Investigating the Image of the Bihor Tourist Destination among Romanians in the Context of Increasing Economic Indicators of Tourist Activity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is present a very big analysis of Bihor tourism region in Romania. Before this manuscript can be published it is necessary to improve some parts of the manuscript.
General comments are
Please authors must redefine the title to be more adequate. It is necessary to include BIHOR region in some way.
Please add in the abstract , similar methodologies which previously used in similar research.
Can the authors explain step by step differences and similiraties between socio-demographic and Natural characteristics. In that way it is necessary add some research that included Natural charatertisc of attrectivnicess in region. Please see some papers
Evaluation of the tourist potential and natural attractivity of the Lukovska Spa
Author links open overlay panelAleksandarValjarevićaDanijelaVukoičićaDraganaValjarevićbVirtual reality and mixed reality for second chance tourism
Author links open overlay panelAlexandraBecabcBrentMoylecdVikkiSchafferaKenTimmsGeography Matters, But… Evolving Success Factors for Nature-Oriented Health Tourism within Selected Alpine Destinations
by Jürgen Schmude 1,*, Markus Pillmayer 2, Maximilian Witting 1 and Philipp Corradini 3 etc. In the section The Tourist Destination Bihor please include more sentences of history and geography which describethis region. For my opinion this title Purpose and Research Methodology may be change to Research Methodology
The letters of Figure 2 are very small, please use bigger.
Please explain Table 1. Scale for evaluation of affective perception of image more precise.
It is necessary to divide Results and Hypothesis Testing on two independent titles.
Figure 3. Please use different colors.
Figure 6. is very poor drawn the authors must made new one. Please add text on the both legend.
Figure 7. The same like for Figure 6.
For my opinion it is necessary to write only section Conclusions
Implications title
can be written like Future works.
In the section Conclusion, authors must add more than ten references and new sentences which may describe similar research and can be compared with the Bihor tourism region.
Sincerely,
and good luck
The Reviewer
Author Response
Hello,
Thank you for your comments. I made additions and modifications to the manuscript and attached it. See below the specific response to the observations:
Point 1: Please authors must redefine the title to be more adequate. It is necessary to include BIHOR region in some way.
Response 1: Ok.We have included the Bihor region in the title
Point 2: Please add in the abstract, similar methodologies which previously used in similar research.
Response 2: We have added details related to the working methodology used in our research.
Point 3: Can the authors explain step by step differences and similiraties between socio-demographic and Natural characteristics. In that way it is necessary add some research that included Natural charatertisc of attrectivnicess in region. Please see some papers
Response 3: The purpose of this research is not to evaluate the attractiveness of the destination from the perspective of supply. The aim was not to determine the attractiveness of the region with a closed question in which to list the natural, cultural, demographic characteristics, etc. An open-ended question was used to capture the natural, spontaneous impression associated with the place. However, we completed the presentation of Bihor County with details related to its natural, socio-demographic characteristics and indicators of tourism.
We referred to a similar study related to the tourist destination:
Valjarević, A., Vukoičić, D., & Valjarević, D. (2017). Evaluation of the tourist potential and natural attractivity of the Lukovska Spa. Tourism management perspectives, 22, 7-16.
Point 4: In the section The Tourist Destination Bihor please include more sentences of history and geography which describe
Response 4: Ok. We did that
Point 5: For my opinion this title Purpose and Research Methodology may be change to Research Methodology
Response 5: We changed in Research Methodology
Point 6: The letters of Figure 2 are very small, please use bigger.
Response 6: I made them bigger
Point 7: Please explain Table 1. Scale for evaluation of affective perception of image more precise.
Response 7: We put in this table a combination of two scales. The first scale it is a commonly used scale, developed by Russel and Pratt (1980) and Russel and Snodgrass (1987) and taken from Phillips and Jang (2007) but very much used in present, also*. The last two destination evaluation scales in Table 1 belong to the holistic evaluation of the destination image, as defined by Echtner and Ritchie (1991). I put this information in the text of the paper from line 238-249.
I've added a more recent reference that uses this scale:
* Silva, I. B. C., & Durão, A. F. (2020). E-BRANDING DE DESTINOS E IMAGEN AFECTIVA Un estudio sobre la percepción de los consumidores a partir de las redes sociales oficiales de Porto de Galinhas (PE–Brasil). Estudios y perspectivas en turismo, 29(3), 817-838.
Point 8: It is necessary to divide Results and Hypothesis Testing on two independent titles.
Response 8: Yes, it can be divided into two titles. Investigating the image of Bihor County is part of a larger research on Bihor County and we used only the data collected regarding this section. We chose to use only those data that allow the verification of the hypotheses formulated and therefore it is more appropriate, in this case, to combine the two sections.
Point 9: Figure 3. Please use different colors.
Response 9: We redid the figure and used several colors.
Point 10: Figure 6. is very poor drawn the authors must made new one. Please add text on the both legend. Figure 7. The same like for Figure 6.
Response 10: We made the required changes.
Point 11: For my opinion it is necessary to write only section Conclusions
Response 11: We left only Conclusions
Point 12: Implications title can be written like Future works.
Response 12: We don't necessarily see the implications as future works but we can do that.
Point 13: In the section Conclusion, authors must add more than ten references and new sentences which may describe similar research and can be compared with the Bihor tourism region.
Response 13: We have added some references with similar studies and with similar or different results. We are not used to referring to conclusions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Although the article itself raises interesting issues in the field of evaluation of destination image as well as its creation and perception, some remarks, explanations and corrections should be made to improve the quality and readability of the article:
1) Figure 1 - explain its quite complicated structure; as it stands, it is not very readable;
2) no indication of the surveyed area location - especially in the context of the place of origin of respondents;
3) in the introduction (as well as in the abstract) it should be pointed out that this research concerns a specific area, it is a kind of case study. In this context, moreover, there is no reference to the global relevance of the research carried out - can it be interpolated in other regions and in what way?
4) why were only domestic visitors surveyed?
5) Table 2 - description is in Romanian - please change it to English
6) complete the theoretical basis and literature review with items related to destination image theory and (first of all) its sustainable features; the authors should refer not only to the comments indicated in the review report, but also complement the article with information related to sustainable destination image features (with literature references) - especially if it is pointed out in the title of the submission;
7) it is worth complementing the research with the perception of foreign tourists or clearly indicate in the title that it is about the perception of domestic visitors;
Author Response
Hello,
Thank you for your comments. I made additions and modifications to the manuscript and attached it. See below the specific response to the comments:
Point 1: Figure 1 - explain its quite complicated structure; as it stands, it is not very readable;
Response 1: Figure 1 shows the formation of the global image of a tourist destination as it is widely presented in the literature. For the concrete study carried out regarding Bihor, data were collected regarding the affective evaluation only, an evaluation that contributes to the formation of the secondary image. The assessment that an individual makes of a destination is influenced by his personal psycho-socio-demographic characteristics. Of these, we only specified age, education and culture (because initially we tried to obtain the opinion of foreigners) because we intended to collect these data for our study. The primary image is formed by those who visited the destination not only consciously or not received information about it. We applied the questionnaire to those who only heard of Bihor (and have only a secondary image) and to those who also visited Bihor (they have a global image)
Point 2: no indication of the surveyed area location - especially in the context of the place of origin of respondents;
Response 2: The place of residence of the respondents can be seen in Figure 2, as well as their distribution on the counties in Romania (on the map with Romania). We also added information about the respondents in the abstract of the paper.
Point 3: in the introduction (as well as in the abstract) it should be pointed out that this research concerns a specific area, it is a kind of case study. In this context, moreover, there is no reference to the global relevance of the research carried out - can it be interpolated in other regions and in what way?
Response 3: Ok. We have added information about the relevance of the research.
Point 4: why were only domestic visitors surveyed?
Response 4: One of the initial objectives of the research was to investigate the image of the destination of Bihor and among foreigners, but we failed to collect enough answers to be relevant.
Point 5: Table 2 - description is in Romanian - please change it to English
Response 5: We changed
Point 6: complete the theoretical basis and literature review with items related to destination image theory and (first of all) its sustainable features; the authors should refer not only to the comments indicated in the review report, but also complement the article with information related to sustainable destination image features (with literature references) - especially if it is pointed out in the title of the submission;
Response 5: Thank you for your observation. Given that the work on image sustainability needs to be completed en masse, we have removed this concept from the title. However, we have supplemented the bibliographic references with more recent works on the image of the tourist destination.
Point 7: it is worth complementing the research with the perception of foreign tourists or clearly indicate in the title that it is about the perception of domestic visitors;
Response 7: One of the initial objectives of the research was to investigate the image of the destination of Bihor and among foreigners, but we failed to collect enough answers to be relevant. We can specify in the title.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is elliptical by topic. The promise made by the title is not supported by the content.
The entire content must be re-examined and put in accordance with the title or the reformulation of the title of the article in accordance with the research carried out.
There is no correlation between the title of the article and the conclusions. The title or the conclusions must be reformulated.
The bibliography needs to be reviewed and updated, only a few sources are from the last 5 years.
Author Response
Hello,
Thank you for your comments. I made additions and modifications to the manuscript and attached it. See below the specific response to the comments:
Point 1: The article is elliptical by topic. The promise made by the title is not supported by the content.
Response 1: We formulated a title more appropriate to the content.
Point 2: The entire content must be re-examined and put in accordance with the title or the reformulation of the title of the article in accordance with the research carried out.
Response 2: We formulated a title more appropriate to the content.
Point 3: There is no correlation between the title of the article and the conclusions. The title or the conclusions must be reformulated.
Response 3: We formulated a title more appropriate to the content.
Point 4: The bibliography needs to be reviewed and updated, only a few sources are from the last 5 years.
Response 4: Ok. We have added some titles from 2018 to 2021.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Now authors made a great work. Congratulations on that.
Sincerely, the Reviewer
Author Response
Thank you very much for your support and suggestions!Reviewer 2 Report
Once the necessary corrections and additions have been made - the submission looks much better. The literature review can be supplemented by strong references to the papers presented in the article.
Please briefly justify the failure of the research among foreign visitors.
Author Response
Hello, Thank you very much for the suggestions. I have attached the answer below.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Point 1: The article is elliptical by topic. The promise made by the title is not supported by the content.
Point 2: The entire content must be re-examined and put in accordance with the title or the reformulation of the title of the article in accordance with the research carried out.
Author Response
Hello, Thank you very much for your comments. I respect your opinion.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
