Does Size Really Matter for the Place Attachment of High-Rise and Low-Rise Housing Estates? A Budapest Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2789817-R1. Title: Does size really matter in the social environment of high-rise and low-rise housing estates? A Budapest case study.

Comments:

1. The title of the article should be more specific. Please adjust.

2. I suggest removing Budapest from the keywords.

3. Please include quantitative information in the abstract to give more relevance to the results obtained in this study.

4. L31. Review the format of the reference.

5. Please check all the wording and style of the article. There are repetitive writing errors. For example, L26-35.

6. The introduction should include a thorough review of the topic of study. Currently, there are no relevant references and information.

7. In the introduction please visualize the practical utility of this study.

8. In the introduction please report the findings of similar studies. It is important to have a reference point for this study.

9. L53-56. This information may be deleted.

10. L59-62. This information may be deleted.

9. The reference format of this article is confusing. Additionally, it is not convincing to conduct a literature review with so few references. Chapter 2.

10. The hypotheses of this study should be presented in the materials and methods chapter and not at the end of a literature review.

11. Please include a figure with a map of the study site.

12. What are the main characteristics of the study population?

13. The materials and methods chapter should have more technical detail. Please improve significantly.

14. Please avoid short paragraphs. They should have a comprehensive development.

15. Unfortunately, the article lacks figures that would allow a better understanding of the results presented.

16. Currently, most of the tables do not provide relevant information. Please evaluate their usefulness.

17. Please discuss the results of this study in depth. Contrast your findings with other relevant authors. The discussion of results should have a practical view, what is the usefulness of this study? 

18. Is this study influenced by the Covid-19 episode? If so, this scenario should be visible throughout the article.

19. The conclusions must be meaningful. Please give more relevance.

20. What are the future lines of research?

21. In general terms, this article should be significantly improved. Currently, it would not be ready to be published in a high level scientific journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

5. Please check all the wording and style of the article. There are repetitive writing errors. For example, L26-35.

14. Please avoid short paragraphs. They should have a comprehensive development.

Author Response

Comment 1

The title of the article should be more specific. Please adjust.

Response

The title has been adjusted. Please see page 1, lines 1-2.

Comment 2

I suggest removing Budapest from the keywords.

Response

Thank you to the reviewer for the suggestion; however, the authors believed that it is best to include the city to maximise the discoverability of the manuscript.

Comment 3

Please include quantitative information in the abstract to give more relevance to the results obtained in this study.

Response

The abstract now includes quantitative information. Please see page 1, lines 17-21.

Comment 4

L31. Review the format of the reference.

Response

Thank you for pointing out this error. All citations and references have now been updated. Please see throughout the manuscript.

Comment 5

Please check all the wording and style of the article. There are repetitive writing errors. For example, L26-35.

Response

The manuscript has now been proofread by a colleague whose first language is English. Please see throughout the manuscript.

Comment 6

The introduction should include a thorough review of the topic of study. Currently, there are no relevant references and information.

Response

The introduction has been reworked to reflect these changes. Please see the introduction section from pages 1-5.

Comment 7

In the introduction please visualize the practical utility of this study.

Response

The practical utility of the study has been added. Please see page 5, lines 231-239.

Comment 8

In the introduction please report the findings of similar studies. It is important to have a reference point for this study.

Response

Similar studies have now been reported. Please see pages 4-5.

Comment 9

L53-56. This information may be deleted.

Response

Information has been deleted.

Comment 10

L59-62. This information may be deleted.

Response

Information has been deleted.

Comment 9

The reference format of this article is confusing. Additionally, it is not convincing to conduct a literature review with so few references. Chapter 2.

Response

After careful consideration and guidelines from the journal’s website, the authors decided not to have a literature section but to rework and lengthen the introduction section. Additionally, all citations and references have now been updated. Please see throughout the manuscript.

Comment 10

 The hypotheses of this study should be presented in the materials and methods chapter and not at the end of a literature review.

Response

Thank you to the reviewer for the suggestion. Following the journal website and other published papers from the journal, the authors found that moving the hypotheses to the end of the introduction allowed a better flow, especially since the last paragraph in the introduction includes the manuscript's aim and research significance. Please see page 5, lines 241-244.

Comment 11

Please include a figure with a map of the study site.

Response

A study map has been included on page 6.

Comment 13

The materials and methods chapter should have more technical detail. Please improve significantly.

Response

More technical aspects, including related equations and methods, have been added. Please see pages 6-7.

Comment 14

Please avoid short paragraphs. They should have a comprehensive development.

Response

When possible, short paragraphs were avoided. Please see throughout the manuscript.

Comment 15

Unfortunately, the article lacks figures that would allow a better understanding of the results presented.

Response

Tables 4 and 5 have been replaced with relevant figures, with the rest of the information included in the interpretation of results. Please see

Comment 16

Currently, most of the tables do not provide relevant information. Please evaluate their usefulness.

Response

Previous missing asterisks to show significant variables are now indicated in tables to show the significance of the tables. Please see Table 2 on pages 9-10 and Table 3 on page 11.  

Comment 17

Please discuss the results of this study in depth. Contrast your findings with other relevant authors. The discussion of results should have a practical view, what is the usefulness of this study? 

Response

Thank you for this comment. The usefulness of the study has been included on pages 5 and 15.

Comment 18

Is this study influenced by the Covid-19 episode? If so, this scenario should be visible throughout the article.

Response

Thank you for this question. The study was conceptualised in 2018 during one of the author’s PhD study. And though the data collection was planned for 2019, this was not realised due to logistical issues, though the pilot study did happen during this time. This meant that the research had to be paused when the pandemic hit Hungary until the summer of 2021, when the Hungarian government had relaxed almost all the restrictions. Therefore, there might be a chance that during the data collection, some of the residents answers may have been influenced by the pandemic. However, as this was part of a much larger study that included open-ended questions, none of the answers mentioned anything about the pandemic.

Comment 19

The conclusions must be meaningful. Please give more relevance.

Response

The conclusions have been edited. Please see page 15, lines 565-584.

Comment 20

What are the future lines of research?

Response

Directions for future studies have been added. Please see page 15, lines 286-600.

Comment 21

In general terms, this article should be significantly improved. Currently, it would not be ready to be published in a high level scientific journal.

Response

Thank you to the reviewer for the constructive feedback. The authors believe that the manuscript has significantly improved compared to when it was first submitted to the journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction: Try to better explain the importance of studying high-rise and low-rise estate satisfaction. Some additional references could help: Real Estate Sales and “Customer Satisfaction”: Assessing Transparency of Market Advising. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (pp. 655-667). Cham: Springer International Publishing + Determining the market value of high-rise residential buildings based on evaluation of consumer properties. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 33, p. 02034). EDP Sciences. 

Literature review: this section is inconsistent with the title. The real literature review is missing and it pertain more to the introduction section.

Methods: the sentence "if one resident was not at home, another resident on the same floor could be sampled" should be better explained, because it can significantly affect the results regarding the average satisfaction level.

Line 314: What questions were asked? can be addedd the list of them?

Why the utilization of the stepwise regression?

Discussion: practical implications of the obtained results should be highlighted.

Author Response

Comment 1

 

Introduction: Try to better explain the importance of studying high-rise and low-rise estate satisfaction. Some additional references could help: Real Estate Sales and “Customer Satisfaction”: Assessing Transparency of Market Advising. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (pp. 655-667). Cham: Springer International Publishing + Determining the market value of high-rise residential buildings based on evaluation of consumer properties. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 33, p. 02034). EDP Sciences. 

Response

The introduction has been reworked to reflect these changes. Please see the introduction section from pages 1-5.

Comment 2

Literature review: this section is inconsistent with the title. The real literature review is missing and it pertain more to the introduction section.

Response

After careful consideration and guidelines from the journal’s website, the authors decided not to have a literature section but to rework and lengthen the introduction section.

Comment 3

Methods: the sentence "if one resident was not at home, another resident on the same floor could be sampled" should be better explained, because it can significantly affect the results regarding the average satisfaction level.

Response

Only one resident was sampled per floor- this resident was randomly selected. For instance, Door B was selected if nobody was at home in Door A. This information has been added on page 5, lines 255-257.

Comment 4

Line 314: What questions were asked? can be addedd the list of them?

Response

The questions are provided on Table 1, page 7.

Comment 5

Why the utilization of the stepwise regression?

Response

Stepwise regression has been removed, considering only one variable showed to be significant.

Comment 6

Discussion: practical implications of the obtained results should be highlighted.

Response

Practical limitations have been added. Please see page 17, lines 656-675.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. What is the scientific problem with the article? Based on what scientific theory?

2. What is the research significance of the article?

3. In 4.3. Logistic Regression，... none of these relationships 486 were statistically significant..,here, What is the significance ofWhat is the significance of Figure 5? Is it necessary to keep?? Is it necessary to keep?

4. Through the interview and survey of 312 people, valuable data are obtained, and different methods should be used to present the survey results. The paper only uses Logistic Regression, but unfortunately, Logistic Regression does not reflect the problems to be explained by the data. It is suggested to choose other methods. For example, structural equation models.

5. The presentation of the overall data can be diversified, rather than a single table.

6. The existing literature is incomplete and needs to be reorganized and summarized.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

good

Author Response

Comment 1

What is the scientific problem with the article? Based on what scientific theory?

Response

The scientific problem of the manuscript has now been included on page 5, lines 211-220 while the conceptual framework of social sustainability (Ewing et al., 2006) and place attachment theory was drawn upon in this research to fit within the understanding of social environment features of residential satisfaction.

Comment 2

What is the research significance of the article?

Response

The research significance of the manuscript has been added. Please see page 5, lines 222-239.

Comment 3

In 4.3. Logistic Regression，... none of these relationships 486 were statistically significant..,here, What is the significance of What is the significance of Figure 5? Is it necessary to keep?? Is it necessary to keep?

Response

The variable SI was shown to be significant. Additionally, as the stepwise regression was removed, the correlation matrices were also removed.

Comment 4

Through the interview and survey of 312 people, valuable data are obtained, and different methods should be used to present the survey results. The paper only uses Logistic Regression, but unfortunately, Logistic Regression does not reflect the problems to be explained by the data. It is suggested to choose other methods. For example, structural equation models.

Response

Thank you for this suggestion; however, logistic regression was shown to be a suitable statistical technique for variables with binary outcomes, hence why this method was used.

Comment 5

The presentation of the overall data can be diversified, rather than a single table.

Response

Thank you for this suggestion. Table 4 has now been replaced with Figure 3, while Table 5 with Figure 4.

Comment 6

The existing literature is incomplete and needs to be reorganized and summarized.

Response

After careful consideration and guidelines from the journal’s website, the authors decided not to have a literature section but to rework and lengthen the introduction section.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID sustainability-2789817 R2. Title: Does size really matter in the social environment of high-rise and low-rise housing estates? A Budapest case study. 

Comments: There are adjustments that the authors did not consider in this version. There are also comments that were partially considered.

1. I suggest removing Budapest from the keywords. This word is already in the title.

2. Please include quantitative information in the abstract to give more relevance to the results obtained in this study.

3. Review the format of the reference. There are numbering errors.

4. etc.

Based on a new detailed review of the article, I suggest rejecting it for publication. Unfortunately, the authors did not resolve in detail all the comments made. Kind regards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please check all the wording and style of the article. There are repetitive writing errors. 

Please avoid short paragraphs. They should have a comprehensive development.

Author Response

Comment 1

I suggest removing Budapest from the keywords. This word is already in the title.

Response

Thank you to the reviewer for the suggestion; Budapest has now been removed from the kólist of keywords.

Comment 2

Please include quantitative information in the abstract to give more relevance to the results obtained in this study.

Response

The abstract now includes quantitative information. Please see page 1, lines 14-17 and line 21.

Comment 3

Review the format of the reference. There are numbering errors.

Response

Thank you for pointing out this error. All citations and references have now been updated. Please see throughout the manuscript.

Comment 4

4. etc. Based on a new detailed review of the article, I suggest rejecting it for publication. Unfortunately, the authors did not resolve in detail all the comments made. Kind regards.

Response

Thank you to the reviewer for their inputs. The authors believe that they have now revised the manuscript based on the reviewer’s comments. However, the 4^th comment was unclear regarding which other suggestions were not considered by the authors. Upon further clarification, the authors would be willing to address those comments.

Comment 6

Please check all the wording and style of the article. There are repetitive writing errors.

Response

Comment 7

Please avoid short paragraphs. They should have a comprehensive development.

Response

When possible, short paragraphs were avoided. Please see throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I saw that not all suggestions were applied in the text. Please pay attention to what was suggested and not changed.

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewer for this comment. The authors believe that the manuscript was revised based on all the suggestions provided in the first round. After rereading those comments, the authors could not find which comments they did not consider. If possible, may the reviewer please provide further clarification on those specific comments so that they may apply them on text.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Through modification, the article has been very good promotion, it is suggested to change the table to three-line table, other content is perfect.

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewer for their inputs in improving the quality of the manuscript. All 3 tables have been amended to three-line tables.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2789817-R3. Title: Does size really matter in the social environment of high-rise and low-rise housing estates? A Budapest case study.

Comments:

In this third version of the article, the authors adequately addressed each of the 21 comments made in the previous two rounds of review. Therefore, I suggest acceptance of the article. Best regards.