Antecedent Factors Influencing Tourist Engagement in Creative Cultural Tourism Activities at the Tha Plee Fishing Market Community, Bang Plasoi Subdistrict, Mueang District, Chonburi Province

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the downloaded file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Thank you for letting me read this paper. My concern is that the research is very specific, and I am not sure that the results are relevant to other places or the general knowledge. It is not clear to me what are the conclusion from this research that are relevant to the global picture and not just to the local area in Thailand.

The abstract has no background information and no conclusions and recommendations. On the other hand, it includes irrelevant information like the alfa Cronbach results.

 

The papers contained information regarding the income from tourism and other economic data in Bath. It is preferable to give this number in dollars or Euro.

There is no information about the questionnaire - what is the source of the questions? did the authoress made them up or is it based on a well-tested questionnaire? How were the data collected? who is the population? I found out only at the end that the research involved only domestic tourism and not international.

The validity should be tested on the dull data set and not on a sample of 30 participants. 

I would prefer to see the demographic data and the data in section 4.2 in a table. On the other hand, table 1+2 should be combined to a single table and there is no need for table 5. The information can be discussed. 

In table 6 - what is original sample? Is this data B?

 

The reference list is very old. There are only 3 papers from 2023, the rest are much older (2019 is the newest).

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, it is recommended to shorten the title of the article, avoiding excessive detail regarding the geographical location of the study area. It might be possible to identify the location with fewer data points.

Regarding the research approach, the quantitative perspective is very interesting, as it considers antecedent factors, the level of tourist participation, and the influence of the visitor’s perception of the place through the lens of creative tourism.

Although the theoretical framework includes an extensive bibliography, as does the methodology section, the omission of three key authors is notable: Richard Florida, in relation to the specific aspect of creative tourism; and John Urry and Dean MacCannell, as foundational theorists in tourism studies more broadly.

 

The nine hypotheses proposed to structure the methodological application may be too numerous. They could be systematically grouped based on thematic similarities and levels of interaction, thereby avoiding possible redundancies. Nevertheless, they align with the interpretation of the results and are intended to correspond to the five sections of the survey questionnaire (400 responses).

It would be useful to include a summary table presenting the content of the questions within these sections (sociodemographic information, experience, perception, motivation, and participation). This would help readers better understand the type of questions used. Although this is referenced in the results section—both in sections 1 and 2—it is done very briefly.

However, the extensive number of pages devoted to justifying, within the results section, the validity of the applied method and the numerical and percentage-based coding could unbalance the overall interpretation and usefulness of the findings. Beyond demonstrating methodological rigor, the discussion should more clearly address the need to adopt measures aimed at enhancing the cultural and emotional perception dimensions.

Finally, the paragraphs immediately preceding the conclusions section could be better placed under a new Discussion section, as they revisit theoretical concepts and explain how these influence the conducted research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provide a good rationale for the selection of the marketplace in their responses to the referee. However, those responses are not provided in the text of the article.  They conclude that the participative nature of the visit is of importance. In the notes to the referee,  they list several participative activities in which tourists can engage, but nothing is said about this in the actual paper.  They again state an appendix is provided that shows the actual items used as measures, but this has not been forwarded to the referee. And can we be sure that the full number of respondents actually engaged in these activities as distinct from simply sightseeing?

No details are provided about the actual levels of engagement in cooking workshops, fishing experiences etc. - but surely these must be a key to the conclusions. It is the tourist participation in these activities (or non-participation if that is the case) where the interest in the study must lie, and which makes this much more than just another PLS-SEM exercise.  It may be possible to do a comparison between non-participating and participating tourists.

The authors state they used G*Power - but provide no details. I strongly suspect that the use of the software provided a result that was less than a sample of 400, but why not say so. In practice, I tend to believe the appropriate sample size is actually provided by the level of sub-sample analysis desired.

I of the opinion that the authors must think a little more carefully about the actual behaviours exhibited by visitors.  I am assuming that they spent time at the market and therefore they should be able to provide observations. They argue they were unable to because of the limited number of words.  However, in journals where distribution is by the internet and where the costs of printing and postage are minimal, the marginal cost of an extra 1,000 words really does nto matter. Be bold and fully transparent in your writing.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors satisfactory answered all my concerns

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have introduced changes in the new version of the article that contribute to improving the structure and content, primarily addressing two of the suggestions made during the prior review process.

On the one hand, they have shortened the title of the article, thus narrowing the focus, although it might be interesting to delimit the case study with basic information about the geographical location.

Furthermore, they have introduced a final discussion section to draw relevant insights from the results obtained from the theoretical and methodological comparison with the introductory conceptual approach. However, they deemed it appropriate to completely eliminate the conclusions section, which was also unnecessary.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is significantly better and is transparent as to the high levels of skew generally present in the response set. The presence of such skew is itself a justification of PLS-SEM rather than covariance based SEM approaches.  I would note that having an opportunity to engage in creative-tourism praticies is not the same as actually participating in them and this distinction may represent a weakness that the authors might pick up as a recommendation to future researchers.  I also still possess some misgivings about the interpretation of "high" and it may be a point that a seven or nine-point scale would have created more variance to permit a possibly more rigorous interpretation of "high" score  (e.g. mean + 1 standard deviation). These sorts of comments could be made to offer advice to future researchers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf