Relationships among Experience Economy, Tour Quality, Tour Satisfaction, and Word-of-Mouth in the Senior Tourism Context in Korea: The Moderating Role of Tour Guiding Services

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an interesting subject for tourism. However, some issues need to be considered:

The abstract needs to be improved. To present the aim of the study and the methodology for data analysis.

It is necessary to make clearer the general objective of the study. In the introduction two objectives can confuse the reader:
to explain the importance of experience economy in senior tourism (line 34).
Aims to find out what effect the tour guide service has on the relationship between experience economy and tour quality (line 52).

It is also necessary to explain which software was explained for the validation of the model and which criteria were considered.

Author Response

Please see the enclosed files. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Some recommendations/ questions and request of further clarifications for the authors in order to improve the quality and impact of their manuscript:

1. Title: It does not refer to S.Korea, while the experiment has been carried out in S.Korea. If so, Does it mean that the experiment would be translatable to other tourism markets with similar relevance of the elderly as tourism consumers?

2. Pine& Gilmore's experience economy framework should be anticipated in the introduction and justify their use in the tourism market ( senior tourism market in particular). Authors should not wait until the literature review section to resort to the theoretical framework.

3. While citing for the first time, avoid the " et al" and add the whole reference. For instance, instead of Oh et al.  in page 2, better write the first tiem Oh, Fiore and Jeong ( 2007) and then following times "Oh et al.". My particular way of citing is including the date but that may be part of an editorial decision.

4. The introductions falls short for an introduction. The introduction should not insert only the resarch goals but also present the research methods and/or the methodology  (CFA, and SEM analysis) and the structure of the paper. Moreover, it is advisable to anticipate and clarify the contributions of the paper and the elements of originality ( bring them from section of implications to the introduction). It is perfectly justified to do so.

5. Coherence of arguments: in the introduction, lines 50 and 51 ( though there is a citation) are not in line with some partial results of the present study and with the intuition: a data set of a majority of elderly college graduates may not show lower levels of education and knowledge than younger tourists. Such a statement was a bit shocking to me, and the empirical evidence does not conclude that.

6. In the literature review section i would improve the efforts to connect the 4E theoretical framework with its application to the tourism industry.

7. I am a bit confused with the dataset. In lines 220-221 authors tell us that their target sample are elderly tourists who had experienced an overseas package tour withing the last months in Seoul. So, it seems the survey was in Seoul but assessing a tour service out of S. Korea? So, it is not domestic tourism of elderly South Koreans but outbound tourism?

It may be seen as just a detail, but it is important to stress that the package tour is bought in S.Korea to import travel services ( in the international market). Otherwise, the reader might wonder where the tour guiding process took place. Just a clarification would be sufficient.

8. Readers would appreciate, in my view, a further explanation and analysis of the four 8 hypotheses is needed. Figure 2 helps us to understand all the hypotheses but i would advise a revision of how the tour guiding service plays a role in the 4Es of the experience economy model.

9. Interestign to find out if the model would work out of S,Korea and the impact of nostalgia in the tourist perception as senior tourists.

Author Response

Please see the enclosed files. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The study addresses an interesting topic. It presents and validates an interesting model in a sector such as senior tourism, which is very interesting to explore.

However, In my opinion, there are some aspects to improve. For example, I think that since although it refers to the memorable experience in tourism, then it focuses on the dimensions of the experience economy to build the frame work of the quality of the tour. I think it would be interesting to at least clarify the possible differences between them, so as not to confuse the reader, who may come to think that they are the same concept.

On the other hand I think that figure 2 is incomplete. I don't understand why the coefficients don't appear in all relations. They should be included.

On the other hand, I think it would be interesting to justify the hypotheses raised a little more.

In addition, with respect to The study addresses an interesting topic. It presents and validates an interesting model in a sector such as senior tourism, which is very interesting to explore.

However, In my opinion, there are some aspects to improve. For example, I think that since although it refers to the memorable experience in tourism, then it focuses on the dimensions of the experience economy to build the frame work of the quality of the tour. I think it would be interesting to at least clarify the possible differences between them, so as not to confuse the reader, who may come to think that they are the same concept.

On the other hand I think that figure 2 is incomplete. I don't understand why the coefficients don't appear in all relations. They should be included.

On the other hand, I think it would be interesting to justify the hypotheses raised a little more.

In addition, with respect to discriminatory validity, I understand that the criteria of Fornell and Larcker (1981) have been followed, because I think that it would be better explained in a different table or at least indicate what the criteria has been.

Finally, it could be interesting to know what software has been used to carry out the data analysis.  I understand that the criteria of Fornell and Lacker have been followed, because I think that it would be better explained in a different table or at least indicate what the criteria has been.

 

Author Response

Please see the enclosed files. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The research question, its treatment, the rigour of the methodology employed, as well as the clarity in explaining the content, are the merits that make this article a quality contribution, both in terms of content and structure. The theme of the experience economy in the senior tourism industry is pressing and interesting, motivated by the ever-increasing attractiveness of experiential tourism products, and by the needs and demands of a target that is evolving and towards which it is necessary to formulate coherent and appealing offers. As is acknowledged, the possibility of extending this analysis to a wider audience, in different and diverse other geographical contexts, would entail a strengthening in the weight of the results that would be achieved. it is, however, an analysis that contributes to outlining an already defined methodological path such that it can easily be adopted and transferred in its structure to other areas. A useful suggestion for future publications on the subject is to extend the theoretical background, i.e. the reference to other studies on the subject, to other authors and more recent research. In this regard, I also suggest referring to the update edition (2011) of “Experience economy" by Pine and Gilmore, and also to other works by Yeoman, I., and Penn, M. 

Author Response

Please see the enclosed files. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf