Determining the Interaction of Social Sustainability with the Physical Environment: A Case Study of Adana, Turkey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is very interesting and the topics discussed are current. The methodological approach is rigorous and consistent, demonstrating an enormous scientific effort in advancing its thesis. The questionnaire design, content and target sample involved also appear correct. The proposed social_hub_spaces model appears very interesting. All in all, the work carried out is of great interest. Perhaps the only advice to be given to the authors is to make it clear how the proposed indications and thus the parameters worked out can become a guide for the designer and at what time during the design activity they can find space. In practice, the authors should make it clear how the elaborated model can be exportable and thus usable for future projects.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, thank you for your insightful comments. We are pleased that you recognized the effort we put into this study. We believe that your comments have significantly advanced the quality of our paper.

• As per your suggestions, a conclusion section has been added to discuss the future applications of this model and the stakeholders who could benefit from it.

Additionally, the following changes have been made:

• The research question has been clarified in the introduction to provide the reader with a clearer understanding of the problem and the focus of the study.
• The literature section has been consolidated under a single heading titled "Literature Review."
• Information regarding the parameters investigated has been added to the "Social Sustainability and its Interactions with the Physical Environment" section.
• In the "Questionnaire Design" section, it has been specified that the Likert scale ranges from 1 to 5. The description of the methodology used in this section has also been elaborated.
• The "Demographic Description" section has been visualized and briefly described.
• An explanation concerning the double-loaded factors has been included in the "Results" section.
• ANOVA outputs of the regression analysis have been added to the tables in the "Results" section. Additionally, the equations following the same order as the significant values of the "coefficients" have been updated accordingly.

Thank you once again for evaluating my manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Short summary

The Authors explore the impact of individual interactions with the physical environment on several aspects of social sustainability. Their research lays its foundations on the notion of public space, defined as inclusive urban and social areas where people engage in diverse social and physical activities equitably and freely, enhancing democratic communication with open dialogue channels, unrestricted by time, space, or community constraints.

Field research is conducted in the Seyhan district of Adana province, situated in southern Türkiye. Specifically, two areas are examined, each characterized by distinct socio-economic compositions. 871 questionnaires are collected from users, but, after preliminary analyses, only 676 valid questionnaires are obtained. 

The factors identified through the questionnaire and statistical analysis are labeled as: (1) Belonging and Identity, (2) Attractiveness, (3) Vitality, (4) Social Capital, (5) Participation and Democracy, (6) Justice and Social Equality, (7) Cohesion and Integration, (8) Health, (9) Security Perception, and (10) Social Infrastructure. To assess the influence of physical factors on social factors, they are categorized into social- and environmental-related. 

Finally, ANOVA and Post Hoc test are used to establish social disparities between areas, and Linear Regression analysis is conducted for each factor to enlighten relationships with other factors.

By examining the results of the analysis, the Authors find a correlation between social- and environmental-related factors that validates their main hypothesis, asserting that "there is a significant relationship between physical environmental parameters and social sustainability in public space." Furthermore, they find correlations between demographic characteristics and social-related factors.

Consequently, the Authors identify a "social hub space", that is, a comprehensive model involving a complicated network of relationships within the public space, and conclude that social data ought not to be viewed in isolation from spatial inputs; rather, these two dimensions should complement each other to enhance the overall sustainability of public spaces.

 

Broad comments

The Authors illustrate a comprehensive reseach on survey data obtained through field research in Adana (Turkey), highlighting the relevance of public space as determinant of a wide set of social and environmental factors. Furthermore they elaborate a social hub space that connects demographic, social, and environmental factors to explain the complexity and the interrelatedness of the social dimension.

Major comments are the following:

- The number of questionnaires collected in Ali Münif Yeğenağa Street (Zone B) and Atatürk Street (Zone A) is rather low, consequently the Authors are invited to briefly comment results and then exclude these two areas from the ANOVA and Post-Hoc tests.

- The ANOVA and Post-Hoc tests, as they seem to be disconnected from the regression analyses, could be illustrated separately in a unique table representing each factor in a row, and for each row the significativeness of the ANOVA test and of each post-Hoc test.

- In the linear regression models (pp.15-23) Authors are invited to illustrate only the output of the final model and to verify the interpretation of results. Specifically, the suppsoed hierarchy of the explanatory factors by relevance does not seem to be correct, as, of course, when having less regressors there is an omitted variable bias. Consequently, before using a stepwise procedure to define the "additional" contribution of each regressor, Authors are invited to test the significativeness of each regressor throughout a separate simple regression model, and then add to the model those regressors that better fit the data, beginning with the most significative in the simple regression models.

- Furthermore, in the interpretation of the beta coefficients, it should be emphasized that the association between the magnitude of the estimates and the relevance of the factors is acceptable only whne all variables are measured using the same scale. However, while, as stated at the beginning of the empirical analysis, all variables are measured using a 1-5 Lickert scale, it should be verified that each factor has the same range of variation, otherwise this interpretation does not hold true. 

- Finally, Authors are invited to add a final section (named "Conclusions") to the main text to illustrate research limitations, suggestions for further research, and the policy implications of their findings. 

 

Minor comments

Authors are invited to substitute the Tables in the "Demographic description" of the sample (pp.9-10) with appropriate graphs (histograms, pie charts) and to briefly comment results. Also, due to the low number of observations, the modalitites of the item "education" could be reduced by aggregating "secondary-primary-no_formal_education" in "secondary or less" and "master-PhD" in "upper tertiary".

Authors are invited the check in Table 4 (and eventually report the fact in the main text) why only the item "Fragrant" is associated to two factor loadings (one for "Attractiveness" and one for "Calm and Vitality").  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, thank you for evaluating our manuscript. We believe that your comments have significantly advanced the quality of our paper.

In response to your suggestions:

• You recommended excluding Ali Münif Yeğenağa Street and Atatürk Street from the surveys. However, Atatürk Street has a sample size of 198, which is substantial within the total sample of 676 participants. Additionally, the detailed demographic information provided for these streets illustrates the model’s inclusion of diverse social fabrics. Therefore, the model was calculated for all public spaces in the area collectively, rather than separately. Consequently, the smaller sample size from Ali Münif Yeğenağa Street did not impact the overall model.
• ANOVA outputs of the regression analysis have been added to the tables in the "Results" section.
• The linear regression test was re-evaluated, starting with the most significant factor and working through the hierarchy.
• In the "Questionnaire Design" section, it has been implied that the Likert scale is assumed to be interval, ranging from 1 to 5.
• A conclusion section has been added to discuss the future applications of this model and the stakeholders who could benefit from it.
• Demographic information has been visualized with graphical representations and explanatory notes, and the "education" item has been simplified as suggested.
• The criteria for combining double-loaded factors into single factors have been reported in the "Results" section.

Additionally, the following changes have been made:

• The research question in the introduction has been clarified to provide readers with a clearer understanding of the problem and the study’s focus.
• The literature section has been consolidated under a single heading titled "Literature Review."
• Information regarding the parameters investigated has been added to the "Social Sustainability and its Interactions with the Physical Environment" section.
• The description of the methodology used in the "Questionnaire Design" section has been elaborated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The manuscript presents an intriguing study investigating five distinct public spaces in the Seyhan district of Adana, Turkey, emphasizing their significance in daily life experiences and as reflections of interpersonal interactions. Here with some advice:   1. Introduction Clarity: The introduction's research problem must be more explicit. Clearly defining the research question and its significance will provide readers with a better understanding of the study's objectives and relevance.   2. Integration of Chapters: Consider merging the second and third chapters into one comprehensive section, serving as a literature review. This section incorporates a detailed research framework and discusses the specific indicators chosen for measurement. For insights into the concept of social sustainability, consider referencing the following articles:DOI: 10.3390/land11091483 DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2022.2144137 DOI: 10.3390/buildings14040881   3. Methodology and Data Presentation: Provide explanations and calculations of formulas within the Methodology and Data sections. For instance, equations such as the one on page 17 should be elucidated within the Methodology section for clarity and coherence.
  4. Discussion Alignment with Research Questions: Ensure that the discussion section directly addresses the research questions posed in the introduction. This alignment is crucial for coherence and relevance, allowing readers to understand how the findings contribute to addressing the research problem.
5. Inclusion of Conclusion Section: It is recommended to include a dedicated conclusion section summarizing the key findings, their implications, and potential avenues for future research. This section serves as a critical endpoint, providing closure and reinforcing the significance of the study's outcomes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, thank you for evaluating our manuscript. We believe that your comments have significantly advanced the quality of our paper.

In response to your suggestions:

• The research question in the introduction has been clarified to provide readers with a clearer understanding of the problem and the study's focus.
• The literature section has been consolidated under a single heading titled "Literature Review."
• Information regarding the parameters investigated has been added to the "Social Sustainability and its Interactions with the Physical Environment" section.
• The suggested articles have been reviewed and incorporated into the literature section.
• The description of the methodology used in the "Questionnaire Design" section has been elaborated.
• The introduction has been expanded and integrated with the discussion section to clarify ambiguous points.
• A conclusion section has been added to discuss the future applications of this model and the stakeholders who could benefit from it.

Additionally, the following changes have been made:

• In the "Questionnaire Design" section, it has been implied that the Likert scale is assumed to be equidistant, ranging from 1 to 5.
• The "Demographic Description" section has been visualized and briefly described.
• An explanation concerning the double-loaded factors has been included in the "Results" section.
• ANOVA outputs of the regression analysis have been added to the tables in the "Results" section. Additionally, the equations have been updated to follow the same order as the significant values of the "coefficients."

Thank you once again for evaluating my manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Broad comments

1. The equation of the regression model is wrong, consequently I suggest to remove the lines

“Variables significantly affecting the factors, with a significance level below 0.05, were selected using the forward method. The Coefficient (B) value was used to assess the impact of each unit increase on the dependent variable (Y), and the influence of the independent variables (X) constituting each factor was formulated into an equation and presented to the researchers:

Y=𝐵0+𝐵1×𝑋1+𝐵2×𝑋2×𝐵𝑛×𝑋𝑛

 2. The first two radar graphs (Marital status and Education) should report percentage values, as the sample size is highly heterogeneous.

3. Authors state that “If variances loaded onto multiple factors differ by more than 0.1 among the loads, the factor with the highest load was considered.” Considering this specification, “Fragrant” should be attributed only to “Attractiveness”

4. My comment: The ANOVA and Post-Hoc tests, as they seem to be disconnected from the regression analyses, could be illustrated separately in a unique table representing each factor in a row, and for each row the significativeness of the ANOVA test and of each post-Hoc test.

Authors’ reply: ANOVA outputs of the regression analysis have been added to the tables in the "Results" section.

This sentence does not provide a correct answer to my comment. I suggested to illustrate all ANOVA analyses presented in sections “ANOVA” in a single table before regression analyses. I did not mean to add ANOVA (F test) analyses to each regression model.

Also, I suggested to illustrate all post-hoc tests in a single table.

Furthermore, I suggest to delete from Tables 5-10 the sub-section Regression analysis and to illustrate only the final model illustrated in the sub-section Regression analysis – Coefficients for Model i (i = 1, …, 8).

Finally, I suggest to delete equations 2-6 and their explanation as they are redundant and potentially misleading (this is not the standard way of presenting a regression output).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We believe that we have made the requested changes in this round of revisions.

1. The sentences that were requested to be removed have been deleted from the text.
2. The marital status and education charts have been reorganized to display percentage distributions.
3. The variance that loaded onto two factors has been added solely to the "attractiveness" factor.
4. The exact meaning of the sentences "I suggested to illustrate all ANOVA analyses presented in sections ANOVA in a single table before regression analyses" and "Also, I suggested to illustrate all post-hoc tests in a single table" was unclear. If you mean that we should open a section before "5.2. Correlation between social and physical factors" to summarize ANOVA and post-hoc tests in that part, this section has been added. Additionally, ANOVA and post-hoc tests have been summarized in single tables.
5. The table showing the regression results has been removed, and only a summary has been provided in the coefficients section.
6. The equations and their explanations have been removed.

Thank you once again for your time and effort.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 I want to congratulate the authors because the paper has significantly improved.  I am satisfied with the quality of the revised manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive feedback. We are delighted that you found our manuscript improved.

According to the comments from the another reviewer, the final revisions are as follows:

1. The marital status and education charts have been reorganized to display percentage distributions.
2. The variance that loaded onto two factors has been added solely to the "attractiveness" factor.
3. A separate section summarizing ANOVA and post-hoc tests has been created, and these tables have been summarized in this section.
4. The table showing the regression results has been removed, and only a summary has been provided in the coefficients section.
5. The equations and their explanations have been removed.

Thank you once again for your time and effort.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf