Outdoor Space Elements in Urban Residential Areas in Shenzhen, China: Optimization Based on Health-Promoting Behaviours of Older People

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic selection of this paper has good practical significance, and the research method design is more detailed.

How to consider the selection standards of 8 residential areas and 40 outdoor Spaces in the study sample, so as to reflect the typicality and universality of the study area as much as possible?

• What are the criteria for division?

   The scope sets the cutting points: less than or equal to 20% is “unfavourable behaviour”.greater than 20% and less than or equal to 40% is secondary behaviour” and greater than 40% is “main behaviour” (Figure 9).

 

• Overall, the English expression is smooth and can be further optimized.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper explores the strategies to promote health through the design of residential outdoor spaces, particularly for elderlies, in the context of Shenzhen, China. To do so, it uses the Mangold INTERACT integrated behavioural analysis platform for behavioural data extraction and quantification. The paper has potential to contribute to the existing understanding of the built environment and physical and mental health, however it requires major revision. Here are my comments:

1- it is not clear what you mean by ‘Outdoor Space Elements’ in the title. I don’t think the word ‘element’ is clear for the reader.

2- In the introduction, make clearer what knowledge gaps you identified and how your research addresses them. Also, make the research objectives/questions clearer. Answer the “so what?” question. Why investigating such matter is important? End the introduction with an outline of the paper; what comes next?

3- The novelty/originality should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective.  What new things (new theories, new methods, or new policies) can the paper contribute to the existing international literature? This point must be reasonably justified by a Literature Review, clearly introduced in Introduction Section, and completely discussed in Discussion Section.

4- you need to include a literature review section after the introduction and before the methodology section to acknowledge the existing work on this topic. What you have at the moment does not suffice.

5- include some of the recent literature on psychological wellbeing, particularly in relation to vulnerable groups and their interactions with built environment:

https://doi.org/10.3390/su13148086

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174882

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102438

6- your methodology is too short and doesn’t provide enough details for the readers to understand the methodological steps undertaken in this research. What were your sources of data, how did you collect and analyse data? What spatial analysis tools did you use? You need to further justify your choice of methods and methodological approaches.

7- What are the limitations of your methodology/study?

8- you need to refer back to the literature and previous studies in your result, discussion and conclusion sections.

9- how generalisable your findings are to cities and regions in China and internationally? Provide some discussions around the generalisability of your findings in the discussion section.

 

10- The conclusion could do more to tease out the wider resonance of the paper for the journal's international readership.

Moderate editing of the language is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I reviewed the manuscript that attempted to address strategies to promote health through residential outdoor spaces. After carefully reading the manuscript, I feel that the idea is interesting. However, the manuscript does not meet the requirements for publication in the journal Land.

 While the manuscript discusses the potential mechanisms of interaction between health-promoting behaviours of older people and public spaces elements, it does not present a convincing research background addressing the specific issues raised by older people in China or beyond the Shenzhen context.

By highlighting the importance of Mangold INTERACT behaviour analysis system, this study concentrated on the optimal combination of multidimensional behaviour and spatial element configuration. However, the study failed to reveal the relationship between the health behaviour theory and Mangold INTERACT behaviour analysis system. As well, the research framework and design do not justify how health behavior theory is integrated. For this reason, the research lacks a significant relationship between theory and research framework to illustrate how the theory interacts with the research process. Furthermore, the authors, however, failed to explain the theoretical background in the literature review.

Anyway, you can find my comments here:

Abstract:

Highlight the specific findings of the research rather than the general findings description.

Describe the research's contribution to existing knowledge.

 

Introduction

Despite the authors' focus on maintaining older people's health, I cannot see what the main problem is regarding older people’s health that has not been investigated by any existing studies or research in other contexts. According to what I read, these issues and problems are also seen in other contexts, from Japan to the United States.

It is, therefore, necessary to highlight the specific problems related to older people’s health in the research context.

 Literature review and theoretical background

The literature review is incomplete and does not illustrate the theoretical background or review relevant theories or models in the research field. Additionally, the revealed discussions are not comprehensive and in-depth. The author should present the strategies and progress for older people's health concerns in other contexts through past studies.  

Due to this, the manuscript could not demonstrate a significant issue or research gap. It could not also demonstrate how the findings add to what is already known. 

 Method

The authors must rewrite this part, and explain the conceptual model in the context of the research's theory, theoretical framework, and objectives.

In the absence of a model, variables for owners' satisfaction are unclear and inappropriately selected.

As a result of these issues, I conclude that the main problem with this manuscript is the methodology and the lack of a theory-based conceptual model.

Conclusion

As part of this part, the author should describe the theoretical and practical implications, research contributions, limitations of current research, and finally suggestions for future research.

 

This part of the manuscript needs to be revised and the mentioned parts added.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for addressing the comments.

Requires moderate editing of English language

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

 

After reading the revised manuscript, I found that most of the comments were appropriately explained and justified by the authors. However, the following issues are still unsolved in the manuscript.

Add specific research contributions to the abstract and conclusion. 

Discuss theoretical implications in the conclusion like the empirical implications mentioned  

Add any limitations to current research to the conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf