Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction is well structured and the authors enter into more detail in the Literature review section where they present other papers. 

The title is quite explanatory as well as the abstract which keeps the structure of a scientific paper. 

There is some small typo, such as in line 215: Hypothesis 1:.

I really appreciate the structure of the literature review where the authors present each variable, other sources and develop their hypotheses.

In the method section, you should acknowledge the software used, add a reference for that (maybe SPSS or SmartPLS or another one)

Also, present briefly the limitations of a study so focused and how and if you consider this can be replicated or is culturally dependent. Maybe add some references to support your opinion. You can do that in Methodology considering they are related to the method or Discussion/Conclusions. 

Figure 1 should be in methodology because it is the model you start with. It seems SmartPLS but I am not sure and found no reference regarding the software you used. Add the source and reference for that. 

 

Discussions are well structured, presenting in comparison to other studies. The conclusions include Implications, limitations and future research. 

So congrats on your hard work. 

References are not in the format required by the journal. Also, I noticed the source 46. It lacks some info, city, country... check the guidelines but probably the editors will come back with a requirement for that. 

Many references are new from the last two years so I appreciate that

In the abstract, I understand you collected the survey this year, but you should mention in the method that. I could not find it there. Also in Results, you should emphasize how the results might be influenced by the fact that people come after a period with many restrictions and correlate that with the context in your country. Maybe the results were different before the pandemic? I noticed something in the literature review but not in the Results section which focuses on your findings. Also, you can add something in line 588 where you mention the limitation of time and trends. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction is well structured and the authors enter into more detail in the Literature review section where they present other papers. 

The title is quite explanatory as well as the abstract which keeps the structure of a scientific paper. I really appreciate the structure of the literature review where the authors present each variable, other sources and develop their hypotheses.

Response: Thank you very much for taking your expertise and time to review our manuscript and providing us with constructive comments to make improvement of our manuscript. In this revision, we have made substantial efforts to address the comments and concerns of yours and those of Reviewer 2 and 3. We hope that our revisions are satisfactory.

 

First, There is some small typo, such as in line 215: Hypothesis 1:.

Response: We appreciate you for your comment. We modified it as below.

Page 5

Hypothesis 1: EM will influence SA.

 

Second, In the method section, you should acknowledge the software used, add a reference for that (maybe SPSS or SmartPLS or another one).

Response: We appreciate you for your comment. We added below paragraphs to the method.

Page 8

The study analyzed the data using SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 26.0. The study evaluates dimensions and measurement characteristics through testing CFA and structural model, and verifies the convergence effectiveness and reliability of the model [121].

 

Third, Also, present briefly the limitations of a study so focused and how and if you consider this can be replicated or is culturally dependent. Maybe add some references to support your opinion. You can do that in Methodology considering they are related to the method or Discussion/Conclusions. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. Following your suggestion we added below paragraphs to the theoretical and practical implication section. Thank you!

Page 16

National and cultural differences may affect tourists' EM, SA, PA and ER [124, 125, 126], there is a need to re-examine structural models that reflect the international and multicultural perspectives of different countries. This study used a random sampling technique, However, the data are cross-sectional and may not be generalized to long-term ecotourism behavior [125, 126]. In addition, the present study has a limitation in not being able to directly compare before and after the pandemic in identifying the relationship between EM and ER of camping tourists.

 

Fourth, Figure 1 should be in methodology because it is the model you start with. It seems SmartPLS but I am not sure and found no reference regarding the software you used. Add the source and reference for that. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. Following your suggestion, and the method refer to it. Thank you!

Page 8

The study analyzed the data using SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 26.0. The study evaluates dimensions and measurement characteristics through testing CFA and structural model, and verifies the convergence effectiveness and reliability of the model [121]. Data were collected on the demographic characteristics of the tourists, as well as, EM, SA, PA, and ER.

 

Fifth, References are not in the format required by the journal. Also, I noticed the source 46. It lacks some info, city, country... check the guidelines but probably the editors will come back with a requirement for that. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. Following your suggestion we added to the reference. Thank you!

Page 20

43. Fennell, D. A. (2014). Ecotourism. London: Routledge.

 

Sixth, In the abstract, I understand you collected the survey this year, but you should mention in the method that. I could not find it there. Also in Results, you should emphasize how the results might be influenced by the fact that people come after a period with many restrictions and correlate that with the context in your country. Maybe the results were different before the pandemic? I noticed something in the literature review but not in the Results section which focuses on your findings. Also, you can add something in line 588 where you mention the limitation of time and trends.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We added below references to the content.

Page 1

A questionnaire-based survey was conducted on 400 camping tourists who visited Yunnan Province of China within the last year. The distribution of survey questionnaires ranges from 2023.2.12– 2023.2.24.

Page 13-14

This study investigated the relationship among EM, SA, PA, and ER of camping tourists. It is important to consider potential differences between pre- and post-pandemic outcomes in order to provide a comprehensive analysis. However, since this study only targeted camping tourists after the pandemic, it has limitations in comparing before and after the pandemic. Research conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic found that EM was influenced by factors such as nature-based experiences, seeking, and escaping [140, 141]. These motivations contributed to tourists' SA, PA, and ER within the ecotourism experience. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the global tourism industry and travel patterns. Travel restrictions, health concerns, and changes in consumer behavior have affected the dynamics of ecotourism. This suggests that there may be changes EM, SA, PA, and ER after the pandemic. For example, camping tourists may prioritize health and safety considerations over other motivations such as cultural immersion or environmental conservation [142]. The pandemic may have affected SA, PA, and ER levels as travelers' expectations and experiences may have changed due to restrictions, reduced services, or modified itineraries. As a result, post-pandemic outcomes may reveal differences in ER. However, further research is needed to fully explore and compare the pre- and post-pandemic dynamics in the context of EM, SA, PA, and ER.

 

Newly added references

121.Koufteros, X. A. (1999). Testing a model of pull production: a paradigm for manufacturing research using structural equation modeling. Journal of Operations Management, 17(4), 467-488.

140. Chan, J. K. L., & Baum, T. (2007). Motivation factors of ecotourists in ecolodge accommodation: The push and pull factors. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 12(4), 349-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941660701761027
141. Ross, E. L. D., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1991). Sightseeing tourists' motivation and satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(2), 226-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(91)90006-
142. Chen, X., Hao, Y., Duan, Y., Zhang, Q., & Hu, X. (2023). Gender and culture differences in consumers' travel behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 15(2), 1186. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021186

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

 

Thanks for this paper. The purpose of the article is to make an investigation on the relationship between ecotourism motivation (EM), satisfaction (SA), place attachment (PA), and environmentally responsible behavior intention (ER) based on the analysis of camping tourism and study the mediating roles of SA and PA in the relationship between EM and ER.

 

Regarding literature and theoretical discussion, the paper lacks quality in terms of theoretical discussion and arguments. They just review and summarize the previous author's arguments about the concepts they use in the paper.  Regarding data collection, the authors used survey findings and applied a quantitative technique  (structural model) to analyze the hypotheses. They discussed the findings in a less critical way so they must improve the findings and discussion section with a more creative and constructive argument.

Comments for author File: Comments.doc

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for this paper. The purpose of the article is to make an investigation on the relationship between ecotourism motivation (EM), satisfaction (SA), place attachment (PA), and environmentally responsible behavior intention (ER) based on the analysis of camping tourism and study the mediating roles of SA and PA in the relationship between EM and ER.

 

Response: Thank you very much for your positive comments! We made significant revision based on your valuable comments.

 

First, Regarding literature and theoretical discussion, the paper lacks quality in terms of theoretical discussion and arguments. They just review and summarize the previous author's arguments about the concepts they use in the paper.

 

Response: Thank you for your comment. We agree that this information needs to be added. Please see below sentence.

Literature Review：

Page 5

On the other hand, there are many motivations for being compelled to engage in ER in order to avoid punishment related to environmental policies; therefore, EM may not have a positive impact on ER [129]. Consequently, this study will analyze and demonstrate, based on previous research perspectives and the actual survey results of this study.

Page 5

Studies on PA have been conducted focusing on single-dimensional or multi-dimensional components, depending on the subject of study and the characteristics of the place. As a single-dimensional approach, researchers have expressed the degree of attachment to the place of residence or visit and overall PA [132, 133]. However, PA is a complex construct that involves a variety of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral components. Measuring PA as a single dimension poses problems as it overlooks the multifaceted nature of people's experiences and oversimplifies the concept. Moreover, single-dimensional measures may have limited predictive power in explaining and understanding individual behaviors and attitudes toward a place. However, many researchers largely agree that place attachment is a multidimensional concept [134, 135] and consists of two dimensions: place identity and place dependence.

Page 6

One point of contention regarding the causal relationship between SA and PA is the directionality of the relationship. While some studies support the notion that SA precedes PA, suggesting that SA acts as a precursor to developing attachment to a place, others propose the reverse causal direction. Firstly, the research suggests that SA has a positive impact on PA [85, 86, 87, 88]. This means that higher SA with various aspects of tourism, such as camping, leads to a stronger PA. When individuals feel satisfied with their camping experience, they are more likely to develop an emotional connection and a sense of belonging to the place. Secondly, studies have shown that PA has a positive effect on SA [136, 137]. When individuals have a stronger PA, their overall SA with the camping experience increases. This implies that a deep emotional connection and bond with a place contribute to higher levels of SA. To establish a clearer understanding of the causal relationship between these variables, further research should be conducted. The directionality of the relationship between the two variables remains an important area of debate, and a variety of studies are needed to gain a comprehensive understanding of the causal dynamics between satisfaction and place attachment. Based on the first point of view, we set up the following hypotheses.

 

Discussion：

Page 13-14

This study investigated the relationship among EM, SA, PA, and ER of camping tourists. It is important to consider potential differences between pre- and post-pandemic outcomes in order to provide a comprehensive analysis. However, since this study only targeted camping tourists after the pandemic, it has limitations in comparing before and after the pandemic. Research conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic found that EM was influenced by factors such as nature-based experiences, seeking, and escaping [140, 141]. These motivations contributed to tourists' SA, PA, and ER within the ecotourism experience. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the global tourism industry and travel patterns. Travel restrictions, health concerns, and changes in consumer behavior have affected the dynamics of ecotourism. This suggests that there may be changes EM, SA, PA, and ER after the pandemic. For example, camping tourists may prioritize health and safety considerations over other motivations such as cultural immersion or environmental conservation [142]. The pandemic may have affected SA, PA, and ER levels as travelers' expectations and experiences may have changed due to restrictions, reduced services, or modified itineraries. As a result, post-pandemic outcomes may reveal differences in ER. However, further research is needed to fully explore and compare the pre- and post-pandemic dynamics in the context of EM, SA, PA, and ER.

Page 14-15

Although past studies have demonstrated the relationship between EM and PA, it is crucial to critically examine the findings of these studies. Most of the prior investigations were conducted prior to the emergence of the pandemic, thus overlooking the impact of travel restrictions and prolonged isolation on the directionality of EM. During the severe period of the pandemic, individuals were prohibited from visiting crowded tourist sites due to health concerns, resulting in a change in their PA towards different situations. However, the survey conducted in this study revealed that EM still positively influences PA even after the pandemic. This suggests that EM can be generated solely on a psychological level, relying on internal motivations, even without frequent environmental interactions. These findings indicate that the influence of EM on PA is based on intrinsic psychological mechanisms rather than solely on the stimulation of environmental interactions as suggested by Kyle et al. [28].

Page 15

Understanding the directional relationship and causal sequence of how SA affects PA and how PA affects SA provides valuable insights into the dynamics and underlying mechanisms of the relationship. Examining the impact of SA on PA can reveal how an individual's overall SA with a tourism experience affects their emotional connection and attachment to a particular place. Similarly, exploring the impact of PA on SA is important for understanding the influence of emotional connection and sense of belonging to a place on an individual's overall SA with the tourism experience. In future follow-up studies, it will be necessary to establish a bidirectional influence relationship and clarify the magnitude of the effect between SA and PA. By examining bidirectional relationships, researchers can gain a more comprehensive understanding of how SA and PA mutually influence and reinforce each other over time. This deeper analysis will contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the complex dynamics at play in the relationship between SA and PA.

 

Second, Regarding data collection, the authors used survey findings and applied a quantitative technique  (structural model) to analyze the hypotheses. They discussed the findings in a less critical way so they must improve the findings and discussion section with a more creative and constructive argument.

Response: Yes, you are right that we need to provide source of this information. We added below citation to the main body.

Page 14

While previous studies have demonstrated a correlation between EM and SA, there is still a lack of comprehensive discussion regarding the specific mechanisms underlying this relationship. Consequently, we propose a psychological perspective to elucidate the underlying causes of this phenomenon. During the process of engaging in ecotourism, tourists may exhibit varying levels of psychological engagement due to differences in their EM. Tourists with higher levels of EM tend to demonstrate a stronger affinity for nature and derive greater enjoyment from camping experiences. This intrinsic drive leads them to have more immersive tourism experiences and derive pleasure from living in harmony with nature. Consequently, meeting these expectations and experiencing such SA contributes to the overall SA. However, it is essential to note that this proposed perspective is subject to critical examination and further empirical investigation. While it provides a potential framework for understanding the relationship between EM and SA, rigorous research is needed to fully substantiate and validate these psychological mechanisms in the context of ecotourism.

Page 15

Understanding the directional relationship and causal sequence of how SA affects PA and how PA affects SA provides valuable insights into the dynamics and underlying mechanisms of the relationship. Examining the impact of SA on PA can reveal how an individual's overall SA with a tourism experience affects their emotional connection and attachment to a particular place. Similarly, exploring the impact of PA on SA is important for understanding the influence of emotional connection and sense of belonging to a place on an individual's overall SA with the tourism experience. In future follow-up studies, it will be necessary to establish a bidirectional influence relationship and clarify the magnitude of the effect between SA and PA. By examining bidirectional relationships, researchers can gain a more comprehensive understanding of how SA and PA mutually influence and reinforce each other over time. This deeper analysis will contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the complex dynamics at play in the relationship between SA and PA.

Newly added references

129.Lu, H., & Chen, Z. (2020). Connotation, structure and status quo of practitioners' pro-environment behavior in China: Based on the dual-inheritance theory. Journal of China University of Mining and Technology (Social Sciences), 22(3), 145-160. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-105x.2020.03.012

140.Chan, J. K. L., & Baum, T. (2007). Motivation factors of ecotourists in ecolodge accommodation: The push and pull factors. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research , 12(4), 349-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941660701761027

141.Ross, E. L. D., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1991). Sightseeing tourists' motivation and satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(2), 226-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(91)90006-

142.Chen, X., Hao, Y., Duan, Y., Zhang, Q., & Hu, X. (2023). Gender and culture differences in consumers' travel behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 15(2), 1186. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021186

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for inviting me to review this manuscript. This topic is quite interesting and it is overall well organised. Just a few comments:

1.        In the intro section, I am aware that you are attempting to explain the study's rationale. But lines 81-142 are wordy, please cut some 20-30 lines.

2.        If data were only collected from the four tourist attractions, why did you use an online survey instead of a face-to-face survey? Because online surveys cannot make sure that the respondents have actually visited these places. Or they may visit there a long time ago and therefore their answer may not reflect what they really feel.

3.        I cannot think of anyone who stays in a camp in Shilin. I believe the park does not allow tourists to stay there overnight. Cangshan also, is it really possible to stay there overnight? It’s pretty cold there.

4.        Please strictly follow the process in Koufteros (1999) to refine your SEM analysis (EFA, CFA, then a test of the structural model). For cutoffs see Golob (2003).

5.        Please also provide GFI, AGFI, and SRMR.

6.        Implications and limitations should be part of your discussion section. In section 6.1 the authors argue that “campsite managers can work together with the local community to …”. Talk more about this, in which way they could collaborate. For example, Liu et al. (2022) argue that informal transport services provided by B&B operators can improve the inclusiveness of the destination and stimulate tourists to adopt multimodal travel, which is more sustainable.

7.        Line 74. Camping cannot be a “mainstream” outdoor activity, it may be a popular way to travel.

8.        Use CNY instead of yuan.

Reference

Golob, T. F. (2003). Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 37(1), 1-25.

Koufteros, X. A. (1999). Testing a model of pull production: a paradigm for manufacturing research using structural equation modeling. Journal of operations Management, 17(4), 467-488.

Liu, Q., Liu, Z., An, Z., Zhao, P., & Zhao, D. (2022). A modal shift due to a free within-destination tourist bus scheme: Multimodality and transport equity implications. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 100863.

 

 

it's ok. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for inviting me to review this manuscript. This topic is quite interesting and it is overall well organised. Just a few comments:

 

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We think your suggestion is constructive and modify the content.

 

First,  In the intro section, I am aware that you are attempting to explain the study's rationale. But lines 81-142 are wordy, please cut some 20-30 lines.

 

Response: Thank you for your comment. In this revision, We will respond to your feedback with the following content.

Page 2  – page 3

Tourists' ER is influenced by their EM, which refers to engaging in and drawing lessons from nature, self-developing, running away from routine for freshness, and getting involved with social interaction. Ecotourists are usually associated with nature tourism and called “green tourists”. Ecotourism essentially targets activities to be conducted in the natural circumstances, inspired by a firm commitment to protect it [18]. Ma et al. [19] found that both intrinsic and extrinsic travel motivations were equally important to travelers and significantly associated with their environmental attitudes and responsible behavior. Other environmental behavior studies have suggested that intrinsic motivation is closely linked to ER, which provides a sense of achievement, pleasure, and success without tangible or extrinsic rewards [20]. However, research on the effects of ecotourism motivation on tourists' environmental attitudes and responsible behavior in nature-based tourism is limited.

 In terms of travel, satisfaction (SA) is measured based on tourists' pre-travel expectations and actual experiences, resulting in positive feelings towards the destination during or after the trip [21]. Studies have shown that tourists are more likely to exhibit pro-environmental behavior when satisfied with their environment [22]. However, there is limited research on the pro-environmental behavior or ER and the relationship between tourists' SA in natural settings. Ramkissoon et al. [23] are among the few researchers who have explored this relationship.

 Place attachment (PA) means the emotional connections people form with physical settings [24]. Low and Altman [25] have suggested that PA encompasses concepts from various aspects such as place identity and dependence. Ramkissoon et al. [26] highlighted the connection between PA and tourists' pro-environmental intentions and actions, demonstrating its significance in explaining such behavior across different settings. For instance, Chow et al. [27] have shown that place dependence and identity positively correlate with ER. However, some of the Western studies [28, 23] show that place dependence is not a ,meaningful indicator of ER. The causal relationships between tourism motivation and EM, SA, and PA have been verified in numerous studies. Push and pull motivations in general and tourism motivations , in particular, have been defined as antecedents of tourist SA [29]. Tourism motivation has a great positive connection with SA [30], and have an impact on their attachment levels in a specific setting [31]. Kyle et al. [28] found that motivations such as nature, learning activities, health, autonomy, and socialization positively affect PA dimensions such as identity and place dependence and social bonding. Hosany et al. [32] demonstrated that motivation and PA are key determinants of the motivation to go for individuals with stronger imagination proclivity. Several prior studies have proved that tourists' SA is a suitable mediating element in behavioral models of tourism [33, 34]. However, the exploration of the mediating roles of SA and PA in EM and ER is limited.

 

Second,   If data were only collected from the four tourist attractions, why did you use an online survey instead of a face-to-face survey? Because online surveys cannot make sure that the respondents have actually visited these places. Or they may visit there a long time ago and therefore their answer may not reflect what they really feel.

 

Response: Thank you for your comment. In this revision, we have added below paragraph to address your comment.

Page 7

We conducted an online survey because face-to-face surveys are not safe during the corona virus pandemic. However, to ensure the validity of the data, we carefully selected research subjects by reaching out to the community of individuals who had actually visited the selected campgrounds. Furthermore, the survey was specifically targeted towards individuals who had camped at these campgrounds within the last year. This study design was implemented to minimize the potential impact of respondents' distant camping experiences on the results.

 

Third,   I cannot think of anyone who stays in a camp in Shilin. I believe the park does not allow tourists to stay there overnight. Cangshan also, is it really possible to stay there overnight? It’s pretty cold there.

Response: Thank you for your comment. In this revision, we have added below paragraph to address your comment.

Page 7

The best camping spot in Kunming is Long Lake in Shilin, located 18 kilometers southeast of Shilin County and approximately 120 kilometers from Kunming City. This campsite is well-established and offers convenient amenities such as toilets, stone tables and chairs, and running water available at regular intervals [138]. Tents can be brought or rented on-site. The area is rich in natural beauty, with abundant water birds, nested islands, interconnected lakes, and opportunities for bamboo rafting. Additionally, camping is also available at the foot of Cangshan Mountain beside Erhai Lake [139].

 

Fourth,  Please strictly follow the process in Koufteros (1999) to refine your SEM analysis (EFA, CFA, then a test of the structural model). For cutoffs see Golob (2003).

Response: Thank you for your comment. We added the content following your suggestion in the intro section

Page 8

The study analyzed the data using SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 26.0. The study evaluates dimensions and measurement characteristics through testing CFA and structural model, and verifies the convergence effectiveness and reliability of the model [121].

Page 11

goodness of fit (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit (AGFI),  standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) which must meet specific thresholds. For CFI and NFI, the threshold is greater than 0.90, while for RMSEA it is less than 0.08 [31]. SRMR, which ranges from zero to one, is considered a good fit when the standard value is less than 0.08 [122]. GFI and AGFI measures the correspondence between the observed covariance matrix and the model-predicted covariance matrix, and a value greater than 0.90 indicates a suitable fit [123]. 

 

Fifth,  Please also provide GFI, AGFI, and SRMR.

Response: Thank you for your comment. In this revision, we have added below paragraph to address your comment.

Page 11

GFI=0.895, SRMR=0.050, AGFI=0.877.(see table 3)

 

Sixth, Implications and limitations should be part of your discussion section. In section 6.1 the authors argue that “campsite managers can work together with the local community to …”. Talk more about this, in which way they could collaborate. For example, Liu et al. (2022) argue that informal transport services provided by B&B operators can improve the inclusiveness of the destination and stimulate tourists to adopt multimodal travel, which is more sustainable.

Response: We have structured the table of contents in favor of the format below.

Zhang et al. (2022). Destination personality and behavioral intention in Hainan’s golf tourism during COVID-19 pandemic: Mediating role of destination image and self-congruity. Sustainability 2022, 14(11), 6528; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116528

 

Response: Thank you for your comment. In this revision, we have added below paragraph to address your comment.

Page 17

For example, one proposal could involve engaging stakeholders in conservation efforts by establishing community-based conservation programs. This could include organizing volunteer days where community members, campers, and staff collaborate to restore natural habitats and clean up the surrounding areas. Such activities can foster a sense of ownership and responsibility for the campsite's ecological environment. Additionally, in collaboration with the local community, a sustainable tourism campaign can be developed through educational initiatives targeting camping tourists. This would involve educating campers about the importance of minimizing their environmental impact, practicing the Leave No Trace principles, and respecting local culture and traditions, while implementing joint awareness campaigns.

 

Seventh,   Line 74. Camping cannot be a “mainstream” outdoor activity, it may be a popular way to travel.

Response: Thank you for your comment. In this revision, we have added below paragraph to address your comment.

Page 2  

The 2019 COVID-19 further promoted the growth of camps, making them a popular choice for outdoor activities.

 

Eighth, Use CNY instead of yuan.

Response: Thank you for your comment. In this revision, we have added below paragraph to address your comment.

Page 10  

Income(CNY). (see table 2)

 

Newly added references

121.Koufteros, X. A. (1999). Testing a model of pull production: a paradigm for manufacturing research using structural equation modeling. Journal of Operations Management, 17(4), 467-488.

122.Delahaij, R., & Van Dam, K. (2017). Coping with acute stress in the military: The influence of coping style, coping self-efficacy and appraisal emotions. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 13-18.

123.Taasoobshirazi, G., & Wang, S. (2016). The performance of the SRMR, RMSEA, CFI, and TLI: An examination of sample size, path size, and degrees of freedom. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 11(3), 31-39.

138.Yue, H. & Jing, M. (2016). Ecological footprint analysis of Changhu camping base tourism in Shilin County, Yunnan. Decision and Information, 15, 18-19.     

139.Liu, Q., Yin, Y., & Zhang, L. (2022). The prospect of combining sports and tourism development in Dali area. Open Access Library Journal, 9(7), 1-9.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I am satisfied with the revision. Thanks for sharing.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Before being accepted the manuscript needs to cover 2 relevant methodological aspects for a Confirmatory Factor Analysis: 1) Report at the univariate level: variance (>0), skewness and kurtosis (|≤1|, both), 2) Review compliance with the minimum items per factor (MIF), especially in the Building Personal Relationships (BP), Interpersonal Relationships (IR), and Rewards (RE) factors. Presenting factors with only 2 items is a mistake.

 

Response: Thank you very much for taking your expertise and time to review our manuscript and providing us with constructive comments to make improvement of our manuscript. We hope that our revisions are satisfactory.

 

• We have verified if the variance of the variable is greater than zero. A variable with zero variance implies that it lacks meaningful information for analysis. The variables displayed variances ranging from 0.429 to 0.962, all of which were greater than zero. We have thoroughly addressed the reviewers' comments regarding the assessment of normal distribution assumptions. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of the Skewness and Kurtosis of the data and have confirmed that the assumption of a normal distribution is met. The results of this analysis, along with the inclusion of additional items based on the second round of reviewer comments, have been duly incorporated into the revised manuscript. We have provided a detailed presentation of these findings on pages 8-9.

 

• in response to the reviewers' insightful suggestions, we have reevaluated the Interpersonal Relationships (IR) factor. Initially, the IR factor was examined using three questions; however, due to a relatively low Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value, we made the decision to exclude it from the analysis. However, in light of the reviewer's valuable input, we have reinstated the IR factor and reanalyzed the associated items accordingly. Regarding the Building Personal Relationships (BP) and Rewards (RE) factors, we acknowledge that they were initially measured using only two questions. While we are aware of previous studies that have employed two items to measure and analyze factors, we fully recognize the importance of configuring an appropriate number of questions in accordance with the reviewer's recommendations in future studies.We inform reviewers that our researchers determined the number of items by judging that there is no problem in explaining the sub-concept even with two items.

The minimum number of questions required for a factor

The minimum number of questions required for a factor depends on various factors, including the complexity of the construct, desired accuracy level, and sample size. However, there is no universally agreed-upon minimum number of questions for a factor analysis.

In general, researchers recommend having at least three to five questions per factor or latent variable to ensure the reliability and stability of factor analysis results (Hair et al., 2017). Following this recommendation will help capture an adequate amount of information about the underlying construct.

The number of questions needed will vary depending on the specific research context, the nature of the construct, and the level of measurement (e.g., Likert scale items, semantic differential scales).

 

References:

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2017). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.