Impact of Highway Construction on Internal Migration: A Korea Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
|
Dear Journal Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050) Manuscript ID sustainability-1955020
|
The paper deals with Impact of Highway Construction on Internal Migration: A Ko-2 rea Perspective; the article is worth publishing. However, the following comments should be addressed in revising the manuscript:
Abstract,
1. It is preferable to clarify the importance of the research.
2. Presentation of the most significant achievements of the study.
3.
Introduction, theoretical considerations, and literature review
1. Too long and tedious for the reader; it is preferable not to go into excessive detail
2. There are other methods of producing lightweight concrete that has not been explained.
Analytical model and results
1. Statistical data is not sufficient for reliability, Requires the inclusion of approved references
Conclusion
1. Mention the most important results obtained, which correspond to the objective of the research
2. It is preferable to mention the Conclusion in the form of points to facilitate the reader
Author Response
â–ª comments1. It is preferable to clarify the importance of the research.
â–ª Response: The summary of major content, such as research purpose in the introduction and conclusions, has been improved.
(Please see the attachment)
â–ª comments2. It is preferable to clarify the importance of the research.
â–ª Response: Presentation of the most significant achievements of the study.(Please see the attachment)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
REVIEWER REPORT
Summary
The article aims to investigate the effects of highways on internal migration and national development which is interesting. However, it needs major improvements in theoretical and methodological sections since there is an insufficient discussion on migration-centered theories and measuring spatial movements’ models for population and employment. Moreover, the paper needs improvements in map presentations showing the highway's locations and spatial findings. Contributions of the article to concurrent literature are the other main drawback that should be addressed in the introduction and discussion sections.
Introduction
1- It lacks a compelling argument on the relationships between balanced national development (from a population and employment distribution point of view) and highway construction.
2- Contributions to the article are missed in this section
3- One of the important lacks of this section is that it’s not clear what are/were the main goals of the highways under study. Highways are constructed for various purposes in different countries depending on their socio-industrial circumstances. For instance, highways were developed in the 1960s and 1970s in the U.S. for regenerating car industries and developing suburbs and spatial redistribution of population and employment came after this country-wide regeneration. Therefore, the article needs a clear discussion on the topic of highway construction and its role in spatial re/distribution of population and employment.
Theoretical and Literature review
4- This section lacks new studies on relationships between developing transportation networks and internal migration, particularly in terms of the labor force. There should be robust new arguments on the reasons behind internal migration and the role of transportation networks in it.
5- As the authors argue, there are some other factors affecting migration. However, these factors are missed in the theoretical and literature review.
6- Recently updated models in terms of population and labor force migration need to be addressed. For instance, like the one Bunea deployed in Romania named improved gravity model that reflects economic and social factors
7- The authors discussed social overhead capital (SOC) in the introduction section but it is not developed in the theoretical section to be clear to the reader the role of SOC in the study.
8- The theoretical and methodologic contributions of the article are not highlighted in this section.
Methodology:
9- The authors proposed the “internal migration model” in line 361 to explore the causes of migration which is good. However, this model has yet to be explained and discussed in the theoretical considerations and literature review section as the contribution of the study. Moreover, the structure and characteristics of the model are not clear.
Presentation
10- The article is in very shortage of maps presenting the highways locations in the study area and presenting some spatial results. It is highly recommended to have spatial maps of the introduction of the highways and results.
Discussion
11- There is no discussion section and this is a lack for the article as the discussion is needed to investigate the socio-economic and amenities reasons for affected and unaffected highways as is addressed in the abstract.
Conclusion
12- The conclusion section is generally written and it lacks a comparative approach to those studies addressed in the literature review section.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
â–ª comments1. It lacks a compelling argument on the relationships between balanced national development (from a population and employment distribution point of view) and highway construction..
â–ª Response: Previous research and the relevance of highway and balanced development have been added to the introduction and literature review sections.
â–ª comments2. Contributions to the article are missed in this section.
â–ª Response: Research questions, hypothesis setting, and research aim have been added in the introduction and literature review sections.
â–ª comments3. One of the important lacks of this section is that it’s not clear what are/were the main goals of the highways under study. Highways are constructed for various purposes in different countries depending on their socio-industrial circumstances. For instance, highways were developed in the 1960s and 1970s in the U.S. for regenerating car industries and developing suburbs and spatial redistribution of population and employment came after this country-wide regeneration. Therefore, the article needs a clear discussion on the topic of highway construction and its role in spatial re/distribution of population and employment.
â–ª Response: Previous research and the relevance of highway and balanced development were added to the introduction and literature review sections.
â–ª comments4. This section lacks new studies on relationships between developing transportation networks and internal migration, particularly in terms of the labor force. There should be robust new arguments on the reasons behind internal migration and the role of transportation networks in it.
â–ª Response: Description on the relation between transportation infrastructure and migration has been added in the introduction. Empirical study on the impact of improved accessibility to transportation through establishment of social overhead capital facilities in local economy has been reorganized.
â–ª comments5. As the authors argue, there are some other factors affecting migration. However, these factors are missed in the theoretical and literature review..
â–ª Response: Previous research on the social and economic amenities that impact migration have been added for analysis.
â–ª comments6. Recently updated models in terms of population and labor force migration need to be addressed. For instance, like the one Bunea deployed in Romania named improved gravity model that reflects economic and social factors
â–ª Response: Information related to research methods has been added. The highway construction section was considered a dummy variable in the migration model by considering social and economic factors.
â–ª comments7. The authors discussed social overhead capital (SOC) in the introduction section but it is not developed in the theoretical section to be clear to the reader the role of SOC in the study.
â–ª Response: Research questions and hypothesis setting have been presented in the theory and literature review sections. The impact of SOC on the local economy and migration has been examined through empirical analysis.
â–ª comments8. The theoretical and methodologic contributions of the article are not highlighted in this section.
â–ª Response: The research aims, distinctiveness, theory and literature review, and research contributions have been added.
â–ª comments9. The authors proposed the “internal migration model” in line 361 to explore the causes of migration which is good. However, this model has yet to be explained and discussed in the theoretical considerations and literature review section as the contribution of the study. Moreover, the structure and characteristics of the model are not clear.
â–ª Response: The Harris-Todaro and Tiebout models have been described in the theory review section, and the use of the migration model accounting for economic factors and local amenities has been described in the literature review sections.
â–ª comments10. The article is in very shortage of maps presenting the highways locations in the study area and presenting some spatial results. It is highly recommended to have spatial maps of the introduction of the highways and results.
â–ª Response: The image of the analyzed highway section has been added in Figure 1.
â–ª comments11. There is no discussion section and this is a lack for the article as the discussion is needed to investigate the socio-economic and amenities reasons for affected and unaffected highways as is addressed in the abstract.
â–ª Response: Description of the migration model, limitations of current research, and the distinctiveness of the current research have been added in the literature review, research methodology, and conclusions sections. Moreover, the reason for setting the research model has been added.
â–ª comments12. The conclusion section is generally written and it lacks a comparative approach to those studies addressed in the literature review section.
â–ª Response: Comparative analysis with previous research and analysis results has been added in Section 4.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an interesting paper about a transport and migration. The topic itself is interesting, however, the quality of the paper is poor.Please find my comments in below:
1. The motivations of the paper in both Section 1 and 3 are not convincing, which further makes the contributions of the paper trivial. One key thing the authors should say is how the research could impact on other countries. What would international readers get from this paper.
2. The authors shoud rewrote the literature review and can's list the literatue as you do now. What's the research gap?
3. Section 3.3 is mainaly focused on describing the measure results. The authors should instead focus on explaining your findings and how your findings relate to and advance the literature discussed in the literature review.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
â–ª comments1. The motivations of the paper in both Section 1 and 3 are not convincing, which further makes the contributions of the paper trivial. One key thing the authors should say is how the research could impact on other countries. What would international readers get from this paper..
â–ª Response : Hypothesis setting and research purpose have been added to the theory review section as follows
â–ª comments2. The authors shoud rewrote the literature review and can's list the literatue as you do now. What's the research gap?
â–ª Response : Literature review has been divided into empirical research on the impact of improved accessibility to transportation through social overhead capital facilities and research on the social and economic amenities that impact migration.
â–ª Response : The purpose of the study was supplemented and explained.
â–ª comments3. Section 3.3 is mainaly focused on describing the measure results. The authors should instead focus on explaining your findings and how your findings relate to and advance the literature discussed in the literature review.
â–ª Response : Comparative analysis with previous research and analysis results has been added in Section 4.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
|
Journal of Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050) Manuscript ID: sustainability-1955020
|
Paper Impact of Highway Construction on Internal Migration: A Korea Perspective. The paper is worth publishing however, the following concerns should be addressed in revising the manuscript:
Abstract
1- Rewrite the abstract to clarify the novelty of this research.
2- highlighting the most important results related to achieving the research objective.
Introduction
3- It is preferable that there be a section presenting the scientific basis of the research.
4- It is better to update the old references.
5- The introduction is too long for the reader.
Conclusion:
6- It is preferable to write it in the form of points.
7- Add a section for future research
Thank you.
Author Response
â–ª comments1 : Rewrite the abstract to clarify the novelty of this research.
â–ª answer1 : The research purpose and results are included in the abstract.
â–ª comments2 : highlighting the most important results related to achieving the research objective.
â–ª answer2 : The contents relevant to the purpose, assumptions, and analysis results of this study have been systematically organized in the conclusion section.
â–ª comments3 : It is preferable that there be a section presenting the scientific basis of the research.
â–ª answer3 : Contents regarding research methodology and analysis data are improved in the introduction.
â–ª comments4 : It is better to update the old references.
â–ª answer4 : Old research has inevitably been included to describe an archaic migration model in the theoretical background. Instead, recent studies have been summarized in the literature review section to analyze recent research trends.
â–ª comments5 : The introduction is too long for the reader.
â–ª answer5 : It is considered necessary to include a sufficient overall background on balanced development and SOC policies in South Korea to clarify the purpose and implications of the results of this study.
â–ª comments6 It is preferable to write it in the form of points.
â–ª answer6 : Repetitive information is excluded from the conclusion, and the main results and implications of the research have been emphasized.
â–ª comments7 : Add a section for future research
â–ª answer7 : Future research has been added to the last part of the conclusion.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article now is publishable as all the comments have been addressed in the revised version.
Author Response
â–ª comments1 : The article now is publishable as all the comments have been addressed in the revised version.
â–ª answer1 : No questions. Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
Figure 1 should be improved.
Author Response
â–ª comments1 : Figure 1 should be improved
â–ª answer1 : The name of the region was added in Figure 1 to improve clarity for readers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The authors have completed all comments, the paper can be published.
Thanks
