Everyday Life Infrastructure Impact on Subjective Well-Being in the European Union: A Gender Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is well-written and interesting.
I list below some suggestions, I guess there are problems of space, but I think that including one or two additional sentences on the points below would be important.
I would be interesting to have a short description of the SWB index used as the dependent variable.
As concerns the models, is it possible to include the complete results (e.g. the control variables) in an appendix?
Also about the models, it would be nice to have more details about the diagnostics of the models (e.g. normality assumptions, multicollinarity).
I think that it would be also interesting to have some details on other possible data sources that could be used for the same purposes: have you checked if with some of the EU-SILC ad-hoc modules is it possible to repeat some of the analysis you present in the paper? Also, is another similar survey planned in the future? The present one is quite old and I think that it would be important for the author to stress this and suggest for alternative data sources.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI think the paper is well-written but I suggest a general revision as I spotted some typos.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
We would like to express our gratitude for your time and attention in reviewing this manuscript. Your valuable feedback is greatly appreciated as it enables us to enhance the quality of our research article. Please find below a detailed account of the comments you have provided, along with a summary of the actions we have taken to address them or respond to your concerns. We have organized them in the form of a matrix to facilitate ease of reference. Best regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I had a chance to review the manuscript that intends to estimate the impact of everyday life infrastructure access on subjective well-being (SWB) from a gender perspective in Europe.
The paper introduced and tried to elaborate both a rationale and empirical evidence that reinforce the importance of understanding the use of built infrastructure and service provision in different forms of social infrastructure to the advancement and sustainability of gender equality and collective wellbeing between women and men in the European Union (EU).
After carefully reading the manuscript, I feel that the idea is interesting, but the manuscript has some lacking and missing parts, so it does not meet the requirements for consideration for publication in the journal Societies.
While the manuscript focuses on everyday life infrastructure, and subjective well-being in the European Union (EU), it does not present a background from similarities and differences of infrastructures in the European Union (EU) despite infrastructure and household income differences in this region.
Furthermore, while the introduction presents a review of issues on this matter, the main and specific problem in the European Union (EU) has not been raised. additionally, the study has not clarified whether the impact of infrastructure issues are same in all parts of the region or not.
You mentioned Women and men use and depend upon physical infrastructure and these different uses and dependencies largely reflect the gendered roles of women and men in providing care, labor market participation, and time use. However, there is no explanation for the impact of the difference on their daily life.
Despite highlighting the BGEIP Survey in the research, I didn't find a convenient theoretical background and theoretical framework or conceptual model to support the study objective(s). I consider the BGEIP Survey as an instrument for data collection and it can not cover the theoretical background to address gender differences in daily life.
For this reason, the research lacks a theory and conceptual model to illustrate how the research variables are impacted by the model and how they interact with one another for successful subjective well-being. The authors, however, failed to explain the theoretical background in the literature review.
The research failed to explain the knowledge gap and the introduction needs to be improved to address the current problem(s) and the existing gap(s).
Data collection is unclear and there is no information the respondents are from parts of the EU.
The Analysis section is not strong enough to address the analysis process.
To analyze the data and satisfy the research goal, it is strongly recommended that the authors employ software (like PLS-SEM for quantitative data). Due to the different weights of each criterion, using an appropriate analysis method enables authors to estimate complex models with many constructs, indicator variables, and structural paths. This is without imposing distributional assumptions on the data.
While the Discussion is essential for a high-quality manuscript, it is missing in the current format. It needs to be established by the authors. The proposed discussion must focus on the interpretation of the findings and should include how the research findings relate to previous studies. In the current format, there is no information on whether the findings align with or diverge from past research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
We would like to express our gratitude for your time and attention in reviewing this manuscript. Your valuable feedback is greatly appreciated as it enables us to enhance the quality of our research article. Please find below a detailed account of the comments you have provided, along with a summary of the actions we have taken to address them or respond to your concerns. We have organized them in the form of a matrix to facilitate ease of reference. Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy comments are enclosed.
1. The empirical analysis relies on self-reported data for both access to infrastructure and subjective well-being (SWB). These measures may be subject to various biases, including social desirability and recall bias. Are the measures from different countries comparable or not?
2. The use of cross-sectional data from a single survey limits substantially the ability to infer causal relationships between infrastructure access and SWB. Causal findings would be useful for policy purposes.
3. There may be other unobserved factors influencing both access to infrastructure and SWB that are not accounted for in the model, leading to omitted variable bias.
4. The analysis does not account for cultural and regional differences within the European Union countries, which could affect both access to infrastructure and its impact on SWB.
5. The study does not consider temporal changes in infrastructure quality or access, which could influence SWB differently over time.
6. There is a large empirical literature that links unemployment and labor market status to subjective well-being using panel data (https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1361). This should be stated in the revised paper.
7. The concluding section could state more practical policy conclusions that stem from the empirical results that are presented in the manuscript. Are the results relevant for other than EU countries?
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
We would like to express our gratitude for your time and attention in reviewing this manuscript. Your valuable feedback is greatly appreciated as it enables us to enhance the quality of our research article. Please find below a detailed account of the comments you have provided, along with a summary of the actions we have taken to address them or respond to your concerns. We have organized them in the form of a matrix to facilitate ease of reference. Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript primarily investigates the impact of everyday life infrastructure on subjective well-being in the European Union from a gender perspective. The article points out that everyday life infrastructure, including public transportation, parks, streetlights, elderly care centers, nurseries, and medical facilities, has a significant impact on residents' quality of life. The paper uses a large sample size, making the study meaningful. I believe it is suitable for publication, though some revisions are necessary before submission.
The impact of the mentioned infrastructure on subjective well-being is derived from survey questionnaires, and the results of these surveys may be influenced by various judgment biases. The EU is not a single country; different countries may have different cultural backgrounds. How did the authors address the issue of judgment biases stemming from different national cultural backgrounds? Additionally, considering that the authors’ paper only has over 5,000 samples, is the sample distribution appropriate for the more than 20 countries represented?
The important interaction effects of infrastructure quality assessment were not considered. Although the survey included an evaluation scale for one variable, it was collected only for individuals who had recently used different types of infrastructure.
The model mentioned in the paper considers only the impact of each type of infrastructure individually, without simultaneously considering the effects of all types of infrastructure. This might lead to the omission of important variables, resulting in biased estimation results.
The results of the paper lack robustness analysis. Could the authors conduct a robustness test by dividing the sample or using some econometric methods?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 4,
We would like to express our gratitude for your time and attention in reviewing this manuscript. Your valuable feedback is greatly appreciated as it enables us to enhance the quality of our research article. Please find below a detailed account of the comments you have provided, along with a summary of the actions we have taken to address them or respond to your concerns. We have organized them in the form of a matrix to facilitate ease of reference. Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript entitled "Everyday Life Infrastructure Impact on Subjective Well-being in the European Union: A Gender Perspective."
After carefully reading the revised manuscript, I regret to inform you that it still does not meet the requirements for consideration for publication in the Journal of Societies. Here are my detailed comments:
As mentioned in the first round of comments, the manuscript lacks a sufficient and clear background about the infrastructure from the EU countries, a clear problem statement, and a robust literature review.
For example: the revised introduction relies upon one citation!
While focusing on everyday life infrastructure and subjective well-being in the European Union (EU), it does not present the similarities and differences in infrastructures across the EU, despite the existing disparities in infrastructure and household income in this region.
Non-EU readers need to know the study is discussing what infrastructure disparities exist.
The introduction provides a review of relevant issues but fails to address the main and specific problems in the EU. It is also unclear whether the impact of infrastructure issues is consistent across all parts of the region.
In the author's reply, the authors claimed that the study is conducted based on feminist theories of architecture, but the components and interactions of these theories are not presented. I could not find sufficient information and sources on these theories within the manuscript. It is essential to elaborate on the applicability of these theories to this study.
As I mentioned in the first round of review, the manuscript mentioned that women and men use and depend on physical infrastructure differently due to their gendered roles in providing care, labor market participation, and time use. However, the authors have not addressed how these differences impact their daily lives. The response to this comment is essential.
As I mentioned in the first round of review, the data collection process is unclear. There is no information about which parts of the EU the respondents are from, how they were selected, the number of respondents, the response rate, and other relevant details.
Based on my review, the authors have not considered my comments and these issues have not been addressed yet
I re-emphasize that the analysis conducted using SPSS is too basic and does not delve deeply into the complexities of the data. By focusing on common tests using SPSS, the study fails to design its own conceptual model based on state-of-the-art theories in gender, inequality, and infrastructure. The author's response is not valid and SEM-PLS covers this study and exactly the findings will add more insight into existing knowledge
As I mentioned this study needs to identify the knowledge gap and address how the findings contribute to existing knowledge. Despite my comment, the revised manuscript is missing in knowledge gap and presents the contribution of the current study findings in the introduction section. However, the added contribution is not scientific and is not connected with the study findings.
Given these issues, I recommend further revisions to address the points raised above.
Best regards,
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
We would like to express our gratitude for your time and attention in reviewing this manuscript. Your valuable feedback is greatly appreciated as it enables us to enhance the quality of our research article. Please find below a detailed account of the comments you have provided, along with a summary of the actions we have taken to address them or respond to your concerns. We have organized them in the form of a matrix to facilitate ease of reference.
Best regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am happy with the revised version of the paper.
Author Response
Estimado revisor, muchas gracias. Reciba un cordial saludo de parte de los autores.
