Does Park Size Affect Green Gentrification? Insights from Chongqing, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please add some more description about the concept of 'park premiums'. It is important according to your analysis, so it would be useful for the readers 

Author Response

We appreciate your affirmation and suggestions. The manuscript has been carefully revised according to your comments.

Point 1:Please add some more description about the concept of 'park premiums'. It is important according to your analysis, so it would be useful for the readers 

Response 1:

We mainly describe it according to the relevant literature, and the revised contents are as follows.

Revise manuscript: On page 3

Indicators of house prices are mainly the housing price premium obtained from urban parks. For example, Black et al. estimate the hedonic impact of the High Line’s implementation in New York City while also relating this new green space housing premium to the overarching social issue of eco-gentrification. Chen et al. believe that Residential neighborhoods proximate to such parks can command a premium in property values and rental prices. Thus, the housing price premium from urban parks is referred to as park premium in our paper.

In addition, we have also revised some wording and enriched references.

 

The above content is consistent with the attachment.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article Does Park Size Affect Green Gentrification? Insights from 2 Chongqing, China is interesting and brings an interesting argument. I have a few suggestions that can help the authors clarify their arguments according to the followings: 

 

The authors use the term park premiums throughout the entire article referring to the quality of the park. This term is not defined in the introduction, where does this term come from, is it the authors? And what are the characteristics that a park should have to be considered “premium”. This needs clarification. 

 

Figure 1 on page 4 needs editing, words and shapes are overlapping. 

 

On page 5, authors state: In terms of residential variables, we divided the residential characteristics variables into building characteristics, neighborhood characteristics, and location characteristics [26]. We selected a total of 13 characteristic variables according to the actual situation and data availability. Although in table 1, they state these characteristics, however, they need to mentioned within the text. What are these characteristics and how did they decide on them, what is their source? 

 

 

On page 5, In terms of data acquisition, Residential information is obtained from Anjuke, Chi- 217 na's leading real estate leasing and sales service website. I am not sure if this could be scientifically valid as a source, why this company and why not others, justify! 

 

There are many assumptions that need support and reference, like “Many studies believe that the range of influence of a park is 1 km” on page 10. What do you rely on? Similarly. On page 11, “The conditions for selection are that the park is surrounded by a certain number of residential communities and that the park is representative.” Again on page 12, It is generally accepted that the lower the aging rate, the higher the level of education, the higher the professional status, and the higher the income, the more gentrified a region.” All these need references and support!. 

 

Another important issue is the claim that: “Combining the above studies, we use both qualitative and quantitative research.” And while I agree with the authors on the need to combine both types of methods and the importance of qualitative data, however, qualitative data is again used in a quantitative way!! I am not sure that questioners really allow in-depth understanding of the phenomena. Here, I was expecting more in depth interviews from people and opinions that can highlight issues that can be raised by the questionnaire. So therefore, I am not sure if this qualifies as a qualitative methods, it is just a more specific data about the residents and people. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.  What is green gentrification?  Do you think the concept of green gentrification is scientific?  We believe that green gentrification is not a scientific concept and inevitable trend suitable for the future development of Chinese cities. Therefore, this study is of little significance. 

 

2.  This paper analyzes the impact of park size on park premium.  However, in fact, the main factor affecting park premium is not the size of the park, but the comprehensive effect of park type, quality, location, characteristics and other factors. How to weigh the comprehensive impact of these factors?  In addition, it is not comprehensive to analyze only the size of the park as the theme in this paper, and the essential characteristics of the problem are not grasped, so the topic selection is inappropriate. 

 

3. Hedonic Price Model is a common method.  This paper lacks innovation in research methods. 

4. Figure 1. The Research design is unreasonable or is only a possibility hypothesis. 

 

5. Judging from the references, the research trends and cutting-edge progress mastered by the authors are far from enough. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

• It is recommended in Part 4 to separate the results from the discussion.

Author Response

     Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise, and thank you for the suggestion. The manuscript has been revised according to your comments.

Point 1: It is recommended in Part 4 to separate the results from the discussion.

Response 1: The manuscript has divided the part 4 into results and discussion. Other relevant contents such as references and statements have been modified. The revisions are shown on pages 6-13 of the manuscript.

Separating the results from the discussion really makes the topic clearer. The original logic of the manuscript is to have a result, then discuss it, and then proceed to the next step. Therefore, this revision still puts part of the discussion in the results section. In the future, we will improve the writing of results and discussion separately.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.