Destination Responses to COVID-19 Waves: Is “Green Zone” Initiative a Holy Grail for Tourism Recovery?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is written in an appropriate way. I would like to congratulate the authors.
In abstract, it is missing implications. This aspect needs to be made more concrete.
In terms of structure, I think that section 3 should be eliminated, and in subsection 5.2 this information should be entered.
In research methodology I was very confused about interviews and questionnaire. Is the title of table 1 correct? If yes, what is the sample of the questionnaire? Is the same? And the interviews? Who answer them?
What were the questions asked in the questionnaire and what kind of questions? Was it only three? The ones that appear in the tables in the section of results? This part should be clarified. I think the questionnaire should be in appendix.
I have a doubt about the source of the tables. Research team? The authors are the same or different comparatively with the research team?
In the conclusions should be introduced a directly answer to the research questions. Some answers are there but in relation to the first research question I could not find it. Rephrase please.
This paper is interesting for the readership of this journal. This research provides advance in the current knowledge.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
First I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your excellent comments on our article. All the comments are very helpful and critical so we are able to modify and improve our paper. We have carefully considered all your comments and tried to explain/ clarified all points. Please see the form attached.
Many thanks again,
Kind regards
Duong Hai Long
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This up-to-date and interesting piece of research discusses the crucial aspects of crisis management and recovery policies towards the tourism industry during the subsequent COVID-19 pandemic waves. In this context, the paper attempt to introduce the "tourism destination as a green zone" concept as a distinct way of approach in recovery policy at the local level. The case study method has been chosen, and Can Tho city—I wonder why not mentioned in the tile nor abstract—is the research study context.
A mixed-method approach is an advantage of the manuscript – good work done!
The study seems to be practice-oriented, which is justified by the unprecedented situation of the global tourism industry. However, in the context of its theoretical contribution and quality of the academic discussion presented in the manuscript, I would like the authors to consider the following issues.
Please elaborate on the conceptual design of the paper to mitigate the following inconsistencies.
1. You formulated the aim as "to explore how a typical tourism destination as a green zone could revitalise the local tourism industry during the lingering pandemic" (lines 69-70), which is acceptable but please try to define a 'typical destination' and 'green zone' more evident in the introduction. Moreover, in lines 339-340, you stated that the study is undertaken "to examine how a local tourism industry responds to the different waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, considering the following points, please re-think if you need a green zone concept in this study.
2. As the central concept of the research, the green zone concept (or tourist destination as a green zone) needs more explicit recognition. Perhaps you tried to do it within subsection 2.2., but I did not find a sound definition. Moreover, this concept needs to be conceptualised before presenting the method and results. It is so because you need to have tools for further evaluation. Namely, what are the main characteristics/features of the green zone?
Then, the justification for choosing Can Tho as a green zone destination (205-213) is not convincing. To what extent does Can Tho City meet the characteristics of a green zone destination?
3. The literature review on disaster crisis management and destination recovery in tourism could be strengthened as there has been a robust output in this field. But, then, you stated that you adopted crisis disaster management models suggested by Murphy & Bayley (1989) and Paraskevas & Altinay (2013) as a theoretical framework. Still, I cannot find any clues that you follow these models in the findings and discussion sections. Therefore, I hope you can introduce relevant elements of these models in a more structured way.
4. Please try to justify the need to introduce the green zone concept in your study, both theoretically and in the dissuasion and conclusion. In other words, what is new in green zones in comparison to non-green zone destinations when discussing the measures adopted in the face of COVID-19 crisis management and recovery? Again, I do not see significant differences as your findings seem to fit all types of destinations. It is surprising that you barely mention the 'green zone' concept while presenting the results (section 5) – there is no reference to this concept between lines 327 and 485, also your interviewees did not mention it.
5. From the introduction to the conclusion, you try to convince the reader that green zone destinations could effectively respond to the pandemic and attain encouraging tourism recovery. However, I am afraid you have not justified your statement in your research. Your study shows that the situation of the research area was volatile. The numbers you cite come from governmental reports – not really convincing. The somewhat poorly introduced conceptual network does not help. Please try to be more structured in your considerations.
6. Conclusions – please indicate further research directions on green zones.
Additional remarks:
– could you please take a more detailed time approach while presenting Vietnam and Can Tho city during the pandemic then numbering the pandemic waves? In two years, we will not remember how many waves we experienced.
– the study lacks graphic elements, which could bring an added value.
– I am afraid that the reference style (in-text citation) does not meet Sustainability requirements.
– line 297 – what measures were adopted?
I hope you find my remarks helpful in improving your manuscript. It has potential; just show it in a revision! Thanks.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
First I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your excellent comments on our article. All the comments are very helpful and critical so we are able to modify and improve our paper. We have carefully considered all your comments and tried to explain/ clarified all points. Please see the form attached.
Many thanks again,
Kind regards
Duong Hai Long
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic is relevant and interesting. Adopting a mixed-methods approach and a case study to extract learning is also appropriate for this kind of topic. Yet, methodologically, the study is very intransparent. There is no indication on how the survey was conceived (i.e. variables - questionairre items, foundation in literature, etc.) and also the qualitative part (semi-structured interviews) is unclear. The corresponding quantitative data analysis is purely descriptive (i.e. no inferential statistics, hypothesis testing) and there is no information on how the semi-structured interviews were coded. This leads to results and discussions which are rather limited and generic; which kind of invalidate the relevance of employing a case-study approach in the first place. All in all, relevant topic, (presumably significant effort in data collection), but lack of methodological clarity and scientific rigour.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
First I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your excellent comments on our article. All the comments are very helpful and critical so we are able to modify and improve our paper. We have carefully considered all your comments and tried to explain/ clarified all points. Please see the form attached.
Many thanks again,
Kind regards
Duong Hai Long
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Topic is very interesting for all people who are interested in tourism in nowadays. Text has a logical structure and and is very clear. Terminology is common for this topic.
Authors used quantitative and qualitative methods of work and methods of comparison and description are applied in the paper.
The conclusion is clear it with the obtained results.
Authors used the very qualitative and applicable Literature and data sources. Tables at article are very useful.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
First I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your excellent comments on our article. All the comments are very helpful and critical so we are able to modify and improve our paper. We have carefully considered all your comments and tried to explain/ clarified all points. Please see the form attached.
Many thanks again,
Kind regards
Duong Hai Long
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for your detailed reply, which cleared out any doubts. I like your cooperation. Specifically, elaboration of green zone conceptualisation, case study approach methodology, and changes in the abstract look good!
I still would like to raise three elements of your manuscript.
The reader might experience difficulties following your research findings as you did not present the conceptualisation of the crisis disaster management models suggested by Murphy & Bayley (1989) and Paraskevas & Altinay (2013) that you adopted for your study. Specifically, section 2 needs a graphic presenting the conceptual model you followed (exhibiting stages, crucial elements/indicators etc. Please note that I did not look at Murphy & Bayley (1989) and Paraskevas & Altinay (2013); as a reader, I expect the research authors to guide me through the CDM process to understand their approach. Without this, I feel confused about learning about the results. Therefore, please try to reconsider how you present your research approach's conceptualisation.
Also, the green zone could concept could be presented as a visually attractive and transparent graphic element. (In general, visual elements amplify citations!). In the reply, you mentioned, "Again, the concept green zone should be justified fully in this study, so I have modified this concept as being mentioned in section 2.2." I found this justification in lines 176-178 – is that correct? If so, I wonder if it is convincing order of argumentation. Generally, authors usually adopt the theoretical concepts (with some initial adjustments) of their study, then conduct the research, and try to make crucial improvements by adding or modifying some elements of the conceptual models. If you state good health capacity and vaccination rate are the initial factors that should be considered while choosing the case study, it is fine for me. However, perhaps they could also appear in conclusion? Moreover, in the discussion or conclusion sections, please try to deliver the critical outputs of your case study by (perhaps) clearly/indicating how the conceptual model is improved. For example, suppose effective communication, collaboration, or key players' involvement are the factors that appeared to be crucial due to your research. In that case, I wonder why not incorporate them into the revised conceptual model of CDM of the green zone destination?
Did you use coding while analysing the interviews? I found it unclear.
Oh, one more thing, lines 226-243 should be improved technically. What "This study" subtitle means?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
We highly appreciate your excellent comments which are very useful for the improvement of our paper. We trust that our all of your comments have been addressed as much as we can.
Please see the file attached.
Many thanks again.
Kind regards
Duong Hai Long
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors took steps to address the reviewers' comments and also edited the paper to imporve it. The aspect of transparency and rigour remains still to a certain degree, as the 'coding' of the qualitatively-analysed quantitative data is not very clear and if it was predetermined by the 'semi-structure' of the interviews, it kind of neutralises the argument and added-value of an explorative-qualitative approach. This is an interesting, contributing, but ultimately descriptive, paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
We highly appreciate your excellent comments which are very useful for the improvement of our paper. We trust that all of your comments have been addressed as much as we can.
Please see the file attached.
Many thanks again.
Kind regards
Duong Hai Long
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
