Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors paper explores how various self-reported factors of environmental satisfaction (i.e., built and social) affect the the subjective well-being of residents residing in Beijing historic neighborhoods. I found the paper interesting, generally well-written, and of value to both scholars and planning professionals. My comments pertain to (1) methods and (2) presentation of findings.

 

My ability to interpret the variables listed in Table 1 is limited because I am not familiar with 2019 Beijing City Healy Examination data source. If space permits, I would like to see more description of this survey (or external link) and more context on how readers should interpret the variables. For Example, the means reported for the road accessibility and child care facilities are 72.5 and 73.53, respectively. I assume higher scores mean greater satisfaction, but it is not clear. Does satisfaction range from 0 to 100? The dependent variable, SWB, appear to be categorical variables (1, 2, or 3). The authors should justify their use of standard OLS regression analysis versus using a statistical method designed for categorical data analysis such as multinominal regression analysis. Also, are the reported findings in Tables 3a and 3b standardized coefficients? It appears may be the case from what the authors write in the first paragraph on page 7.

 

  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting research topic. However, in my opinion, there are still some significant questions:

1. First of all, the overall structure of the article is chaotic, especially from the third part of the ' Research design ', the content of each part began to mix together. The contents that should appear in the results, discussions, and conclusions are interspersed with each other, and the structure is very chaotic. The author needs to reorganize them to make the article clear.

2. The article lacks an explanation of variables. What are the measurement standards and negative standards? The missing important information makes it impossible to understand the core content of the article, such as the data expressed in Table 1 and Table 2.

3. The core conclusion of the article is based on hierarchical regression. But the article lacks a concrete operation process, which causes the statistical result of Table 3, Table 4 to be unintelligible. Is each environmental variable put into the model one by one? Why are there 15 rows in the table, which represent what? In addition, the expression of statistical results is not standardized and comprehensive. It lacks a detailed explanation of R2 and adjusted R2, lacks VIF values, and cannot determine whether the variables in the model have collinearity problems. The reliability of the statistical results is in doubt.

4. In addition, the impact of different environmental variables on well-being seems to be small, are these differences significant? If these differences are not significant, the article’s main conclusions based on Figure 3 will be meaningless.

5. The content of the literature review part is very weak. In fact, the relevant research results on the living environment and well-being are quite rich.

6. In addition, this article has some detailed problems. For example, many expressions are indistinct, and it feels that the author’s concept of these variables is not clear. For example, the expression ' Satisfaction of personal socio-economic attributes ' in Table 1 is very strange. Age, gender, etc. are population attributes, not personal socio-economic attributes. In addition, does haze belong to the human environment? Is it 'human environment' or ' social environment ' in Table 1 and Table 2?

In general, although the topic of this article is interesting, there exist many problems. We suggest authors make major revisions and resubmit.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Although there are still some problems in this article, such as whether it is appropriate to use "impact" and "influence" in cross-sectional research.  But in general I think it is acceptable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx