Exploring the Environmentally Responsible Behavior of Generations Y and Z from a Cross-Cultural Perspective in the Context of Nature-Based Tourism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted paper entitled "Exploring the Environmentally Responsible Behavior of Generations Y and Z from a Cross-Cultural Perspective in the Context of Nature-based Tourism" Is rather interesting, as it focuses on specific populations under the prism of eco-tourism.

Nevertheless, certain points need to be taken under serious consideration by the authors for the manuscript to be ready for publication. The field around which this paper is deployed (REB), has been a well-established scientific area for many decades now with rich research, and well-developed and weighted research instruments. That makes this paper not particularly original although the authors attempt a cross-cultural study among three Asian countries.

The basic issue that has to do with this paper is that although too much notice was paid to the description and presentation of validity and reliability information with text and Tables (no need for this deep analysis because all instruments were already checked for validity and reliability), the reader cannot see the respective elaboration of the data in the Results section, and furthermore, there is absolute absence of any kind of interpretation of these results in the Discussion section.

Therefore, the authors are strongly urged to better clarify and enrich their results, and since there is a bulk of scientific literature in the field of REB, they should try and interpret their results by combining them with the most common and used ones found in the international literature.

 

Finally, since this research attempt is not particularly original as stated above, the authors should necessarily mention why it was actually conducted, and whether or not they were expecting something else apart from these apparent results; questions such as why do we detect these differences among the three countries and where these differences could be attributed to, should also be part of the Discussion section.

Minor editing of the English language is required

Author Response

Thank you for the reviewer's comments and suggestions, which we have utilized to improve the quality of the paper. In response to the reviewer's recommendation, we have included an additional section. Please refer to the new section titled "5. Conclusions" on Pages 12-13, which reads as follows:

The results of hypothesis tests for the Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam groups through regression analyses exhibit similar patterns. The findings are discussed as follows:

Firstly, the hypothesis stating that a proecological worldview positively influences environmentally responsible behavior (H1) is not supported. This result contradicts previous studies, which suggested that environmental worldviews, formed through interactions with nature, encompass thoughts, values, and interpretations of the natural world [20]. Environmental psychology posits that environmental values underlie environmental attitudes, with proecological worldviews reflecting these values [21], consequently affecting environmentally responsible behavior [22].

Secondly, the hypothesis suggesting that environmental attitude positively influences environmentally responsible behavior (H2) is supported. This finding aligns with previous studies that have established a positive correlation between knowledge, environmental attitude, and responsible environmental behavior [23, 24]. Understanding and knowledge of the environment shape environmental attitudes, motivating pro-environmental behavior [25, 26]. Increased environmental knowledge and positive attitudes encourage responsible environmental practices, including eco-friendly travel [27].

Thirdly, the hypothesis proposing that situational factors positively influence environmentally responsible behavior (H3) is supported. This outcome is consistent with previous studies that define situational factors as elements significantly impacting an individual's attitudes and behaviors within specific timeframes or locations [28, 29]. These factors are identified through external stimuli and individual psychological interpretations, playing a pivotal role in shaping an individual's current behavior and attitude [29].

Fourthly, the hypothesis suggesting that a proecological worldview positively influences environmental attitude (H4) is supported. This result aligns with previous research indicating that proecological worldviews affect environmental attitudes [22], with culture playing a substantial role in shaping these worldviews [30]. National cultural differences are associated with variations in environmental attitudes [7].

Lastly, the hypothesis proposing that situational factors positively influence environmental attitude (H5) is supported. This finding is consistent with previous studies demonstrating that situational factors can impact the relationship between attitudes and behaviors, offering an intermediary explanation for the connection between behavior and attitude [17, 31, 32]. Specific situations heighten concern for the environment, particularly in certain contexts, fostering support for responsible environmental attitudes [33, 34].

According to the results of One-way ANOVA analysis, the research objects in these three groups, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, have significant differences in the average values of the four dimensions of "proecological worldview", "specific environmental attitude", "situational factor" and "environmentally responsible behavior". All findings indicate that Thailand is higher than Taiwan, Taiwan is higher than Vietnam; Thailand is the highest and Vietnam is the lowest.

The research results show that the three groups, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, have the same relationship among the four dimensions of environmentally responsible behavior, proecological worldview, environmental attitude, and situational factor. After comparison, the proecological worldviews of Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam will not directly affect the environmentally responsible behavior. However, the proecological worldview of these three areas has an indirect and significant impact on environmentally responsible behavior through environmental attitude; the degree of influence is highest in Thailand, followed by Taiwan and lowest in Vietnam.

The study was conducted to investigate environmentally responsible behavior in Generation Y and Generation Z nature tourists across Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam groups, aiming to uncover influencing factors and potential variations among these groups. Although the researchers did not explicitly state their expectations, the results revealed significant differences in proecological worldviews, environmental attitudes, situational factors, and environmentally responsible behavior among the above three areas. These distinctions could likely be attributed to cultural, societal, or contextual factors, which merit further exploration in future research. Understanding these variations is vital for tailoring conservation and sustainable tourism efforts to each area's unique characteristics and values.

The English is proofread by a professional English editor.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID: land-2607769

Article review

Title: Exploring the Environmentally Responsible Behavior of Generations Y and Z from a Cross-Cultural Perspective in the Context of Nature-based Tourism

 

Dear authors,

The topic of the article argues an important aspect of contemporary society in which environmental behaviour is crucial for the future. Therefore, for a sustainable future, researching pro-environmental attitudes and connections with personal actions in society is extremely important.

The research on Generation Y and Z as future leaders in the development of society and their relationship to ecology is undoubtedly valuable research.

The results of the analysis of the obtained sample in Thailand, Taiwan and Vietnam show that the situational factor has a positive and significant influence on the environmental attitude and environmentally responsible behaviour, which is greater than the influence of the pro-ecological worldview on the environmental attitude and environmentally responsible behaviour.

A strength of the research results is that situations can provide a basis for understanding the relationship between behaviour and attitude.

Perhaps the contribution of the paper could be upgraded by suggesting how certain situations could be shaped with the aim of influencing the increase of pro-environmental behaviour.

The weak side of the research is the relative inhomogeneity in the structure of the sample (which may have influenced the results of the research). There is a visible correlation between age and educational structure with pro-environmental attitudes, which is best visible on the example of Thailand (where the sample has the most young and more educated respondents).

Therefore, I recommend for future research, an analysis be made (not only on the geographical basis) but also on socio-economic criteria.

Although the paper has some weaknesses, I think the work is worth publishing (with mentioned minor modifications and additions).

Kind regards

Author Response

Thank you for the reviewer's comments and suggestions, which we have used to enhance the quality of the paper. We have incorporated an additional paragraph in response to the reviewer's recommendation. Please refer to the third paragraph of "7. Recommendations for Future Studies" on Page 13-14, which reads as follows:

Additionally, a weakness of this study is the variation in the composition of the sample, which could have had an impact on the research findings. There is a noticeable connection between age and educational background when it comes to pro-environmental attitudes, and this is particularly evident in Thailand, where the sample consists mainly of younger and more educated respondents. Therefore, it is advisable for future research to conduct analyses not only based on geography but also considering socio-economic factors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript is a very interesting topic and well presented. It is written in easy language and explained in a simple way. The results also are well explained and I did not find any point to be removed.

Good job and good luck to the authors!

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and positive feedback on our manuscript. We are delighted to hear that you found the topic interesting and the presentation clear. Your kind words are truly encouraging.

We greatly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work, and your comments have motivated us to continue improving our research.

Once again, thank you for your encouraging comments and well-wishes. We value your input and look forward to any further insights you may have in the future.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Resubmission of the paper entitled "Exploring the Environmentally Responsible Behavior of Generations Y and Z from a Cross-Cultural Perspective in the Context of Nature-based Tourism" showed significant improvement in terms of the enrichment of the Discussion section as well as the addition of separate Conclusions and Recommendations for future studies sections, and therefore they satisfied the provided suggestions rather adequately. 

Yet, the authors made no changes in the rest of the manuscript. I am sure that taking into consideration the following comments, they will prepare most adequately their manuscript for publication. 

·       Avoid presenting hypotheses in the Introduction section. Literature review should appear as part of the Introduction section. Move the hypotheses to the Methodology section.

·       Too much information regarding the validity and reliability of the instruments is still present. Mainly in the Results section (subsection 4.1) which should move to the Methodology section without the presence of all these tables (some min and max values will do the work). 

·       As a result, no space is given for a clear depiction of the actual Results of the research which are presented in sub-section 4.3.

·       It seems that no careful language editing has been made, otherwise there wouldn’t have been mistakes like for example the first keyword, the repetition in 3.2. of “recognition of ecotourism”, “…environment Be kind” in subsection 3.2.

 

·       Finally, one last point that has to be clarified. At the end of the Discussion section, it seems that there is a contradiction. The second to the last paragraph begins with “The research results show that the three groups, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, have the same relationship among the four dimensions of environmentally responsible behavior, proecological worldview, environmental attitude, and situational factor”; corresponding info is found at the beginning of the Conclusions section. On the contrary, in the middle of the last paragraph of the Discussion, the authors document: “Although the researchers did not explicitly state their expectations, the results revealed significant differences in proecological worldviews, environmental attitudes, situational factors, and environmentally responsible behavior among the above three areas”. My understanding of the research results is that the first statement seems to be true. Am I missing something here?

Resubmission of the paper entitled "Exploring the Environmentally Responsible Behavior of Generations Y and Z from a Cross-Cultural Perspective in the Context of Nature-based Tourism" showed significant improvement in terms of the enrichment of the Discussion section as well as the addition of separate Conclusions and Recommendations for future studies sections, and therefore they satisfied the provided suggestions rather adequately. 

Yet, the authors made no changes in the rest of the manuscript. I am sure that taking into consideration the following comments, they will prepare most adequately their manuscript for publication. 

·       Avoid presenting hypotheses in the Introduction section. Literature review should appear as part of the Introduction section. Move the hypotheses to the Methodology section.

·       Too much information regarding the validity and reliability of the instruments is still present. Mainly in the Results section (subsection 4.1) which should move to the Methodology section without the presence of all these tables (some min and max values will do the work). 

·       As a result, no space is given for a clear depiction of the actual Results of the research which are presented in sub-section 4.3.

·       It seems that no careful language editing has been made, otherwise there wouldn’t have been mistakes like for example the first keyword, the repetition in 3.2. of “recognition of ecotourism”, “…environment Be kind” in subsection 3.2.

 

·       Finally, one last point that has to be clarified. At the end of the Discussion section, it seems that there is a contradiction. The second to the last paragraph begins with “The research results show that the three groups, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, have the same relationship among the four dimensions of environmentally responsible behavior, proecological worldview, environmental attitude, and situational factor”; corresponding info is found at the beginning of the Conclusions section. On the contrary, in the middle of the last paragraph of the Discussion, the authors document: “Although the researchers did not explicitly state their expectations, the results revealed significant differences in proecological worldviews, environmental attitudes, situational factors, and environmentally responsible behavior among the above three areas”. My understanding of the research results is that the first statement seems to be true. Am I missing something here?

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors by Reviewer 1

Resubmission of the paper entitled "Exploring the Environmentally Responsible Behavior of Generations Y and Z from a Cross-Cultural Perspective in the Context of Nature-based Tourism" showed significant improvement in terms of the enrichment of the Discussion section as well as the addition of separate Conclusions and Recommendations for future studies sections, and therefore they satisfied the provided suggestions rather adequately. 

Yet, the authors made no changes in the rest of the manuscript. I am sure that taking into consideration the following comments, they will prepare most adequately their manuscript for publication. 

• Avoid presenting hypotheses in the Introduction section. Literature review should appear as part of the Introduction section. Move the hypotheses to the Methodology section.
• Too much information regarding the validity and reliability of the instruments is still present. Mainly in the Results section (subsection 4.1) which should move to the Methodology section without the presence of all these tables (some min and max values will do the work). 
• As a result, no space is given for a clear depiction of the actual Results of the research which are presented in sub-section 4.3.
• It seems that no careful language editing has been made, otherwise there wouldn’t have been mistakes like for example the first keyword, the repetition in 3.2. of “recognition of ecotourism”, “…environment Be kind” in subsection 3.2.
• Finally, one last point that has to be clarified. At the end of the Discussion section, it seems that there is a contradiction. The second to the last paragraph begins with “The research results show that the three groups, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, have the same relationship among the four dimensions of environmentally responsible behavior, proecological worldview, environmental attitude, and situational factor”; corresponding info is found at the beginning of the Conclusions section. On the contrary, in the middle of the last paragraph of the Discussion, the authors document: “Although the researchers did not explicitly state their expectations, the results revealed significant differences in proecological worldviews, environmental attitudes, situational factors, and environmentally responsible behavior among the above three areas”. My understanding of the research results is that the first statement seems to be true. Am I missing something here?

 

Author's Notes to Reviewer 1:

Thank you for the reviewer's comments and suggestions, which we have utilized to improve the quality of the paper. In response to the reviewer's recommendation, we have revised the manuscript as follows:

 

1. We moved the hypotheses to the Methodology section and the literature review to the Introduction section. It is highlighted on Pages 1-2 as follows:
2. Introduction

1.1. Research problem statement

1.2. Nature tourists’ environmentally responsible behavior

2. Methodology

2.1. Hypothesis development

2. We moved the validity and reliability of the instruments to the Methodology section. It is highlighted on Page 6 as follows:
3. Methodology

2.6. Construct validity and reliability

3. We reorganized the Results section to provide better space for a clear presentation of the research results in sub-section 4.2 on Pages 10-11.
4. These typo errors are all corrected on Pages 1, 4-5 as follows:

Keywords: nature-based tourism; environmentally responsible behavior; proecological worldview; environmental attitude; situational factor; sustainable development

2.4. Questionnaire design and measurement

The questionnaire design includes five parts. The first part, environmental attitude, has 12 items, referring to the scales of Kim & Weile [34] and Weaver & Lawton [36]. The four dimensions are: importance of environmental protection, support for environmental protection, recognition of ecotourism and recognition of the natural environment.

The fourth part, environmentally responsible behavior, has a total of 14 items. It refers to the scales of Chiu et al. [38] and Lee et al. [11]. The three dimensions are: sustainable behavior, pro-environmental behavior and environmentally friendly behavior.

5. The last point is clarified on Pages 12-13 as follows:

The research results show that the three groups, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, have the same relationship among the four dimensions of environmentally responsible behavior, proecological worldview, environmental attitude, and situational factor (please see Table 6 and Figure 2); hypotheses 2, 3, 4 and 5 are supported, while hypothesis 1 is not supported.

The study was conducted to investigate environmentally responsible behavior in Generation Y and Generation Z nature tourists across Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam groups, aiming to uncover influencing factors and potential variations among these groups. Although the researchers did not explicitly state their expectations, the results revealed significant differences in proecological worldviews, environmental attitudes, situational factors, and environmentally responsible behavior among the above three areas (please see Table 7); the mean values of the four constructs showed significant differences among the Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam groups.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx