The Relationship Between Work Stress and Compensatory Tourism Consumption: Exploring New Directions for Individual Sustainable Tourism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study explores an under-researched topic: the link between work stress, emotional exhaustion and compensatory tourism consumption, leveraging theoretical frameworks like the Challenge-Hindrance Stress Model, the Stimulus-Organism-Response Model and compensatory consumption theory.

Its relevance is well-grounded in sustainability, psychology and tourism studies, offering potential theoretical contributions and practical implications. Investigating compensatory tourism beyond COVID-19 and integrating stress theories is an innovative approach.

Employing structural equation modeling and a sufficiently large sample size (n=361) ensures statistical validity. Clear recommendations for tourism companies, governments and organizations align well with the study’s goals of supporting sustainable tourism. The sample is geographically and economically restricted to three Chinese regions (Beijing, Tianjin, Heilongjiang).

Broader cross-cultural samples could enhance the generalizability of findings. The study focuses heavily on stress-related variables, excluding potential moderators like cultural values or job roles that could influence compensatory consumption.

The partial mediating role of emotional exhaustion is valuable but may be over-simplified without considering alternative or moderating variables. While the implications are insightful, the high-level recommendations lack actionable details, such as specific strategies for implementing stress-relief tourism programs. Incorporate a broader demographic and cultural diversity to explore cross-regional differences in stress-tourism dynamics.

Future studies should include variables like personality traits, organizational culture or individual coping strategies to refine the findings. Recommendations for governments and companies could benefit from more detailed examples, such as step-by-step implementation strategies or case studies.

Include a broader perspective by exploring alternative mediators or moderators, such as resilience, financial capacity or societal pressures.

The writing is clear but verbose at times. Streamlining the introduction and theoretical sections would improve readability.

Figures and tables are well-constructed but could benefit from richer visual interpretations, such as pathway diagrams or comparative statistics across demographics.

The article offers a significant contribution to sustainable tourism literature and bridges the gap between work stress and consumption patterns.

While its theoretical underpinnings and implications are promising, addressing the noted weaknesses would elevate its impact and rigor.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide valuable suggestions for my article! I have made revisions point by point, and the detailed content can be found in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study based on combining the concepts of work stress, compensatory spending, and sustainable tourism, provides a deeper understanding of the relationship between work stress and tourism spending and points to opportunities to develop sustainable tourism practices. The significance of this study stems from several aspects: the application of an interdisciplinary approach, practical application in tourism, focus on sustainability, empirical basis, and the perspective of work stress. The results of the study can be valuable for both academic researchers and professionals in the tourism industry. These findings can help tourism companies in creating products and marketing strategies aimed at this group. The study contributes to considering how certain consumption patterns can be more ethical and sustainable. Significantly, emotional exhaustion was identified as a mediating factor, which allows for targeted interventions.

Two key observations stand out. One concerns the general applicability of the study results because the study relies on data from an online survey, which may limit its representativeness. The other concerns the influence of the cultural context because work stress and reactions to it may differ depending on culture, which could affect the application of the results in different settings.

As positive aspects of the methodology, I highlight the diversity of data collection channels, stratified random sampling, geographical diversity, rigorous measures to ensure data quality, and the use of advanced statistical techniques. For future research, it would be useful to consider expanding the geographical scope, a longer time frame for data collection, and the inclusion of additional analysis tools. Despite its limitations, this approach provides a reliable basis for testing research hypotheses and their application in practice.

The discussion represents a significant contribution to the theoretical understanding and practical implications of compensatory tourism. However, there are opportunities to expand the analysis, to include broader cultural and individual factors, and to take a more long-term approach to the research. The study lays a strong foundation for future research in this area.

The manuscript has been significantly improved, which contributes to a better understanding of the topic. Numerous literature have been used, but older sources dominate. The methodology of the manuscript is edited, with the only exception being the lack of a section on the conclusion and recommendations for further research. With minor changes, including the integration of more recent literature and the addition of a conclusion with recommendations, the paper could be even more relevant and influential for the academic community and tourism professionals.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide valuable suggestions for my article! I have made revisions point by point, and the detailed content can be found in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has undergone significant improvement in quality, with a clearer structure and a stronger theoretical foundation for the study. However, several observations must be addressed to further enhance its rigor:

1. Figure 1: The hypotheses H2 and H3 are not associated with any observable relationships between variables. Clarification or revision is required to ensure the hypotheses are meaningfully integrated into the framework.

2. Table 1 (Demographic Profiles): The inclusion of demographic profiles in the article must be justified, as none of the variables listed in this table are utilized in the subsequent analyses. Their relevance to the study should be explicitly stated.

3. Line 442 (Convergent Validity): While the text refers to good indicators of convergent validity, it is necessary to include a reference supporting the claim that these measures adequately indicate validity.

4. Section 5.3 (Regression and Mediation Analysis): The mediation analysis is not clearly articulated, as the direct and indirect effects are not identified in terms of estimates. This is particularly problematic because the role of the mediating variables is essential to the analysis. The tables do not adequately present the extent of both effects. Moreover, the direct effects are analyzed separately. Except in cases where the variables are entirely independent, estimating both direct and indirect effects in isolation is inappropriate. If the objective is to evaluate the mediating role of a variable, these effects must be estimated jointly. Additional information is needed on the methodology employed for the model estimates, as meaningful relationships cannot be established to validate the hypotheses if the analyses are conducted individually rather than in a unified context.

5. Final Paragraph: It is recommended to restructure the final paragraph into two distinct sections: one for discussion and the other for conclusions, future research directions, and limitations. This separation will improve clarity and organization.

Addressing these points will significantly strengthen the article’s analytical rigor and overall coherence.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide valuable suggestions for my article! I have made revisions point by point, and the detailed content can be found in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the manuscript has improved considerably. An effort on the part of the authors to express more clearly the objective of the work and the methodology for validating the results is perceived.

However, the difference between the specification of the research model, mainly between the H5 and H6 hypotheses, and its result in the estimation of the different tables is still not appreciated. If the H5 and H6 hypotheses are verified separately, considering the same mediating variable, from the exogenous and endogenous variables, the model must be represented in a more understandable way. It is still perceived that the relationship between the variables in the model is made by estimating models separately, which is not reflected in the graph of the research model. 
In section 6.1. and following, the discussion should establish a dialogue between the main results obtained in the research and the literature review. This discussion is not appreciated. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide valuable suggestions for my article! I have made revisions point by point, and the detailed content can be found in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper. I see potential in your work, but there are several issues that need to be addressed.

1. The literature review is insufficient, given the substantial body of existing research on the relationship between work stress and leisure travel consumption. This inadequacy undermines the theoretical foundation of the study and weakens the formulation of hypotheses and the model.

2. There appears to be an error in Table 2. The first column and first row should contain identical variables, and the correlation of each variable with itself should be 1.

3. In line 249, the authors incorrectly interpret the interaction results. A value of 0.01 indicates statistical significance, not the Pearson correlation coefficient.

4. In line 269, the reference to Table 3 is inaccurate; it should be Table 4.

5. The discussion section is overly simplistic and lacks a comparison with previous research.

6. The paper's reference list is notably short, with only 8 citations, which is insufficient for a standard research paper. Furthermore, as the paper targets an international journal, the inclusion of a Chinese-language reference is inappropriate.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While the English language is generally good, a few minor revisions could further improve the clarity and flow of the text.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction provides a solid rationale for the study, contextualizing it within broader trends such as increased work stress and workplace competition.

The literature review highlights the novelty of examining the intersection between work stress and compensatory tourism consumption. While the theoretical foundation is strong, the introduction could benefit from a more detailed explanation of the practical implications for tourism businesses and policymakers.

The use of a well-structured online survey and validated scales ensures reliability. Screening methods to eliminate invalid responses enhance the credibility of the dataset.

You could expand on the representativeness of the sample. Were demographic biases minimized given the limited regional focus? Provide more details on the survey design and recruitment process to enhance reproducibility.

The statistical analysis is comprehensive, including correlation, regression, and mediation analyses.

The results are well-structured and align with the hypotheses. The results could benefit from Incorporation of visual aids to summarize key findings, especially the mediating role of emotional exhaustion.

Discuss potential biases or limitations in the data interpretation, such as cultural factors influencing compensatory tourism behaviors. The discussion effectively links the findings to the literature and practical implications. It acknowledges the role of emotional exhaustion in mediating the relationship between work stress and tourism consumption. Deepen the discussion on theoretical implications, such as how this study advances compensatory consumption theories.

Address the sustainability of compensatory tourism behaviors in the context of environmental concerns.

The conclusion succinctly reiterates the study's contributions and practical applications.

Emphasize actionable recommendations for organizations to manage work stress and foster sustainable tourism practices.

The references are relevant and provide a solid foundation for the study. Ensure all citations are correctly formatted and consider adding more recent studies, if available, to enhance the study’s contemporary relevance. T

he article is a valuable contribution to the literature on work stress and compensatory tourism consumption, with well-defined objectives and robust methods.

Opportunities for improvement include expanding the geographic and demographic scope, providing richer data visualization, and discussing broader implications for sustainable tourism.

The research should have a lot more references relevant to the research area.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is relevant and interesting because it links work stress and compensatory tourism consumption, emphasizing the impact of stress on consumption patterns in the tourism sector.

The paper deals with contemporary work stress problems and their impact on consumer behavior. This is a topical topic due to the growing number of people who travel to manage stress. Interestingly, the research focused on two types of stressors (challenges and distractions), as well as on the mediating role of emotional exhaustion.

The authors have made the right choice of methods to study complex relationships such as those mentioned above.

The authors provide practical recommendations for the tourism industry by suggesting ways for companies to maintain long-term relationships with consumers who seek compensatory activities.

The manuscript represents a potentially significant contribution to the understanding of the relationship between work-related stress and tourism consumption, with the potential to inform both academic circles and industry practices. The findings are relevant for the creation of strategies that encourage individual sustainable tourism and enable better stress management through travel.

It is not necessary to number the sections in the abstract. Add keywords.

The research used very limited older literature. The authors are advised to research newer literature in this area and supplement the references.

The chapter is missing what the authors conclude in this research and what are the further steps of the research.

 

The overall impression of the manuscript is that it has potential, but that it needs to be based on more recent knowledge in this field and supplemented with conclusions.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research presented here is of great interest, as it aims to establish a relationship between work-related stress and compensatory consumption derived from it.

Although the title of the work makes clear and precise reference to what is intended to be addressed in it, in the body of the work there is no explicit reference to its implications for sustainable tourism, at least in a justified way.

The structure of the work is incorrect, and should be reviewed in depth, since there are no sections of introduction, theoretical framework in a clear and precise way. It does refer to the methodology and the analysis of the results, but there are no conclusions or social and management implications.

In the Research Background section, which aims to be a section equivalent to a theoretical framework, there is no foundation based on previous research, but is limited to establishing a series of relationships that are not justified in the literature.

The following sections of Related concepts and Theoretical Foundations are worded in the same way as the previous section. Arguments without a solid theoretical basis from previous research. In fact, the article lacks a clear and well-founded theoretical framework.

In the Methodology section, the type of sampling used is not specified, nor the way in which it is verified that the answers obtained correspond to the population under study, which would imply a sampling bias. Not all measurement instruments are referenced by previous studies of internal and external validation, reliability, convergent validity and consistency.

In the results section, the analyses carried out are presented in a structured way, giving rise to the answers raised in the hypotheses.

The Discussion section should be a dialogue between the theoretical framework and the findings found in the analysis carried out. Since there is no grounded theoretical framework, the discussion makes no sense and comments again on the results obtained from the work.

There is no section of conclusions, no social implications or assessment of the impact of the work carried out, as well as implications for consumers and business managers.

The bibliography is scarce, and relevant only for the section on Measurement Instruments, but it does not exist for the foundation of the theoretical framework and the hypotheses raised.