Urban Heritage as Ethos in Resource-Based Small-Scale Property Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A very original and sound article based in a exhaustive and complete research.

The subject and the way it is analysed is a very innovative one, supported by a strong theoretical framework. At the same time the author uses a free, fresh and new way of approaching a contemporary phenomenon, contributing to put heritage preservation methodologies much closer to reality.

In my opinion, the text only needs a final double-check for the English grammar. I attach, a pdf file with some remarks in yellow just to illustrate the needs to double check minor English imperfections. Otherwise, I congratulate the author for her work.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for comments concerning language and errata. I have corrected all comments in the manuscript. Other corrections come from meeting reviewer 2's comments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your manuscript on this interesting topic.

 

There are a couple of questions that need to be attended before acceptance.

Introduction: You need to develop your text in terms of identifying the research gap and how this study do add on to the field. At this point you do not clarify this.
Furthermore, you could be more precise regarding your aim of the paper. As I read the introduction, I do not see how it corresponds with the last part of chapter 3.1 or 3.2 where, more or less, two new aims of the paper (or study) are presented. References: There are two different problems with your references. First; There are a lack of references in the first part of your paper. For example, you do not include a single reference in your introduction. An introduction that would improve greatly if you did. Second; Later on, in the text the references do not add up. For example, I do not believe that Strebel (2011) is the proper reference to the statement on line 201 (page 5). The same goes for the references on line 218 on the same page. More or less all references, that I am familiar with is clearly tied to the wrong note in the paper. Materials and Methods: This section have to be developed in terms of giving the reader the proper understanding of your research. Furthermore, it would be appropriate to also include how this study adds on to the previous studies that you do refer to that this is a part of. 2 Old buildings in Regular Cycles of Market Investment: This part of the paper (The real estate economics perspective) are rather fragmented and delusive. Partly as you try to cover a large field, or fields, partly as the references is incorrect (see above). But there are also a more serious problem with this part of the text. In my perspective the text regarding calculation (line 186 and forward, page 4) is incorrect. If you pic up any book in real estate investment or real estate valuation you would find that your description of the calculation is different compared to the one in the text book. See for example Geltner et al. Commercial Real Estate analysis and investment, or for a Swedish example Fastighetsekonomi och fastighetsrätt Fastighetsnomenklatur.
Furthermore, I think that you on page 5 (line 5 and forward) make the text rather hard to understand as you write about both the real estate taxation, the treasure tax of the real estate owner and the real estate owner accountancy and how the property is affected and affects in these three different settings.
My recommendation for you would be that you excluded the economical part and instead developed the text in relation to the “rent gap” and “gentrification” literature. 4 Urban Heritage as Ethos: I would regard this as a new chapter concerning and presenting “your case” and title it as chapter 4. Furthermore, I would recommend you to make an introduction in this chapter so that the reader relate to this chapter as the chapter describing the case of the paper. The paper would in my regard improve if the case and case findings would be more extensively described. 5 Old buildings and the “Alternative Market of Repair”. Here you need to elaborate in regard to the term “Alternative Market of Repair”. First some kind of definition of “Alternative” is needed and thereby also what the “Mainstream” is. As I read your case I do recognize myself in the description of how the real estate owner act and organize the refurbishment. In my point of view and to my understanding this is how “all” small real estate owner act. But as I wrote above (5) if the case and case findings were more extensively described the uniqueness or “alternative” process would be clearer. Conclusions: I cannot see a clear connection with the previous parts of the paper. This part would need a, more or less, complete rewriting with a focus on the aim of the paper

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for critical comments and suggestions to help the improvement.

Below I explain how I have addressed all the concerns. I comment the points in the same order as they are presented by the reviewer, and for the sake of simplicity I have numbered them 1-11.

 

Introduction: Identification of research gap

In the former version of the manuscript, the research gap was presented in section 3.1. The content of this section is now integrated the introduction in order to make clear from the beginning of the paper how the study contributes to previous research.

Introduction: Clarification of the aim of the paper

The paragraph presenting the aim in the introduction is rewritten, and the alternative formulations in later sections (in end the end of the sections that were previously numbered 3.1 and 3.2) are now deleted.

Introduction: Lack of references

The key references of the paper are now given already in the introductory section

In general: Mismatch of the numbering of references

I have checked the numbering of the references and corrected all mistakes. Several notes had been dislocated in the writing process (the note to Strebel 2011 was one of them).

Materials and Methods: Need of devolopment

The section is elababorated in order to give the reader the proper understanding of my research.

Problems with the section ”Old buildings in Regular Cycles of Market Investment”

I have followed the reviewer's advice, and more or less excluded the economical part of my argument, and developed the text in relation to the “rent gap” and “gentrification” literature.

Change of outline regarding the section ”Urban Heritage as Ethos”

The first part of the section has, in line with the reviewer's recommendation, been given the status as first part of the result chapter. I have however not changed the title to ”my case”. Instead, I have tied the whole new result chapter tighter to the empirical case.

New introduction to the result chapter

I have followed the recommendation to introduce the chapter with a despription of the case (first paragraph).

More extensive description of findings

The description of findings are now elaborated, especially in order to support the argument about alternative market (see below).

Problems with the section ”Old buildings and the “Alternative Market of Repair”.

The reviewer misunderstood the concept of ”alternative markets”, probably because the definition was not given when the term was introduced, but later in the text. I have changed this mistake, and elaborated the reasoning about the relation between alternative and “mainstream”.

Conclusions: Better connection with the previous parts of the paper.

The concluding part is rewritten.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your revised paper.