Virtual Reality as a Green Tourism Alternative: Social Acceptance and Perception

Reviewer’s questions & suggestions

Authors' response

[Lines 116–120] Ambiguity in Literature Citation: Undefined Distinction Between “Domestic” and “International” Tourism

The distinction between "domestic" and "international" tourism in Zhang's cited study is not clearly defined. It is unclear which national context these terms refer to, and the usage appears inconsistent with the contextual framing of the article.

Thank you for pointing out this ambiguity. The revised text now specifies the definitions of “domestic” and “international” tourism as applied in Zhang’s study and clarifies that the analysis covered aggregated data for Europe. This ensures that the terminology is consistent with the contextual framing of the article.

[Lines 197–205] Lack of Theoretical Integration: Weak Conceptual Link Between Green Tourism and VR

Although the article introduces both “green tourism” and “virtual reality” as core concepts, it fails to build a theoretical bridge between them. There is no conceptual model or hypothesis framework to support the connection.

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. In the revised version, we have strengthened the theoretical integration between green tourism and VR. Specifically, we expanded the section on green tourism to explain how VR can contribute to its goals by reducing the environmental impact of travel, while still providing meaningful experiences. We also incorporated insights from recent literature showing that VR-based tourism can evoke emotions such as awe, which enhance engagement and promote pro-environmental attitudes. This addition provides a clearer conceptual bridge between VR and green tourism, thereby addressing the concern raised.

[Lines 318–324] Sampling Concern: Limited Generalizability of Findings

Participants in the study were drawn exclusively from the Faculty of Organization and Management (students and academic staff). It is questionable whether such a sample can adequately support the reliability and validity of the findings.

We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the sampling strategy and the resulting limitations in terms of generalizability. This limitation is explicitly discussed in the Conclusions section, where we note that the sample consisted mainly of young adults from higher education backgrounds and does not fully represent the broader population. In the revised manuscript, we have also addressed this point directly in the Materials and Methods section to provide greater transparency at the stage of describing the study design. Although most participants were affiliated with the Faculty of Organization and Management, they represented a variety of academic disciplines (e.g., Management, Logistics, Production Engineering, Business Analytics, Linguistics) and were preparing to enter different sectors of the economy, which offered some diversity in professional perspectives. Nevertheless, we fully recognize that the scope of the sample limits the reliability and external validity of the findings, and we highlight the need for future studies to include more demographically and professionally diverse participant groups.

[Lines 407–415] Lack of Theoretical Justification for Variable Selection

The study groups participants based on gender, age, education level, and personality type, but offers no explanation or theoretical basis for selecting these particular variables.

We thank the Reviewer for pointing this out. In the revised version, we clarified the rationale behind selecting these variables. Gender, age, and education are widely recognized as key socio-demographic determinants shaping travel behaviors, technology adoption, and attitudes toward sustainable tourism. Personality traits, in turn, are often associated with individual differences in immersive technology experiences, influencing both user engagement and perceived realism. Including these variables, provides a theoretically grounded framework for understanding heterogeneous responses to VR in the tourism context. Corresponding references have been added in the Materials and Methods section to make this justification explicit.

Reviewer’s questions & suggestions

Authors' response

The citation is not enough as we can clearly see in the introduction section, we could not even see one citation at all, but some of the statements should have some origins.

Thank you for the helpful comment. We have revised the Introduction and integrated citations so that each statement now has a clear source.

The literature review section focuses on telling us the functions of VR, but the scope and the depth of the use of VR in tourism research is not highlighted.

We added a new paragraph in the Theoretical Context section that highlights the scope and depth of VR applications in tourism research. This addition discusses its role in areas such as destination marketing, heritage tourism, accessibility, overtourism management, and digital preservation, supported by recent studies. This ensures the literature review goes beyond describing functions of VR and situates our study within the broader field of tourism research.

Can the selected participants represent the overall population? If they are all from organization and management departments, will they have some tendencies toward VR and the use of technology?

We agree with the reviewer that the sample composition may influence participants’ attitudes toward VR and technology. While most respondents were affiliated with the Faculty of Organization and Management, they represented diverse fields of study, including Management, Logistics, Production Engineering, Business Analytics, and Linguistics, which provided some variation in academic focus and professional orientation. Nevertheless, it is possible that their educational environment and exposure to technology-oriented content could result in a greater openness to VR solutions compared to the general population. We have emphasized this potential bias in both the Materials and Methods section and in the Conclusions, noting that the findings should be interpreted with caution and that future research should include participants from a broader range of academic and professional backgrounds.

How did the study deign the measurement? Are these questions enough to answer the research question? I hope to see more justifications about how these questions are designed step by step instead of mainly doing the statistical analysis.

We added a detailed explanation of how the survey items were designed, step by step, and on what theoretical basis they were selected. The added section clarifies the operationalization of constructs (realism, technical factors, missing sensory inputs, acceptance measures) and explains how these items were derived from prior VR presence and technology acceptance literature. This provides a clearer justification of the measurement approach beyond the statistical analysis.

Most participants agree that VR tourism cannot replace the actual visit, and the main meaning is experiential. Thus, after experiencing some times, the actual visit may still be their best choice and the meaning of this study will be reduced. If people only tour in VR, most of the meaning and value for tourism will disappear.

In the revised manuscript, the Discussion section has been expanded to emphasize that this finding does not diminish the value of the study. On the contrary, it highlights VR’s potential as a complementary tool in tourism—enhancing trip planning, raising awareness of sustainable practices, providing accessible experiences for those unable to travel, and supporting environmental goals without replacing the unique experiential value of physical visits. This addition clarifies the practical role of VR in sustainable tourism and aligns the interpretation of results with real-world applications.

Some explanations should be given to illustrate the experiential value of VR and highlight its facilitating function to actual visit.

In the revised manuscript, the Discussion section has been expanded to include a detailed explanation of how VR provides immersive, first-person experiences that engage users both visually and emotionally, fostering curiosity, familiarity, and an emotional connection with destinations. These aspects can reduce uncertainty, increase confidence, and serve as motivators for physical travel. This addition complements the discussion of VR’s role as a complementary tool in tourism, highlighting its potential to enhance pre-trip planning and encourage sustainable and inclusive tourism practices.

Reviewer’s questions & suggestions

Authors' response

Introduction and Literature

The introduction provides a solid context on the environmental impacts of tourism and positions VR as a potential “green” alternative. The detailed list of negative consequences of expanding tourism is useful; however, it is recommended to clearly explain how the stated hypotheses (or research questions) are derived from the theoretical framework. In the discussion, it would be valuable to include a perspective on the positive aspects of tourism—why people travel (e.g., recreation, change of environment, health-related reasons, better climatic conditions)—and assess to what extent VR can realistically replace these experiences. For example, spa treatments or seaside stays for health purposes cannot be substituted by virtual experiences. The discussion should also strengthen the economic dimension—what impact a broader shift toward VR might have on the economy and employment in destinations where tourism is the main economic sector.

The connection between the theoretical framework and the research hypotheses has been clarified: at the end of the Theoretical Context section, we now explicitly state that the hypotheses and the main research objective were derived from the reviewed literature.

Additionally, in the Materials and Methods section, we have presented all the formulated hypotheses (summarized together) that later appear throughout the article in the research subsections. We have placed them below the research objective to make the structure of the research clear and ordered.

In the Discussion section, an additional paragraph was included to emphasize the positive aspects of tourism (recreation, health, and climate-related motives) that cannot realistically be replaced by VR. Furthermore, the economic dimension has been strengthened with a new paragraph discussing potential employment shifts, the emergence of new digital niches, and the need for policy adaptation in regions dependent on tourism. Taking into account the Reviewer's comment and other comments below regarding the discussion, the entire Discussion section was rewritten, refined and divided into thematic parts – five following parts:

5.1. Key Findings in Relation to the Data Collected

5.2. Environmental Considerations

5.3. Social Aspects and Inclusivity

5.4. Economic Implications

5.5. Broader Reflections and Limitations

Objectives and Hypotheses

The research aim is clear, but the hypotheses are not explicitly formulated. Including them would improve the logical connection between theory, methodology, and discussion.

We agree with this important suggestion. In the revised version, we explicitly formulated four research hypotheses, directly aligned with the research objectives and measurement design. We have placed them together in the Materials and Methods section – below the research objective.

These hypotheses address demographic differences, the evaluation of technical factors, the impact of missing sensory inputs, and participants’ acceptance of VR as a green tourism alternative. This addition strengthens the logical coherence between the theoretical framework, methodology, and discussion.

Methodology

The chosen questionnaire-based approach is appropriate, but inherently subjective. For future research, it is recommended to combine it with objective measurements in neurolaboratory conditions (e.g., eye tracking, EEG) to validate or complement self-reported data. It would also be beneficial to consider using other analytical methods, such as structural equation modeling (SEM).

The VR realism assessment was based on respondents’ subjective impressions—it would be useful to specify what exactly was meant by “realism” (purely visual experience, also including sound effects, or a 3D/5D simulation with sensory stimuli).

Regarding statistical analysis, it should be noted that the Kruskal–Wallis test assesses differences in medians, not means. While the use of post hoc Dunn’s tests was correct, the interpretation should focus only on statistically significant differences and clearly indicate between which groups they occurred. It is also important to emphasize in the limitations the highly unbalanced group sizes (e.g., education: Higher 38; In progress 168; Secondary 9; generations: Gen X 11; Gen Y 23; Gen Z 181), which may affect the reliability of the tests.

The Materials and Methods section now clearly states that all assessments were based on self-reported questionnaire data, which are inherently subjective, and that future research could combine these with objective measurements in neurolaboratory settings (e.g., eye tracking, EEG) to validate or complement the results. The term “realism” is now explicitly defined as participants’ subjective impressions of how closely the virtual environment resembled an actual location, with emphasis on visual quality and spatial representation. It is also specified that no 3D/5D sensory simulation was provided. The Results section has been updated to emphasize that the Kruskal–Wallis test compares differences in medians, not means, and that post hoc analyses were conducted only for factors where statistically significant differences were found. The specific groups between which differences occurred are now clearly indicated. The Limitations section now explicitly acknowledges the highly unbalanced group sizes (e.g., education and generations) and notes that, although Dunn’s post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction were applied, these disparities may still influence the reliability and statistical power of the findings. In the Limitations section, we also note that future research could benefit from applying advanced analytical methods such as structural equation modeling (SEM) to more comprehensively explore the relationships between variables.

Results and Interpretation

The global distribution of selected destinations may be influenced not only by age (as mentioned) but also by travel experience. If this was not included in the survey, it is suggested for future research to ask respondents which countries they have visited, as more experienced travelers might choose more “exotic” VR destinations.

Information on participants’ past travel experience was not collected in the current study, which is acknowledged as a limitation. In the revised manuscript, the Limitations and Future Research section has been updated to recommend including travel history in future research designs, as it may influence the choice of VR destinations and the preference for more distant locations.

Discussion

The discussion is extensive and generally well linked to the findings, but in some sections it drifts into general considerations beyond the collected data. It is recommended to better balance the discussion between environmental, social, and economic aspects, and to explicitly distinguish between conclusions derived from the study’s results and general theoretical reflections.

The Discussion section has been reorganized to more clearly distinguish between findings derived directly from the empirical results and broader theoretical reflections.

Conclusions

The conclusions are consistent with the results, but they could be strengthened with more practical recommendations for VR application developers, policymakers, and stakeholders in sustainable tourism, increasing the paper’s applied value.

The conclusions section has been expanded to include more practical recommendations for VR application developers, policymakers, and stakeholders in sustainable tourism, thereby increasing the applied value of the study.

Other

The article structure follows MDPI standards. The figures are clear, but some captions should include explanations of abbreviations. The English is understandable, but some sentences are overly long and could be shortened to improve clarity and reduce redundancy.

Explanations of all abbreviations used in the figures have been added.