Sustainable Behavior of Generation Z Tourists’ Water Consumption

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines Sustainable behavior of Generation Z tourists' water consumption I find this manuscript not solid enough to be considered for external review. My concerns are as follow.

 First, the theoretical contribution is very limited. This is not a new topic many authors have already work on it. Therefore, I doubt if this is a novel and noteworthy topic. Also, these constructs have been extensively studies across the studies. I suggest to add strong arguments to justify the contributions of the study.

 Second, the research motivation is weak. The authors did not articulate a clear and important practical problem in the start of abstract and introduction.

 Moreover, the literature review is insufficient. I suggest the authors at least review the related literature related to constructs 00

Third, the theoretical foundation is also weak. There lacks an overarching theory for research model development.

 

Fourth, I think the data quality and test procedures are not look acceptable in the method section. One more note is about the common method bias examination is not available. I suggest the authors employ market variable test, single-factor test, etc. to check the common method bias.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A thorough proofread of the manuscript is needed

Author Response

Comments 1: First, the theoretical contribution is very limited. This is not a new topic many authors have already work on it. Therefore, I doubt if this is a novel and noteworthy topic. Also, these constructs have been extensively studies across the studies. I suggest to add strong arguments to justify the contributions of the study.

Response 1: The introduction has been restructured to emphasize the importance of sustainable tourism and research on tourist water consumption. The global significance of tourism is established, with a specific focus on the area of study, Quintana Roo, detailing regional issues related to tourist water consumption. Additionally, a more detailed contextualization of the study subject (Generation Z) and the theoretical model is provided to justify the study's significance.

Comments 2: Second, the research motivation is weak. The authors did not articulate a clear and important practical problem in the start of abstract and introduction. Moreover, the literature review is insufficient. I suggest the authors at least review the related literature related to constructs.

Response 2: The abstract is completely restructured to include regional context and provide detailed methodology. A similar approach is applied to the introduction, which is also restructured. The theoretical framework is expanded with a more comprehensive review of the literature.

Comments 3: Third, the theoretical foundation is also weak. There lacks an overarching theory for research model development.

Response 3: Greater depth has been given to the theoretical framework, providing detailed explanations of the underlying theory and its direct relationship with the study subject (Generation Z) to strengthen the theoretical foundation of the research.

Comments 4: Fourth, I think the data quality and test procedures are not look acceptable in the method section. One more note is about the common method bias examination is not available. I suggest the authors employ market variable test, single-factor test, etc. to check the common method bias.

Response 4: An analysis of common method bias was conducted; however, due to the time spent on other sections that required prioritization due to lower evaluations and the time constraints for submission, it could not be developed in depth

5. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language / Point 1: Moderate editing of English language required

Response 5: Several revisions were made to improve the language. Key terms throughout the document have been standardized to ensure consistency and clarity. Additionally, it was conducted a thorough review of grammar and spelling to correct errors and enhance the overall language quality. Certain sections of the text have also been restructured to improve logical flow and readability

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

ABSTRACT

In the abstract, authors should clearly state the place where the research was conducted, so that readers get a clearer idea of ​​the specific context in which the results were obtained. A precise indication of the region or tourist destination where the survey was conducted would allow a better understanding of the variability of the findings. Also, authors should include information on the number of Gen Z respondents who participated in the survey, as well as the timeframe of the survey. These data are crucial for assessing the validity and generalizability of the results. Without this information, it is difficult to assess whether the results are representative of the wider Gen Z population.

INTRODUCTION

The introductory part of the text begins by citing the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) and statistical data, which might not be the most effective choice for the opening sentence. This can give the impression that the text relies too heavily on external sources instead of focusing on establishing the research context. 

I suggest that the sentence "In 2023, tourism generated 3.3 trillion dollars, equivalent to 3% of global GDP, marking an 88% recovery compared to pre-pandemic levels, according to the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO, 2024)" be retained but moved to a later part of the introduction to support the argument about tourism's importance to the global economy. Instead, the text could start with a general introduction about the importance of sustainable tourism or the impact of tourism on the environment. The text does not provide enough detail about the specific location or region where the research was conducted, making it difficult to understand the research context and the relevance of the findings to other destinations. 

The authors should clearly state where the research was conducted, including information about the region, tourist destination, or specific location. This detail would allow for a better assessment of the applicability of the findings and improve the understanding of the research context. I would suggest that information about the research location be added immediately after the introductory section, where the basic context can be presented, and the foundation for further analysis can be laid.

Theoretical Framework

The authors presented relevant theories and connections between Generation Z and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), but the following should be clarified: While the paper focuses on Generation Z and sustainable water consumption, there is a possibility that the research context may be overgeneralized. Authors could consider how these concepts manifest in different cultural or geographic contexts and how they might be adapted to different segments within Gen Z.

The hypotheses are grounded in the theoretical framework, but the connection between the theoretical elements and the formulated hypotheses is not clearly highlighted. The authors should provide a more detailed explanation of how each key aspect of the theoretical framework contributes to the development of the specific hypotheses. A clearer articulation of this connection would further strengthen the methodological foundation of the work and enable a better understanding of the logic behind the formulation of the hypotheses.

Materials and Methods

On line 158, "In addition, the research is non-experimental since," I believe it is crucial to highlight this in the abstract as a main point to emphasize that the study is not experimental.

Key information regarding the research is only found between lines 174 and 176. It would be beneficial to emphasize this information in the abstract as well.

All data from Table 1 should be clearly highlighted in the abstract.

Considering that the research is conducted in the state of Quintana Roo, it would be helpful for the authors to include a cartographic representation of the research area so that each reader can more easily become acquainted with the research area.

Although it is stated that data collection was carried out through a face-to-face survey, there is a lack of detailed explanation about how the survey was conducted, including information about the duration of the survey, the conditions under which it was conducted, and any challenges faced by the researchers. How was the questionnaire formulated and distributed? Was there random selection, or were the respondents deliberately chosen? The authors should provide a detailed explanation of their research methodology.

Line 183: How are variable 1 and variable 5 defined on the Likert scale?

Results

The demographic information in Table 3 is detailed, but it would be good if it had already been pointed out earlier in the text, for example in the abstract, that 57.8% of men participated in the research

Only in Tables 4-8 does SPSS stand out as a data source. This method has not been highlighted anywhere before in the text. I suggest that it be inserted somewhere like....”for processing the demographic characteristics of the respondents, the SPSS program was used, as well as for processing the data (specify which data) shown in Tables 4-8. Something like this or similar.

 

Discussion and Recommendations

The discussion in the paper is clearly written and presents all relevant facts. However, following the discussion, the authors should address the limitations of the research that they encountered during the study. It is recommended that the authors briefly highlight these limitations and compare them with the previously mentioned limitations. This analysis would allow for a better assessment of the validity and applicability of the research findings, as well as the identification of potential directions for future research.

 

Overall, this work has potential and is a very interesting topic to consider, because the ecological world among tourists is a very important topic today, but it requires the mentioned improvements to become more comprehensive and relevant in its research field. The most attention should be paid to the methodology (the authors must clearly highlight each step in the research and explain why they decided on that step in the research. After refining the methodology, revise the abstract in which the most important facts of the research shown in the methodology will be presented clearly and briefly.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for providing such a detailed critique. We have addressed all your comments and suggestions. Please find our detailed responses below.  Additionally, the corrections and revisions made to the manuscript are marked in the text using track changes for your convenience. We appreciate your valuable feedback and the effort you have invested in improving our work
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	Can be improved	The introduction has been expanded to provide a more in-depth discussion of sustainable tourism. Additionally, a clearer overview of the study area has been included, detailing the reasons for its selection for research
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	Can be improved	Additional notes have been added to the sections on Data Collection Techniques and Study Subjects, Data Collection Instrument, and Data Processing to enhance the understanding of the methodology. Furthermore, a clearer contextualization of the study area has been incorporated into the introduction
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	Yes	The introduction and theoretical framework have been restructured and revised to provide a more comprehensive contextualization of the relationship between the subject of study and the object
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	Yes	No modification has been done
Is the article adequately referenced?	Yes	New references have been added
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	Yes	The study's limitations have been integrated, with a thorough exploration of previous studies and secondary literature.

 

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: In the abstract, authors should clearly state the place where the research was conducted, so that readers get a clearer idea of ​​the specific context in which the results were obtained. A precise indication of the region or tourist destination where the survey was conducted would allow a better understanding of the variability of the findings. Also, authors should include information on the number of Gen Z respondents who participated in the survey, as well as the timeframe of the survey. These data are crucial for assessing the validity and generalizability of the results. Without this information, it is difficult to assess whether the results are representative of the wider Gen Z population.

Response 1: The summary has been restructured to include details such as the location of the survey, the number of respondents, and the survey period

Comments 2:  The introductory part of the text begins by citing the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) and statistical data, which might not be the most effective choice for the opening sentence. This can give the impression that the text relies too heavily on external sources instead of focusing on establishing the research context.    I suggest that the sentence "In 2023, tourism generated 3.3 trillion dollars, equivalent to 3% of global GDP, marking an 88% recovery compared to pre-pandemic levels, according to the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO, 2024)" be retained but moved to a later part of the introduction to support the argument about tourism's importance to the global economy. Instead, the text could start with a general introduction about the importance of sustainable tourism or the impact of tourism on the environment. The text does not provide enough detail about the specific location or region where the research was conducted, making it difficult to understand the research context and the relevance of the findings to other destinations.    The authors should clearly state where the research was conducted, including information about the region, tourist destination, or specific location. This detail would allow for a better assessment of the applicability of the findings and improve the understanding of the research context. I would suggest that information about the research location be added immediately after the introductory section, where the basic context can be presented, and the foundation for further analysis can be laid.

Response 2: The introduction has been restructured to emphasize the significance of sustainable tourism and research on water consumption by tourists. The global relevance of tourism was stablished and specifically addresses the issues related to water consumption by tourists in Quintana Roo. Furthermore, it provides a more detailed contextualization of the study's subject (Generation Z) and the theoretical model underpinning the research, thereby justifying the study's importance. Additionally, the phrase 'in 2023 tourism will generate' has been moved to a later section.

Comments 3:  The authors presented relevant theories and connections between Generation Z and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), but the following should be clarified: While the paper focuses on Generation Z and sustainable water consumption, there is a possibility that the research context may be overgeneralized. Authors could consider how these concepts manifest in different cultural or geographic contexts and how they might be adapted to different segments within Gen Z.   The hypotheses are grounded in the theoretical framework, but the connection between the theoretical elements and the formulated hypotheses is not clearly highlighted. The authors should provide a more detailed explanation of how each key aspect of the theoretical framework contributes to the development of the specific hypotheses. A clearer articulation of this connection would further strengthen the methodological foundation of the work and enable a better understanding of the logic behind the formulation of the hypotheses.

Response 3: Se reestructura el marco teórico con una mayor profundización, explicando de manera más detallada la teoría base y su relación directa con el sujeto de estudio (Generación Z), con el fin de fortalecer el fundamento teórico de la investigación.

Comments 4:  On line 158, "In addition, the research is non-experimental since," I believe it is crucial to highlight this in the abstract as a main point to emphasize that the study is not experimental. Key information regarding the research is only found between lines 174 and 176. It would be beneficial to emphasize this information in the abstract as well.   All data from Table 1 should be clearly highlighted in the abstract.   Considering that the research is conducted in the state of Quintana Roo, it would be helpful for the authors to include a cartographic representation of the research area so that each reader can more easily become acquainted with the research area.   Although it is stated that data collection was carried out through a face-to-face survey, there is a lack of detailed explanation about how the survey was conducted, including information about the duration of the survey, the conditions under which it was conducted, and any challenges faced by the researchers. How was the questionnaire formulated and distributed? Was there random selection, or were the respondents deliberately chosen? The authors should provide a detailed explanation of their research methodology. Line 183: How are variable 1 and variable 5 defined on the Likert scale?

Response 4: The explanation of the study area has been expanded. The map is not included, as it was presented in the introduction part of the research. The software used is specified, and the scaling process has been adjusted accordingly

Comments 5:  The demographic information in Table 3 is detailed, but it would be good if it had already been pointed out earlier in the text, for example in the abstract, that 57.8% of men participated in the research Only in Tables 4-8 does SPSS stand out as a data source. This method has not been highlighted anywhere before in the text. I suggest that it be inserted somewhere like....”for processing the demographic characteristics of the respondents, the SPSS program was used, as well as for processing the data (specify which data) shown in Tables 4-8. Something like this or similar.

Response 5: The summary indicates that 57.3% of the sample consists of men, and the software used for the validations is specified in the methodology section.

Comments 6:  The discussion in the paper is clearly written and presents all relevant facts. However, following the discussion, the authors should address the limitations of the research that they encountered during the study. It is recommended that the authors briefly highlight these limitations and compare them with the previously mentioned limitations. This analysis would allow for a better assessment of the validity and applicability of the research findings, as well as the identification of potential directions for future research.

Response 6: The limitations section has been expanded to address constraints related to the region, generation, and methodological structure. This expansion facilitates the identification of new research lines for further research

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: English language fine. No issues detected.

Response 1: We revised some terminology and conducted a general grammar review to improve readability.

5. Additional clarifications

All of the recommendations provided by the reviewer have been fully implemented.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have done very well in the revised manuscript