We hope that the improvements we have introduced will be satisfactory for You and will allow You to accept the article for publication.

Kind regards, Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Suggestions for revision of this paper are as follows:

1. Some relevant concepts in this paper are not clearly defined. For example, for senior tourists in Italy, it is generally understood that they are senior tourists from any country or region traveling in Italy, but it is obvious that this paper understands them as local senior tourists in Italy and conducts research. Therefore, it is suggested that it be redefined.

2. The introduction of the paper should give the research objectives and highlight the research contribution.

3. The content of the second part of the paper is too thin compared with the other parts, so it is suggested to merge it with the first part and define the senior tourist group when it is first mentioned. The definition given needs to be supported by the corresponding literature.

4. What research gaps did the authors find through the literature review and in what areas did the authors intend to take it further?

5. Since the authors divide the senior tourists into two different groups, it is believed that the difference between the travel intention and stay time of the tourists belonging to these two different groups should also be one of the research issues of the thesis. This is of great value for the paper to propose interesting new findings and make theoretical contributions, and to propose more targeted management enlightenment for the two different groups. But obviously, the paper does not do so, and it is recommended to revise it.

6. What sampling method did the author use to obtain the data? What is its reliability and validity? It needs to be explained in the paper.

7. Are the two categories of senior tourists selected in this paper retired? (Whether they have the same amount of leisure time)Do they all have similar levels of retirement? These two factors must be considered, as they are the key factors affecting travel intentions and length of stay. Only when the above two influencing factors are taken as control variables, it is meaningful to study the changes of travel intention and stay time.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language quality of this paper needs further improvement.

Author Response

Suggestions for revision of this paper are as follows:

1. Some relevant concepts in this paper are not clearly defined. For example, for senior tourists in Italy, it is generally understood that they are senior tourists from any country or region traveling in Italy, but it is obvious that this paper understands them as local senior tourists in Italy and conducts research. Therefore, it is suggested that it be redefined.

Authors response: We appreciate the insightful observation made by the Reviewer regarding the clarity of certain concepts in our paper. We acknowledge the validity of the suggestion and would like to clarify our approach. In our analysis, conducted during the pandemic period when international travel was restricted, we specifically focused on Italian senior tourists engaged in domestic tourism. We aimed to ensure a meaningful comparison across the four-year timeframe considered. While our intention is outlined in the paper's objective (page 3, line 113-119), we recognize that the text may not have sufficiently emphasized this point. To enhance clarity, we have incorporated the adjective 'Italian' to define the subject of our study as senior tourists more explicitly. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we trust that this adjustment enhances the overall understanding of our work.

2. The introduction of the paper should give the research objectives and highlight the research contribution.

Authors response: We appreciate the Reviewer's feedback and have taken it into consideration. In response to the suggestion, in the introduction section, we have reformulated the aim of our research to enhance clarity and explicitly highlight the research objectives. Moreover, we have ensured that the research objectives are explicitly outlined in the form of three research questions within the revised introduction. We believe these changes will contribute to a clearer understanding of the paper's purpose and objectives. Thank you for the valuable input.

3. The content of the second part of the paper is too thin compared with the other parts, so it is suggested to merge it with the first part and define the senior tourist group when it is first mentioned. The definition given needs to be supported by the corresponding literature.

Authors response: We thank the Reviewer for Her/His careful review and constructive feedback. Accordingly, we delete the section 2 “Definition of senior tourists” and placed it within the literature review section to provide a comprehensive understanding of the diverse categorizations of senior tourists in the existing literature. Our aim was to highlight the absence of a universally accepted age standard for defining senior tourists and the variability observed across different studies. We acknowledge your suggestion to merge this part with the first section where the senior tourist group is introduced. However, we believe that including this information within the literature review enhances the overall context for the reader. It sets the stage for our specific categorization choices and demonstrates the broader landscape of definitions used by various scholars.

4. What research gaps did the authors find through the literature review and in what areas did the authors intend to take it further?

Authors response: We appreciate the reviewer's insightful comment. Through our literature review, we identified a significant research gap pertaining to the impact of Covid-19 on senior travel intention and Length of Stay (LOS). While there have been numerous publications addressing the broader impacts of Covid-19 on the tourism sector, few studies have specifically delved into its effects on senior travel intention and LOS.

Rahman, M.K., Gazi, M.A.I., Bhuiyan, M.A., Rahaman M.A. (2021). Effect of Covid-19 pandemic on tourist travel risk and management perceptions. PLoS ONE,16(9),e0256486. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256486

Villacé-Molinero, T., Fernández-Muñoz. J.J., Orea-Giner A., Fuentes-Moraleda L.(2021). Understanding the new post-COVID-19 risk scenario: Outlooks and challenges for a new era of tourism, Tourism Management, 86(104324). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104324

Baños-Pino, J.F., Boto-García, D., Del Valle, E, Sustacha, I. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on tourists’ length of stay and daily expenditures. Tourism Economics,0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/13548166211053419

Notably, limited research exists on the post-pandemic years' effects on these aspects of senior tourism.To further elaborate, the existing literature mainly reflects senior tourists' beliefs about how the pandemic will alter their holiday preferences.

Zambianchi, M. (2020). The Collective Traumatic Event of COVID-19 Pandemic and its Psychological Impact on Beliefs and Intentions of Senior Italian Tourists. Almatourism-Journal of Tourism, Culture and Territorial Development,11(22),45–60. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2036-5195/11653

Some studies focus on the risk factors, suggesting potential continued discouragement or limitations in senior tourism due to vulnerability to Covid-19. Additionally, there are studies utilizing personality traits as a segmentation variable.

Hall, C.M., Scott, D., Gössling, S. (2020) Pandemics, transformations and tourism: be careful what you wish for. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 577-598. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1759131

Otoo, F.E., Seongseop, S.K., Agrusa, J., Lema, J. (2021). Classification of senior tourists according to personality traits, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research.26(5),539-556. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2021.1876118

In response to these identified gaps, our research aims to contribute by conducting a detailed analysis of the impacts of Covid-19 on senior travel intention and LOS in the specified time periods. We intend to explore the changes in senior tourists' behavior following the pandemic, providing a more comprehensive understanding of this specific demographic's responses to the evolving circumstances. We hope this clarification aligns with the reviewer's expectations regarding the addressed research gaps and our intentions to contribute to the existing literature. These aspects are highlighted in the Introduction section.

5. Since the authors divide the senior tourists into two different groups, it is believed that the difference between the travel intention and stay time of the tourists belonging to these two different groups should also be one of the research issues of the thesis. This is of great value for the paper to propose interesting new findings and make theoretical contributions, and to propose more targeted management enlightenment for the two different groups. But obviously, the paper does not do so, and it is recommended to revise it.

Authors response: We thank the Reviewer for this valuable comment. Accordingly, we have enriched the theoretical and managerial implications section.

6. What sampling method did the author use to obtain the data? What is its reliability and validity? It needs to be explained in the paper.

Authors response: We employed a national statistical data source for our study, specifically utilizing two sub-samples from each round of four repeated cross-sectional surveys derived from the “Trips and holidays” section of the Household Budget Survey. The surveys can be downloaded for free after registering on the ISTAT website. Additionally, it is possible to download reduced versions of the surveys at https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/178670.

ISTAT (2022) Tavole di dati. Il conto satellite del turismo in Italia–anno 2019. https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/265443

This dataset spans the years 2019 to 2022, encompassing both pre-pandemic and post-pandemic periods. To address the concerns regarding reliability, it's important to note that the Household Budget Survey is a well-established and widely recognized source, conducted by national statistical agencies. The large-scale and comprehensive nature of this survey enhances the reliability of the data as it captures a broad representation of the population over multiple years. Regarding validity, the 'Trips and holidays' focus, within the Household Budget Survey, is designed to collect information specifically related to travel behavior, making it a suitable and valid source for our study's objectives. The questions included in this survey segment are carefully crafted to provide accurate insights into travel patterns and related factors. We believe that the utilization of this national statistical data source enhances the robustness of our study by ensuring a representative and reliable dataset, suitable for addressing our research questions. However, we acknowledge the importance of explicitly stating these aspects in the paper for the reader's clarity, and we will incorporate a more detailed explanation of the reliability and validity of our data in the revised manuscript, in “The Data” subsection.

7. Are the two categories of senior tourists selected in this paper retired? (Whether they have the same amount of leisure time)Do they all have similar levels of retirement? These two factors must be considered, as they are the key factors affecting travel intentions and length of stay. Only when the above two influencing factors are taken as control variables, it is meaningful to study the changes of travel intention and stay time.

Authors response: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this aspect related to the retirement status of the senior tourists in our study.

In our research, we categorized seniors into two groups: "young seniors" (aged 55-64) and "older seniors" (aged 65 and above). We acknowledge that, based on traditional retirement age norms, individuals within the "young seniors" category may not all be retired. The distinction in age categories was made to capture a meaningful segmentation of the senior population and recognize the evolving trends in retirement age and lifestyle choices.

Furthermore, although there is no uniformity in the literature in the definition of "elderly tourists," there is a strand of literature that uses this distinction.

Campolo, M.G., De Pascale, A., Giannetto, C., Lanfranchi, M. (2022). The Determinants of Length of Stay of Italian Senior Tourists. In T.Abbate, F. Cesaroni, A. D'Amico (Eds.), Tourism and Disability An Economic and Managerial Perspective (pp.31-50). Springer, Cham.

 

To discriminate between subjects, we included a dummy variable in the first-stage estimate that identifies whether the subject is employed or not. 

Recognizing the diversity in terminologies and age classifications in the existing literature, we opted for a specific categorization in our study, using the above distinction.

We acknowledge the importance of considering retirement status as a key factor influencing travel intentions and length of stay. However, the "older seniors" group is more likely to include individuals who have retired, the "young seniors" category may encompass a mix of both working and retired individuals, enriching the results of our analysis.

 

The English language quality of this paper needs further improvement.

Authors response: We thank the Reviewer for this suggestion. According to the suggestion, we have checked the English grammar carefully and improved other structural errors. Hopefully those changes will meet Reviewer’s expectations.

We hope that the improvements we have introduced will be satisfactory for You and will allow You to accept the article for publication.

Kind regards, Authors

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the appropriate changes based on my suggestions.