Investigating the Impact of Social Marketing on Tourists’ Behavior for Attaining Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the paper is relevant and timely, considering the increasing importance of sustainable tourism and the role of social marketing in achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The empirical design, based on structural equation modeling and a solid sample (n = 572), adds value to the manuscript.

However, several important issues need to be addressed:

1. Language and Style
   The manuscript contains numerous grammatical, stylistic, and formatting errors. A comprehensive language editing is necessary. 

2. Theoretical Contribution
   While the manuscript aims to make a theoretical contribution by identifying mediators between social marketing and tourist behavior, this claim needs to be substantiated. The theoretical novelty is relatively modest, and the conceptual framework could be better justified in relation to existing models like TPB, VBN, or the Value-Attitude-Behavior model.

3. Model Complexity and Redundancy
   The inclusion of four types of media (SM, EV, PR, OM) and three mediators (SN, VA, CC) creates a rather mechanical structure with repetitive hypothesis sets (e.g., H1a–H4c). This risks diluting the paper's focus and clarity.

4. Conceptual Clarity
   Some concepts are not clearly distinguished. For instance, the distinction between “communication channel” and “media type” remains blurry. Also, the use of terms like “value”, “subjective norms” and “communication” needs clearer operationalization.

5. Methodological Transparency
   The methodology section is detailed, but it would benefit from greater clarity on:

   • Sampling strategy and representativeness.

   • Justification for using SmartPLS over other SEM tools.

   • Reporting of effect sizes and model fit indices beyond SRMR (e.g., Q², f²).

6. Discussion and Implications
   The discussion is extensive but could be more critical. For example, why does social media not influence communication channels? What practical implications arise from that? The implications section reads as overly general and could be more tailored to specific tourism stakeholders (e.g., DMOs, NGOs, platforms).

7. Structure and Redundancy
   Several parts (e.g., the long literature review and theoretical framework) include repeated arguments. Consider condensing and streamlining to improve flow and readability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would benefit significantly from comprehensive English language editing. Although the scientific content is understandable, the current form contains numerous grammatical mistakes, awkward constructions, and inconsistent verb usage, which reduce the clarity and professionalism of the paper. Many sentences are overly long or structurally imprecise, and there are recurring issues with article usage, plural forms, and subject–verb agreement.

Below are selected examples illustrating the linguistic issues:

1. Abstract:
   Original: “This study response to the following question…”
   Correction: “This study responds to the following question…”

2. Introduction:
   Original: “One of the highly recommended means by experts and scholars is to transform and render consumption and lifestyle more sustainable and responsible toward our planet.”
   Improvement: Consider rephrasing for clarity: “Experts and scholars widely recommend transforming consumption patterns and lifestyles to become more sustainable and environmentally responsible.”

3. Section 2.2:
   Original: “That is why our study adopted this marketing approach as a valuable framework to explore the factors (antecedents) and how (the methods/techniques and tools/media) influence tourist consumers…”
   Issue: Clunky structure and unnecessary parentheses.
   Suggestion: “Therefore, our study adopts this marketing approach to explore both the factors influencing tourist behavior and the methods through which they exert their impact.”

4. Methodology:
   Original: “The questionnaire have two sections.”
   Correction: “The questionnaire has two sections.”

5. Discussion:
   Original: “Combined with specific topics, the H8 and H9 support the role of consumer behavior…”
   Correction: “When combined with specific topics, Hypotheses 8 and 9 support the role of consumer behavior…”

These issues occur throughout the text and need to be addressed to ensure that the article meets international academic publishing standards. I recommend engaging a native English-speaking academic editor or a specialized editing service prior to further consideration for publication.

Author Response

 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Investigating the Impact of Social Marketing on Tourists’ Behavior for Attaining Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Comments:

After carefully reading the manuscript on “Investigating the Impact of Social Marketing on Tourists’ Behavior for Attaining Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)", I am suggesting the following points, which should be incorporated before the publication of this paper.

1. Abstract:
   1. Could the authors briefly state the geographical or cultural context of the data collection to enhance contextual transparency?
   2. The abstract claims a “novel element” in linking social marketing and SDG attainment—can the authors specify what aspect is novel relative to existing studies?
   3. The phrase "social marketing media" is kind of vague—can the authors clarify if this refers to delivery methods or content types?
2. Introduction
   1. The introduction claims limited research on SM in tourism. Could the authors more clearly differentiate their study from closely related prior work?
   2. Line 52–59, the authors mention a "critical literature gap regarding behavioral mechanisms for SDG attainment." Can the authors provide a more systematic summary of prior empirical studies on social marketing's role in sustainable tourism to better support the identified gap? A visual summary table might also help clarify how the current study differentiates from past work.
   3. What exactly is meant by “consumption transformations” in Line 28? Can the authors provide an operational definition?
   4. The connection between SM and SDG11 (sustainable cities) is less obvious—can the authors more clearly explain this link?
   5. The research question in Line 59 is ambiguously phrased. Can it be reframed more directly?
   6. The introduction briefly references TPB (Theory of Planned Behavior), but does not clearly commit to it. Should this be explicitly stated as the theoretical framework?
   7. Line 61 says, “The aims of this study is…”—a grammatical error that should be corrected.
3. Literature Review:
   1. Can the authors better distinguish between sub-sections 2.1 and 2.2 by more clearly titling and separating them?
   2. Much of the content in Section 2.1 reiterates what’s already in the introduction. Can the authors trim redundant portions?
   3. The review of social marketing in tourism (Lines 107–137) is somewhat superficial. Can additional empirical studies from various global contexts be included?
   4. While SM is defined (Lines 108–114), can the authors contrast its application in tourism vs. public health more explicitly?
   5. Can the authors include critical views or limitations of SM in tourism to provide a balanced review?
4. Theoretical Framework & Hypotheses:
   1. Why were only these four media types selected (social media, events, PR, other media)? Were others considered (e.g., influencer marketing)?
   2. Could the authors provide clearer distinctions between overlapping constructs like communication channels and PR (Lines 218–241)?
   3. With 9 hypotheses and 3 mediators across 4 media types, the model is seeming a bit complex. Can the authors justify the need for such granularity?
   4. Is the theoretical model fully consistent with the TPB, or does it integrate multiple theories? Clarifying this would enhance theoretical rigor.
   5. Figure 1 (Line 342) is mentioned but not described in detail. Can the authors provide a brief explanation of its key components?
   6. Hypotheses H1–H4 all have “a, b, c” versions—can these be grouped in a more concise table to avoid narrative repetition?
5. Methodology:
   1. Can the authors elaborate on the sampling strategy—was it random, stratified, or convenience sampling? How were tourists selected?
   2. How do the authors ensure that the sample of 572 respondents is representative of the larger tourist population in China?
   3. Was the questionnaire validated through a pilot test? Line 362 mentions pretesting—can more details be added (e.g., changes made)?
   4. Mitigation: How did the authors control for potential social desirability bias in responses related to sustainable behavior?
   5. Were the questionnaires filled during or after travel experiences? This timing could affect recall and reliability.
   6. I believe the ethical approval for the survey was obtained. This is particularly important when collecting potentially sensitive behavioral data. Please confirm this matter.
6. Results:
   1. The SRMR value is reported as 0.041. Can the authors interpret this in relation to accepted thresholds and model fit quality?
   2. Which path relationships had the strongest/weakest standardized coefficients? A ranking or discussion of effect sizes would aid interpretation.
   3. Line 418 reports VIF between 1 and 3—is there a variable close to the problematic threshold?
   4. Would a visual path diagram help readers grasp the structural model and its relationships more easily?
   5. Was normality of data tested or required for PLS-SEM?
   6. Harman's single-factor test suggests limited CMV (Line 407). Could the authors also consider more recent techniques like the CFA marker variable?
7. Discussion:
   1. Can the authors provide more detailed examples of how tourism managers can apply SM principles in campaigns?
   2. The discussion repeats the mediating effects of SN, VA, and CC. Can the authors articulate a clearer theoretical takeaway?
   3. Given the cross-sectional design, how cautious should we be about causal claims made regarding influence of SM on behavior?
   4. How do these findings compare with similar studies in other countries or regions?
   5. Does the discussion overgeneralize from a China-based sample to global tourism behavior?
   6. Could the authors provide more concrete suggestions for aligning their findings with SDG indicators or targets?
8. Conclusion & Implications:
   1. The conclusion refers to “multi-path framework” (Line 506)—can this be visually or verbally summarized in a bullet-point form?
   2. The manuscript claims to offer novel insights (Lines 527–528). Can the authors more clearly articulate what specifically is novel?
   3. The limitation on geographic context is noted (Line 572), but could the authors speculate on how this cultural context might have biased findings?
   4. Could the authors elaborate on what an experimental design (mentioned in Line 582) might look like in this context?
   5. Can the authors suggest how their findings could inform UN or governmental SDG tourism strategies?

 

• Some sentences could be more explicit and easier to follow; also, many grammatical mistakes exist in this manuscript.
• The manuscript needs proper language and formatting revision. There are several typo-grammatical and punctuation errors in the text, which should be carefully corrected.

 

The comments mentioned above are mandatory for the author/s to incorporate in the revised manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• Some sentences could be more explicit and easier to follow; also, many grammatical mistakes exist in this manuscript.
• The manuscript needs proper language and formatting revision. There are several typo-grammatical and punctuation errors in the text, which should be carefully corrected.

Author Response

 

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the opportunity to review the manuscript "Investigating the Impact of Social Marketing on Tourists' Behavior for Attaining Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)". The paper explores how social marketing (SM) influences tourists' consumption decisions and how these behavioral influences contribute to achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 11 (sustainable cities) and 12 (responsible consumption). The authors developed and empirically tested a conceptual model, revealing that various SM media significantly affect tourists' behavioral patterns. The study also found that subjective norms, personal values, and communication channels play mediating roles, with their influence varying across different media types (events, public relations, traditional media, and social media).

The manuscript needs some rework before considering for publication. Here are my comments:

1. The category "Other Media" is vaguely defined, encompassing a wide range of traditional media without clear distinctions. The authors should consider either disaggregating "Other Media" into more specific categories (e.g., print media, television, radio) or providing a more robust theoretical justification for grouping them.
2. The study was conducted exclusively in Mainland China. The authors acknowledge this as a limitation but do not sufficiently discuss how the cultural and socioeconomic context of China might influence the findings compared to other regions. The authors should elaborate on potential cultural or socioeconomic factors specific to China that might shape tourist behavior and the effectiveness of SM initiatives.
3. While the paper focuses on SDG11 and SDG12, the initial part of Section 2.1 (lines 78-88) delves into waste reduction, recycling, and sustainable mobility without consistently linking these directly to the specific consumption behaviors of tourists within the context of the study's scope. The authors should strengthen the direct link between the discussed aspects of SDG11 and SDG12 and the tourists' consumption behaviors being investigated.
4. The paper mentions a pre-test with 56 respondents to refine the instrument. However, details regarding the outcomes of this pre-test (e.g., which items were eliminated, what specific ambiguities were found) are not provided. The authors should include a brief summary of the pre-test findings, detailing any significant modifications made to the questionnaire based on the pre-test results.
5. While the discussion section acknowledges that different SM media exert differential effects, the practical implications section (Section 7.2) offers general recommendations for "tourism entities". More specific actionable insights tailored to each SM channel (social media, events, public relations, other media) would be more beneficial for practitioners. The practical implications should be broken down to offer specific advice for leveraging each type of social marketing channel based on its unique mediating effects. For instance, specific strategies for social media campaigns versus public relations initiatives could be outlined.

 

Minor issues

I recommend to link your reseaech with previous research in this journal linked to this topic (e.g. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su13115774; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063164; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126599; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063351)

There are a few minor grammatical errors and typos (e.g., "reponse to the following question", "conceptal model" in Figure 1, "disscussion". A thorough proofread by a native English speaker or a professional editing service is recommended to catch and correct these minor errors.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a few minor grammatical errors and typos (e.g., "reponse to the following question", "conceptal model" in Figure 1, "disscussion". A thorough proofread by a native English speaker or a professional editing service is recommended to catch and correct these minor errors.

Author Response

 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article makes a valuable and original contribution to the field of sustainable tourism and social marketing. It addresses a timely and policy-relevant topic - how various social marketing channels influence tourists’ sustainable behavior in the context of SDGs. The study’s strengths include:

• The comprehensive conceptual model integrating multiple SM channels (social media, PR, events, other media);

• The mediation analysis, which sheds light on the indirect pathways between marketing and behavior;

• The clear theoretical grounding in the Theory of Planned Behavior and value-based approaches;

• The practical implications for tourism management and policy (especially in China).

Suggestions for improvement:

1. Clarify the distinction between SM types (e.g., public relations vs. other media). Although definitions are provided, the reader would benefit from a short summary table contrasting the four media types in terms of goals, channels, and examples.

2. Discuss cultural context more deeply. While the authors note the collectivist culture in China, this could be expanded by comparing to Western contexts. Such a discussion would improve the generalizability and future relevance of the findings.

3. Broaden theoretical implications. Consider elaborating on how these findings might extend the TPB framework in tourism research, especially the dynamic roles of mediators like values and CC.

4. Technical clarity. A small number of tables (e.g., Table 6 or 7) could benefit from slightly improved formatting or clarification of abbreviations for better readability.

Overall, this is a high-quality empirical study with strong theoretical grounding and policy relevance.

Author Response

 

Please see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congrats on the revision.

Author Response

 

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf