Exploring the Relationship Between Residential Perceptions and Satisfaction: A Demographic Analysis in Wuhan, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• What is the main question addressed by the research?
This article asks: what are the most significant perceived factors for residential satisfaction in Wuhan? It asks if there are significant impact pathways to satisfaction via perceived values and if demographic categories are significantly influential to these pathways and values.

• Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.
The author explains originality but it could be further explained.
The article is original in that it is from primary research and considers association between different indicators of perceived resident satisfaction and the order of influence between indicators of perception, as impact pathways.
For this additional layer of analysis the article presents interesting and original findings that require some further explanation.
The literature review provided before methods used is a good basis for the reader.
The article could explain if there are other similar studies for wuhan, the originality of association and influence between indicators of satisfaction by perception,  impact pathways between perceived and residential satisfaction is explained, and is indicative of significance of the study.
The article encourages an understanding of how perceived values like comfort for residential satisfaction are influenced by other perceived values of safety and convenience, as an example. The comparisons of difference between perceived values of satisfaction by demographic could be further explained.

• What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
This information could be further explained, for the study province and then for the field of study in general to ensure originality and significance is understood by the reader. The specifics of findings, with influence of each perceived value on the other as a pathway  provides a good indicator range for improving and further measuring resident satisfaction, in the same province, Wuhan or in other provinces and even countries.

• What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
Further information about significance of gendered differences in perceptions about comfort via safety as a perception pathway, and impact pathway seem needed. The statistical analysis could include a significance value.
Line 306-316 Provide information about how questionnaires were distributed, completed, and collected.

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.
The conclusions are consistent with findings but further information from methods and methodologies are requested for the reason of ensuring the question is accurately answered.
A more in-depth explanation of methods and methodologies will improve the article, particularly if it is used as an information source for impact pathways to improve or maintain resident satisfaction. The difference between males and females perceived values for resident satisfaction, (comfort via safety and aesthetics) and having more in-depth explanation of significance of difference between males and females, as an example could improve how the article leads to urban planning for resident satisfaction, comfort, convenience, aesthetic appreciation and safety.

• Are the references appropriate?
The references seem appropriate.

• Any additional comments on the tables and figures.
The tables are easy to understand.
Figure 5 research district, provide further information about the chart in the title.
Table 5&6 could be labelled differently, table 6 specifically mention demographics.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I sincerely appreciate your thorough review of my manuscript (land-3387560) entitled “Demographic Differences in Residents’ Perceptions and Resi-dential Satisfaction: The case of Wuhan, China” Your insightful comments and constructive suggestions have been instrumental in improving the quality of this work.

In the following sections, I provide a detailed response to each of your comments. I have carefully revised the manuscript according to your suggestions, and I hope that these changes address all of your concerns.

 

Comment 1

What is the main question addressed by the research?

This article asks: what are the most significant perceived factors for residential satisfaction in Wuhan? It asks if there are significant impact pathways to satisfaction via perceived values and if demographic categories are significantly influential to these pathways and values.

Response 1

Thank you for your thoughtful and precise summary of our research. Your reflection captures the core of our study, which indeed investigates the significant perceived factors influencing residential satisfaction in Wuhan. We further explore whether there are distinct pathways through which perceptions of safety, convenience, comfort, and aesthetics contribute to satisfaction, and if demographic variables—such as age and gender—moderate these pathways. In addition to confirming the influence of these perceptions, our findings reveal a hierarchical structure among them, where safety serves as a foundational perception that influences convenience, comfort, and ultimately aesthetics. This progressive relationship aligns with Maslow’s hierarchy and the Homo-urbanicus framework, suggesting that residential satisfaction emerges from a cascade of perceptions, each building on the other. Our study also highlights notable demographic differences—particularly the stronger impact of safety and convenience on women and older adults, while younger residents prioritize aesthetics and convenience. We appreciate your recognition of these nuanced pathways and demographic dynamics, and we hope our findings contribute meaningfully to urban planning and policy discussions focused on enhancing residential environments.

Comment 2

Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.

The author explains originality but it could be further explained.

The article is original in that it is from primary research and considers association between different indicators of perceived resident satisfaction and the order of influence between indicators of perception, as impact pathways.

For this additional layer of analysis the article presents interesting and original findings that require some further explanation.

The literature review provided before methods used is a good basis for the reader.

The article could explain if there are other similar studies for wuhan, the originality of association and influence between indicators of satisfaction by perception,  impact pathways between perceived and residential satisfaction is explained, and is indicative of significance of the study.

The article encourages an understanding of how perceived values like comfort for residential satisfaction are influenced by other perceived values of safety and convenience, as an example. The comparisons of difference between perceived values of satisfaction by demographic could be further explained.

Response 2

Thank you for your valuable feedback on the originality and relevance of our study. We appreciate your recognition of the primary research contributions and the innovative analysis of perception pathways influencing residential satisfaction. In response to your comments, we have made the following revisions:

(1) Comparative Analysis and Originality: We have expanded the introduction and literature review to explicitly address the existence (or lack thereof) of similar studies in Wuhan and other major Chinese cities. This section now emphasizes how existing research predominantly focuses on single-dimension perception factors and how our study fills this gap by exploring hierarchical pathways between multiple perception indicators.

(2) Clarification of Perception Pathways: The theoretical framework section has been revised to further elaborate on the originality of the perception pathway model. We clarify that this model reflects a tiered, sequential mediation process in which lower-level perceptions (e.g., safety) progressively influence higher-order perceptions (e.g., aesthetics), offering a novel approach to understanding residential satisfaction.

(3) Demographic Analysis Expansion: The results and discussion sections now include a more detailed explanation of the demographic differences observed in the perception pathways. We discuss the underlying social and cultural factors contributing to these differences and their implications for urban planning and community design.

The corresponding revisions can be found in lines 52-59, 242-246, and 626-680 of the manuscript. We believe these revisions address your concerns and significantly enhance the clarity and depth of our study. Thank you for your thoughtful feedback, which has contributed to improving the overall quality and relevance of our paper.

Comment 3

What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

This information could be further explained, for the study province and then for the field of study in general to ensure originality and significance is understood by the reader. The specifics of findings, with influence of each perceived value on the other as a pathway  provides a good indicator range for improving and further measuring resident satisfaction, in the same province, Wuhan or in other provinces and even countries.

Response 3

Thank you for your valuable feedback and thoughtful comments regarding the contributions of this study to the field of residential satisfaction research. We appreciate your recognition of the novel pathways explored in this work and the importance of addressing demographic differences in perception pathways. In response to your comments, we have made the following revisions to the discussion section to emphasize the study’s originality and contributions to both the local context of Wuhan and the broader academic field:

(1) Hierarchical Perception Pathways and Theoretical Contributions. We have expanded the discussion to further elaborate on the concept of hierarchical perception pathways and their cascading influence on residential satisfaction. This enhancement clarifies how our study builds upon Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Urban Human theory by introducing chained mediation effects, which highlight the sequential and interconnected nature of perception indicators (safety, convenience, comfort, and aesthetics). The revisions underscore how this tiered model fills a critical gap in existing literature, where perception factors are often treated as isolated variables rather than as part of an integrated system.

(2) Focus on Age and Gender Demographic Differences. A substantial addition to the discussion emphasizes the differential impacts of age and gender on perception pathways. We provide a more detailed explanation of how: Women prioritize safety and convenience, reflecting caregiving responsibilities and concern for family well-being. Younger residents value aesthetics and convenience, driven by dynamic lifestyles and engagement with vibrant urban environments. Older adults focus more on safety and comfort, aligning with health considerations and preferences for stable, accessible environments. This expanded section highlights the need for demographic-sensitive urban planning, advocating for targeted design interventions that address the distinct needs of different population groups.

(3) Empirical Contributions to Wuhan and Broader Contexts. We have reinforced the relevance of this study to Wuhan’s urban environment by expanding on how the findings reflect patterns observed in high-density megacities across China. The revisions highlight that while Wuhan excels in addressing safety and convenience, there is room for improvement in comfort and aesthetics, especially in aging communities. This section also draws attention to the broader applicability of the study’s findings, providing a framework that can be replicated in other developing urban areas.

(4) Broader Contributions to the Field. The discussion now explicitly details how the study contributes to three critical areas of urban research: Refining Hierarchical Perception Models – Establishing the cascading influence of perceptions on residential satisfaction. Expanding Research in Developing Countries – Focusing on community-scale perceptions in high-density urban environments. Promoting Demographic-Sensitive Planning – Integrating age and gender considerations into urban design and policy.

The corresponding revisions can be found in lines 522-624 of the manuscript.

We believe these revisions provide a clearer articulation of the study’s significance and contributions, addressing your concerns and enhancing the overall depth of the paper. Thank you again for your insightful feedback, which has greatly improved the quality and clarity of our work.

Comment 4

What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

Further information about significance of gendered differences in perceptions about comfort via safety as a perception pathway, and impact pathway seem needed. The statistical analysis could include a significance value.

Line 306-316 Provide information about how questionnaires were distributed, completed, and collected.

Response 4

Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the methodology section. We appreciate your comments on the need to provide additional details about gendered differences in perception pathways, as well as the data collection process. In response, we have made the following changes:

Expanded Data Collection Description (Lines 348-362): We have clarified how the questionnaires were distributed and collected, providing more detail on the random roadside distribution method, target locations, and the validity rate of responses. This ensures greater transparency regarding participant selection and survey administration.

Significance of Gender and Age in Pathways (Lines 365-394): The structural equation modeling section now includes a more detailed explanation of multi-group analysis (MGA), emphasizing the significance of gender differences in perception pathways. Statistical significance values (p-values) have been explicitly mentioned to highlight the robustness of the results and the gender-specific differences in the influence of safety and convenience on satisfaction.

Statistical Significance and Model Validation: We have included the use of bootstrap resampling (2000 iterations) to strengthen the reliability of parameter estimates and outlined the model fit indices (RMSEA, CFI, TLI) to demonstrate the rigor of the analysis. This addition addresses the reviewer’s concern regarding the need for further statistical details in the analysis.

We trust that these revisions address your concerns and enhance the overall clarity and depth of the methodology section. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

Comment 5

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.

The conclusions are consistent with findings but further information from methods and methodologies are requested for the reason of ensuring the question is accurately answered.

A more in-depth explanation of methods and methodologies will improve the article, particularly if it is used as an information source for impact pathways to improve or maintain resident satisfaction. The difference between males and females perceived values for resident satisfaction, (comfort via safety and aesthetics) and having more in-depth explanation of significance of difference between males and females, as an example could improve how the article leads to urban planning for resident satisfaction, comfort, convenience, aesthetic appreciation and safety.

Response 5

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the need to expand the methodology and strengthen the conclusions with a focus on gender and age differences. In response to your comments:

Methodology Section (Lines 365-394): Expanded the description of multi-group SEM analysis to explain the inclusion of significance thresholds (p-values) and how gender and age subgroup analysis was conducted. This revision clarifies the nuanced role of demographic factors in shaping perception pathways.

Conclusion (Lines 625-680): Added more detail on gender and age differences in perception pathways, highlighting their implications for urban planning and policy development. We expanded the recommendations for gender-sensitive and age-responsive community planning, ensuring the study offers actionable insights for diverse urban populations.

We believe these revisions enhance the depth and clarity of the manuscript and align with your recommendations. Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback.

Comment 6

Figure 5 research district, provide further information about the chart in the title.

Table 5&6 could be labelled differently, table 6 specifically mention demographics.

Response 6

Thank you for your valuable feedback and suggestions regarding the clarity and specificity of figure and table titles in the manuscript. We appreciate your detailed review, which has helped enhance the precision of our presentation.

Figure 5 and Figure 6 Title Revision: The title for Figure 4 has been revised from the original “Research district” to “Geographic Distribution of Surveyed Communities in Wuchang District, Wuhan”. The title for Figure 5 has been revised from the original “Research district” to “Standardized Parameter Estimation Path”. This change more accurately reflects the content of the figure by highlighting the focus on parameter estimates derived from the structural equation model. This revised title ensures greater clarity and relevance to the presented data.

Table 5 and Table 6 Title Revisions: Table 5 has been renamed from “The test result of path relationship” to “Path Analysis Results of Resident Perception and Satisfaction Pathways”. This updated title explicitly conveys the core focus of the table, which details the path analysis outcomes linking various perception dimensions to residential satisfaction. Table 6 has been updated to “Multi-group Path Analysis Results by Gender and Age” to clearly indicate the demographic focus of the analysis, aligning with the table content that explores differences in path coefficients across gender and age groups.

Addition of Demographic Labels: In Table 6, a new row titled “Gender” and “Age” has been added to enhance readability and ensure that the demographic segmentation is clearly distinguished. This adjustment aligns the table structure with the revised title and improves the clarity of subgroup comparisons.

We believe these modifications will enhance the accessibility and interpretability of the figures and tables, providing clearer insight into the research findings. Thank you again for your thoughtful comments, which have contributed to refining the presentation of our work.

 

Thank you again for your valuable feedback and for helping to enhance this manuscript.

Best regards,

Hong Mengyao

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper investigates the relationships between residents' perceptions (safety, convenience, comfort, and aesthetics) and residential satisfaction in Wuhan, China, considering demographic differences. It makes a significant contribution by constructing a comprehensive perception framework and analyzing the differential effects. However, there are areas that need improvement.

1. The manuscript inconsistently uses ‘Residential Satisfaction’ , ‘Resident's satisfaction’ and ‘Life satisfaction’ . It is necessary to clarify whether there is a semantic or conceptual difference between these terms. If they are intended to convey the same meaning, it would be advisable to standardize the usage throughout the paper for the sake of clarity and consistency.

2. This article mentions that resident satisfaction encompasses satisfaction in three aspects: Facility Satisfaction, Spatial Satisfaction, and Social Satisfaction. What exactly does the satisfaction in these three aspects refer to? Is it the satisfaction with the living environment? It is suggested that the research object be further clarified. In addition, it is recommended to modify the title to clearly express what residents are satisfied with.

3. The study investigates the impact of residents' perceptions on satisfaction, but it is questionable whether the mentioned perceptions are comprehensive enough to cover all possible aspects.

4.In the section ‘3. Theoretical framework and research hypothesis’, Hypothesis H2 should be more explicit about the expected directions of the chain mediating effects. Predicting whether the effects are positive or negative based on the theoretical underpinnings would strengthen its testability. Additionally, this study mentions three demographic variables, namely Gender, Age, and Family structure, as influencing factors. However, existing research has pointed out that in addition to these three, there are many other factors that can affect residents' satisfaction, such as income level, sense of community belonging, etc. It is recommended that the authors supplement and explain the reasons for choosing only these three as demographic variables.

5.In the section ‘4.1 Research area’, more detailed geographical information of Wuchang District could be provided, along with an explanation of why other areas of Wuhan were not selected. This would assist readers in understanding the rationale behind the choice of the research area. 

6. In the section 4.2: The interpretation of the indicator ‘aesthetics perception’ lacks reference basis. Additionally, a more in-depth discussion on the reliability and validity of the indicators is warranted to ensure the accuracy of the measurements.

7.In the section 4.3: Supplementary information on the sampling procedure is needed. This includes details on efforts to ensure the representativeness of different neighborhoods within Wuchang District.

8. In the section ‘7.Conclusion’: The content is too redundant. It is recommended that one paragraph be used to summarize the main findings of this paper, one paragraph to summarize the implications of this paper, and one paragraph to describe the research limitations and future work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I sincerely appreciate your thorough review of my manuscript (land-3387560) entitled “Demographic Differences in Residents’ Perceptions and Resi-dential Satisfaction: The case of Wuhan, China” Your insightful comments and constructive suggestions have been instrumental in improving the quality of this work.

In the following sections, I provide a detailed response to each of your comments. I have carefully revised the manuscript according to your suggestions, and I hope that these changes address all of your concerns.

 

Comment 1

The manuscript inconsistently uses ‘Residential Satisfaction ’‘ Resident's satisfaction’ and ‘Life satisfaction’ . It is necessary to clarify whether there is a semantic or conceptual difference between these terms. If they are intended to convey the same meaning, it would be advisable to standardize the usage throughout the paper for the sake of clarity and consistency.

Response 1

 Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the terminology used in the manuscript, particularly the distinction between 'residents' perception' and 'residential perception,' as well as the consistency of key terms throughout the paper.

After careful consideration, we have revised the title to:

“Exploring the Relationship Between Residential Perceptions and Satisfaction: A Demographic Analysis in Wuhan, China.”

The decision to adopt 'residential perception' instead of 'residents' perception' aligns with our standardization of 'Residential Satisfaction' as the primary term used throughout the manuscript. This change reflects the following considerations: (1)Conceptual Precision. The term 'residential perception' better encapsulates the focus on perceptions related to the residential environment, as opposed to individual or subjective viewpoints that may extend beyond the scope of housing and community factors. This ensures that the study consistently addresses perceptions linked to living conditions, community infrastructure, and spatial factors that contribute to residential satisfaction. (2)Terminological Consistency. By using 'residential perception' in the title and throughout the paper, we maintain coherence in the language describing key variables. This strengthens the clarity of the research framework and reinforces the connection between residents' evaluations of their living environment and their overall satisfaction. (3)Avoiding Redundancy. The revised title eliminates the repetition of 'residential,' resulting in a more concise and streamlined presentation of the research focus while preserving the core emphasis on demographic differences and the relationship between perceptions and satisfaction.

We believe that this revision enhances the clarity, precision, and readability of the manuscript, ensuring consistency across all sections. Thank you once again for your valuable suggestion, which has contributed to refining the overall quality of the paper.

Comment 2

This article mentions that resident satisfaction encompasses satisfaction in three aspects: Facility Satisfaction, Spatial Satisfaction, and Social Satisfaction. What exactly does the satisfaction in these three aspects refer to? Is it the satisfaction with the living environment? It is suggested that the research object be further clarified. In addition, it is recommended to modify the title to clearly express what residents are satisfied with.

Response 2

Thank you for your insightful comments and for highlighting the need to clarify the three dimensions of satisfaction—Facility Satisfaction, Spatial Satisfaction, and Social Satisfaction—and their relationship to the overall concept of residential satisfaction. Clarification of Satisfaction Aspects: In response to your query, we would like to clarify that Facility Satisfaction, Spatial Satisfaction, and Social Satisfaction are indeed integral components of overall residential satisfaction. They collectively reflect different facets of the living environment and contribute to residents' holistic assessment of their residential experience. Facility Satisfaction refers to the adequacy and quality of physical infrastructure and amenities, such as public service facilities, utilities, and recreational spaces. Spatial Satisfaction reflects satisfaction with the spatial layout, design, and accessibility of residential areas, including green spaces, transportation links, and architectural aesthetics. Social Satisfaction pertains to the social environment and community engagement, focusing on interpersonal relationships, community events, and a sense of belonging. These three aspects form a comprehensive framework that captures how residents perceive and interact with their residential environment. Together, they provide a more nuanced and detailed measurement of overall residential satisfaction. To reflect this clarification and ensure that the scope of the study is transparent, we have revised the title to: "Exploring the Relationship Between Residential Perceptions and Living Environment Satisfaction: A Demographic Analysis in Wuhan, China." This revision emphasizes that the focus of the study is on satisfaction with the living environment, which encompasses facility, spatial, and social dimensions, ensuring clarity for readers. We appreciate your suggestion to enhance the precision and consistency of the manuscript, and we believe these revisions address the concern effectively. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Comment 3

The study investigates the impact of residents' perceptions on satisfaction, but it is questionable whether the mentioned perceptions are comprehensive enough to cover all possible aspects.

Response 3

Thank you for your valuable feedback and for raising the question regarding the comprehensiveness of the perceptions investigated in this study. We acknowledge that the perceptions examined—safety, convenience, comfort, and aesthetics—may not encompass all possible factors that influence residential satisfaction. However, the focus of this study is to apply and test the Homo-urbanicus theoretical framework in a practical urban context. This framework emphasizes core perceptual dimensions that are closely tied to residents' interactions with their living environment, reflecting essential needs and experiences in urban residential settings. By grounding the study in this theoretical perspective, we aim to provide a structured and practical approach to understanding residential satisfaction, rather than creating an exhaustive list of all possible perceptions. We believe that focusing on these key dimensions allows for a meaningful exploration of the hierarchical and interactive pathways through which perceptions shape satisfaction. We appreciate your thoughtful comment, and we will make sure to clearly state this focus and limitation in the discussion section to ensure the scope and intent of the study are transparent to readers. Thank you again for your insightful feedback, which has contributed to refining the clarity and direction of our work.

Comment 4

In the section ‘3. Theoretical framework and research hypothesis’, Hypothesis H2 should be more explicit about the expected directions of the chain mediating effects. Predicting whether the effects are positive or negative based on the theoretical underpinnings would strengthen its testability. Additionally, this study mentions three demographic variables, namely Gender, Age, and Family structure, as influencing factors. However, existing research has pointed out that in addition to these three, there are many other factors that can affect residents' satisfaction, such as income level, sense of community belonging, etc. It is recommended that the authors supplement and explain the reasons for choosing only t hese three as demographic variables.

Response 4

Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the need for greater clarity in Hypothesis H2 and the rationale for selecting specific demographic variables.

1. Clarifying Hypothesis H2 (Chain Mediating Effects and Directions)

 We acknowledge the importance of clearly specifying the expected direction of the chain mediating effects in Hypothesis H2 to enhance its testability. The underlying theoretical framework, rooted in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Homo-urbanicus theory, posits a progressive, positive pathway from lower-level perceptions (safety and convenience) to higher-order perceptions (comfort and aesthetics). This aligns with the notion that foundational physical and safety needs must first be met before individuals can appreciate higher-level environmental and aesthetic qualities.To address this, we have revised the hypothesis to explicitly state the anticipated positive directional effects along the pathway: H2: Perceptions of safety, convenience, comfort, and aesthetics have a positive chain mediating effect in the pathway influencing satisfaction. This pathway follows the direction of safety → convenience → comfort → aesthetics → residential satisfaction.

We believe that this revision enhances the clarity and precision of the hypothesis, ensuring that the theoretical expectations are transparent and empirically testable.

2. Rationale for Selecting Age, Gender, and Family Structure as Demographic Variables

Regarding the choice of demographic variables, we appreciate your suggestion to elaborate on the reasons for focusing on gender, age, and family structure while excluding other factors such as income level or sense of community belonging. Our selection is based on the conceptual framework of Homo-urbanicus theory, which differentiates between fundamental attributes and incidental attributes: Fundamental Attributes – These include age, gender, and life stage (family structure), representing intrinsic, universal characteristics that all individuals possess, regardless of socio-economic status or cultural background. Incidental Attributes – Factors such as income, education, or employment are shaped by societal contexts and may vary significantly across time and space. By focusing on fundamental attributes, this study aims to explore demographic differences that are more universally applicable and stable over time. This approach aligns with the people-oriented planning philosophy, ensuring that urban design and policy interventions are guided by attributes inherent to all individuals rather than socio-economic factors that may reinforce inequalities. We acknowledge the value of incidental attributes like income and community belonging and recognize their importance in future studies. However, the scope of this research prioritizes fundamental characteristics to provide broad and inclusive urban planning insights. This rationale has been added to the theoretical framework section to clearly justify our approach and align it with the core objectives of the study.

Comment 5

In the section ‘4.1 Research area’, more detailed geographical information of Wuchang District could be provided, along with an explanation of why other areas of Wuhan were not selected. This would assist readers in understanding the rationale behind the choice of the research area.

Response 5:

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback regarding Section 4.1 "Research Area." We appreciate your suggestion to provide more detailed geographical information about Wuchang District and to clarify the rationale behind the selection of this area over other parts of Wuhan.

In response, we have revised Section 4.1 to include:

Expanded Geographical Context: We have elaborated on Wuhan’s status as a megacity and Wuchang’s unique position as one of the three main urban districts, highlighting its significance in terms of historical, educational, and technological functions. This context helps to establish why Wuchang is particularly suited for studying residential satisfaction.

Justification for Choosing Wuchang: The revision explains that Wuchang’s diverse residential environments—ranging from older neighborhoods to modern developments—offer a comprehensive representation of different residential forms. This diversity makes Wuchang an ideal location for analyzing how various perceptions influence satisfaction.

Practical Considerations: We have also emphasized the practical aspects of selecting Wuchang, such as accessibility and efficient data collection, ensuring higher response rates during the survey process.

We believe these revisions provide a clearer and more compelling rationale for the selection of the research area, aligning with the objectives of the study. Thank you again for your valuable input, which has helped improve the clarity and depth of the manuscript.

Comment 6

In the section 4.2: The interpretation of the indicator ‘aesthetics perception’ lacks reference basis. Additionally, a more in-depth discussion on the reliability and validity of the indicators is warranted to ensure the accuracy of the measurements.

Response 6

Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the interpretation of aesthetics perception and the need to enhance the discussion of indicator reliability and validity. In response, we have revised Section 4.2 to:

(1) Clarify the Theoretical Basis. We expanded the explanation of aesthetics perception by referencing existing literature that supports the influence of spatial design, cultural elements, and landscape aesthetics on residential satisfaction. This highlights the novelty and significance of including aesthetics as a higher-order perception.

(2) Strengthen Measurement Validity. A more detailed account of the reliability and validity tests (including Cronbach’s α and AVE values) has been incorporated to demonstrate the robustness of the indicators and validate their role in the evaluation system.

We believe that these revisions address the reviewer’s concerns and reinforce the conceptual and methodological rigor of the paper. Thank you again for your valuable insights, which have contributed to enhancing the clarity and depth of the manuscript.

Comment 7

In the section 4.3: Supplementary information on the sampling procedure is needed. This includes details on efforts to ensure the representativeness of different neighborhoods within Wuchang District.

Response 7:

Thank you for your additional comment regarding the need for supplementary information on the sampling procedure in Section 4.3. We would like to inform you that the points raised in this comment were previously addressed in response to Comment 4 (Section 1.4). In that section, we expanded on the data collection process, including details on the random roadside distribution method, target locations, and efforts to ensure a representative sample across different neighborhoods within Wuchang District. We trust that this previous revision sufficiently addresses the concerns regarding sampling representativeness. Thank you again for your thorough review and helpful suggestions. We appreciate your attention to detail and remain committed to ensuring the clarity and completeness of the manuscript.

Comment 8

In the section ‘7.Conclusion’: The content is too redundant. It is recommended that one paragraph be used to summarize the main findings of this paper, one paragraph to summarize the implications of this paper, and one paragraph to describe the research limitations and future work.

Response 8

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the structure of the conclusion section. We appreciate your suggestion to streamline the conclusion by summarizing the main findings, implications, and limitations in separate paragraphs. However, following feedback from a previous reviewer, the conclusion was intentionally expanded and structured to enhance clarity, coherence, and depth. The current format is designed to: (1)Systematically Present Key Findings. By outlining the hierarchical structure of perceptions, demographic variations, and urban environmental evaluations, the conclusion ensures that each aspect of the study is clearly articulated and directly tied to the core objectives. (2)Highlight Practical Implications. Specific insights into urban planning, gender-sensitive policies, and demographic-responsive community development are woven into the main findings to emphasize the broader applications of the study. (3)Address Policy and Future Directions. The conclusion discusses areas for improvement, particularly in terms of social satisfaction, inclusivity, and planning for vulnerable groups, which serves to bridge the gap between theoretical contributions and real-world urban policy recommendations. We believe that the current format effectively balances academic rigor with practical insights and provides a structured narrative that enhances readability and comprehension. While we acknowledge the value of a more concise structure, this expanded conclusion offers a comprehensive synthesis of the study's contributions without unnecessary redundancy.

That said, we remain open to further refining the section if additional clarification or reorganization is deemed necessary. Thank you once again for your thoughtful review and constructive feedback, which has contributed to strengthening the overall quality of the manuscript.

 

Thank you again for your valuable feedback and for helping to enhance this manuscript.

Best regards,

Hong Mengyao

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has addressed all the comments.