Investigating the Influencing Factors of the Purchase Intention of the Continuing Care Retirement Community: A Case Study of Shenzhen

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I've carefully reviewed your article and I want to commend you on the effort put into your work. It's a good piece, albeit with some areas that could benefit from further attention.

Firstly, I want to address a discrepancy regarding the number of survey participants. The table indicates 104 respondents, while the text suggests an analysis of 296 individuals. Clarifying this discrepancy is crucial for the transparency and reliability of your study.

A key concern I would like to highlight is the issue with "External Stimuli." I believe it's important to consider whether the marginal impact and lack of direct effect observed in your survey are due to the absence of external stimuli. Survey respondents may find it challenging to gauge the influence of external factors on their real estate choices if they haven't encountered such stimuli. I recommend exploring alternative methods or supplementary data sources to measure the impact of external stimuli more effectively.

Additionally, the paper should provide a clearer definition of TPB to enhance reader comprehension, especially for those less familiar with the concept.

The justification for including the variable PTP5 in the Product Performance indicator rather than the Subjective Norms indicator needs more thorough and extensive explanation. This clarification is vital for the overall understanding of your methodology.

Regarding the mention of using SPSS for analyses, it's true that the emphasis should be on the function and parameters rather than the software itself. A brief note stating that the choice of SPSS was made for its compatibility with the specific analyses conducted could be sufficient.

Moving on to the interpretation of results, consider highlighting the aspect of social closure or relative openness to a particular mix. The results you present are intriguing, especially regarding the significant influence of subjective norms in markets that combine residence and health. This finding opens up a key question related to the pursuit of homophily, i.e., the tendency to associate with similar individuals in terms of social class, income, status, and prestige. The interest in cost reduction and ensuring optimal socio-health performance, along with a desire for convivial living tied to quality spaces and lifestyles, might pave the way for more diverse socialization. It would be valuable to reference international literature, such as the synthesis provided in https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19186444.2010.11658232

Furthermore, the article could benefit from discussing the transition from homophily to socialization in mixed neighborhoods, as explored by Cousin et al. in 2021. Their work on the shift from homophily to socialization, particularly in mixed socio-health environments like CCRCs, is worth citing for its relevance to your research. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1736993

In conclusion, your work shows promise, and with these suggested improvements, I believe it can make a more significant contribution to the field. I look forward to seeing a revised version of your manuscript. It is truly an excellent topic and you have good knowledge of part of the literature. 

I sincerely look forward to seeing your paper published, and will undoubtedly circulate it to my colleagues. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no adding comments

Author Response

Comments 1: Firstly, I want to address a discrepancy regarding the number of survey participants. The table indicates 104 respondents, while the text suggests an analysis of 296 individuals. Clarifying this discrepancy is crucial for the transparency and reliability of your study.

Response 1: Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript. We acknowledge that an error occurred during our writing process, and we sincerely apologize for this oversight. The data in the table is correct. We have rectified this issue and ensured that all relevant data have been accurately corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.

Comments 2: A key concern I would like to highlight is the issue with "External Stimuli." I believe it's important to consider whether the marginal impact and lack of direct effect observed in your survey are due to the absence of external stimuli. Survey respondents may find it challenging to gauge the influence of external factors on their real estate choices if they haven't encountered such stimuli. I recommend exploring alternative methods or supplementary data sources to measure the impact of external stimuli more effectively.

Response 2: We appreciate your professional comments on our article. As you may be concerned, in response to your suggestion, we have added clarification to the introduction of external stimuli on page 6, line 263, and added references to further illustrate that external stimuli are potential factors influencing CCRC purchase intention. In our view, external stimuli are those stimuli from environmental, social, and other external factors that may have an impact on a consumer's purchasing decision. In the field of CCRC, external stimuli may include factors such as policy changes, economic conditions, and social and cultural environments. These external stimuli may affect consumers' attitudes, perceptions and purchase intentions towards CCRC. In the article "Investigating Young Consumers' Purchasing Intention of Green Housing in China" by Lin Zhang et al., their study aims to investigate the young consumers’ purchasing intention of Green House (GH) in the Chinese context., and they found that subjective knowledge, governmental incentives, and environmental concern are included as the antecedents of attitudes toward purchasing GH, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. Young consumers’ intention to purchase GH can be predicted directly or indirectly by ATT, SN and SK, GI, and EC. Therefore, we consider external stimuli as potential factors influencing the purchase intention of CCRC.

Comments 3: Additionally, the paper should provide a clearer definition of TPB to enhance reader comprehension, especially for those less familiar with the concept.

Response 3: We agree with this comment. Based on the reviewers' suggestions, we have added section 2.2 on page 4, line 185, to provide a clearer definition of TPB to improve readers' understanding.

Comments 4: The justification for including the variable PTP5 in the Product Performance indicator rather than the Subjective Norms indicator needs more thorough and extensive explanation. This clarification is vital for the overall understanding of your methodology.

Response 4: The rationale for including the latent variable PTP5, "CCRC can meet spiritual and cultural needs" in the product performance factors rather than subjective norms is mainly because this factor more directly affects the quality of the products and services provided by CCRC, rather than just the attitudes and expectations of individual consumers or society. The spiritual and cultural needs of CCRC include the provision of rich and varied cultural, social, and recreational activities that can satisfy the spiritual needs and quality of life of the elderly, thereby influencing their intention to purchase CCRCs and make decisions about their CCRCs. Therefore, incorporating this variable into the product performance factor can more accurately reflect the comprehensive quality and service level of CCRC products and have a direct impact on consumers' purchase intention.

Comments 5: Regarding the mention of using SPSS for analyses, it's true that the emphasis should be on the function and parameters rather than the software itself. A brief note stating that the choice of SPSS was made for its compatibility with the specific analyses conducted could be sufficient.

Response 5: Regarding the mention of using SPSS for analyses, it's true that the emphasis should be on the function and parameters rather than the software itself. We have selectively trimmed the content of the article on SPSS analysis, and some of the more detailed descriptions of the analysis are intended for readers who don't understand a particular aspect of it

Comments 6: Moving on to the interpretation of results, consider highlighting the aspect of social closure or relative openness to a particular mix. The results you present are intriguing, especially regarding the significant influence of subjective norms in markets that combine residence and health. This finding opens up a key question related to the pursuit of homophily, i.e., the tendency to associate with similar individuals in terms of social class, income, status, and prestige. The interest in cost reduction and ensuring optimal socio-health performance, along with a desire for convivial living tied to quality spaces and lifestyles, might pave the way for more diverse socialization. It would be valuable to reference international literature, such as the synthesis provided in https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19186444.2010.11658232.

Comments 7: Furthermore, the article could benefit from discussing the transition from homophily to socialization in mixed neighborhoods, as explored by Cousin et al. in 2021. Their work on the shift from homophily to socialization, particularly in mixed socio-health environments like CCRCs, is worth citing for its relevance to your research. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1736993

Response 6 and 7: We think this is a good proposal. Therefore, we have added a new Section 4.3.1 on page 25, line 595. The third and fourth paragraphs cite two articles by Cousin and Vitale that discuss homophily and socialization in CCRC and offer five policy recommendations to promote diversity and inclusion within communities and create a healthier, active, and sustainable retirement community.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This interesting paper attempts to illustrate the link between Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC) and urban resilience and sustainable development. The authors show the challenges of developing a CCRC system and conclude that consumers' purchase intention is influenced by product performance, subjective norms and economic cost. Some points should be addressed to be publishable in Sustainability:

1. The authors should provide some data to illustrate the necessity of developing a CCRC system in China. What are the features of the social security system in China? This documentation would be helpful to the general readership of Sustainability.
2. In addition, the authors should document why they chose Shenzen City as their case study. 
3. The linear link between urban welfare systems, CCRC and sustainable development is evident. The authors should briefly discuss the term sustainable development in their introduction to catch the readers' interest. In this vein, the following two papers should be included: "Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy", New Political Economy, 27(5), pp. 866-878, and (b) "The concept of sustainable development: From its beginning to the contemporary issues", Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business, 21(1), 67-94.
4. What are the theoretical implications of this study? This point is vital as the discussion of the CCRC system is gaining scholars' attention.
5. What are the policy implications of this paper? As the authors stress in line 166, government policy is a prime important factor in directing the CCRC development process. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language is required

Author Response

Comments 1: The authors should provide some data to illustrate the necessity of developing a CCRC system in China. What are the features of the social security system in China? This documentation would be helpful to the general readership of Sustainability.

Response 1: We believe this is a good proposal. Therefore, we have provided some data and discussion in the first, second and third paragraphs of the first page, line 33 of the introduction to illustrate the need to develop CCRC in China and the characteristics of China's social security system.

Comments 2: In addition, the authors should document why they chose Shenzen City as their case study.

Response 2: We explain why we chose Shenzhen as a case study in the last paragraph of the introduction on the second page, line 87, in terms of both the time of the study and the perspective of the study.

Comments 3: The linear link between urban welfare systems, CCRC and sustainable development is evident. The authors should briefly discuss the term sustainable development in their introduction to catch the readers' interest. In this vein, the following two papers should be included: "Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy", New Political Economy, 27(5), pp. 866-878, and (b) "The concept of sustainable development: From its beginning to the contemporary issues", Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business, 21(1), 67-94. Response 3: As suggested by the reviewer, we have cited the articles "Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy" and " The concept of sustainable development: from its beginning to the contemporary issues" on page 2, line 53 of the revised edition.  In the introduction, the term sustainable development is briefly discussed, as well as the linear link between urban welfare systems, CCRC and sustainable development. Comments 4: What are the theoretical implications of this study? This point is vital as the discussion of the CCRC system is gaining scholars' attention. Response 4: We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments. We agree with this comment. We have added a section on the theoretical significance of the study to the last paragraph of the introduction on page 2, line 94 of the revised manuscript Comments 5: What are the policy implications of this paper? As the authors stress in line 166, government policy is a prime important factor in directing the CCRC development process. Response 5: We think this is a good suggestion. Therefore, we have added a new Section 4.3.2 to Chapter 4 on page 24, line 641. This section discusses homogenization and socialization in CCRCs and offers five policy recommendations to promote diversity and inclusion within communities and create healthier, active, and sustainable retirement communities.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current study delved into the influencing factors of purchase intention within the Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) context using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The findings underscored the significance of product performance, subjective norms, economic costs, and external costs in shaping purchase intention. While the study makes notable contributions by elucidating these factors and extending the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), several issues warrant attention.

 

1. It is advisable for the authors to construct a theoretical framework accompanied by a digraph illustrating the hypotheses and relationships among the factors. This visualization would provide clarity and alignment with the proposed hypotheses.

 

2. Clarification is needed regarding participant data. Although the authors mentioned collecting over 300 participants, the table reflects approximately 100 participants. This discrepancy requires verification and correction for accuracy.

 

3. For each item, clarification regarding the scoring range (e.g., 1-5 or 1-7) is necessary to ensure consistency and understanding among readers.

 

4. The absence of significant correlations between certain factors, as evidenced in Table 8, demands explanation. For instance, the lack of relationship between Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) and Subjective Norms (SN) warrants discussion. Furthermore, based on the correlation results, adjustments to the research model paths may be necessary to reflect these findings accurately.

 

5. The discussion section appears relatively concise. It is recommended that the authors provide a more comprehensive analysis of their findings, particularly addressing unexpected results and theoretical contributions. Elaborating on these aspects would enrich the understanding of the study's implications within the broader context of CCRC purchase intention research.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors are suggested to revise the manuscript to increase readability. 

Author Response

Comments 1: It is advisable for the authors to construct a theoretical framework accompanied by a digraph illustrating the hypotheses and relationships among the factors. This visualization would provide clarity and alignment with the proposed hypotheses.

Response 1: We have rewritten Section 3.2 starting at line 274 on page seven in response to the reviewers' suggestions. The focus has been on adding a full presentation of the nine hypotheses, including the interpretation of the variables and the relationships between them. And a block diagram illustrating the relationship between the hypotheses and the factors has been supplemented.

Comments 2: Clarification is needed regarding participant data. Although the authors mentioned collecting over 300 participants, the table reflects approximately 100 participants. This discrepancy requires verification and correction for accuracy.

Response 2: Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript. We acknowledge that an error occurred during our writing process, and we sincerely apologize for this oversight. The data in the table is correct. We have rectified this issue and ensured that all relevant data have been accurately corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.

Comments 3: For each item, clarification regarding the scoring range (e.g., 1-5 or 1-7) is necessary to ensure consistency and understanding among readers.

Response 3: We have rewritten this section based on the reviewers' suggestions. The design of the questionnaire is described in detail in section 3.3 on page 10, line 334, including the dimensions of the various influencing factors as well as the number of questions and scoring ranges for each dimension.

Comments 4: The absence of significant correlations between certain factors, as evidenced in Table 8, demands explanation. For instance, the lack of relationship between Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) and Subjective Norms (SN) warrants discussion. Furthermore, based on the correlation results, adjustments to the research model paths may be necessary to reflect these findings accurately.

Response 4: We have taken note of this situation that you have raised. In the correlation analysis and discriminant validity, the focus was on the initial testing of the nine hypotheses proposed earlier in the article, and as can be seen from the results of the analysis, all hypotheses were initially tested except for hypothesis seven, which was rejected in the analysis as added later. The results of our empirical analysis are also described at the end of section 4.2.3 on page 23, line 545.

Comments 5: The discussion section appears relatively concise. It is recommended that the authors provide a more comprehensive analysis of their findings, particularly addressing unexpected results and theoretical contributions. Elaborating on these aspects would enrich the understanding of the study's implications within the broader context of CCRC purchase intention research.

Response 5: We think that is a good suggestion. We have added a new Section 4.3.2 on page 25, line 594. The analytical findings of this study are discussed in detail, and there is a discussion on homophily and socialization in retirement communities, and five policy recommendations are made.

Please see the attachment.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research idea of the paper is clear, and the overall organization is very good. But there seems to be a mismatch between the assumptions, the results, and the abstract. Ask the author to check again. Minor changes are recommended. Here are some minor questions:

1. Abstract: The summary should be further combed to reflect the key information. To be specific, the introduction is a bit complicated, and it is recommended to reduce. Results should be presented more often.

2. The summary and the text are separate. In the abstract, the author gives a full explanation of the nouns that appear for the first time and gives the abbreviations. There is no doubt that the text is also needed. For example, CCRC and TPB. Line 66: The first appearance of TPB should introduce the full name, then abbreviated.

3. 9 assumptions should be presented before the conceptual model/action model. The model block diagram should be supplemented.

4. The methods section should clearly state the method adopted in this study, and then further introduce how the method is used. Adjust the structure of the methods section and then supplement the methods adopted.

5. Please further clarify the conclusion. In addition, it can indicate the limitations of this study or what to do in the future.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: Abstract: The summary should be further combed to reflect the key information. To be specific, the introduction is a bit complicated, and it is recommended to reduce. Results should be presented more often.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments. We have carefully scrutinized the contents of the summary and removed what we consider unnecessary to reflect the key messages. And we have added a new section 4.3 in Chapter 4 on page 25, line 595. The analytical findings of this study are discussed in detail, and there is a discussion on homophily and socialization in retirement communities, and five policy recommendations are made.

Comments 2: The summary and the text are separate. In the abstract, the author gives a full explanation of the nouns that appear for the first time and gives the abbreviations. There is no doubt that the text is also needed. For example, CCRC and TPB. Line 66: The first appearance of TPB should introduce the full name, then abbreviated.

Response 2: We feel sorry for our carelessness. In our resubmitted manuscript, We have given full names to the abbreviated terms that appear for the first time in the abstract and in the main text respectively. Thanks for your correction.

Comments 3: 9 assumptions should be presented before the conceptual model/action model. The model block diagram should be supplemented.

Response 3: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have rewritten section 3.2 on page 7, line 274. in response to the reviewers' suggestions. The focus has been on adding a full presentation of the nine hypotheses, including the interpretation of the variables and the relationships between them. And a block diagram illustrating the relationship between the hypotheses and the factors has been supplemented.

Comments 4: The methods section should clearly state the method adopted in this study, and then further introduce how the method is used. Adjust the structure of the methods section and then supplement the methods adopted.

Response 4: We think that is a good suggestion. Therefore, we focus on the research methodology of this paper in Section 3.1 of Chapter 3 on page 5, line 226. And we make a diagram to detail the execution process of structural equation modeling.

Comments 5: Please further clarify the conclusion. In addition, it can indicate the limitations of this study or what to do in the future.

Response 5: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a new section 2 "Future prospects" in Chapter 5 on page 27, line 715. It lists the limitations of this study and what should be done in the future.

Please see the attachment.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

this is very good!

thanks for working so well on all the comments and proposals

excellent job, the article is ready to be published! It is very interesting and I look forward to see it on line

Author Response

We want to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review my paper and for providing valuable feedback. Your insights have been incredibly helpful in enhancing the quality of our research and in guiding us towards a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed my previous comments and improved their manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Point 1: Minor editing of the English language is required.

Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. We have tried our best to polish the language in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version is improved after considering the suggestions. 

The sample size was around 100, but the model is extremely complex, so I doubt about whether the sample size is big enough to estimate so many parameters. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It has been improved. I suggest the authors read the MS again and revise any possible errors. 

Author Response

Comments 1: The sample size was around 100, but the model is extremely complex, so I doubt about whether the sample size is big enough to estimate so many parameters.

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewers' attention and queries. Despite our sample size being around 100, we have performed several statistical tests and model evaluations. The reliability and validity of our findings meet the necessary standards to ensure their robustness. Furthermore, our investigation into relevant methodologies revealed that there are articles with a similar sample size published, such as "Towards a circular economy for construction and demolition waste management in China: Critical success factors "

Point 1: It has been improved. I suggest the authors read the MS again and revise any possible errors.

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We have carefully reviewed the paper and made the necessary changes to ensure clarity and accuracy.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf