“15-Minute City” and Elderly People: Thinking about Healthy Cities
, Juan Correa-Parra 1,*, Francisco Vergara-Perucich 1, Francisca Cancino-Contreras 2 and Carlos Aguirre-Nuñez 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I really like the title of the manuscript. It is very interesting, eye-catching, and encourages you to keep reading.
The abstract needs some refinement. It is written quite chaotic. I recommend that the authors make a short introduction to the abstract and provide what the purpose of the manuscript is, what methodology was used, when the research was carried out, and what results were achieved.
Introduction. This section needs elaboration. In the introduction, the authors should refer to the topic and justify its importance based on the results of research in the available literature. This section also lacks information on what is novelty in the work and what gap the work fills.
I recommend creating an additional "literature review" section in the manuscript. The lack of a systematic review of the literature is a weakness of the work. I recommend that the authors develop the issue of the 15-minute city, which is extremely interesting and is the value of the work. The work lacks a discussion section. Methodology is a strong point of the work. The authors described it in an interesting way and presented the results using figures and tables.
Author Response
To the Editors of MDPI Smart Cities.
To whom may it concern,
Please find attached the new version of the manuscript entitled, “15-minute city and elderly people: thinking about healthy cities.” After the round of major revisions suggested by the reviewers. We have responded to each of the comments and have attached the respective details.
Reviewer 1
I really like the title of the manuscript. It is very interesting, eye-catching, and encourages you to keep reading.
R: Thank you very for your comments and suggestions, we’ve improved great part of the article, especially the introduction and theoretical framework based on your suggestions.
- The abstract needs some refinement. It is written quite chaotic. I recommend that the authors make a short introduction to the abstract and provide what the purpose of the manuscript is, what methodology was used, when the research was carried out, and what results were achieved.
R: We have corrected the abstract based on your suggestions.
- Introduction. This section needs elaboration. In the introduction, the authors should refer to the topic and justify its importance based on the results of research in the available literature. This section also lacks information on what is novelty in the work and what gap the work fills.
R: In relation to the recommendation, the authors took into consideration the structure and information provided in the introduction. In it, a greater approximation was made towards the reality of aging in Chile and how the thought of the city in 15 minutes helps towards the formation of healthy spaces for the elderly population.
- I recommend creating an additional "literature review" section in the manuscript. The lack of a systematic review of the literature is a weakness of the work. I recommend that the authors develop the issue of the 15-minute city, which is extremely interesting and is the value of the work. The work lacks a discussion section. Methodology is a strong point of the work. The authors described it in an interesting way and presented the results using figures and tables.
R: In relation to the recommendation, the authors have incorporated two new chapters with a deep reflection on the central concepts of this article, creating a sort of theoretical framework that we believe strengthens our study.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper investigates the feasibility and relevance of implementing the 15-minute city model to transform Santiago de Chile into a more age-friendly city. It describes the development and results of a multivariate geostatistical study aimed to assess the coverage and accessibility of a number of fundamental facilities, mainly from a walkability perspective integrated with reference to income levels, and different localization of age and income groups within the metropolitan municipalities (in fact, these two last aspects are not fully developed and could provide interesting outcomes - perhaps a reference to this as further research fields could be done in the conclusions?).
However, the assumption of some city models and approaches (15-minute city, age-friendly cities, healthy cities) is not fully developed, as well as a critical evaluation of their applicability to the specific context and lifestyles in Santiago de Cile. Moreover, the method, surveys, and data are not fully explained.
Hereafter, some suggestions are provided to help fill in these gaps.
Introduction. I suggest the authors review the structure and the contents of this paragraph. I.e., it could be divided into:
- a real Introduction (describing the context and current policies, the relevance of the issue and its novelty, and the overall structure of the paper). The sentences from line 310 to line 321 could be moved here.
- a better explanation of the State of the art, both in general and critical terms (lessons and criticalities of the 15-minute, age-friendly, and healthy cities models), in order to show the challenges of their application to the specific case study. Moreover, is the 15 minute parameter really fitting when we talk about both walkability and accessibility by means of public transportation? Healthy cities also refer to the performance of different movement practices, not only walking...
Materials and Methods. Some aspects are not fully developed, and must be attentively addressed.
Specifically:
- the choice of the set of facilities being of interest to the older adult population is not fully explained. Are they the result of previous research? Please provide a short explanation before their description at p. 5.
- at p. 6, better explain how the accessibility indicator and its degrees are defined (you cannot only refer to bibliography).
- the issue of walkable accessibility seems to be only measured on spatial distance and speed. However, the spatial conditions where accessibility occurs are not even mentioned (are there adequate pavements? Are there architectural barriers?). Moreover, older population may carry different capabilities and disabling conditions, which cannot be simply parametrized. At least, a reference to these aspects should be made (perhaps in the conclusions meant also as a discussion?). In fact, they make the study only a first step toward interventions for spatial upgrading and improvement of existing facilities.
- Another important issue refers to the quality and coverage of public transportation which is not properly addressed.
Results. Consistently with the previous suggestions, the proposal is to add some more critical aspects.
Conclusions. The suggestion is to add insights for critical discussion (i.e., reframing the issues stated in the Introduction and State of the Art). The aim of the paper is also to provide some inputs to rethink "the planning of this metropolis in the global south" (lines 332, 333). This sentence should be better explained and translated into critical advice. Which types of interventions (on spaces and facilities) are needed and where? Which further research activities should be developed.
References. When possible, provide the web address of the documents.
Author Response
To the Editors of MDPI Smart Cities.
To whom may it concern,
Please find attached the new version of the manuscript entitled, “15-minute city and elderly people: thinking about healthy cities.” After the round of major revisions suggested by the reviewers. We have responded to each of the comments and have attached the respective details.
Reviewer 2
- The paper investigates the feasibility and relevance of implementing the 15-minute city model to transform Santiago de Chile into a more age-friendly city. It describes the development and results of a multivariate geostatistical study aimed to assess the coverage and accessibility of a number of fundamental facilities, mainly from a walkability perspective integrated with reference to income levels, and different localization of age and income groups within the metropolitan municipalities (in fact, these two last aspects are not fully developed and could provide interesting outcomes - perhaps a reference to this as further research fields could be done in the conclusions?). However, the assumption of some city models and approaches (15-minute city, age-friendly cities, healthy cities) is not fully developed, as well as a critical evaluation of their applicability to the specific context and lifestyles in Santiago de Cile. Moreover, the method, surveys, and data are not fully explained.
R: Thank you very for your comments and suggestions, We’ve corrected great part of the article based on your suggestions and the reviewer 1.
- Introduction. I suggest the authors review the structure and the contents of this paragraph. I.e., it could be divided into:
- - a real Introduction (describing the context and current policies, the relevance of the issue and its novelty, and the overall structure of the paper). The sentences from line 310 to line 321 could be moved here.
- - a better explanation of the State of the art, both in general and critical terms (lessons and criticalities of the 15-minute, age-friendly, and healthy cities models), in order to show the challenges of their application to the specific case study. Moreover, is the 15 minute parameter really fitting when we talk about both walkability and accessibility by means of public transportation? Healthy cities also refer to the performance of different movement practices, not only walking...
R: In relation to the recommendation, the authors took into consideration the structure and information provided in the introduction. In it, a greater approximation was made towards the reality of aging in Chile and how the thought of the city in 15 minutes helps towards the formation of healthy spaces for the elderly population.
- Materials and Methods. Some aspects are not fully developed, and must be attentively addressed. Specifically:
- - the choice of the set of facilities being of interest to the older adult population is not fully explained. Are they the result of previous research? Please provide a short explanation before their description at p. 5.
R: We’ve explained and detailed it in more detail in the corresponding section.
- - at p. 6, better explain how the accessibility indicator and its degrees are defined (you cannot only refer to bibliography).
R: We’ve explained and detailed it in more detail in the corresponding section.
- - the issue of walkable accessibility seems to be only measured on spatial distance and speed. However, the spatial conditions where accessibility occurs are not even mentioned (are there adequate pavements? Are there architectural barriers?). Moreover, older population may carry different capabilities and disabling conditions, which cannot be simply parametrized. At least, a reference to these aspects should be made (perhaps in the conclusions meant also as a discussion?). In fact, they make the study only a first step toward interventions for spatial upgrading and improvement of existing facilities. - Another important issue refers to the quality and coverage of public transportation which is not properly addressed.
R: Thanks for this point, We’ve taken care to be more explicit on this point, as we know the importance of accessibility conditions, but unfortunately we do not have this type of information for the case study, therefore, we have incorporated it both in the methodology and in the conclusions.
- References. When possible, provide the web address of the documents.
R: Our apologies, We’ve completed and detailed the new references on the document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript looks much better. However, there are elements that require further refinement. I recommend that the authors refine "Abstract." There is a lack of substantive administration here—what is the purpose of the work, what methodology was carried out, and when? I will also suggest describing what is novel about the work and what gaps it fills.
Author Response
To the Editors of MDPI Smart Cities.
To whom may it concern,
Please find attached the new version of the manuscript entitled, “15-minute city and elderly people: thinking about healthy cities.” After the round of minor revisions suggested by the reviewers. We have responded to each of the comments and have attached the respective details.
Reviewer 1
The manuscript looks much better. However, there are elements that require further refinement. I recommend that the authors refine "Abstract." There is a lack of substantive administration here—what is the purpose of the work, what methodology was carried out, and when? I will also suggest describing what is novel about the work and what gaps it fills.
R: Thank you very much for your comments, we’ve tried to significantly improve the abstract, by incorporating your comments and ideas.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
