Local Impact of a Sports Centre: Effects on Future Intentions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall the paper is well-written with reasonably thorough literature review. I have two major comments.

1: What I thought was missing in the 1.1 and 1.2 sections was the background information about social impact factors. The authors used García-Pascual et al.’s conceptualization of social impact that consists of 5 factors (Health impact, Impact on physical activity levels and habits, Socio-cultural impact, Socio-economic impact, Image and promotion impact). However, there was no mention about these factors. Please provide definitions of each factor and discuss why each factor is important to understand social factor.

2: Related to #1, in the 1.2 section, the authors should develop hypotheses between each of the 5 social impact factors and future intentions, instead of lumping social impact factors together, explaining how unique aspects of each of 5 factors positively influence intention.

Author Response

Dear Revisor,

First of all, we would like to thank you for your feedback on the manuscript, which will help us to improve and enhance the quality of the manuscript. We have addressed your revisions:

-We have increased at the end of section 1.1 the description and conceptualisation of each of the social impact factors subsequently analysed.

-We have added a hypothesis at the end of section 1.2 reflecting the possibility of influence of social impact factors on users' future intentions. Due to the scarcity of works in the literature that measure these factors in the work of García-Pascual et al. in their relationship on the future behaviours of users of sports centres, we have opted to combine the factors in the relationship on this dependent variable in a single hypothesis.

Thank you again for your considerations and we hope that the modifications will be well appreciated.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the editors for their confidence in reviewing this study. I also congratulate the authors as the paper is very interesting, current and with a line of study with a lot of future. However, I consider that the authors could revise the following aspects:

-Include ethics committee.

-Sample, add more information about where the study was done. It is not clear.

-Method to include Crombach's alpha interval. Also, allude to the treatment of information and informed consent.

-Results. Include skewness and kurtosis in descriptive data to check normal distribution of data.

-Regression table, indicate level of significance.

-Regression table, indicate R-squared, adjusted and corrected R-squared values.

-.... and now what? That is, the authors could give recommendations to sport managers? While the authors at the beginning of the conclusion describe possible implications, I think the authors could specify more.

-Some references that might be of interest to review:

Moreno, F. C., Parra-Camacho, D., & Crespo-Hervás, J. Economic and social effects of sporting events and organisations in Spain and the Iberian Peninsula. Sport in the Iberian Peninsula, 109-122. Garcia-Pascual, F., Parra-Camacho, D., & González-García, R. J. (2022). VALIDATION OF A SCALE TO ANALYSE RESIDENTS’PERCEPTIONS OF THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF A SPORTS CENTRE. Movimento, 25. Europe Active: https://www.europeactive.eu/file/917/download?token=zoole0Z9 IHRSA: https://www.ihrsa.org/publications/economic-health-societal-well-being-quantifying-the-impact-of-the-global-health-fitness-sector/# Leisure opportunities: https://www.leisureopportunities.co.uk/news/the-gym-group-has-created-18bn-in-social-value-since-2016/347361 Fundación España Activa: Informe preliminar sobre el Impacto Social y Económico del sector de la actividad física y el deporte en España Autores: Prof. Alfonso Jiménez1, Dr. Xian Mayo1, Ed Hubbard2, Sally Cheeseman2, Dr. Steven Mann2.

Author Response

Dear Revisor,

First of all, we would like to thank you for your feedback on the manuscript, which will help us to improve and enhance the quality of the manuscript. We have addressed your revisions:

-We have included in the method section the revisions requested by you, the considerations of the ethics committee of the university, as well as we have increased the information of the sports centre under study, as well as the Cronbach's alpha interval.

-We have also included in table 2 the skewness and kurtosis of the analysed dimensions.

2 In table 4, we have added the level of significance, as well as the values of R .

Thank you again for your considerations and we hope that the modifications will be well appreciated.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

The paper is not suitable for publication in this version .Too small a group size does not allow the reliability of the results , and the age range of 18-80 years also.

Division into 4 subgroups determines the numbers in some groups of several people. The study should be expanded to include a larger number of participants to compare with another community by conducting the same study in another locality.

Admittedly, the authors state this fact in the restrictions, but in this version the article can not be published.

I invite you to expand the research group or add other factors that may enrich the results obtained

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thanks for your comments, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Thank you for the responses to my comments.

I still have an issue with your response to my 2^nd comment: “2: Related to #1, in the 1.2 section, the authors should develop hypotheses between each of the 5 social impact factors and future intentions, instead of lumping social impact factors together, explaining how unique aspects of each of 5 factors positively influence intention.”

Your response “Due to the scarcity of works in the literature that measure these factor…” actually raised a concern for your study. A hypothesis is theoretical assumptions about a solution to a problem. If for whatever reason (the scarcity of works) researchers can’t offer theoretical explanations/justification on why the hypothesis would work, the authors fail to provide the most important information in the paper. Just saying there is not enough work done sounds very irresponsible and not good for scholarship development. Further, if there is no work, why and how did the authors come up with the hypothesis I the first place? What did the authors basis the hypothesis on? Again, if the authors identified several social impact factors, the authors should be able to provide theory/explanations on why EACH of the factors influence the dependent variable.

Author Response

Dear Revisor,

Thank you again for your feedback on our manuscript. We have addressed the revisions:

We have augmented in the theoretical framework section the hypotheses in a biased way by attending to the relationships of each of the impacts analysed with the future intentions of sports centre users. In this way, we have tried to increase the information and offer more scientific rigour to the manuscript.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, I still think that the group size used is too small. I understand that you want to take this into account in future research, However, please expand and deepen the discussion in your article.

In addition, please also reword your conclusions and indicate further scope for future research

 

Author Response

Dear Revisor,

Thank you again for your feedback on our manuscript. We have addressed the revisions:

In the conclusions section and in future lines of research, we have increased information on the size of the sample and how in future work we should approach the sample from a broader point of view that will allow us to obtain a greater statistical potential.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript reads much better now. Thank you for your patience and efforts. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer.

We understand from your favorable comment that you are not requesting modifications and attention from us.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, thank you for the changes, please add to the paper a graph showing the course of the experiment, the size of the group, including the criteria for inclusion and exclusion from the study? In a previous review I also asked for this and it was not completed.

Author Response

Dear Revisor,

Thank you again for your consideration which will help our work to be of a superior quality. We thank you for each and every one of the revisions offered. On this occasion we have added the following text to the method section:

In this study, a non-probabilistic convenience sample was used, considering as inclusion criteria that the interviewee was a resident of the city of Valencia, over 18 years of age, with at least one year of residence, in order to rule out tourists or temporary visitors with little knowledge of the phenomenon under study. In this sense, it was also considered as a criterion for the selection of participants that they were both users and non-users of the sports centre and, in the case that they had not been users of the centre, that they were aware of its existence and the activities that were carried out there.

We have considered writing the process instead of making a graph as this is an observational work, and it is not common to see a graph with exclusion/inclusion criteria in these works. We hope you will find it to your liking.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf