Resilience of Tourists’ Repurchase Intention during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Shared Accommodation Sector
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper Resilience from Tourist Repurchase amid the Pandemic_The Case of Shared Accommodation addresses an actual and interesting topic and, apparently, the author/s’ approach seems slightly adequate with the objective of investigating “China’s tourist behavior for economic resilience at the prevention and control of the normalized pandemic”, so far.
it is strongly advisable to have the English version proofread by a native speaker. When reading the paper, the ideas written in English or maybe translated from another language (Chinese?) into English do not flow and, therefore, the reader loses the point. If it would be the case, this reviewer would appreciate it if the author/s could provide a document answering the comments point by point as well as a version indicating where changes have been made.
Finally, Resilience is the key word in the title, however this construct and tourist behaviour is not reviewed. It is only mentioned once in line 45 and then in lines 271 and 273! Giving support to the idea, but tourist resilience behaviour should be also address in order to make conclusion on it.
Please, check the reviewer document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for your constructive comments. We have amended the manuscript followed your suggestions to improve the work. Attached is the response to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting paper that applies SEM to study the causal relationship between various factors to explain consumer behavior during pandemic, such as, how perceived risk affects tourists’ perceived value, trust, and behavioral attitudes when purchasing a shared accommodation amid pandemic. The study is interesting and results are clear to understand. Though the application of SME in the study seems okay to me, I do not consider myself an expert on this particular methodology would advise the authors to consult report of other reviewers on the methodological aspect. However, I do see some minor issues that the authors may wish to address. They are: the writing could have been clearer. For example, in the opening section the author(s) provide statistical data to suggest that there has been a 40% drop in revenue due to COVID, but it does not say drop over which period. Is that drop compared to the pre-pandemic level? It would be good define some of the variables used in the study, such as, what is meant by perceived value. Similarly, it is not very clearly stated what is meant by shared accommodation and what type of accommodations were considered for the study. It is important to know how was shared accommodation explained in the survey questions and what participants understood by that term. There are grammatical errors and typos, for example, trust is written as turst on one occasion.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your constructive comments. We have amended the manuscript followed your suggestions to improve the work. Attached is the response to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for considering and implementing all the suggestions and recommendation included in the review. I have received 2 versions with the amendments but no a final version that I can read without any disruption. I mean a new final version. I have opened 2 files with the corrections and no clean file. It is maybe my fault that I did not find it in the platform. I would like to see the final version to be able to read without difficulty and check that the text flows. Thank very much in advance and my apologies if that version exists.
Check minor revision,
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your supportive comments. We attached the files including the clean version on the MDPI. We attach it again here for your easy review again. We appreciate your precious time.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
