The Impact of a Local Well-Being Philosophy on Revisit Intentions to Bali Among Digital Nomads

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title of the research isn't compatible with the text. It need to be rewritten.

It is necessary to strengthen the backround of theresearch. Also, theoritical foundations should be strangthen.

The sample of the study should be stated in more details. For example, who are those experts?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This submission is an interesting empirical study that investigates the role of local well-being philosophy on the tourists' attitude toward the destination (Bali). Detailed comments are as follows:

1. It seems rather strange that tourist income, arrivals, etc. are discussed in the beginning. The reviewer feels that tourists' satisfaction and overall evaluation of the destination are already important enough to justify the study - no need to form such argument here but just cite the studies highlighting the importance of destination image and quality.

2. While some studies do classify digital nomads as tourists, others may disagree. Wouldn't it be better to just use the term digital nomads rather than tourists? 

3.  Figure 2 seems incomplete.

4.  Can THK implementation, as a higher-order factor, be considered local wisdom? The naming seems somewhat arbitrary.

5. One may argue that an overall evaluation (i.e. satisfaction with the destination) should mediate the relationship between destination image and revisit intention. 

6. There is a typo in item 14 (page 16) "Others Indonesia -> Other Indonesia"

7. It seems that sampling is biased -> half the respondents are from Indonesia and this should be highlighted in the limitations.

8. Willingness to recommend, though highly correlated, wouldn't be revisit intention. It would be better to rename the factor 'behavioral intention'. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language is fair.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

  The reviewer feels that most of the comments were addressed by the authors, while is still of the view that writing can be improved especially in the Introduction (not the language, but for better readability and flow).   

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of communication is fair.

Author Response

We have reorganized the Introduction (highlighted in light blue) in the second revision.