The Impact of Real Estate “COVID” Factors on Expressed Satisfaction of Residents during COVID-19 Pandemic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article compares two-time cross-sections in 2010 and 2021 to discuss the necessary elements in the context of covid-19. The topic is interesting, innovative, and practical. This paper is exceptional in terms of its logical flow and value, making it a rare find. However, some revisions are required before publication.
Firstly, not all the elements builders are real estate developers. It is suggested that the study's elements should be further divided into indoor space, outdoor public space, and public facilities. This division will provide targeted support for development management in the field of planning and construction.
Secondly, it is recommended to discuss the possible causes of demographic differences based on the findings. This discussion will guide real estate development.
Finally, it is crucial to pay attention to the standardization of literature citations.
Sincerely
Author Response
Review Report 1:
The reviewer suggests that the study's elements should be further divided into indoor space, outdoor public space, and public facilities. This division will provide targeted support for development management in the field of planning and construction.
A: We agree with the above proposal, but we limited ourselves to the interior only. We further emphasized the above, and at the same time stated that the subject of further studies is exactly what the reviewer suggests. Our study investigates the parameters of the interior, so in the future, it would make sense to expand the studies to include living parameters, the building, the surroundings, the neighbourhood.
It is recommended to discuss the possible causes of demographic differences based on the findings. This discussion will guide real estate development.
A: In accordance with this recommendation, we have added a discussion:
A series of studies show large differences between age groups in the impact this pandemic has had [55]. Research shows that older age has a strong influence on the seriousness of risks regarding specific jobs, the possibility of increased unemployment and poor chances of re-employment, negative perception of the experience of working from home, and early retirement [55]. On the other hand, the same study shows that younger age groups faced greater job insecurity, and negative stereotypes towards older workers, which triggered tensions and deterioration of communication. Our findings confirm this issue, which is why we believe that even more attention should be paid to it in the future.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The review “The Impact of Real Estate "Covid" Factors on Expressed Satis- 2 faction of Residents during Covid-19 Pandemic raises an interesting topic. Although the reader can expect what results the author will achieve in the study, some information resulting from the research and literature analysis is surprising. The research carried out at work, based on a survey, is a simple study. The author of the work obtained real results that may serve as another reference in the field of research on housing factors in a few years (like the 2010 research).
Here are some notes on the review:
- In many places, reference numbers are placed at the beginning of the sentence, e.g. 26, 44, 90 line. According to the author's guidelines, "reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation".
Line 38 – the word active should start with a lowercase letter (?)
In table 1, in the Education row, instead of Skupaj, it should be Total
Line 402 – In the sentence: "in addition, researchers [53] and [54] pointed out that..." isn't there a word missing before pointed?
Verse 440. There is a dot before the first sentence that shouldn't be there.
482 – shouldn't the literature list be in alphabetical order?
Author Response
Review Report 2:
The reviewer states:
- In many places, reference numbers are placed at the beginning of the sentence, e.g. 26, 44, 90 line. According to the author's guidelines, "reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation".
Line 38 – the word active should start with a lowercase letter (?)
In table 1, in the Education row, instead of Skupaj, it should be Total
Line 402 – In the sentence: "in addition, researchers [53] and [54] pointed out that..." isn't there a word missing before pointed?
Verse 440. There is a dot before the first sentence that shouldn't be there.
482 – shouldn't the literature list be in alphabetical order?
A: We have implemented the given instructions
A: We took into account all the above, corrected errors in the text, and marked all changes in red. The literature was cited in accordance with the journal's editorial policy.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
My most significant concerns are the substantial differences between the two samples and the lack of clarity about whether the questions relate to satisfaction or importance. The proportion of women in the 2010 sample was more than twice that in the 2021 sample, and this will surely have a massive impact on the findings. There needs to be analysis of findings by gender before any conclusions can be drawn. Another crucial aspect is the nature of people's jobs. Women are more likely to be employed in healthcare or are care-workers, or in hospitality, retail and education, which are far less amenable to working from home, so will require different things from their homes. Did the questionnaire ask to what extent people worked from home during the pandemic and after lockdowns?
In many places the author talks about agreement, but it's not clear whether this means "satisfaction" or agreeing that an amenity is "important". Without seeing the questionnaire, the findings are very difficult to understand.
There are inconsistencies in the tense used for the literature review and the discussion, at times implying the paper is being written in 2020 in the middle of lockdowns and elsewhere post-pandemic.
Line 256 - the difference in rural between the samples is actually small and for absolute numbers the statement is wrong.
There are contradictions (lines 322 and 339) regarding belonging to the neighbourhood.
Lines 330-331 - how do you know this? Surely lower satisfaction means it's more important? What was the question? Satisfaction? Importance? Agreement? Likewise line 347.
Surely the discussion under Table 3 is more relevant than the information in the table. Why wasn't gender analysed in this way too?
What do the correlation in the top part of Table 4 really mean? Older people are more satisfied with the tech in their homes? They think it's more important?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Incorrect word choices: Virtue p.3 line 144
mudguard p.5 line 209
valorised -> validated line 217
proverbially -> anecdotally line261 (but preferably cite a reference)
Delete "this" p.3 line 136
First two sentence p.6 are repeats from previous paragraph
Author Response
Review Report 3:
Reviewre’s concerns are the substantial differences between the two samples and the lack of clarity about whether the questions relate to satisfaction or importance. Without seeing the questionnaire, the findings are very difficult to understand.
A: As the title of the research suggests, the research concerns exclusively the study of satisfaction. The article addresses research questions on participants' satisfaction with the essential "COVID" factors of home ownership during the Covid 19 pandemic. We agree that without looking at the questionnaire, some of the details may be more difficult to understand (this actually applies to all published quantitative research). In order to clearly understand the research, we emphasized in the title that we are interested in satisfaction.
Reviewre notice, that the proportion of women in the 2010 sample was more than twice that in the 2021 sample, and this will surely have a massive impact on the findings. There needs to be analysis of findings by gender before any conclusions can be drawn. Another crucial aspect is the nature of people's jobs. Women are more likely to be employed in healthcare or are care-workers, or in hospitality, retail and education, which are far less amenable to working from home, so will require different things from their homes. Did the questionnaire ask to what extent people worked from home during the pandemic and after lockdowns?
A: In the text, we have therefore unequivocally emphasized: We are aware that the characteristics of the participants may influence the results. Therefore, we pay attention to demographic differences between participants in 2010 and in 2021, but do not specifically address these influences in our study.
There are inconsistencies in the tense used for the literature review and the discussion, at times implying the paper is being written in 2020 in the middle of lockdowns and elsewhere post-pandemic.
Based on the above, we have added additional definitions in the text: Our study investigates the impact of the real estate Covid factor on expressed satisfaction of residents during the Cobid-19 pandemic. In the future it would be very interesting to observe what changes the post-covid period will bring.
Line 256 - the difference in rural between the samples is actually small and for absolute numbers the statement is wrong. There are contradictions (lines 322 and 339) regarding belonging to the neighbourhood.
We have corrected the listed inconsistencies.
Lines 330-331 - how do you know this? Surely lower satisfaction means it's more important? What was the question? Satisfaction? Importance? Agreement? Likewise line 347.
A: They found that levels of satisfaction were higher among homeowners [43]. Self-satisfaction was defined as a combination of general satisfaction with life, satisfaction with living conditions and neighborhood [43]. From this we conclude that a high percentage of home ownership has a positive effect on the satisfaction of the participants (the percentage of home ownership in Slovenia is over 80%).
This is also confirmed by our findings, with participants placing much greater importance on neighbourhood relations in 2021, which they show through a higher level of expressed satisfaction. Given that the entire research is about satisfaction, all interpretations also refer to satisfaction and not to importance, agreements, needs, etc.. In order to make it truly unambiguous, we have added clarifications in several places in the text to what the research refers to ( colored red).
Surely the discussion under Table 3 is more relevant than the information in the table. Why wasn't gender analysed in this way too?
We have added relevant discussion indicating the importance of gender (added text is colored red).
A series of studies show large differences between age groups in the impact this pandemic has had [55]. Research shows that older age has a strong influence on the seriousness of risks regarding specific jobs, the possibility of increased unemployment and poor chances of re-employment, negative perception of the experience of working from home, early retirement [55]. On the other hand, the same study shows that younger age groups faced greater job insecurity, negative stereotypes towards older workers, which triggered tensions and deterioration of communication. Our findings confirm this issue, which is why we believe that even more attention should be paid to it in the future.
What do the correlation in the top part of Table 4 really mean? Older people are more satisfied with the tech in their homes? They think it's more important?
A: In statistics, correlation or dependence is any statistical relationship, whether causal or not, between two random variables or bivariate data. Although in the broadest sense, "correlation" may indicate any type of association, in statistics it usually refers to the degree to which a pair of variables are linearly related.
Correlations are useful because they can indicate a predictive relationship that can be exploited in practice. For example, an electrical utility may produce less power on a mild day based on the correlation between electricity demand and weather. In this example, there is a causal relationship, because extreme weather causes people to use more electricity for heating or cooling. However, in general, the presence of a correlation is not sufficient to infer the presence of a causal relationship (i.e., correlation does not imply causation).
Linked to Comments on the Quality of English Language, we have corrected grammatical errors in the text (marked in red).
Review Report 1:
The reviewer suggests that the study's elements should be further divided into indoor space, outdoor public space, and public facilities. This division will provide targeted support for development management in the field of planning and construction.
A: We agree with the above proposal, but we limited ourselves to the interior only. We further emphasized the above, and at the same time stated that the subject of further studies is exactly what the reviewer suggests. Our study investigates the parameters of the interior, so in the future it would make sense to expand the studies to include living parameters, the building, the surroundings, the neighborhood.
It is recommended to discuss the possible causes of demographic differences based on the findings. This discussion will guide real estate development.
A: In accordance with this recommendation, we have added a discussion:
A series of studies show large differences between age groups in the impact this pandemic has had [55]. Research shows that older age has a strong influence on the seriousness of risks regarding specific jobs, the possibility of increased unemployment and poor chances of re-employment, negative perception of the experience of working from home, early retirement [55]. On the other hand, the same study shows that younger age groups faced greater job insecurity, negative stereotypes towards older workers, which triggered tensions and deterioration of communication. Our findings confirm this issue, which is why we believe that even more attention should be paid to it in the future.
Review Report 2:
The reviewer states:
- In many places, reference numbers are placed at the beginning of the sentence, e.g. 26, 44, 90 line. According to the author's guidelines, "reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation".
Line 38 – the word active should start with a lowercase letter (?)
In table 1, in the Education row, instead of Skupaj, it should be Total
Line 402 – In the sentence: "in addition, researchers [53] and [54] pointed out that..." isn't there a word missing before pointed?
Verse 440. There is a dot before the first sentence that shouldn't be there.
482 – shouldn't the literature list be in alphabetical order?
A: We have implemented the given instructions
A: We took into account all the above, corrected errors in the text, marked all changes in red. The literature was cited in accordance with the journal's editorial policy.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Without seeing the questionnaire, it is very difficult to judge the merit of the analysis. You say that the questions are all about satisfaction with amenities/facilities, but you still report findings such as "the most important factors proved to be the possibility of setting up a home office, the Internet, the possibility of installing a mudroom, a separate space and contact with nature, which could be a balcony, terrace, atrium or just good natural lighting and ventilation space." So, presumably you did ask respondents what they consider to be the most important factors? You explain that you use the Likert response approach and have 34 variables, but what statements were respondents indicating their level of agreement with? Satisfaction or importance?
I still feel that the disparity between the 2010 and 2021 samples renders comparison between them meaningless. The key difference is between gender. I believe you need to analyse the responses to the 2010 questionnaire by gender and similarly analyse the responses to the 2021 survey by gender and then see where statistically significant differences arise i.e. how do women's responses differ between the two surveys? How do men's responses differ between the two surveys? It might be that they differ in similar ways, in which case your analysis might be perfectly valid, but without testing this, you can't be sure.
If the questionnaire is purely about satisfaction, how can you state things like "the results of our study show physical proximity to vital facilities (schools, kindergartens, etc.) is no longer important to participants."
I know you talk about "agreement" i.e. whether respondents' Likert responses are "strongly agree", "agree" etc. but without seeing the questions, I can't easily perform a rigorous peer review. Will you include the questions in the final version of the paper?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are a few minor errors e.g. "Seance" -> "sense" (table 4)
Line 458 "oz"? (of?)
Line 44: state (not states)
Author Response
Additional explanations from the authors:
The reviewer gives an interesting reflection on the understanding of satisfaction and importance. In our opinion, these are two different concepts of understanding, which actually open up space for discussion. This is also the charm of research and the spirit of inquiry. In the following, we briefly explain our view of this discussion.
"Satisfaction" and "importance" are two distinct concepts related to personal well-being, but they emphasize different aspects and impact our lives in different ways
- Importance:
- Importance refers to the degree to which something or someone influences our lives or aligns with our values.
- When we recognize something or someone as important, we attribute significant meaning or value to it in our lives.
- Importance is often associated with long-term goals, values, and our deeper understanding of what truly matters in life.
- Satisfaction:
- Satisfaction refers to the current feeling of happiness, joy, or fulfillment that we experience in a specific moment.
- It can be linked to the fulfillment of short-term goals, engaging in current activities, or meeting expectations at a particular moment.
- Satisfaction is more emotional and situational, focusing on the immediate feelings of contentment.
so:
- Importance guides us to reflect on what is enduringly valuable to us and how certain things contribute to the overall meaning of our lives.
- Satisfaction is about our current emotional state, capturing how content or fulfilled we feel in the present moment.
Both concepts are crucial for overall well-being and life satisfaction. Striking a balance by aligning our activities and relationships with both long-term importance and current satisfaction can contribute to a more fulfilling and balanced life. If we can integrate elements that are both important and bring satisfaction into our lives, we're more likely to experience a sense of holistic well-being.
In our research, we strictly limited ourselves to "satisfaction". All questions, as the reviewer painfully notes, are measured according to the L scale, with the fact that we always ask the participants according to the expressed level of satisfaction according to e.g. "proximity to an institution, etc.."
Unfortunately, the questionnaire is not translated into English.
"Satisfaction" clearly comes from validation, a factor analysis of the questionnaire and a reliability analysis of the questionnaire (Cronbach's alpha) were performed. Eight factors were extracted that explain more than 60% of the variation. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin sampling rate is 0.7 and the Bartlett test (BT = 2178.1), which is statistically significant, shows that the excluded factors can be interpreted, the reliability of the questionnaire, determined by the internal consistency method or the Cronbach's alpha coefficient, shows that the questionnaire has high reliability. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the questionnaire is 0.8. So, there is no doubt, that in the foreground is satisfaction, and we do not address importance anywhere.
We agree that differences in the demographic characteristics of the inmates (any differences, not only gender), we also agree that could be eliminated with a completely identical demographic picture, which was not the purpose of our research. We have also clearly stated this limitation. We also agree with the reviewer that the study opens up a series of new research questions, and we believe that this is precisely the meaning of scientific research. Surely there is curiosity about what the results would be like if the questionnaire were actually revised to "importance". This could be a challenge for further studies.
In accordance with the reviewer's instructions, we have also corrected grammatical errors.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I still feel that the author doesn't understand the point I am making about importance and satisfaction. Of course I know the things that the author says in the letter in response to my review. The point I am trying to make is how can you make assertions about importance when you ask questions only about satisfaction? For example "This is also confirmed by our findings, with participants placing much greater importance on neighbourhood relations in 2021, which they show through a higher level of expressed satisfaction." How does a higher level of satisfaction show they place more importance on a factor?
The same applies to the paragraph between lines 382 and 390. For example, how does a satisfaction score of 4.28 for access to vital facilities amongst respondents in urban centres show that it is more IMPORTANT to them than to those in rural areas, who give a mean satisfaction score of 2.67?
This is the point I have been trying to make. If you ask about Satisfaction, how can you then make comments about importance?
You could perhaps make a case for commenting on importance if you look at correlations between each factor and overall satisfaction. The factors with the highest correlation could be described as being of greatest importance.
This doesn't affect your three research questions and the way you answer them.
Line 63 Investigate (not investigates)
Author Response
We carefully examined the reviewer's remaining comments and additionally explained the concepts regarding which the reviewer had comments. We also think that the article is now more comprehensible and does not allow any more doubts regarding the darkness and interpretation of the results.
We have also fixed grammatical errors.
We hope that we have managed to clarify our thinking.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
