Obesity–Housing Nexus: An Integrative Conceptualization of the Impact of Housing and Built Environment on Obesity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed your work and i found that the work is very good, but there are a few areas, where you need to make some improvements.
General comments: 1) In general to need to reduce the redundancy from your paper. Some of the paragraphs are too long, it would be prudent to add some visuals or table etc for better presentation of your study. I would suggest you to add some conceptual framework of obesity with the urbanization and housing.
2) Citations (e.g., [13], [14], [15]) appear repeatedly in adjacent sentences.

3) The term obesity-housing nexus needs a proper definition. You need to define and also needs to present the relationship of housing environment with the conceptual framework, like how does a housing envirnoment affects the obesity OR a flow diagram could be a better illustration.

4) All together the paper is very lengthy

Author Response

I have reviewed your work and i found that the work is very good, but there are a few areas, where you need to make some improvements.

Response: Thank you for your positive note, insightful comments, and most importantly, for taking the time to review our work. We have revised our manuscript accordingly, in line with your valuable feedback.

 

General comments:

1) In general to need to reduce the redundancy from your paper. Some of the paragraphs are too long, it would be prudent to add some visuals or table etc for better presentation of your study. I would suggest you to add some conceptual framework of obesity with the urbanization and housing.

Response: Thank you for the feedback. We agree with the comment and have significantly revised some sections to provide cohesive information for readability, as well as included Figure 1 (Page 3) to visually illustrate the flow diagram as advised.

 

2) Citations (e.g., [13], [14], [15]) appear repeatedly in adjacent sentences.

Response: The citation has been corrected.

 

3) The term obesity-housing nexus needs a proper definition. You need to define and also needs to present the relationship of housing environment with the conceptual framework, like how does a housing envirnoment affects the obesity OR a flow diagram could be a better illustration.

Response: Thank you for the feedback. We agree with the comment and have significantly revised Section 2 (Page 2) to provide greater depth on the definition, as well as included Figure 1 (Page 3) to visually illustrate the flow diagram as advised.

 

4) All together the paper is very lengthy

Response: We acknowledge the comment regarding the length of the paper. However, given the nature of the review, particularly the need to contextualise and conceptualise the obesity–housing nexus, we have made efforts to keep the manuscript as succinct as possible. That said, in response to suggestions and required additions from other reviewers, the overall length has remained largely unchanged. Nevertheless, if the reviewer strongly believes that certain sections should be trimmed, we would be happy to consider this in the next revision.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript offers a comprehensive and timely review of the relationships between housing and obesity, conceptualizing an "obesity-housing nexus" that connects built environments with obesity-related behaviors and outcomes. It is relevant, well-structured, and rooted in a growing body of interdisciplinary literature. The manuscript’s strength lies in its conceptual framing and attempt to organize disparate findings under a coherent theme.

I have some minor suggestions:

1) Since this is a narrative review, a brief methodological description (e.g., search strategy, inclusion criteria, databases used) would lend credibility and transparency.

Currently, the paper lacks this methodological clarity, which may limit its scientific rigor for readers expecting a systematic or scoping review format. Therefore, include a methods section, even if brief, outlining how the literature was selected and synthesized.

2) Add a discussion section in which you critically analyze your findings, discussing also on policy implications or future research with some related recommendations.

Author Response

This manuscript offers a comprehensive and timely review of the relationships between housing and obesity, conceptualizing an "obesity-housing nexus" that connects built environments with obesity-related behaviors and outcomes. It is relevant, well-structured, and rooted in a growing body of interdisciplinary literature. The manuscript’s strength lies in its conceptual framing and attempt to organize disparate findings under a coherent theme.

Response: Thank you for your positive note, insightful comments, and most importantly, for taking the time to review our work. We have revised our manuscript accordingly, in line with your valuable feedback.

 

I have some minor suggestions:

1) Since this is a narrative review, a brief methodological description (e.g., search strategy, inclusion criteria, databases used) would lend credibility and transparency.

Currently, the paper lacks this methodological clarity, which may limit its scientific rigor for readers expecting a systematic or scoping review format. Therefore, include a methods section, even if brief, outlining how the literature was selected and synthesized.

Response: Thank you for the feedback. We agree with the comment regarding the need for a brief methods section. Based on the suggestion, we have added Section 3. Methods. Please refer Page 3.

 

2) Add a discussion section in which you critically analyze your findings, discussing also on policy implications or future research with some related recommendations.

Response: Thank you for the feedback. We agree with the comment regarding the need for a policy implication and future research section. Based on the suggestion, we have added Section 6. Policy Implications and Future Directions. Please refer Page 10 and 11.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article addresses a highly relevant issue in the current public health context: the relationship between obesity and the built environment. It is undoubtedly an interesting topic, as most obesity studies focus on individual factors such as diet or physical inactivity, without sufficiently considering how the design and conditions of the physical environment influence these behaviors.

The article is solidly grounded in a broad and updated literature review, which provides strong theoretical rigor and positions it as a valuable contribution to interdisciplinary studies linking public health, architecture, and urban planning.

I suggest the authors consider the following:

Definition of the Study's Objective (Lines 69–71):

The objective, while correct, could be reformulated to be more concrete, specific, and clearly delineated, especially given the complexity of the topic. For instance, they might clarify whether it is intended to be a theoretical analysis or a literature review.

Although the article mentions key elements of architectural design, these aspects are not explored in sufficient depth (in my opinion, because the existing scientific literature has this limitation). This gap is also reflected in the conclusions, which are general and do not clearly identify the specific implications for urban or housing design. I suggest the authors:

Justify why the spatial design was not addressed in greater detail and include this as an explicit limitation of the study, which would strengthen the methodological and conceptual transparency of the article.

I also suggest that the authors review the section numbering: There are errors in the numbering of headings (for example, the section on line 82 and the section on line 170 share the same number). It is recommended to review and correct this to improve structural clarity.

The article is an interesting contribution that highlights the importance of incorporating health criteria into urban policy design. Although the analysis of housing presents certain limitations due to the broad nature of the approach and the lack of depth in specific spatial aspects, the paper provides a valuable general perspective that can serve as a basis for more detailed or empirical future research.

In conclusion, I recommend the publication of the article, subject to the incorporation of the suggestions mentioned.

 

Author Response

This article addresses a highly relevant issue in the current public health context: the relationship between obesity and the built environment. It is undoubtedly an interesting topic, as most obesity studies focus on individual factors such as diet or physical inactivity, without sufficiently considering how the design and conditions of the physical environment influence these behaviors.The article is solidly grounded in a broad and updated literature review, which provides strong theoretical rigor and positions it as a valuable contribution to interdisciplinary studies linking public health, architecture, and urban planning.

Response: Thank you for your positive note, insightful comments, and most importantly, for taking the time to review our work. We have revised our manuscript accordingly, in line with your valuable feedback.

 

I suggest the authors consider the following:

Definition of the Study's Objective (Lines 69–71):

Response: As per the suggestion, the objective has been revised to provide greater depth and clarity. Please refer Page 2.

 

The objective, while correct, could be reformulated to be more concrete, specific, and clearly delineated, especially given the complexity of the topic. For instance, they might clarify whether it is intended to be a theoretical analysis or a literature review.

Response: Thank you for the feedback. As suggested, we have now clarified the objective of the paper to make it more concrete and specific. Please refer Page 2. Additionally, we have included a brief Methods section that outlines the intended methodology, explicitly identifying the work as a narrative literature review. Please refer Page 3. This addition enhances the transparency and clarity of the paper’s approach and scope, and better reflects the aim of conceptually synthesizing the existing literature on the relationship between housing and obesity.

 

Although the article mentions key elements of architectural design, these aspects are not explored in sufficient depth (in my opinion, because the existing scientific literature has this limitation). This gap is also reflected in the conclusions, which are general and do not clearly identify the specific implications for urban or housing design. I suggest the authors:

Justify why the spatial design was not addressed in greater detail and include this as an explicit limitation of the study, which would strengthen the methodological and conceptual transparency of the article.

Response: We thank the reviewer’s thoughtful observation regarding the limited exploration of specific architectural and spatial design elements in our manuscript. We fully agree that such detail would enrich the discussion and provide more targeted implications for urban and housing design. However, as rightly noted, this limitation largely stems from the current state of the published literature, which tends to address housing design in broader terms (e.g., presence of outdoor spaces or communal facilities), rather than offering detailed analyses of internal spatial configurations, circulation patterns, or architectural typologies. We have now acknowledged this as a limitation in Section 5.2. Please refer Page 7.

 

I also suggest that the authors review the section numbering: There are errors in the numbering of headings (for example, the section on line 82 and the section on line 170 share the same number). It is recommended to review and correct this to improve structural clarity.

Response: Thank you for the feedback. The numbering of the section has been corrected.

 

The article is an interesting contribution that highlights the importance of incorporating health criteria into urban policy design. Although the analysis of housing presents certain limitations due to the broad nature of the approach and the lack of depth in specific spatial aspects, the paper provides a valuable general perspective that can serve as a basis for more detailed or empirical future research.

Response: Thank you for your positive note and feedback.

 

In conclusion, I recommend the publication of the article, subject to the incorporation of the suggestions mentioned.

Response: Thank you for your positive note and feedback. We have made the changes as per your suggestion and believe that these revisions have significantly improved the manuscript compared to the initial submission.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review article is devoted to the current problem of obesity and analyzes the influence of housing characteristics, social environment and urban infrastructure in the context of a sufficient level of physical activity of psychosocial factors. The article is important and interesting.
My comments:
1. The article has an error in the numbering of sections (Section 3 on line 82 and again Section 3 on line 170). It needs to be corrected.
2. At the end of Section 3 and Section 3(4) it is necessary to make a final paragraph/conclusion, briefly summarizing the results of the conducted research.
3. The Conclusion Section itself needs to be rewritten. Now it is written in the style of a political/election speech. It is necessary to summarize the results of the conducted literature analysis in this Section. It is necessary to place in this Section either a final table with the results or a final diagram/figure.

Author Response

The review article is devoted to the current problem of obesity and analyzes the influence of housing characteristics, social environment and urban infrastructure in the context of a sufficient level of physical activity of psychosocial factors. The article is important and interesting.

Response: Thank you for your positive note, insightful comments, and most importantly, for taking the time to review our work. We have revised our manuscript accordingly, in line with your valuable feedback.

My comments:
1. The article has an error in the numbering of sections (Section 3 on line 82 and again Section 3 on line 170). It needs to be corrected.

Response: Thank you for the feedback. The numbering of the sections has been corrected.

2. At the end of Section 3 and Section 3(4) it is necessary to make a final paragraph/conclusion, briefly summarizing the results of the conducted research.

Response: Thank you for the feedback. We agree with the comment and have added a connecting paragraph between the now-renumbered Sections 4 and 5 (previously Sections 3 and 4), as per the suggestion. Please refer Page 5.

3. The Conclusion Section itself needs to be rewritten. Now it is written in the style of a political/election speech. It is necessary to summarize the results of the conducted literature analysis in this Section. It is necessary to place in this Section either a final table with the results or a final diagram/figure.

Response: Thank you for the feedback. We have rewritten the conclusion section as per feedback. Please refer Page 11-12. A table as well as figure also has been added in the manuscript. Please refer Page 6 and Page 3.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for sending the revised version. I really appreciate that you added the conceptual framework, and this conceptual framework is self-explanatory. I also like the methdology, which you have written. I think that must be suggested by another reviewer. Presentation of six domains of obesity-housing-nexus in the tabular form is also creating the reader interest.

I suggested you to decrease the length of your review. There are a lot of redundancy and repetition, and I suggested you last time to reduce the length of your manuscript. However, it has not yet reduce. I as a reviewer never mean to disturb author, our intention is to publish best quality work. This paper is currently very lengthy, and if the paper is lengthy and text seems repetitive then the reader loose their interest. Furthermore, if the reader loose interest, then he will not cite your contribution. 

I hope you will understand from this perspective. Again requesting to reduce the redudancy. I could not write each and every line. Hint: . The Gap in the Relative Importance of Individual versus Environmental Factors. 

The policy implication and future direction part is nicely written. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for sending the revised version. I really appreciate that you added the conceptual framework, and this conceptual framework is self-explanatory. I also like the methdology, which you have written. I think that must be suggested by another reviewer. Presentation of six domains of obesity-housing-nexus in the tabular form is also creating the reader interest.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewers for their thoughtful feedback and constructive suggestions. Post your comments, the quality of the manuscript has indeed improved, and so has its readability. Below, we provide a point-by-point response.

 

I suggested you to decrease the length of your review. There are a lot of redundancy and repetition, and I suggested you last time to reduce the length of your manuscript. However, it has not yet reduce. I as a reviewer never mean to disturb author, our intention is to publish best quality work. This paper is currently very lengthy, and if the paper is lengthy and text seems repetitive then the reader loose their interest. Furthermore, if the reader loose interest, then he will not cite your contribution.  I hope you will understand from this perspective. Again requesting to reduce the redudancy. I could not write each and every line. Hint: . The Gap in the Relative Importance of Individual versus Environmental Factors. 

Response: Thank you for your feedback, and we fully agree with your comments. We acknowledge that the manuscript is relatively lengthy due to the comprehensive coverage of the obesity-housing nexus and the inclusion of multiple domains to ensure a thorough discussion. Following your suggestions, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript to remove redundancy and repetition. Sections with overlapping content have been consolidated, and the discussion on “The Gap in the Relative Importance of Individual versus Environmental Factors” has been streamlined, reducing its length from 1,100 words to 780 words. Overall, following your suggestions, we have consolidated sections throughout the manuscript, reducing the total word count by over 600 words. Thank you for your comments as this has resulted in a more concise and focused manuscript while preserving the critical content and contributions.

The policy implication and future direction part is nicely written. 

Response: Thank you for acknowledging these sections. We have ensured that these parts remain intact while reducing redundancy elsewhere in the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,
The authors have corrected the article according to all my comments. I have no more comments. The article is interesting and important. The article is worthy of publication.

Author Response

The authors have corrected the article according to all my comments. I have no more comments. The article is interesting and important. The article is worthy of publication.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful feedback and constructive suggestions and time spent on reviewing our manuscript.