Street Usage Characteristics, Subjective Perception and Urban Form of Aging Group: A Case Study of Shanghai, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is dealing with very interesting issue, as human life lengthens and the issue of the quality of life of old people comes to the fore. From this point of view I consider the article as very interesting one and needed.

The authors chosed the Shanghai as the case study, better to say some parts of this metropolis - streets, districts without any explanation of using them in different parts of the methodology. The methodology itself seems too complicated to me, as the authors wanted to use all the analyzes and all the data they obtained. But sometimes is less more than a lot. And this is is my biggest criticism of the article.

The used methodology  is a combination of different methods without a clear explanation of the sense of their use.  It would be much more demonstrable if the authors pointed out at the beginning what exactly they wanted to find out from their research. This would just result in a choice of methods.

At the same time it disturbs me that the research is divided into 2 different groups of streets (table 1, table 5). The question is - how can they be comparable in the evaluation of results and proposed implementation.

The last part - Implementation into the practice is extremly short and does not reffer the previous very broad and detailed analyzes. However, to give a summary of this huge research could be very difficult, but I would like to see much more written about the main differences among three groups of older people (part 1) and much more detailed conclusions from the second part of the research.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer，

Many thanks for providing us with your instructive comments and suggestions on our initial manuscript, entitled Street Usage Characteristics, Subjective Perception and Urban Form of Aging Group: A Case Study of Shanghai, China. On 4^th Mar 2021, we received the email asking us to revise the manuscript. We have now revised the manuscript and addressed the queries and comments point by point. All revisions have been highlighted in the manuscript using Track Changes. Please find below our specific responses.

Point 1: The authors chosed the Shanghai as the case study, better to say some parts of this metropolis - streets, districts without any explanation of using them in different parts of the methodology. The methodology itself seems too complicated to me, as the authors wanted to use all the analyzes and all the data they obtained. But sometimes is less more than a lot. And this is is my biggest criticism of the article.

Response 1: We have simplified the combination of study methods. Some part of methods, such as interview, included in the last version of the manuscript is actually the result of our pre-research. With your advice, we have realized that these parts of the content had disrupted the overall logic of the research, so we deleted it to make the research more logical.

Point 2: The used methodology is a combination of different methods without a clear explanation of the sense of their use. It would be much more demonstrable if the authors pointed out at the beginning what exactly they wanted to find out from their research. This would just result in a choice of methods.

Response 2: We have greatly increased the explanation of research methods, especially the explanation of the matching between methods and research questions. In addition, we added the research flow chart to make it easier for readers to understand our overall study design, and what are the corresponding research objectives of each research method.

Point 3: At the same time it disturbs me that the research is divided into 2 different groups of streets (table 1, table 5). The question is - how can they be comparable in the evaluation of results and proposed implementation.

Response 3: We are sorry for the misunderstanding caused by our lack of clarity. We have strengthened the explanation of the relationship between the two groups of studies. The two groups of studies correspond to different research questions. The first group hopes to understand the general needs of the elderly through social surveys in eight administrative districts. The second group establishes the relationship between the specific street form and psychological perception through the social investigation of specific streets.

Point 4: The last part - Implementation into the practice is extremly short and does not reffer the previous very broad and detailed analyzes. However, to give a summary of this huge research could be very difficult, but I would like to see much more written about the main differences among three groups of older people (part 1) and much more detailed conclusions from the second part of the research.  

Response 4: We have reorganized the conclusion section. The section is extended following the structure of objectives of the paper, achieved results, theoretical implications, practical implications, limitations, future research. In addition, we have enriched the parts of theoretical implications and practical implications.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "Street Usage Characteristics, Subjective Perception and Urban Form of Aging Group: A Case Study of Shanghai, China"  selected Shanghai, China as the empirical object, and adopts the methods of interviews, questionnaires, and SD surveys to quantify the diverse demands of aging groups in China’s developed cities in terms of street space. However, it needs some points that need serious consideration.

1. The paper needs serious editing in terms of English and scientific writing style as some parts of the paper are misleading or have no logical order or flow due to lengthy sentences. The paper must go through a rigorous editing and proofreading process before resubmission.
2. The major limitation of the paper is that it lacks critical related work. The historical perspective should be discussed as well. The proposed study is not critically evaluated and compared to the related work/state-of-the-art and is not identified and discussed its drawbacks and limitations. Thus, it is not easy to assess the real contribution of the paper in the field and how much is efficient the proposed study compared to related works. A clear assessment of the contribution of the authors when compared to existing approaches should be given.
3. The paper lacks a discussion about the aim of the study, the primary objective, significance, and the comparison with the state of the art. 
4. The introduction is quite verbose and does not cover the motivation and the contribution of the work. It needs proper extensions.  It should state the motivation of the authors to conduct the present work and the way that it could be assistive to specific applications and systems.
5. The manuscript lacks a discussion about the study area. It is advised to add more details about the study area and add a map to visualize the study area. Moreover, it is advised to map the density of aging groups for better understanding.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer，

Many thanks for providing us with your instructive comments and suggestions on our initial manuscript, entitled Street Usage Characteristics, Subjective Perception and Urban Form of Aging Group: A Case Study of Shanghai, China. On 4^th Mar 2021, we received the email asking us to revise the manuscript. We have now revised the manuscript and addressed the queries and comments point by point. All revisions have been highlighted in the manuscript using Track Changes. Please find below our specific responses.

Point 1: The paper needs serious editing in terms of English and scientific writing style as some parts of the paper are misleading or have no logical order or flow due to lengthy sentences. The paper must go through a rigorous editing and proofreading process before resubmission.

Response 1: We have completely revised the English expression of the manuscript, and asked native English-speaking two colleagues to proofread and revise it at the same time.

Point 2: The major limitation of the paper is that it lacks critical related work. The historical perspective should be discussed as well. The proposed study is not critically evaluated and compared to the related work/state-of-the-art and is not identified and discussed its drawbacks and limitations. Thus, it is not easy to assess the real contribution of the paper in the field and how much is efficient the proposed study compared to related works. A clear assessment of the contribution of the authors when compared to existing approaches should be given.

Response 2: We have reorganized the literature review section. We sorted out the existing critical studies according to the time logic, and analyzed the shortcomings of the existing studies, so as to make our study’s contribution clearer.

Point 3: The paper lacks a discussion about the aim of the study, the primary objective, significance, and the comparison with the state of the art. 

Response 3: We have reorganized introduction section, to explain the research objectives, the comparison with the existing research, and the possible theoretical contribution and practical implication of the research more clearly. In addition, more detailed explanation is also strengthened in the conclusion section.

Point 4: The introduction is quite verbose and does not cover the motivation and the contribution of the work. It needs proper extensions. It should state the motivation of the authors to conduct the present work and the way that it could be assistive to specific applications and systems.

Response 4: We simplified part of content in introduction section, so that the manuscript can be more focused at the beginning. Our research motivation has been clarified, which comes from the actual needs of dealing with aging, China's policy background, and the supplement of existing research.

Point 5: The manuscript lacks a discussion about the study area. It is advised to add more details about the study area and add a map to visualize the study area. Moreover, it is advised to map the density of aging groups for better understanding.

Response 5: We have added an independent section in the methodology section to discuss the reasons for the choice of empirical objects. We also added a map of the study area, and hope to show more information in the map, to help readers understand our study design more intuitively.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

After reading the first version of your manuscript, I am still not fully persuaded that the article goes into detail enough to provide an added value to Sustainability readership.

This time, I will try to give my comments in a more clear version:

The author needs to restructure the abstract to highlight the main ideas from the paper's objectives, methods, main results, and novelties.

The author needs to clarify the new contribution of the research in the introduction. This part the author did too sketchy. It is necessary to clearly state the new and motivating points of the article.

What criteria will the review be based on, according to the author? Are you doing any threading research?

Methodology has not been discussed in detail in the study.

Which indicator would be the most relevant before doing the research?

The author needs a reason why to use case studies to highlight the contribution of the research.

Authors require classification charts based on their own contributions rather than those based on other research. To clarify the paper's overall contribution.

Finally, the authors should extend the conclusions following the following structure:

• Objectives of the paper
• Achieved results
• Theoretical implications
• Practical implications
• Limitations
• Future research

Kind regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer，

Many thanks for providing us with your instructive comments and suggestions on our initial manuscript, entitled Street Usage Characteristics, Subjective Perception and Urban Form of Aging Group: A Case Study of Shanghai, China. On 4^th Mar 2021, we received the email asking us to revise the manuscript. We have now revised the manuscript and addressed the queries and comments point by point. All revisions have been highlighted in the manuscript using Track Changes. Please find below our specific responses.

Point 1: The author needs to restructure the abstract to highlight the main ideas from the paper's objectives, methods, main results, and novelties.

Response 1: We have reorganized abstract following the structure of background, study aim, main method, results and contribution, to help readers easier to understand the core content and logic of the manuscript from the beginning.

Point 2: The author needs to clarify the new contribution of the research in the introduction. This part the author did too sketchy. It is necessary to clearly state the new and motivating points of the article.

Response 2: We have reorganized introduction section, to explain the research objectives, the comparison with the existing research, and the possible theoretical contribution and practical implication of the research more clearly.

Point 3: What criteria will the review be based on, according to the author? Are you doing any threading research? Which indicator would be the most relevant before doing the research?

Response 3: We have reorganized the literature review section. We sorted out the existing critical studies according to the time logic, and analyzed the shortcomings of the existing studies, so as to make our study’s contribution clearer.

Point 4: Methodology has not been discussed in detail in the study.

Response 4: We have greatly increased the explanation of research methods, especially the explanation of the matching between methods and research questions. In addition, We added the research flow chart to make it easier for readers to understand our overall study design, and what are the corresponding research objectives of each research method.

Point 5: The author needs a reason why to use case studies to highlight the contribution of the research.

Response 5: We have added an independent section in the methodology section to discuss the reasons for the choice of empirical objects. We also added a map of the study area, and hope to show more information in the map, to help readers understand the logic of our study design more intuitively.

Point 6: Authors require classification charts based on their own contributions rather than those based on other research. To clarify the paper's overall contribution.

Response 6: We are sorry for the misunderstanding caused by the lots of classification charts in manuscript. Although the contents presented in these charts are all from the first-hand data of our social survey, a large number of tables indeed make it difficult to grasp the key points. Therefore, in this revision, we deleted or merged most of the tables, and instead strengthened the analysis of the existing data to highlight our original contribution.

Point 7: the authors should extend the conclusions following the following structure: objectives of the paper, achieved results, theoretical implications, practical implications, limitations, future research.

Response 7: We have reorganized the conclusion section. The section is extended following your advice, which make this section more clearly. In addition to the structural adjustment, we focused on the expansion of parts of theoretical implication and practical implication, to further clarify our contribution and consideration of future work.

Reviewer 4 Report

• The research objectives stated on Page 3 should be more focused on the streets. Currently, there is a general focus on urban form.
• Better engagement with the literature on streets and their importance in urban form, sustainability, and resilience is needed. For instance, there are studies on the contribution of streets to having resilient urban forms that could inform the literature (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.09.040) . Overall, the study needs a better literature review. Such literature review helps define the street form and its components . The readers should first understand what are the measures/indicators of street form (as a subset of urban form)
• The study design mentioned in Section 2.1 is not easy to follow. To address this issue, I suggest adding a flowchart explaining what different stages and their components are and how they are linked to each other (i.e., how the results of one stage inform other stages)
• The authors should submit the questionnaire as a supplementary appendix. It is essential for the review process and also for the readers to use in case the paper gets accepted.
• Regarding the locations for interviews, questionnaires, etc. the author should add maps. Tables are not very effective in this regard. Also, better use of maps in other parts is needed. There are currently too many tables that negatively affect the readability of the paper and makes it seem like a project report and not an academic paper. Some of these tables can be replaced with maps. Some others can be moved to supplementary appendix.
• The title of Section 4 is “The relationship between Shanghai aging group's subjective perception and street form”. This again shows that the paper must better define street form and its components early on (in the literature review or methods).
• The indicators/measures listed in Table 15 are not necessarily street from indicators . overall, section 4 mainly focuses on the design and maintenance status of streets and not street for (physical dimension). For instance, cleanness is not a street form indicator (just an example, this also applies to several other measures). To avoid confusion, the authors must change the title of Section 4. Also, other parts of the paper must be properly revised to clarify that this is not just focused on street form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer，

Many thanks for providing us with your instructive comments and suggestions on our initial manuscript, entitled Street Usage Characteristics, Subjective Perception and Urban Form of Aging Group: A Case Study of Shanghai, China. On 4^th Mar 2021, we received the email asking us to revise the manuscript. We have now revised the manuscript and addressed the queries and comments point by point. All revisions have been highlighted in the manuscript using Track Changes. Please find below our specific responses.

Point 1: Better engagement with the literature on streets and their importance in urban form, sustainability, and resilience is needed. For instance, there are studies on the contribution of streets to having resilient urban forms that could inform the literature (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.09.040) . Overall, the study needs a better literature review. Such literature review helps define the street form and its components . The readers should first understand what are the measures/indicators of street form (as a subset of urban form)

Response 1: We have reorganized the literature review section. We sorted out the existing critical studies on street form according to the time logic, and analyzed the shortcomings of the existing studies, so as to make our study’s contribution clearer.

Point 2: The study design mentioned in Section 2.1 is not easy to follow. To address this issue, I suggest adding a flowchart explaining what different stages and their components are and how they are linked to each other (i.e., how the results of one stage inform other stages)

Response 2: We have added the research flow chart to make it easier for readers to understand our overall study design, and what are the corresponding research objectives of each research method. In addition, We have greatly increased the explanation of research methods, especially the explanation of the matching between methods and research questions.

Point 3: The authors should submit the questionnaire as a supplementary appendix. It is essential for the review process and also for the readers to use in case the paper gets accepted.

Response 3: We have translated and uploaded two questionnaires to the cloud disk. The download link will be written as an appendix at the end of the article.

Point 4: Regarding the locations for interviews, questionnaires, etc. the author should add maps. Tables are not very effective in this regard. Also, better use of maps in other parts is needed. There are currently too many tables that negatively affect the readability of the paper and makes it seem like a project report and not an academic paper. Some of these tables can be replaced with maps. Some others can be moved to supplementary appendix.

Response 4: We have added a map of the study area, and hope to show more information in the map, to help readers understand our study design more intuitively. We are sorry for the misunderstanding caused by the lots of classification charts in manuscript. A large number of tables indeed make it difficult to grasp the key points. Therefore, in this revision, we deleted or merged most of the tables, and instead strengthened the analysis of the existing data to highlight our original contribution.

Point 5: The title of Section 4 is “The relationship between Shanghai aging group's subjective perception and street form”. This again shows that the paper must better define street form and its components early on (in the literature review or methods).

Response 5: We have defined street form and its components in the introduction section, based on both existing studies and our understanding from Chinese practice. In addition, we also have extended related work in new, independent literature review section.

Point 6: The indicators/measures listed in Table 15 are not necessarily street from indicators . overall, section 4 mainly focuses on the design and maintenance status of streets and not street for (physical dimension). For instance, cleanness is not a street form indicator (just an example, this also applies to several other measures). To avoid confusion, the authors must change the title of Section 4. Also, other parts of the paper must be properly revised to clarify that this is not just focused on street form.

Response 6: We are very sorry for the misunderstanding caused by our English expression. Our focus is on physical dimension without the maintenance factors. For the cleanness you mentioned, actually, we hope to express the sense of order in space, which may affect the elderly's perception of street cleanness. After your guidance, we found that such erroneous expressions do exist in our manuscript. We have revised similar problems by proofreading of native English-speaking colleagues.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been improved as per the suggestions provided and now it presents the idea in a better way. Best of Luck!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and suggestions on the previous version of our manuscript, which are helpful guiding us to improve the quality of the study. I have addressed all comments carefully and revised the manuscript accordingly. Any changes are, as requested, highlighted in the track-change version of the manuscript. The followings are our responses to each of the comments raised by the examiners.

Point 1：English language and style are fine/minor check required

Response: We have proofread the full manuscript and made some modifications in language and spelling. Thanks.

Point 2: Can be improved - Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to the previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Response: We further improve the explanation of the existing theoretical and empirical background in the sections of introduction and literature review. In addition, we add more literature in the part of case study, to justify the rationality of empirical object selection.

Point 3: Can be improved - Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Response: We have added some key literature in the Conclusion section, and jointly strengthened our logic of theoretical implication.

Finally, we would like to thank you again for your help. Without your insight, this paper can hardly be formed.

Best wishes,

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has addressed all my comments.
Congratulation to the team.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and suggestions on the previous version of our manuscript, which are helpful guiding us to improve the quality of the study. I have addressed all comments carefully and revised the manuscript accordingly. Any changes are, as requested, highlighted in the track-change version of the manuscript. The followings are our responses to each of the comments raised by the examiners.

Point 1：English language and style are fine/minor check required.

Response: We have proofread the full manuscript and made some modifications in language and spelling.

Point 2: Can be improved - Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to the previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Response: We further improve the explanation of the existing theoretical and empirical background in the sections of introduction and literature review. In addition, we add more literature in the part of case study, to justify the rationality of empirical object selection.

Point 3: Can be improved - Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Response: We have strengthened our logic of theoretical implication in the section of conclusion. 

Finally, thanks for the comments again. These comments help me to clarify the basic definitions, theories and justification in the study.

Best regards,

The authors

Reviewer 4 Report

My issues have been addressed to a large extent although I still think that engagement with the literature is not ideal. 

Also, make sure to add the reference for all your figures (particularly Figure 2)

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you so much for your comments, and I am very honored for your affirmation of this article. We further improve the explanation of the existing theoretical and empirical background in the sections of introduction and literature review. We add more literature in the part of case study, to justify the rationality of empirical object selection. In addition, we have read and checked the whole paper, and found all grammar problems. We have made corresponding modifications. Thank you again for your help on this paper. Wish you enjoy your work and life in the future.

Warmest wishes,

The authors