Do Perceptions of Destination Social Responsibility Contribute to Environmentally Responsible Behavior? A Case Study in Phu Quoc, Vietnam
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsmethodology comments
The methodology should be described in the introduction of variables in Tab. 2, their exact meaning as well as the content of the questionnaire used
In the discussion more consistently related to the results of the destination and more respect the limited sample size of the respondents
factual comments
but in most cases it is related to the warming of the seas, is tourism the cause here?: and 56.6% of coral reefs became bleached and have consequently perished in enormous numbers
terminology comments
should be more precise "sustainability of tourism": Tourists have been recognized as important destination stakeholders who impact sustainable tourism in important ways
formal comments
in general - the authors need to re-read the manuscript and pay attention to wording, padding and introduction of abbreviations
the first time you use it, you need to enter the shortcut DSR: DMOs, through the practice of DSR, can approach
part of the vocabulary is missing here, specifically it should be environmentally responsible behavior, and in addition the abbreviation ERB has already been introduced, no need to repeat" in turn promoting responsible tourism behavior (ERB).
Missing the currency units of: Especially tourists spending from 4 million to 6 million accounted for the highest proportion, with 25.1%.
It is not advisable to use the 1st person Mn. No., eg "We Examined ..." and also our research, etc.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere is much to commend in this paper,especially the empirical research but this topic and variations on this topic it has been covered by multiple scholars. The example is interesting but your paper is not original and in its present form would be of minimal value to DMOs in Vietnam who already know these issues well. In common with too many academics you completely ignore findings of travel industry and government research which is particuarly good in Vietnam.
In view of the fact that COVID 19 was a game changer for all tourism destinations, your failure to even refer to it was disappointing.
I also note that while you referred to many journal articles (which is good) I saw no evidence that you had referred to a single book, many of which refer to the issues you researched. This suggests to a reviewer that apart from your empirical research, all of this paper's sources were accessed on a laptop, smart phone or tablet.
You used about 10 hypotheses but it would have been easier for a reader to have seen them in their numerical order. You did that with 1-5 and the next one I read was 10. The you came back with 6,7,8,9. I think you could have combined some of your hypotheses as several were testing very similar concepts. I'm sorry to tell you this but more hypotheses does not = a better paper.
This paper could be publishable with some changes to structure and the addition of a context wider than Vietnam. The issues you refer to are global in scope so that should be your initial context then narrow it down to your specific research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAmong the theories and theoretical frameworks that the authors employs, S-R-O theory plays as a backbone of the current research. Yet, I do not believe the authors explain the theory itself and the applicability of the theory to the current study enough. Especially, the authors should better address how and why does the each aspect of S-R-O correspond to DSR, DP, DS, DI, and ERB.
While the authors introduce S-R-O theory as the main research framework of the study, the authors also address other theories such as stakeholder theory and positive psychology. Interestingly these additional theories are employed to draw the hypotheses rather than S-R-O theory, given that S-R-O theory are mostly used to describe the relationship among its elements. Yet, the authors fails to explain why the additional theories are (more) importantly applied to the current study. Without this information, I would ask what the main role of the S-R-O theory is in the current paper.
On a separate note, the authors should add more text explaining the other theories as well as long as a hypothesis is developed based on the theory.
In addition, the logical development for each hypotheses are very broad and general. Hypothesis should be developed in a very logical flow. However the current manuscript generally touch the surface of the theories and contexts in general. With respect to the hypothesis 1, for instance, the authors simply explain the relationship between general perception and behavior, but not discuss social responsibility and related behavior in consequence.
I also suggest the authors re-structure the literature review in an order of theory(ies) - concepts - relationships (for generating hypotheses). When explaining the concepts, the links between concepts and the theory applied should be addressed as well.
For sampling, please reveal the travel experience of respondents in methodology. Some important factors are: travel experience to Phu Quoc, recency of visit to Phu Quoc, frequency of visit to Phu Quoc, etc.
Add the demographic factor of age to the limitation of the study. Apparently, the sample is biased to young generation. Given that the data collection method, it is not surprising. Generalizability issue should be added as a limitation of the current study.
Present the number of hypothesis in the order of its appearance. If the authors want to stick to the current order of hypothesis, please re-structure of the manuscript.
In table 2, please show the entire description of each item (variable) instead of showing "DSR1."
The current theoretical and practical implications are too broad. Please add some detailed implications, which should. be directly connected and developed from the findings of the present study. The current version of implications can be used for any other study literally.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere is no critical issue with respect to the quality of English. Yet, an additional proofreading would bring no harm to the authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic is very interesting and research hypothesis are relevant. The whole paper is written in a way that is scientifically founded and appropriate methodology is been used. The text is clear, easy to understand.
The only suggestion for the author(s) is to improve the literature background (literature review). Improvement in this segment of the paper would improve the quality of the presented topic.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
You did not really address the issues I raised in my first review of your paper. Until you do My assessment of your paper remains the same as it was..
Author Response
It's my mistake that I accidentally uploaded the wrong file, I am sorry for the inconvenience. I am very grateful to the reviewers for their positive and helpful suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSome of my previous comments are not addressed in the revised manuscript and the revision letter.
Author Response
It's my mistake that I accidentally uploaded the wrong file, I am sorry for the inconvenience. I am very grateful to the reviewers for their positive and helpful suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper has been significantly improved on the earlier version sent and I believe that it is of sufficient standard to be published.