An Integrated Methodological Analysis for the Highest Best Use of Big Data-Based Real Estate Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have combined fuzzy theory with big data inputs to analyse feasibility of high-rise mixed-use projects. The Reviewer considers the framework developed by the authors is relevant and applicable in a broader context of planning and regulatory decisions for land use proposals.

Scope of the Paper

One limitation of the model presented in the paper is that the evaluation areas are not universal or static; they may change with the geographic location and economic environment, apart from the characteristics of the project. The authors acknowledge this limitation towards the end of the paper (lines 446-454). The Reviewer considers that this limitation is indeed a rationale for employing fuzzy theory and a defining factor for the paper. Discussion of the limitations should be included in a broader discussion of the framework (please see comments below).

The evaluation criteria (categories, fields and factors) in Table 3, while comprehensive, may not be exhaustive. For example, it is possible that under certain circumstances, operating costs or maintenance costs are important evaluation factors. In the context of the above observations, the following two specific drafting suggestions are made:

1.       The paper should be framed as one offering a framework for analysis of proposals for land use and planning policy (which may include high-rise, mixed-use, or other uses) which have a range of stakeholders with disjoint or even divergent objectives and interests, rather than a case specific feasibility analysis. This would broaden the scope, applicability and interest of the paper. It could be achieved through modest re‑drafting of Sections 1 and 5 and amending the title and Abstract.

2.       A brief section should be included to address the limitations of non-static and non-universal evaluation criteria. This could include the approach and principles that could be adopted to identify appropriate criteria.

Specific Comments

The paper should provide further information about the survey sample; how it was chosen; and importantly, the sensitivity of results to sample composition.

In lines 131-134, the authors refer to lack of efficiency in urban land usage in South Korea. The Reviewer observes that land use efficiency is a rather complex area which requires comparison of achievable goals/objectives and the resources consumed. Depending upon the market circumstances, prices may be determined by a range of factors, including but not limited to, the intensity of use. The Reviewer recommends that a more detailed discussion of the land use efficiency be included along with the relevant references. Alternatively, the comment could be dropped without any impact on the scope and conclusions of the paper.

The authors have mode some broad and unqualified comments in support of high-rise developments (for example line 39 and lines 41-42). Such statements suggest inclination/bias towards a particular outcome in advance of the feasibility study. Indeed, it is possible that in certain circumstances, a low-rise development or no development (i.e., urban open space or park) is preferred. The Reviewer recommends removal of such absolute statements.

Author Response

Dear Sir or Madam,

We are writing to inform you that we have incorporated the reviewers’ suggestions into the revised version of the paper (entitled “An Integrated Methodological Analysis for the Highest Best Use of Big Data-Based Real Estate Development”) as much as possible. We hope this revised paper is adequate for publication.

Please refer to our response letter on the attachment. 

We deeply appreciate your kind attention to the above revisions, and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,

Jaehwan Kim, Ducksu Seo, and You Seok Chung

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is interesting because it deals with the issue of defining the factors that must be considered in the high-rise building development projects

I kindly ask the authors to better explain some part of article:

Table 3:

Explain whether different professional figures were involved in the definition of the factors (architects, economist of construction, etc.);

Why in the fields "Costs" (correct in the column title "fiels" in "fields") the construction and management cost are not considered? They are very important and influence some design decisions.

I also think that the environmental, social and economic sustainability must be considered. If these aspects are considered in some factors listed in the table, please explain what they are

I suggest, for example, to see these articles:

Capolongo, S., Sdino, L., et al. (2019) “How to assess urban regeneration proposals by considering conflicting values” Sustainability (Switzerland) Volume 11, Issue 14, 1 Article number 3877

Sdino, L., Magoni, S. (2018). “The sharing economy and real estate market: The phenomenon of shared houses”, Green Energy and Technology, Issue: 9783319757735, pp. 241-251.

Pag. 10 - formula at the bottom of the page

explain the meaning of the symbols in the formula

Pag. 14 - paragraph 4.3

Explain better how the three areas considered (development plans, construction plans and project financial plans) were selected; why they are not present in table 3?)   Pag. 16 paragraph 4.4 Explain how the selected factors and their importance can be considered in the evaluation of the projects for the construction of high-rise buildings (for example in a multicriteria analysis)   Pag.16 - Conclusion In the paragraph 2.2. the importance of big data is underlined Explain how they can contribute to the definition and evaluation of factors or how they can contribute to monitoring results  

Author Response

Dear Sir or Madam,

We are writing to inform you that we have incorporated the reviewers’ suggestions into the revised version of the paper (entitled “An Integrated Methodological Analysis for the Highest Best Use of Big Data-Based Real Estate Development”) as much as possible. We hope this revised paper is adequate for publication.

Please refer to our response letter on the attachment. 

We deeply appreciate your kind attention to the above revisions, and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,

Jaehwan Kim, Ducksu Seo, and You Seok Chung

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf