It’s Not Just About Price: What Drives Gen Z to Choose Sustainable Stays?

Reviewer’s comment

Author’s response

I agree with the overall premise of the paper. While a fair amount of research exists on attitudes towards sustainability, including of Generation Z (here I think the authors could try to identify additional relevant papers to better locate their study within existing literature), I think there is still scope to meaningfully focus on generation as a concept in helping us understand sustainability purchasing behaviour (including intentions).

We thank the reviewer for this insightful and constructive comment. In response, we have expanded and refined the Introduction to better situate the study within the existing literature on sustainability attitudes and behaviors among Generation Z. Specifically, we added additional relevant references addressing Gen Z’s sustainable consumption behavior and clarified how our study builds upon this body of work.

Perhaps a valuable addition to the paper would be an extension of the incredibly brief description of generational theory, e.g. expanding on how generational theory is used (along with a critique) to help explain behaviour patterns. For example, events shape people and so the birth year idea is a means to explain how significant events (e.g. wars, revolution, technological developments) shape certain cohorts. This is why there is no one agreed definition of different cohorts as different people will have different views on significant events (and indeed, geographic context hasn’t even been considered yet – only irrelevant if we consider the impact of global events).

Thank you for this insightful suggestion. In response, we have expanded the description of Generational Theory in the literature review to clarify that generational cohorts are shaped not only by birth years but also by shared sociopolitical, cultural, and economic events experienced during formative years.

I do feel the study tries to do too much (too many theories and concepts thrown into one paper), and while I am not a huge fan of SEM when employed in a cross-sectional study such as this (because causality is difficult to establish, and often the complex statistics mask underlying flaws in study design), I still the believe the paper, with its flaws, should be of interest to a wider audience (especially those writing in the area of sustainable tourism).

Thank you for this thoughtful and balanced comment. We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the paper’s relevance to the sustainable tourism literature. We acknowledge the concern regarding the breadth of concepts and theoretical perspectives included. The integration of these perspectives was a deliberate design choice aimed at capturing the multifaceted nature of Generation Z’s sustainable accommodation decision-making, which involves value-based, cognitive, normative, and control-related mechanisms. To mitigate the risk of conceptual overload, we have ensured that each construct is theoretically grounded and empirically justified, and we have streamlined the discussion to focus on the most salient relationships supported by the results.

The Theory of Consumption Values as applied to the study could do with clarification. I get the distinction between Functional, Social and Environmental values relating to product purchase/attitudes towards green products etc. Functional value can then be separated into quality and price. However, the paper seems to suggest social and environmental values can also be split into quality and price – this I don’t understand and isn’t, as far as I can see, explained.  See H5:

“H5. Functional value (quality) (a), functional value (price) (b), social value (quality) 203 (c), and emotional value (quality) (d) positively influence attitude.”

We thank the reviewer for this important clarification request. We agree that the original formulation of Hypothesis H5 may have created ambiguity regarding the operationalization of consumption values. In response, we revised the manuscript to explicitly clarify the application of the Theory of Consumption Values in this study.

Specifically, we now clearly state that only functional value is conceptualized as comprising two distinct dimensions—quality-related and price-related—reflecting performance expectations and economic considerations. In contrast, social and emotional values are treated as inherently quality-based constructs, as they capture perceived social meaning, identity expression, and affective responses derived from consumption rather than monetary evaluation.

To address this issue, we revised the theoretical background section to explain this distinction explicitly and restructured Hypothesis H5 into four sub-hypotheses (H5a–H5d), each corresponding to a clearly defined value dimension. These changes improve conceptual transparency and ensure consistency between the theoretical framework, hypothesis formulation, and measurement approach.

Can more be said about how the sample was targeted/identified? Were participants selected from a database? What kind of database? What was the response rate/non-response rate?

We thank the reviewer for these helpful suggestions. In response, we expanded Section 3.1 (Sample) to that respondents were recruited from the company’s existing consumer panel database and that purposive sampling was used to target Generation Z tourists residing in Lithuania, Norway, and Spain who had recent travel experience. As panel-based non-probability sampling was employed, exact response and non-response rates could not be calculated, which is now explicitly acknowledged.

Please reconsider the meaning of this sentence in the Discussion section (it needs rephrasing so that it is more readily understandable what the relationships that are stipulated mean): “One of the study’s most notable contributions concerns the role of perceived value.  The SEM results showed that functional value (price) and emotional value (quality) positively shape Gen Z tourists’ attitudes, whereas functional value (quality) and social value (quality) were not significant predictors”. I think this relates to my previous point questioning the meaning of quality in relation to emotional and social values.

Thank you for this valuable comment. We agree that the original formulation could lead to ambiguity, particularly regarding the meaning of “quality” across different value dimensions. We have therefore rephrased the sentence.

The following limitation is peculiar as the study is very clear that its focus is on Generation Z. To say there is a limitation because the study’s findings may not be relevant beyond Generation Z strikes me as bizarre: “Second, the study focused exclusively on Gen Z tourists, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other generations or market segments”. If you were that concerned, then why focus on Gen Z in the first place? What I think could be regarded as a limitation (and maybe this is what is meant) is that there is no comparison with other generational cohorts. So, while you find relationships for Gen Z in your data, these relationships could be even stronger for other generational cohorts.

Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that the limitation is not the focus on Generation Z itself, but rather the absence of a comparative analysis with other generational cohorts. We have revised the Discussion section accordingly to clarify that, while the study identifies determinants of sustainable consumption within Gen Z, it does not allow conclusions regarding whether these relationships differ across generations. We also explicitly suggest multi-group analyses as a direction for future research.

I think the limitations and implications need some more in-depth reflection. In addition to my comment above re generalisability, what does ‘Another limitation concerns the nature of the data, which may not fully capture complex behavioral nuances’ actually mean? Are there any behavioural nuances in particular you are thinking of? The final sentence then also makes reference to virtual tourism and consumption patterns here? Really? Why is virtual tourism which would, one imagines, involve virtual consumption of resources (largely in any case) of such great importance? Isn’t actual consumption of planetary resources and pollution the major problem?

Thank you for this comment.

We agree that the practical implications required further elaboration. Accordingly, we have revised and expanded the implications section.

We agree that the original formulation regarding “complex behavioral nuances” and the reference to virtual tourism lacked sufficient clarity and was not central to the core sustainability issues addressed in this study. To avoid ambiguity and maintain a clear focus on physical tourism and actual resource consumption, we have removed this sentence from the Discussion section.

Finally, intentions are not the same as behaviour. If all of the good intentions of tourists to travel sustainably were realised we’d have far less of a problem – the fact is, people say one thing and do another. The limitation of relying on intentions as a predictor of behaviour in the realm of sustainability should be mentioned.

Thank you for this important comment. We fully agree that intentions and behavior are conceptually distinct and that intention–behavior gaps are well documented in sustainability research. We would like to clarify that this concern is explicitly addressed in the study design. Unlike intention-only models, our framework includes both behavioral intention and purchasing behavior as separate constructs, with purchasing behavior specified as the dependent variable. This allows us to empirically test the intention–behavior relationship rather than assume equivalence between the two.

Reviewer’s comment

Author’s response

Briefly describe whether the company only distributed the questionnaire or also designed it, managed sampling, or handled data cleaning.

We thank the reviewer for the helpful suggestion. In response, we expanded Section 3.1 to clarify the role of the research company

 Add information such as:
– number of questionnaire items,
– type of scales used (e.g., Likert),
– approximate completion time,
– whether the questionnaire was pretested or validated.

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have revised Section 3.2 (Measures) to improve transparency and methodological clarity. Specifically, we have:

·         specified the number and structure of questionnaire questions, including the screening, sociodemographic, and construct-specific items;

·         clarified that all construct items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale;

·         added the average questionnaire completion time (12 minutes and 58 seconds);

·         explicitly stated that the questionnaire was pretested with 30 respondents prior to the main data collection, with minor wording adjustments implemented based on feedback;

·         clarified that all measurement items were adapted from previously validated scales, with appropriate references provided.

These additions have been incorporated to enhance the transparency and replicability of the study.

Explain why purposive sampling was selected and discuss any limitations regarding generalizability.

We justified the use of purposive sampling based on the study’s focus on a specific consumer cohort and discussed its implications for generalizability. These revisions enhance transparency and address the reviewer’s concerns (see revised Discussion).

Acknowledge its limitations and justify why it is used. Consider supplementing with additional tests (e.g., marker variable, CFA marker technique).

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We acknowledge that marker-variable approaches and CFA marker techniques can provide additional diagnostics for common method variance. However, the CFA marker technique is primarily applicable within covariance-based SEM frameworks, and the inclusion of a marker variable requires ex ante questionnaire design, which was not feasible at the post hoc stage of this study.

Given that this research employs PLS-SEM, we followed recommended procedures for assessing common method bias in variance-based models by applying Harman’s single-factor test and evaluating full collinearity VIFs. The results of both tests indicate that common method variance is unlikely to be a concern.

Briefly describe the process to improve transparency.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. To improve transparency, we added a brief description of the overall research process at the end of the Measures section, outlining the questionnaire development and pretesting, data collection through an online panel with screening criteria, and data screening prior to analysis.

Clarify that these VIFs refer to full co linearity VIFs (Kock, 2015), not the traditional multi co linearity threshold of 10. Specify that this supports internal validity and strengthens confidence in the model estimates.

We thank the reviewer for this important methodological clarification. In response, we revised Section 4.1 to explicitly state that the reported VIF values refer to full collinearity VIFs,, rather than traditional multicollinearity diagnostics. We also clarified that the applied threshold of 3.3 is used to assess potential common method bias in PLS-SEM and added an explicit statement noting that these results support the internal validity of the model and strengthen confidence in the estimated relationships.

Reviewer’s comment

Author’s response

The paper deals with a very interesting and attractive topic. Also, the paper has a very good structure.

We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of the topic and structure of the manuscript.

Too many keywords - reduce the number

In response to the comment, we have reduced the number of keywords to improve focus and conciseness.

The last paragraph in the Introduction is superfluous (lines 86-90) - remove it from the paper. 

We have removed the last paragraph of the Introduction (former lines 86–90), as suggested, to avoid redundancy and streamline the introductory section.

The formulations of the hypotheses are confusing. It is necessary to add Gen Z to all hypotheses and in the Research Model (to make it clearer whose intentions, behavior and attitudes it refers to).  

We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. In response, we revised the hypotheses to explicitly refer to Gen Z tourists in all formulations and updated the research model accordingly to improve clarity.

Too many elements are contained in H5. Suggestion: reformulate and summarize H5 and set 4 auxiliary hypotheses H5a, H5b, H5c and H5d.

We restructured Hypothesis H5 by splitting it into four sub-hypotheses (H5a–H5d), each corresponding to a specific value dimension, as suggested.

Furthermore, we clarified the application of the Theory of Consumption Values by explicitly explaining that only functional value is divided into quality- and price-related components, whereas social and emotional values are conceptualized as quality-based constructs. These revisions improve conceptual transparency and ensure consistency between theory, hypotheses, and the research model.

Unnecessary repetition of the first sentence in subchapter 3.2. Measures (line 276) - already stated.

We thank the reviewer for noting this redundancy. In response, we have removed the first sentence of Section 3.2 (Measures) to eliminate repetition and improve the clarity and conciseness of the manuscript.

Error in the name of Table 2 - check and write the table name correctly.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this error. The title of Table 2 has been corrected to accurately reflect its content.

Place the accompanying text between Table 3 and Table 4 (avoid placing the table immediately after the table in the text).

Thank you for this helpful formatting suggestion. We have revised Section 4.2 to improve readability by inserting explanatory text between Table 3 and Table 4. Specifically, a brief paragraph introducing the HTMT criterion has been added between the two tables, thereby avoiding the immediate placement of Table 4 after Table 3 and improving the narrative flow of the results section.

NOTE: color all corrections in red.

Thank you for this note. Instead of manually coloring revisions in red, we have used the Track Changes function throughout the revised manuscript. This allows all modifications to be clearly and transparently identified. We hope this format is acceptable, and we would be happy to provide a color-highlighted version if required.