PONE-D-21-02960

Analysis of Residential Satisfaction: An empirical evidence from neighbouring communities of Rohingya camps in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh

PLOS ONE

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 15 March 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Professor Hafiz T.A. Khan, Ph.D, CStat

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

5.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

5.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper has done an important empirical investigation on the satisfaction and perspectives of the communities who hosted over a million of Rohingyas in Bangladesh. It has huge policy implications. The mixed method of this study has helped design a robust study leading to aligned findings. The Sampling and data collection technique for this research seem well deigned. This study added new insight into the residential satisfaction research in the new context and assessed some new indicators of residential satisfaction like Relief intervention, services from local govt. and others. Since there is no formal institutional approval of the study it is important to understand how the security of the data is maintained. Further details about the both study areas regarding to the housing status, average monthly income and different govt. and other facilities will improve the paper. Also, the discussion on the policy implications can be further strengthened. Thorough editing of the paper is required to make it a standard paper for a reputed journal like PLOS ONE.

Reviewer #2: • The author reported an important topic on going policy challenges; there are very few scientific evidence exist for researching on this challenging and highly sensitive issue by looking on transboundary migrations, social conflicts.

• The study objective is “how and to what extent the host communities' residential satisfaction level has been influenced due to Rohingya”. The word “Influence” needs to be revised. Looking on the results it has reported more on individual’s perception on residential satisfaction; but drawing an robust to Rohingya camp remain open (given that it often hard to make a clear boundary in presence of many other factors).

• Include an operation definition of “neighboring”; in your sample case study unit they vary between 1 to 22 KM….

• Mention some scopes of the study

• Please highlight some criteria for survey unit (case study) selection – spatial and non-spatial; and mention about why the candidate unites were selected what limitation or sensitivity it may cause in the results.

• The author included almost a comprehensive methodology; however, it might be helpful to link and discuss on Multicriteria approach as they are dealing with multivariate factors; therefore it is possible to find some cluster in the in the response variables and fine tune possibility of the model fit. See some example:

http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/emsd/article/view/4874

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212420915301023

• In general, the analytical approach needs a revisit by highlighting the objective of the research. It has built some type of index on RS and tried to investigate to key factors.

• In results, the fitting the linear regression curve is not much logical, where you the observation point are shows some clusters…it is obvious that RSI and SSE/SNE/RSI is correlated, the level might be highly due to the number of variables. Please check their sensitivity

• The word “comparative” should be used with care. So far, the objective and results of the research is exploring and reporting the KI opinion or perceptions. It is hardly compare the situation after and before…where there is less firm-base to compare, rather than explore on the individual perception on current state.

• The study has documented relevant literature, method and findings well; however still need some more re-look in discussion part. For instance, Need to generalize and link to theories and literature that has already been discussed earlier so that the scientific contribution become clear

• The author may consider to include a conclusion by highlighting the key findings, limitations and way forward

• There are some typo and minor errors which need to be revised as well

• Considering all points raised, this could be one of the important contributions for multidisciplinary readers of Plos Journal - those are interested on the study regional and beyond.

good luck...

Reviewer #3: This study aims to measure the level of residential satisfaction of the host community of Rohinga refugees, which is weakly addressed in this paper. Apart from the used tools to index the satisfaction level, the methodology is week. It would be necessary to know the level of satisfaction before the influx of the migrants so that the level of satisfaction can be compared.

1. The sampling technique is not straightforward- it is just not enough to say that the HH was randomly selected. It is okay even if the sample is not randomly selected if backed by valid motivation. In sampling, there is no indication of, discussion of the Non-Ukhiya group. How do we know if Ukhiya and Non-Ukhiya groups are comparable? We have to know if these groups are comparable by education, income, and other basic household characteristics.

2. Figure 7 compared the satisfaction level of Non-Ukhiya with the Ukhiya community and tried to establish that the cause of the difference is due to the influx of migrants (line 269). This is a very weak approach to establish this causality because we do not know the level of satisfaction of Ukhiya and Non-Ukhiya community before the influx of migrants. We only see the difference after the influx. The direction of difference can go to many ways. The difference may exist even before the influx of the migrants (outcomes of table 4 almost confirms the difference is pre-influx).

3. Why are 5 different models used to evaluate the level of satisfaction is not clear (precisely- each model is OLS with a different combination of socio-demographic variables)? What is the motivation of each model?

4. L155- I wonder if authors used a Likert scale, why do they need RSI ? There is a need for a detailed literature review backing this index's use.

5. As this study is about HH satisfaction analysis, OLS may not be the better approach, I would recommend authors to play with other commonly used satisfaction analysis methods such as Factors Analysis and Principal Components Analysis. These will enable identifying laten variables asoociated with satisfaction and preventing multicollinearity effects n the model estimations.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Sujit Kumar Sikder

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Analysis of residential satisfaction: An empirical evidence from neighbouring communities of Rohingya camps in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh

PONE-D-21-02960R1

Dear Authors,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Professor Hafiz T.A. Khan, Ph.D, CStat

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: