The Impact of Attracting a Mega-Sport Facility on the Development of a Small Town: A Case Study on Taekwondowon in Muju, South Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author, congratulations for the work done. Very interesting. However, I would like to make the following recommendations:

Abstract
The abstract contains a brief contextualisation, the objective and the main findings. However, it does not specify the sample selected or the methodology used in the study.

Keywords:
It is recommended that the keywords do not appear in the title, as this will multiply the search by researchers.

Introduction
It presents the general idea of the research with an adequate and updated theoretical framework. However, the following is indicated:

• I would introduce some more ideas about the relationship of facilities with events and activities, since without events facilities make no sense; however the other way round they do (natural environment).
• I would also introduce the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility and the Sustainable Development Goals. Briefly, but since it is a facility "installed" in a natural valley, I think it is appropriate.
• Lines 61-65 and 103-107, without references

2. Method 

 

2.1. Case study: Taekwondowon in Muju, South Korea

• Who paid? Funding, entities involved?
• Figure 1. Poor quality, should be replaced by a better definition.
• All interviewees had a relationship with TKW and the residents what do they say? I would include it as Future lines of research.
• Justification as to why? There are 5 interviewees and not 2 or 20 for example.
• The description of the sample is necessary: average age, average years of experience in the sector, change gender by sex.
• Add the questions asked to the subjects: In annex.
• Lines 187-188: Indicate the resulting categories, what were they? "Afterward, each category was developed based on the semantic relationship".

Results 

Very well exposed.

Line 215 (mistake): "...place. (Seho 215 Lee)"

Discussion and conclusions

Well presented by the authors. However, there are several paragraphs that do not compare their results with previous literature. In this section this is the basics.

Managerial Implications
I believe it is necessary, following the interviews conducted, to detail at least 4-5 proposals for practical implementation in terms of sustainability.

Limitations and Future Lines of Research

• Here you should indicate the limitations of the research and what could not be solved.
• I recommend incorporating a future line of research that gives continuity to this article, such as, for example, the perception of the residents, since they are the ones who "suffer" positively or negatively from this mega sports construction.

References
Review this section. Journals should use their abbreviated format, not the complete one. There are also other types of errata, such as the non-use of the bold in the years

Author Response

Thank you for your professional and detailed review. As the author, I endeavored to review the documents in accordance with your recommendations. In this regard, I would appreciate your further consideration and understanding should the revised paper contain minor variations from your recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The contribution of the article is considered to be primarily of professional/practical importance, not as much an original scientific article.

I am not sure that the figures in the paper are appropriate for this type of publication.

The idea behind the approach is sound, but the execution, sampling and presenting and discussing the results is faulty. It is a good thing that the sampling has clear criteria while the sample is rather small. Maybe another label (like respondent 1, respondent 2 etc.) could be used instead of pseudonyms.

It seems that maybe authors validated some parts of the approach and methods amongst themselves (" three Ph.D. degree holders specializing in sports studies") - that is the impression which should be clarified (if this is not the case).

The results should be better presented. At least, the text around the citation should not repeat what the citation says. It would also upgrade the paper's quality to have a list of interview questions available - whether throughout the paper, or in appendix.

This paper lacks originality and scientific contribution that could be generated, regardless the case study approach. The author(s) should upgrade the discussion one level up.

Author Response

Thank you for your professional and detailed review. As the author, I endeavored to review the documents in accordance with your recommendations. In this regard, I would appreciate your further consideration and understanding should the revised paper contain minor variations from your recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am glad that you did the modifications that make your paper more presentable and overall better.