Effect of Outdoor Leisure Participants on Leisure Identity, Leisure Flow, Leisure Satisfaction, and Re-Participation Intention

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have included for your review a pdf with comments and notes recommending changes or edits. Overall, this is a well written and methodologically sound, from what has been provided, study. My critique of this manuscript is that it is under supported in some areas with relevant and salient literature. Citations and references are needed in some areas as well. I also noted inconsistencies within the populations (activities) of focus. With some edits, I think that this study would be a good addition to the literature base within leisure participation.  Again, please see attached PDF for comments. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English and grammar was ok. A few issues that were noted in the PDF attached. 

Author Response

First of all, thank you for your accurate review. Modified content is marked in red.

 please see attached PDF for comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper in general is interesting and method is understandable.

Introduction needs to be improved. The used constructs like leisure identity / leisure flow etc need to explained more and it should be underlined, why especially these constructs are helpful within the context (of cores it should be referenced). 

As a second important point within the introduction the need for the research needs to be emphasized by underlining it by a research deficit. It is also unclear, why adult persons from Seoul are investigated - why not people from other areas not only in the city or why not children. Within the conclusion it should also be cleared whether the results can be transformed to a wider range of people or not. If not it might be better to call the study a case study and rename the title of the paper.

Also some more information to the method itself could be added (how the sample was chosen following which plan - add also suitable referenced you followed this point).

Following the suggestions surely the paper can be published. 

./.

Author Response

First of all, thank you for your accurate review. Modified content is marked in red.

Looking at the specific modifications,

1. We have added more theoretical background to the flow of variables in this study (leisure identity, leisure immersion, leisure satisfaction, and re-participation intention).
2. Thank you for the good review. The lack of research in the field of leisure studies was highlighted.
3. This is because it is difficult to generalize if the study is limited to a specific region. And because it is outdoor recreation, three areas were selected.
4. We have revised and supplemented the results of this study to ensure accurate delivery.
5. As this study is a quantitative study, it is considered difficult to call it a case study. We ask for your understanding.
6. The selection of subjects for this study is explained in 2.1 Research subjects. In Korea, only adult men and women in their 20s or older can voluntarily participate in outdoor recreational activities. The study subjects were people who participated in outdoor recreation (hiking, biking, golf, paragliding) for more than 6 months using convenience sampling.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I've noted improvement and edits on the points noted in the initial manuscript submission. I would recommend a change of wording in the conclusion (specifically, line 333) and throughout the paper that the use of leisure is used instead of recreation. For example, leisure time was available (for many) during the COVID pandemic, potentially in greater quantities than pre-pandemic, however it was availability of locations, outlets, and opportunities for recreational pursuits that was the problem during the pandemic. I'm not sure the requirements for citations in Societies but DOI might be required for references. 

Author Response

1. Recreation was changed to leisure throughout the article
2. Added DOI in the reference.

Reviewer 2 Report

all recommendations have been addressed 

Author Response

Thank you for review for my article.