Generation Z Romanian Students’ Relation with Rural Tourism—An Exploratory Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study addresses the topical issue of Generation Z’s relationship with tourism. Text is well written and provides an interesting perspective on the issue for potential discussions among experts in the field. However, I would like to make remark:

What is important to note and the authors of the study do not reflect this is the significant internal heterogeneity of Generation Z based on socioeconomic background. What the authors describe reflects only certain segments of the group well. However, the described attributes of Generation Z do not fit to groups from socially disadvantaged backgrounds that well  (see ref. Matlovicova, K; Kolesarova, J and Matlovic, R. 2016. Selected Theoretical Aspects of the Destination Marketing Based on Participation of Marginalized Communities. 8th International Annual Scientific Conference on Hotel Services, Tourism and Education, pp.128-143). & also Brunn, S. et al. (2018).  Policy implications of the vagaries in population estimates on the accuracy of sociographical mapping of contemporary Slovak Roma communities. GeoJournal 83 (4) , pp.853-869)

In conclusion, it is a quality study based on a well-developed and original methodology for obtaining and processing relevant data. The paper has a logical structure, relies on relevant sources and provides an interesting perspective on the Generation Z’s relationship with tourism.

However, the above comments in no way diminish the quality of the study. It is balanced in content, uses correct methods and I definitely recommend it for publication after minor changes.

 

This is a quality study that deals with a very topical issue. It is well-balanced in content, uses correct methods and I definitely recommend it for publication after minor changes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the interest you showed in the revision of our paper!

Please find attached our response to your comment.

Best regards,

The authors’ team

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this article - Romanian Generation Z and rural tourism - back to the roots. Nowadays it is very important to appreciate local areas, culture, businesses. It would seem that only older people appreciate these types of aspkets, but as the article shows, generation Z also sees the advantages of local rural places.

I only recommend changing the keywords so that they are not repeated in the title of the paper.

 

After careful review, I recommend publishing the article. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the interest you showed in the revision of our paper!

Please find below our response to your comment.

Comment:

I only recommend changing the keywords so that they are not repeated in the title of the paper.

Response:

We have changed the title of the paper and also the keywords

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors

Your work has merit and contributes to the literature on the relationship between Gen Z and rural tourism. Having said that, a few alterations must be addressed for the manuscript to be considered for publication.

A first comment would suggest stating, at the beginning of the manuscript, that this study is exploratory. 

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Dear Authors,

The authors have to choose their authorial voice: in line 59, they write “we know”, in line 611 “we have”, but in line 71, they use the impersonal “could one identify”, and in line 92, they use “the authors”. These options are not coherent and harm the quality of the manuscript.

Additionally, who is the subject in line 623? The authors? The academic community? The researchers? And who are you addressing in line 673 “Knowing your preferences is the first step in adapting the offer.”?

 

Writing style: The text must be reviewed by an English native speaker. These are examples of sentences that need revision.

Line(s)	These sentences need linguistic correction
41	Thus, in some studies information is presented according to which generation Z is represented by individuals born between 1993 and 2005 [1], be
51-53	According to Eurostat's database, in 2019, Generation Z youths (aged 15-24) in the European Union made approximately 42 million outbound trips, while the total number of outbound trips was approximately 311.4 million
66	Use of M-commerce use and adoption of mobile technology
90-91	At the same time, they are elements of uniqueness and so many unique rural experiences.
80-82	At the same time, the Danube Delta and the secular and beech forests of the Carpathians and  other regions of Europe are two other elements of the UNESCO material heritage
110	Being a subject of analysis at the beginning of the road, recent studies present sometimes contradictory results (
115-116	Its analysis, the identification and construction of a predictive model, regarding the touristic behaviour developed by a person, according to his membership in generation Z, are the goals of the present work.
121	the types of tourism practised by Gen Z,
123	leads to results that partially validate previous studies and also opens new research directions
131	Generation Z is a new generation, which although it lives in the present, values with old roots,
144	inclination to use easy-to-use smart devices
180	New Zeeland
182	As type of accommodation, they favor hostels,
187-190	We can conclude that Gen Z is a generation well informed, very active, budget-conscious, social, digital native and in search of authentic experiences. Given that generation Z values authenticity and that it is used to using technology in everyday life, this may be the generation that will find the balance between authentic and new
226-229	Some of the main reasons why generation Z young people travel are to spend their free time, find peace/quiet and relax [39,59]. Thus, it can be admitted that the young people of generation Z are the followers of relaxation / leisure tourism. In fact, the interest of young people in relaxation tourism and coastal tourism is also supported by the pref- erence for vacations.
286	Products with the title of products bearing a Protected Designation of Origin are products that come from a…
341	the survey or survey
600-6001	On the other hand, WHS, although often associated with mass tourism, comes to the attention of Gen Z, the results showing that people who know the UNESCO WHS initiative are 2,077 times more likely to belong to generation Z.
619	Wine tourism is little practiced by young people and is less associated with wine
629	Regardless of how it approaches rural tourism, generation
680-682	Tourism destination management organisations that will select certain points of interest and communicate them effectively will have an advantage in front of other less active destinations. The world is in an accelerated transformation, and the tourism sector is not abstracting.
695	Through the theoretical and managerial implications…
698	Being a generation at the beginning, still little studied in the literature

 

Regarding the nomenclature to describe “Generation Z”, there are also some necessary changes. I include them in the table along with other necessary corrections:

Line(s)	Necessary correction
24	It should be: Material cultural heritage (MCH)
33	Genz [it should be Gen Z]
156	“Generation Z people participate” [in my view, it is enough to say: “Generation Z participate”.
160, 162, 170, 203, 208, 215, 217, 226, 232, 246,254, 256, 258, 645	generation Z young people [It seems redundant]
168	Generation Z members [a Generation is not a club]
187	Gen Z is a generation well informed

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the interest you showed in the revision of our paper!

Please find attached our response to your comment.

Best regards,

The authors’ team

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article deals with an extremely interesting, current and important topic. Generation Z is starting to independently enter the tourism market and has a great influence on it.

The article is provided with a solid theoretical foundation. Statistical analysis is advanced. However, the research sample could be larger.

What, in my opinion, needs to be improved is the broadening of considerations on rural tourism - defining it and presenting its place (including the statistical one) in Romanian tourism. What's more, the word agritourism, which can be described as the essence of rural tourism, does not appear in the work. I propose to improve it.

The probability figures are also questionable. It is difficult to interpret the statement that the chance of something is 4,000 times greater. Is it really 4,000, or is it four?

Do the authors not see any limitations of their research...? They certainly are and should be mentioned.

There are more conjectures and theoretical considerations in the conclusions than concrete conclusions from the research.

Other remarks are included in the text in the form of comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Sometimes it needs improvement.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions for improving the quality of our paper. We have considered all your recommendations and we have tried to find solutions.

Please find attached the report.

Best regards,

The authors’ team

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The work presents an interesting and timely theme, which must be taken into account, but it presents important deficiencies, which the authors must overcome so that the work can be published. Despite being marked as a major revision, this reviewer feels that what is being requested invalidates the work in its current form, so it should be completely redone (including the survey work) in order to meet the requirements. proposals.

STRUCTURE ISSUES

• The title does not match the content, generation Z is not analyzed, but rather a group of university students from that generation.

• There are deficiencies in the structure. The marking in the standards for authors (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions) is not followed. In this sense, the summary is deficient: it must go from the generic (mini-compendium) to the specific, and adjust to the indicated maximum number of words. The keywords are excessive and not significant (the variables studied are one thing and the keywords are another, depending on their importance). The methodology should be explained in the abstract.

• The introduction should focus on the issues that are addressed later in the analysis, this will allow for a real discussion afterwards, which the article lacks.

• There is an Introduction chapter and a Literature Review chapter, they must be combined into one (which may present subheadings), since much of the content is repeated and makes the structure merge with your research. We must provide the literature that builds the discourse, eliminating the accessory. The discourse must be improved, generation Z is defined several times, its characteristics are scattered...

• The results are lost in the application of a method rather than in the achievement of the objectives, this limits the scope.

• There is no discussion as such. It is brief, and does not show the true importance of the study (if that is the case). They are partly conclusions. They must start from what they have found to develop the results: these topics are addressed by these authors, and from there analyze and discuss with the literature that has been reviewed.

• The conclusions are not such, they do not conclude. They limit themselves to justifying themselves and saying what is going to be done or the contribution (which is not such), but not what has been found, valuing the findings, the convenience of studying with this methodology...

• The parts of the text are not coherent, possibly because they have been done or revised by different members of the team.

FORMATTING AND FONT ISSUES

• It is repeated that the subject has been little addressed, it is not true, review the literature well. It is one thing that there are no specific works on rural tourism and another that it has not been studied in the tourist behavior of Generation Z.

• Phrases and ideas are repeated, which must be condensed. You have to completely redo Introduction and Literature Review, which are redundant and repeated.

• There are no citations about the methodology applied in the review, which is the starting point of the article. This can be worrying, because it seems more that we have a methodology that we apply to an object, than an object of study that requires that methodology.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

• The objectives are not clearly formulated, nor do they appear where they should be (closing the introduction). The hypotheses are many, and there is no confirmation that they are supported by the literature (it seems that the review has been after them).

• There are unjustified study variables (DPO and PGI, wine) that do not correspond to Generation Z (they are expensive products, which indicate segmentation by age). Did you take the questionnaire before reviewing the literature? In the conclusions they justify that they introduce variables not studied before, but what sense does it have? In the end they are not representative, that is why others have not studied them before...

• The description of the model must go in methodology, not in results.

• They must present in detail the questions of the questionnaire, the methodological scheme (of relationships) and detail the survey methods (how was it developed? in which networks? what were the objectives?...). The technical sheet must be presented.

• The sample is not representative, the authors admit it, but honesty is not enough. What is the probability that those who answer the questionnaire represent the group? You cannot use a method that requires starting conditions and then say that "we plan for the future" because we have not yet arrived. This invalidates the methodology, and the work. Either they seek to achieve representativeness or they abandon it.

• They talk about family income, how representative is it in Romania? But do they work? Do they have another source of income? That is a strong socio-demographic variable, and they don't address it.

• In addition, there is an important bias. You have intended the questionnaire for students. Was the questionnaire intended for your students? So it cannot be generalized to a population group, it is not representative. How many young people from Generation Z are university students in Romania? How representative are these in the Romanian Generation Z as a whole?... In the end (conclusions) the idea appears that university students are studied... but this is neither addressed before nor is it substantiated...

CONTENT ISSUES

• There are imprecise expressions, such as “It is known”, they are not scientific, they should be avoided.

• There are inaccuracies, such as the paragraph on lines 47-56, you want to extrapolate international travel to the behavior of Generation Z with respect to rural tourism, its context is different, please note that.

• There are things that can be important (line 77-91) but not in the introduction, but as a geographical context of study.

• A scientific article should not define concepts that are mastered by researchers (if it is essential, use footnotes), but define PDO, UNESCO... do not fit in this article. When we use definitions of rural tourism (a controversial and discussed concept), look for one that fits what you study, because there are mismatches between what you give and what you investigate.

• There are correlations that are not true: (lines 163-164) “This substantiates the fact that young people are on a constant search for new things and experiences”, Wanting to visit new places does not mean the constant search for experiences, sometimes it just look for the click, selfie... Nothing new, "the traveling idiot" (Urbain & Guilarte-Gutiérrez, 1993).

• There are contradictions: generation Z is not familiar with sustainable tourism (line 171) and is prone to sustainable tourism (line 192-194), and both are justified by literature...

• There are contributions that are not understood (lines 258-253). You have to select the literature that contributes. The phenomenon studied is the one that determines the interest (or not) of the literature. Introducing studies from any country means that there is no reflection of a reality. In this sense, if behaviors are discussed, indicate who identifies them and where (make a review table).

• They should not mix generation Z and Millennials. It is evident that there are coincidences, but what do they study? Focus on it, and if your results later coincide with what was studied in the Millennials, say so. At the same time, they must eliminate everything that does not identify with Generation Z (literature review), because it leads to errors.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions for improving the quality of our paper. We have considered all your recommendations and we have tried to find solutions.

Please find attached the report.

Best regards,

The authors’ team

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors

The revised version of your manuscript is apt for publication.

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors have made a great effort to converge towards what was proposed by this reviewer. Therefore, the paper can be published in its present form