COVID 19—A Qualitative Review for the Reorganization of Human Living Environments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript tries to use COVID-19 as an example to illustrate the mechanism of the virus spreading, the factors affected the virus spreading in urban contexts and list the actions that should be done by the government. However, the structure of the manuscript should be reorganized.

(1)  As a review paper, the 2nd section should not be named as "Materials and methods", and the 3rd section should not be named as "Result and discussion". 

(2) Line 84-90 should be moved to the Introduction.

(3) The whole manuscript talks about the COVID-19 and use COVID-19 as an example, the introduction should include COVID-19 background information.

(4) The name of the virus should be consistent. It should be COVID-19 rather than COVID, COVID 19 in the manuscript.

 

Author Response

(1)  As a review paper, the 2nd section should not be named as “Materials and methods”, and the 3rd section should not be named as “Result and discussion”.

 

We thank the reviewer for the comment. We renamed the sections. Here is the new short index:

• Introduction

• How the droplet might travel through the air 

• How COVID-19 has spread in different urban contexts 

• First results and inputs to use the COVID-19 health crisis as a “window of opportunity” to trigger a sustainable transition of urban living environments 

• Conclusions

 

(2) Line 84-90 should be moved to the Introduction.

We moved this paragraph in the introduction.

 

(3) The whole manuscript talks about COVID-19 and use COVID-19 as an example, the introduction should include COVID-19 background information.

We moved the entire paragraph (84-90 lines) in the introduction. In this way, more information about Coronaviruses, in general, has been given

 

(4) The name of the virus should be consistent. It should be COVID-19 rather than COVID, COVID 19 in the manuscript.

We fixed this issue, and make homogeneous all the names.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is topical and relevant. I commend the authors for bringing the issue to attention, but I do not see a research paper there. The article is speculative and reads more like a well-researched newspaper article/ opinion piece that raises concerns on what is needed.

 

Author Response

The article is topical and relevant. I commend the authors for bringing the issue to attention, but I do not see a research paper there. The article is speculative and reads more like a well-researched newspaper article/ opinion piece that raises concerns on what is needed.

 

The paper presents the first intermediate results of the research on the topic, which is in progress execution. For these reasons, it's not possible at the moment to present the final results, but only the first inputs. We thank the reviewer for the comments; we've tried to improve the manuscript with more information and references to support our thesis. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript covers an important and interesting topic, but there are several areas that deserve improvements.

The manuscript has structural shortcomings. Headings are more suitable for an original research paper rather than an opinion paper. For example, what would be discussed in Materials and Methods is the methodological approach taken in conducting the research. Once the manuscript is reorganized, it would be easier to follow.

In the Abstract, you do not need to list everything that is covered in the text. The abstract is where you introduce a short summary of key elements of the manuscript, including a brief background, the primary objectives, the methods, findings, and a short description of the interpretation/conclusion in the last sentence.

Authors need to focus on one major objective and frame the manuscript around that objective. For example, if the primary objective of this paper is to investigate the future of cities and discuss strategies for more resilient communities based on lessons learned from COVID-19 pandemic, then the topic “how the droplet might travel through the air” would only provide a background. This can be covered in a very short paragraph (because droplets are not the main focus of this paper). The current manuscript touches on too many topics.

In the abstract, the authors have listed several topics to be covered in the manuscript, including necessary changes in city organization, behaviors, and uses of spaces during the pandemic (before having a vaccine or medication). However, the relevant content is missing in the manuscript body.  

On page 6, the authors discuss a recent phenomenon of temporary migrations from larger and most populated areas to rural and natural ones without any citations. They also refer to a recent debate about "end of cities" among planners that need a credible citation.

I advise the authors to work with an editor to improve the flow and readability of the text. There are also several grammatical issues that need to be addressed throughout the text.

Author Response

(1) The manuscript covers an important and interesting topic, but there are several areas that deserve improvements.

The manuscript has structural shortcomings. Headings are more suitable for an original research paper rather than an opinion paper. For example, what would be discussed in Materials and Methods is the methodological approach taken in conducting the research. Once the manuscript is reorganized, it would be easier to follow.

The authors made several shifts of text and re-arranged the manuscript following the reviewers' advice. At this moment the whole text is more readable and the purpose of the text is better understood. 

(2) In the Abstract, you do not need to list everything that is covered in the text. The abstract is where you introduce a short summary of key elements of the manuscript, including a brief background, the primary objectives, the methods, findings, and a short description of the interpretation/conclusion in the last sentence.

The authors rearranged the abstract following the reviewer's advice

(3) Authors need to focus on one major objective and frame the manuscript around that objective. For example, if the primary objective of this paper is to investigate the future of cities and discuss strategies for more resilient communities based on lessons learned from COVID-19 pandemic, then the topic “how the droplet might travel through the air” would only provide a background. This can be covered in a very short paragraph (because droplets are not the main focus of this paper). The current manuscript touches on too many topics.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. In fact, he made us aware of a lack of the article that did not properly link the description part of the virus spread with the city review part. Now we have added several parts to better understand how physical/fluid dynamics considerations lead to a rethinking of the city and its urban geometry

 

(4) In the abstract, the authors have listed several topics to be covered in the manuscript, including necessary changes in city organization, behaviours, and uses of spaces during the pandemic (before having a vaccine or medication). However, the relevant content is missing in the manuscript body.  

We reviewed the text according to this suggestion.

 

(5) On page 6, the authors discuss a recent phenomenon of temporary migrations from larger and most populated areas to rural and natural ones without any citations. They also refer to a recent debate about "end of cities" among planners that need a credible citation.

We understand that this point needs to be better explained. We tried to describe a real phenomenon, but at the moment we don’t have enough data to support this discussion. For this reason, we decided to delete this part and present another paper on the topic as soon as we get enough information to describe it. 

 

(6) I advise the authors to work with an editor to improve the flow and readability of the text. There are also several grammatical issues that need to be addressed throughout the text.

We revised the paper with an editor to improve readability.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for the revised manuscript. However, the revisions still do not address the main concerns. The manuscript still needs a major revision and restructuring addressing the following: 1. A clear statement is needed in the title, abstract as well as the introduction that this paper is based on a qualitative review 2. A detailed research methodology section explaining the review process 3. I still do not see a framework that the authors talk about! Please be specific and provide an explicit structured framework! I am afraid, the manuscript reads like a detailed, journalistic research piece, providing an opinion on things to come, based on the work reported elsewhere.

Author Response

1. The manuscript still needs a major revision and restructuring addressing the following: 1. A clear statement is needed in the title, abstract as well as the introduction that this paper is based on a qualitative review 

We agree with the reviewer that we are facing a review process and therefore we have changed most sections of the article and also the title to better understand the purpose of our article

 

2. A detailed research methodology section explaining the review process 

We have included several sections within the manuscript to clarify the intent of the authors better. 

First of all, we tried to investigate the methods of spreading the virus both in open and closed spaces.  Only after this initial exploration, we tried to understand what are the first actions to be taken to reduce its spread by establishing new relationships between cities and territorial contexts.

Some of the actions that we suggest to implement are related to reducing the spread of the virus; others are more generally related to the conception of a city that emphasizes the links between the most urbanized and the more remote and external parts that at this moment are less affected by the virus. Some of these actions act punctually, and others take into account the city's comprehensive organization with the context. We believe that some actions (e.g. polycentrism) can be an effective response only if the city establishes strong relations with its context. 

All these actions are ultimately aimed at increasing the sustainability of the city. 

3. I still do not see a framework that the authors talk about! Please be specific and provide an explicit structured framework! I am afraid, the manuscript reads like a detailed, journalistic research piece, providing an opinion on things to come, based on the work reported elsewhere.

In order to better understand the whole framework of the study we have carried out, we have added new parts in the abstract, in the introduction, and the entire manuscript so that the reader can have a clear understanding of the authors' intent, as we have explained in the previous point.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf