Evaluating the Influence of Sustainable Urban Disaster Prevention Planning Satisfaction on Residents’ Living Willingness: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach in Kaohsiung City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study evaluates the influence of sustainable urban disaster prevention planning satisfaction on residents' living willingness. This is a rather narrow topic, and of course, it would be interesting to really dig into this issue.

This study still has many gaps and mismatches in developing the research framework. As shown in the manuscript, the author tries to connect sustainable urban development (with dimensions such as public service satisfaction, material well-being facilities, and environmental contentment) and residents's satisfaction. However, because the introduction and literature review did not raise this issue, I wonder if there is any connection between urban disaster prevention planning and sustainable urban development.

Additionally, I wonder how the author identifies the variables in the groups of urban public facility services, disaster planning, and resident satisfaction connected to residential intentions. Clarification of these variables is necessary before designing survey instruments. An example of economic dimensions is that they actually influence people's decisions about their desire to live in a city.

Furthermore, we need to clarify the relationship between satisfaction with sustainable urban disaster planning and residential intentions. According to that goal, the literature review did not clearly discuss studies related to previous studies on the same/ related topics.

Author Response

I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Your insightful comments have been instrumental in enhancing the clarity and depth of our study.

We have carefully addressed each of your suggestions and have made significant revisions to the manuscript accordingly. Notably, we have updated the "4.2 SEM Analysis" section to improve the presentation of our methodology and results, ensuring that the analysis is clearly articulated and thoroughly substantiated. Additionally, we have added a comprehensive Discussion section that delves into the implications of our findings within the broader context of urban planning and sustainability.

Attached to this email, you will find the revised version of our manuscript. We believe that these changes have substantially strengthened the paper and hope that it now meets the publication standards of your esteemed journal.

Thank you once again for your constructive critique and for contributing to the refinement of our work. We look forward to your continued guidance and hopefully, the acceptance of our manuscript for publication.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript centers on Kaohsiung City in Taiwan, utilizing a questionnaire survey to gauge residents' perspectives and their willingness to continue residing in Kaohsiung City. This study has certain value, and the manuscript can be accepted after revising the following problems:

(1) In the abstract section, the abstract section did not highlight the key content of the manuscript. This section is recommended to highlight the conclusions drawn from the study and the practical significance of the research method.

(2) The introduction should have good logic rather than piling up many literature, so that readers can clearly understand the purpose and innovation of your research and how it differs from other current studies. This part of the analysis lacks logical coherence and lacks sufficient depth of analysis. It is strongly suggested to further improve it

(3)Literature review: It is suggested to integrate the “Literature review” section with the “Introduction” section.

(4) Research hypothesis: The research hypothesis is not written clearly enough. It is recommended to refine the content of this section so that readers can better understand the research content of the manuscript.

(5) How can the positive determination of the results be verified? Please verify the results. How reliable is the manuscript survey? This is important for this manuscript.

(6) There is still some room for improvement in the discussion of research methods and results in the manuscript, such as whether the research results are reliable, whether the research methods have limitations, and what impact may the limitations of the research methods have on the research results? These are all important issues that need to be clarified in the manuscript.

Author Response

I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for your valuable feedback on our manuscript titled. Your insightful comments have been instrumental in enhancing the clarity and depth of our study.

We have carefully addressed each of your suggestions and have made significant revisions to the manuscript accordingly. Notably, we have updated the "4.2 SEM Analysis" section to improve the presentation of our methodology and results, ensuring that the analysis is clearly articulated and thoroughly substantiated. Additionally, we have added a comprehensive Discussion section that delves into the implications of our findings within the broader context of urban planning and sustainability.

Attached to this email, you will find the revised version of our manuscript. We believe that these changes have substantially strengthened the paper and hope that it now meets the publication standards of your esteemed journal.

Thank you once again for your constructive critique and for contributing to the refinement of our work. We look forward to your continued guidance and hopefully, the acceptance of our manuscript for publication.

Warm regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Empirical research could be improved. This will help for analyses and results. The theoretical background is according to necessary for provide an analysis.

It is important to include similar references about this application for helping analyses

Research design, questions, hypotheses and methods are clearly stated

The arguments and discussion of findings are supported only by model application. It must be improved and discuss relationship with theory. It is important to development this point.

The empirical research has been supported by the model. However, the empirical research must be dialogue with theory and it must be improved for analyses of data, as the conclusion also.

The paper is interesting if we think about the subject and model proposal. But, it must be improvement about the analysis and think the results link to theory background. This will be increased the impact of this paper.

In contrast, there is a doubt about the significance of this sample and if it is possible to make some inference in these data. It must be clarified and, if was not representative, it will be a important restriction of this paper.

Furthermore, some information is necessary to be explain:

1.     Demographic distribution of respondents aligned with municipality data to verify representativeness and significance

2.     Is the sample significant or intentional? Make it clear

3.     Present demographic data of the city and a brief history of the topic. The previous existence of disasters in the region influences the outcome, e.g.

4.     Very descriptive about regression theory and criteria. Use this as a foundation and references, without taking up space in the article with it. Leave only the application and reference

5.     Result focused on the data without exploring the analysis in the light of theory. For example: why do indexes differ? What are the most important insights? What perception influenced the different groups of respondents? Did some of their characteristics create a bias or enable analysis? Does demographic characterization influence any issue?

Author Response

I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for your valuable feedback on our manuscript . Your insightful comments have been instrumental in enhancing the clarity and depth of our study.

We have carefully addressed each of your suggestions and have made significant revisions to the manuscript accordingly. Notably, we have updated the "4.2 SEM Analysis" section to improve the presentation of our methodology and results, ensuring that the analysis is clearly articulated and thoroughly substantiated. Additionally, we have added a comprehensive Discussion section that delves into the implications of our findings within the broader context of urban planning and sustainability.

Attached to this email, you will find the revised version of our manuscript. We believe that these changes have substantially strengthened the paper and hope that it now meets the publication standards of your esteemed journal.

Thank you once again for your constructive critique and for contributing to the refinement of our work. We look forward to your continued guidance and hopefully, the acceptance of our manuscript for publication.

Warm regards,
Chen Yih Tzoo

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title "Evaluating the Influence of Sustainable Urban Disaster Prevention Planning Satisfaction on Residents' Living Willingness: A 3 Structural Equation Modeling Approach in Kaohsiung City" is too long, with 22 words, and therefore is a bit unclear to comprehend. 

What does a concept, which is a part of the title "Residents' Living Willingness" actually mean, the language should be revised.

 

The abstract is hard to read due to the uncommon vocabulary used. Also, the first sentence in the abstract needs changing in order to be understandable. 

The title contains more information about the specific topic and context than the abstract... 

The research hypothesis could be provided alongside the research goals, research questions, and possible identified research "gap" in section 1, and in section 3, the methodology - methods and materials for proving or disapproving those hypotheses should be presented. 

Satisfaction with Public Facility Services is also analyzed, but not mentioned when describing research goals. 

The methodology presented indicates an interesting research outcome..

Results are well presented, however, the Discussion section is missing from the manuscript.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text is hard to read and understand due to poor usage of some terminology, also, in some parts of the text it seems as authors used simple translation rather than translation in the context of the English language and the research topic. Some of the sentences (section 1) are not finished or do not have punctuation. 

Author Response

I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for your valuable feedback on our manuscript." Your insightful comments have been instrumental in enhancing the clarity and depth of our study.

We have carefully addressed each of your suggestions and have made significant revisions to the manuscript accordingly. Notably, we have updated the "4.2 SEM Analysis" section to improve the presentation of our methodology and results, ensuring that the analysis is clearly articulated and thoroughly substantiated. Additionally, we have added a comprehensive Discussion section that delves into the implications of our findings within the broader context of urban planning and sustainability.

Attached to this email, you will find the revised version of our manuscript. We believe that these changes have substantially strengthened the paper and hope that it now meets the publication standards of your esteemed journal.

Thank you once again for your constructive critique and for contributing to the refinement of our work. We look forward to your continued guidance and hopefully, the acceptance of our manuscript for publication.

Besy regards,
Chen Yihtzoo

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for revision.

The manuscript is pretty much improved

Best,

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback. The research team's response is attached.
Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for revising the manuscript. The revised manuscript has been greatly improved, but there are also some detailed issues, such as the difficulty in expressing the content of some tables in Table 1 for readers to understand, and two rows in the first column are not numbered.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback. The research team's response is attached.
Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The article has important improvements and it is almost ready to be published, in my opinion. Just have two points to be improved:
1) More references to give theoretical and methodological consistency for the results. There are just 22 references and no more than 5 references from the last 5 years. It must be improved to be actualized discussion.
2) Conclusion: the comments are brief and it will be discussed based on the theoretical and empirical results.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback. The research team's response is attached.
Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has improved a lot, thus improving the overall quality of the research. However, it still needs changes in the structure and the presentation of the research. 

Firstly, section 3 should be revised, as it should present the research phases, methods, and materials and it now contains more information, which could be part of section 1 or 2 (such as hypotheses, etc.) or section 4, such as results of the research. 

The manuscript still lacks the discussion part of the research. The discussion section should discuss the presented results in the context of similar research studies, and provide information regarding the possible research gap in the specific field of Satisfaction with urban disaster prevention planning. Also, the manuscript lacks a proper conclusion. Discussion and conclusions could be in the same section and should reflect the main conclusions of the research, but also the research limitations and possible future research. 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback. The research team's response is attached.
Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Consider expanding section 5. so it includes in detail discussion of research results in the context of previous studies. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the expansion of Section 5 of our manuscript. We have carefully considered your suggestion to enrich the discussion of our research results within the context of previous studies.

In response, we have extensively revised Section 5 to include a detailed comparative analysis that integrates and discusses our findings alongside relevant literature. This revised section now thoroughly explores how our results align with, support, or differ from existing studies, providing a deeper understanding of our research's implications and contributions to urban disaster prevention and residential intentions.

We believe these enhancements have significantly strengthened the manuscript by providing a broader and more nuanced perspective on the significance of our findings within the established body of knowledge.

Thank you for guiding us to refine our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf