Review Reports
- Markku Karjalainen,
- Hüseyin Emre Ilgın* and
- Lauri Metsäranta
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1 The aim of the paper or the hypothesis are not clearly formulated at the end of the introduction
2 A description of the area would be useful
3.1 Is the sample representative? How was it selected?
The presentation of the whole population would be useful.
5 What should further research focus on?
General comment. Additional photos would be helpful to understand what type of area is involved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors many thanks for choosing this journal; the topic illustrated is very interesting with excellent prospects for development.
We recommend, if possible, 2 changes:
-we propose to re-evaluate the keyword "preference", in "participative process"
- line 110, is it possible to insert a map with the location of the study area ?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article entitled “Suburban Residents' Preferences for Liveable Residential Area in Finland” is been written nicely and according to the scope of Sustainability. However, before a final publication, it requires a Major Revision.
- There should be liveable in title not livable.
- No need to write background sentences in the abstract. You should directly start the abstract from the main objective of the article.
- The abstract should be written in a smooth paragraph rather than providing numbering.
- You should provide a short paragraph in the introduction that can explain the scenario of Preferences for Liveable Residential Area in Nordic countries and then discuss a situation in Finland. If you can do this, it will be worth mentioning in the introduction.
- Understanding the research methodology would be facilitated by a flow chart
- The heading of section 3 should be replaced with Results
- Limitations of the study should be provided in the conclusion section.
- Recommendation for a future study should be proposed at the end of the conclusion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have address all of my comments and the quality of paper has been improved. Therefore, I request to Associate Editor to consider it for publication in its current form.