The Relationship between Geographic Accessibility to Neighborhood Facilities, Remote Work, and Changes in Neighborhood Satisfaction after the Emergence of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript Title
The relationship between geographic accessibility to neighborhood facilities, remote work, and changes in neighborhood satisfaction after the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic
Manuscript Number: 1849498-v1
Peer Reviewer Comments
General Comments:
My overall impression of the study is, the authors have done well in examining the: “The relationship between geographic accessibility to neighborhood facilities, remote work, and changes in neighborhood satisfaction after the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic”. The authors used the ordinal logistic regression (OLR) method to explore the association between dependent and independent variables, which is replicable in other studies. The article is innovative in topic and findings. However, there are some points in this work that should be considered:
Specific comments and requested revisions:
Abstract
Comment1: It is better to mention analytical methods used and to highlight the main statistics that measured the overall satisfaction level or show differences between the two groups. It is common to report main findings using statistical language (e.g., mean and p-value, OR and etc.) in abstract.
Introduction
Comment2: I know that hundreds of articles have been written on the accessibility of services in the area of geography and social science etc. However, if these papers are useable, it is recommended to refer to them in the introduction part where you talked about accessibility to services. They also discussed spatial accessibility as well:
· - A decision support system for prioritized COVID-19 two-dosage vaccination allocation and distribution
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554521003537?via%3Dihub
- Geospatial analysis of caesarean section in Iran (2016–2020): exploring clustered patterns and measuring spatial interactions of available health services3). https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-022-04856-z
- Measuring COVID-19 vaccination coverage: an enhanced age-adjusted two-step floating catchment area model.
https://idpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40249-021-00904-6
- Different configurations of the two-step floating catchment area method for measuring the spatial accessibility to hospitals for people living with disability: a cross-sectional study.
https://archpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13690-021-00601-8
Material and methods
Comment 3: Page 5, Lines 200-210: In my opinion, the methodology used for measuring geographic accessibility to facilities is a little vague. Because measuring accessibly to facilities has its own methods. I didn't see how you used kernel density to measure spatial accessibility. I think you need some maps to show how the facilities are distributed and how the accessibility rating is measured. Next, it is not clear how you linked the results of the questions to the accessibility weighted maps.
Comment 4: Page 6, line 212: What does major station mean in figure 1? Are this mean is train station?
Results
Comment 5: Page 9, Figure 2 and its descriptions. I think this figure can be present the proper way to show variations in its geographical context. It means that this figure wasn’t clear. You can't see or compare the changes at a glance.
Comment 6: You can add a short description for each map (a, b, c and d) in figure 3 caption.
Best wishes,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This study examines the impact of built environment and remote works on the satisfaction of neighborhood after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in its present form, this paper still needs substantial improvement.
1. I doubt that the causality of the key research question holds. Page 2 Line 75-76, “the purpose of this study is to test whether remote work is related to an increase in neighborhood satisfaction for residents living in populated areas.”, while is there any theoretical support for their relationship? If not, the correlation between them may not hold.
I found some explanations from the author in the ch1 and ch2, such as Page 2 Line 57-64 and Page 3 Line 102-109. However, these explanations are all the author's inferences and lack literature support.
2. The ch2 needs to be reorganized. Now there is nothing about the research progress about the neighborhood satisfaction after the COVID-19 pandemic, which I think is the key point of literature review.
3. In ch3, many neighborhood-level built environment variables do not take into account, such as land use diversity and road design. For the selection of built environment variables, please refer to:
Ewing R, Cervero R., 2010. Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American planning association 76(3): 265-294.
Shao Q, Zhang W, Cao X, et al., 2020. Threshold and moderating effects of land use on metro ridership in Shenzhen: Implications for TOD planning. Journal of Transport Geography 89: 102878.
4. In ch4, conclusion is a bit too much repetition of results in my view. Could be more overarching/helicopter view.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall, I am very happy with the quality of the paper and recommend acceptance for publication after taking into account the following comments:
1. The connection and contribution to the literature on sustainability in urban development should be strengthened.
2. It would be interesting to see more comparative analysis with findings of COVID/lockdown-related research from different countries.
3. A formal definition of neighborhood satisfaction is needed at the beginning of the introduction.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
