Travel Choice: Is Climate Change a Barrier?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The process of qualitative content analysis lacks sufficient transparency and replicability.

   Although the manuscript mentions open and axial coding, it does not provide concrete coding examples, thematic node structures, or how intercoder reliability was achieved. This compromises the reliability and depth of the analysis.

2. Insufficient participant information weakens the applicability and generalizability of the findings.

   The absence of demographic and travel profile data (e.g., age, nationality, travel frequency, education) limits the capacity to generalize the findings to broader populations.

3. The manuscript lacks a clear articulation of its theoretical innovation and contribution.

   While the literature review is extensive, the study does not clearly articulate its unique theoretical contributions, such as to behavior models, sustainability frameworks, or adaptive decision-making theory.

4. There is thematic overlap between results and discussion sections; restructuring may improve clarity.

   The results and discussion sections both contain extensive participant quotations with thematic redundancy. It is recommended to consolidate raw findings in the results section and focus on interpretation and implication in the discussion.

5. The writing is often verbose and lacks academic conciseness, affecting readability.

   Frequent use of vague and passive expressions (e.g., “it can be said that,” “it is emphasised”) weakens the argumentative clarity. A more direct, academic tone is needed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to resubmit a revised draft of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated all of the suggestions made by the reviewers. The changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please refer to the following text for a detailed clarification addressing the reviewers’ insightful comments and concerns.

• All added/rewritten sentences have been highlighted in yellow to indicate changes made based on reviewer’s feedback

1. The process of qualitative content analysis lacks sufficient transparency and replicability. Although the manuscript mentions open and axial coding, it does not provide concrete coding examples, thematic node structures, or how intercoder reliability was achieved. This compromises the reliability and depth of the analysis.

Response: We sincerely appreciate you concerning this issue. The methodological framework has been substantially revised to enhance transparency and replicability in the qualitative content analysis. Comprehensive details on the coding process, including concrete coding examples and thematic node structures, are now provided in Sections 3.3 (please kindly check page 6, lines 285-300; 302-303; 308-309). Additionally, the approach to intercoder reliability has been explicitly documented to reinforce methodological rigor. NVivo has been utilized for qualitative analysis, ensuring systematic implementation of participant protocols and strengthening the depth and reliability of the analysis.

2. Insufficient participant information weakens the applicability and generalizability of the findings.

Response: Thank you for bringing this issue into our information. We made revisions by including a table Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. We made revisions by including a table. The comprehensiveness of participant information has been significantly enhanced to improve the applicability and generalizability of the findings. Detailed demographic and travel profile data are now systematically integrated into the manuscript, ensuring a more robust foundation for analytical validity. Table 2 has been included to provide a structured representation of individual contributions, further strengthening the contextual relevance of the study. Through your insightful suggestion, we aimed to enhance clarity and provide a clearer basis for broader theoretical and practical implications with this revision.

3. The manuscript lacks a clear articulation of its theoretical innovation and contribution.

Response: You are absolutely right to raise concerns about the theoretical contribution. After considering your suggestions and feedback, we have revised the manuscript to clarify the results related to the theoretical contribution. Consequently, this study's theoretical contribution is now explicitly included in the literature review (Section 2) within the framework of Destination Decision Theory (DDT). Furthermore, a detailed discussion on sustainable travel behaviour, decision-making in the context of climate risk, and behavioural geography has been carefully presented in Section 5, ensuring coherence with existing theoretical frameworks and furthering scholarly discussion in these areas.

4. There is thematic overlap between results and discussion sections; restructuring may improve clarity.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions. After receiving your feedback, we realised that we agree with you on the current issue. Consequently, the manuscript has been refined to improve structural coherence and narrative clarity. Redundant information between the results and discussion sections has been removed, ensuring a streamlined presentation that enhances the logical flow of arguments and insights. Changes are present in sections 4 and 5.

5. The writing is often verbose and lacks academic conciseness, affecting readability.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions. The manuscript has undergone a thorough language and style refinement process to enhance academic tone, eliminate vague expressions, and improve clarity. A comprehensive grammar review has been conducted using Grammarly software to ensure precision and readability.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

In this study, the authors examined how climate change affects individuals' recognition of travel destination choices and their decision-making processes through semi-structured interviews, aiming to explore extreme natural events, environmental issues, and sustainability considerations that influence travel preferences. While the paper is technically sound, it fails to demonstrate sufficient originality or innovative contributions to warrant publication in its current form. I would recommend rejection.

Specific comments:  

1. The main theme of the article is unclear, and it more resembles an analysis of interview results, with no visible innovation points. The entire article analyzes the interviewees' responses and draws conclusions from them.  
2. The interview questions in the article are improperly set. It is unclear why the questions are divided into three categories: the relationship between travel purposes and destinations, the relationship between transportation and the environment, and the relationship between extreme natural events and travel preferences.  
3. The sample size of the interview subjects in the article is unclear, and whether the identities of the interviewees are universal is a question worth pondering.  
4. The language throughout the article is not concise enough, the length is too long, and the thinking and logical framework are overly simple.  
5. Lines 76-77 state that this study explores two questions: 1). Whether climate change is regarded as an obstacle to choosing travel destinations; 2). How extreme natural events affect tourist behavior. For these two questions, using only a relatively simple semi-structured interview research method is one-sided. The author purposefully selects participants—how to ensure the objectivity of the results?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to resubmit a revised draft of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated all of the suggestions made by the reviewers. The changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please refer to the following text for a detailed clarification addressing the reviewers’ insightful comments and concerns.

• All added/rewritten sentences have been highlighted in yellow to indicate changes made based on reviewer’s feedback.

1. The main theme of the article is unclear, and it more resembles an analysis of interview results, with no visible innovation points. The entire article analyzes the interviewees' responses and draws conclusions from them.

Response: You are absolutely right to raise concerns about the theoretical contribution. After considering your suggestions and feedback, we have revised the manuscript to clarify the results related to the theoretical contribution. Consequently, this study's theoretical contribution is now explicitly included in the literature review (Section 2) within the framework of Destination Decision Theory (DDT). Furthermore, a detailed discussion on sustainable travel behaviour, decision-making in the context of climate risk, and behavioural geography has been carefully presented in Section 5, ensuring coherence with existing theoretical frameworks and furthering scholarly discussion in these areas.

2. The interview questions in the article are improperly set. It is unclear why the questions are divided into three categories: the relationship between travel purposes and destinations, the relationship between transportation and the environment, and the relationship between extreme natural events and travel preferences.

Response: Thank you for your constructive criticism and comments. Based on your suggestions, we have made the revisions concerning the methodological framework. The section has been comprehensively updated to enhance clarity and transparency. Detailed descriptions of the coding process, sample selection criteria, interview procedures, and intercoder reliability are now provided in Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. To ensure methodological rigour, NVivo was used for qualitative analysis, and participant protocols were systematically implemented.

3. The sample size of the interview subjects in the article is unclear, and whether the identities of the interviewees are universal is a question worth pondering.

Response: We sincerely appreciate you concerning this issue. The methodological framework has been substantially revised to enhance transparency and replicability in the qualitative content analysis. Comprehensive details on the coding process, including concrete coding examples and thematic node structures, are now provided in Sections 3.3 (please kindly check page 6, lines 285-300; 302-303; 308-309). Additionally, the approach to intercoder reliability has been explicitly documented to reinforce methodological rigor. NVivo has been utilized for qualitative analysis, ensuring systematic implementation of participant protocols and strengthening the depth and reliability of the analysis.

4. The language throughout the article is not concise enough, the length is too long, and the thinking and logical framework are overly simple.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions. The manuscript has undergone a thorough language and style refinement process to enhance academic tone, eliminate vague expressions, and improve clarity. A comprehensive grammar review has been conducted using Grammarly software to ensure precision and readability. Additionally, after receiving your feedback, we realized that we agree with you on the current issue. Consequently, the manuscript has been refined to improve structural coherence and narrative clarity. Redundant information between the results and discussion sections has been removed, ensuring a streamlined presentation that enhances the logical flow of arguments and insights. Changes are present in sections 4 and 5.

5. Lines 76-77 state that this study explores two questions: 1). Whether climate change is regarded as an obstacle to choosing travel destinations; 2). How extreme natural events affect tourist behavior. For these two questions, using only a relatively simple semi-structured interview research method is one-sided. The author purposefully selects participants—how to ensure the objectivity of the results?

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. The research questions have been revised to align more closely with the thematic findings, ensuring a more nuanced exploration of the relationship between climate change, extreme natural events, and travel behavior. The revised questions incorporate broader analytical perspectives to enhance methodological rigor. Changes can be seen on page 2, lines 84-86. Additionally, participant selection criteria have been systematically refined to improve objectivity and reduce potential bias, strengthening the reliability of the study’s conclusions. The methodological framework has been substantially revised to enhance transparency and replicability in the qualitative content analysis. Comprehensive details on the coding process, including concrete coding examples and thematic node structures, are now provided in Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Travel Choice: Is Climate Change a Barrier?". This study explores the impact of the hot issue of climate warming on human activities - tourism. It reveals how climate factors become obstacles in tourism decision-making from the relationships between travel purposes and destinations, transportation and the environment, as well as extreme natural events and travel preferences. This research is methodologically reasonable, and the research results provide valuable insights into policy recommendations for promoting sustainable tourism.

However, minor revisions are required to improve clarity, justification, and organization before the manuscript is suitable for publication. Below are specific points that should be addressed.

Suggested Revisions:

Should "extreme climate events" correspond to "events such as droughts, floods, hurricanes, and forest wildfires"? The epidemic should not be the key core issue in the study of the impact of climate warming.

Introduction:

Line35: Is "[p.6]" not a reference? If so, the format should be different.

Literature Review:

Would Table 1 be more aesthetically pleasing if it were adjusted to horizontal layout?

Results：

Most of this information can be compiled into a table and there is no need to repeat it here.

References:

The format of the references has not been standardized. Please check carefully.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to resubmit a revised draft of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated all of the suggestions made by the reviewers. The changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please refer to the following text for a detailed clarification addressing the reviewers’ insightful comments and concerns.

• All added/rewritten sentences have been highlighted in yellow to indicate changes made based on reviewer’s feedback.

1. Should "extreme climate events" correspond to "events such as droughts, floods, hurricanes, and forest wildfires"? The epidemic should not be the key core issue in the study of the impact of climate warming.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. The study's focus has been revised, ensuring a more precise alignment with the research objectives. While events such as droughts, floods, hurricanes, and wildfires remain relevant within climate impact discussions, the revised scope emphasizes how individuals adapt their travel decisions in response to environmental shifts as the script is updated in section 5.

2. Line35: Is "[p.6]" not a reference? If so, the format should be different.

Response: Thank you for highlighting the mistake. The reference formatting issue in Line 35 has been corrected to align with standard citation conventions. The adjustment ensures consistency and accuracy in the manuscript's referencing framework, enhancing its academic rigor.

3. Would Table 1 be more aesthetically pleasing if it were adjusted to horizontal layout?

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions. Table 1 has been reformatted to enhance readability and clarity, ensuring that data presentation is more accessible and comprehensible. Additionally, the reference list has been thoroughly reviewed to guarantee consistency, accuracy, and alignment with citation standards.

4. Most of this information can be compiled into a table and there is no need to repeat it here.

Response: We sincerely appreciate you concerning this issue. The manuscript for table and section 5 has been refined to enhance structural coherence and narrative clarity. Redundant information between the results and discussion sections has been removed, ensuring a streamlined presentation that strengthens the logical flow of arguments and insights.

5. The format of the references has not been standardized. Please check carefully.?

Response: Thank you for your constructive criticism and comments. It has been revised as per Chicago referencing system.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Hale Özgit and Umar Saleem,

Please make sure to include the author's surname and the year of the study in your citations in the literature section. Additionaly did you conducted interview with more people, please specify the total number. 

1. Please be mindful of the citations within the Literature Review section.
2. You might consider enhancing the heading or incorporating a more comprehensive title. 
3. Is the total number of participants 4 ?
4. İf you specify the criteria according to which you selected the people you interviewed, you would provide a clearer perspective .
5. İf the total number of participants is more than 4, please specify. 

I wish you good work.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to resubmit a revised draft of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated all of the suggestions made by the reviewers. The changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please refer to the following text for a detailed clarification addressing the reviewers’ insightful comments and concerns.

• All added/rewritten sentences have been highlighted in yellow to indicate changes made based on reviewer’s feedback.

1. Please be mindful of the citations within the Literature Review section.

Response: Thank you for your constructive criticism and comments. Table 1 has been reformatted to enhance readability and clarity, ensuring that data presentation is more accessible and comprehensible. Additionally, the reference list has been thoroughly reviewed to guarantee consistency, accuracy, and alignment with citation standards.

2. You might consider enhancing the heading or incorporating a more comprehensive title.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions. The study's focus has been revised from extreme climate events to behavioral change, ensuring a more precise alignment with the research objectives. While events such as droughts, floods, hurricanes, and wildfires remain relevant within climate impact discussions, the revised scope emphasizes how individuals adapt their travel decisions in response to environmental shifts.

1. Is the total number of participants 4?

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. There are a total of 20 participants who contributed to the study. Section 3 is revised accordingly. Please review changes at line 279 to 285 at page 6-7

1. İf you specify the criteria according to which you selected the people you interviewed, you would provide a clearer perspective. 

Response: Thank you for your constructive criticism and comments. Based on your suggestions, we have made the revisions concerning the methodological framework as reflected in Table 2. The section has been comprehensively updated to enhance clarity and transparency. Detailed descriptions of the coding process, sample selection criteria, interview procedures, and intercoder reliability are now provided in Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. To ensure methodological rigour, NVivo was used for qualitative analysis, and participant protocols were systematically implemented.

5. If the total number of participants is more than 4, please specify?

Response: We sincerely appreciate you concerning this issue. Out of 24 respondents, 20 respondents have contributed for the study. Please review changes at line 279 to 285 at page 6-7.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting study. It contributes to a relevant topic, but unfortunately in a mostly intransparent and incoherent way. This reviewer sees the following main problems which should be addressed before reconsidering this paper for publication:

It is unclear where the main categorisation of the content (categories 1-3) derives from and how it is justified.

The overly long table 1 (pp. 4-12) adressing research gaps does not have a convincing connection to the gaps identified in the text above the table (p. 4) and it remains unclear where the categories come from.

It remains unclear how many people were interviewed, when the interviews took place, and along which criteria the selection was implemented. The authors claim purposive sampling without giving any background on this selection process. "table 1" referenced on p. 13 is missing completely. Technical details of the interviews (language, length, environment, recording and transcription etc.) are also missing, making the field work intransparent. Also there is no indication how data was analysed, if software support was used and if ML/AI-based natural language processing helped in the process.

At least some of the verbatims in section 4 seem not to be real verbatims but summarising text coming from either the authors or some digital assistant. There are only six interviewees mentioned in section 4, three of them very frequently (P8, P10, P17). Why is that?

The authors mention content analysis as a structuring method, with the ambition that "the study has mapped the concepts and relationships for exploring climate change awareness." However, the authors fail to clearly and transparently show how climate change is affecting tourist's perception of tourism destinations and their own behaviours (p. 2, objective of the study). 

The discussion section of the paper is mostly descriptive; there is hardly any new knowledge coming from this study.

The authors ultimately fail to clearly and transparently answer their own research questions: Where and how is climate change perceived as an obstacle in selecting travel destinations and how do natural events influence tourist behaviours? In this regard, the study is simply not coherent in that it sets forth research questions that it does not answer.

Citing Statista without making the effort to identify the original source is considered inappropriate. The 763 billion USD market size in the "source" is also in sharp contrast to the more than 900 billion USD reported by IATA for the same year, 2023.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to resubmit a revised draft of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated all of the suggestions made by the reviewers. The changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please refer to the following text for a detailed clarification addressing the reviewers’ insightful comments and concerns.

• All added/rewritten sentences have been highlighted in yellow to indicate changes made based on reviewer’s feedback.

1. It is unclear where the main categorisation of the content (categories 1-3) derives from and how it is justified.

Response: Thank you for your constructive criticism and comments. Based on your suggestions, we have made the revisions concerning the methodological framework. The section has been comprehensively updated to enhance clarity and transparency. Detailed descriptions of the coding process, sample selection criteria, interview procedures, and intercoder reliability are now provided in Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. To ensure methodological rigour, NVivo was used for qualitative analysis, and participant protocols were systematically implemented. Changes has been incorporated at page 4 (line 172).

2. The overly long table 1 (pp. 4-12) addressing research gaps does not have a convincing connection to the gaps identified in the text above the table (p. 4) and it remains unclear where the categories come from.

Response Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions. Table 1 has been reformatted to enhance readability and clarity, ensuring that data presentation is more accessible and comprehensible. Additionally, the reference list has been thoroughly reviewed to guarantee consistency, accuracy, and alignment with citation standards. Additionally, the reference list has been thoroughly reviewed to guarantee consistency, accuracy, and alignment with citation standards.

1. It remains unclear how many people were interviewed, when the interviews took place, and along which criteria the selection was implemented. The authors claim purposive sampling without giving any background on this selection process. "table 1" referenced on p. 13 is missing completely. Technical details of the interviews (language, length, environment, recording and transcription etc.) are also missing, making the field work intransparent. Also there is no indication how data was analysed, if software support was used and if ML/AI-based natural language processing helped in the process?

Response: We sincerely appreciate you concerning this issue. Based on your suggestions, we have made the revisions concerning the methodological framework. The section has been comprehensively updated to enhance clarity and transparency. Detailed descriptions of the coding process, sample selection criteria, interview procedures, and intercoder reliability are now provided in Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. To ensure methodological rigour, NVivo was used for qualitative analysis, and participant protocols were systematically implemented. Changes has been incorporated at page 4 (line 172). Table 1 has been reformatted to enhance readability and clarity, ensuring that data presentation is more accessible and comprehensible.

4. At least some of the verbatims in section 4 seem not to be real verbatims but summarising text coming from either the authors or some digital assistant. There are only six interviewees mentioned in section 4, three of them very frequently (P8, P10, P17). Why is that?

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions. The contributions of each of the 20 participants have been systematically presented in Table 2, ensuring clarity and coherence in data interpretation, as our primary focus was relevant to three categories. Therefore, the most pertinent statements were used directly from the participants. Due to ICR, only some relevant statements have been used for each theme. P20 and many other respondents have also been quoted or represented according to each category.

5. The authors mention content analysis as a structuring method, with the ambition that "the study has mapped the concepts and relationships for exploring climate change awareness." However, the authors fail to clearly and transparently show how climate change is affecting tourist's perception of tourism destinations and their own behaviours (p. 2, objective of the study)?

Response: We sincerely appreciate you concerning this issue. The objectives have been revised and changed into 3 categories based upon literature and proceeded with interview findings using NVivo, indicating the results in category 2 of the paper in section 4. It has been updated to show more clarity.

6. The discussion section of the paper is mostly descriptive; there is hardly any new knowledge coming from this study.?

Response: Thank you for your constructive criticism and comments.The theoretical contribution of this study has been explicitly integrated into the literature review (Section 2) within the framework of Destination Decision Theory (DDT). Additionally, a comprehensive discussion addressing sustainable travel behaviour, decision-making under climate risk, and behavioural geography have been systematically presented in Section 5 under theoretical understanding, ensuring alignment with existing theoretical paradigms and advancing scholarly discourse in these domains.

7. Citing Statista without making the effort to identify the original source is considered inappropriate. The 763 billion USD market size in the "source" is also in sharp contrast to the more than 900 billion USD reported by IATA for the same year, 2023.?

Response: Thank you very much for your warning. Your comment rightly pointed out the error. Although, Statista is one of the most reliable sources, yet the mistake has been corrected. The necessary correction can be verified on page 3, lines 120-123.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

Climate change can influence consumer behavior. Through literature research and semi-structured interviews, the authors of this study analyzed the impact of climate change on individuals' travel destination decisions and their understanding of the personal travel decision-making process. This exploration identified extreme natural events, environmental issues, and sustainability considerations as factors potentially affecting travel preferences. The revised parts of the article are commendable and meet the requirements. However, major revisions are needed before publication, particularly regarding the article's format and language.  

Specific suggestions:  

1. The literature review section should first elaborate on existing academic research on how climate change affects the tourism industry, then ascend to how these changes influence individual travel choices. It should also address studies on individual travel destination behavior decision-making.  
2. In Section 4, "Analysis of Survey Results," the analysis of interviews in each part is the focus of the article and should be more in-depth with a clearer logical structure.  
3. In the analysis of the relationship between transportation and the environment, has the impact of individual economic strength on transportation choices been considered? Personal behavior decisions are influenced by multiple factors. Were differences in education, economy, and culture and their impacts on individual behavior decisions excluded in the sample selection?  
4. The article classifies COVID-19 as an extreme natural event. Are there relevant literature references for this? The article emphasizes extreme natural events caused by climate change. Is it reasonable to categorize COVID-19?

Author Response

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to resubmit a revised draft of the manuscript “Travel Choice: Is Climate Change a Barrier?” for publication in Sustainability Journal, Special Issue Sustainable Tourism: Climate Change Effect on Tourist Behaviour. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated all of the suggestions made by the reviewers. The changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Please refer to the following text for a detailed clarification addressing the reviewers’ insightful comments and concerns.

* All added/rewritten sentences have been highlighted in yellow to indicate changes made based on reviewer’s feedback.

1. The literature review section should first elaborate on existing academic research on how climate change affects the tourism industry, then ascend to how these changes influence individual travel choices. It should also address studies on individual travel destination behavior decision-making.  

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful observation regarding this issue. In response, we have incorporated the relevant literature between lines 93 and 110 (pages 2–3) to address this point more comprehensively. References 12-15 are updated based on elaboration.

2. In Section 4, "Analysis of Survey Results," the analysis of interviews in each part is the focus of the article and should be more in-depth with a clearer logical structure.  

Thank you for your concerns about the in-depth addition. The study is based on emerging perspectives coming from literature and participants' views. Three major categories have been established based on these perspectives, i.e. Category 1: Relationship between travel purpose and destination (subcategories 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3), Category 2: Relationship between Transportation and Environment (4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3) and, Category 3: Relationship Between Extreme Natural Events and Travel Preferences (4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3) as reflected from page 08 to page 12. Some relevant statements from respondents are quoted directly, while others are mentioned in pretext of participants to manage the scope of the study. 

3. In the analysis of the relationship between transportation and the environment, has the effect of individual economic power on transportation preferences been taken into account? Personal behavioural decisions are affected by more than one factor. Have differences in education, economy and culture and their effects on individual behavioural decisions been excluded from the sample selection?

Thank you for your constructive criticism and question. The reason why we did not specify this detail in the article is that the participant information table particularly emphasises their occupations (reflecting their educational status). The sample selection was made by taking into account the educational and economic status of the participants, aiming to reach individuals with easy access to travel within these scopes (Page 6, Lines 299-301).  In this context, care was taken to ensure that our participants were educated and high-income individuals. Additionally, this consideration is reflected in the responses of multiple participants. For instance, the P17 participant (page 13, line 585) has highlighted such consideration as he has delays travelling. Additionally, the DDT theory used in the present study demonstrates its usefulness in understanding the actual behaviour of decision-making scenarios in four ways, as considered in the literature analysis and participant responses, as mentioned on Page 5, Lines 214-244.

4. The article classifies COVID-19 as an extreme natural event. Are there relevant literature references for this? The article emphasizes extreme natural events caused by climate change. Is it reasonable to categorize COVID-19?

Thank you for your valuable insights and for drawing our attention to the research gap related to integrating COVID-19 within the relevant category. References from 56 to 61 are added accordingly as literature support. Your timely contribution enabled us to address the missing linkage effectively.

With best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am pleased to find that practically all of my previous review comments are handled in a reasonable manner, with appropriate amendments in the text. However, moderate revisions are still needed before publication, particularly regarding the logical structure and language of the article. (1)The discussion and conclusion section should elaborate on relevant countermeasures and suggestions based on the interview analysis and the drawn conclusions. Put forward targeted countermeasures according to the previous analysis. The discussion and conclusion are not an explanation of the result analysis. Distinguish the relationship between the two.(2)Further check the format requirements of the article.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and constructive suggestions. The relevant changes have been made and highlighted in yellow. Unnecessary information has also been removed from the discussion and conclusion sections, both in response to previous and current reviews, to ensure a more apparent distinction between the result explanation and proposed countermeasures. Additionally, the format has been carefully revised to ensure full compliance with the journal's guidelines. We sincerely appreciate your time and guidance.

King Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx