Exploring the Key Factors of Old Neighborhood Environment Affecting Physical and Mental Health of the Elderly in Skipped-Generation Household Using an RST-DEMATEL Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I think this study is significant and great for the Chinese community and research is very useful for aging populations around the world.
You have many English grammar errors and typos that could be fixed easily. Also, some information is missing.
In section 3.1.1
Please write when the data was collected. I think this is important since COVID-19. Was the data collected before the virus? Please add the dates of the data collection.
In the conclusion, please discuss the differences in results in those who are SGH and non-SGH elderly populations. The reader wonders if the results of physical and mental health are different between those two elderly populations. Was there a difference between men and women in general? I think these basic demographic variables need to be part of the discussion as well.
Here are some major issues with English grammar and typos. Maybe a lot more in the paper but these are the ones I found. Please have the paper professionally edited.
line 41 typo 'nearly200' needs space
line 47 has a strange expression 'happy old age' not for academic writing.
lines 54-55 our one-child policy should change to China's one-child policy and also another expression is incorrect " the transfer of the young workforce, maybe give some clarity to that statement for those who don't understand this factor in China.
lines 64-65 please reword for clarity 'heavy task of education'
line 75 more time for children’s care.
line 85 reword this isn't the correct way to write in English 'Old neighborhoods are often built for a long time'
lines 244-246 - please describe what you mean by 'low' maybe put it into USD amount or compare it to the national average to give it context. Also, you can write the % of people who are over 65 years old instead of those numbers. That would help to give the numbers meaning.
lines 262-264 please rewrite for clarity
lines 312-313 you should not start a sentence with 'Identify'
lines 323-324 please rewrite for clarity
line 327 The questionnaire
line 413 Please title in the table Average Medium Higher
lines 536-537 obtained from 655questionnaires received.
the sentence should not start with 'Clarify
Author Response
Reply: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised the manuscript as suggested by you and other reviewers. We hope you are satisfied with our revisions and replies.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is interesting, however, the description of the research carried out and the results obtained is not entirely clear and should be improved. Detailed remarks and suggestions (in order of appearance) are listed below:
1) It seems that the title doesn't quite match the content of the article – if I understood correctly, 655 people took part in the survey, of which only 384 came from Skipped-Generation Household (SGH); thus the results apply to older people in general, not just those living in SGH. If this is not the case (since only 242 questionnaires were included in the analysis of the results in section 4 – see Table 3 and Table 5), this should be clearly explained in the article.
2) Row 98: ‘Many scholars have questioned…’ – this sentence needs references.
3) Literature review: it would be valuable to mention the quantitative methods used in research on aging and on elderly people.
4) Row 214: there should be ‘attributes). In this study’ instead of ‘attributes) In this study’ (the dot is missing).
5) Row 223: wrong numbering - there should be ‘3.1 Rough set theory’ instead of ‘1.1 Rough set theory’.
6) Rows 245-246: commas should be used to separate numbers greater than 999 (every third digit from the right).
7) Row 246: there should be ‘over 65 (China census data’ instead of ‘over 65(China census data’ (space is needed).
8) Section 3.1.1 (RST - sampling strategies/data sources): the questionnaire as well as the compiled results of the survey should be presented in the paper to help readers understand the article and to enable calculations to be reproduced.
9) Row 263: ‘including 384 of these elderly adults with skipped-generation child’ versus Table 2: ‘Grandparent with grandson - 383’ – shouldn't these two numbers be identical?
10) Rows 293-297: this sentence (‘It means that if a set has a limit set in the equivalence relationship of A, it means that … the more elements in the limit set, the more, the lower the accuracy of the approximate set’) should be linguistically corrected and divided for two parts.
11) Equation 5: there should be ‘and read as’ instead of ‘And read as’.
12) Row 305: wrong numbering - there should be ‘3.2 DEMATEL’ instead of ‘1.2 DEMATEL’.
13) Row 319: wrong numbering - there should be ‘3.2.1 Sampling strategies/data sources’ instead of ‘1.2.1 Sampling strategies/data sources’.
14) Section 3.2.1 (DEMATEL - sampling strategies/data sources): the questionnaire as well as the compiled results of the survey should be presented in the paper to help readers understand the article and to enable calculations to be reproduced.
15) Row 336: wrong numbering - there should be ‘3.2.2 Computational process’ instead of ‘1.2.2 Computational process’.
16) Section 4 (Results and Discussion): a list of all attributes should be included in the text.
17) Table 4: why is the population equal to 242 when line 263 mentions 384 elderly adults with skipped-generation child?
18) Row 388: there should be ‘blue space design’ instead of ‘blur space design’.
19) Row 446 and later: shouldn't it be ‘multifunctional space (A5)’ instead of ‘multinational space (A5)’?
20) Section 4.3: matrix T should be presented in the text. Moreover, the title of this section is very similar to the title of section 4.1.
21) Section 4.4: matrix T should be presented in the text. Furthermore, the title of this section is very similar to the title of section 4.2.
22) Rows 497-525: indicator symbols (A2-A13) should be corrected (bold with a number in subscript).
23) Row 512: there should be ‘Fan et al.’ instead of ‘Fanet al.’.
24) The paper requires linguistic corrections – it should be proofread by a language specialist. Some sentences are too long which unfortunately hinders their reading and understanding.
Author Response
Reply: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised the manuscript as suggested by you and other reviewers. We hope you are satisfied with our revisions and replies.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for this opportunity. Your manuscript uses some unique methods of exploring older persons' well-being that I had not seen before.
Author Response
Reply: Thanks for your review and suggestions. Your comments encourage us to keep working on this research scope.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I still notice many grammar errors. I think you need to hire a professional English editor.
Author Response
Thanks for your suggestion, this paper will be proofread by language specialist.
Reviewer 2 Report
Remarks and recommendations are listed below:
1) Rows 28-29: ‘in the Guangzhou Che Bei neighbourhood in China’ instead of ‘in the Guangzhou Che Bei neighbourhood’.
2) Rows 81-82: ‘Previous studies have shown…’ - this sentence needs references.
3) Row 96: ‘Avoid developing solutions through problem appearances.’ – this sentence should be reformulated as the imperative mood is not appropriate in this case.
4) Rows 108-117: the punctuation needs to be corrected (either dots instead of semicolons or lowercase letters after semicolons).
5) Row 159: ‘methods [43-45]. In addition’ instead of ‘methods [43-45].In addition’ (space).
6) Row 164: ‘The behavioral trajectories and social behaviors of these groups of people…’ – this sentence needs to be rephrased as from the linguistic point of view it is not clear what 'these groups of people' refers to.
7) Table 1, A11: ‘Neighbourhood sense of belonging’ instead of ‘neighbourhood sense of belonging’ (capital letter).
8) Figure 1: ‘Phase two’ instead of ‘Phase Two’ or – perhaps – ‘Phase 1’ and ‘Phase 2’.
9) Row 228: ‘3.1 Rough…’ instead of 3.1Rough’ (space).
10) Row 245: ‘Che Bei neighbourhood, Guangzhou, China’ instead of ‘Che Bei neighbourhood, Guangzhou’.
11) Row 245: ‘Chebei’ – shouldn’t it be ‘Che Bei’?
12) Rows 248-250: commas should be used to separate numbers greater than 999 (every third digit from the right), i.e. 30,759 and 3,996.
13) Section 4 (Results and Discussion)
rows 376-377 (‘The core attribute is X7 (The state of walking) and X8 (Where you tend to go when you take your children in the neighbourhood)’),
rows 419-421 (‘the core attribute is X1 (What do you usually do when you use the square space?), X6 (What is most likely to be affected by the green space in the neighbourhood?) and X7 (What is your state of walking?))
– a list of all core attributes should be included in the text as they are clearly not the same as those in Table 1.
14) Row 461: ‘DEMATEL calculation’ instead of ‘DMATLE calculation’.
15) Row 501: ‘DEMATEL calculation’ instead of ‘DMATLE calculation’.
16) Table 8: ‘A2’ instead of ‘SA2’.
17) Row 508: ‘Figure 3’ instead of ‘Figure 2’.
18) Row 641: ‘Zhao, Y., & Chung, P. K. (2017). Neighbourhood environment…’ instead of ‘Zhao, Y., & Chung, P. K. (2017). neighbourhood environment…’ (capital letter).
19) Either British or American English should be used consistently in the text.
20) The paper requires linguistic corrections – it should be proofread by a language specialist because it still contains errors (punctuation, grammar, stylistic).
Author Response
Q1. Rows 28-29: ‘in the Guangzhou Che Bei neighbourhood in China’ instead of ‘in the Guangzhou Che Bei neighbourhood’.
A1. Thank you for your correction. The revision has been completed in the manuscript. See lines 28-29 for details.
Q2. Rows 81-82: ‘Previous studies have shown…’ - this sentence needs references.
A2. Thank you for your correction, references have been added. See lines 82-83 for details.
Q3. Row 96: ‘Avoid developing solutions through problem appearances.’ – this sentence should be reformulated as the imperative mood is not appropriate in this case.
A3. Thank you for your correction, references have been added. See lines 95-96 for details.
Q4. Rows 108-117: the punctuation needs to be corrected (either dots instead of semicolons or lowercase letters after semicolons).
A4. Thank you for your correction. The revision has been completed in the manuscript. See lines 107-117 for details.
Q5. Row 159: ‘methods [43-45]. In addition’ instead of ‘methods [43-45].In addition’ (space).
A5. Thank you for your correction. The revision has been completed in the manuscript. See lines 159 for details.
Q6. Row 164: ‘The behavioral trajectories and social behaviors of these groups of people…’ – this sentence needs to be rephrased as from the linguistic point of view it is not clear what 'these groups of people' refers to.
A6. Thank you for your correction. The revision has been completed in the manuscript. See lines 165-168 for details.
Q7. Table 1, A11: ‘Neighbourhood sense of belonging’ instead of ‘neighbourhood sense of belonging’ (capital letter).
A7. Thank you for your correction. The revision has been completed in the manuscript. See Table 1 for details.
Q8. Figure 1: ‘Phase two’ instead of ‘Phase Two’ or – perhaps – ‘Phase 1’ and ‘Phase 2’.
A8. Thank you for your correction. The figure has been modified and replaced. See Figure 1 for details.
Q9. Row 228: ‘3.1 Rough…’ instead of 3.1Rough’ (space).
A9. Thank you for your correction. The revision has been completed in the manuscript. See lines 229 for details.
Q10. Row 245: ‘Che Bei neighbourhood, Guangzhou, China’ instead of ‘Che Bei neighbourhood, Guangzhou’.
A10. Thank you for your correction. The revision has been completed in the manuscript. See lines 246 for details.
Q11. Row 245: ‘Chebei’ – shouldn’t it be ‘Che Bei’?
A11. Thank you for your correction. The revision has been completed in the manuscript. See lines 246 for details.
Q12. Rows 248-250: commas should be used to separate numbers greater than 999 (every third digit from the right), i.e. 30,759 and 3,996.
A12. Thank you for your correction. The revision has been completed in the manuscript. See lines 250-251 for details.
Q13. Section 4 (Results and Discussion)
Rows 376-377 (‘The core attribute is X7 (The state of walking) and X8 (Where you tend to go when you take your children in the neighbourhood)’),
Rows 419-421 (‘the core attribute is X1 (What do you usually do when you use the square space?), X6 (What is most likely to be affected by the green space in the neighbourhood?) and X7 (What is your state of walking?)
– a list of all core attributes should be included in the text as they are clearly not the same as those in Table 1.
A13. Thanks for your correction. The core indicators described in lines 376 and 419 in the text correspond to mental health of elderly in SGH and physical health of elderly in SGH respectively, see Table 4 and Table 6 for details. In addition, the RST questionnaire in this study is a descriptive questionnaire, X1-Xn is the sequence number of the questions in the questionnaire, and the result of the condition attribute (1-5) represents a state of participation in community activities, not the degree of satisfaction. These states and environmental indicators correspond to each other, so the list of RST results cannot be directly mapped to Table 1.
Q14. Row 461: ‘DEMATEL calculation’ instead of ‘DMATLE calculation’.
A14. Thank you for your correction. The revision has been completed in the manuscript. See lines 458 for details.
Q15. Row 501: ‘DEMATEL calculation’ instead of ‘DMATLE calculation’.
A15. Thank you for your correction. The revision has been completed in the manuscript. See lines 499 for details.
Q16. Table 8: ‘A2’ instead of ‘SA2’.
A16. Thank you for your correction. The revision has been completed in the manuscript. See Table 8 for details.
Q17. Row 508: ‘Figure 3’ instead of ‘Figure 2’.
A17. Thank you for your correction. The revision has been completed in the manuscript. See lines 506 for details.
Q18. Row 641: ‘Zhao, Y., & Chung, P. K. (2017). Neighbourhood environment…’ instead of ‘Zhao, Y., & Chung, P. K. (2017). neighbourhood environment…’ (capital letter).
A18. Thank you for your correction. The revision has been completed in the manuscript. See lines 641 for details.
Q19. Either British or American English should be used consistently in the text.
A19. Thanks for your suggestion, this paper will be proofread by language specialist.
Q20. The paper requires linguistic corrections – it should be proofread by a language specialist because it still contains errors (punctuation, grammar, stylistic).
A20. Thanks for your suggestion, this paper will be proofread by language specialist.
