Influencing Travelers’ Behavior in Thailand Comparing Situations of during and Post COVID-19

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript investigates the factors that influence motivation and travel frequency in Thailand using Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. The topic is interesting and the paper is overall well written.

Below some comments to further raise its quality.

The abstract should contain information about the location of the case study.

The novelty of contribution should be clearly stated in section 1. Similarly, the Authors should report the research questions that their study attempts to address. Finally section 1 should end with a short remainder of the paper in order to guide the reader through the manuscript.

There are many important works about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on tourism flows. Although they employ different methodologies they can be useful to carry out a comprehensive discussion about the empirical literature on the topic (see references below).

Additional details about the questionnaire are needed. How did the Authors check for the answers reliability? Did they run a pilot questionnaire?

A more detailed description of the investigated area can be of help. This should include some statistics/figures on the tourism flows along with a map of the area.

A comparison with previous studies is necessary.

The study’s limitations should be discussed along with the generalisability of the findings achieved.

Suggested references:

Exploring the impact of COVID-19 on tourism: Transformational potential and implications for a sustainable recovery of the travel and leisure industry. Curr. Res. Behav. Sci. 2021, 2, 100033.

Are Potential Tourists Willing to Pay More for Improved Accessibility? Preliminary Evidence from the Gargano National Park” Land 2022, 11, 75.

Tourism recovery strategy against COVID-19 pandemic. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2021, 46, 188–194

English language is fine

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to review the manuscript entitled, “Influencing travelers’ behavior in Thailand comparing situations of during and post COVID-19.” I have some comments.

 1. Abstract

In abstract, information regarding the purpose, data, method, results, and implications should be presented in brief. Data information is missing.

 2. Introduction

This study presents a proposed model and uses a structural equation modeling. Introducing a theoretical framework and the theory needs to be presented in introduction. Health belief model may need to be briefly mentioned and the gap of the previous research should be highlighted.

 

3. Introduction

The definition of “during the COVID-19 pandemic” and “post-COVID-19” should be clearly defined. I think the regulations and the definition of “during the COVID-19 pandemic” and “post-COVID-19” could be the same or may be different in different contexts.

 4.  Literature review

One sentence is a paragraph in literature review. Please carefully read and revise the manuscript overall.

 5. Literature review

The mediation name is somewhat confusing. In Hypotheses 1-9, the dependent variable is “motivation”, however, the same construct in hypothesis 10, the authors used the term “intention.”

 6. Literature review

The hypotheses are not well supported by conceptual and empirical research.

For example, the authors provide a definition of the concept and then use a quotation of the measurement item without presenting previous research for supporting the hypotheses.

(on page 3) Perceived susceptibility involves assessing the risk of experiencing problems when 108 deciding to travel, particularly the chance of being infected with COVID-19. For example, 109 questions could include, "You know whenever you travel for tourism, you must always 110 follow preventive measures against COVID-19 pandemic, such as wearing masks, check- 111 ing the temperature, washing hands with sanitizer gel or alcohol, or social distancing in 112 queueing for getting service, etc."

 7. Measurement

Sources of the measurement items are not clearly presented on page 5.

 8. Results

In Table 2, marital status should be revised, “status” and “Devose”

Moreover, “number of persons in family”, there is no 1 person.

What is “revenue per month”?  What are the differences between suburban and rural?

 

9. Results

In Table 4, what is “estimate”? The factor loadings of the CFA results should be presented in Table 4. If the factor loadings are 0.30, 0.35, and 0.98 among the items of INT. the factor should be reconsidered. Moreover, in the table 4, the AVEs did not meet the recommended thresholds.

 

10. Discriminant validity

The discriminant validity did not be checked thoroughly.

 11. Results

In Table 5, the authors do not need to present all results shown in the outcomes from the software. Please present the SEM results. Because the factors are not well identified, the results of the SEM in figure 3 cannot be confirmed.

12. Table 6.

The results of Table 6 should be moved before discussion.

 13. Discussion

The results should be presented in results. In discussion, the authors need to present theoretical and practical implications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript looks now definitely improved and ready for getting published. The final decision is up to the Editor.

The English language is fine.

Author Response

We express profound gratitude for your invaluable comments. After meticulously incorporating the suggested revisions, we have observed a substantial improvement in our manuscript. At this juncture, we firmly believe that the document is poised for publication. Your assistance has been immensely valuable, and we extend our heartfelt appreciation for your contributions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for revision based on the comments. However, 

The issues in the results of the discriminant validity is the value of AVE. Unlike the description of the authors, almost all AVEs did not show the recommended threshold. 

The authors should explain the low values of AVE and explain how to support the validities. 

 

Table 5 on pages 14 and 15

Convergent and discriminant validities were thoroughly investigated to effectively 407 assess construct validity. Discriminant validity was evaluated by comparing the square 408 roots of each construct's AVE with the inter-construct correlations [32]. Table 3 presents  the discriminant validities for both the during and post-COVID-19 models, and the results 410 of the discriminant validity tests are corroborated [45].

 

2. the significance of the results -  Table 7

I would like to suggest adding *** p<0.001. (Table 7)

 Note: * p-value < 0.1, ** p-value < 0.05

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf