How Does Personality Affect COVID-19 Pandemic Travel Risk Perceptions and Behaviors? Evidence from Segment Analysis in Taiwan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

1) Change the term COVID-19 epidemic to COVID-19 pandemic for consistency. The difference between the term of epidemic and pandemic.

2)Page 5 - . However, no study has addressed different travel risk perceptions and behavioural intentions with regard to different personality trait segments during the COVID-19 outbreak. – Change to limited of study, how sure are you, that is no study???

3)Page 5 -rewrite this sentence : As part of managing the sustainability of a destination, the creation of personality trait-based 6 market segments could result in suitable marketing strategies and provide attractive products, which may increase destination resilience during turbulent situations.- Suggest to elaborate further how destination sustainability is  connected to the suitable marketing strategies and provide attractive products  ???

4) Research method

- this section is poorly drafted and does not provide enough important information.

-too brief and lack of relevant information such as research design, data collection method and access to respondents , who are respondents, sampling techniques and sample size, development of data collection instrument.

- Describe how online and onsite data collection in detail , justify how online data collection is a valid method

5) Page 18-This study also confirms that sensitive travellers have high risk perceptions of physical, financial and benefit, and psychological risks during outbreaks, which contributes to the literature.   -this is widely confirm in the context of tourist behaviour , thus nothing new. Please revise.

6)Page 22 -…. no previous studies have clarified the market segmentation of travellers based on their personality traits during the COVID-19 pandemic.   – change : “no” to limited ..

7) Page 23 -Finally, we conclude that travellers with different personality traits have different risk perceptions and travel behaviours. By providing information to effectively develop diverse marketing strategies that target the five market segments, we can exactly market tourist destinations during the pandemic. Need to elaborate further this paragraph.

8) Need to improve the conclusion, suggest to go deeper into the conclusion section.

9) The discussion and conclusion should reflect on how Does Personality Affect COVID-19 Pandemic Travel Risk Perceptions and Behaviour adequately.

On the whole, the manuscript lacks of scientifically founded, the conclusions are not consistent with the evidence and arguments put forward.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer #1

Response

Thank you very much for giving the precise comments to improve my revised version of manuscript. We highlight the changes in the revised manuscript using blue colored text. Our responses to your comments are summarized as follows:

1) Change the term COVID-19 epidemic to COVID-19 pandemic for consistency. The difference between the term of epidemic and pandemic.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestions, we have changed the term COVID-19 epidemic to COVID-19 pandemic for consistency. (p.1, 2, 3, 6)

 

2) Page 5 - . However, no study has addressed different travel risk perceptions and behavioural intentions with regard to different personality trait segments during the COVID-19 outbreak. – Change to limited of study, how sure are you, that is no study???  

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestions, “no” has been changed as “limited”. (p.2)

 

3). Page 5 -rewrite this sentence : As part of managing the sustainability of a destination, the creation of personality trait-based 6 market segments could result in suitable marketing strategies and provide attractive products, which may increase destination resilience during turbulent situations.- Suggest to elaborate further how destination sustainability is  connected to the suitable marketing strategies and provide attractive products  ???

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestions, this sentence been written as follows.

As part of managing the sustainability of a destination, the creation of personality trait-based market segments could result in suitable marketing strategies and provide attractive tourism products, which may assure local economic sustainability and increase destination resilience during turbulent situations. (p.2)

 

4) Research method

- this section is poorly drafted and does not provide enough important information.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestions, this section has been revised and provided enough important information.

 

-too brief and lack of relevant information such as research design, data collection method and access to respondents, who are respondents, sampling techniques and sample size, development of data collection instrument.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestions, the research design, data collection method and access to respondents, who are respondents, sampling techniques and sample size, development of data collection instrument have been added. We have revised as follows.

A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was administered to travelers who were visiting a tourist destination. A mixed approach via on-site and online questionnaire surveys were employed to collect the data. Relying on the travel destinations that were accessible and available, a convenience sampling approach was used to collect the data in such open venues. On the other hand, because the COVID-19 pandemic has severely hit the tourism industry and as it is known that limiting physical contact is important to reduce the spread of COVID-19, to avoid contact among travelers, a purposive sampling and snow-balling approach was employed to collect the data via an online questionnaire survey. According previous studies, with a sample error of 5% and a confidence level of 95%, a sample size of at least 385 individuals would be required [22, 53].  (p.4)

Additionally, in 5.2. Limitations and Future Research, we have addressed this limitation as follows.

Despite the potential contribution, several research limitations should be acknowledged for future study directions. First, given the cross-sectional nature of this study, the present study failed to elucidate market segmentation for longer periods of time and might not be reflected in longitudinal travel segmentation [72]. To overcome this issue, a multiyear survey is needed. (p.13)

 

- Describe how online and onsite data collection in detail , justify how online data collection is a valid method

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestions, we have described online and onsite data collection in detail, justified how online data collection is a valid method. We have revised as follows.

A mixed approach via on-site and online questionnaire surveys were employed to collect the data. Relying on the travel destinations that were accessible and available, a convenience sampling approach was used to collect the data in such open venues. On the other hand, because the COVID-19 pandemic has severely hit the tourism in-dustry and as it is known that limiting physical contact is important to reduce the spread of COVID-19, to avoid contact among travelers, a purposive sampling and snow-balling approach was employed to collect the data via an online questionnaire survey. (p.4)

 

5) Page 18-This study also confirms that sensitive travellers have high risk perceptions of physical, financial and benefit, and psychological risks during outbreaks, which contributes to the literature.   -this is widely confirm in the context of tourist behaviour , thus nothing new. Please revise.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestions, we have revised as follows:

This study also confirms that sensitive travelers have high risk perceptions of physical, financial and beneficial factors and high psychological risks and have the least satisfaction and lowest travel intention during outbreaks in these five segments, which contributes to the literature. (p.11)

 

6) Page 22 -…. no previous studies have clarified the market segmentation of travellers based on their personality traits during the COVID-19 pandemic.   – change : “no” to limited .. (OK, P22)

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestions, “no” has been changed as “limited”. (p.14)

 

7) Page 23 -Finally, we conclude that travellers with different personality traits have different risk perceptions and travel behaviours. By providing information to effectively develop diverse marketing strategies that target the five market segments, we can exactly market tourist destinations during the pandemic. Need to elaborate further this paragraph.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestions, we have revised as follows.

Finally, we conclude that travelers (i.e., sensitive travelers, cogitative travelers, temperate travelers, introverted travelers, and moderate travelers) with different personality traits have different risk perceptions and travel behaviors. By providing information for differentiated marketing, markets can effectively develop diverse marketing strategies that target specific market segments to satisfy them and can subsequently increase behavioral intentions. This study thus extends knowledge on the travel destination market during the pandemic and thus significantly contributes to the literature. (p.14)

 

8) Need to improve the conclusion, suggest to go deeper into the conclusion section.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestions, we have improved and gone into the conclusion section. We have revised as follows.

Market segmentation allows tourism destinations to focus their resources to meet the needs of target travelers more effectively. This study’s findings provide an effec-tive tool for market segmentation to create differentiated marketing strategies for segments and improve customer relationship management. Understanding potential target travelers and formulating differentiated marketing strategies for different trav-elers can lead to competitive advantages. (p.14)

By proposing diverse marketing strategies in light of these findings, this study sheds light on previously reported but unexamined market segments among travelers during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study’s market segmentation elucidates the reasons for travel and behavioral intentions and ultimately leads to sustainable tour-ism. (p.14)

Thank you again for your helpful and supportive comments.

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

-        Manuscript need submit  in template form, according to instruction of Sustainability Journals *

-        Title of paper should be change.  I suggest that title write without “Evidence from Segment Analysis in Taiwan”, because it can explain in chapter 3. Methods. *

-        This paper correspond for scope of journal.+

-        The aim of research  is clear +

-        Scientific methodology is applied correctly. +

-        Instead  named chapter   4. Findings, should be write  4. Results

-        Results are clearly presented and discussed.+

-        Conclusions are written based on  obtained the results+

Author Response

Reviewer #2

Response

Thank you very much for giving the precise comments to improve my revised version of manuscript. We highlight the changes in the revised manuscript using pale turquoise colored tex. Our responses to your comments are summarized as follows:

-  Manuscript need submit in template form, according to instruction of Sustainability Journals.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestions, we have submitted in template form of Sustainability.

 

- Title of paper should be change.  I suggest that title write without “Evidence from Segment Analysis in Taiwan”, because it can explain in chapter 3. Methods. *

Response:

Thank you for your comments. As the “Evidence from Segment Analysis in Taiwan” could highlight the research that is from Taiwan’s study, we use the original title of “How Does Personality Affect COVID-19 Pandemic Travel Risk Perceptions and Behavior? Evidence from Segment Analysis in Taiwan”

 

- This paper correspond for scope of journal.

Response:

Thank you for your supportive comments.

 

-  The aim of research is clear +

Response:

Thank you for your supportive comments.

-  Scientific methodology is applied correctly. +
Response:

Thank you for your supportive comments.

-  Instead named chapter   4. Findings, should be write 4. Results.
Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestions, “4. Findings” has been changed as “4. Results”. (p.6)

-  Results are clearly presented and discussed.+
Response:

Thank you for your supportive comments.

-  Conclusions are written based on obtained the results+

Response:

Thank you for your supportive comments.

 

Thank you again for your helpful and supportive comments.

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Overall, I see this paper as having merit. It is theoretically and methodologically sound and the research has been well set-up. The key issues are that it does not acknowledge limitations in the approach taken, and the managerial implications do not provide useful information for managers as they have been presented. These should be straightforward to address. To help improve the manuscript, I provide the following comments for the authors to respond to:

1. Throughout the manuscript there were a number of missing spaces between in-text citations and the next word, between sentences, and sometimes there were two full stops at the end of the sentence. Please give the manuscript a thorough proofread to remove these minor grammatical/formatting errors.

2. The full questionnaire should be provided as an appendix, both in English, and the language that the study was conducted in.

3. There needs to be a section called "Limitations and Future Research" - usually that comes after the conclusion section. In particular, the following issues should be acknowledged:

3a. The use of the Big Five has been shown to be less reliable in non-WEIRD countries (WEIRD stands for Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Developed). Taiwan matches all but the first of these descriptors, so this is not a major issue, but should be acknowledged as potentially affecting the results for the personality traits. Here's the most relevant article on this matter: https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.aaw5226

3b. The measure of behavioural intentions is an attitudinal measure. Intentions are poor predictors of actual behaviours - this is well established in the tourism literature, see: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.05.012 and https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.1002456 - while your study has measured intentions, and that is still important from an attitudinal point of view, it is not a behavioural measure and this should be acknowledged

3c. The final limitation I see is that the study was approached with an a priori assumption that participants have thought about their intentions to travel, recommend a location, and so on before doing the study. However, participants may not have thought about these things, and thus the survey would force participants to make an opinion as a result of doing a survey. This is known as self-generated validity. Again, I think it is reasonable to begin with your assumptions, and indeed alternative methods would have been cumbersome, but it should be acknowledged that this may have affected the results. Useful articles might be:

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.421

https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.2.1.60755

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.01.016

4. Can the authors clarify where they got the names for each cluster? Were the stipulative names given by the authors? If so, then please acknowledge that - otherwise you need to provide where the names came from and the basis for assigning those names.

5. The authors did not position the tables within the text as is usual for this journal, neither have you indicated where each table should go - this made it a little bit difficult when reading the results of the study.

6. In Table 4, equals sign (=) has been used to indicate when there was not a statistically significant difference between groups. However, that is not what non-significant results show, rather they show that the differences are not big enough to result in statistical significance. Thus, it is more accurate to use the approximately equal sign is more accurate (≈).

7. The managerial implications section reads a little strange. For example, recommendations like the use of virtual or augmented reality don't clearly correspond with the results of the study. Indeed, there are several implications that do not clearly flow from the results. The key issue would be how would a destination manager know who is in which cluster to be able to target marketing communications at that group? While demographic variables may yield less interesting results, they do have the convenience of being able to target communications (e.g., there are known differences between the types of communications consumed by different genders, age groups, and so on). Some of the measures suggested also appear outside of the destination manager's control, such as sterilisation of sites, or noncontact options. Perhaps the study actually means tourism managers - who manage the actual attractions and businesses that provide the tourism experiences. Regardless, I feel that this entire section needs to be rewritten to consider what can actually be supported by the study's results, how communications and marketing strategies can be targeted at the clusters identified, and what destination/tourism managers can actually control or influence.

8. While market segmentation has been outlined as a strategy for communications, differentiation strategies are also worth a mention. Remember that different tourist attractions will already attract different clientele. It is not possible to be all things to all people. In this sense, there may be ways that tourist offerings can be differentiated to meet the needs of different clusters of travellers. Transport modes and travel within tourist destinations is an obvious example of where one could see how clusters may have different preferences. However, again the different preferences means that different clusters would tend to consume different tourist experiences, which is why having a competitive environment with differentiated offerings is beneficial.

Once the above points have been addressed, this manuscript should provide a useful and interesting contribution to the tourism literature.

Author Response

Reviewer#3

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Overall, I see this paper as having merit. It is theoretically and methodologically sound and the research has been well set-up. The key issues are that it does not acknowledge limitations in the approach taken, and the managerial implications do not provide useful information for managers as they have been presented. These should be straightforward to address. To help improve the manuscript, I provide the following comments for the authors to respond to:

Response:

Thank you very much for giving the precise comments to improve my revised version of manuscript. We highlight the changes in the revised manuscript using green colored text. Our responses to your comments are summarized as follows:

1. Throughout the manuscript there were a number of missing spaces between in-text citations and the next word, between sentences, and sometimes there were two full stops at the end of the sentence. Please give the manuscript a thorough proofread to remove these minor grammatical/formatting errors.

Response:

According to your suggestions, a number of missing spaces between in-text citations and the next word, between sentences, and sometimes there were two full stops at the end of the sentence have been corrected. Moreover, grammatical and writing style errors in the original version have been corrected by a native English speaker of American Journal Experts (p.1-14)

 

2. The full questionnaire should be provided as an appendix, both in English, and the language that the study was conducted in.

Response:

According to your suggestions, the full questionnaire (both in English and Chinese) was provided as an appendix. (p.19-22)

3. There needs to be a section called "Limitations and Future Research" - usually that comes after the conclusion section. In particular, the following issues should be acknowledged:

Response:

According to your suggestions, the section of "Limitations and Future Research" has been added. (p.13)

3a. The use of the Big Five has been shown to be less reliable in non-WEIRD countries (WEIRD stands for Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Developed). Taiwan matches all but the first of these descriptors, so this is not a major issue, but should be acknowledged as potentially affecting the results for the personality traits. Here's the most relevant article on this matter: https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.aaw5226 

Response:

According to your suggestions, we have discussed and acknowledged the use of the Big Five as potentially affecting the results for the personality traits. We have revised as follows.

Second, scholars claim that the Big Five are less reliable in non-WEIRD (i.e., Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Developed) countries [73]. The present study employed the Big Five to assess the personality traits that could affect the findings, and other personality traits should be investigated [73]. Accordingly, future work is recommended to re-examine segmentation marketing using measures of Big Five personality traits and other personality traits from an international perspective by collecting multicultural and international data. (p.13)

 

3b. The measure of behavioural intentions is an attitudinal measure. Intentions are poor predictors of actual behaviours - this is well established in the tourism literature, see: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.05.012 and https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.1002456 - while your study has measured intentions, and that is still important from an attitudinal point of view, it is not a behavioural measure and this should be acknowledged

Response:

According to your suggestions, we have discussed and acknowledged that intentions are poor predictors of actual behaviors and provide the future Research directions. We have revised as follows:

Third, although behavioral intentions are crucial for the attitudinal perspective, the measure of behavioral intentions is an attitudinal measure, which seems to be a poor predictors of actual behaviors [74-75]. To resolve this issue, further studies should employ qualitative approaches, such as direct behavioral observation, partici-pant observation or implicit measurement techniques, to elucidate the actual behav-iors of travelers [76]. (p.13)

3c. The final limitation I see is that the study was approached with an a priori assumption that participants have thought about their intentions to travel, recommend a location, and so on before doing the study. However, participants may not have thought about these things, and thus the survey would force participants to make an opinion as a result of doing a survey. This is known as self-generated validity. Again, I think it is reasonable to begin with your assumptions, and indeed alternative methods would have been cumbersome, but it should be acknowledged that this may have affected the results. Useful articles might be:

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.421

https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.2.1.60755

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.01.016

Response:

According to your suggestions, we have discussed and acknowledged that self-generated validity effect seems to be an issue in the section of “Limitations and Future Research”. We have revised as follows.

Finally, an a priori assumption was made that respondents had thought about their behavioral intentions to travel, revisit, and recommend when conducting this study. However, respondents may not consider these intentions, leading to the survey forcing the respondents to express an opinion to complete the survey; thus, self-generated validity effect seems to be an issue [77-78]. To reduce this effect, adopt-ing a counterbalancing question order with the survey questions arranged non-sequentially is recommended [79]. (p.13)

4. Can the authors clarify where they got the names for each cluster? Were the stipulative names given by the authors? If so, then please acknowledge that - otherwise you need to provide where the names came from and the basis for assigning those names.

Response:

According to your suggestions, we have explained that the clusters were named based on the scores of the personality traits. (p.8)

 

5. The authors did not position the tables within the text as is usual for this journal, neither have you indicated where each table should go - this made it a little bit difficult when reading the results of the study.

Response:

According to your suggestions, we have positioned the tables within the text as is usual for this journal.

 

6. In Table 4, equals sign (=) has been used to indicate when there was not a statistically significant difference between groups. However, that is not what non-significant results show, rather they show that the differences are not big enough to result in statistical significance. Thus, it is more accurate to use the approximately equal sign is more accurate (≈).

Response:

According to your suggestions, Table 4 has been revised. (p.9)

 

7. The managerial implications section reads a little strange. For example, recommendations like the use of virtual or augmented reality don't clearly correspond with the results of the study. Indeed, there are several implications that do not clearly flow from the results. The key issue would be how would a destination manager know who is in which cluster to be able to target marketing communications at that group? While demographic variables may yield less interesting results, they do have the convenience of being able to target communications (e.g., there are known differences between the types of communications consumed by different genders, age groups, and so on). Some of the measures suggested also appear outside of the destination manager's control, such as sterilisation of sites, or noncontact options. Perhaps the study actually means tourism managers - who manage the actual attractions and businesses that provide the tourism experiences. Regardless, I feel that this entire section needs to be rewritten to consider what can actually be supported by the study's results, how communications and marketing strategies can be targeted at the clusters identified, and what destination/tourism managers can actually control or influence.

Response:

According to your suggestions, this entire section has been rewritten to consider what can actually be supported by the study's results, how communications and marketing strategies can be targeted at the clusters identified, and what destination/tourism managers can actually control or influence. We have revised as follows.

According to Razavi’s [19] study, segmenting by personality traits provides a better understanding of tourists’ behavioral intentions than segmenting by demo-graphic variables. Tourism managers should develop marketing strategies and pro-vide suitable products and services based on these five segments to attract potential tourists during pandemic periods. Temperate travelers attach great importance to safety while traveling. Jani et al [29] suggested that people with high trait extraversion and neuroticism search for pandemic information before traveling. Accordingly, destination managers need to convince them that destinations are safe by providing pandemic prevention measures on websites or social media. Moreover, managers should ensure that the facilities and the environment in the destination are sterilized periodically or provide noncontact services to create safe places for tourists [63,64]. (p.12)

For the group with high risk perception but had low satisfaction, willingness to revisit, and willingness to recommend the site to others, sensitive travelers are not happy about the trip. Tourism managers should ensure the environment is well steri-lized where sensitive travelers can feel free to have wonderful tourism experiences and raise their overall satisfaction and behavioral intentions.

(p.12)

Cogitative travelers have the highest ratings for satisfaction, willingness to revisit, and willingness to recommend the site to others; thus, managers should focus on this market segment. As this group has a high rating for travel risk perception, the destination managers should ensure that pandemic prevention measures are implemented precisely to reduce their risk perceptions. Moreover, managers can demonstrate the beauty of the destination and promote strategies (such as coupons for food, beverages, or accommodations) to attract cognitive travelers and raise their satisfaction. Based on the highest recommendation among these five segments, provoking bonuses to cogitative travelers for posting their destination pictures or messages on social media to allure other tourists can help managers promote their destination and ensure more tourists visits [29]. (p.12)

Moderate travelers represent the largest proportion of travelers. With mid-level ratings for risk perception and satisfaction, behavioral intention, and recommendation in these five segments, managers need to strengthen information on websites and social media, such as by emphasizing the beauty of destinations, offering assurance of sanitary environments, and offering rebates for services, which may re-lieve travelers’ anxiety and raise satisfaction, loyalty, and pro-environmental behavior, ultimately achieving sustainable tourism [63,66-67]. (p.13)

Introverted travelers have the lowest rating of big five traits and risk perceptions and low satisfaction, behavior intentions, and recommendation intentions, as they may not be motivated to contact other people. Tourism managers may provide self-guided interpretation services and noncontact services for these tourists to increase their satisfaction, willingness to revisit, and willingness to recommend the site to others, thereby increasing their pro-environmental behavior [68-70]. (p.13)

 

 

8. While market segmentation has been outlined as a strategy for communications, differentiation strategies are also worth a mention. Remember that different tourist attractions will already attract different clientele. It is not possible to be all things to all people. In this sense, there may be ways that tourist offerings can be differentiated to meet the needs of different clusters of travellers. Transport modes and travel within tourist destinations is an obvious example of where one could see how clusters may have different preferences. However, again the different preferences means that different clusters would tend to consume different tourist experiences, which is why

 

Response:

According to your suggestions, we have indicated the ways that tourist offerings can be differentiated to meet the needs of different clusters of travelers. Moreover, we have suggested that facing a competitive environment, destination managers should develop their own differentiated products, target consumer groups, build brand images, and introduce differentiated marketing strategies to establish competitive advantages during the pandemic. We have revised as follows.

With high neuroticism attributes, sensitive travelers may avoid interacting with peo-ple [35]; thus, tourism managers may provide outdoor recreation activities for single travelers, such as hiking and sightseeing, to reduce their risk perception and increase their satisfaction and recommendations. (p.12)

Individuals with high openness to experience, cogitative travelers are likely to search information about destination before traveling [29]. Tourism managers should update information on the destination homepage and social media, as well as demonstrate that pandemic prevention measures have been strictly implemented to convince these two segments of travelers. Moreover, marketers should provide interaction activities to meet the personality traits of various travelers, such as experiencing natural or cultural resources. Specifically, compared to temperate travelers, cognitive travelers have lower ratings of neuroticism and are likely to share posts on social media [65]; thus, tourism managers may encourage them to post images and messages or check in on social media to promote the destination. (p.12)

Moreover, tourism marketers may offer all sorts of activities, well-designed services, and pandemic prevention environments to increase visitors’ satisfaction, behavioral intentions, and positive word-of-mouth. (p.13)

In addition, tourism managers should remind introverted travelers to obey pandemic prevention measures using placards to prevent pandemic outbreaks. (p.13)

Accordingly, facing a competitive environment, destination managers should develop their own differentiated products, target consumer groups, build brand im-ages, and introduce differentiated marketing strategies to establish competitive ad-vantages during the pandemic [71]. (p.13)

 

Once the above points have been addressed, this manuscript should provide a useful and interesting contribution to the tourism literature.

Response:

Thank you again for your helpful and supportive comments.

Best regards

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for all the corrections and improvement made. All are relevant and acceptable.

Author Response

Reviewer#1

Thank you for all the corrections and improvement made. All are relevant and acceptable. Response:

Thank you again for your helpful and supportive comments.

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is much improved upon the first and the authors have made a good effort at addressing the issues raised. There are only two things I noticed upon reading the revise manuscript, both of which are easy to address. Well done.

Lines 336 - 338 do not make sense - please reword.

Something strange happened to the formatting of the English version of the questionnaire. "Degree of agree" should also be reworded to "Level of Agreement".

 

Author Response

Reviewer#3

This paper is much improved upon the first and the authors have made a good effort at addressing the issues raised. There are only two things I noticed upon reading the revise manuscript, both of which are easy to address. Well done.

Response:

Thank you very much for giving the precise comments to improve my revised version of manuscript. We highlight the changes in the revised manuscript using green colored text. Our responses to your comments are summarized as follows.

 

1. Lines 336 - 338 do not make sense - please reword.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestions, we have reworded as follows.

With high risk perception but low satisfaction, willingness to revisit, and willingness to recommend the site to others, sensitive travelers worried too much and are not satisfied from the trip. Providing low-risk travel activities and environments to let the sensitive travelers can increase their overall satisfaction and behavioral intentions in favor of the low-risk travel patterns in COVID-19 pandemic period is thus suggested. (Page 12, Lines 334-338)

 

2. Something strange happened to the formatting of the English version of the questionnaire. "Degree of agree" should also be reworded to "Level of Agreement". Response:

Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestions, “Degree of agree” has been changed as “Level of Agreement”. (p.19, 20)

Thank you again for your helpful and supportive comments.

Best regards