Effect of lockdown on activities of daily living in the built environment and wellbeing

Many thanks for addressing the review comments in detail. I think that the paper has now been improved.

In addition to Simone Torresin's comments, I would like to make some further suggestions:

• Additional discussion on the statistical representativeness of the surveyed sample (both people as well as buildings) would be very welcome.
• There appear to be some issues with the text and figure formatting in the PDF format. Also, I would suggest making the figures slightly bigger.
• I was wondering if part of the information included in Table 3 could also be displayed in a correlation matrix (together with additional correlations), if you had the time.
• A bar chart would be more appropriate to visualise the data contained in the pie charts of Figure 4.
• "Night sleep and siesta were significant at a p<0.01 at 95% confidence interval with R2 of 0.06 and 0.09 respectively (Table-3)." > I'm not sure I understand this, the R2 is low?

Many thanks for addressing our comments. The paper has improved considerably.

The paper has improved considerably.

However, I still think that caution is needed in reporting and interpreting the low R2 values. For instance: "There is significant positive relation with 95% confidence interval and R2 =0.18 to “Feeling in General” for the news channels of “News updates on COVID-19 cases” [...]" I understand the point made by the authors about “Smaller values of R2 may not necessarily be insignificant”, but I believe that more context is required; how is a 'significant positive relation' deifined within this analysis? I would perhaps recommend simply reporting the observed values and indicating that they potentially signal the presence of a relationship or trend.

Last, indicative numerical results might be helpful in the Abstract to support the headline statements.

I would like to thank the Authors for the reviewed article version. Please find in the following some more comments that might help improve the paper quality:

• “There is as yet no vaccine to prevent it, or drugs to cure the infection.” Please update this sentence according to the current state of vaccine search, development and testing;
• "93% (Work related) and 07% (Home-based)". What do the Authors mean by "work related"?
• “Independent variables which have significance of p<0.05 with coefficients that represent positive association with the dependent variables are discussed” Why are the Authors only commenting on positive associations? I think, in general, both positive and negative associations can be of interest. Please comment on this aspect.
• “Smaller values of R2 may not necessarily be insignificant”. The Authors here refer to the reference [11], where we can read: “To  get  the  full  picture, one must  consider R2 value in  combination  with  residual plots,  other  statistics, and in-depth knowledge of the subject area” [11]. I personally agree with this statement. In this study, however, the Authors do not provide such an in-depth analysis and it should be highlighted that, in case of low R2, results should be taken with caution and their relevance is also to be evaluated based on the "knowledge of the subject area”. For instance, I would be rather skeptical of the relevance of “Feeling in general” regression model based on the watched news channels (R2 = 0,19), but I leave to the Authors the choice of reporting and commenting on such results.
• The Authors sometimes refer to “Table 3”, but I think it is “Table 2” instead.
• “Demographic variables are presented in Table 1a and 1b”. I would move here the description of demographic data reported above.
• Fig. 2 is still not clear to me. The figure caption reports “Food intake during lockdown” and the y-axis description is “comparative scale”. Please provide some more context (in the main text and in the figure caption) on how the data shown were derived and on how the reader can interpret the figure.
• “There seems to have some influence of “Energy, pep or vitality and Feel healthy to work”. Please detail the type of influence.
• In the Discussion paragraph, many different topics are addressed, often poorly related one to another. E.g., “Essentially we observed that the major difference entailed by the lockdown was a reduction of time and distance to go to their workplace. In terms of food intake,…”. The points raised should be grounded on the study results and on scientific literature relevant for this study. E.g., “This was necessitated both by the cost as well as an (unfounded) fear of transmission through meat.” How did the Authors derive such conclusion? Is it just an assumption, is it based on data collected or from previous literature? In the latter case, please provide a reference.
• Conclusions. “In terms of food intake, those who ate only vegetarian food did not experience any change, unlike those who were non-vegetarians, who reduced the intake of meat. This was necessitated both by the cost as well as an (unfounded) fear of transmission through meat.” This sentence has been reported twice.

The analysis of result needs to be still improved, as detailed in the following:

• Abstract: “The major difference entailed by the lockdown was a reduction of time and distance to go to their workplace, which was an average of 8.9 km.” Is the distance reduction of 8.9 or 9.5 km, as reported below in the main text? What about time reduction?
• “The online questionnaire was circulated to the contacts of the authors by online social media.” The limitation of a sampling procedure based on a convenience criterion should be highlighted in the Limitation section.
• “Of the 121 responses received, there is considerable demographic representation of age, gender, food habits, profession…” The Authors then refer to the “small sample of subjects” as a study limitation. The Authors should specify whether the 121 responses can be representative and in case of what geographical area and target population, and according to which criteria.
• “Independent variables which have significance of p<0.05 with coefficients that have positive association with the dependent variables are discussed.” Are the Authors disregarding independent variables with negative associations with the dependent variables? From Table 3, it does not seem the case. Please clarify.
• “While R2 of greater than 50% is considered significant, in sociological and psychological studies low R2 do have relevance (10) specifically considering the unprecedented situation that humankind encounters and volatile experience of the respondent to comprehend.” This explanation is not clear to me and the link to the reference is not active. Please provide a clearer explanation about the relevance of independent variables explaining only a small percentage of the variance in the dependent variables and please include references to scientific publications you are considering on this topic.
• The Authors investigated the impacts of the Covid situation on several different daily activities and aspects. The Authors state that: “The variables considered throw light on aspects that could be taken into account to find ways to live with situations like covid-19 pandemic.” Please discuss how the information derived from the questionnaire (e.g. information about food intake and watched TV channels) are useful and can inform about strategies to adopt in pandemic situations.
• Table 2 is not clear. Why are items different between vegetarian and non-vegetarian? In addition, some items are of difficult interpretation (e.g. “never had”: does it refer to specific food types, or in general to “food intake during lockdown”, as reported in the table heading? Please clarify).
• “Ttest for vegetarian and non-vegetarian groups show significant differences (t<0.05) for food intake during lockdown.” Please describe those differences, if relevant.
• Fig. 2 is also not clear. The table is about the food intake during the lockdown, but the reader has no information about the meaning of the 0-2.5 scale on the vertical axis.
• “ There does not seem to have any influence of “Generally tensed” and “Worried about health” parameters indicating that the subjects feel safe during lockdown and experience the same confidence as before lockdown in absence of the epidemic” Why the Authors can draw such conclusions? Please specify.
• “There is significant positive relation with 95% confidence interval and R2=0.18 to “Feeling in General” for the news channels of “News updates on COVID-19 cases” with (p<0.05) and “General news updates” with (p<0.01) (Table-3). There is significant relation to “Happy and satisfied personal life” with (p<0.01) at 95% confidence interval and R2=0.14 for channels related to “spirituality”.” Are data suggesting that e.g. people watching news on Covid generally felt better? Please describe the relationships expressed by regression coefficients, whether they are relevant and meaningful.
• “the average distances of 9.5 KM travelled by the remaining 99 office/institute going respondents have actually saved time and energy that could be contributed to WfH.” Is 9.5 km a distance reduction? Please specify.
• Fig. 3. It is not clear what “yes/no” refers to.
• “We assessed the response of the participants on WfH and found that people whose homes are of group housing/apartment type have no significant relation.” Please clarify the investigated relation (relation with?).
• Sleep patterns: the observed results are limited by the fact that R2 values are very small and regression coefficients are close to zero. Authors should comment on these aspects.
• Discussions: discussions must carefully follow the analysis of results, with reference to the observed effect size and variability explained on the dependent variables by the independent ones.
• Conclusions: please clearly refer and answer to the three research questions stated in the Introduction (e.g. through a bullet point or three distinct paragraphs).

I would like to thank the authors for this is very interesting and timely study.

I have a few comments/suggestions:
- Abstract: ’most preferred to work from their bedroom’. I was wondering to what extent this is an actual choice given the multiple restrictions that might apply in some instances, especially in smaller or overcrowded homes.
- I would have perhaps included the Aims in the Introduction rather than the Methods section.
- I think that part of the results analysis could be slightly clearer. For instance: "There is significant positive relation with 95% confidence interval and R2=0.18 [...]" I would have interpreted such an R2 value as a weak correlation? This applies to other results too, such as the analysis of sleep patterns.
- A more in-depth analysis of potential relationships between the characteristics of participating homes and wellbeing during the lockdown would have been very interesting.

The study provides insights into how the lockdown affected several aspects of daily life in India. Despite the limitations stressed by the authors (limited sample size and sampling modality), I find the study interesting, as it contributes to the ongoing research on the effect of the COVID-19 outbreak and built environment on the health and well-being of building occupants. In the following, some suggestions are provided to improve the paper quality:

• Research questions (RQs) should be better defined in the Introduction. As the study investigated many different aspects, those should be better linked together in order to avoid confusion. I suggest adding a Conclusions section where answers to RQs are clearly reported;
• My main concern regards the statistical analyses. The term “significant” is used in the text as regards the food intake comparison shown in Figure 2, but it is not clear whether a statistical test has been done (e.g. t-test) and, in case, the level of significance.
• For all the statistical tests, the Authors should specify whether assumptions are met.
• An incongruence is present for “feeling in general” R2 values between the text and the table T3 (0.51 and 0.60 seem to be inverted).
• Regression results should be further discussed with reference to the direction of associations suggested by the regression coefficients. Moreover, in case of low R2 values, Authors should stress the limited relevance of results as only a small percentage of the variance in the dependent variable is actually explained by the independent variables.
• Results should not be introduced for the first time in the Discussion section (e.g. reduction of distance to the workplace).
• The Authors report: “Essentially we observed that the major difference entailed by the lockdown was a reduction of time and distance to go to their workplace, which was an average of 8.9 km.” How is the average calculated? If the average is made between people that kept working at their usual working place and people that started working from home, I am wondering whether the average provides meaningful information.
• I suggest adding a Limitation section dedicated to the limitations already stressed by the Authors.