The Influence Mechanism of the Community Subjectively Built Environment on the Physical and Mental Health of Older Adults
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review Report:
The influence mechanism of the community subjectively built 2 environment on the physical and mental health of older adults
The submitted paper deals with the current issue of population ageing. Based on a questionnaire survey and the selected method, SEM evaluates the effects of subjective well-being on older adults' physical and social health with given mediators and moderators.
The research is scientifically significant and interesting from a methodological point of view.
I have a few comments about the study that the authors should add:
-line28 – it would be appropriate to scientifically/ support the statement with citations,
- in the study, the authors used the Structural Equation Model (SEM), I recommend adding the commonly used abbreviation to the text,
-line75 – I recommend explaining in more detail / bringing it closer to the readers „the influence of residential self-selection through China’s unique urban housing system“,
-the main research object in the study is "older adults", which I recommend defining more closely. It is not at all clear what age group it is,
-line157 – is the research megacity in any world rankings? If so, it would be appropriate to supplement the citation according to which ranking/classification the claim is...
-line161-163 - I recommend to highlight the need for research, adding a forecast of further negative development of this senior population in the city under study,
-line167-169 – the "rate of urbanization" in the European area represents something different from what the authors describe in the text; I recommend pointing out the growth of, e.g. population density per built-up area between 2010-2020; in the statement about the built-up area, add the percentage increase between 2010-2020,
-line184 - add information on whether the given sample was representative with regard to the population of "older adults" and with regard to the individual characteristics of the respondents; I recommend supplementing the table with individual characteristics of the respondents,
-line214-217 – It would be appropriate to add information about the input database, i.e. what variables did the work deal with, i.e. which variables for inappropriateness at the beginning of the research were dropped?
-table2 asks for an explanation; why was asked in the questionnaire "older under 55 years old?" People under 55 are indeed older, but not the senior population. Here, an explanation of the primary research object "older adults" is missing; what is the point of using this (under 55) age group in this research?
-line281 – 282 – complete the citations to the authors,
-line295 – 103 samples ??? Is that the sample under 55? Maybe not! It would be clearer if there were a table with individual characteristics in the data section,
- in the tables in the names, I recommend adding the used method and in the notes under the tables to add information closer to the used SEM, or method and also in which program it was done, which model, method or test was performed,
-line372 – „robustness“ – is this a test within SEM?
Author Response
Response Letter
Dear Reviewer,
We greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions on our paper. We have carefully considered all of the comments provided and have made the following changes to the manuscript.
Reviewer comment
1.-line28 – it would be appropriate to scientifically/ support the statement with citations,
Our response
We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for their careful reading. As suggested, we have added a reference to support this statement (Reference: 1. World Health Organization. World report on ageing and health[R]. Geneva 2015.).
________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer comment
- - in the study, the authors used the Structural Equation Model (SEM), I recommend adding the commonly used abbreviation to the text,
Our response
We revised according to the comments of the reviewers, except for the structural equation model that first appeared in the text, which used its full name, all others have been changed to abbreviations.
________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer comment:
- -line75 – I recommend explaining in more detail / bringing it closer to the readers, the influence of residential self-selection through China’s unique urban housing system“,
Our response
We revised our manuscript to address this comment; an explanation for "the influence of residential self-selection through China’s unique urban housing system" has been added in lines 79 through 82 (the welfare housing distribution system before 1998 and the social security housing system after the market reform have left residents in a passive distribution position, with almost no self-selection effect in terms of residence).
________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer comment:
- -the main research object in the study is "older adults", which I recommend defining more closely. It is not at all clear what age group it is,
Our response
We revised according to the comments of the reviewers, the term 'older adults' was defined when it first appeared in the text. The term ‘older adults’ refers to the population aged 55 and above, which is based on the statutory retirement age for women in China being 55 years old; please see lines 65–66 (residents aged 55 and above).
________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer comment
- -line157 – is the research megacity in any world rankings? If so, it would be appropriate to supplement the citation according to which ranking/classification the claim is...
Our response
We apologize for our error in this sentence. Hefei does not have an official ranking in the world. The original intention expressed by lines 164–166 was that Hefei is striving to move towards being an international megacity. However, we used the wrong tense. We have thus corrected the phrase “has comprehensively enhanced the function of a world-class sub-center city in the Yangtze River Delta and accelerated its development into an emerging international megacity” into “is comprehensively enhancing its function as a world-class sub-center city in the Yangtze River Delta and accelerating its development into an emerging international megacity”.
________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer comment
- -line161-163 - I recommend to highlight the need for research, adding a forecast of further negative development of this senior population in the city under study,
Our response
We have revised this according to the comments of the reviewers, adding "compared with China's sixth national census in 2010, the number of people aged 65 and above in Hefei increased by 744,000, while the proportion of people aged 65 and above increased by 4.27%. With the continuous aging of the population, the proportion of older adults in Hefei will continue to gradually increase" in lines 172–176.
________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer comment
- -line167-169 – the "rate of urbanization" in the European area represents something different from what the authors describe in the text; I recommend pointing out the growth of, e.g. population density per built-up area between 2010-2020; in the statement about the built-up area, add the percentage increase between 2010-2020,
Our response
As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the phrase “with the urbanization rate of permanent residents reaching 84.4 percent in 2021 and the city’s built-up area reaching 502.5 square kilometers in 2020, an increase of 222.5 square kilometers compared with 2010” to “with the urban population accounting for 84.4% of the total population in 2021, an increase of 21.2% compared to 2010, and the urban built-up area reaching 502.5 square kilometers in 2020, an increase of 44.3% compared to 2010” (lines 179–182).
________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer comment
- -line184 - add information on whether the given sample was representative with regard to the population of "older adults" and with regard to the individual characteristics of the respondents; I recommend supplementing the table with individual characteristics of the respondents,
Our response
We have revised this accordingly; Table 1 has been added to display the individual characteristics of the respondents, which have also been described on lines 202–205: “Table 1 shows the individual characteristics of the valid samples. The survey samples are all older adults aged 55 and above, with slightly more males than females. The vast majority are urban residents and local residents of Hefei, and over 60% of the older adults have lived in the survey community for more than 10 years.”
________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer comment
- -line214-217 – It would be appropriate to add information about the input database, i.e. what variables did the work deal with, i.e. which variables for inappropriateness at the beginning of the research were dropped?
Our response
We have revised this accordingly, adding information about the input database on lines 236–243: “At the beginning of model construction, safety and security, internal supportive living facilities, green environment, walking environment, transportation convenience, beautification degree, sports and exercise facilities, shopping places, and leisure and entertainment places were selected to represent the subjectively built environment. Meanwhile, neighbor interaction degree, the number of familiar neighbors, neighbor interaction satisfaction, and level of social activity participation were selected to rep-resent social interaction activities. After screening, the variables shown in Table 1 were ultimately obtained.”
________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer comment
- -table2 asks for an explanation; why was asked in the questionnaire "older under 55 years old?" People under 55 are indeed older, but not the senior population. Here, an explanation of the primary research object "older adults" is missing; what is the point of using this (under 55) age group in this research?
Our response
Thank you for your careful review; we apologize for our error. The option of under 55 years old being present in Table 2 was due to our carelessness. The questionnaire design included the option of under 55 years old, but we had already excluded the population under 55 years old before beginning the questionnaire analysis. Due to our carelessness, the age classification in Table 2 is still described according to the questionnaire design. We have made corrections to address this issue.
________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer comment
- -line281 – 282 – complete the citations to the authors,
Our response
We have revised this accordingly by completing the citations on line 310.
________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer comment
- -line295 – 103 samples ??? Is that the sample under 55? Maybe not! It would be clearer if there were a table with individual characteristics in the data section,
Our response
103 samples are samples aged 55 and above. We revised according to the comments of the reviewers. We have added Table 1 to describe the individual characteristics of the respondents.
________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer comment
- - in the tables in the names, I recommend adding the used method and in the notes under the tables to add information closer to the used SEM, or method and also in which program it was done, which model, method or test was performed,
Our response
We revised according to the comments of the reviewers. We added which model was used in the annotations of Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer comment
- -line372 – „robustness“ – is this a test within SEM?
Our response
Robustness is not a test within the SEM. The robustness mentioned here refers to the selection of 103 samples residing in organization-owned housing and indemnification apartments to perform models (model 1 and model 2) that have been executed across the entire sample, in order to test the stability of conclusions drawn from the entire sample. Because the 103 older adults living in organization-owned housing and indemnification apartments do not or rarely engage in self-selection behavior.
_______________________________________________________________________________
We appreciate your review of this article. We also look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Lingyi Xu, Huiran Han, Chengfeng Yang, Qingfang Liu
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting and useful study, which needs three additions to make it publishable.
1. Shift the focus from using only Chinese references, as this isolates the work from the international readership.
2. Include design patterns that describe how urban geometry enhances social movement and relations. This is not mentioned here at all!
https://www.patternlanguage.com/
http://www.sustasis.net/APLFGR.pdf
3. The author who began to talk about this topic is Jane Jacobs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cities
English is fine.
Author Response
Response Letter
Dear Reviewer,
We greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions on our paper. We have carefully considered all of the comments provided and have made the following changes to the manuscript.
Reviewer comment
- Shift the focus from using only Chinese references, as this isolates the work from the international readership.
Our response
We sincerely appreciate this valuable comment. As suggested by the reviewer, we have checked the literature carefully and added or replaced Chinese references with English references (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 17, 26, 36, 39, and 51). There are currently a total of 67 references, including 14 in Chinese and 53 in English.
________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer comment
- Include design patterns that describe how urban geometry enhances social movement and relations. This is not mentioned here at all!
Our response
Thank you for your comment. Our study only focuses on the subjective perception of the built environment by residents and does not involve the objective built environment. The advantages of objectively measured environmental variables are their easy quantification and standardization, their controllable measurement errors, and the easy translation of their related research results into policies. However, people's perception of the urban environment and its health impact cannot be fully reflected through objective measurement indicators, as there may be differences in the perception of the same environment and facilities among different resident groups. For example, people with high air-quality requirements and expectations often believe that the air pollution in their city is severe, leading to concerns about respiratory health. However, people with low air-quality requirements and expectations may consider the local air quality to be good and maintain a more optimistic attitude. An environment with the same objective measurement results can have different health effects on different groups. According to the theory of behavioral change, subjective perceived environmental characteristics are more closely related to actual psychological, behavioral, and health outcomes. Therefore, in the context of most studies focusing on the objective built environment, this study chose to focus on the subjective perception of the built environment by older adults. In the future, we will focus on both objective built environment and subjective perceived built environment and compare the differences in their impact on the health of older adults.
________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer comment:
- The author who began to talk about this topic is Jane Jacobs:
Our response
Thank you for your professional review work on our article. As you say, Jane Jacobs advocates bringing together the population and various activities to form a joyful and comfortable urban life in The Death and Life of Great American Cities. She advocates for the "polycentricity" of cities, emphasizing the need to cherish the diversity and mixing that cities have formed over the long term. Therefore, we have added The Death and Life of Great American Cities to the references (Reference 26.).
_______________________________________________________________________________
We appreciate your review of this article. We also look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Lingyi Xu, Huiran Han, Chengfeng Yang, Qingfang Liu
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The manuscript presents a study related with an interesting topic that fits the scope of the Journal. The manuscript is, in general, well organized and well written.
2. The abstract needs to be revised to reflect briefly the purpose of this study, methodology, findings and implication for academica and practise
3. The manuscript is very good but it can’t explain the research gap and method very clearly
4. Authors need to add literatures that can strengthen the state of the art of the Literature Review. Prior researches need to be added and updated, at least from 2023 until nowadays, Authors are less proportional in the literature review
5. The authors get carried away writing their methods and results, with a wealth of data, but forget to add a strong implications. The managerial or practical implications for this study can be explored more. The implication explained in this paper is still limited. It needs more explanation to linking between theory and practice. It should mention the theoretical contribution clearly.
6. All in all, this paper is presented in a defined way and should be accepted for publication.
7. In terms of quality of communication, I have no difficulty understanding this paper
In terms of quality of communication, I have no difficulty understanding this paper
Author Response
Response Letter
Dear Reviewer,
We greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions on our paper. We have carefully considered all of the comments provided and made the following changes to the manuscript.
Reviewer comment
- The abstract needs to be revised to reflect briefly the purpose of this study, methodology, findings and implication for academica and practise
Our response
Thank you very much for your suggestion. We revised this accordingly by streamlining the abstract to briefly reflect the research purpose, impact, methods, and findings.
________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer comment
- The manuscript is very good but it can’t explain the research gap and method very clearly
Our response
We have revised this accordingly. First, the second and third paragraphs of the introduction introduce the shortcomings of existing research, while the fourth paragraph summarizes the differences between this study and other studies. Second, in the discussion section, the similarities and differences between the conclusions drawn from this study and those from other studies are also analyzed. Finally, in the methods section, we mainly used Amos 26.0 to construct two dual mediation models, one for analyzing physiological health and the other for analyzing psychological health, and used Bootstrap technology for mediation effect testing.
________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer comment:
- Authors need to add literatures that can strengthen the state of the art of the Literature Review. Prior researches need to be added and updated, at least from 2023 until nowadays, Authors are less proportional in the literature review
Our response
We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. As suggested by the reviewer, we have checked the literature carefully and added some more recent references to support the literature review (References 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 36, 39, and 52.).
________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer comment:
- The authors get carried away writing their methods and results, with a wealth of data, but forget to add a strong implications. The managerial or practical implications for this study can be explored more. The implication explained in this paper is still limited. It needs more explanation to linking between theory and practice. It should mention the theoretical contribution clearly.
Our response
We revised this accordingly. In the fifth paragraph of the introduction, we elaborate on the theoretical contributions of our research, and we have added a connection between theory and practice in the discussion section to clarify the practical significance of this study. For example, in the discussion section, we added: “Therefore, this study indicates that the planning and construction of urban built environments should not only pay attention to a single aspect of the built environment, but should consider all elements of the built environment in a comprehensive way, as the single element of the built environment focused on may have no impact on the physical and mental health of older adults, but the combination of other built environment elements will have an impact on them,” as well as “Therefore, planners need to determine the focus of the built environment design, deciding whether to focus on physical health or mental health. If the focus is only on physical health, a built environment planning strategy should be developed to guide older adults into participating in physical activities. If the focus is on mental health, the social interaction needs of older adults also need to be considered” and “Therefore, planning scholars and policymakers need to consider the heterogeneity of the impact of the urban built environment on the physical and mental health of older adults in different social groups, and should formulate targeted living circles for different groups according to local conditions, paying particular attention to socially vulnerable groups and promoting environmental equity and justice.”
_______________________________________________________________________________
We appreciate your review of this article. We also look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Lingyi Xu, Huiran Han, Chengfeng Yang, Qingfang Liu
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The suggestions offered for improvement were not all followed by the authors. That would have produced a much stronger study. Nevertheless, they did make some improvements, and the manuscript can be published as is.
