Evaluation of Quality of Life in Urban Life Circles from a Composite Perspective of Subjective Needs and the Supply of Public Amenities: A Case Study of Changbai Island, Shenyang

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manusript deals with a particularly interesting topic; especially given the radical changes that the pandemic has brought to everyday life the last few years.

The structure of the manusript and the reasearch hypothesis are clear and easy to comprehend.

However, a few concerns arise:

The term "public service" is used as synonymous to "public amenities"; which is definitely not the case. A "public service" is definitely broader term; could be considered a superset of "public amenity" in the bast case scenario. This must be corrected.

When conducting the literature review, the authors should definitely refer to well-known and well-established quality of life indicators like WHOQOL. Although their interpretation of quality of life is much narrower, such references cannot be ommited.

Although it's clear that the authors seek for a measurable and objective way towards measing their parameters, individual perception when assessing quality of life should be the primary criterion. This should be added to the limitations of the research.

Additionally (although not equally important with the aforementioned), there a re quite a few places within the manuscript with bookmark/reference errors (e.g., lines 219, 222, 240-241).

Both US (e.g., line 97 "summarize") and UK English (e.g., line 35 "optimisation") are used in the manuscript. Please ensure consistency.

In general, "quality of life" should be refered to as a stand-alone term (not "the quality of life"); e.g., line 11 "Evaluating quality of life...".

Line 412 "Due to the not-in-my-back-yard effect (e.g. noises),..." should become "Due to the not-in-my-back-yard effect (e.g. noise)," (used as a noncount noun). 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Suggestions:

In table 1 remove row under value 0.15 as this value applies to Kindergarten + community shops.

It is suggested that in the table the category of amenities be presented in the following order: A, B, R11/R21/R31, R12/R22/R32 and S). In the text before the table the same order should be used.

Before line 184 it is important to introduce text to explain what is presented next.

Table 3, should reflect the authors that support each basic indicator.

Include the limitations in the conclusions and eliminate the point 4.1 (the content is maintained).

Line 426 is missing text: "XXXptimizing the quality of life". Insert the text.

The discussion needs to be improved and the results should be analysed based on the literature and compared with other studies.

Include in the conclusion, suggestions for future work based on the conclusions obtained.

 

Questions/doubts:

Cannot see what is the connection of what is mentioned in lines 184-197 with figure 3. Also in figure 3 there are points 1 (housing construction), 2 (Residential area environment) and 3 (Socioeconomic environment). What is the objective?

What was the theoretical support that allowed the construction of table 2? How was the weight of each sub-index calculated?

What is the difference between the dimension "Living environment index" (table 2) and the dimension "Quality of life" (table 3)?

Line 210: "Table 3 lists the calculation and description for them". Where is the calculation?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Clearly improved manuscript. A careful review from a native English speaker is recommended.

A careful review from a native English speaker is recommended.

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewer welcomes the changes made by the authors.