Should I Stay or Should I Go? Tourists’ COVID-19 Risk Perception and Vacation Behavior Shift

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with very current and crucial issues related to the influence of the COVID-19 virus on the purchasing behavior of customers in the tourist market.

Among the comments that can be addressed to the Authors, the following should be indicated:

- The aim of the article should be specified in the abstract.

- Considering the method of conducting the research, it is worth noting that the results are representative for Serbian Touroperator - Euroturs - customers'. The arguments why the authors decided to conduct the study in this way should also be given, as well as the limitations resulting from the assumptions made.

- It is not sufficiently precisely explained how the factors were identified (Perception of the covid-19 pandemic and Anxiety factor 1 and 2).

- The content presented in table B1 in the appendix does not fit on the page, while table A2 in the appendix is ​​partially empty.

- In my opinion, in the Clonclusions section, the part related to the recommendations on reducing buyer uncertainty as well as ways to recover from international leisure travel should also be expanded. This would certainly enrich the application layer of the article.

In my opinion, the article will be suitable for publication, however, after completing the above information and answers to the above questions. Thank you for the opportunity of reading and reviewing interesting article.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer # 1

Manuscript number: Sustainability - 1139806

Manuscript title: Should I stay or should I go? Tourists’ COVID-19 risk perception and vacation behavior shift

The article deals with very current and crucial issues related to the influence of the COVID-19 virus on the purchasing behavior of customers in the tourist market.

RESPONSE:    Thank you very much for acknowledging the value of our manuscript.

Among the comments that can be addressed to the Authors, the following should be indicated:

 The aim of the article should be specified in the abstract.

RESPONSE:    We agree that the abstract was not fully utilized. Thank you for pointing this out, as it forced us to think of the key aspects of the manuscript we wish to share in the abstract.

CHANGES:     We have now included the aim of the study into the Abstract and added additional insight about the general travel anxiety.   

Considering the method of conducting the research, it is worth noting that the results are representative for Serbian Touroperator - Euroturs - customers'. The arguments why the authors decided to conduct the study in this way should also be given, as well as the limitations resulting from the assumptions made.

RESPONSE:    You’re right, sampling in this study is biased towards Serbian population using social media and travelling with the Serbian tour operator Eurotours. This is important limitation which we already acknowledged in the original manuscript. We see, that insufficiently.

CHANGES:     The methodology and Conclusions sections were amended to reflect this shortcoming of the sampling method more precisely.

It is not sufficiently precisely explained how the factors were identified (Perception of the covid-19 pandemic and Anxiety factor 1 and 2).

RESPONSE:    Thank you for your suggestion.

CHANGES:     In the results section, a clearer presentation of the factor solution and their identification was added.  

The content presented in table B1 in the appendix does not fit on the page, while table A2 in the appendix is ​​partially empty.

RESPONSE:    Thank you very much for the comment. The tables A2 and B2 are tables presenting the total variance and the eigenvalues (for factor analysis). In the left part of the table the solution for all the factors is presented, while in the right part of the table, just the solution with extracted (in A2 one and in B2 two) factors is presented – thus, the table seems empty but it is completed (no results are missing). The table B1 is in landscape view. We apologize for this, but technical visualization of the manuscript is not entirely in our hands. The submission system requires the existing layout. 

CHANGES:     We revised, technically all the tables as well as some sections of the text to increase the readability of the manuscript.

In my opinion, in the Clonclusions section, the part related to the recommendations on reducing buyer uncertainty as well as ways to recover from international leisure travel should also be expanded. This would certainly enrich the application layer of the article.

RESPONSE:    Indeed, after reading the original manuscript again we also feel that this was not sufficiently covered. 

CHANGES:     We have now revised the entire Conclusions section to reflect (in depth) the empirical findings and by so doing increased the practical contribution of our study.     

Reviewer 2 Report

The article extends the works of the literature that investigated the impact of the pandemic on the tourism economy and tourism sustainability. In particular, it focuses on the perceived risks for vacations and tourists’ behavior shift, and the relationship between COVID-19 beliefs and anxiety.

From the evidences emerging from the study the authors should extract suggestions of lessons learned and actions to be taken to relaunch the sector.

Authors should identify the relationships between what emerged from the analysis and the development of sustainable forms of tourism.

I ask the authors to cut some repetitions in the text.

Some tables cannot be completely visualised. I ask the authors to modify their layout.

I also ask to check the English.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer # 2

Manuscript number: Sustainability - 1139806

Manuscript title: Should I stay or should I go? Tourists’ COVID-19 risk perception and vacation behavior shift

Please note that changes to the manuscript are in red font to make them easier to trace for the editor and the reviewers.

The article extends the works of the literature that investigated the impact of the pandemic on the tourism economy and tourism sustainability. In particular, it focuses on the perceived risks for vacations and tourists’ behaviour shift, and the relationship between COVID-19 beliefs and anxiety.

RESPONSE:   Thank you for acknowledging the contribution we aim to make to the literature on the impact of COVID- 19 on future tourist behaviour.

From the evidences emerging from the study the authors should extract suggestions of lessons learned and actions to be taken to relaunch the sector.

RESPONSE:    Thank you for your comment. We regret that we failed to sufficiently address the practical contribution of our study.

CHANGES:     A paragraph was added to the Conclusions section where we further elaborate on the practical contribution of our study to re-launch of the tourism industry.  

Authors should identify the relationships between what emerged from the analysis and the development of sustainable forms of tourism.

RESPONSE:    The original aim of the study was not investigating avenues for post Covid-19 sustainable tourism. However, we do agree that sustainability is the only right path for the post Covid-19 tourism and we see that empirical findings support indications on how tourist behaviour may help increasing the sustainability of tourism.

CHANGES:      A short paragraph was added to the Discussion section of the manuscript, highlighting key empirical findings of our studies in light of sustainability of the tourism sector.  

Some tables cannot be completely visualised. I ask the authors to modify their layout.

RESPONSE:    We apologize for this, but technical visualization of the manuscript is not entirely in our hands. The submission system requires the existing layout.

CHANGES:      We revised, technically all the tables as well as some sections of the text to make the manuscript more reader friendly during the review process.  

I ask the authors to cut some repetitions in the text. I also ask to check the English.

RESPONSE:    We apologize for not seeing this issue before submitting the original manuscript. It would however, help us if you could point to specific repetitions you have in mind.

CHANGES:      We changed the Materials and Methods section of the paper, refraining from listing all statements, because they are listed in tables. Entire manuscript was, again, proofread by a native English speaker with academic background. We believe that all repetitions are now omitted and English language is improved.