Finding Sprawl Factors and Pirate Development: Based on Spatial Analysis of Population Grid Changes from 2014 to 2022 in SMA, South Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presents a study that aims to analyze the relationship between land development and population inflows using spatial regression analysis.  The study focuses on the impact of transportation infrastructure and land use on population inflows in different areas. However, after a thorough review of the article, I have identified several serious flaws and weaknesses that make it unsuitable for publication in its current form. These issues pertain to the organization of the paper, lack of novelty, and methodological shortcomings.

·        Organization and Structure: The overall organization and structure of the paper are inadequate. The introduction lacks a clear and concise statement of the research problem and objectives. The literature review is insufficient and fails to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing knowledge in the field. The methodology section lacks clarity and does not adequately describe the data sources, sample selection, and model specifications. The results section is poorly presented and lacks proper explanations of the findings. The discussion and conclusion sections are weak and fail to provide meaningful insights or implications.

·        Lack of Novelty: The article does not demonstrate any significant novelty or contribution to the existing body of knowledge. The research question addressed in the study is not sufficiently original or innovative. The authors do not clearly articulate the research gap they aim to fill or explain how their study adds value to the field. As a result, the article does not offer any new insights or advance the understanding of the topic.

·        Methodological Shortcomings: The methodology employed in the study is not adequately described or justified. The authors mention the use of spatial regression analysis but fail to provide sufficient details on the specific models and variables used. The lack of clarity in the methodology section hinders the reproducibility of the study. Additionally, the sample size and data sources are not clearly defined, making it difficult to assess the reliability and validity of the findings. The statistical analysis lacks rigor, as evidenced by the absence of measures of model fit and the limited interpretation of the results.

·        Hypotheses and Results: The article briefly mentions the research hypotheses tested in the study, but it would be beneficial to provide a more comprehensive overview of these hypotheses and their theoretical underpinnings. Furthermore, the presentation of the model results in Table 3 lacks clarity. The authors should provide more detailed explanations of the coefficients and their statistical significance. Additionally, it would be helpful to include measures of model fit, such as R-squared values, to assess the goodness of fit of the models.

·        Discussion and Conclusion: The discussion section provides a summary of the main findings and their implications. However, the authors should expand on the implications of the results and discuss their relevance in the broader context of urban planning policies. Furthermore, the conclusion section is missing, and it would be valuable to include a concise summary of the key findings and their implications for future research and policy.

·        References: The reference list appears to be incomplete, as there are only a few references cited in the text. The authors should ensure that all relevant sources are included and properly cited. Additionally, the references should follow a consistent citation style throughout the article.

 

Based on the shortcomings identified in the article, I cannot recommend it for publication in its current form. The paper lacks novelty, suffers from methodological shortcomings, and fails to provide a comprehensive and critical analysis of the topic. I would strongly encourage the authors to address these concerns and consider revising the paper significantly before resubmitting it for publication.

 

The article contains numerous grammatical errors and awkward sentence constructions. While these issues can be addressed during the editing process, it is important for the authors to ensure that the text is clear and understandable. Proofreading the article for language and grammar would greatly enhance its readability.

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful and professional review. I have attached a file with more details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Generally speaking, this work has an appropriate scientific level and I would judge its study objective to be appropriate and in line with the title and subject of the publication. I similarly think that one of the strong points of this proposal is its originality, both in terms of the subject treated and the hypotheses analysed.

We appreciate the measured use of the bibliography cited and how this largely focuses on works that are relevant to the subject and well-contrasted. The structure used is in line with accepted practice and follows the prescribed order for a scientific article. 

Questions relating to the approach and content:

This study examines the population change of SMAs in Korea over the last ten years and tries to determine whether the sprawl phenomenon has the aspect of predatory de-velopment and applies it to a significant case study, Korea Metropolitan Area. The rationale of the case study is very appropriate.

The main core of the paper is based on The use of the spatial lag model, also known as Spatial Autoregressive Regression (SAR) or Spatial Autoregressive Model (SAM), considers that the dependent variable of each sample is spatially correlated with the dependent variable of neighbouring samples. Using demographic, land use, income, etc. variables, among others, and their spatial correlation.

The results are consistent with the analysis carried out and it is concluded that the policy implications, especially for preparing areas with low land prices and improving transport infrastructures, are of great significance for future population inflows. It is therefore concluded that this type of policy monitoring study is especially crucial in areas where development plans are already in place or where there is a high percentage of bare land.

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful and professional review. I have attached a file with more details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper discusses relevant topics for the scientific fields. It relates to

“ urban sprawl in the Seoul Metropolitan Area (SMA), emphasizing its rising intensity and complexity despite previous public-led planning efforts..””

Authors’ words suggest they can conclude that “Using grid-based population data and spatial regression analysis, the study finds that population growth is concentrated in unplanned areas with high development benefits. ”.

 

I realize the paper has been the result of a substantial effort from Authors. However, given the strategic role for this journal’s reviewers, I cannot provide an Acceptance letter for this version.

I suggest Authors consider the following lines as promising avenues for a significant revision of their work toward a publishable work.

 

Abstract and Introduction:

The Introduction needs to provide an overall perspective about the original problematic and about the current scientific and social needs in the field. It also misses a convenient discussion of the structure of the paper in spite of the Introduction’s length. The abstract raises some confused insights and it did not show policy implications from the paper.

 

Review of Literature:

It is hard to follow the Literature. I suggest Authors to organize it through a chronological line but also through their discussion about the methodological strategy. Authors must also revise the style of the text.

A Review of Literature must also address the History of the Scientific Thought of this thematic and the derived implications in terms of practical procedures and policies. The literature can be improved, namely with several researches published in the topic. The entire section– especially the identification of its Hypotheses which must be clearly identified– needs a higher clarification as well as a better identification of the precise sources behind each assumption/hypothesis. Obviously, there is a need of a higher evidence of the rationale for the entire set of assumptions and the variables. Namely, the different insights on the studied relationships, namely the dependence on time period (including the location of each observed unit), the characteristics of their ‘political connection’ (a variable never properly discussed or detailed), the indicators of monetary flows, etc. It is difficult to follow the linearity between many of the suggested relationships. Which cases have been considered in the sample and which have been neglected? Besides problems/typos in the forms, the formats must be corrected.

 

Data and Methods:

An academic paper must be a kind of repeatable path. Therefore, Authors need to significantly improve the quality of the presentation of their data as well as they have to define the followed strategy for updating sources, etc and obviously the biased chosen sample of observed individuals. The sources must be commented as well as the sources’ and sample’s limitations. In the introduction of the empirical model, I think Authors shall try firstly to discuss the preference between descriptive analysis of the ‘political connection’ dimension and each unit’s characteristics. It will also be relevant to identify cases which were well-fitted by the empirical modelling and those not.

Authors shall improve the information regarding some steps of their methods and the statistics regarding the quality of the Tables.

The text also has many paragraphs which are difficult to be read and results can barely be considered pertinent. There appear challenging sentences like “Regarding Hypothesis 1, the higher the land price (LP14), the greater the population growth. However, the negative coefficient of the intercept of the moderating variable (POP14), LP14*POP14, indicates that this phenomenon is dominant in less populated ar-eas. In other words, more populated areas may lose population to higher land prices, while less populated areas gain more population to higher land prices within the region.” without a literature supporting that land can be a Giffen good.

Authors can consider additional methods like (multinomial) multilevel analysis for differentiating units-, sector/neighborhoods- and regions- effects. Spatial Durbin regressions would also be valuable for discussing the different types of dynamics in action.

The endogeneity issue’s treatment raises several doubts.

 

Conclusion and Policy Implications:

This section needs a substantial revision. Authors must clearly address the gains of this research and suggest practical innovations or policies’ changes.

The conclusions (substituted by a mere Discussion of Results) must be enriched with papers which were based on the same methodology but focused on different realities than the studied one.

 

There are additional minor changes to be made:

These minor changes regard the opportunity of explaining better the Figures.

 

 

 

Overall, the English must be revised by a professional service .

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful and professional review. I have attached a file with more details.

Due to the short turnaround time, we were unable to get professional English proofreading. If we manage to get an acceptance, we will get a professional proofreading service recommended by 'Land' before publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors present a potentially interesting paper on the main factors that explain and describe the sprawl phenomenon in Seoul Metropolitan Area (Korea) between 2014 and 2022. The main topic fits with the scope of the Journal and it is relevant among scholars and public administrators. In my opinion, the structure and the development of the presented research need important improvements in contents and form to be considered for publishing.

My main concerns are:

1) the introduction section is the only chapter with a kind of literature review: please expand it and re-structure the section defining better aim and paper structure;

2) Figure 1: which is the grid used by authors to define the population distribution?

3) in sub-section "2.1 Study area and institutional contexts" authors introduce a overview of the population development in the last decades: it could be interesting see it in pictures (or graphs) maybe with a correlation with the urban structure (built area) developement;

4) in sub-section "2.1 Study area and institutional contexts" authors cite the land Developement Promotion Act. Are there any other important city plans related to the city developement? Which are the main elements (from urban planning point of view) -  some urban parameters, indexes, quantities - that characterized the plan(s)?

5) Is Figure 2 related to SMA? If yes, please explain better in the text, otherwise remove;

6) sub section "2.1 Data Sources": Figure 1 describes the population in 2023; here authors say that they compare the population of 2014 and 2023. As mentioned in my third comment, it could be interesting a graphic visualization of the population's developement;

7) sub section "2.1 Data visualization and Hypothesis": what do you mean with "Hypothesis"? Research questions? Are they part of the methodology proposed? If yes, please move these parts to the correct section. By all means, they are not data;

8) Figure 4: please add a complete legend to explain all the colours of the image;

9) Section "1 Research method and variables": please explain better the research steps (considering my comment n°7) with a flow chart or bullet point;

10) sub section "3.1 Variables and basic statistics": population data on 2023 derive from survey or are just projections?

As last comment, please pay attention to formatting.

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful and professional review. I have attached a file with more details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors sufficiently improved the revised version. Now the paper can be considered for publication

English language has been improved

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors implemented their paper. Considering my suggestions and doubts, they partially answered. Please pay more attention to the literature review and the formatting.