Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript an authors for conducting this study.

Paper is well structured and written. Please find some specific reflections bellow:

...Such findings challenge planners to incorporate psychological and social variables into spatial models that traditionally treat households as atomized rational actors."

Planners and architects think about these aspects. Please rephrase.

"This article bridges these literatures by examining residential choice through the combined lenses of territorial intelligence and behavioral urbanism. Focusing on Casablanca —a mid-sized European city"

I do apologize but Casablanca is not in Europe.

 

Methodology:

Methodology was well described. How did you identify recent movers?

It seems like economic factors were not taken into consideration at the same level like other.

How did you deal with data protection laws and regulation?

Table 1 describes the questionnaire and interview to the great extent and allows full understanding of the research approach.

 

Results:

I really appreciate the detail to which research was described in the methodology section. Anyhow, I was a bit disappointed to read about research results in 3.5 pages. I miss relation of findings in respect to different profiles of respondents.

It would be interesting for future research to again make a survey but with more specific questions that resulted from the interview and professional insights to test if the opinion would change if they were better informed.

 

Conclusion:

I appreciate the way how limitations are noted. Anyhow, the conclusions are very modest and fail to deliver novel insights in this domain (even though I believe they can be drawn out from the study). I personally miss drawings and maps as they can bring new insights and trends.

Stronger theoretical framework would enable better initial interview from the start.

Author Response

Comment 1. “Such findings challenge planners to incorporate psychological and social variables… treat households as atomized rational actors.” Planners already consider these aspects; please rephrase.
Response. Agreed. We revised the sentence to acknowledge current practice while motivating deeper integration.

Comment 2. “Casablanca — a mid-sized European city.” Casablanca is not in Europe.
Response. Corrected to “a major North African city.” We also fixed one residual generalizability phrase.
“…making findings more generalizable to other mid-sized Mediterranean cities and to African urban context.”

Comment 2. Methodology: How did you identify recent movers?
Response. We defined recent movers as adults (≥18) who changed primary residence within the past five years. Eligibility was verified via (i) a screener (month/year of last move; current address duration) and (ii) a sampling frame built from municipal move-in registries and new electricity/water hook-ups (deduplicated; invitations with unique codes). Inconsistent or out-of-window entries were excluded; 356 valid completes remained. A participants flow diagram is referenced. The modification is on page 9.

Comment 4. Economic factors seem underweighted.
Response. Economic fundamentals are measured and controlled throughout: income (bands), tenure, price salience, budget constraint, and—where reported—an affordability burden proxy (payment-to-income band). Commute time is included in robustness checks; coefficients for data use and plan awareness remain stable. The modification is on page 13

Comment 5. How did you deal with data-protection laws and regulation?
Response. We complied with Moroccan Law 09-08 and GDPR-aligned principles: informed consent; no direct identifiers in analytic files; contact details stored separately (encrypted) and deleted post-follow-up; only district-level geodata retained; sampling frame not merged with responses and destroyed after fieldwork; audio anonymized and originals deleted after verification.

Comment 6. Table 1 thoroughly describes the instruments and helps understanding.
Response. Thank you. We keep Table 1 as is.

Comment 7. Results feel brief (~3.5 pages) and I miss findings by respondent profiles.
Response. We added a subsection on heterogeneity by profile (age, tenure, income, origin, information behavior) with central-choice rates, satisfaction, and TI use. These gradients align with the multivariate results.

Comment 8. Future work: re-survey with more targeted questions from interviews; test if opinions change when better informed.
Response. We now state this explicitly in Future Work and outline an information-treatment design.

Comment 9. Conclusions are modest; draw out novel insights; maps/drawings could add trends.
Response. We sharpened the takeaways and propose non-identifying visuals as Supplementary Material to respect privacy and space limits.

Comment 10. A stronger theoretical framework could have improved the interview guide from the start.
Response. We clarify that the guide was theory-driven and mapped constructs from the literature review (preferences, social anchoring, TI use, plan awareness) to prompts addressing H1–H3.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

An issue on how to integrate a territorial intelligence in the process of urban residential decision-making with accents on behavioral insights is at the center of this study. The authors are very accurate in justification of research topicality. The authors go beyond accents on pure economic factors and add value to information and behavior that support decision-making. Research design is appropriate for the theme and well introduces a reader in to this issue. The authors define three research hypotheses that are grounded in previous literature analysis. Selected methods are appropriate and helpful to understand residential decision-making process. Research steps are described in detail. Research findings are explained. Research findings demonstrate high practical importance.

Some recommendations for improvements:

In the text, the authors only once refer to hypotheses set for the study. It is recommended to refer to hypotheses during the analysis.

Short description of residential characteristics in a city selected for case study could provide knowledge of differences between neighborhoods and demonstrate why use of territorial intelligence is so helpful in decision-making.

The authors should be accurate in term use. For example, the authors write: “Focusing on Casablanca—a mid-sized European city”. From geographic point of view, this is incorrect. The authors could more precisely indicate characteristic according to which they mention a city as European. 

The authors could organize conclusions according to the hypotheses set for the study.

Explanation of limitations of this study could be useful for understanding research implications.

Time for research is not mentioned. Did the pandemic affect the decision-process?

Questionnaires could be added in Appendix.

Results may be widened by characterizing how responses differ depending on age, income, etc.

The authors insufficiently use the newest research for the analysis. This aspect could be expanded.

Overall, this study demonstrates that territorial intelligence and behavioral peculiarities are important for better decision-making.

Author Response

Comment 1. Cross‑referencing hypotheses (H1–H3) during analysis
Response. Addressed. Hypotheses are stated and explicitly referenced in Results and in the synthesis.
Where. §1.3 (end), §3 opening ( “We evaluate three hypotheses: H1…” ), §3.6, and Table 7 (Hypothesis Validation Matrix).

Comment 2. Brief residential/neighborhood characterization for the case city
Response. §2.2 describes Casablanca (North‑African metropolis, open data, tramway expansion, diverse districts). 

Comment 3. Terminology accuracy (“mid‑sized European city”)
Response. Corrected in the Introduction to “a major North African city”. One residual phrase in §2.2 reads
“…making findings more generalizable to other mid‑sized Mediterranean cities and to African urban contexts.”

Comment 4. Structure conclusions by hypotheses
Response. Substantively addressed via Table 7 and §3.6; the Conclusion is integrative.
“In summary, H1 is supported, H2 is supported, and H3 is partially supported.”

Comment 5. Study limitations
Response. Addressed in detail (cross‑sectional design, self‑report and recall, TI measured as a count, single‑city external validity limits).
Where. Conclusion (“Several limitations temper interpretation.”).

Comment 6. Research period and possible pandemic effects
Response. Not explicitly stated; eligibility is “within the past five years.” Exact calendar dates were not retained in the analytic file for privacy per §2.7.
Justification. (i) Primary aim is TI × behavior link rather than temporal shock analysis; (ii) privacy protocol avoided storing move dates at fine granularity; (iii) isolating COVID effects would require temporal stratification beyond the scope of a cross‑sectional design.

2.3 (end of Data Collection Methods): “Fieldwork spanned a continuous period within the last five years; we did not retain calendar move dates in the analytic file to protect privacy.”

Conclusion – Limitations (added one sentence): We could not isolate COVID‑19 effects on decision‑making because time‑stamped analyses were outside the scope and privacy rules of this study.”

Comment 7. Append the questionnaires
Response. Not appended. The instrument’s constructs, example items, scales, and reliability are reported in text (Sections 2.3, 2.5; Table 1).
Justification. Space constraints and data‑protection (Moroccan Law 09‑08): the full instrument contains context‑specific prompts that could increase re‑identification risk. All information required for replication (variable definitions, scales, α) is provided. If required by the journal, we can share an anonymized instrument as Supplementary Material.

Comment 8. Broaden results by profiles (age, income, etc.)
Response. Addressed with a dedicated subsection and table (age, tenure, income, origin, information behavior; outcomes: central choice %, satisfaction, mean data sources, planning awareness).
Where. §3.1 “Heterogeneity by respondent profile” (+ table).

Comment 9. Stronger use of the newest research
Response. Addressed. Added and integrated recent references (2023–2025), e.g., Emekci 2024; Chambers 2024; Xia 2024; Amrani 2024; Viale 2025.
Where. Introduction; Literature Review §1.1–§1.3; Discussion; References.