Sustainable Gastronomy as a Driver of Senior Travelers’ Experience, Perceived Value, and Behavioral Outcomes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for the opportunity to review your work.

You may consider the following comments to improve your manuscript and make it more suitable to publication.

1. I suggest relocating Figure 1 at the end of chapter 2.
2. Authors need to develop a separate discussion section in consultation with the current (recent literature) in the area as it's not simply existing in this version. 
3. You may consider expanding the conclusion section and support it with recent literature. 

Best wishes. 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

→ We would like to thank the international panel of reviewer for their thoughtful consideration of our manuscripts. We appreciate the time and effort you put into reviewing our manuscript. Reviewer provided valuable guidelines for improving the paper.

____________________

1. I suggest relocating Figure 1 at the end of chapter 2. à We appreciate Reviewer’s precise comment. As mentioned, we revised it.
2. Authors need to develop a separate discussion section in consultation with the current (recent literature) in the area as it's not simply existing in this version. You may consider expanding the conclusion section and support it with recent literature. à We highly value Reviewer’s comment on this issue. The discussion section has also been supplemented with references to recent literature.

 

References added for the revised manuscript

1.      Thelen, T.; Kim, S. Towards social and environmental sustainability at food tourism festivals: Perspectives from the local community and festival organizers. Tour. Manag. Persp. 2024, 54. 101304.

2. Fan, D.X.F.; Buhalis, D.; Fragkaki, E.; Tsai, Y.R. Achieving senior tourists’ active aging through value co–creation: a customer-dominant logic perspective. Travel Res. 2025, 64(2), 427–443.

3. Qiao, G.; Ding, L.; Xiang, K.; Prideaux, B.; Xu, J. Understanding the value of tourism to seniors’ health and positive aging. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022, 19(3), 1476.

4. Su, L.; Tang, B.; Nawijn J. Eudaimonic and hedonic well-being pattern changes: Intensity and activity. Tour. Res. 2020, 84, 103008.

5.      Marques, J.; Gomes, S.; Ferreira, M.; Rebua, M.; Marques, H. Generation Z and travel motivations: the impact of age, gender, and residence. Tour. Hosp. 2025, 6(2), 82.

6. Pine II, B.J.; Gilmore, J.H. The Experience Economy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, USA, 1999.

7. Oliver, R.L. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 1997.

8. Grzymisławska, M.; Puch, E.; Zawada, A.; Grzymisławski, M. Do nutritional behaviors depend on biological sex and cultural gender?  Clin. Exp. Med.2020, 29, 165–172.

9. Hou, P.; Ren, L.R.; Li, Y.; Yao, J. Exploring senior-friendly tourism destination attributes—dimensions and prioritization. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2025, 12. 1661.

10. Yin, J. Stimulating pro-environmental dining behaviours and intentions: an S–O–R model in farm-to-table restaurants. Food J. 2025, 127(9), 3113-3131.

11.   Chang, L.; Moyle, B.D.; Dupre, K.; Filep, S.; Vada, S. Progress in research on seniors' well-being in tourism: a systematic review. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2022, 44, 101040.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

The decision to focus on senior tourists adds a valuable and novel contribution to the current debate on gastronomy tourism. The paper is well-organised, with clear objectives, a coherent structure, and well-presented findings.

However, a few aspects could be strengthened. First, the authors should clarify how they define the culinary experience within the broader framework of gastronomy tourism. Given the conceptual sophistication of this term, it would be useful to specify whether it refers primarily to dining experiences or to a wider set of food-related activities (e.g., visiting farms, wineries, or markets).

Second, while the topic is interesting, several issues have already been addressed in previous studies. Considering the focus on senior tourists, I recommend enhancing the discussion and conclusions by explicitly comparing how the main findings align with—or diverge from—existing research. This would further emphasise the paper’s contribution. In particular, the statement that “younger generations are more responsive to immediate emotional stimuli or novelty-oriented experiences, whereas seniors value the intrinsic value and sustained meaning of experiences” could be better supported or contrasted with prior literature.

Finally, the conclusions section currently uses in-text citations rather than numerical references; this should be corrected to be consistent with the journal’s style.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

→ We would like to thank the international panel of reviewer for their thoughtful consideration of our manuscripts. We appreciate the time and effort you put into reviewing our manuscript. Reviewer provided valuable guidelines for improving the paper.

 

 

 

1. First, the authors should clarify how they define the culinary experience within the broader framework of gastronomy tourism. Given the conceptual sophistication of this term, it would be useful to specify whether it refers primarily to dining experiences or to a wider set of food-related activities (e.g., visiting farms, wineries, or markets). à We highly value Reviewer’s comment on this issue.  This study was limited to experiences related to eating food at tourist destinations, and this aspect was mentioned in the theoretical background.
2. Second, while the topic is interesting, several issues have already been addressed in previous studies. Considering the focus on senior tourists, I recommend enhancing the discussion and conclusions by explicitly comparing how the main findings align with—or diverge from—existing research. This would further emphasise the paper’s contribution. In particular, the statement that “younger generations are more responsive to immediate emotional stimuli or novelty-oriented experiences, whereas seniors value the intrinsic value and sustained meaning of experiences” could be better supported or contrasted with prior literature. à We highly value Reviewer’s comment on this issue. The discussion and implications sections were supplemented by referencing prior research to reflect its alignment with existing research. Furthermore, explanations supporting the perspective that older adults' experiences emphasize intrinsic value and enduring meaning were provided.

 

3. Finally, the conclusions section currently uses in-text citations rather than numerical references; this should be corrected to be consistent with the journal’s style. à Thank you for your valuable advice. I apologize for not checking it in advance before submitting. I have revised it entirely.

 

References added for the revised manuscript

1.      Thelen, T.; Kim, S. Towards social and environmental sustainability at food tourism festivals: Perspectives from the local community and festival organizers. Tour. Manag. Persp. 2024, 54. 101304.

2. Fan, D.X.F.; Buhalis, D.; Fragkaki, E.; Tsai, Y.R. Achieving senior tourists’ active aging through value co–creation: a customer-dominant logic perspective. Travel Res. 2025, 64(2), 427–443.

3. Qiao, G.; Ding, L.; Xiang, K.; Prideaux, B.; Xu, J. Understanding the value of tourism to seniors’ health and positive aging. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022, 19(3), 1476.

4. Su, L.; Tang, B.; Nawijn J. Eudaimonic and hedonic well-being pattern changes: Intensity and activity. Tour. Res. 2020, 84, 103008.

5.      Marques, J.; Gomes, S.; Ferreira, M.; Rebua, M.; Marques, H. Generation Z and travel motivations: the impact of age, gender, and residence. Tour. Hosp. 2025, 6(2), 82.

6. Pine II, B.J.; Gilmore, J.H. The Experience Economy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, USA, 1999.

7. Oliver, R.L. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 1997.

8. Grzymisławska, M.; Puch, E.; Zawada, A.; Grzymisławski, M. Do nutritional behaviors depend on biological sex and cultural gender?  Clin. Exp. Med.2020, 29, 165–172.

9. Hou, P.; Ren, L.R.; Li, Y.; Yao, J. Exploring senior-friendly tourism destination attributes—dimensions and prioritization. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2025, 12. 1661.

10. Yin, J. Stimulating pro-environmental dining behaviours and intentions: an S–O–R model in farm-to-table restaurants. Food J. 2025, 127(9), 3113-3131.

11.   Chang, L.; Moyle, B.D.; Dupre, K.; Filep, S.; Vada, S. Progress in research on seniors' well-being in tourism: a systematic review. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2022, 44, 101040.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is timely and relevant, given the global growth of the senior tourism market and the increasing prominence of food-related experiences in tourism.

Although gender was tested as a moderating variable, its nonsignificant effect could be discussed more deeply, considering cultural factors. I recommend that the authors explain briefly in the abstract and expand it in the discussion.

The manuscript does not specify the geographic location and type of culinary experiences studied, which limits the interpretation of results. In section 3, they mentioned "The target population was 350 elderly people aged 60 or older living in Seoul 228 
who had traveled in the past six months". However, it is not clear if the participants had an international trip or a national. What type of foods did they experience?

I recommend expanding the explanation in the conclusion section, especially the last sentence.

Author Response

 

Reviewer 3

→ We would like to thank the international panel of reviewer for their thoughtful consideration of our manuscripts. We appreciate the time and effort you put into reviewing our manuscript. Reviewer provided valuable guidelines for improving the paper.

 

 

1. Although gender was tested as a moderating variable, its nonsignificant effect could be discussed more deeply, considering cultural factors. I recommend that the authors explain briefly in the abstract and expand it in the discussion. à We highly value Reviewer’s comment on this issue. More detailed related content was mentioned in the current issue.

 

2. The manuscript does not specify the geographic location and type of culinary experiences studied, which limits the interpretation of results. In section 3, they mentioned "The target population was 350 elderly people aged 60 or older living in Seoul 228 who had traveled in the past six months". However, it is not clear if the participants had an international trip or a national. What type of foods did they experience? à  We appreciate Reviewer’s precise comment. It has been revised to include domestic and international travel, and culinary experience has been more clearly defined in the theoretical background as the experience of eating food at a tourist destination.

 

3. I recommend expanding the explanation in the conclusion section, especially the last sentence. à We highly value Reviewer’s comment on this issue. The conclusion section has been revised to clarify the overall point.

References added for the revised manuscript

1.      Thelen, T.; Kim, S. Towards social and environmental sustainability at food tourism festivals: Perspectives from the local community and festival organizers. Tour. Manag. Persp. 2024, 54. 101304.

2. Fan, D.X.F.; Buhalis, D.; Fragkaki, E.; Tsai, Y.R. Achieving senior tourists’ active aging through value co–creation: a customer-dominant logic perspective. Travel Res. 2025, 64(2), 427–443.

3. Qiao, G.; Ding, L.; Xiang, K.; Prideaux, B.; Xu, J. Understanding the value of tourism to seniors’ health and positive aging. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022, 19(3), 1476.

4. Su, L.; Tang, B.; Nawijn J. Eudaimonic and hedonic well-being pattern changes: Intensity and activity. Tour. Res. 2020, 84, 103008.

5.      Marques, J.; Gomes, S.; Ferreira, M.; Rebua, M.; Marques, H. Generation Z and travel motivations: the impact of age, gender, and residence. Tour. Hosp. 2025, 6(2), 82.

6. Pine II, B.J.; Gilmore, J.H. The Experience Economy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, USA, 1999.

7. Oliver, R.L. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 1997.

8. Grzymisławska, M.; Puch, E.; Zawada, A.; Grzymisławski, M. Do nutritional behaviors depend on biological sex and cultural gender?  Clin. Exp. Med.2020, 29, 165–172.

9. Hou, P.; Ren, L.R.; Li, Y.; Yao, J. Exploring senior-friendly tourism destination attributes—dimensions and prioritization. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2025, 12. 1661.

10. Yin, J. Stimulating pro-environmental dining behaviours and intentions: an S–O–R model in farm-to-table restaurants. Food J. 2025, 127(9), 3113-3131.

11.   Chang, L.; Moyle, B.D.; Dupre, K.; Filep, S.; Vada, S. Progress in research on seniors' well-being in tourism: a systematic review. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2022, 44, 101040.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an increasingly relevant topic—culinary tourism among senior travelers—and employs structural equation modeling to examine relationships between culinary experience, perceived value, positive emotions, and behavioral intentions. The research is generally well-structured, and the writing is clear, making the theoretical framework and hypotheses easy to follow.

The study's strengths include its timely focus on an underexplored demographic segment and the systematic application of established theoretical constructs to the senior tourism context. The methodology appears sound, with appropriate use of confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling, and the sample size of 279 respondents provides adequate statistical power. The authors demonstrate a good understanding of the relevant literature and situate their work appropriately within existing scholarship.

However, several concerns warrant attention. First, the theoretical contribution appears incremental rather than transformative. The hypothesized relationships largely confirm well-established connections between experience quality, value, emotions, and behavioral intentions, offering limited novel insights. The rejection of Hypothesis 5 regarding gender moderation is interesting but receives insufficient theoretical engagement—the authors could better explain why gender differences that appear in other contexts did not emerge here. Additionally, the cross-sectional design limits causal inference claims throughout the discussion, and the geographic restriction to Seoul significantly constrains generalizability. The manuscript would benefit from a more critical discussion of why their senior sample behaved similarly to previously studied general tourist populations and what truly distinguishes senior culinary tourism experiences beyond age demographics. The practical implications section, while comprehensive, occasionally overstates managerial implications given the study's limitations.

Overall, this is competent research that makes a modest contribution to understanding senior culinary tourism. With revisions addressing theoretical distinctiveness and methodological limitations, it could merit publication. I recommend major revisions before acceptance.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

→ We would like to thank the international panel of reviewer for their thoughtful consideration of our manuscripts. We appreciate the time and effort you put into reviewing our manuscript. Reviewer provided valuable guidelines for improving the paper.

 

 

1. First, the theoretical contribution appears incremental rather than transformative. The hypothesized relationships largely confirm well-established connections between experience quality, value, emotions, and behavioral intentions, offering limited novel insights. The rejection of Hypothesis 5 regarding gender moderation is interesting but receives insufficient theoretical engagement—the authors could better explain why gender differences that appear in other contexts did not emerge here. → We appreciate Reviewer’s precise In the discussion section, where the moderating role of gender was not established, we revised the description to include more in-depth information based on prior research. We also revised the paper to reflect the implications that can be derived from the simple hypothetical relationships in this study.

 

2. Additionally, the cross-sectional design limits causal inference claims throughout the discussion, and the geographic restriction to Seoul significantly constrains generalizability. The manuscript would benefit from a more critical discussion of why their senior sample behaved similarly to previously studied general tourist populations and what truly distinguishes senior culinary tourism experiences beyond age demographics.  →  We appreciate Reviewer’s meticulous  Thanks for the good suggestion. These limitations have been more clearly stated, and we will definitely address them through future research. As an initial perspective on gastronomic tourism research targeting senior tourists, we have revised the Introduction and Implications sections to highlight the unique aspects of this study.

 

3. The practical implications section, while comprehensive, occasionally overstates managerial implications given the study's limitations. → We highly value Reviewer’s comment on this issue.  We revised the results of this study based on practical implications that can be derived from them.

 

4. Overall, this is competent research that makes a modest contribution to understanding senior culinary tourism. With revisions addressing theoretical distinctiveness and methodological limitations, it could merit publication. I recommend major revisions before acceptance. Thank you for taking the time to review our paper. We have made revisions that reflect your feedback as closely as possible.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments