Experience, Price, and Loyalty: A Comparative Analysis of Wine and Beer in Baja California, Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Strengths of the Paper

I find this paper relevant and timely because wine tourism is a growing niche that has clear implications for regional development, cultural heritage, and sustainable practices. The authors make a genuine effort to present the concept of wine tourism in its broader context, and the manuscript is easy to follow in terms of structure. I particularly appreciate the attempt to highlight the role of wineries in destination branding, as mentioned in the section where wine routes are described as important elements of regional tourism promotion. The discussion of cultural experiences, gastronomy, and local identity gives the paper richness and shows that the authors recognize wine tourism as more than just vineyard visits. These aspects add value and demonstrate the potential of the study.

Critical Review by Section

Section	My Observations	Substantiation with Examples
Introduction	The introduction sets the stage by linking wine tourism with broader tourism development, which is a good start. Nevertheless, it seemed to me to be far too descriptive and without a specific research gap. The authors state that “wine tourism is increasingly important for local economies,” but this is a generic claim without indicating what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill.	A sharper entry point is needed. For example, if the authors want to study wine tourism in relation to sustainability, innovation, or consumer behavior, they should say so directly instead of offering broad statements.
Literature Review	The literature review provides references to several sources, but it mostly summarizes rather than synthesizes prior work. Theoretical engagement is minimal. As an example, the article references theories of tourism development without relating them to wine tourism.	It would have been a more effective review had the authors connected concepts such as experiential tourism or place branding with their study. For example, when they mention “wine routes,” they could compare how different scholars have conceptualized them and then identify what remains underexplored.
Methodology	I found this section to be the weakest. The approach is only loosely described, and it is not notified how the authors relied on empirical data, case studies, or merely secondary sources. They state that they studied the development of wine tourism, however, there is no data collection method mentioned.	Without explaining how data was gathered, analyzed, or validated, the methodology lacks rigor. For example, if they relied on case examples of certain wine regions, the process of selecting those regions should be justified.
Analysis of Data	The analysis appears to be descriptive rather than systematic. The paper lists various features of wine tourism but does not show how these were derived from data.	In particular, the authors explain the essence of tasting experiences and wine events, but these statements are more narrative than analytical. The analysis would be justified through a systematic framework, thematic coding, or comparison analysis.
Presentation of Results	The results are blended into the narrative with little separation from the discussion. The authors emphasize that, a wine route leads to an improved destination attractiveness, which is not outlined as a very specific result backed by facts.	It would be more readable with tables or figures or a regional comparison. In one instance, they might have made comparisons between wine tourism products in various nations to point out the differences and similarities.
Discussion	The discussion reiterates points already made in the results rather than critically engaging with theory. The authors explain that wine tourism fosters regional identity and culture, but they fail to relate this observation back to theoretical discussions in the literature on cultural tourism or place-making.	A more substantial discussion would address such frameworks as cultural sustainability or experience economy to demonstrate how their results contribute to scholarly discussions. It is currently repetitive and superficial.
Conclusion	The conclusion focuses on the significance of wine tourism in the development of regions, but it is very general. It does not provide practical suggestions and does not emphasise the specific input of the present paper.	The authors may describe, for instance, that wine tourism contributes to local economies, but they might propose ways in which policymakers or wineries could revise their approaches, like incorporating wine routes with online tools or sustainability.
References	The reference list is adequate but dated in parts. There is limited engagement with very recent literature on wine tourism, sustainability, or gastronomy.	For example, a significant number of sources date to early 2000s, and some of the more recent publications (2020 to 2023) in journals such as Tourism Management and Journal of Sustainable Tourism were not found.
Clarity of Writing	It is written in readable form, although I had to point out repetition of phrases such as wine tourism promotes development in various parts. This renders redundancy of the paper.	More concise language would make the arguments sharper. Breaking down long descriptive sentences into analytical points would improve clarity.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language seems academic barring few cases where editing may be required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Experience, price, and loyalty: a comparative analysis of wine and beer in Baja California, Mexico

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. After scrutinizing the manuscript, I think the study is interesting, but some clarifications are necessary to improve the quality of the manuscript.

 

Background

 

The manuscript is very case study-focused. The authors should introduce readers to the context of wine and beer within the field of Tourism and Hospitality. For example:

 

• “Beer traveler, wine traveler, or both? Comparing beer tourist and wine tourist segments” (TourAnal, 2023)
• “Craft vs. industrial: Habits, attitudes, and motivations towards beer consumption in Mexico” (Appetite, 2016)
• “Is the Baja California, Mexico, wine industry a cluster?” (AJAE, 2012)

 

Materials and Methods

 

Before addressing the model, please explain to readers the similarities and differences between reflective and formative constructs (Hair et al., 2019).

 

(Table 2). The lower-order constructs (LOC) items are unclear. Please include the complete question in all cases.

 

(Table 2). “Sensory experience (LOC): Own elaboration”

It is necessary to substantiate the SENS* items, as there are numerous publications on the topic. See, for example, the special issues “Sensory and volatile flavor analysis of beverages” (Foods, 2021) and “Feature papers in sensory analysis of beverages” (Beverages, 2022).

 

Conclusions

 

In addition to summarizing the objectives, methods, case study, and main results, it is necessary to distinguish three subsections to address the following aspects:

 

• What is the theoretical or academic contribution of the study to the field of Tourism and Hospitality?
• What are the practical implications of the study for tourism destination marketing or management organizations?
• What are the limitations of the study and what future work is needed?

 

References

 

Please ensure you check all your citations for completeness, accuracy, consistency and style (APA-7). For example:

 

FROM:

Aburumman, O. J., Omar, K., Al Shbail, M., & Aldoghan, M. (2022, March). How to deal with the results of PLS-SEM?. In International conference on business and technology (pp. 1196-1206). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

 

TO:

Aburumman, O. J., Omar, K., Al Shbail, M., & Aldoghan, M. (2023). How to deal with the results of PLS-SEM? In B. Alareeni, & A. Hamdan (eds), Explore business, technology opportunities and challenges ‎after the Covid-19 pandemic (pp. 1196-1206). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08954-1_101

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for choosing Tourism and Hospitality . Thank you also for the opportunity to review your manuscript. It clearly represents an effort of scientific research. Overall it addresses a relevant and timely question in Baja California’s wine and craft beer tourism and offers clear measurement and PLS-SEM reporting. At the same time, several areas can be strengthened to elevate the scholarly contribution and sharpen the narrative.

The Introduction is engaging but it foregrounds the regional and practical context early and often. It sets a research question about how experience and price shape loyalty in Baja California and states an applied aim to inform public policy and marketing strategies. I recommend foregrounding a sharper theoretical gap before the regional pitch and then deriving the practical implications from that gap. A brief paragraph that contrasts what prior theory says about the links among experience, price, and loyalty in beverage tourism with what remains unknown in side-by-side beer versus wine settings would clarify the study’s intellectual novelty. You already hint at a comparative gap between wine and craft beer scholarship and pose a direct question. Elevate that as the central gap statement and tie it to named constructs and theories rather than to the regional context alone .

The Literature Review would benefit from thematic subsections that build toward the study objective. At present it reads as a single long block that surveys sensory, affective, and behavioral experience along with price and loyalty. Consider breaking it into clearly labeled parts such as Sensory Experience, Affective and Behavioral Experience, Price and Perceived Value, and Tourist Loyalty. End each subsection with a mini-synthesis that leads directly to a testable expectation or hypothesis. This will turn the review into a scaffold for your model rather than a compendium of definitions .

Methods and measurement are one of the manuscript’s strengths. You report reliability, convergent validity, and HTMT, as well as formative higher-order assessment with VIFs below 3, and you check partial measurement invariance with MICOM. Keep all of this. To reinforce rigor, add a short “Data screening” subsection before hypothesis testing that documents multivariate outlier checks and common method bias procedures. For example report Mahalanobis distance or robust covariance outlier diagnostics, and a CMB assessment such as full-collinearity VIF thresholds or a measured marker. You already report low VIFs for the measurement model and for structural relations. Extending that to a CMB-oriented diagnostic would close a common review request in PLS-SEM studies .

Please fix sectioning so that Results are presented in a dedicated Results section before the Discussion. At the moment “4.2. Structural model assessment” appears under section 4 and later “4. Discussion” begins, which can confuse readers about where results end and interpretation begins. Create a clean sequence of Measurement model results, Structural model results, and then Discussion that interprets the findings against prior literature and context .

The Results are clearly reported and interpretable. You show that price consistently predicts loyalty across models and that consumer experience predicts loyalty for beer and the full sample but not for wine, with effect sizes that align with the coefficients. Keep the coefficient tables and add a compact figure with path coefficients and R² for each group to aid readability. Retain the VIF reporting that indicates no multicollinearity issues among predictors .

The Discussion section connects findings to selected studies, especially around the different roles of experience and price in beer versus wine. I encourage deeper triangulation. Explicitly state where your estimates confirm prior evidence, where they diverge, and why the Baja context might moderate effects. For example, use the observed price elasticity narrative for wine and the social and experiential emphasis for beer to structure a compare-and-contrast paragraph that cites previous findings and your effect sizes. This will tighten the contribution claim and help readers see what is generalizable beyond Baja California .

Sample composition deserves a short reflection on generalizability. The sample skews very young, with nearly 85 percent in Generation Z. Add a sentence on how this age profile may influence experience and price perceptions and consider a robustness check that controls for generation or re-estimates models by cohort to assess stability of effects

-Recommendations

Reframe the objective with stronger scientific grounding. Open with the theoretical gap that comparative beer versus wine loyalty research has left and only then state the applied objective. Cite the gap language and move the regional and policy motivations to the end of the Introduction paragraph so the scholarly need takes center stage .

Restructure the Literature Review. Create subsections for constructs and close each with a proposition that foreshadows your paths. This makes the review serve the storytelling of the study objective rather than remaining a single uninterrupted block .

Add a Data screening subsection before testing. Report multivariate outlier checks and a formal common method bias assessment. Keep the VIF and HTMT evidence, and extend it to full-collinearity VIF or a marker-variable approach to make the case airtight .

Separate Results from Methods and Discussion. Relabel and reorder so that measurement and structural results appear in a Results section and all interpretation moves to a distinct Discussion. Fix the numbering mismatch where “4.2 Structural model assessment” precedes “4. Discussion” under the same top-level number .

Deepen engagement with existing studies in the Discussion. Build a short paragraph that maps your findings onto prior effect patterns in wine and beer tourism, noting convergences and divergences and offering contextual mechanisms. Use the price elasticity and experiential emphasis already discussed to anchor this synthesis and point to external validity beyond the region .

Document measures and decisions in one place. You already describe the higher-order consumer experience and the sources for price and loyalty scales. Bring these details together in a compact table or appendix and note any adaptations for the Baja context and language. This will help replication and reassure readers about content validity .

Clarify scope and limits. Note the cross-sectional design and the regional focus and explain how future work could test the same model in other wine and beer regions or with panels. The Materials and Methods already indicate a cross-sectional approach and power analysis. Linking those choices to interpretive limits will pre-empt reviewer concerns about causality and generalizability.

Congratulations on your study,

Best regards,

The reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript in all its merit looks fine-tuned. However, I could notice few typos like question mark at the beginning of the statement. Also, the LOC model can also be elaborated along with the HOC model for providing additional support.

Author Response

Comments 1: The manuscript in all its merit looks fine-tuned. However, I could notice few typos like question mark at the beginning of the statement. Also, the LOC model can also be elaborated along with the HOC model for providing additional support.

Response 1: We have reviewed the document in detail and corrected the typos. Following your suggestion, we have explained each of the LOC and HOC models to make their relationship clear. Please, see lines 345-352.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Experience, price, and loyalty: a comparative analysis of wine and beer in Baja California, Mexico

The manuscript has improved significantly, and the authors have satisfactorily addressed my concerns. Therefore, I recommend its publication in TourHosp journal.

Author Response

Comments 1: The manuscript has improved significantly, and the authors have satisfactorily addressed my concerns. Therefore, I recommend its publication in TourHosp journal.

Response: We appreciate your comments, which have helped us improve the quality of our work.