How Sport-Based Wellness Program Quality Shapes Co-Created Guest Experience, Loyalty Intentions, and Self-Reported Physical Activity Orientation in Saudi Arabian Hotels

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

thank you very much for submitting your manuscript. The paper addresses a relevant and timely research problem at the intersection of wellness tourism, hospitality management, sport-based health promotion, guest experience, loyalty formation, and health-related behavioral intentions. The central idea of examining sport-based wellness programs in Saudi Arabian hotels as more than a mere recreational service is promising. In particular, the attempt to connect wellness program quality, perceived health benefits, enjoyment, staff health communication, guest satisfaction, loyalty intentions, and health behavior change within one structural model is potentially valuable for both hospitality research and applied sport/health science.

First and foremost, it should be acknowledged positively that the manuscript does not reduce hotel wellness programs to a simple service-quality issue. Rather, it tries to reconstruct them as experience-related and health-oriented micro-settings in which service design, instructor communication, affective experience, and behavioral intentions are theoretically interlinked. This is a relevant perspective, especially in view of the growing role of wellness tourism and the strategic importance of health-oriented hospitality services in emerging tourism destinations.

Nevertheless, the manuscript in its current form requires substantial revision. The main weaknesses lie less in the general relevance of the topic or in the basic plausibility of the proposed model but primarily in the conceptual precision of the research contribution, the methodological transparency of the empirical design, the operationalization of central constructs, the interpretation of cross-sectional PLS-SEM findings, and the tendency to formulate causal, public-health, and policy-related conclusions more strongly than the data allow.

Major Comments

1. The research contribution needs to be defined more precisely.

However, the introduction covers a broad range of literature, including wellness tourism, service quality, sport participation, health behavior, guest experience, co-creation, sustainability, SDGs, Vision 2030, etc. While these fields are individually relevant, the manuscript currently integrates them in a rather expansive manner. As a result, the specific originality of the paper remains blurred.

It should be made clearer whether the main contribution lies in applying service-quality theory to sport-based hotel wellness programs, in extending wellness tourism research through health behavior constructs, in introducing staff health communication as a moderator, or in positioning Saudi Arabian hotels as a specific empirical context. These levels are present in the manuscript, but they should be analytically separated more clearly.

Against this background, I recommend restructuring the introduction according to a clearer research logic: state of research–identified gap–theoretical intervention–empirical model–expected contribution. This would help the reader understand what is genuinely new about the study and what is an application of already established satisfaction and loyalty models to a new setting.

 

2. The theoretical framework is relevant but conceptually overloaded.

The manuscript draws simultaneously on service quality, health belief logic, motor learning, sport pedagogy, guest experience, co-creation, sustainability, SDGs, and Vision 2030. This breadth is intellectually ambitious, but in the current version it sometimes leads to conceptual overextension. Not every theoretical reference is equally necessary for testing the proposed model.

The authors should clarify which theoretical framework actually carries the structural model. For example, service quality theory appears central for WSPQ, expectancy-disconfirmation theory for satisfaction, health belief/self-efficacy logic for perceived health benefits, and affective-motivational approaches for enjoyment. By contrast, ecological dynamics, SDGs, and Vision 2030 are currently used more as contextual and interpretive layers than as directly operationalized theoretical components.

It would therefore be useful to distinguish between (a) core model theory, (b) contextual justification, and (c) broader policy implications. This would make the paper more rigorous and prevent the argument from appearing rhetorically overextended.

 

3. The operationalization of key constructs must be strengthened.

A central issue concerns the measurement of the constructs. The manuscript states that all constructs were measured using multi-item Likert-type scales adapted from validated instruments. In this regard, the actual item wording is not sufficiently transparent. Without the exact items, it is difficult to assess whether the constructs are validly captured.

This is particularly important for the quality of wellness sport programs, staff health communication, and health behavior change. WSPQ appears to combine service quality, instructor competence, facility quality, responsiveness, and perhaps pedagogical quality. However, it remains unclear whether the items truly capture sport-pedagogical quality or mainly general hotel/service quality. Similarly, staff health communication is theoretically interpreted as applied coaching and health communication competence, but empirical indicators must show whether this construct actually measures health-oriented guidance rather than general friendliness or service interaction.

The greatest concern relates to health behavior change. A cross-sectional, self-report survey can capture perceived change, intention to change, or self-reported behavioral orientation, but it cannot robustly establish actual behavioral change over time. The construct should therefore be renamed or more cautiously framed, for example as “self-reported health behavior intention” or “perceived post-stay health behavior orientation,” unless longitudinal or objective behavioral data are available.

 

4. Sampling and field access need to be described much more transparently.

The manuscript reports that 412 guests participated in structured sport-based wellness programs in Saudi Arabian hotels. However, the sampling process remains insufficiently detailed. The authors should specify:

• which hotel categories were included;
• How many hotels participated?
• in which regions or cities the data were collected;
• how guests were approached;
• How many guests declined participation?
• whether the sample was convenience-based, purposive, quota-based, or otherwise structured;
• what period of data collection was covered;
• whether domestic and international guests were differentiated;
• and whether relevant demographic or travel-related characteristics were controlled.

This is not merely a formal issue. Since the paper makes claims about Saudi hotels, wellness tourism, loyalty intentions, and health behavior change, the reader must be able to assess the empirical scope of the sample. A transparent sampling table would be very advantageous.

 

5. The cross-sectional design limits causal and behavioral claims.

At this point, the authors correctly acknowledge limitations in the limitation section, but they must consistently integrate this caution throughout the manuscript. The current wording repeatedly suggests causal effects, such as program quality shaping health behavior change, staff communication amplifying health gains, or wellness programs functioning as public-health micro-settings.

A cross-sectional PLS-SEM design can support theoretically plausible associations between latent constructs. It cannot, however, demonstrate actual health behavior change, long-term lifestyle transformation, or causal public-health effects. The authors should therefore revise causal formulations throughout the abstract, discussion, implications, and conclusion.

In particular, the paper should distinguish between the following:

• association and causation;
• perceived health benefits and objective health benefits;
• self-reported intention and actual behavior change;
• short-term guest experience and long-term lifestyle transformation.

This revision would substantially improve the scientific credibility of the study.

 

6. The PLS-SEM reporting requires inductive and methodological refinement.

The manuscript presents reliability, AVE, factor loadings, Fornell-Larcker, HTMT, R², Q², SRMR, NFI, f², mediation, and moderation results. This is generally appropriate for a PLS-SEM study. However, several reporting aspects should be improved.

The authors should report the full measurement model more transparently, including all items, item sources, adaptation procedure, translation/back-translation if applicable, and pretest or pilot procedures. Moreover, the treatment of common method bias should not rely too strongly on Harman’s single-factor test, which is widely regarded as insufficient as a sole diagnostic. The manuscript should also explain whether the constructs were modeled reflectively or formatively and justify this decision theoretically.

The statement that all inter-construct correlations were below a certain value appears inconsistent with the table values and should be checked carefully. In addition, confidence intervals should be reported consistently for direct, indirect, and moderating effects. The moderation plot should be explained more clearly, including how high and low levels of staff health communication were defined.

 

7. Results, interpretation, and implications should be more clearly separated.

Inductively, the results section is generally understandable, but the manuscript quickly moves from statistical support to broad theoretical and practical claims. Furthermore, the authors should make a clearer distinction between empirical results, interpretation, and normative or managerial conclusions.

For example, the finding that WSPQ predicts perceived health benefits and enjoyment is an empirical result. In this regard, the statement that hotels become sport-for-health micro-settings is an interpretation. Also, the recommendation that hotel managers should integrate CRM systems, AI-driven personalization, and policy alignment with Vision 2030 is a practical or strategic implication. These levels are related, but they should not be presented as if they were all directly demonstrated by the data.

At this point, a more evidence-based discussion structure would be beneficial:
Result 1: WSPQ predicts satisfaction, perceived benefits, and enjoyment.
Interpretation: quality appears to operate through cognitive and affective pathways.
Boundary: This result refers to perceived guest evaluations, not objective health outcomes.
Implication: Hotel wellness programs should focus on both service quality and affective experiences.

 

8. The Saudi Arabia and Vision 2030 context needs stronger empirical anchoring.

Here, the Saudi context is important and potentially valuable. However, at present it sometimes functions more as a contextual frame than as an empirically analyzed dimension. If the paper claims specific relevance to Saudi Arabian hotels and Vision 2030, the manuscript should more clearly show what is specific about this context.

The authors should explain whether and how cultural expectations, gender norms, family travel patterns, religious or social norms, domestic versus international tourism, luxury hotel positioning, or national tourism strategies shape participation in hotel-based sport wellness programs. Otherwise, the Saudi context risks remaining a geographic label rather than an analytically integrated part of the study.

 

9. The discussion of sustainability and SDGs should be made more cautious.

The connection between wellness tourism and SDG 3 per se is plausible. However, claims regarding SDG 8, SDG 11, and SDG 12 are currently too broad in relation to the empirical design. The study did not measure employment quality, urban sustainability, community infrastructure, responsible consumption, environmental effects, or destination-level sustainability outcomes.

Therefore, the SDG discussion should either be shortened and framed as contextual relevance or supported with additional empirical or documentary evidence. Otherwise, there is a risk that the sustainability section appears rhetorically attractive but insufficiently substantiated.

 

10. Language, style, and formal precision require revision.

Consequently, the English language is generally understandable, but the manuscript would benefit from thorough linguistic and stylistic revision. Several formulations are grammatically imprecise or overly rhetorical. Examples include awkward phrases such as “which should be" and “allowing to assume,” inconsistent abbreviation formatting, inconsistent capitalization, and imprecise expressions such as “wellness arena,” “robust predictive capacity,” or “strategic levers” where the data support more cautious claims.

In addition, the manuscript contains formatting inconsistencies in citations, parentheses, table captions, figure captions, hyphenation, capitalization, and reference style. The title and figure captions should also be carefully checked.

 

Minor Comments

• Please provide the exact measurement items, preferably in an appendix.
• Please clarify whether the survey was conducted in English, Arabic, or both, and describe translation/back-translation procedures if applicable.
• Please report demographic characteristics of the sample in a dedicated table.
• Please verify all citations and reference-list entries for completeness, consistency, and accuracy.
• Please avoid overclaiming “health behavior change” unless longitudinal evidence is provided.
• Please revise the term “co-created guest experience” so that it is theoretically and empirically visible in the model, not only in the title and discussion.
• Please improve the readability and formatting of Figures 1–3.
• Please ensure that abbreviations such as WSPQ, PHB, ENR, GSAT, LOY, HBC, and SHC are introduced consistently.

 

Overall Assessment

Overall, the manuscript addresses a relevant topic and has the potential to contribute to the discussion on wellness tourism, hotel-based sport services, guest experience, and health-oriented hospitality management. The proposed model is plausible, and the empirical sample appears potentially useful. However, the paper requires substantial revision before it can be considered for publication.

In particular, the authors should sharpen the research contribution, reduce conceptual overextension, disclose the measurement model more transparently, provide more detailed sampling information, interpret the cross-sectional PLS-SEM results more cautiously, avoid unsupported causal and public-health claims, and substantially improve linguistic and formal consistency.

Kind regards,

 

Prof. Dr. Dr. XX

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See my attached full review report.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer 1,

We sincerely thank the editorial team for the opportunity to revise our manuscript and are deeply grateful to the reviewer for their time and intellectually stimulating feedback. Their rigorous scholarly scrutiny and constructive guidance have been exceptional, profoundly benefiting our work. Their comments did more than highlight weaknesses; they guided us toward a more rigorous, coherent, and honest presentation. The depth and clarity of their report directly contributed to sharpening our conceptual framework, enhancing methodological transparency, and improving linguistic precision. We also thank the editor for assigning such a meticulous reviewer. It is rare to encounter feedback that so directly elevates a manuscript's quality, and we genuinely appreciate the expertise invested. We are deeply impressed by the care with which each reviewer examined our manuscript, and we are genuinely thankful for the opportunity to strengthen our contribution through their guidance. We have systematically addressed all comments and implemented substantial revisions, clearly marked in red throughout the manuscript, with detailed point-by-point responses below.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 1:

The introduction covers many streams (wellness tourism, service quality, sport participation, health behavior, guest experience, co‑creation, sustainability, SDGs, Vision 2030), which blurs the specific originality of the paper. The reviewer recommends clearer logic: state of research—identified gap—theoretical intervention—empirical model—expected contribution, and a clearer separation of contribution levels (service quality in wellness programs, health behavior constructs, staff health communication, and Saudi context).

Response:

We fully agree that the original introduction was too expansive and did not clearly articulate what is genuinely new versus what is an application of established satisfaction–loyalty models. Accordingly, we have substantially re‑structured the Introduction to follow the logic you recommended:

• State of research: Sections 1 and 2.1 now briefly summarize what is known about wellness tourism, hotel wellness services, and sport‑based programs, with fewer repetitive paragraphs on health benefits.
• Identified gap (explicit sentence): At the end of the Introduction (Section 1), we now clearly state that prior work has rarely examined how wellness sport program quality in hotels jointly relates to satisfaction, loyalty intentions, and self‑reported physical‑activity orientation in the specific context of Saudi Arabia, and has largely neglected the roles of perceived health benefits, enjoyment, and staff health communication.
• Theoretical intervention and empirical model: We then immediately introduce the three analytic “levels” of contribution:

2. A core model level, extending service‑quality and expectancy–disconfirmation theory by modelling WSPQ, perceived health benefits, enjoyment, and satisfaction with staff health communication as moderator (end of Introduction; Section 2.1).
3. A health‑behavior level, conceptualizing guests’ health‑related outcome as a perception‑based, self‑reported orientation towards physical activity rather than objective change (now labelled Self‑Reported Physical Activity Increase, PAI).
4. A contextual level, explicitly situating Saudi luxury hotels within Vision 2030’s quality‑of‑life and tourism diversification agenda.

• Expected contribution: The final paragraph of the Introduction now synthesizes these three levels and states how the study aims to advance the literature on wellness tourism, guest experience, and sport‑for‑health in an emerging destination context.

We hope this new structure makes the originality of the work more visible and addresses your request for a clearer research logic.

Location in Revised Manuscript: Introduction section (pages 2-4); Contribution statement (page 4).

 

Reviewer’s Comment 2:

The manuscript drew on too many theoretical frameworks (service quality, health belief, motor learning, ecological dynamics, co‑creation, SDGs, Vision 2030), leading to conceptual overextension. The reviewer requested a distinction between (a) core model theory, (b) contextual justification, and (c) broader policy implications.

Response:

1. Theoretical Underpinnings Restructured (Section 2.1): We have completely rewritten this section to clearly differentiate theoretical levels.
2. Contextual Justification: We have moved the discussion of ecological dynamics and motor learning to the end of the literature review section, positioning it as a complementary lens rather than a core theoretical driver.
3. SDG and Vision 2030 Discussion: We have restructured the SDG and sustainability discussion into a dedicated subsection (2.3) that explicitly acknowledges these as "broader policy contexts" rather than directly tested components of the model.
4. Clear Theoretical Hierarchy: Throughout the revised manuscript, we have consistently distinguished between: (a) core model theory (service quality, expectancy disconfirmation, health belief, affective motivational); (b) contextual justification (motor learning, ecological dynamics, guest experience co creation); and (c) broader policy implications (SDGs, Vision 2030).
5. Broader policy implications: Sustainability, SDGs, and Vision 2030 are now clearly identified as policy and context lenses discussed in Sections 2.3 and 6.3, not as part of the tested structural model. In addition, Section 6.3 (“Policy and National Vision Implications”) now clearly appears as the place where we discuss SDGs and Vision 2030 as implications, not as empirically validated components of the model.

Location in Revised Manuscript: Section 2.1 (Theoretical Underpinnings, page 7); Section 2.3 (Relationship with Sustainability and SDGs, page 11); Section 6.3 (Policy and National Vision Implications, page 23).

 

Reviewer’s Comment 3:

The reviewer asked for clearer measurement of WSPQ, staff health communication, and health behavior change and requested that “health behavior change” be more cautiously framed (e.g., self‑reported intention or perceived orientation), since cross‑sectional self‑reports cannot demonstrate actual change.

Response:

1. Transparency of items and scales

• Section 3.1 (“Instruments and Scales”) has been rewritten to describe for each latent construct:
• the number of items,
• their conceptual content, and
• the source of adaptation.
• Appendix A now provides the exact item wording for WSPQ, perceived health benefits, enjoyment, guest satisfaction, loyalty intentions, Self‑Reported Physical Activity Increase (PAI), and staff health communication, along with their response formats.

2. Wellness Sport Program Quality (WSPQ)

• WSPQ is now defined explicitly as a four‑item reflective construct capturing:
• tangibles (facilities and equipment quality),
• staff professionalism and safety,
• reliability of program delivery, and
• responsiveness/personalization.
• The wording in Section 3.1 and Appendix A makes it clear that WSPQ combines classic service‑quality dimensions with aspects directly relevant to structured sport‑based programs (e.g., instructor competence and safety), thereby grounding the construct in both hospitality and sport‑service quality literature.

3. Staff Health Communication (SHC)

• SHC is now explicitly operationalized as health‑oriented coaching and guidance, with three items:
• explanation of health benefits of activities,
• guidance on safe and effective exercise,
• encouragement to continue physical activity after the stay.
• This makes it clear that SHC goes beyond general friendliness and targets health‑related communication, directly addressing your concern. The wording appears in Section 3.1 and Appendix A.

4. Health behavior construct – renaming and reframing

• Following your suggestion and in line with reviewers 2 and 3, we have:
• Renamed the construct to Guests’ Self‑Reported Physical Activity Increase (PAI) throughout the manuscript (title, hypotheses, measurement model, results, and discussion).
• Defined PAI in Section 3.1 as capturing guests’ subjective perception of increased moderate‑to‑vigorous physical activity during the stay relative to pre‑stay routine and their immediate intention to sustain this higher activity level after checkout.
• In the Abstract, Discussion, and Conclusion, we now consistently refer to this outcome as self‑reported physical‑activity intention/orientation rather than actual behavior change.
• The Limitations section explicitly states that the data cannot demonstrate actual long‑term behavior change and that PAI must be interpreted as a perception‑based, intention‑oriented construct.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 4:

The reviewer requested much more detail on the sampling frame and field procedures: hotel categories, number of hotels, regions/cities, approach to guests, refusals, sampling strategy, data‑collection period, domestic vs. international guests, and demographics. A sampling table was recommended.

Response:

We have substantially expanded Section 3.2 (“Sampling and participant selection”) and added full descriptive statistics:

• Hotel categories: The sampling frame now consists of international 5‑star luxury hotels in Riyadh, Jeddah, and Al‑Ula. We specify that these properties were purposively selected based on offering structured, instructor‑led, sport‑based wellness programs (guided fitness classes, yoga, and group exercise).
• Number of respondents, refusals, and sampling type: We now state that the researchers distributed the survey link to 463 guests who met the eligibility criteria and received 412 valid responses, yielding a response rate of 88.9%.

The guest sample is clearly described as a non‑probability, experience‑based sample, reflecting guests who had chosen to participate in the wellness programs.

• Guest approach and inclusion criteria: Section 3.2 now explains that adult guests (≥18 years) who had attended at least one guided session were approached on‑site after participation or in relaxation areas, were told about the voluntary and anonymous nature of the study, and provided informed consent.
• Time frame: We specify that data collection ran from 1 March 2026 to 30 April 2026, covering weekdays and weekends.
• Domestic vs. international and demographics: We report the gender distribution, age group distribution, and nationality, which helps the reader assess empirical scope.

These additions provide the transparent sampling description you requested; the descriptive statistics also appear in the Results.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 5:

The reviewer emphasized that the cross‑sectional PLS‑SEM design cannot support strong causal claims or robust evidence of health behavior change. The manuscript should distinguish association vs causation, perceived vs objective health benefits, self‑reported intentions vs actual behavior change, and short‑term vs long‑term outcomes, and should adjust language consistently (abstract, discussion, implications, conclusion).

Response:

We completely agree and have revised the manuscript accordingly:

• Abstract: The abstract now uses association language (e.g., “was positively associated with…”, “was associated with self‑reported intention to maintain healthier physical-activity routines”) instead of causal verbs such as “shapes” or “produces”.
• Construct definition: As noted above, PAI is clearly defined as a self‑reported perception/intention, not objective change.
• Results and Discussion wording:
• In Section 4.2, we explicitly state that the paths should be interpreted as relationships between perceptions and intentions, and we avoid causal verbs.
• In the Discussion, sentences that previously implied causal effects (“programs become sport‑for‑health micro‑settings that change behavior”) have been softened to indicate that the study suggests that programs may encourage reflection and stronger intentions, while not demonstrating objective change.
• Limitations section:
• The first limitation has been fully rewritten to underline that:

            The design is cross‑sectional and self‑reported.

            PLS‑SEM estimates associations, not causal effects.

            PAI captures orientation/intentions, not measured long‑term behavior.

• We explicitly encourage future longitudinal research with objective indicators (e.g., wearables) and follow‑up surveys to assess actual behavioral change.

We believe these changes substantially enhance the scientific credibility of the study and address your concerns about over‑claiming.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 6:

The reviewer requested: (a) full measurement‑model transparency (items, sources, adaptation, and pretest); (b) a stronger treatment of common method bias beyond Harman’s single‑factor test, (c) clarification of reflective vs formative modeling; (d) correction of the inter‑construct correlation statement, (e) consistent reporting of confidence intervals, and (f) clearer explanation of the moderation plot (high vs low SHC).

Response:

1. Measurement model transparency

• Section 3.1 now cites the main sources used for each construct and describes the adaptation process (e.g., SERVQUAL, PA enjoyment scales, health behavior measures, IPAQ, behavior‑change technique taxonomy).
• Appendix A provides full item wording for all constructs, making the measurement model entirely transparent.

2. (Note for the editor: the current version specifies the English items; if required, we are happy to add a short sentence clarifying the translation/back‑translation of the Arabic version and pilot testing procedures.)
3. Reflective vs formative modeling

• Section 3.1 explicitly states that all latent variables are modeled reflectively and justifies this based on conceptualization: the latent trait (e.g., perceived quality, enjoyment) gives rise to the observed indicators, and indicators are assumed interchangeable.

4. Common method bias

• We now use a two‑step approach:
• Procedural remedies (anonymity, psychological separation of constructs, varied scale formats).
• Statistical tests: Harman’s single‑factor test (first factor explains 43.16% of variance, below 50%).
• A full collinearity VIF assessment for all constructs, with VIFs ranging from 1.478 to 2.856, below the 3.3 threshold for CMB and lateral collinearity.
• These details are reported in Section 3.3, with appropriate references to Kock & Hadaya (2018) and Podsakoff et al. (2003).

5. Inter‑construct correlations and Fornell–Larcker

• The earlier inconsistent statement has been corrected. Section 4.1 now states that the square root of AVE (0.840–0.901) exceeds the corresponding inter‑construct correlations, which range from 0.385 to 0.720, as shown in Table 2. The typo “Interco struct correlations” has been removed.

6. Confidence intervals

• We now report 95% confidence intervals for the mediation paths H6a and H6b in Table 4. For direct and moderating effects, we report β, t, p, and f², in line with common PLS‑SEM reporting practice. If the editor prefers, we would be pleased to add confidence intervals for all paths in a subsequent iteration.

7. Moderation plot explanation

• Figure 3 illustrates the moderating effect of SHC on the WSPQ → PHB relationship. The caption now clearly states that higher SHC strengthens this positive relationship.
• In Section 4.2, we explain that “high” and “low” SHC correspond to values one standard deviation above and below the mean when plotting the interaction, consistent with standard practice in moderation analysis.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 7:

The reviewer asked for a clearer separation between empirical results, theoretical interpretation, and managerial/normative implications.

Response:

We have reorganized sections. 4–6 accordingly:

• Results (Section 4):
• Present only empirical findings (path coefficients, significance, R², Q², f², moderation, model fit), without interpretive language.
• Discussion (Section 5):
• Opens with a paragraph explicitly stating that we will separate results, interpretations, and implications.
• Interprets the supported paths through guest‑experience, sport‑for‑health, and health‑communication perspectives, but always refers back to the empirical results.
• Implications (Section 6):
• Section 6.1: theoretical contributions.
• Section 6.2: managerial implications for hotel practice.
• Section 6.3: policy/national Vision 2030 implications.

We also provide, where appropriate, the “Result–Interpretation–Boundary–Implication” structure you suggested (e.g., when discussing WSPQ → PHB/ENR → GSAT and GSAT → LOY/PAI), emphasizing that we deal with perceived outcomes and self‑reported intentions, not objective health effects.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 8:

The Saudi and Vision 2030 context risked remaining a rhetorical frame rather than an analytically integrated aspect of the study.

Response:

We have strengthened the contextual anchoring in several ways:

• Introduction and Section 2.3:
• We briefly explain how tourism and wellness development fit into Vision 2030 and the Quality‑of‑Life Program, emphasizing increased participation in sport and physical activity.
• Sampling and context (Section 3.2):
• We describe that the empirical context consists of 5‑star luxury hotels in Riyadh, Jeddah, and Al‑Ula, which are key nodes in Saudi tourism and leisure strategies, and that the sample is predominantly Saudi but includes non‑Saudi visitors.
• Policy implications (Section 6.3):
• We discuss how wellness‑program design and staff health communication can complement national efforts to increase physical‑activity participation and to position Saudi hotels as health‑oriented leisure spaces.
• We explicitly note that, while cultural, gender, and family‑travel norms are not directly measured, the setting (family and business-oriented luxury hotels) naturally embeds these dimensions, and we recommend them as focal points for future research.

We believe these revisions make the Saudi context meaningful rather than purely geographic.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 9:

The reviewer requested a more cautious treatment of SDGs, especially SDG 8, 11, and 12, since the study does not measure employment quality, urban sustainability, or environmental impacts.

Response:

Section 2.3 has been rewritten to emphasize that:

• The most direct empirical connection is to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well‑Being), through perceived health benefits and self‑reported physical‑activity intentions.
• References to SDG 8 and SDG 11 are explicitly framed as contextual and inferential, not as measured outcomes: we state that these goals are discussed as broader policy contexts in which wellness‑oriented hotels may contribute but are not directly tested by our data.
• SDG 12 is mentioned only in passing, with clear caveats that environmental and consumption outcomes are beyond the scope of our survey.

We trust that this more cautious framing addresses your concern about rhetorical overreach.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 10:

The reviewer noted several issues of grammar, style, abbreviation formatting, hyphenation, capitalization, and over‑strong phrases (“robust predictive capacity”, “strategic levers”, etc.), and asked that title, captions, and consistency be carefully checked.

Response:

We have undertaken a thorough language and style revision, focusing on:

• Correcting awkward formulations (e.g., “which should be”, “allowing to assume”),
• Standardizing abbreviations and capitalization (e.g., PLS‑SEM, WSPQ, PAI, SHC, SDG, Vision 2030),
• Harmonizing hyphenation (e.g., “sport‑based”, “co‑created”, “experience‑centric”),
• Softening over‑strong phrases; for example, we now refer to “predictive relevance” and “acceptable model fit” rather than “robust predictive capacity”, and to “strategic service‑innovation capability” rather than “strategic levers” when this is more empirically appropriate.
• Checking and aligning the title, figure captions, and table captions with the revised construct labels (notably “Self‑Reported Physical Activity Increase (PAI)”).

We hope the revised version meets the journal’s linguistic and formal standards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “How Sport-Based Wellness Program Quality Shapes Co-Created Guest Experience, Loyalty Intentions, and Health Behavior Change in Saudi Arabian Hotels” is an empirical study examining how Wellness Sport Program Quality (WSPQ) affects Guest Satisfaction (GSAT), Guests’ Perceived Health Benefits (PHB), Guests’ Enjoyment (ENR), Guests’ Loyalty Intentions (LOY), and Guests’ Health Behavior Change (HBC) in luxury hotels in Saudi Arabia.

To improve the quality of the article, the following revision recommendations are provided.

In the Abstract, it is recommended to shorten the text and more clearly separate the research aim, method, main results, and contribution. It is also recommended to formulate causal claims more cautiously, because the study is based on a cross-sectional survey design.

In the Introduction, it is recommended to move more quickly to the specific research gap. The research gap should be introduced earlier and formulated in one clear sentence. It would also be useful to reduce repetition about the health benefits of sport programs, because similar points are repeated across several paragraphs of the Introduction.

In the Literature Review, it is recommended to improve the structure and reduce excessive listing of sources.

In the Hypotheses section, it is recommended to standardize the wording and correct linguistic inaccuracies. These ideas are currently presented correctly, but the text could be shorter and more focused on conceptual logic rather than on a long list of previous studies.

In the Materials and Methods section, it is recommended to provide more precise information about the sample and data collection. The article states that 412 guests who participated in structured sport-based wellness programs in luxury hotels in Saudi Arabia were surveyed.

In the Results section, it is recommended to explain the tables and the quality of the model more clearly. Technical and linguistic inaccuracies should be corrected. For example, “Interco struct correlations” should be revised to “inter-construct correlations,” and some sentences about convergent validity and discriminant validity are grammatically unclear.

In the Discussion and Conclusions, Health Behavior Change (HBC) should be interpreted more cautiously. Because HBC is self-reported and the study is cross-sectional, it should not be strongly claimed that hotel sport-based wellness programs actually changed guests’ behavior in the long term.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

 

Dear Editor and Reviewer 2,

We are grateful to the editor for entrusting our article to a reviewer with such a sharp eye for structure and clarity. We thank Reviewer 2 for a review that was at once concise and highly impactful. Your comments forced us to refine the paper's architecture—especially the abstract, introduction, literature review, and hypotheses—to make the core logic easier to follow. It is rare to receive a report that improves a manuscript's readability this much without requiring additional data collection, and we are sincerely appreciative. Below we respond to each of your seven comments.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 1:

The abstract should be shorter, with a clearer separation of aim, methods, main results, and contribution, and should avoid strong causal claims given the cross‑sectional design.

Response:

We have rewritten the abstract to follow a clearer four‑part structure: Aim,            Methods, Main results, and Contribution. Throughout, we now use association language (e.g., “was positively associated with”, “is linked to”, “suggests that”) rather than causal verbs, in line with your recommendation.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 2:

The reviewer recommended moving more quickly to the specific research gap, formulating it in one clear sentence, and reducing repetitive text about health benefits of sport programs.

Response:

We have reorganized the Introduction as follows:

• After describing the growth of wellness tourism and sport‑based hotel programs, we now introduce the research gap in a single, explicit sentence: very few studies have examined how sport‑based wellness program quality in hotels relates simultaneously to satisfaction, loyalty intentions, and self‑reported physical‑activity orientation in an emerging destination, with perceived health benefits, enjoyment, and staff health communication integrated into a single structural model.
• We have condensed multiple paragraphs that previously repeated arguments about health benefits of sport and wellness tourism into a shorter, more focused section, referencing key sources once rather than multiple times.

We believe the introduction now reaches the gap and contribution much more directly.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 3:

The reviewer asked for a better‑structured literature review.

Response:

Section 2 has been restructured into clearly labeled subsections:

• 1 Theoretical underpinnings: Core vs. contextual frameworks.
• 2 Guest experience, co‑creation, and wellness service innovation: Focus on how hotels create co‑created wellness experiences.
• 3 Relationship with Sustainability and SDGs: Short, contextual discussion.
• 4 Research hypotheses: Organized by conceptual relationships (WSPQ→GSAT, WSPQ→PHB, WSPQ→ENR, PHB→GSAT, ENR→GSAT, mediations, GSAT→LOY, GSAT→PAI, moderation).

Within each subsection, we now use fewer but more directly relevant citations, and we summarize prior findings in thematic paragraphs instead of long source lists. The result is a more narrative and less encyclopedic review.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 4:

In the Hypotheses section, it is recommended to standardize the wording and correct linguistic inaccuracies. These ideas are currently presented correctly, but the text could be shorter and more focused on conceptual logic rather than on a long list of previous studies.

Response:

We have edited Section 2.4 in three ways:

1. Shortened and focused paragraphs: Each hypotheses subsection (2.4.1–2.4.10) now ends with a concise conceptual synthesis leading directly to the hypothesis statement, avoiding long catalogues of studies.
2. Standardized hypothesis wording:

o          We use consistent phrases such as “positively influences” or “positively relates to” rather than a mixture of “affects”, “shapes”, etc.

o          For H7 and H8, we adopted the more cautious “positively relates to” to avoid causal implications.

3. Improved English syntax: We have carefully edited clauses, punctuation, and connectors to ensure grammatical correctness and smoother flow.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 5:

More precise information on the sample and data collection was requested, especially given the statement that 412 guests in luxury hotels participated.

Response:

As detailed in the response to Reviewer 1, Comment 4, Section 3.2 now provides:

• Description of the hotel frame (international 5‑star hotels in Riyadh, Jeddah, Al‑Ula),
• Purposive selection of hotels with structured sport‑based wellness programs,
• Recruitment of guests on‑site after participation in guided sessions,
• Number of guests invited (463), number of valid responses (412), response rate (88.9%),
• Confirmation that the guest sample is a non‑probability, experience‑based sample of participants,
• Demographic breakdown (gender, age groups, nationality), and the exact data‑collection period (March–April 2026).

This level of detail should satisfy your request for more precise sampling information.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 6:

The reviewer requested clearer explanation of the tables and model quality, correction of technical and linguistic inaccuracies (e.g., “Interco struct correlations”), and clearer statements regarding convergent and discriminant validity.

Response:

We have made the following changes:

• Construct reliability and validity (Section 4.1; Table 1):

o          We now clearly state the thresholds applied (α, CR, AVE, factor loadings) and show that all constructs meet or exceed recommended cutoff values.

o          We clarify that these results support internal consistency and convergent validity.

• Discriminant validity (Tables 2 and 3):

o          We corrected the inconsistent sentence about correlations and now write that the square root of AVE is higher than inter‑construct correlations, which range from 0.385 to 0.720, satisfying the Fornell–Larcker criterion.

o          We report the HTMT matrix in Table 3 and explicitly state that all HTMT values are below 0.90 (max 0.833), thereby supporting discriminant validity.

o          The typographical error “Interco struct correlations” has been corrected to “inter‑construct correlations”.

• Model quality (Table 4 and text):

o          We now clearly explain what R², f², and Q² values indicate (ranges, interpretation) and conclude that the model has moderate explanatory power and good predictive relevance (all Q² > 0).

o          We report SRMR and NFI and interpret them with reference to recommended thresholds, concluding that the model shows acceptable global fit in the PLS‑SEM context.

We have also corrected several small grammatical issues in the Results narrative.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 7:

Given the cross‑sectional, self‑reported design, the construct should not be interpreted as actual long‑term behavior change.

Response:

As explained in response to Reviewer 1:

• We have renamed the construct to Self‑Reported Physical Activity Increase (PAI) and defined it as a perception‑ and intention‑based outcome.
• In the Discussion and Conclusion, we now:

o          Describe the GSAT → PAI path as indicating that higher satisfaction is associated with stronger self‑reported intentions and perceived orientation toward increased physical activity.

o          Avoid language suggesting that the programs “produced” or “generated” long‑term change; instead, we use terms such as “may encourage reflection”, “may support intentions”, and “are consistent with the idea that wellness tourism can inspire healthier routines”.

• The Limitations section explicitly reiterates that actual behavioral change was not measured and that future longitudinal work is needed.

We believe this resolves the concern about overstating behavioral implications.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled "How Sport-Based Wellness Program Quality Shapes Co‑Created Guest Experience, Loyalty Intentions, and Health Behavior Change in Saudi Arabian Hotels" addresses a timely and potentially interesting topic at the intersection of wellness tourism, hotel management, and sport.

However, its contribution appears somewhat overstated in relation to the empirical evidence presented. The study works better as perception-based research than as a solid contribution to sport economics or public health. In my view, the main problem is that the research design does not allow the authors to strongly support claims about health behavior change or the transformative effects of the programs.

The topic is relevant and connects with real trends in wellness tourism and Saudi Arabia’s tourism strategy. The model integrates cognitive and affective dimensions, which helps explain guest satisfaction beyond a purely functional view of service quality. The sample size is reasonable, and the article reports reliability, convergent validity, HTMT, R², Q², and direct, indirect, and moderating effects. It is also positive that the authors acknowledge limitations such as the cross-sectional design, the use of self-reported data, and the geographical restriction.

On the other hand, I would like to point out what, in my judgment, is the most important weakness: causality. The article uses cross-sectional and self-reported data, but the language used in the results and implications suggests causal effects and real behavioral change. “Health behavior change” appears to be measured as a perception or intention, rather than as observed behavior. I suggest that the authors reformulate this point with much greater caution.

The theoretical contribution also needs refinement. The manuscript invokes too many frameworks: SERVQUAL, the Health Belief Model, motor learning, ecological dynamics, co-creation, SDGs, and Vision 2030. This breadth dilutes the argument and gives the impression of conceptual accumulation rather than necessary theoretical integration.

The sample and procedure are insufficiently described. Please provide a more detailed description. It is not clear how many hotels participated, how they were selected, in which cities they were located, during what period the data were collected, what specific types of programs were evaluated, or whether there may be important selection biases. The manuscript also does not adequately discuss the fact that respondents were guests who had already participated in wellness activities and were therefore probably positively predisposed toward exercise.

The following issues need to be revised, as they are the weakest aspects of the manuscript.

First, the authors should tone down the causal claims. The study can discuss associations between perceived quality, enjoyment, perceived benefits, satisfaction, and intentions, but it cannot demonstrate that the programs “produce” health change or generate sustained effects.

Second, the health behavior change variable requires conceptual and empirical revision. With only immediate self-reported measures, it would be more accurate to call it “intention to maintain physical activity” or “perceived healthy behavior change.” If the authors wish to claim behavioral change, they should incorporate longitudinal follow-up, objective measures, or at least stronger retrospective questions.

Third, the PLS-SEM strategy is reported acceptably, but the manuscript does not justify why PLS-SEM is preferable to CB-SEM or other approaches. In addition, Harman’s single-factor test is a weak test for common method bias; the authors should add stronger statistical controls or acknowledge this limitation more clearly.

Fourth, the literature review needs to be more focused. There are many references, but the manuscript does not always distinguish which specific gap it fills in relation to previous studies on service quality, wellness tourism, fitness centers, and satisfaction. The real novelty of the study should be formulated more precisely and less expansively.

Finally, it would be useful to describe the exact questionnaire items in an appendix.

Hoping these comments would to be useful for the author(s), I would like to end by encouraging them to continue deepening in this topic of interest from a theoretical and empirical perspective.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer 3,

We thank the editor for selecting a reviewer who combined subject‑matter knowledge in sport, tourism, and public health with methodological rigor. We are especially grateful to Reviewer 3 for clearly distinguishing what the study does well and where it overreached. Your report helped us reposition the paper more honestly as perception‑based research, refine the theoretical scope, and strengthen the methodological justification. We learned a great deal from your comments and have attempted to reflect that learning throughout the revision. Below we address each of your five main points.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 1:

The reviewer noted that the design does not allow strong causal claims or assertions of real behavioral change, and recommended reframing the outcome variable as intention or perceived change, with much greater caution in the language used.

Response:

We fully agree and have implemented three key changes:

1. Construct label and definition:

• We have relabeled the outcome construct as Guests’ Self‑Reported Physical Activity Increase (PAI).
• Section 3.1 defines PAI explicitly as guests’ self‑reported perception that their moderate‑to‑vigorous activity has increased and their intention to maintain this after the stay, rather than as observed behavioural change.

2. Language across the manuscript:

• In the Abstract, Results, Discussion, Implications, and Conclusion we now avoid causal language (e.g., “produce”, “generate sustained effects”) and refer instead to “associations” and “self‑reported orientations/intentions”.
• We describe the GSAT → PAI relationship as showing that satisfaction is associated with stronger self‑reported intentions to maintain physical activity, not that the program produced sustained change.

3. Limitations:

• The first limitation now explicitly acknowledges that the cross‑sectional, self‑reported design cannot demonstrate actual behavioral change or long‑term lifestyle transformation and that PAI must be interpreted as a perception‑ and intention‑based indicator.

We believe this reframing aligns the manuscript with the evidential strength of the design.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 2:

The reviewer pointed out that the theoretical contribution appeared overstated and that too many frameworks were invoked (SERVQUAL, Health Belief Model, motor learning, ecological dynamics, co‑creation, SDGs, Vision 2030), creating conceptual accumulation rather than tight integration.

Response:

We have sharpened the theoretical contribution by:

• Restricting the core framework to four main strands directly tied to the model:
• Service‑quality / expectancy–disconfirmation for WSPQ and satisfaction.
• Health belief/self-efficacy for perceived health benefits and self-reported physical-activity orientation.
• Affective–motivational approaches for enjoyment.
• Guest‑experience and co‑creation perspectives for the experience‑centric framing.
• Relegating other perspectives to contextual or interpretive roles:
• Ecological dynamics and motor learning now support the interpretation of WSPQ as a teaching–learning environment rather than as formal model components.
• SDGs and Vision 2030 appear only in contextual sections (2.3, 6.3), where we discuss policy relevance with explicit caveats.
• Rephrasing the theoretical contribution (Section 6.1) to emphasize that the study contributes mainly by:
• integrating perceived health benefits and enjoyment as dual mediators in a guest‑experience model,
• linking satisfaction to both loyalty intentions and self‑reported activity orientation, and
• Situating hotel wellness programs as sport‑for‑health micro‑settings in an emerging tourism destination.

We no longer claim a major contribution to sport economics or public health in the strict sense; instead, we position the study as perception-based, applied research at the intersection of wellness, hospitality, and sport‑for‑health.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 3:

The reviewer requested more detail on the selection of hotels and cities, the data‑collection period, and the potential selection bias of recruiting only guests who had already participated in wellness activities.

Response:

As described in previous responses, Section 3.2 now includes:

• Hotel frame: International 5‑star luxury hotels in Riyadh, Jeddah, and Al‑Ula offering regular, instructor‑led sport‑based wellness activities.
• Guests and programs: Guests were eligible if they had participated in at least one guided fitness class, yoga session, or group sport‑based program during their stay.
• Data collection: On‑site recruitment between 1 March and 30 April 2026; 463 guests invited, 412 valid responses (88.9% response rate).
• Sample characterization: Balanced gender distribution, wide adult age range, and predominance of Saudi nationals with a minority of non‑Saudi visitors.
• Selection bias: We now explicitly acknowledge in the Limitations section that respondents are self‑selected participants in wellness activities and thus likely more positively predisposed towards physical activity than the average hotel guest. We state that this may limit generalizability and suggest research including non‑participants as a comparison group.

We hope this addresses your concerns about sampling transparency and potential bias.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 4:

The reviewer found the PLS‑SEM reporting generally acceptable but requested a clearer justification of PLS‑SEM vs CB‑SEM, and stronger treatment of common method bias beyond Harman’s test.

Response:

We have strengthened Section 3.3 as follows:

• Justification for PLS‑SEM:

o          Emphasize the prediction-oriented aim (explaining GSAT, LOY, PAI),

o          Note the model complexity (multiple mediating and moderating relations, several latent constructs) and limited assumptions about normality,

o          Cite the literature recommending PLS‑SEM for such complex, prediction‑focused models in hospitality and tourism.

• Common method bias:

o          Retain Harman’s single‑factor test but explicitly call it an initial, insufficient diagnostic.

o          Add a full collinearity VIF assessment, showing all construct VIFs between 1.478 and 2.856 (< 3.3), indicating that CMB is unlikely to be a major problem.

o          Summarize procedural remedies (assured anonymity, separation of constructs, varied scales).

We believe this addresses your methodological concerns and aligns the paper with best practices in PLS‑SEM.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 5:

The reviewer asked for a more focused literature review that leads clearly to the specific gap, and for the exact questionnaire items to be described in an appendix.

Response:

1. Focused literature review:

• We reorganized Section 2 to foreground the specific gap (lack of integrated, perception‑based models of hotel sport‑program quality, experience outcomes, and health‑oriented intentions in Saudi Arabia) and trimmed redundant references.
• Each subsection now leads directly into the hypotheses that follow.

2. Appendix with items:

• Appendix A now reports the full wording of all measurement items, including WSPQ, PHB, ENR, GSAT, LOY, PAI, SHC, and control variables, along with their response scales.

This directly addresses your request for transparency and facilitates replication.

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

thank you very much for submitting the revised version of your manuscript. In my view, the manuscript has improved substantially compared with the previous version. Several of the central concerns raised in the previous review have been addressed in a recognizable and scientifically meaningful way. In particular, the title and conceptual framing have been revised from a stronger notion of “Health Behavior Change” toward the more cautious construct of “Self-Reported Physical Activity Increase.” This is an important improvement, because it aligns the terminology more closely with the cross-sectional and self-reported nature of the empirical design.

It should also be acknowledged positively that the manuscript now distinguishes more clearly between the core theoretical model, health-behavior-related interpretation, and broader contextual or policy-related implications. The authors have also improved the methodological transparency of the study. The description of the measurement instruments, translation and back-translation procedure, pilot testing, sampling frame, hotel context, data-collection period, response rate, and common method bias assessment is now considerably more informative than in the previous version. These revisions increase the traceability and scientific credibility of the empirical design.

Nevertheless, some issues still require final refinement before publication.

First, although the introduction is now clearer and more cautious, it remains broad in its theoretical architecture. The manuscript draws on service quality, expectancy–disconfirmation, health belief and self-efficacy logic, motor learning, ecological dynamics, co-creation, SDGs, Vision 2030, and wellness tourism. The authors have improved the distinction between core model theory and contextual lenses, but the text would benefit from further condensation. The theoretical contribution should be sharpened around the constructs that are actually tested in the PLS-SEM model. Broader references to SDGs, Vision 2030, and sport-for-health micro-settings should remain clearly contextual and should not be formulated as if they were empirically demonstrated by the model.

Second, the construct “Self-Reported Physical Activity Increase” is an improvement compared with the previous terminology. However, it still requires careful and consistent handling throughout the manuscript. The construct appears to capture both guests’ subjective perceptions of increased moderate-to-vigorous physical activity during their stay and their immediate motivation to sustain this increased activity after the stay. This is conceptually plausible, but it also combines retrospective self-assessment and prospective intention. The authors should therefore ensure that the terminology is fully consistent across title, abstract, hypotheses, methods, results, discussion, tables, figures, and conclusion. It should be made explicit throughout that the study does not measure objective physical activity, longitudinal behavior change, or sustained post-stay adherence.

Third, the measurement of PAI with two items should be more cautiously justified. If the construct is adapted from IPAQ-related guidelines, the authors should clarify more precisely how the two items were derived, why this reduced operationalization is sufficient for a latent construct in the present model, and why the construct is modeled reflectively. In addition, the authors should avoid any wording that could suggest that a validated IPAQ measurement of physical activity behavior was fully implemented if the study actually uses only adapted self-report items.

Fourth, the methodological section has clearly improved, especially regarding translation, pilot testing, sampling, and common method bias. However, some further precision would strengthen the manuscript. The number of participating hotels should be reported, not only the cities and hotel category. It should also be clarified whether data collection was equally distributed across Riyadh, Jeddah, and Al-Ula or whether some locations dominated the sample. Since 73.1% of respondents were Saudi nationals, the implications of the sample composition for international luxury hotel guests should be briefly discussed.

Fifth, the results are generally understandable and the PLS-SEM reporting has improved. Nevertheless, the authors should continue to distinguish statistical significance from substantive relevance. Where effect sizes are small, this should be acknowledged. The moderation effect of Staff Health Communication should also be interpreted cautiously, especially with regard to practical implications for hotel management and staff training. The model may suggest that health communication strengthens perceived health benefits, but it does not prove that communication produces measurable health gains.

Sixth, the conclusions are now better aligned with the design, but they should be reviewed once more to remove any residual causal or overgeneralizing formulations. The manuscript may reasonably claim that perceived program quality, enjoyment, perceived health benefits, satisfaction, loyalty intentions, and self-reported physical activity orientation are positively associated within the analyzed sample. It should not imply objective health improvement, long-term behavior change, or generalizable public-health effects beyond what the cross-sectional data can support.

Seventh, the figures and tables are useful but should be refined formally. Figure 1 is conceptually helpful, but the caption should be revised to a more formal academic style, for example “Conceptual model of the study.” All tables should be checked for formatting, consistency of abbreviations, construct labels, decimal notation, and alignment with the terminology used in the text. The term “Self-Reported Physical Activity Increase” should be consistently abbreviated and presented in the same way throughout the manuscript.

Finally, the English language is generally understandable and has improved compared with the previous version. However, a final linguistic revision remains necessary. The manuscript should be made more analytically precise, less rhetorically dense, and more consistent in its academic register. Furthermore, Particular attention should be paid to sentence structure, punctuation, prepositions, singular/plural agreement, capitalization, and the consistent use of central terminology.

Overall, regarding the research subject, the revised manuscript is substantially stronger than the previous version and has addressed several central concerns. The study is relevant for wellness tourism, hospitality management, sport-based service design, and health-oriented guest experience research. Before publication, however, I recommend a final targeted revision, especially regarding the consistent conceptual handling of self-reported physical activity increase, the cautious interpretation of cross-sectional self-report data, the precision of the PAI operationalization, the reporting of hotel/sample details, and final linguistic and formal editing.

 

Kind regards,

Prof. Dr. Dr. XX

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is generally understandable and has improved compared with the previous version. Nevertheless, a final linguistic revision remains advisable, particularly to ensure greater analytical precision, a more consistent academic register, and terminological coherence in the use of central constructs such as self-reported physical activity increase, perceived health benefits, staff health communication, and co-created guest experience.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

It is with genuine appreciation that we thank you for your meticulous and constructive review of our manuscript, "How Sport-Based Wellness Program Quality Shapes Co-Created Guest Experience, Loyalty Intentions, and Self-Reported Physical Activity Orientation in Saudi Arabian Hotels." Your thoughtful engagement with our work has been both humbling and inspiring. Your observation that the manuscript has "improved substantially compared with the previous version" and that several "central concerns" have been addressed "in a recognizable and scientifically meaningful way" was particularly encouraging. We have taken every one of your comments to heart and have endeavored to respond with the same scholarly rigor that you brought to your evaluation. Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response to each of your comments. All revisions are clearly indicated in the resubmitted manuscript, with changes highlighted for your convenience.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 1:

The introduction remains broad in its theoretical architecture. The manuscript draws on service quality, expectancy–disconfirmation, health belief and self-efficacy logic, motor learning, ecological dynamics, co-creation, SDGs, Vision 2030, and wellness tourism. The authors have improved the distinction between core model theory and contextual lenses, but the text would benefit from further condensation. The theoretical contribution should be sharpened around the constructs that are actually tested in the PLS-SEM model. Broader references to SDGs, Vision 2030, and sport-for-health micro-settings should remain clearly contextual and should not be formulated as if they were empirically demonstrated by the model.

Response:

We are genuinely grateful for this incisive observation. You are absolutely correct that the theoretical architecture required further sharpening. We have undertaken a comprehensive revision of the introduction and theoretical underpinnings sections to achieve precisely the condensation you recommend. You will find the changes in red within the revised manuscript file.

Location in Revised Manuscript:

1. Introduction (Page 4, final paragraph): We added an explicit acknowledgment that the broader references to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and sport for health micro settings that appear later in the manuscript should be understood as contextual lenses for interpreting the findings, not as constructs empirically tested in the PLS SEM model.
2. Section 2.1 (Page 5): We revised the opening paragraph to clearly distinguish core theoretical strands (service quality, expectancy disconfirmation, health belief, self-efficacy, and affective motivational approaches) from contextual layers
3. Section 2.1 (Page 6, ecological dynamics paragraph): We added a concluding sentence.
4. Section 2.3 (Page 7): We substantially revised the SDG discussion.
5. Section 5 (Discussion, Page 24, first paragraph): We added that throughout this discussion, we maintain a clear distinction between the core model constructs that were empirically tested and the broader contextual lenses (such as SDGs and Vision 2030) that inform the interpretation of the findings.

We trust these revisions adequately address your concern and now position the theoretical contribution precisely around the constructs tested in our PLS SEM model.

Reviewer’s Comment 2:

The construct “Self Reported Physical Activity Increase” is an improvement compared with the previous terminology. However, it still requires careful and consistent handling throughout the manuscript. The construct appears to capture both guests’ subjective perceptions of increased moderate to vigorous physical activity during their stay and their immediate motivation to sustain this increased activity after the stay. This is conceptually plausible, but it also combines retrospective self assessment and prospective intention. The authors should therefore ensure that the terminology is fully consistent across title, abstract, hypotheses, methods, results, discussion, tables, figures, and conclusion. It should be made explicit throughout that the study does not measure objective physical activity, longitudinal behavior change, or sustained post stay adherence.

Response:

We are grateful for this critical observation. You correctly identified a fundamental issue that we have now addressed comprehensively. After careful consideration of your recommendation, we have uniformly changed the construct label from "Self Reported Physical Activity Increase (PAI)" to "Self Reported Physical Activity Orientation (PAO)" throughout the entire manuscript. This semantic shift better captures the dual nature of the construct—retrospective self-assessment of activity during the stay and prospective intention to maintain or increase activity afterward—while avoiding any implication of objectively measured behavioral change. You will find the changes in red within the revised manuscript file.

Location in Revised Manuscript:

1. Title (Page 1)
2. Abstract (Page 1)
3. Introduction (Page 2, first paragraph)
4. Section 2.1 (Page 5)
5. Section 2.2 (Page 6)
6. Section 2.4.9 (Page 14, subsection title)
7. Section 2.4.9 (Page 15, H8)
8. Section 2.5(PAO). "Page 16, Study Framework and Figure 1)
9. Section 3.1 (Page 17, PAO measurement paragraph)
10. Section 3.3 (Page 19)
11. Table 1 (Page 20)
12. Table 2 (Page 21)
13. Table 3 (Page 21)
14. Table 4 (Page 22)
15. Figure 1 (Page 16)
16. Figures 2 and 3 (Page 23)
17. Section 4.2 (Page 22, results text)
18. Section 5 (Page 25, discussion)
19. Section 6.1 (Page 26, theoretical contributions)
20. Section 6.3 (Page 28, policy implications)
21. Section 7 (Page 29, limitations)
22. Section 8 (Page 30, conclusion)
23. Appendix A (Page 31)

We believe this comprehensive revision ensures terminological consistency throughout the manuscript while making explicit that the study does not measure objective physical activity, longitudinal behavior change, or sustained post-stay adherence.

Reviewer’s Comment 3:

The measurement of PAI (PAO) with two items should be more cautiously justified. If the construct is adapted from IPAQ-related guidelines, the authors should clarify more precisely how the two items were derived, why this reduced operationalization is sufficient for a latent construct in the present model, and why the construct is modeled reflectively. In addition, the authors should avoid any wording that could suggest that a validated IPAQ measurement of physical activity behavior was fully implemented if the study actually uses only adapted self-report items.

Response:

This is an important methodological concern, and we appreciate your careful attention to this detail. We have substantially expanded the justification for the two-item PAO measure in Section 3.1. You will find the changes in red within the revised manuscript file.

Location in Revised Manuscript:

Section 3.1 (Page 17, PAO measurement paragraph): We added a detailed justification. We have also ensured throughout the manuscript that we refer to the measure as "adapted from IPAQ guidelines" rather than suggesting we implemented the full IPAQ. The wording of the items in Appendix A clearly shows the two adapted items: "My moderate to vigorous physical activity is now compared to before" and "I intend to continue exercising regularly after this experience."

Reviewer’s Comment 4:

The methodological section has clearly improved, especially regarding translation, pilot testing, sampling, and common method bias. However, some further precision would strengthen the manuscript. The number of participating hotels should be reported, not only the cities and hotel category. It should also be clarified whether data collection was evenly distributed across Riyadh, Jeddah, and Al Ula, or whether certain locations dominated the sample. Since 73.1% of respondents were Saudi nationals, the implications of the sample composition for international luxury hotel guests should be briefly discussed.

Response:

We agree entirely that greater methodological precision enhances the credibility of the study. We have addressed each of these points. You will find the changes in red within the revised manuscript file.

Location in Revised Manuscript:

Section 3.2 (Page 18, first paragraph): We added that a total of seven luxury hotels participated in the study: three properties in Riyadh, two in Jeddah, and two in Al Ula. And the data collection was reasonably distributed across the three locations, with approximately 38% of responses from Riyadh, 32% from Jeddah, and 30% from Al Ula, ensuring geographic representation. Regarding the sample composition, we noted that this predominance of Saudi respondents should be considered when interpreting the findings, as the perspectives of domestic luxury hotel guests may differ from those of international visitors in cultural expectations, familiarity with wellness services, and physical activity norms.

Reviewer’s Comment 5:

The results are generally understandable and the PLS SEM reporting has improved. Nevertheless, the authors should continue to distinguish statistical significance from substantive relevance. Where effect sizes are small, this should be acknowledged. The moderation effect of Staff Health Communication should also be interpreted cautiously, especially with regard to practical implications for hotel management and staff training. The model may suggest that health communication strengthens perceived health benefits, but it does not prove that communication produces measurable health gains.

Response:

We are grateful for this important methodological reminder. Distinguishing between statistical and substantive significance is a hallmark of rigorous quantitative research, and we have enhanced our reporting accordingly. You will find the changes in red within the revised manuscript file.

Location in Revised Manuscript:

Section 4.2 (Page 22, moderation effect paragraph): We added that the effect size (f²) for this moderation effect was small (0.016), indicating that while statistically significant, the practical magnitude of the moderation should be interpreted with appropriate caution (Cohen, 2013a). The results suggest that staff health communication strengthens the association between program quality and perceived health benefits, but the modest effect size implies that other factors also contribute to guests' health perceptions.

Section 5 (Page 25, discussion of moderation): We revised that the effect size for this moderation was small, suggesting that while statistically significant, the practical magnitude of staff communication's moderating influence should not be overstated. The results indicate that health communication strengthens guests' health perceptions, but they do not demonstrate that communication produces measurable health gains or behavioral change.

Section 6.2 (Page 27, practical implications): We added that while the results suggest that health communication strengthens the association between program quality and perceived health benefits, the small effect size indicates that managers should view this as one component of a broader strategy rather than a standalone solution.

Reviewer’s Comment 6:

The conclusions are now better aligned with the design, but they should be reviewed once more to remove any residual causal or overgeneralizing formulations. The manuscript may reasonably claim that perceived program quality, enjoyment, perceived health benefits, satisfaction, loyalty intentions, and self reported physical activity orientation are positively associated within the analyzed sample. It should not imply objective health improvement, long term behavior change, or generalizable public health effects beyond what the cross sectional data can support.

Response:

We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript to remove any residual causal or overgeneralizing formulations. We have systematically replaced causal language with associative language throughout and added explicit qualifying statements at key points. You will find the changes in red within the revised manuscript file.

Location in Revised Manuscript:

Section 5 (Page 25)

Section 8 (Page 30, conclusion)

Section 8 (Page 30)

Section 8 (Page 31)

We have also ensured that all hypotheses use associative language ("is positively associated with") rather than causal language ("influences" or "predicts").

Reviewer’s Comment 7:

The figures and tables are useful but should be refined formally. Figure 1 is conceptually helpful, but the caption should be revised to a more formal academic style, for example, “Conceptual model of the study.” All tables should be checked for formatting, consistency of abbreviations, construct labels, decimal notation, and alignment with the terminology used in the text. The term “self-reported physical activity increase" should be consistently abbreviated and presented in the same way throughout the manuscript.

Response:

We have systematically revised all figures and tables. You will find the changes in red within the revised manuscript file.

Location in Revised Manuscript:

Figure 1 (Page 16): Caption revised to: "Figure 1. Conceptual model of the study."

Figure 2 (Page 23): Caption revised to: "Figure 2. Structural model estimation results with standardized path coefficients."

Figure 3 (Page 23): Caption revised to: "Figure 3. Moderating effect of staff health communication (SHC) on the relationship between wellness sport program quality (WSPQ) and perceived health benefits (PHB). Note: SHC strengthens the positive association between WSPQ and PHB."

Table 1 (Page 20): Caption revised to: "Table 1. Assessment of construct reliability and validity."

Note (below Table 1) revised to: "Note: Factor loadings = λ; Cronbach's alpha coefficients = α; composite reliability = CR; average variance extracted = AVE; Skewness = SK; Kurtosis = KU; mean = μ; standard deviation = σ."

Table 2 (Page 21): Caption revised to: "Table 2. Fornell-Larcker criterion matrix for discriminant validity assessment."

Table 3 (Page 21): Caption revised to: "Table 3. Heterotrait Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations."

Table 4 (Page 22): Caption revised to: "Table 4. Structural model hypotheses testing results."

All abbreviations have been standardized to PAO (Physical Activity Orientation), and construct labels are consistent throughout all tables and figures.

Reviewer’s Comment 8:

The English language is generally understandable and has improved compared with the previous version. However, a final linguistic revision remains necessary. The manuscript should be made more analytically precise, less rhetorically dense, and more consistent in its academic register. Particular attention should be paid to sentence structure, punctuation, prepositions, singular/plural agreement, capitalization, and the consistent use of central terminology.

Response:

We have undertaken a comprehensive linguistic revision of the entire manuscript. You will find the changes in red within the revised manuscript file. We have:

1. Streamlined overly dense sentences to enhance readability
2. Corrected preposition usage and singular/plural agreement throughout
3. Standardized capitalization and punctuation
4. Ensured consistent use of all central terminology (particularly WSPQ, PHB, ENR, GSAT, LOY, PAO, SHC)
5. Reduced rhetorical density while maintaining academic precision
6. Improved sentence structure for clarity and flow

We believe the manuscript now reads with greater analytical precision and a consistent academic register, while maintaining the scholarly rigor required for publication.

 

Additional Revisions Not Explicitly Requested but Implemented:

In the spirit of continuous improvement, we have also made the following additional refinements:

1. Consistent abbreviation of PAO throughout the manuscript (including tables, figures, and appendix)
2. Revisions to Section 2.5 (Study Framework) to reflect the change from PAI to PAO
3. Revisions to the Discussion (Section 5) to consistently refer to "self reported physical activity orientation" rather than "Physical Activity Increase"
4. Revisions to the Limitations section (Section 7) to clarify that PAO captures self reported intentions, not objectively tracked changes in lifestyle

 

We are genuinely grateful for your meticulous and constructive review. Your comments have substantially improved the clarity, precision, and scholarly rigor of our manuscript. We believe the revisions detailed above fully address all your concerns and that the manuscript now meets the high standards of administrative sciences.

We have carefully implemented every recommendation you provided, and we are confident that the revised manuscript represents a stronger contribution to the literature on wellness tourism, hospitality management, and health behavior. Should any further clarification be needed, we would be delighted to respond promptly.

With sincere appreciation and respect,

The Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed several of the reviewer’s comments and have substantially improved the manuscript. Nevertheless, several revisions remain necessary before the methodological and interpretive concerns can be considered fully resolved.

The wording of the direct-effect hypotheses and the corresponding hypothesis-development subsection titles should be standardized using non-causal, associative language, such as “is positively associated with” or “is positively related to.” 

The grammar and conceptual wording of H8 should also be corrected. A suitable formulation would be: “Guest satisfaction with sport-based wellness programs is positively associated with guests’ self-reported physical-activity orientation, including perceived activity increase during the stay and the intention to maintain or increase physical activity after the stay.”

Section 4.1 requires further revision. Cronbach’s alpha should be denoted by α rather than λ. The phrase “the CV is not criticized” is technically inappropriate and should be removed or replaced with a statement indicating that convergent validity was established. The statistical description should also be rewritten to correct grammatical errors and to present the reliability and validity criteria in a clear and technically accurate sequence.

The Conclusion should be revised to align its claims with the cross-sectional and self-reported nature of the evidence. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We wish to express our genuine gratitude for your thoughtful and rigorous review of our manuscript, "How Sport-Based Wellness Program Quality Shapes Co-Created Guest Experience, Loyalty Intentions, and Self-Reported Physical Activity Orientation in Saudi Arabian Hotels." Your recognition that we have "substantially improved the manuscript" and addressed "several of the reviewer's comments" was encouraging. However, we found your remaining comments equally valuable, as they have helped us refine the manuscript to a level of precision and clarity that we could not have achieved without your guidance. Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response to each of your comments.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 1:

The wording of the direct effect hypotheses and the corresponding hypothesis development subsection titles should be standardized using non-causal, associative language, such as “is positively associated with” or “is positively related to.”

Response:

We fully agree with this recommendation. We have systematically revised all direct-effect hypotheses and subsection titles to use associative rather than causal language. This is consistent with the cross-sectional, non-experimental nature of our data. You will find the changes in red within the revised manuscript file.

Location in Revised Manuscript:

All Hypotheses (H1–H9) (Pages 8–15). And subsection titles (Pages 8–15): All subsection titles now use associative language.

 

Reviewer’s Comment 2:

The grammar and conceptual wording of H8 should also be corrected. A suitable formulation would be: “Guest satisfaction with sport based wellness programs is positively associated with guests’ self reported physical activity orientation, including perceived activity increase during the stay and the intention to maintain or increase physical activity after the stay.”

Response:

We have adopted your suggested wording exactly. This formulation is clearer, more precise, and correctly reflects the dual nature of the PAO construct. You will find the changes in red within the revised manuscript file.

Location in Revised Manuscript:

Section 2.4.9 (Page 15, H8). We have also ensured that the same formulation appears consistently throughout the manuscript, including in the abstract, results section (Table 4), and discussion.

Reviewer’s Comment 3:

Section 4.1 requires further revision. Cronbach’s alpha should be denoted by α rather than λ. The phrase “the CV is not criticized” is technically inappropriate and should be removed or replaced with a statement indicating that convergent validity was established. The statistical description should also be rewritten to correct grammatical errors and to present the reliability and validity criteria in a clear and technically accurate sequence.

Response:

We appreciate your meticulous attention to statistical reporting. We have completely revised Section 4.1 to address all three points. You will find the changes in red within the revised manuscript file.

Location in Revised Manuscript:

Section 4.1 (Page 19): The entire section has been revised.

Changes Made:

1. Cronbach's alpha is now denoted as α (not λ)
2. The phrase "the CV is not criticized" has been removed
3. Replaced with a clear statement: "These results collectively establish convergent validity for all constructs in the measurement model"
4. Grammatical errors have been corrected throughout
5. Reliability and validity criteria are presented in a clear, technically accurate sequence

Reviewer’s Comment 4:

The Conclusion should be revised to align its claims with the cross sectional and self reported nature of the evidence.

Response:

We have extensively revised the Conclusion to ensure that all claims are fully aligned with the cross sectional and self reported nature of our evidence. We have removed any overgeneralizations and added explicit qualifying statements throughout. You will find the changes in red within the revised manuscript file.

Location in Revised Manuscript:

Section 8 (Pages 30–31): Paragraph 1 (Page 30): We revised to emphasize the perceptual and associative nature of the findings

Paragraph 2 (Page 30–31): We added explicit caveats:

Paragraph 3 (Page 31): We revised and edited the text.

We have also systematically reviewed the abstract, discussion, and implications sections to ensure consistent alignment with the cross-sectional, self-reported nature of the data.

 

Additional Revisions Not Explicitly Requested but Implemented:

In the spirit of continuous improvement, we have also made the following additional refinements:

1. Consistent abbreviation of PAO throughout the manuscript (including tables, figures, and appendix)
2. Revisions to Section 2.5 (Study Framework) to reflect the change from PAI to PAO
3. Revisions to the Discussion (Section 5) to consistently refer to "self reported physical activity orientation" rather than "Physical Activity Increase"
4. Revisions to the Limitations section (Section 7) to clarify that PAO captures self reported intentions, not objectively tracked changes in lifestyle

 

We are genuinely grateful for your meticulous and constructive review. Your comments have substantially improved the clarity, precision, and scholarly rigor of our manuscript. We believe the revisions detailed above fully address all your concerns and that the manuscript now meets the high standards of administrative sciences.

We have carefully implemented every recommendation you provided, and we are confident that the revised manuscript represents a stronger contribution to the literature on wellness tourism, hospitality management, and health behavior. Should any further clarification be needed, we would be delighted to respond promptly.

With sincere appreciation and respect,

The Authors