‘I Just Want to Go Home’: Emotional Wellbeing Impacts of COVID-19 Restrictions on VFR Travel

Comment

Response

The topic discussed is potentially interesting and relevant. The text, however, did not fully conform to scientific rules. The study is rather journalistic.

No specific research assumptions have been formulated, the methodology is very modest.

In this instance the author is intending to bring a more human tone of writing to the paper, given the content concerning emotions and expression. However, I have removed some of the more conversational sentences. Conformity of references and structure are still applied.

Unsure what is meant by ‘assumptions’ here. Methodology has been firmed up for clarity.

Basing the research on Maslov's pyramid of needs indicates a significant breakaway by the author from contemporary concepts of researching consumer needs and behavior.

Many papers in this field have used Maslow’s work to connect hierarchies of human needs with tourist activity and behaviours. This section has been clarified and reworded to strengthen. Additional references to the work of Pearce, Dann, Hsu and Huang have been incorporated.

The information presented about the respondents to the research is far from sufficient and misleading. The pandemic situation and the restrictions in different countries were varied and they determined the tourist behavior. The nationality of the respondents is not analyzed in this study.

Unsure what is meant by misleading? All respondents (except 1) were UK based and therefore subjected to the same return-to-the-UK regulations. Entry to other home countries did of course vary (this is clarified for transparency). The nationality of each respondent was the first question asked of each participant, followed by the extent to which the respondent felt they identified with their country of origin. It did not seem apt to list all the nationalities of all respondents, rather to discuss that they were varied and to assess their levels of identification with their home nation V their UK residency.

An additional comment on countries of origin has been added however.

The study lacks an in-depth section on the discussion and information on the limitations of research.

This has been amended.

Overall Author Comments/Response:

Thank you for your helpful feedback.

Reviewer Comment

Response:

This exciting paper presents an up-to-date study on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the behavioural and emotional state of humans. The author focuses on the UK's migrants who were cut off from their physical relationships with families. Indeed, tourism studies should follow the direction of explaining the role of tourism in the well-being of individuals and society in general, not only in the context of the 'travelling' part of their activities. 

Agree. Wider wellbeing for migrant diaspora is often related to being able to return home to reduce loneliness, to reinforce identities, familial connections and indeed, just familiarities.

(lines 194-216) The manuscript would benefit from a more profound understanding of the relationship between the Hierarchy of Human Needs and tourist activity. Many academic papers and even textbooks refer to this, so strengthening this issue would not be a problem.

 Thank you, rectified.

(lines 218-232) The idea of incorporating Urry's 'tourist gaze' construct as the conceptual lens of the study has not been convincingly justified. Please elaborate on this issue.

Expansion given. This is useful, The paper now clarifies that Maslow’s model is used at the contextual premise for the disallowed/suspended temporal aspect of VFR travel; whilst Urry’s construct relates specifically, to the post-restrictions return visits. The temporality of this division and application of concepts has been amended in the text.

(235-; Methods) The paper adopts qualitative research methods, which is still a fresh approach within VFR studies. I appreciate utilising the in-depth interviews to explain the research problem. This decision made the results emotional and authentic and added value to the study. However, the methodological rationale for mixing interviews with surveys should be explained more comprehensively. 

Valid comment, Clarity provided in text.

The author undertook 20 qualitative interviews as phase 1 of this work, initially intended to be self-contained. Then moved jobs and when asked about current research found a host of new international colleagues who wanted to tell of their experiences. Given the time frame, this was circulated as a mainly open-ended qualitative questions survey. An additional 50 responses were received, which seemed of value to include. Many of the questions were the same, just the mode of collection differed, given the timeframe. Clarity offered in the text.

(Table 1) The link between the theory, the conceptual framework and the research method is missing. Perhaps, the interview protocol should be presented in the context of the conceptual framework (Maslow's and Urry's concepts) at least.

Valid. Content edited in text

(conclusions) I agree with the author that a longitudinal study referring to the research problem is needed. However, this part might be strengthened by discussing what the tourism industry actors (both governmental bodies and businesses) can do to restore, maintain, facilitate or even steward the migrants' familial connections in the future. Moreover, the methodological limitation could be discussed. 

 Extension of these points, and limitations offered in text as edits.

Overall Author Response:

Thank you for your helpful feedback

Reviewer Comment

Author Response

R: The authors should divide the introduction from the literature review. The way this section are presented, does not add value to the article. The authors also need to reinforce in the introduction the value of the article, the importance of studying this topic, and what their research proposal is, supported by the literature. What are the research questions? Why did you choose them? what is the importance of your study in this theme? what theoretical basis are you using for these questions? Why haven't they been answered in previous studies? The authors should also present the various sections of the article and what will be developed in each of them.

Restructure applied, thank you.

Value, research questions and importance/context have all been clarified.

Methods

R: This section is not robust and has several limitations. The authors should be clearer about the method and methodological approach used. What previous studies use the same methodological approach?  Why is this method used and not another? Why does this method produce more effects in this research compared to others used in previous studies? How was the data handled? What analysis process was used? What theoretical basis or scales validated by the literature were in origin of the questionnaire creation? The process of applying, collecting, and processing interviews and surveys is unclear.

Edits offered in this section as per your suggestions.

Results and Discussion

 “The respondents in this study comprised a total of 70 people who lived in one country but whose national identity was linked to another. Sixty nine participants lived in the United Kingdom, mainly in the London and Sussex areas (one hour travel range from London), and one participant was a British national living in Hungary. The study focused on their experience of the Covid 19 pandemic in relation to their diaspora status and the impediments related to travel restrictions that halted all VFR tourism for considerable periods. The aftermath of restriction-lifting is also examined in terms of the experiential aspects of being able to ‘return home’ once again. As such this study is significant in that it offers insight into a key segment of tourists in a very specific window of time, during one of the greatest human health crises the world has ever known.”

R: This paragraph is neither a result nor a discussion. The first part is complementary to the information described in the section about the sample. The second part is limitations of the study.  

This has been removed and placed into the methods section for clarity. Limitations have been addressed in both the methods section and at the end of the paper.

“Let us think back again to basic human needs. The abililty to breathe, and not be fearful for your daily health if you are largely ‘doing all the right things’ in terms of exercise, diet and so on, is very much taken for granted by many.”

 R: Many? who they are? The discussion in this study lacks referencing. The authors cannot make such statements without a theoretical basis. The results presented should be further discussed with previous studies.

Re-edited.

(but I do think ‘by many’ is a valid reference to the wider population during times of a global event)

Conclusions

“This study is important because it captures a specific moment in human history, when all that mattered to so many was taken away.”

Edited in text for clarity.

R: This point starts incorrectly, it is recommended that the authors review other studies already published to understand how this section of the study is described. Who are the "so many" ?

R: This point should be reworded. This point is not a true conclusion. The authors should reinforce the contributions of the study, mention what gaps in the literature are answered by this study. What this study adds to the topic. The authors should search the literature for what previous studies have already reported on this topic and prove that this study answers questions that were previously raised. The authors should also present the limitations of the study and future suggestions. There is no clear reference to the importance of this study. This point still lacks an explanation of the theoretical and practical contributions of the study.

 Reworded as suggested.

Contribution, importance, limitations have been more clearly stated. Thank you.

Overall Author Response:

Many thanks for the helpful feedback which has made the paper stronger.