The Effect of Intergenerational Parenting Mode on Children’s Outdoor Activities: A Case Study of Downtown Shanghai Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

1. From the author's point of view, the above replies and explanations are reasonable, and I also understand them. Thank you for your reply.

2. However, in terms of the research depth required by Sustainability journal and the depth and quality of other papers published in Sustainability journal, the research depth of this paper is not enough.

3. The research method of this paper is not innovative, and some main research conclusions are basically the consensus views of everyone, without sudden progress.

4. Of course, the theme and research content of this paper still have positive practical significance. I hope the author can make further research on this basis and put forward some innovative solutions from the core.

5. The above comments only represent my personal views, if there is a difference with the author's views, please forgive me.

can be improved

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback and assessment of our revised research submission. We also understand your perspective regarding the depth of research required for publication in the Sustainability journal, as well as the quality and depth of other published papers. Your insights are valuable in guiding us toward meeting the journal's rigorous standards.

We take your comments to heart, particularly about the further research, we are working on that. Your constructive critique has provided us with a fresh perspective, and we are genuinely grateful for your honesty.

Once again, thank you for your time, expertise, and dedication in reviewing our work.

Warm regards

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Appreciate the authors’ willingness to revise their research submission for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for acknowledging our efforts in revising our research submission for publication. Your recognition of our commitment is truly appreciated. We are dedicated to refining our work and ensuring its quality. Thank you once again for your support and guidance throughout this process.

Warm regards

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Overall, the topic of the article is interesting and relevant to the Journal. The article provides an interesting thematic but some important revisions are needed to be clearer and to improve the quality of the article.

 I recommend the follow revisions: 

 

Introduction:  

-Overall the literature review, conceptual framework and purpose of article was well-developed but it would be helpful for the authors to read through again with the intention of being even more precise and documenting information and more details, specifically typical about outdoor activities in gated communities and characteristic of intergeneration parenting mode considering the context.

 

Methods:

-This section is not completely and clearly stated. For example, regarding the sample, it is not clearly stated the n of the sample and also how the sample recruitment was conducted.

-Also, should substitute the term “sampling” for the term “participants”

It is not clearly stated inclusion and exclusion criteria’s

-Also, it is not clearly stated the instruments that were use. The information lines 132-137 should be included in other section related to “instruments” and not in 3.3 data collection and analysis.

-information (lines 149-150) should not be stated here but in the results sections.
- the instruments are not clearly stated and describes: for example, the quantitative questionnaire was created based in which instruments/theories? Or is it a questionnaire that is already used for this purpose? How many sections? Regarding qualitative research (semi-structured interviews) the questions address different thematic? How the categories/subcategories were created? Based on?

Regarding ethical considerations since the study included children (minors) it should be clearly stating how the inform consent and anonymous participation was guarantee.

Results and discussion: I recommend to review and use a clearer description of the results. For example, lines 172-173, through the table 3 it is not possible to see that is higher levels of engagement in outdoor activities (only children´s age).

Also it is important to summarize some information that can be stated in discussion section but not in results (for example, 4.5 and 4.6).

However, I did feel a need for a deeper discussion at the end of article that summarizes the principles themes that appeared in the introduction section - weaving back to recent highlights in the literature, perhaps making more specific recommendations for future research or practice and limitation of the study.

Another read through to check grammar errors and format would be helpful. also I recommend to review the text and terms used on the methods and results sections. 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We greatly value the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing the manuscript and providing your insightful suggestions. After careful consideration of all the feedback received, we have made the following changes into the paper:

Title

1. 1.The term "gated community" has been modified to "downtown community." This adjustment reflects the understanding that most urban communities in Shanghai have the gated characteristics. However, the selection of our case study site was not based on this criterion; rather, it serves as contextual background. Importantly, our research focuses on communities built decades ago that are undergoing renewal to enhance current living conditions. As a result, we have chosen to replace "gated community" with "downtown community."

Introduction

2. The introduction has been expanded to provide additional insights into cultural traditions and family values. This contextual information aims to better elucidate the prevailing parenting style trend in Shanghai. Furthermore, this enhanced context enables a more detailed interpretation of the different modes of supervision.
3. For improved logical flow and to reduce sentence repetition, the research aim and objectives have been relocated to the end of the introduction section, rather than being presented as a separate section.

Methods

4. In the methods section, the term "sampling" has been replaced with "participant."
5. The process of participant recruitment is described with more details in the section of "2.4 Participant Recruitment" .
6. The instruments used have been more elaborately explained in the "2.2 Data Collection" section. Actually, this paper represents a segment of a larger research program, and while the overall research design of the program is solid and coherent, specific topics necessitate more in-depth interpretation of the specific methods applied. We appreciate your observation on this matter.
7. A more detailed explanation of ethical practices has been incorporated into the "2.5 Ethical Considerations" section. This mainly addresses how we ensured informed consent and anonymity.

Results

8. We have revised all result descriptions for better clarity and coherence in expression.

Discussion

9. The discussion section has been expanded to offer a more comprehensive understanding of the diverse supervision approaches, with references back to the introduction.

All the changes are highlighted in the text. Once again, we extend our gratitude for your valuable feedback and contributions to the refinement of our manuscript. Your input has been integral in enhancing the overall clarity and coherence of our work.

Best regards

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Overall, this is an interesting article but needs some major improvements. 

Introduction

 

Authors refer to the ideology of Confucianism without providing any further description of that ideology, probably assuming everyone knows what this ideology is about. Would be better to add a brief description,

 

Lines 57-6-- authors refer to previous research on the influence of different parenting style but do not provide any detailed discussion on that. The discussion on the previous literature needs expansion. 

 

Line 66- what do you mean by Chinese family structure and cultural tradition of Chinese cities?

Line 67 Why gated community? why shanghai? Authors need to provide a rationale.

Line 70- authors refer to different supervision models in the introduction several times yet not providing any dissuasion on these models.

 

 

Aims and questions

Line 82- objectives and aims are not the same, authors discuss aims but not objectives  but they use these terms interchangeably 

 

Line 100- aims and questions section should only include research aims and research questions, any discussion on the previous studies should go to the lit review( introduction) section

 

Line 110- four different models listed seem to be the same : PSIS

Line 112- classification proposed by Bishop and Curtis, what does that classification entail?

Line 113- What do you mean by developed in the pilot study? If classification has been proposed by B and C what was developed in pilot study? Also, which pilot study?

Did the authors conduct a pilot study?

Line 116- the description of play categories should be discussed in the text

 

Sampling 

Line -122 authors refer to local statistics, more details required including citations

Line 125- which sub district, how did you choose households? Participants within households?

Line 126- survey development, items, distribution process- authors do not provide any details on any of these.

Line 127-  how many households did express willingness to participate? How did you decide who would participate in semi structured interviews within each household? How did you construct semi structured interview guide, what were the questions? How did you construct the semi structured interview guide questions?

Authors need to describe qualitative data collection process in detail;

 

 

Data collection and  analysis

The process of qualitative data collection analyses are not clear, where were the data collected? How long was each interview? How many researchers analyses data? How did they come up with the final findings? How did they manage biases? 

 

Results

Line 191- what is correspondence data analysis? Readers need more details on this method. Provide a brief description and add citations.

 

Table 6- hard to read and follow

Statistical results and accompanying values are only presented in tables. None of the results section reporting include any statistical values. 

 

Section 4.6

Line 229 – in data collection section authors claimed that qualitative data was analyzed and themes identified. The finings presented in this section are ot organized by themes but rather present an overall findings 

 

Discussion-

 

Line 273- the study is cross sectional therefore it is recommended to use more conservative language and don’t claim that the study “ confirmed” any findings- it is better to claim that based on the study findings it could be assumed that….

The discussion section must be allied with the literature discussed previously. At times authors present new statements from previous studies or includes strong statements such as “ it becomes evident… etc..” which was also disused above in section 4.6 Some of the statements are with regards to findings are also too strong.

Line 317- authors claim that the study provides a novel to understand motivations of…. This part needs to be reviewed and supportive statements and findings should be discussed further.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We greatly value the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing the manuscript and providing your insightful suggestions. After careful consideration of all the feedback received, we have made the following changes into the paper:

Title

1. The term "gated community" has been substituted with "downtown community." This modification arises from the realization that nearly all urban communities possess gated features. This characteristic, however, does not serve as the criterion for selecting our case study site; instead, it furnishes contextual background. Moreover, our primary focus lies on communities constructed decades ago that require renewal to offer an improved living environment for contemporary residents. This rationale has led us to replace the term "gated community" with "downtown community."

Introduction

2. We have expanded the introduction to provide more comprehensive insights into cultural traditions and family values. These contextual elements aid in explaining the prevailing trend of dominant parenting styles. This enhanced context enables a more detailed interpretation of various supervision modes.
3. To enhance the logical flow and minimize the repetition of similar sentences, we have moved the research aim and objectives to the conclusion of the introduction chapter, eliminating their separate section.

Methods

1. We are very sorry for the typographical error regarding the "four different models."
2. The utilization and development of the classification proposed by Bishop and Curtis are now thoroughly explained in the "2.1 Definition of Generational Accompany Mode for Children's Outdoor Activity" section.
3. We have replaced "sampling" with "participant."
4. Furthermore, participant recruitment is now elaborated upon in the "2.4 Participant Recruitment" section.
5. The qualitative data collection process has been more extensively explained in the "2.2 Data Collection" section. Actually, this paper represents a segment of a larger research program, and while the overall research design of the program is solid and coherent, specific topics necessitate more in-depth interpretation of the specific methods applied. We appreciate your observation on this matter.
6. Additional details regarding ethical practices have been incorporated into the "2.5 Ethical Considerations" part. This primarily addresses how we ensured informed consent and anonymity.
7. Correspondence analysis (CA) is now more comprehensively explained in the "2.3 Data Analysis" section, with relevant references.

Results

11. All result descriptions have undergone revision for enhanced clarity and expression.
12. Within section "3.6," the findings from interviews have been organized in themes and topics.

Discussion

13. The tone of statements has been moderated. We deeply regret the use of strong language in our initial statements. This assertive approach is not our typical writing style either. Our intent was to address a concern raised by a reviewer regarding the value of this work…We have since adjusted the tone accordingly.
14. we have expanded the discussion section to include more insights into the various modes of supervision approaches, drawing connections to the initial points presented in the introduction.

Once again, we extend our heartfelt appreciation for your invaluable input, which has significantly contributed to the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of our manuscript.

Best regards

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

1. The paper has been improved on the previous basis, and the research ideas, analysis and conclusions have been further clarified.

2. On this basis, it can be optimized and published according to the relevant opinions of the editorial department.

  Overall, the English expression is smooth and can be further optimized.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. It is of practical significance for this paper to study the influence of different companion ways of different caregivers on outdoor activities of preschool children.

2. The research purpose of this paper is relatively simple. For example:

What are the differences in the choice of accompanying modes among different caregivers?

How do different intergenerational accompany modes influence children's activities?

Why do caregivers choose a particular accompanying mode?

3. Some of the conclusions obtained from the research are more general to everyone, and no conclusions of outstanding academic value have been drawn, or new problems of important research value have been found.

For example, Shanghai families generally believe that parents play the most important role in educating and accompanying children, while grandparents usually take on supporting work. In the outdoor activities of children in Shanghai's gated communities, the biggest concerns of caregivers are still traffic hazards, stranger risks and the potential hazards of outdated fixed facilities.

These are all existing consensus issues, and do not have the significance of discovering new problems.

4. In-depth research should be carried out on the basis of the problems found in the investigation, such as specific research on the design of public outdoor space, spatial scale, interface, optimization strategies, etc.

·         Overall, the English expression is smooth and can be further optimized.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to assess the manuscript and provide valuable suggestions. We have carefully considered all the recommendations and made the following changes:

1. We might have misunderstood the first suggestion, but upon further reflection, we acknowledge that this research is more aligned with sociological research. Its primary aim is to explore social phenomena and provide insights into the underlying reasons. However, we understand that it may lack practical significance within this single piece of work, as it emphasizes academic significance. To improve that, we have taken this suggestion into account and included it as a suggestion for further research, which could be enlightened by the findings of this study.

2. The research aim of this study is to understand the influence of different accompanying modes applied by various caregivers on the outdoor activities of preschool children. The listed questions represent the research questions that will be addressed using the proposed methods. Following the suggestions, we have revised the way we present the research questions, now identifying them as questions rather than objectives.

3. We have revised the discussion chapter to clearly state the main findings, which include intensive mothering and co-parenting; differences in accompanying modes applied by different generations of adults; the relationship between different accompanying modes and different types of play; and the model used to categorize the accompanying modes. Furthermore, we have provided explanations for the reasons behind these results and have responded to previous research, which highlights the academic significance of this study.

4. We may have misunderstood the last suggestion as well, and we apologize for that. This research is indeed a sociological study that provides insights into specific phenomena within the context of social and environmental settings. We understand the research design you suggested might be fundamentally different from this piece of work. Furthermore, we recognize that this research represents a preliminary investigation aimed at identifying problems for further exploration, as you mentioned; and, to bridge the gap between academic insights and practical applications could be the next research we will work on.

By incorporating these revisions, we believe the paragraph now presents a clearer and more coherent response to the suggestions received. Thank you for your valuable feedback, which has contributed to enhancing the clarity of our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I very much appreciated reading your paper. I found it well written, clear and coherent. I have only one suggestion, that is to better explain the qualitative part of your analysis. Readers may not be familiar with your approach and I think being more clear about what you did and how could be of help. Also, please add something about the ethical procedure you followed to collect the sample.

Apart from that I commend the authors for a work well done.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to assess the manuscript and provide valuable suggestions. We have carefully considered all the recommendations and made the following changes:

1. In the methods chapter, 3.3 Data Collection and Analysis, we have provided more detailed explanations for both qualitative and quantitative analysis.

2. Additionally, we have added a new section, 3.4 Ethical Considerations, to elaborate on the ethical procedures undertaken in this research.

By addressing the suggestions and incorporating these changes, we believe the paper has been improved and strengthened. Your feedback has been invaluable in enhancing the overall quality of the manuscript. Thank you once again for your valuable input.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, 

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of different companionship styles of different caregivers on preschoolers' outdoor activities using a combination of questionnaires and interviews, and to produce interesting results. I think it is a good article. However, there are still some areas for improvement.

First, in the abstract section, the revised article suggests further condensing the findings of the study. The current manuscript is presented in an overly simplistic account, and I think you do not have many meaningful findings from the study to report. For example, it should indicate what the different modes of companionship adopted by different caregivers during outdoor play were. What were the effects of each of these companionship patterns on children's outdoor activities? Why?
     Second, in the introduction section, the manuscript reports that existing studies (in Western countries) have pointed out the significant effects of different parenting styles on children's outdoor activity behaviors, as well as the finding that different caregiver groups adopt different patterns of supervision of children's outdoor play. It is suggested to add cited literature from Asian countries such as Japan and Korea, and in Part V to add a discussion of the differences in the dominant supervision patterns of children's outdoor play and their effects on children's activities in China and Western countries, and a discussion of the differences between China and other Asian countries.

Third, in the section of the discussion of the study, it is suggested to add the significance and limitations of the study.

Author Response

We appreciate your time and effort in assessing the manuscript and providing valuable suggestions. After carefully considering all the recommendations, we have made the following changes to the paper:

1. We have revised the abstract, condensing the findings and contributions of this study.

2. In the discussion chapter, we clearly state the main findings, which include intensive mothering and co-parenting; differences in accompanying modes applied by different generations of adults; the relationship between different accompanying modes and different types of play; and the model used to categorize the accompanying modes. Additionally, we provide explanations for the reasons behind these results and address previous research on the topic.

3. We have incorporated Japanese research into the discussion. Notably, Japanese children experience very little parental control of outdoor activities, even less than in Nordic countries. We also acknowledge the limited research conducted in Korea on this topic, and we have included relevant research from India to supplement the discussion.

4. In the revised discussion, we have clearly stated the contributions this study makes to knowledge and research methods. However, we also acknowledge the limitations of our research, emphasizing the need for further studies to propose design methods or policy-making suggestions.

We believe these revisions have strengthened the paper and enriched its contribution to the field. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback, which has undoubtedly improved the quality of our work.

Reviewer 4 Report

Excellent study, detailed and well-documented. I believe an error in lines 108 and 109 should be corrected before publication. Congratulations to the authors on an excellent research study.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate your time and effort in assessing the manuscript and your positive feedback. The typo in lines 108 and 109 has been corrected, changing "intensively" to "intensely." Thank you for providing us with your valuable feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the quality of our work.