Multi-Source Data-Based Evaluation of Suitability of Land for Elderly Care and Layout Optimization: A Case Study of Changsha, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article covers an important topic and has great potential to contribute to the field. I have here my main recommendation about this manuscript:
The authors stated that “In contrast, there is a lack of studies that construct an index evaluation system from the perspective of elderly land and propose to analyze the rationality of the layout of elderly facilities in combination with their land demand.” The authors’ review of previous studies clearly shows that “… there is a lack of studies that construct an index evaluation system …” however, the lack of studies on this does not necessitate a need for it. I would encourage the authors to adequately justify the need for this study. Also, are the authors (of this paper) prosing to analyze the rationality of the layout of elderly facilities in combination with their land demand or this was proposed by previous studies? Please clarify this statement and provide references if it was proposed by previous studies. Are there any limitations/benefits to using socioeconomic statistics, questionnaire survey data, or multi-source data? Why are you adopting these approaches in your research? How will these approaches help you answer the research question?
Adequate citation and referencing are needed in this manuscript. Please adequately reference the first paragraph in the introduction. The “Materials and Methods” section should be referenced. For example, you wrote about why the studying is being conducted in Changsha and the source of data without any reference. Also, don’t just mention the method you are using but explain why you have to use the method. For example, why are you using Delphi survey and hierarchical analysis? Please provide background information on the experts.
Several grammatical errors and typos in the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer：
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your valuable comments. We have addressed all the comments carefully and the manuscript has been revised under revision mode. I believe that the addressing of these comments has greatly improved the quality of this manuscript. The specific modification instructions are attached.
Thank you very much for the hard work of the reviewers! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the introduction:
There is no analysis of the actual situation regarding the location of social infrastructure with respect to the elderly population. This makes it impossible to assess what has been achieved in the course of the study and to what extent it contributes to improving services for the elderly population in the future.
There is a lack of analysis of the city's available spatial plans and regulatory mechanisms that support planning in an urban environment with a priority on the elderly population. It is unclear whether the regulatory documents will need updating to implement the stated optimization of land use and infrastructure oriented toward the elderly population.
It is very necessary to introduce the reader to the ecological characteristics of the city and existing environmental problems with relevance to the vulnerability of the aging population, the resolution of which is expected to be aided by the results obtained in the study.
Readers would also do well to be familiar with the "models of elderly care" in China that are repeatedly cited in the text. The conclusion comments on improving planning, but the reader cannot appreciate this because he or she is not familiar with the current picture in advance.
T.2.1. needs refinement: providing specific information with quantitative data on the city's main spatial characteristics and urban functionality, and in-depth demographic characterization. Commentary on the functionality of urban planning units and their use within the city (e.g. housing, public use, industrial, etc.) is imperative.
Also necessary is the inclusion as a minimum of the following cartographic representations: a figure that introduces readers to the study area and its key geographic features, contemporary population density within the city (overall), and spatial density of the aging population.
2.2. POIs are not well substantiated. They do not include important data for such locational analysis such as availability of public services (e.g. groceries), access to important public buildings, post and telecommunication, cultural facilities, recreational and tourist facilities, etc. The arguments in the text regarding the exclusion of environmental factors (air pollution, noise, etc.) from the analysis are not convincing enough - the study is concerned with an analysis of the future use of areas in the city with proposals for changes in the location of sites and the exclusion of the analysis of the quality of the ecological environment in urban conditions is unjustified.
The application of a map of the current situation in the city regarding the location of the POIs used in the study is necessary.
3.3 There is no map of results by the province to visualize the analysis.
The text of 3.3.2 should, in my opinion, be in the introduction.
The Conclusion needs a complete revision to highlight the actual results of the study.
Author Response
Dear reviewer：
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your valuable comments. We have addressed all the comments carefully and the manuscript has been revised under revision mode. I believe that the addressing of these comments has greatly improved the quality of this manuscript. The specific modification instructions are attached.
Thank you very much for the hard work of the reviewers! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the Introduction, the authors outlined the problem of an aging society in China. They indicated the research gap as follows:
"In contrast, there is a lack of studies that construct an index evaluation system from the perspective of elderly land and propose to analyze the rationality of the layout of elderly facilities in combination with their land demand."
And they proposed the following solution:
"This paper uses ArcGIS software to evaluate the suitability of land development for elderly care in urban areas of Changsha city based on multi-source data, analyze its spatial distribution characteristics in-depth, and make suggestions for optimizing the layout, which has far-reaching significance for realizing the construction of an elderly caring city and meeting the needs of the elderly for a better life, in order to actively cope with the arrival of an aging society."
Based on data such as POI, roads from Open Street Map, and statistical data aggregated to administrative units.
The topic taken up is very important. However, the presented approach and the description of the methodology in its current form do not correspond to the scientific work. The authors should make more effort to develop and describe the analysis methodology. The presented results are not clearly correlated with the research description. In its current form, in my opinion, the article is not suitable for publication in a scientific journal. However, I encourage the authors to try to publish an undoubtedly interesting topic after a complete reconstruction of the article.
Detailed comments:
The authors calculated the combined weights as the arithmetic mean, which is incorrect. The values of the index weights are expressed on a quotient scale. The combination of weights from different determinations should not be based on the arithmetic mean. Such a combination of weights is methodologically very questionable.
They based their suitability analysis on Euclidean distances between Oi's care facilities and different types of facilities. They did not analyze the real route of arrival.
The distances are designated as buffers, then assigned points, with negative scores introduced for the de-stimulants, reflecting the negative impact. This is an exciting idea, but it would require a broader justification. In light of the possibilities of GIS software, such as ArcGIS, the analysis conducted in this way seems somewhat archaic. The continuous approach is much more common, in which a continuous distance function is determined rather than discrete buffers.
In chapter "2.4.2.Tyson polygons," the authors described the methodology for determining Voronoi polygons, so they probably meant the Thiessen Polygons. Reference to sources of information should be completed in this chapter.
The authors wrote:
"This paper constructs Tyson polygons with the current situation of senior care facilities as
the central point, and uses them as a reference for optimizing the layout of senior care
land."
The question is: How?
The presented description of the methodology is entirely inconsistent. In one part of the article, we have points assigned to designated distance buffers; in the results part, the authors describe the analysis of the distance from the POI and the analysis of road density. The authors write about conversion to raster - but probably after determining the density analysis of road sections in ArcGIS, they received the result in the form of a raster. There is no description of how the pattern of suitability was determined. What method were used to connect the assessment points, distance, density rasters, and previously determined index weights?
The presented results cover two variants: community home and Institution care. However, this differentiation is not reflected in the proposed methodology.
Author Response
Dear reviewer：
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your valuable comments. We have addressed all the comments carefully and the manuscript has been revised under revision mode. I believe that the addressing of these comments has greatly improved the quality of this manuscript. The specific modification instructions are attached.
Thank you very much for the hard work of the reviewers! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you very much for the chance to review this manuscript. The aims and the results of this study were clearly demonstrated. However, some sections need to be improved.
1. For the first paragraph of the introduction, “Of all the countermeasures that have been put forward in response to this phenomenon, the far-reaching one is the "Tenth Five-Year Plan for the Development of China's Aging Industry", which, of notice, clearly incorporates the ageing industry into the overall plan of economic and social development and sustainable development strategy.” What are the sources/ references for it?
2. In section 2.1., “…elderly people aged 65…” This statement indicated that the ageing population for this study is 65 years old or older. However, the definition of ageing adults is various, some suggested that 50 or older, 55 or older, 60 or older, or 65 or older. You had better explain based on what rationales you selected for age 65 or above.
3. Why conclusion was in front of the discussion? Discussion should be put in front of the conclusion.
4. The discussion is a bit short. Based on the results, I do believe many issues can be discussed; however, you appeared to miss them. For example, the limitations were not sufficiently explained, and the strengths and weaknesses, implications and contributions of this study were not clearly demonstrated.
Last but not least, be careful of the format, punctuation marks and letter case.
Author Response
Dear reviewer：
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your valuable comments. We have addressed all the comments carefully and the manuscript has been revised under revision mode. I believe that the addressing of these comments has greatly improved the quality of this manuscript. The specific modification instructions are attached.
Thank you very much for the hard work of the reviewers! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have responded to my comments.
Author Response
Dear reviewer：
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your valuable comments. We have addressed all the comments carefully and the manuscript has been revised under revision mode. I believe that the addressing of these comments has greatly improved the quality of this manuscript. The specific modification instructions are attached.
Thank you very much for the hard work of the reviewers! Happy New Year!
Best wishes!
Sincerely,
Jun Yang, Zhifei Lou, Xinglong Tang and Ying Sun
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, I congratulate you for the selection of such a topical issue and for your efforts.
But I still hold to the opinion that your research needs improvement. I suggest you supplement the text with good examples of this type of research topic, previous experience in the country, a clear research hypothesis, rationale in data selection, stakeholders
I suggest:
- Complete editing of the text with a clear and precise description of the methodology and data - indicate why you choose to use one or another methodological tool, how it contributes to proving your research hypothesis
- Thorough editing of the English text - I assume that some of the problems of your text may stem from the translation
- In discussion - how can your research be built on, with what data and resources? Do you think the methodological tools used are appropriate??
- In conclusion - stick to recommendations derived only from the results you obtained.
Author Response
Dear reviewer：
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your valuable comments. We have addressed all the comments carefully and the manuscript has been revised under revision mode. I believe that the addressing of these comments has greatly improved the quality of this manuscript. The specific modification instructions are attached.
Thank you very much for the hard work of the reviewers! Happy New Year!
Best wishes!
Sincerely,
Jun Yang, Zhifei Lou, Xinglong Tang and Ying Sun
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I thank the authors for responding to my comments.
When referring to the reviewer's comments, the authors should indicate to which comment their answer refers.
"1.Reply: We appreciate your professional comments on our article, we think your statement is correct. If the error of the two weights of the same indicator is large, it is inappropriate to take the average. However, the content of the expert scoring method we use is not the importance, but the weight value of the index. After combining all the expert weights and then comparing the weights of the analytic hierarchy process calculated by yaahp software, the trends of the two indicators are consistent, and then It is more appropriate to calculate the comprehensive weight by arithmetic mean."
I am afraid I have to disagree. The comprehensive weights should be calculated by geometric mean (not arithmetic mean) – because of the nature of weights – reflecting the criteria' relative significance. Moreover, the process of determining common weights for groups of decision-makers is usually performed at earlier stages than on the basis of the obtained weights. For example, calculations performed on a pairwise comparison matrix (AHP method) or based on individual criteria rankings.
I still consider it a methodological error.
The authors did not take my comment into account
"2.Reply: Thank the reviewer for your comments. Buffer analysis is indeed a more traditional way, often used in site selection research. However, the method is feasible and we add reference[33] demonstrating feasibility. In future studies, we will use more advanced methods to further explore the research topic."
The authors did not take my comment into account
The reference [33] added by the authors: 33. Zou Kai. Research on the relationship between green space plant diversity and POI and urban landscape pattern [D]. Jiangxi Agricultural University, 2021.
It is impossible to find. Is this a university publication, or where was this paper published?
"4. Reply: We obtained the suitable area by suitability evaluation, extracted the urban construction land from the urban land use status map, and overlayed it with the suitable area to obtain the suitable urban construction area. The Thiessen polygon shows the spatial distribution characteristics of the current elderly care facility layout and the problem of distribution imbalance. When optimizing the layout of land use, the first step is to select suitable land in a suitable construction area. Combined with the Thiessen polygon, the elderly care land should be selected as much as possible at
the intersection or intersecting sides of the larger area of the Thiessen polygon to achieve efficient use of resources."
This is perhaps the answer to my remark: "This paper constructs Tyson polygons with the current situation of senior care facilities as
the central point, and uses them as a reference for optimizing the layout of senior care
land." The question is: How?
Thanks for the explanation. What changes have been made to this article?
"5.Reply: We appreciate your professional comments on our article, I'm sorry we didn't make it clear in the article. We have revised part 3.1 of the article."
The authors have marked the changed text with color:
"To obtain the spatial distribution characteristics of suitability for the development of land for elderly care facilities, buffer analysis of urban POI data was carried out by ArcGIS software, and the density of the road network in Changsha was visualized. The single-factor evaluation was scored, and then all indexes were converted into raster data. The comprehensive index evaluation method was carried out by ArcGIS platform to multiply the factor score and weight. The composite score is obtained by reweighting and superposition, and the results were exhibited in Figure 4."
The introduced explanations do not eliminate all doubts. There is a slight improvement, but essential questions remain: If the authors determined the density of roads - the result in ArcGIS is a raster, why was it necessary to convert to a raster? How were the results of these analyzes scored? Such scores were then multiplied by the weights and summed up. What kind of method is it? Is the linear, additive method correct here? – it should be referred to some publications. The points are expressed on an ordinal scale, not a quantitative one, and such a procedure is not methodologically correct. However, one can find publications where it was used.
Still, a methodical background is needed in scientistic publications.
"6.Reply:Thank you for your professional comments on our articles. Recommendations and conclusions include land use optimization strategies for community housing and institutional pension facilities. The content of 3.3.2 is a small case analysis and a solution to optimize the layout. However, this idea is only aimed at the land use of community elderly care facilities, because the current collected stock land type is residential land, which matches the community home care facilities, and the information of other types of stock land, such as abandoned schools and factories, cannot be collected. Therefore, there is no better case to further demonstrate the layout of institutional pension facilities. In the future research, I will try my best to expand the channels of data collection, improve the research, and make the research more in-depth and successful."
Which comment does this answer refer to, and what changes to the text are proposed?
My comments to which the authors did not respond:
They based their suitability analysis on Euclidean distances between Oi's care facilities and different types of facilities. They did not analyze the real route of arrival.
The distances are designated as buffers, then assigned points, with negative scores introduced for the de-stimulants, reflecting the negative impact. This is an exciting idea, but it would require a broader justification.
There is no description of how the pattern of suitability was determined. What method were used to connect the assessment points, distance, density rasters, and previously determined index weights?
Still, in my opinion, the article does not sufficiently meet the requirements for scientific publications.
Author Response
Dear reviewer：
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your valuable comments. We have addressed all the comments carefully and the manuscript has been revised under revision mode. I believe that the addressing of these comments has greatly improved the quality of this manuscript. The specific modification instructions are attached.
Thank you very much for the hard work of the reviewers! Happy New Year!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The content of the manuscript has been improved.
Author Response
Dear reviewer：
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your valuable comments. We have addressed all the comments carefully and the manuscript has been revised under revision mode. I believe that the addressing of these comments has greatly improved the quality of this manuscript. The specific modification instructions are attached.
Thank you very much for the hard work of the reviewers! Happy New Year!
Best wishes!
Sincerely,
Jun Yang, Zhifei Lou, Xinglong Tang and Ying Sun
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors partially responded to my comments. They have made corrections to the article. I still believe that the article does not fully meet the requirements for scientific publication. Literature references should be expanded, and references to articles from worldwide. However, methodological flaws have been partially removed. I want to thank the authors and wish them success in their further scientific work.
Author Response
Dear reviewer：
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your valuable comments. We have addressed all the comments carefully and the manuscript has been revised under revision mode. I believe that the addressing of these comments has greatly improved the quality of this manuscript. The specific modification instructions are attached.
Thank you very much for the hard work of the reviewers! Happy New Year!
Best wishes!
Sincerely,
Jun Yang, Zhifei Lou, Xinglong Tang and Ying Sun
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
