Fostering Customer Loyalty in Kitesurfing: The Case of a Nautical Sports Centre in Portugal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I am pleased to review an original article draft entitled "Fostering customer loyalty in Kitesurfing: The Case of a Nautical Sports center in Portugal", which quantitatively evaluates the relationship between service quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions a specialized nautical kitesurfing center in  Portugal. The paper is logically structured, and well-written, serving a valuable dataset alongside an analysis and authors' interpretation. However, there is room for improvement:

1. The study objective should be clearly stated in the abstract.

2. Generally, the abstract could be better structured: problem statement, objective, methods, findings, conclusions, implications.

3. Making an accent on intangibility, the rest of the service characteristics seem to be neglected, namely: variability, perishability, and inseparability. Why the intangabily is emphasized and pushed forward?  It should be briefly explained referring to the literature and polishing the theoretical framework.

4. (314-323) Limitations and future directions subsection could be developed and be more resourceful for a reader. 

Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that satisfaction and service perceptions may differ between different categories of sports club/event customers/visitors, different factors as age, story involvement, level of proficiency, clubs affiliation etc matter, please see: 

Schut, P.O. and Glebova, E., 2022. Sports spectating in connected stadiums: mobile application Roland Garros 2018. Frontiers in sports and active living, 4, p.802852.

I hope you find my comments helpful.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your valuable comments and suggestions were much appreciated and have been carefully considered. It is hoped that the responses provided will meet your expectations.

Thank you again for your time and effort in reviewing this work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) Please include in the Abstract the indication concerning the methodology used and the main applications of the study.

 2) Please provide additional information about:

- the approximative population size

- is the sample size statistically significant according to the population? Why the sample contains customers between 21 and 47 years old and not between 18 and 50 years, for instance? Based on what research did you obtain these results?

- on which basis the sample size of 125 customers was chosen? Why not 250 customers?

- the segementation variabiles. Are age, gender, and nationality the only segmentation variables?

- mention all 15 nationalities of potential customers

- based on which method you select the 125 customers?

- how long did it take to collect the questionnaires?

 3) In the Conclusions section, the limitations of the study must underline that the results apply only to the Viana do Castelo Nautical Sports Centre at the time the survey was carried out.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please, revise the writing of:

- “in practice”. The correct form is “in the practice” (Line 70)

- “that the satisfaction”. The correct form is “that satisfaction” ((Line 83)

- “long term”. The correct form is “long-term” (Line 88)

- “field of sport”. The correct form is “field of sports” (Line 133)

- “contributed”. The correct form is “contribute” (Line 166)

- “on repurchase”. The correct form is “on the repurchase” ((Line 203)

- “even in education”. The correct form is “even education” (Line 252)

- “revealing”. The correct form is “revealed” (Line 255)

- “establish”. The correct form is “should establish” (Line 302)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your valuable comments and suggestions were much appreciated and have been carefully considered. It is hoped that the responses provided will meet your expectations.

Thank you again for your time and effort in reviewing this work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

You can find my comments regarding your article here:

Please correct in-text references as the list of references should not appear in alphabetical order but in order of appearance in the text. It would be best if you therefore renumbered them.

The list of references should follow the journal's guide.

 

Line 58 please do not use short forms (it's)

Line 133  [48; 68, 69, 20, 26] semicolon

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Line 99 By the way is a too colloquial form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your valuable comments and suggestions were much appreciated and have been carefully considered. It is hoped that the responses provided will meet your expectations.

Thank you again for your time and effort in reviewing this work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Fostering Customer Loyalty in Kitesurfing: The Case of a Nautical Sports Centre in Portugal

 

Recommendation: Major revisions or reject

 

The manuscript examines the effects of service quality dimensions on customer satisfaction and repurchase intentions and the effect of customer satisfaction on repurchase intentions in the field of kitesurfing. The main findings, which are based on a survey with 114 participants, are that the service quality dimensions responsiveness, assurance and empathy have appositive effect on customer satisfaction, whilst the service quality dimension tangibility has a negative effect on customer satisfaction. Furthermore, it is shown that customer satisfaction has a positive effect on repurchase intentions.

 

I see two main reasons not to publish the manuscript. First, I fail see the connection between service quality in the kitesurfing industry and sustainability, meaning the relevance of the manuscript for the journal. Second, a sample of 114 participants is a rather slim basis for the conducted analysis, which I, personally, regard not sufficient (but other scholars might differ in this point). With regard to these two aspects, it, however, is a purely editorial decision to publish the manuscript or not.

 

If the editorial decision is in favour of publishing the manuscript, I recommend major revisions. From my point of view, the following aspects have to be addressed:

 

(1) The authors should make sure to use correct terminology. For example, the “Theory of Reflected Action” by Ajzen is mentioned on page 2; Ajzen, however, formulated the Theory of Reasoned Action, which is normally quoted alongside the Theory of Planned Behaviour (also mentioned in this manuscript).

 

(2) I am not convinced that the presented theories and concepts of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty and potentially customer commitment are comprehensive enough, e.g., I was rather surprised that the confirmation-disconfirmation paradigm of satisfaction was not mentioned.

 

(3) I believe the manuscript can benefit from mire accuracy in the rationale. Two examples should elucidate. First, the confirmation-disconfirmation paradigm was left out (cf. point 2); then on page three expectations are introduced “out of nowhere” in context of customer satisfaction. Second, I think the rationale does not provide the reader with a clear distinction between customer loyalty and behavioural intentions, i.e., repurchase intentions.

 

(4) Furthermore, the rationale itself does not really convince me. From my point of view, the authors must make a stronger case for only focussing on repurchase intentions and not on customer loyalty. Similarly, I regard it necessary that the authors give “solid” reasons for their choice of the examined service quality dimensions, which also should be explained in more detail. In the literature review, customer satisfaction is presented as a possible antecedent of perceived quality without any further explanation, which contradicts the hypotheses of the authors; the same holds true for the presented effect of customer loyalty on customer satisfaction. In the introduction and the conclusion, it remains unclear to me if the existing literature provides information regarding the relationship of the examined constructs or not (this, however, might just be down to “awkward” formulation). The rationale for examining direct effects of service quality on behavioural intentions on page 3f. does not strike me as conclusive.

 

(5) It is not ideal to use scales with different numbers of steps, i.e., seven- and five-step scales. As the data collection is already done, the implication for the analysis should be elucidated.

 

(6) The standard deviation should accompany the arithmetic mean that is given on page 5.

 

(7) I cannot see any reason to calculate Cronbach’s alpha for the entire scale. It makes more sense to report Cronbach’s alpha for the constructs.

 

(8) The principal component analysis should not only be applied to the items of the service quality. An additional principal component analysis should be conducted for the behavioural intentions.

 

(9) The terminology in the empirical part should be accurate, e.g., the authors speak of a principal component analysis and an exploratory factor analysis.

 

(10) The results section should be improved with regard to several aspects. The descriptive statistics of the examined constructs should be reported, e.g., minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation. It is hard for the reader to follow which relationships are significant and which are not, especially in Figure 1. The tables should have the same structure/format. It should be reported how much variance the model can explain. On page 8f., the authors point out that they could confirm a study by showing a positive relation of tangibility and behavioural intentions; the opposite, however, is the case. In this context, the authors must explain why tangibility in contrast to expectations and other studies shows a negative effect on customer satisfaction.

 

(11) I consider the conclusions as being rather slim. Furthermore, I fail to see a strong connection to the results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The use of the English language is good and needs just minor "polishing".

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your valuable comments and suggestions were much appreciated and have been carefully considered. It is hoped that the responses provided will meet your expectations.

Thank you again for your time and effort in reviewing this work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the effective revisions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable time and attention.

Best regards,

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Fostering Customer Loyalty in Kitesurfing: The Case of a Nautical Sports Centre in Portugal

 

Second review

 

Recommendation: reject

 

I recommend to reject this manuscript because the changes the authors made did not improve the manuscript and, in large parts, worsened it. Below, I would like to point out my assessment of the changes for the suggestions I made in my first review:

 

(1) This aspect is not solved. There is no “Theory of Reflected Action” by Ajzen. However, it is still mentioned in manuscript.

 

(2) I cannot see a substantial improvement with regard to the comprehensiveness of the theory part. 

 

(3) The confirmation-disconfirmation paradigm is still not properly introduced. In fact, it is falsely presented. The authors state “…satisfaction is conditioned by an initial level of expectations created and by their disconfirmation…”; this statement is plain wrong in this context, as the confirmation of expectations leads to satisfaction and not their disconfirmation. Furthermore, the distinction of loyalty and behavioural intentions is still not properly introduced; the added argument on page 3 is weak, probably requires the missing construct of customer commitment, which is mixed up with customer loyalty contentwise, and, most importantly, the new rationale would lead to an entirely different empirical research. Furthermore, the terminology problems regarding loyalty and behavioural intentions are not solved, e.g., loyalty is mentioned in the title whilst the manuscript still focuses on behavioural intentions.

 

(4) I cannot detect any substantial improvement with regard to the rationale.

 

(5) This point was not addressed by the authors, as they refer to the items in their answer. I, however, was pointing out that service quality and behavioural intentions were measured on a scale from 1 to 7, whilst satisfaction was measured on a scale from 1 to 5.

 

(6) This point was satisfactorily addressed.

 

(7) I do not know what Maroco (2003) suggests, as I cannot understand Portuguese. However, calculating the inter-item correlation, i.e., Cronbach’s alpha, for the entire service quality scale implies that service quality is one-dimensional, which, in fact, is not. Cronbach’s alpha should have been calculated and reported for the constructs.

 

(8) In contrast to the authors, I still think that it would have been necessary to test the one-dimensionality of behavioural intentions, even though the construct is only measured with two items.

 

(9) This point was satisfactorily addressed.

 

(10) Again, I do not know what a Portuguese author (Maroco, 2003 & 2014) writes in Portuguese. I still consider it necessary to report the descriptive statistics of the examined constructs. The table the authors added instead is rather unusual. If one reports the correlations between the examined constructs, it should be a comprehensive correlation matrix.

 

(11) I do not think that the conclusions have improved much with regard to their conclusiveness based on the empirical results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor revisions required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable time and attention.

Best regards,

----

Reviewer 4: (1) This aspect is not solved. There is no “Theory of Reflected Action” by Ajzen. However, it is still mentioned in manuscript.

Authors reply: Yes, it is true. It was a lapse in understanding what was requested by reviewer 4. The correction was made in the text.

Reviewer 4: (2) I cannot see a substantial improvement with regard to the comprehensiveness of the theory part.

Authors reply: We improved the article, incorporating the confirmation-disconfirmation paradigm presented by Oliver (1993), as well as better explaining the Theory of Planned Behaviour. We do not understand what is still important to explain and improve about theories and concepts.

Reviewer 4: (3) The confirmation-disconfirmation paradigm is still not properly introduced. In fact, it is falsely presented. The authors state “…satisfaction is conditioned by an initial level of expectations created and by their disconfirmation…”; this statement is plain wrong in this context, as the confirmation of expectations leads to satisfaction and not their disconfirmation. Furthermore, the distinction of loyalty and behavioural intentions is still not properly introduced; the added argument on page 3 is weak, probably requires the missing construct of customer commitment, which is mixed up with customer loyalty contentwise, and, most importantly, the new rationale would lead to an entirely different empirical research. Furthermore, the terminology problems regarding loyalty and behavioural intentions are not solved, e.g., loyalty is mentioned in the title whilst the manuscript still focuses on behavioural intentions.

Authors reply: Regarding satisfaction we said that it is conditioned, we did not explain that it is determined by an initial level of expectations created and by their disconfirmation, through the perceptions of experience. On the other hand, we also explained that the antecedents of customer satisfaction are related to expectations, the disconfirmation of expectations and an emotional component of the customer himself. Therefore, we do not understand how it is falsely introduced.

Regarding the author's reference to the distinction between loyalty and behavioural intentions, it is still not properly introduced, requiring the missing construct of customer commitment, we do not understand what support in the literature underlies the existence of the customer commitment construct. On the other hand, Jacoby (1971) explained that loyalty to a brand can be seen as a result of three dimensions of attitudinal loyalty (cognitive, affective and conative). This author explains that the conative dimension is related to the customer's intention to repurchase the product or service. Furthermore, the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) presents behavioural intention as the determinant of behaviour (namely, loyalty). Therefore, many studies have used the conative dimension (behavioural intention) as an "excellent" indicator of customer loyalty. Finally, we believe that it will not make sense to include "Fostering customer intention" in the title, since we intend to promote effective customer loyalty.

Reviewer 4: (4) I cannot detect any substantial improvement with regard to the rationale.

Authors reply: We have made significant improvements by seeking to respond to the author's requests in different parts of the manuscript. We do not understand what still needs to be improved.

Reviewer 4: (5) This point was not addressed by the authors, as they refer to the items in their answer. I, however, was pointing out that service quality and behavioural intentions were measured on a scale from 1 to 7, whilst satisfaction was measured on a scale from 1 to 5.

Authors reply: Considering that they are Likert scales (5 and 7 items), placed in groups of independent questions and correctly understood with the help of an interviewer, nothing in the literature shows that they could cause statistical analysis problems. It is increasingly common to use scales with different items when constructing questionnaires. On the other hand, at this stage, we will not be able to correct the questionnaire, as it has already been administered.

Reviewer 4: (6) This point was satisfactorily addressed.

Authors reply: Thank you very much.

Reviewer 4: (7) I do not know what Maroco (2003) suggests, as I cannot understand Portuguese. However, calculating the inter-item correlation, i.e., Cronbach’s alpha, for the entire service quality scale implies that service quality is one-dimensional, which, in fact, is not. Cronbach’s alpha should have been calculated and reported for the constructs.

Authors reply:  The preliminary analysis of Cronbach's alpha is essential to evaluate the internal consistency of the variables in our measurement instrument. In our case, we only applied it to the SERVQUAL instrument and verified that all SERVQUAL variables are reliable for this research. See what some authors consider on this subject (e.g. Kaber, Keith S., 2018, The Use of Cronbach's Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273–1296). Note that we have included, now, this reference.

Subsequently, we applied Cronbach's alpha to each of the constructs, and found that they presented values lower than Cronbach's alpha for the 22 items, but higher than 0.7, as mentioned in the manuscript, once again highlighting the internal consistency of the five constructs, following Kaber (2018) (please, see in the text).

Reviewer 4: (8) In contrast to the authors, I still think that it would have been necessary to test the one-dimensionality of behavioural intentions, even though the construct is only measured with two items.
Authors reply: We do not understand the rationale for applying a principal components analysis to a construct with only 2 items. We are unaware of the existence of any similar situation in the literature. On the other hand, this construct (with 2 items) was used in several studies (cf. Hrubes, Ajzen & Daigle, 2001; Ajzen & Driver, 1992; and Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2007).

Reviewer 4: (9) This point was satisfactorily addressed.

Authors reply: Thank you very much.

Reviewer 4: (10) Again, I do not know what a Portuguese author (Maroco, 2003 & 2014) writes in Portuguese. I still consider it necessary to report the descriptive statistics of the examined constructs. The table the authors added instead is rather unusual. If one reports the correlations between the examined constructs, it should be a comprehensive correlation matrix.

Authors reply: As we do not understand which descriptive statistics are required for the constructs, we have now included the standard error and significance level in the table of construct estimates (direct effects). On the other hand, we incorporated a correlation matrix between the dimensions of service quality, which is generally more used (please, see in the text).

Reviewer 4: (11) I do not think that the conclusions have improved much with regard to their conclusiveness based on the empirical results.

Authors reply: We believe we have made significant improvements consistent with the empirical results. 

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Fostering Customer Loyalty in Kitesurfing: The Case of a Nautical Sports Centre in Portugal

 

Third review

 

Recommendation: reject

 

I can see some improvements in the current version of the manuscript. However, the issues preventing the manuscript from being up to sufficient research standards are not entirely solved. Thus, I cannot approve of a publication in a prestigious journal like Sustainability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The use of the English language is generally okay.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your contributions, time and attention.

Best regards,