The Impact of the Type and Abundance of Urban Blue Space on House Prices: A Case Study of Eight Megacities in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is well-presented and structured, it gives an extensive overview of the state of the art regarding the impact of urban blue spaces on house pricing and it conducts a robust, in-depth analysis of how types and abundance of UBS influence the pricing of houses.

Some corrections can be suggested:

In section 2.1. The methodological flow is explained as a list of logical steps designated in the text from 1-6. For better comprehension of the argument, the same numbering should appear in the related figure 1 - General methodological flow. 

In section 2.3, line 151 is explained that “The retrieval scope of all OSM and API 150 data was slightly larger than the study area”. The description “slightly larger” should be further explained. 

The number of houses analyzed in each city is not stated. 

The economic condition of the analyzed communities /neighborhoods can have a significant impact on the perception of amenities therefore one can suggest that this information should be reflected in the study.

In section 2.4, line 163 it is not clear what is the correlation between “China's unique housing policy” and the selection of the variables to form the hedonic price model in Table 2.

In figure 3. The quintiles grading used should not incorporate blue color once the same is used for the representation of UBS which makes maps less legible.

Section 4. The discussion section would benefit from a comprehensive table showing how the previous findings from the state of the art were supported (or not) by the conducted study.

Line 503 has incomplete information regarding the project funding in the following part: “Wuhan Municipal Bureau of Landscape and”. The rest of the sentence is missing.

 

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review our work and for providing us with valuable feedback. We have incorporated all the suggested changes into the attached pdf and appreciate your attention to detail. We value your input and are committed to improving the quality of our research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I find the conducted study interesting and in line with the positivist direction of taking into account the impact of environmental factors on the economy. Learning more about UBS's impact on prices can also be important for business.

While the paper deals essentially with the UBS problem, the study also made other findings.

Of course, these findings do not mean the discovery of a general relationship, but they are an indication for further more detailed research.

Referring to the details, it is worth considering the use of modified distance measures expressed by e.g. travel time, as opposed to straight-line distance measurements. The simplification used is commonly used and accepted in this paper, however, it is worth rethinking this type of variable in subsequent research.

Summing up, I evaluate the paper positively and express my opinion about the possibility of its publication without changes.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive evaluation of our study and for your valuable suggestions. Regarding your suggestion of using modified distance measures, such as travel time, instead of straight-line distance measurements, we appreciate this suggestion and would like to incorporate your suggestions in future studies.Thank you again for your positive evaluation and suggestions, and we will take them into consideration for future research.

Reviewer 3 Report

I generally liked the manuscript and it is of interest and relevant.It is also well written and the English is good.  However, I have some concerns which need to be addressed as follows:

1- The study is based on 8 cities in China The authors should clearly spell this out in the paper and  concentrate on this point only. A lot of mention was made as to UBS in other countries-this needs to be peripherilly described in the paper and clearly articulate that the study is based solely in the China real estate market.

2-You include Wuhan as 1 of the 8 cities. This is the city of rivers. As such, this city may not be reflective of the UBS market. I would like to see another city rather tha Wuhan. 

3-There will need to be a clear description of the 3 hypothesis as follows:
Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 2

Hypotheis 3

The way the paper is presented is confusing in terms of what the authors are trying to prove.

 

4-Discussion is made throughout the paper on different types of UBS's such as large rivers, large large, small lakes. You will need to define each of the types of UBSs used in your paper. What is a large river for example? Is this objectively defined or will you define it subjectively? The reader need sto understand each type of river/lake classification  as your results are largely based on river/lake size. 

5-Your data used as well as the sample is not clear. I see results ,but unsure what your data inputs are as well as the sample size. This needs to be addressed explicitly and clearly, and I will like to review the paper afterwards to check the efficacy of your data. Please note that after my review, the methodology may need to be changed, which includes additions thereto.

 

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review our work and for providing us with valuable feedback. We have incorporated all the suggested changes into the attached pdf and appreciate your attention to detail. We value your input and are committed to improving the quality of our research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf