Examining the Factors Influencing Tourists’ Destination: A Case of Nanhai Movie Theme Park in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper investigates the relationship among theme park tourists’ experience, brand identity, brand satisfaction and brand loyalty. I think the paper has some merits and is suitable for Sustainability. My only suggestions include:

(1) the author(s) should further argue why it is important to specifically focus on theme park and what is the difference of determinants of tourism’ experience between theme parks and other types of destinations.

(2) the author(s) also need to add more details to the section of implications to further highlight the contribution of this paper.

Author Response

Point 1: The author(s) should further argue why it is important to specifically focus on theme park and what is the difference of determinants of tourism’experience between theme parks and other types of destinations.

Response 1: Similar to prior studies, we found that tourists generally form a sense of experience with external stimuli such as the environment, facilities, activities, and interaction among tourists in theme parks. In addition, compared with other types of destinations, the vast majority of theme parks are man-made tourist destinations and have marked brands. Therefore, our study on tourism experience and destination brand loyalty is universal to the research object of theme parks. The relevant elaboration has been supplemented in Line 517-521 (Conclusion).

In addition, we answered “the difference of determinants of tourism’ experience between theme parks and other types of destinations” in Line 530-539.

Point 2: The author(s) also need to add more details to the section of implications to further highlight the contribution of this paper.

Response 2: Referring to the reviewer's suggestion, we added more details in the section of Conclusion ( Line 517-539).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 Dear Authors,  

The paper entitled. "Sustainable Tourism on Theme Parks：Exploring the Factors Influencing Tourists' Destination" aims to assume that the tourism experience of theme park tourists shaped by external environmental stimuli will influence the brand identity of a tourist destination.   

 The work presented for evaluation is a review and empirical in nature.  

 After reviewing the work, I have the following comments and suggestions for improving the work:  

Title    

The title of the work should be modified. I suggest adding at the end of the title the place of research- Nanhai movie theme park in Foshan, Guangdong province  

Structure of the paper    

 I propose to improve the structure of the article according to the guidelines of Sustainability magazine.  

 The article is missing chapter 6 Conclusion  

In the Introduction  

 The introduction to the topic is interesting and based on the world literature.  

 In the chapter Literature review and theoretical framework  

 I the theoretical issues related are presented AND described: Stimulus-organism-response(S-O-R) theory, based on the world literature.   

At the same time, lines [216-221 and 238-245] include the hypotheses of the work. I suggest moving them to the Materials I Methods chapter. Similarly, Figure 1 should be in the right place.  

The Results are presented and described in a very good way and are very interesting. They contribute to the value of the work.   

  In the Discussion section, the authors should discuss and explain the findings and results of the work more.  

What tangible benefits have been gained from conducting this study?  

 Can the results of the study be useful for tourism development in other parks of the world?  

This would contribute to the high improvement of the paper. The authors should compare their project and results with the results of similar studies on this topic from other countries around the world.  

 There is a lack of answers to the research hypotheses.   

 Technical errors  

 Incorrect notation of literature - literature should be written in the text in the form of a number, e.g. [14].  

 Kind regards,  

 Reviewer 

Author Response

Point 1: The title of the work should be modified. I suggest adding at the end of the title the place of research-Nanhai movie theme park in Foshan, Guangdong province

Response 1: Thanks very much for your constructive suggestion. We've changed the title to “Examining the Factors Influencing Tourists’ Destination : A Case of Nanhai Movie Theme Park in China”.

Point 2: I propose to improve the structure of the article according to the guidelines of Sustainability magazine. The article is missing chapter 6 Conclusion

Response 2: Based on your suggestion, we have added Conclusion section from Line 507 and summarized the main points, conclusions, and contributions as well as implications of this study.

Point 3: In the chapter Literature review and theoretical framework  

I suggest the theoretical issues related are presented AND described: Stimulus-organism-response(S-O-R) theory, based on the world literature. At the same time, lines [216-221 and 238-245] include the hypotheses of the work. I suggest moving them to the Materials I Methods chapter. Similarly, Figure 1 should be in the right place.  

Response 3: Firstly, we attempt to unify the terminology of the theory and have presented and described “stimulus-organism-response(S-O-R) theory” appropriately in related theoretical issues of Literature review and theoretical framework according to your constructive suggestion. Secondly, we reviewed the relevant literature, especially the three papers accepted in the special issue "Tourist Satisfaction and Sustainable Destination Branding" of Sustainability, and found no research hypothesis to be placed in the section of Materials and Methods. Therefore, we sincerely hope that the hypotheses of the work in lines [216-221 and 238-245] remain in its original location. Of course, if we misunderstood it, we look forward to your further comments. Thanks again for your valuable suggestions for us.

 Point 4: What tangible benefits have been gained from conducting this study?

Response 4: In general, the results of this study have confirmed the mediation role of brand identity and brand satisfaction in the conceptual model, the second-order structure of tourists’ tourism experience, and the mechanism that tourism experience has an impact on theme park brand loyalty. Hence, the findings of this study can help theme park enterprises understand which dimension of tourism experience is more important and how tourists can form destination brand loyalty through external stimuli so as to better enhance tourist’s experience and promote sustainable tourism on theme parks. We added the tangible benefits in the Conclusion section ( Line 508-525).

 Point 5: Can the results of the study be useful for tourism development in other parks of the world?

Response 5: Similar to prior studies, we found that tourists generally form a sense of experience with external stimuli such as the environment, facilities, activities, and interaction among tourists in theme parks. In addition, compared with other types of destinations, the vast majority of theme parks are man-made tourist destinations and have marked brands. Therefore, our study on tourism experience and destination brand loyalty is universal to the research object of theme parks. The relevant elaboration has been supplemented in Line 517-525.

 Point 6: The authors should compare their project and results with the results of similar studies on this topic from other countries around the world. 

Response 6: In the process of revision, we tried to find relevant literatures from other countries and have supplemented them in the appropriate position in the Discussion section and in Line 528-539 of the Conclusion section.

 Point 7: There is a lack of answers to the research hypotheses.  

Response 7: The answers of research hypotheses can be seen in Table 5, which indicate the significance of tourism experience on social brand identity is 0.021, less than 0.05. The other path coefficients are also significant at the level less than 0.001. Thus, hypotheses from H1-H8 are supported and the model setting is reasonable. We added the above content in Line 385-388. In addition, we also discussed each hypothesis result in detail in the Discussion section.

 Point 8: Incorrect notation of literature - literature should be written in the text in the form of a number, e.g. [14]. 

Response 8: According to your suggestion, we've revised the format of 75 references of this paper. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf