Structural Model of Community Social Capital for Enhancing Rural Communities Adaptation against the COVID-19 Pandemic: Empirical Evidence from Pujon Kidul Tourism Village, Malang Regency, Indonesia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I am overall happy with the presented manuscript. I however, suggest or recommend that the authors consider the following before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Abstract
Line 14 - 19:
Overall the background is too long and unnecessarily so, I understand the abstract for this journal need to be 200 words maximum. However, I suggest you write a straight to the point background information and report more findings, provide some explanation of the findings and their implication. I therefore suggest you rewrite this part.
Line 25 to 28:
I see the results here; however, I don't see a sentence on the explanation of the results and implication for these findings.
Keywords: You can at least have 5 keywords.
Methods and Materials
Data collection methods
The table presented in this subsection doesn't have a caption.
Also in the same table, define what KK stand for, maybe as a footnote for this table.
Results and Discussion
Subsection: Geographical Conditions in Pujon Kidul Tourism Village
This part however, seem to read more like a description of the Pujon Kidul Tourism Village, rather than findings (results) or even discussion. I suggest you rewrite this section and present it as findings.
Figure 2, is blurry and can be improved.
References
All the references, need some serious attention please adhere to the author guidelines as stipulated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I thanks MDPI to offer me the chance to review this paper.
In this work, the authors aimed to determine the factors that influence the formation the relationship between community social capital and collective action during the pandemic in Pujon Kidul Tourism Village.
The authors identified the Covid-19 pandemic significantly impact the economic and jobs within Pujon Kidul which in terms resulted in the **temporary closure** of tourist attractions and the community businesses.
I think the work would fit the aim and scope for the journal as nowadays the sustainbility is so important global concerns. However, current version, I find the quality of presentation remain require substantial revision before it can be accepted for publication.
In particular, current version of paper suffers the quality presentation of the Figures output as well as the clear interpretation of the results.
Below I list several comments, and I hope authors can find them useful.
+ It would be good to provide a Figure that might give reader a good understanding on how the factor could be impact the village. By doing this, it would instantly attract readers interest to continue the reading
+ Figure 3,4,5 authors may consider to elaborate the Figures to make readers have a good understanding. It seems current version of results are paste from the output of software.
+ For the results from CFA and SEM analysis, could authors please clarify the key finding in the table importance of the finding more clearly.
+ Hope next round the authors could please provide scripts and data for review. So the results are reproducible to meet the MDPI policy.
## Minor comments
+ Figure 2. remake...resolution good
+ Figure 3.: why , in front each number ?
+ L103-112: x2 be better read as $\chi^2$
+ Table 8. author shall try to make the talbe more orgainized
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors are required to add a Related work section. The authors need to add 7 to 10 recent references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am overall happy with the revision made by the authors. I have no further comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I thanks authors to take my comments and provide their revision for this round review.
In this version, quality of the presentation of the figures are greatly improved.
The results for now using the horizontal stacked bar plots (Figures 3 and 5) make the comparison clear.
However, it is with my concern that how the data analysis were done accordingly.
**point** The authors respond in their rebuttal letter that the data are used for comparing the condition to other villages so they cannot include it in the supplemental material. However,
Because the reproducible results are important, could authors please submit their data for the next round **review** ?
**point** could also please mention what software (package) they use for the SEM and CFA analysis
**point** I like the Figure 1 which clear points to the position the villages located, however, author may be carefully to check the copyright issue (may clarify it how the map are obtained: self made or from other resources).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
