Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment.

 

Review of sustainability-3072278 - The long road to low-carbon holidays: Exploring holiday-making behaviour of people living in a middle-sized Swiss city

 

The authors analyzed the holiday behaviour of people living in a small city located in Switzerland. They combined a literature review with semi-structured interviews. They paid particular attention to the representation of their interviewees to ensure a broad sample diversity.  The most interesting findings were the two critical determinants of holiday behaviour: the stage of life and their environmental awareness. It is a relevant topic.  The findings may be helpful to others, although largely expected.  The publication is recommended if the authors can refine and condense the conclusions.  Much of the content in the conclusion section seems to belong to the discussion section.

Author Response

We are indebted to the reviewer for a careful reading of the paper and for their helpful comments and suggestions. We addressed all the points raised in a way which we hope is convincing and exhaustive.

Please, see the attachment to read all point-to-point answers to each comment and see how we correspondingly revised the manuscript. Among the submission materials, we also included a .docx and PDF file reporting all the changes we introduced, besides the "clean" ones.

Thank you again for the feedback, that helped us to definitely improve the manuscript!  

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting and worthwhile empirical study of the factors that influence attitudes towards travel for holidays. The article's focus is on decarbonising tourist travel in this part of Europe is interesting, given the low-carbon travel options available.

The article is very well-written and there are no language or structural issues. The empirical data are well-presented and the methods are appropriate. 

The main issue with the paper is that it does not engage sufficiently with recent literature in the field and does not provide a clear conceptual basis for the research. 

I recommend the authors make major amendment to the paper to remedy the following issues:

1. The paper needs to have a clear conceptual basis, enabling the reader to understand the disciplinary literatures the authors are drawing on. Reference to the many studies published in the last five years from tourist research, for example, is necessary. It is also important to define the epistemological framework being used, since the study involved quantitative and qualitative methods. Why was this the case and how does this relate to the literature on tourism , flying and climate change?

2. There needed to be some more methodological commentary on the sample selected, which looks rather skewed towards highly educated participants. What implications does this have for your findings?

3. The conclusion to the paper needs to draw on an extended literature review at the start of the paper to draw implications for research. Without this reflection on the literature, the paper's contributions are very limited. 

Overall, a good paper with potentially interesting conclusions, but one that needs much more literature, a conceptual focus and a reflection of the findings from the wider literature. 

Author Response

We are indebted to the reviewer for a careful reading of the paper and for their helpful comments and suggestions. We addressed all the points raised in a way which we hope is convincing and exhaustive.

Please, see the attachment to read all point-to-point answers to each comment and see how we correspondingly revised the manuscript. Among the submission materials, we also included a .docx and PDF file reporting all the changes we introduced, besides the "clean" ones.

Thank you again for the feedback, that helped us to definitely improve the manuscript!  

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic chosen by the authors is very relevant and timely. It fills an important gap in analysing potential tourists' attitudes towards low-carbon tourism. The case study - a medium-sized Swiss town - was chosen appropriately for this purpose, as it allowed the research to cover respondents who, on the one hand, have the logistical possibility to make short trips that allow them to feel like they are abroad, and, on the other hand, the selected target group is likely to be able to afford to travel by different means of transport, making them less constrained in their choices.

What is particularly valuable is that the research has been carried out very thoroughly, with a quantitative part and a qualitative part that has been designed to complement the former perfectly, which gives the paper a very high explanatory power. All the research questions have been carefully designed to give a very accurate picture of people's travel preferences and whether or not they are prepared to prioritise a low-carbon approach when planning their holidays. The methodology adapted for this purpose and the way in which it was applied is excellent. The conclusions are clearly in line with the large body of evidence. The arguments presented address the main issues raised and are easy to follow due to the very clear structure of the paper. There is adequate referencing throughout the text. This clarity is further enhanced by the excellent presentation of the research findings in the form of tables and figures, including a clear presentation and discussion of the questions asked of respondents. 

Overall, nothing has been left to chance in the conception, writing and visual design of this paper. I have not found any shortcomings that would require any changes. I have no hesitation in recommending this paper for publication.

Author Response

We are glad the reviewer appreciated our work. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your detailed and constructive response to my report. I have read your response alongside the amended manuscript and you have responded to all of my comments with amendments.

I am recommending minor revisions, which are solely associated with the initial review of scholarship in this field. Whilst you have added some appropriate sources and referred to your conceptual basis, I think readers would welcome and need a more extensive review of the considerable literature in this field. I am suggesting two to three substantive paragraphs of literature review are added so that you can demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of this field, and so that readers can learn about how this field has evolved very rapidly. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. In the attached document, we provided point-to-point answers to their comments.

Thank you for your help in improving our manuscript!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf