Concept of Assessment of Age-Friendly Residential Areas (AFRA): A Case Study of Gdańsk, Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The the research topic of the article seems useful, but it is omitted in the title to be written that the research is done on the case of city of Gdańsk in Poland. In that terms the title of the article need to be corrected. Also make this correction in the abstract - to emphasize the importance of case study, to see how the methodological tool for AFRA assessment is applicable in practice.

 

2. Provide a list of criteria for age-friendly housing that implies urban planing of landscape housing estates and underlines architecture and nature relations.

3. In line 86-87: „So far, such an approach to the identification of residential areas friendly  to an aging population has not been developed or applied anywhere in the world.“ -  this statement need to be more explained in more scientific-research sense regarding previous research. If you claim that there is no existing reesearches on this kind of issues, for me it is a problematic question which need to be more elaborated. 

4. References need to be given in full available form (especially those that are available by online sources), abbreviations should be given in full when they are first mentioned, for example World Health Organization (WHO), etc. Comple the reference 1, 2, 4.

When you refer to one reference in the text, you need to mention the name of the author (for example in reference number 5: As noted by Handler [5], the friendliness of urban spaces depends…; or for reference 6: Previous studies, such as those by Fitzgerald and Caro [6] or Plouffe and Kalache [7], described spaces conducive to residents…). All references need to be correctly cited in the text and correctly listed in the List of References at the end of the text.

The completed case studies by Authos need to be titled in the text, even ig they are unpublished (Lines: 61-64; 142; 153; 176)

 5. English need to be corrected, some parts of the text seem to be unfinished and incomprehensible (for example lines: 34-35; 46-47; 65-67; 191-192) 

6. What does it mean exactly the formulation „aesthetic landscape“? (Line: 69-70). Need to be explained in more scientific-research terms concerning philosophical, social, psychological and landscape theory sense, and why you assume the green areas crucially important for older citizens population?

 

7. The Figure 1 (functional-spatial factors) and Figure 2 (aesthetics factors) need to be more clearly explained in the text, why for instance F7A) Building intensity and F7B) Biologically active area are relevant for older people, or in the case of aesthetics factors: why heritage architecture have important role for older people population.

 

8. Why the questionaries are made for people over the age of 55? Which aging scale is been used? Explaine why you prefer to examin the opinion of the people over the age of 55, when for the recent aging scales, people in 55 are considered as „young“ population. 

 

9. For the Table 2. Functional-spatial indicators and Table 3. Aesthetics indicators, it is not clear how it is intervened with Table 4. and Table 5. To be better explained the AFRA methodology it need to be done on real case study samples. 

Also the photos in Table 6. Example photographic documentation from field inventory in Gdańsk, don’t provide the convincing and easy to understand methodological documentation.

10. The novelty of the AFRA assessment, as it is stated in Chapter 2. Materials and Methods is not convincingly elaborated in Chapter 4. Discussion and Conclusions. What are the real benefits from this method? How strategicaly functional-spacial indicators joint with aesthetical indicators refers to age-friendly issues in the case study of Gdańsk? The given research seems to provide only theoretical platform, that is faintly applied in practical sense on urban area of Gdańsk districts. It should be selected one, two, tree or four districts which would be analyzed through points that are mentioned in Materials and Methods chapter (regarding precisely functional-spatial factors and aesthetics factors).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English need to be corrected, some parts of the text seem to be unfinished and incomprehensible (for example lines: 34-35; 46-47; 65-67; 191-192)

Author Response

“Concept of assessment of age-friendly residential areas (AFRA)”

submitted to the Sustainability journal

Upon the Editorial Board’s request, we have made every effort to account for the Reviewers' comments in the revision process. We hope that the article meets the expectations of the Reviewers and the Editorial Board and that it is acceptable for publication in the Sustainability journal in its present form.

 

Dear Reviewers and Editor,

Thank you very much for all your time and effort! We feel that your in-depth and systematic feedback was extremely useful for the paper to reach its full potential and we are really pleased to see that after the review it became a substantially better piece of scholarly work!

Below please find detailed responses (in blue) to your comments and remarks. In the resubmission process we have also attached a version of the paper with all the edits tracked. 

With the best regards,

The authors

 

Reviewer 1

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The the research topic of the article seems useful, but it is omitted in the title to be written that the research is done on the case of city of Gdańsk in Poland. In that terms the title of the article need to be corrected. Also make this correction in the abstract - to emphasize the importance of case study, to see how the methodological tool for AFRA assessment is applicable in practice.

Thank you for the right insight. The title has been made more precise. 

2. Provide a list of criteria for age-friendly housing that implies urban planing of landscape housing estates and underlines architecture and nature relations.

The rationale for the selection of aesthetic criteria in terms of urban public open spaces is included in subsection 2.2.1.

3. In line 86-87: „So far, such an approach to the identification of residential areas friendly  to an aging population has not been developed or applied anywhere in the world.“ -  this statement need to be more explained in more scientific-research sense regarding previous research. If you claim that there is no existing reesearches on this kind of issues, for me it is a problematic question which need to be more elaborated. 

Thank you for the right comment. Indeed, an overly general mental shortcut was formulated in this sentence. We have clarified the wording.

“So far, such an approach to the identification of residential areas friendly to an aging population, that integrates planning and aesthetic indicators in the public open spaces of residential neighborhoods, has not been developed or applied”.

4. References need to be given in full available form (especially those that are available by online sources), abbreviations should be given in full when they are first mentioned, for example World Health Organization (WHO), etc. Comple the reference 1, 2, 4. 

Indeed, a valid point. Completion of missing references has been made.

When you refer to one reference in the text, you need to mention the name of the author (for example in reference number 5: As noted by Handler [5], the friendliness of urban spaces depends…; or for reference 6: Previous studies, such as those by Fitzgerald and Caro [6] or Plouffe and Kalache [7], described spaces conducive to residents…). All references need to be correctly cited in the text and correctly listed in the List of References at the end of the text.

Thank you for your attention, we have corrected the text and added the authors. 

The completed case studies by Authos need to be titled in the text, even ig they are unpublished (Lines: 61-64; 142; 153; 176)

Thank you for your attention. Appropriate corrections have been made in the text and literature.

 5. English need to be corrected, some parts of the text seem to be unfinished and incomprehensible (for example lines: 34-35; 46-47; 65-67; 191-192) 

Thank you for your attention. Corrections have been made to the text of the manuscript.

6. What does it mean exactly the formulation „aesthetic landscape“? (Line: 69-70). Need to be explained in more scientific-research terms concerning philosophical, social, psychological and landscape theory sense, and why you assume the green areas crucially important for older citizens population?

Thank you for your comments. Necessary additions have been made regarding the importance of landscape aesthetics. The importance of green areas in the context of older people was explained.

 7. The Figure 1 (functional-spatial factors) and Figure 2 (aesthetics factors) need to be more clearly explained in the text, why for instance F7A) Building intensity and F7B) Biologically active area are relevant for older people, or in the case of aesthetics factors: why heritage architecture have important role for older people population.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your comment regarding the need for clearer explanations of Figure 1 (functional-spatial factors) and Figure 2 (aesthetic factors), we have expanded the text to provide more detailed explanations of the relevance of these factors for older people.

Specifically, we have added the following explanations in the text:

“Each of the adopted indicators was analyzed in terms of supporting the well-being and quality of life of older adults. For instance, building intensity (F7A) in urban planning parameters (Category VII) affects accessibility of essential services and social interaction. High density often means amenities like grocery stores and healthcare facilities are within walking distance, crucial for older adults with limited mobility. Similarly, biologically active areas (F7B) were examined for their contribution to mental and physical health. Green spaces provide opportunities for exercise and a serene environment, reducing stress and promoting social interaction, thereby combating loneliness and isolation. Likewise, the analysis considered aesthetic factors. Historical spatial arrangements (K2C) in urban layouts (K2) were evaluated for their impact on emotional well-being. Heritage architecture fosters a sense of continuity and connection with the past, evoking personal memories and enhancing identity for older adults. Familiar and comforting settings provided by these environments are particularly beneficial for those experiencing cognitive decline or feelings of isolation.

8. Why the questionaries are made for people over the age of 55? Which aging scale is been used? Explaine why you prefer to examin the opinion of the people over the age of 55, when for the recent aging scales, people in 55 are considered as „young“ population. 

In subsection 2.1 Research framework and assumptions, the classification of the age structure of seniors was completed. WHO [World Health Organization Global Age-Friendly Cities: A Guide; World Health Organization, 2007, Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43755/9789241547307_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (Accessed 20.09.2022)] classification of age structure divided into 4 age groups of seniors was taken into account in the surveys: I) 55-59 years - pre-old age (pre-senior), II) 60/65-74 years - early old age (young-old), III) 75-89 years - old age proper (old-old), IV) 90+ years - -oldest-old (lifelong).

9. For the Table 2. Functional-spatial indicators and Table 3. Aesthetics indicators, it is not clear how it is intervened with Table 4. and Table 5. To be better explained the AFRA methodology it need to be done on real case study samples. 

Also the photos in Table 6. Example photographic documentation from field inventory in Gdańsk, don’t provide the convincing and easy to understand methodological documentation.

In response to the reviewer's comments, we have incorporated explanations that link Tables 2 and 3 with Tables 4 and 5, as well as provided a case study example. The methodology was clarified through real case study samples. Additionally, concerning the photographs in Table 6 depicting field inventory in Gdańsk, we have revised the methodological documentation to enhance clarity and understanding.

10. The novelty of the AFRA assessment, as it is stated in Chapter 2. Materials and Methods is not convincingly elaborated in Chapter 4. Discussion and Conclusions. What are the real benefits from this method? How strategicaly functional-spacial indicators joint with aesthetical indicators refers to age-friendly issues in the case study of Gdańsk? The given research seems to provide only theoretical platform, that is faintly applied in practical sense on urban area of Gdańsk districts. It should be selected one, two, tree or four districts which would be analyzed through points that are mentioned in Materials and Methods chapter (regarding precisely functional-spatial factors and aesthetics factors).

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In the discussion section, the importance of the results obtained from the received AFRA diagnosis in Gdansk and the benefits derived from it were highlighted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English need to be corrected, some parts of the text seem to be unfinished and incomprehensible (for example lines: 34-35; 46-47; 65-67; 191-192)

Thank you very much for noticing the truncated phrases. It was a translation error. The deficiencies have been completed. The entire text has been linguistically corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents the concept of assessment of age-friendly residential areas (AFRA). The article is interesting and consistent with the profile of the journal and the Special Issue. The article is prepared carefully, but has extensive content (a large number of pages) and contains several pages arranged horizontally. I think this needs to change. Main notes:

1. The purpose of the study should be clearly specified and placed in the abstract and introduction.

2. The following messages appear in many places in the text: NO_PRINTED_FORM (7x) and Error! Reference source not found (3x). Improve it.

3.. Tables 7-9 should use dots instead of commas.

4. Is it necessary to include Table 2 and Table 3? They take up a lot of space and are also located horizontally. Additionally, they make the text difficult to follow. It seems to me that it is enough to post only conclusions. Alternatively, please place these tables in Appendix in a vertical position.

5. Adjust Figure 4 and Figure 10 to the vertical side.

6. When posting photos (Table 6, Figure 6, Figure 8), authors should own the copyright to them. This is usually problematic. Please read the rules for posting photos in articles.

7. Is Table 6 a table or rather a figure?

8. The article is very long at the moment. It should be formatted so that there are no blank spaces in the text.

9. It should be indicated what new things the presented study brings to science. What is its added value? In this way, the authors will justify the necessity and value of their paper.

Author Response

“Concept of assessment of age-friendly residential areas (AFRA)”

submitted to the Sustainability journal

Upon the Editorial Board’s request, we have made every effort to account for the Reviewers' comments in the revision process. We hope that the article meets the expectations of the Reviewers and the Editorial Board and that it is acceptable for publication in the Sustainability journal in its present form.

 

Dear Reviewers and Editor,

Thank you very much for all your time and effort! We feel that your in-depth and systematic feedback was extremely useful for the paper to reach its full potential and we are really pleased to see that after the review it became a substantially better piece of scholarly work!

Below please find detailed responses (in blue) to your comments and remarks. In the resubmission process we have also attached a version of the paper with all the edits tracked. 

With the best regards,

The authors

 

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents the concept of assessment of age-friendly residential areas (AFRA). The article is interesting and consistent with the profile of the journal and the Special Issue. The article is prepared carefully, but has extensive content (a large number of pages) and contains several pages arranged horizontally. I think this needs to change. 

Based on your feedback, we have made improvements to address the length and formatting concerns. Specifically, we have moved the horizontally arranged pages (Table 2. Functional-spatial indicators and Table 3. Aesthetics indicators) to an appendix. This adjustment has streamlined the main article content and eliminated horizontal page formatting.

Main notes:

The purpose of the study should be clearly specified and placed in the abstract and introduction.

Thank you for your valuable comment. We have articulated the main aim of the research in the abstract and introduction.

The following messages appear in many places in the text: NO_PRINTED_FORM (7x) and Error! Reference source not found (3x). Improve it.

AS

3.. Tables 7-9 should use dots instead of commas.

We have addressed the issues with "NO_PRINTED_FORM" and "Error! Reference source not found" messages throughout the text, ensuring all references are correctly linked and displayed. Additionally, Tables 7-9 have been reformatted to use dots instead of commas for improved clarity. Thank you for bringing these issues to our attention.

Is it necessary to include Table 2 and Table 3? They take up a lot of space and are also located horizontally. Additionally, they make the text difficult to follow. It seems to me that it is enough to post only conclusions. Alternatively, please place these tables in Appendix in a vertical position.

Based on your input, we have relocated these tables to the appendix.

Adjust Figure 4 and Figure 10 to the vertical side.

Thank you for your attention. The vertical layout of Figure 4 and 10 has been included in the text. The quality of Figure 10 has been improved.

When posting photos (Table 6, Figure 6, Figure 8), authors should own the copyright to them. This is usually problematic. Please read the rules for posting photos in articles.

Thank you for your comment regarding the copyright of photos (Table 6, Figure 6, Figure 8) included in our article. We confirm that all photos were taken by us, and we hold the copyright to them.

7. Is Table 6 a table or rather a figure?

Table 6 will be classified as a figure.

8. The article is very long at the moment. It should be formatted so that there are no blank spaces in the text.

The article has been slimmed down in volume taking into account the comments of all reviewers mainly by reorganising the graphics and tables.

9. It should be indicated what new things the presented study brings to science. What is its added value? In this way, the authors will justify the necessity and value of their paper.

The introduction highlights more explicitly the innovation of the article by developing a methodology for assessing AFRA using an approach that integrates functional-spatial and aesthetic (landscape) indicators, which until now have not been considered together.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article introduces an innovative methodology for the assessment of age-friendly residential areas (AFRA). The methodology integrates concepts such as "aging in place," "age-friendly city," and "active aging," utilizing both theoretical and empirical analyses. Spatial analysis and GIS tools were employed to create thematic maps, which expand understanding and support the research methodology. The methodology section is clear. However, the literature review could benefit from including more recent studies that either support or contrast the paper's findings, thereby enhancing the identified gaps in the current literature. The discussion and conclusions section is well-structured, acknowledging the study's limitations and the need for further investigations. Potential improvements could be made by elaborating on how the methodology can be integrated into urban planning public policy and adapted to different urban contexts globally.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is fine.

Please check the following lines for "reference sources not found":

(1) Lines 31, 36, 49, 54, 58

(2.2) Line 191

(3.3) Line 178

Author Response

“Concept of assessment of age-friendly residential areas (AFRA)”

submitted to the Sustainability journal

Upon the Editorial Board’s request, we have made every effort to account for the Reviewers' comments in the revision process. We hope that the article meets the expectations of the Reviewers and the Editorial Board and that it is acceptable for publication in the Sustainability journal in its present form.

 

Dear Reviewers and Editor,

Thank you very much for all your time and effort! We feel that your in-depth and systematic feedback was extremely useful for the paper to reach its full potential and we are really pleased to see that after the review it became a substantially better piece of scholarly work!

Below please find detailed responses (in blue) to your comments and remarks. In the resubmission process we have also attached a version of the paper with all the edits tracked. 

With the best regards,

The authors

 

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article introduces an innovative methodology for the assessment of age-friendly residential areas (AFRA). The methodology integrates concepts such as "aging in place," "age-friendly city," and "active aging," utilizing both theoretical and empirical analyses. Spatial analysis and GIS tools were employed to create thematic maps, which expand understanding and support the research methodology. The methodology section is clear. However, the literature review could benefit from including more recent studies that either support or contrast the paper's findings, thereby enhancing the identified gaps in the current literature. The discussion and conclusions section is well-structured, acknowledging the study's limitations and the need for further investigations. Potential improvements could be made by elaborating on how the methodology can be integrated into urban planning public policy and adapted to different urban contexts globally.

Thank you for your valuable input. Extensive thoughts on the benefits to cities of carrying out an AFRA diagnosis, which should be part of spatial policy, are included in the discussion section.   

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is fine.

Please check the following lines for "reference sources not found":

(1) Lines 31, 36, 49, 54, 58

(2.2) Line 191

(3.3) Line 178

References have been corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for allowing me to review the manuscript, although I think it is interesting I think it has several limitations not only in format, writing or structure but also in how the information is transferred for a better reading and understanding.

Lines 31 and 36 that this NO_PRINTED_FORM. And at other points... it is disruptive in the reading and appears throughout the introduction.

It would be more than recommended to include universal accessibility and design for all people in the introduction.

Lines 92-97 I don't think this is the best way to include this information.

It seems to me that it would be more than interesting to include ICF as a theoretical model no? Environmental factors that can act as barriers or facilitators, activities and participation, .....

Table 1 should be reformatted and made more user friendly, figure type or so.

Line 125 these stages are based on something? Because they put it in line 138, it would be necessary to describe this before, right?

Line 153 Authors (2024) who does it refer to? Same in 167. Then in 176 but it doesn't follow the Chicago citation rule.

Line 154-156 this needs more clarification

Lines 173-195 this section is “hard” to read it does not allow to follow a common thread and many errors appear what is that in 191 Error! Reference source not found

Table 2 I understand that it is ad-hoc but I understand that it will be based on theoretical framework no?? And there is no legend to help your understanding. The same happens in table 3 it does not help at all as it is read.

Table 6 helps to understand the process... but I would add only two examples of all of them and as an annex.2.2.4 I do not put the lines because they are not well not even the page number, it reappears error line 4.

I don't know if the figure 4 helps to the understanding, besides the right one is not good quality.

Discussion

I think there is a lack of further discussion and implications for people's quality of life with this study.

Author Response

“Concept of assessment of age-friendly residential areas (AFRA)”

submitted to the Sustainability journal

Upon the Editorial Board’s request, we have made every effort to account for the Reviewers' comments in the revision process. We hope that the article meets the expectations of the Reviewers and the Editorial Board and that it is acceptable for publication in the Sustainability journal in its present form.

 

Dear Reviewers and Editor,

Thank you very much for all your time and effort! We feel that your in-depth and systematic feedback was extremely useful for the paper to reach its full potential and we are really pleased to see that after the review it became a substantially better piece of scholarly work!

Below please find detailed responses (in blue) to your comments and remarks. In the resubmission process we have also attached a version of the paper with all the edits tracked. 

With the best regards,

The authors

 

Reviewer 4

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for allowing me to review the manuscript, although I think it is interesting I think it has several limitations not only in format, writing or structure but also in how the information is transferred for a better reading and understanding.

Thank you for all your valuable comments, which have significantly strengthened the content of the article.

Lines 31 and 36 that this NO_PRINTED_FORM. And at other points... it is disruptive in the reading and appears throughout the introduction.

Thank you for your attention. A technical problem with citations has been fixed.

It would be more than recommended to include universal accessibility and design for all people in the introduction.

An extensive reflection on the results obtained during the testing of the AFRA assessment of the city of Gdansk was included in the discussion section. The utilitarian nature of the approach developed and the versatility of AFRA indicators for other social groups were highlighted.

Lines 92-97 I don't think this is the best way to include this information.

Based on your feedback, we have removed this information from the introduction.

It seems to me that it would be more than interesting to include ICF as a theoretical model no? Environmental factors that can act as barriers or facilitators, activities and participation, .....

Thank you for your interesting enquiry. We have considered ICF Qualifier scales, but for spatial analyses that are performed in QGIS software such an elaborate scale is not appropriate. The authors' aspiration is to create a maximally simple algorithm for an automatic diagnosis process of open public space residential areas, which will be effective when there is full availability of vector data. Therefore, we have not opted for the ICF assessment model.

Table 1 should be reformatted and made more user friendly, figure type or so.

Thank you for your feedback regarding Table 1. Following your suggestion, we have replaced Table 1 with a more user-friendly figure. We hope that the new format will facilitate understanding and analysis of the presented data.

Line 125 these stages are based on something? Because they put it in line 138, it would be necessary to describe this before, right?

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The descriptive chaos has been sorted out.

Line 153 Authors (2024) who does it refer to? Same in 167. Then in 176 but it doesn't follow the Chicago citation rule.

All reference citations have been corrected.

Line 154-156 this needs more clarification

The whole of subsection 2.2 has been grammatically corrected.

Lines 173-195 this section is “hard” to read it does not allow to follow a common thread and many errors appear what is that in191 Error! Reference source not found

The revised text offers a clearer explanation:

The rankings of functional-spatial and aesthetics groups of indicators were established using a mixed approach based on the analysis of literature concerning the needs of older people in the aspect of residential space, especially on the results from an international study (Authors, 2024), EU legal regulations, strategic documents, and with the participation of experts. These rankings were established through a survey conducted among seniors from Europe. They were divided into a total of 12 categories, described by 34 corresponding factors. For these factors, indicator values reflecting their age-friendliness were determined. 

In the group of functional-spatial factors, 8 categories/functions were identified (I – transportation-communication, II – recreational-rest, III – commercial-service, IV – cultural-educational, V – information, VI – protective, VII – urban planning parameters, VIII – neighbourhood function) and 21 corresponding factors (Figure 1), and in the group of aesthetics factors, 4 categories (I* – Green-blue infrastructure, II* – Urban layouts, III* – Appearance of spatial objects, IV* – Orderliness and cleanliness of the surroundings) with a total of 13 factors (Figure 2).  

Each of the adopted indicators was analyzed in terms of supporting the well-being and quality of life of older adults. For instance, building intensity (F7A) in urban planning parameters (Category VII) affects accessibility to essential services and social interaction. High density often means amenities like grocery stores and healthcare facilities are within walking distance, which is crucial for older adults with limited mobility. Similarly, biologically active areas (F7B) were examined for their contribution to mental and physical health. Green spaces provide opportunities for exercise and a serene environment, reducing stress and promoting social interaction, thereby combating loneliness and isolation. 

 Likewise, the analysis considered aesthetic factors. Historical spatial arrangements (K2C) in urban layouts (K2) were evaluated for their impact on emotional well-being. Heritage architecture fosters a sense of continuity and connection with the past, evoking personal memories and enhancing identity for older adults. Familiar and comforting settings provided by these environments are particularly beneficial for those experiencing cognitive decline or feelings of isolation. The indicator values were then used to assess residential estates in a specific case study. 

Table 2 I understand that it is ad-hoc but I understand that it will be based on theoretical framework no?? And there is no legend to help your understanding. The same happens in table 3 it does not help at all as it is read.

Tables 2 and 3 have been moved to the appendix and replaced by simple schemes to classify indicators into two groups Fig.4 and Fig.5.

Table 6 helps to understand the process... but I would add only two examples of all of them and as an annex.2.2.4 I do not put the lines because they are not well not even the page number, it reappears error line 4.

Thank you for your attention. The table has been corrected and explanations of the examples have been added.

I don't know if the figure 4 helps to the understanding, besides the right one is not good quality.

The figure serves an informative function. It illuminates the size of the age and gender structure of the senior group in the city of Gdansk. The spatial distribution of the studied population of seniors in residential areas in the city space is important information. We decided that it is worth leaving such a visualization, making it easier to imagine the phenomenon, because it may be useful to other researchers for comparison. The quality of the figures has been improved and a vertical layout has been used.

Discussion

I think there is a lack of further discussion and implications for people's quality of life with this study.

The discussion on the suggested problem was extended.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors adopted the suggestions in accordance with which they corrected the article.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for making all the changes, suggestions, comments and reflections on my review. I think the manuscript has improved in clarity and structure, as it contained a lot of information.