Influence of Perceived Restorativeness on Recovery Experience and Satisfaction with Walking Tourism: A Multiple-Group Analysis of Daily Hassles and the Types of Walking Tourist Attractions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article focuses on perceived restorative environments, perceived recovery（restorative outcomes）, and satisfaction in walking tourism. Against the backdrop of the extensive development of walking infrastructure and walking tourism, it holds certain practical significance. The writing is well-structured and logically coherent. The following suggestions are proposed:

1. Theoretical Hypotheses: The hypotheses H3 and H4 regarding moderation lack persuasiveness. It is recommended that the authors further refine the logical basis for the hypotheses related to moderation effects.
2. Factor Measurement: The two factors measuring restorative perception—restoration and emotional separation—lack theoretical explanation. The authors are advised to elaborate on why these two factors were selected to measure restorative outcomes.
3. Multi-Group Analysis: The conclusions related to multi-group analysis need further elaboration. For instance, why is the moderating effect of daily hassles on the relationship between perceived restorative environments and perceived recovery insignificant, while it is significant for the relationship between perceived recovery and satisfaction? Additionally, although the abstract mentions differences among various destinations (urban, mountainous, and coastal tourist attractions), the discussion section does not address this.
4. Practical Implications: The section on practical implications could include more specific measures. For example, how can individual perceptions of being away, coherence, and compatibility be incorporated into the design of walking tourism? Furthermore, considering the significant individual differences in “daily hassles,” besides acknowledging them as a psychological factor, how can they be integrated into the design of walking tourism experiences?

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title - Influence of perceived restorativeness on recovery experience  and satisfaction with walking tourism: A multiple group analysis of daily hassles and the types of walking tourist  attractions -Where was the research done? What research area is it about? It would be good if in the title, and later in the abstract, the research area is highlighted. For example. A case study....

 

ABSTRACT

The abstract states the research objectives but does not clearly articulate the research questions. It would be useful to point out directly what specific aspects of restoration or satisfaction the research seeks to elucidate.

An online survey was conducted among walking tourists, categorizing  spaces into urban, mountainous, and coastal walking tourism areas, resulting in 330 valid responses - but it is not stated in the abstract in which region the analysis was performed. a comment has already been given for the title.

 

INTRODUCTION

While the benefits of walking are emphasized, there is a lack of specific academic work that analyzes walking as part of the tourist experience. Including additional references on the motivations and behavior of pedestrian tourists would strengthen the theoretical framework.

The literature is a little older. In the introduction, recent studies must be highlighted and what they point out on a similar or the same topic and connect them with the research objectives of this paper. Will something new be investigated and compared with older studies, or will it be investigated using the same methodology...give an example.

The text on lines 54 to 63 is overwritten for tourism. Actually, this text about stress does not talk about tourism as an economic activity, but about stress as a psychological state. I suggest either deleting it or shortening it and connecting it with tourism.

Literature Review

The text on lines 82 to 88 is redundant information. It can be shortened to one simple sentence and introduced into the term walking tourism.

Why is South Korea mentioned on line 96? Is it a research area? If so, the authors should point out what's going on with the footpaths in neighboring and other countries in Asia and Europe.

Part of the text on hypotheses 2.5. transfer to methodology.

On lines 228 and 230 there are two different names for the same figure 1

Materials and Methods

In total, 356 individuals responded to the survey. After excluding 26 incomplete responses, a total of 330 surveys (92.70%) was finally used for the empirical analysis (lines 259-261).

Results

Under table 1, write whether the results were obtained by SPSS 23.0 for frequency analysis, or AMOS 23.0. This also applies to other tables.

 

Discussion and Recommendations

The discussion is more generalized, actually the previous text is repeated less. I suggest that the obtained results be explained a little more through practical implications. The discussion does not have to be too extensive, but it should clearly indicate how the obtained results are actually manifested in the practice of sand tourism.

Part  5.3.  from line 464 should be transferred after conclusion.

 

Literature

The references are of an older date, I suggest inserting newer ones with similar topics.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx