Environmental Concerns and Water Conservation Behavior in Desert Tourism: Applying the Extended Norm Activation Theory for Gen Z Tourists

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please revise the manuscript by addressing the following concerns.

1. The theoretical contribution of this study is not clearly presented. What are the new insights and findings of this study that extend our knowledge of water conservation behavior?

 

2. An overarching theoretical framework should be provided as a theoretical foundation to include new construct to the NAT model. That is, what is the theoretical rationale of incorporating environmental concerns into the NAT model?

 

3. A table that summarizes the key findings of relevant studies on NAT and water conservation behavior should be added.

 

4. Environmental concerns, as the key construct of this study, should be well reviewed in a separate section. It should be compared with other antecedents of personal norms in the NAT. That is, the manuscript should carefully distinct it from all other antecedents conceptually, if it seems to be a new antecedent to personal norm.

 

5. The sources of all measures should be reported.

 

6. Why did this study merely focus on the Gen Z? What is theoretical consideration?

 

7. The sampling technique is confusing. It said the systematic sampling method had been used. But it seems the population has been stratified by age before the application of systematic sampling. It should be explained with details.

 

8. Did the analysis use PLS-SEM or covariance-based SEM? The manuscript referred to PLS-SEM. But it seems the test of measurement model followed the logic of covariance-based SEM. It should be clearly reported. Why not use covariance-based SEM?

 

9. Statistical test of potential CMV should be added.

 

10. How the social desirability problem of survey data collection was addressed in this study, given it studied the water reservation behavior?

 

11. The logic of data analysis is confusing. There is only one model proposed, the extended model. Why did this study examine the original model? It seems unnecessary.

 

12. The discussion of theoretical implications is vague. It just repeated what this study had done. This discussion should be written through a theoretical lens.

 

13. The managerial implications are not tight to the key findings of this study. Moreover, they should be more actionable.

 

14. Back to title. What is the extended norm activation theory? It should be clearly presented in the text. Does the extended norm activation theory refer to the NAT that incorporates the environmental concerns in this study? If so, it is confusing how a study could apply a theory which will be developed by this study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your thorough and constructive comments. We have carefully addressed each point as detailed below:
1. Theoretical Contribution:
We have substantially revised the theoretical implications section to clearly articulate our contributions. The enhanced NAT model with environmental concerns demonstrates superior explanatory power for water conservation behaviors, particularly among Gen Z tourists. This contribution is now explicitly presented in both the theoretical framework and discussion sections .
2. Theoretical Framework:
We have added a comprehensive theoretical framework in Section 2 that provides clear rationale for incorporating environmental concerns into NAT. This enhancement is supported by recent literature suggesting the need for theoretical refinements that reflect contemporary environmental challenges .
3. Environmental Concerns Review:
We have added a dedicated section  reviewing environmental concerns, which:
- Provides theoretical distinction from other NAT antecedents
- Compares EC with traditional NAT variables
- Justifies its inclusion as a complementary construct
- Reviews empirical evidence supporting its role
5. Measurement Sources:
A detailed table  has been added reporting the sources of all measurement scales, including reliability statistics from previous studies and any modifications made.
6. Gen Z Focus:
We have strengthened the theoretical justification for focusing on Gen Z, highlighting their unique environmental consciousness patterns and significance in future tourism markets.
7. Sampling Technique:
The methodology section now clearly explains our two-stage sampling approach: age-based stratification followed by systematic sampling within the Gen Z stratum .
8. Analysis Method:
We have clarified our use of PLS-SEM and provided comprehensive justification for this choice over CB-SEM, including considerations of data distribution and model complexity .
9-10. Bias Control:
We have added sections detailing our control measures for both common method variance and social desirability bias, including statistical tests and procedural remedies.
11. Model Testing Logic:
We have clarified the rationale for testing both models to demonstrate the incremental value of including environmental concerns, supported by improvement in model fit indices .
12. Theoretical Implications:
The theoretical implications section has been completely rewritten to emphasize theoretical advancement rather than merely restating findings .
13. Managerial Implications:
We have revised this section to provide more specific, actionable recommendations directly linked to our empirical findings (pp. X-X).
All modifications are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript for easy reference. We believe these revisions have substantially strengthened the manuscript while maintaining its theoretical and practical contributions to sustainable tourism literature.
We appreciate your guidance in improving this work and remain ready to address any additional concerns.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Author

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled “Environmental Concerns and Water Conservation Behavior in Desert Tourism: Applying the Extended Norm Activation Theory to Gen Z Tourists”. I have a few minor points:

- The manuscript would benefit from clearly stating its research questions early on, as this would establish a clear focus and make the objectives more explicit.

- While the incorporation of ECs into NAT is innovative, the rationale for this extension could be further developed.

- Including more recent literature on Gen Z’s environmental attitudes and sustainable tourism practices could contextualize the findings and emphasize the importance of studying this demographic. 

- Although cultural differences are acknowledged, there is limited discussion on how Iranian cultural norms and values might shape the application of NAT and ECs.

- While the language is clear and professional, some sentences are overly complex and could be simplified to improve readability. 

- Ensure consistency in in-text citations and references throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your points as detailed below:
1. Rationale for EC Integration:
We have strengthened the theoretical rationale for incorporating environmental concerns into NAT by:
- Adding recent empirical evidence supporting this integration
- Providing clearer theoretical linkages between ECs and NAT components
- Demonstrating the unique contribution of ECs to the model
2. Recent Gen Z Literature:
We have updated our literature review with recent studies (2022-2024) on Gen Z's environmental attitudes and sustainable tourism practices, strengthening the justification for focusing on this demographic. 
3. Language Clarity:
We have revised complex sentences throughout the manuscript to improve readability while maintaining academic rigor. A professional language editor has reviewed these changes.
6. Citation Consistency:
We have thoroughly reviewed and standardized all in-text citations and references following the journal's guidelines.

All modifications are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript for easy reference. We believe these revisions have enhanced the clarity and scholarly contribution of our work while addressing your valuable suggestions.
We appreciate your guidance and remain available to address any additional concerns.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I had the pleasure of reviewing the manuscript entitled “Environmental Concerns and Water Conservation Behavior in Desert Tourism: Applying the Extended Norm Activation Theory to Gen Z Tourists”. Overall, the paper adopts sound methodology and addresses a mainstream topic within tourism research, offering valuable insights. However, the study has some improvements to be addressed. Comments are below: addresses

Major Points

The abstract: The abstract is very concise and missed some key information such as sample size, sampling technique, the administration of the survey (either paper-based or electronic), and data analysis procedures. This data should be briefly mentioned in the abstract. 

Literature and Hypotheses: The hypotheses derived from the Norm Activation Theory (NAT) are relevant but need further justification based on contextual nuances of desert tourism. Authors are encouraged to strengthen the theoretical argument for including Environmental Concerns (ECs) by incorporating cross-cultural studies or empirical evidence from similar desert regions globally.

Conceptual Model: The extended model incorporates ECs effectively, but the interplay between personal norms, pride, and guilt requires deeper analysis. Perform a mediation analysis to explore whether personal norms mediate the relationship between ECs and behavioral outcomes, adding nuance to the findings.

Methodology: the sample is limited to Iranian desert regions, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. Discuss limitations explicitly in the methodology and suggest ways future research could address these gaps, such as multi-regional studies or larger sample sizes.

Discussion and Implications: While the discussion outlines the implications of the findings, it lacks actionable strategies for tourism stakeholders. Authors can provide specific recommendations, such as tailored campaigns for Gen Z tourists or examples of educational interventions proven effective in similar settings.

The manuscript does not sufficiently address how cultural values unique to the studied region may influence the findings. Therefore, it is recommended to include a section discussing the role of cultural norms and how they interact with NAT variables in shaping water conservation behavior.

Minor Points

Highlight the contribution to both sustainable tourism literature and practical applications in the abstract

Figures (e.g., conceptual model diagrams) lack clarity and visual appeal.

The manuscript occasionally uses jargon, which may limit its accessibility to non-specialist readers.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comprehensive review and constructive suggestions. We have carefully addressed each point as detailed below:
Major Points:
1. Abstract Enhancement:
We have revised the abstract to include:
- Sample size (330 Gen Z tourists)
- Two-stage sampling technique (stratified and systematic)
- Paper-based survey administration method
- Analysis approach (PLS-SEM)
- Key theoretical and practical contributions
2. Literature and Hypotheses:
We have strengthened the theoretical framework by:
- Adding cross-cultural evidence from desert tourism contexts
- Including recent empirical studies from similar regions
- Enhancing justification for EC integration based on desert tourism contexts
4. Methodology and Generalizability:
We have expanded this section to:
- Explicitly discuss sampling limitations
- Address generalizability concerns
- Suggest future research directions for cross-cultural validation
- Propose multi-regional sampling approaches
5. Discussion and Implications:
We have revised to include:
- Specific, actionable recommendations for stakeholders
- Detailed examples of Gen Z-focused interventions
- Evidence-based educational strategies
- Implementation guidelines for tourism managers
6. Cultural Context:
We have added a new section addressing:
- Iranian cultural values related to water conservation
- Interaction between cultural norms and NAT variables
- Context-specific implications for tourism management

Minor Points:
1. Abstract Contributions:
- Enhanced emphasis on theoretical and practical contributions
- Clearer articulation of study implications
2. Figures:
- Improved visual presentation of conceptual model
- Enhanced clarity and professional appearance
- Added color coding for better understanding
3. Technical Language:
- Simplified technical terminology
- Added explanations for necessary technical terms
- Improved overall readability
All modifications are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript. We believe these changes have substantially strengthened the paper while maintaining its scholarly contribution.

We appreciate your thorough review and remain available to address any additional concerns.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Sustainability-3342179, Title: Environmental Concerns and Water Conservation Behavior in Desert Tourism: Applying the Extended Norm Activation Theory to Gen Z Tourists

This study explores water conservation behaviors among Gen Z tourists in Iran. It finds that environmental concerns and personal norms enhance conservation efforts while denial of responsibility hinders them. However, a revised manuscript for the suggestion letter needs to be included below.

1.      Please rewrite the abstract. It currently reads like a paragraph rather than an abstract. Write it clearly and make it engaging; this will benefit your research and make it easier for readers to understand. Thank you for considering it.

2.      Figure 1: If this image was created by the authors, that’s fine. If not, please provide the source or citation.

3.      The subsections in the Theoretical Background and Literature Review are very confusing. The authors should clearly distinguish between the two sections. Please rewrite them separately and carefully.

4.           A research paper or findings cannot be complete without a conclusion. Please write a conclusion that summarizes the key findings, implications, and potential future research directions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your points as detailed below:
1. Abstract Revision:
We have completely restructured the abstract following standard academic format:
- Background/Purpose
- Methods
- Results
- Implications
The revised abstract is now more engaging and provides a clearer overview of our research while maintaining scholarly rigor.
2. Figure Attribution:
We have added appropriate source attribution to Figure 1. The image is a photograph taken by the first author during field research in Rezaabad village, and this information is now clearly stated in the figure caption.
3. Theoretical Framework Structure:
We have reorganized the theoretical section into clearly distinct subsections:
2.1 Theoretical Background
  - Norm Activation Theory
  - Environmental Concerns
  - Generation Z and Environmental Behavior
2.2 Literature Review
  - Water Conservation in Desert Tourism
  - NAT Applications in Tourism Research
  - Research Gap and Hypotheses Development
4. Conclusion:
We have added a dedicated conclusion section that:
- Synthesizes key findings
- Articulates theoretical contributions
- Presents practical implications
- Suggests future research directions
This addition provides proper closure to the manuscript while reinforcing its scholarly significance.

All modifications are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript. We believe these revisions have enhanced the clarity and structural coherence of our work.
We appreciate your guidance and remain available to address any additional concerns.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think all my comments have been addressed properly and I can see that the manuscript is improved. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been revised well; my decision is that it is accepted for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor