Urban Intensity in Theory and Practice: Empirical Determining Mechanism of Floor Area Ratio and Its Deviation from the Classic Location Theories in Beijing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is very ambitious, but it has some weaknesses which, at the present stage, do not allow for a quick (minor) recommendation for publication. Here they are:
1. There is no justification for the research, ie no demonstration of why the research topic under consideration is important.
2. There is no presentation of the state of research on the issue. The more so because the authors "take" the most serious theories of location (Christaller, Sombart / Haig, Ricardo / Alonso). I know it's very difficult, but at the moment the aim of the article looks something like this: there are theories that are "canonical", but let's see, maybe we can refute them by accident, undermine them. Therefore, it would be worth finding some empirical reviews that illustrate contemporary opinions about these mega-theories of central places, economic base and land rent, and somehow refer to it.
3. The above is important as the authors of the research methods indicate that they "avoid" traditional downtown (Dongcheng and Xicheng districts). Why? After all, this is important, especially in the Ricardo / Alonso land rent model. And why, since the internal structure of the city is studied, is Christaller used, and not the classic models of city development, i.e. especially the Chicago school?
4. Why were specific specific indicators chosen and not others chosen (page 4). In general, they are intuitively right, which is a big plus of the research, but it would be good to justify them.
5. Why was only linear regression used? After all, for example, land prices and a number of other derivative activities, especially service activities, have an exponential or even logistic course depending on the distance from the city center.
6. Where did the “ideal/perfect models” come from (page 9)? How were they developed and calibrated? This is completely unclear and is crucial to the research results.
7. I like the discussion of the results (pp. 11-13), although it may be worth enriching it with more literature. On the other hand, the conclusions (section 4.3) are disappointing, they are quite enigmatic and written in a hermetic language (especially since they are directed at practitioners). The short summary (next section 5) is missing.
In addition, the article contains quite a lot of places that are difficult to understand for grammatical, stylistic, etc. reasons. The thing about the English language is that even a slight change in the order of words in a sentence is very important. It is worthwhile to review the text carefully in this regard.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 1
15th January, 2023
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Urban Intensity in Theory and Practice: Empirical Determining Mechanism of Floor-Area Ratio and Its Deviation from the Classic Location Theories in Beijing”(Manuscript ID：land-2056646). The comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed your comments and have made revisions to the original manuscript accordingly, which we hope would constitute a more satisfactory one. Please kindly find our response to your questions and comments below.
Sincerely,
The authors
Q1. There is no justification for the research, ie no demonstration of why the research topic under consideration is important.
Response 1: Thank you for raising this important question. We agree that it is crucial to adequately frame the research, which the original manuscript lacked. Per your comment, we have revised the manuscript and include the following texts as the introductory framing of the research (1.Introduction, page 1, lines 30-48):
“As predicted by Northam's famous urbanization curve [1], China, with the coun-try’s urbanization level approaching 65% by 2021, is undergoing a historical transition from rapid urban population expansion to a new phase featuring the slowing down of the urbanization rate. In particular, mega-cities such as Beijing and Shanghai have ef-fectively shifted to an urban development goal of "stock optimization", which means that the emphasis of urban development and planning is placed on the spatial optimi-zation of existing urban areas. Undoubtedly, this new policy orientation has highlighted the need for a stronger scientific basis of urban spatial planning that would guide the above-mentioned optimization [2].
The spatial distribution of urban intensity is one of the most important issues considered in urban planning [3]. Intuitively, the skyline heights in most cities show a decreasing trend from the city center to the periphery [4], which is usually explained as an effect of the agglomeration economy in a market economy [5]. Admittedly, classic location theories allow for local deviations in the distribution of urban intensity from the perfect bid rent curve due to geographic heterogeneity, traffic congestion, and other reasons. However, there are still many cities where the distribution pattern of urban intensity deviates significantly from the reasonable degree allowed by these theories. Beijing is a typical example of a city of this kind (Figure 1). This seemingly unusual pattern poses a potential challenge to urban intensity theories that are based on eco-nomical rationality.
…”
Q2. There is no presentation of the state of research on the issue. The more so because the authors "take" the most serious theories of location (Christaller, Sombart / Haig, Ricardo / Alonso). I know it's very difficult, but at the moment the aim of the article looks something like this: there are theories that are "canonical", but let's see, maybe we can refute them by accident, undermine them. Therefore, it would be worth finding some empirical reviews that illustrate contemporary opinions about these mega-theories of central places, economic base and land rent, and somehow refer to it.
Response 2: Thank you for the valuable comments. Per your suggestion, we have structured a standalone “Literature review” section after the Introduction section to present a critical review of the relevant studies, including classic economic geographical location theories and their extentsions that deal with the spatial heterogeneity and entrogeneity problems, along with applied theories and empirical studies that cover more real-world cases. Please kindly refer to the revised manuscript for details.
Q3. The above is important as the authors of the research methods indicate that they "avoid" traditional downtown (Dongcheng and Xicheng districts). Why? After all, this is important, especially in the Ricardo / Alonso land rent model. And why, since the internal structure of the city is studied, is Christaller used, and not the classic models of city development, i.e. especially the Chicago school?
Response 3: Thank you for the questions and comments. We have clarified the rationale of our choice of the study area in the revised manuscript (section 3.1, page 4, lines 151-156):
“We deliberately avoided the "old city", namely the Dongcheng and Xicheng Districts. Although they assume a geographically central location in the city, they do not follow location theory as they have strict development restrictions for historic preservation purposes, and thus it is obviously inappropriate to try to explain their urban intensity distribution within a location theory framework.…”
Putting another way, the Forbidden City is located right in the center of the two central districts at concern, and most of the areas of the two districts are included in the Old Town historic preservation area which is subject to strict development controls. As here the deviation from the economic geographical location theory is obvious, we opted to rule out the central city area.
As for the theoretical framing of the research, we agree your comment that the mentioning of Christaller’s Central Place Theory was inappropriate, which has been removed in the revised manuscript; and that works from the Chicago School are indeed good references to make diaglues with. Nevertheless, as we focus on an economic geography framing, the Chicago School’s sociological perspective may be strenching too much from our topic. We do, however, recognize the importance and potential relevance of the works in a broad perspective, and have thus added relevant discussions in a newly added section, “Limitations and prospects” (pages 14-15, lines 495-501), as follows:
“Additionally, in terms of the explanation of the status quo deviation of urban in-tensity distribution from the “theoretical” predictions, we have focused on economic, geographical and other ad hoc factors as stated earlier. However, subtle social interac-tions may also contribute to the fine-grained heterogeneity of urban intensity, of which an explanation may be traced back to the classic sociological works of the Chicago school [66]. The lack of coverage of theories of this type is certainly a major limitation in our narrative, and is also one we would like to address in more depth in future studies.”
Q4. Why were specific specific indicators chosen and not others chosen (page 4). In general, they are intuitively right, which is a big plus of the research, but it would be good to justify them.
Response 4: Thank you for raising this question. The choice of the specific indicators was, in broad a sense, based on the location theories we reviewed in the revised manuscript, and technically drawn from relevant previous studies. For your reference, we have included the specific source for the variables in Table 1 (page 5, line 189).
Q5. Why was only linear regression used? After all, for example, land prices and a number of other derivative activities, especially service activities, have an exponential or even logistic course depending on the distance from the city center.
Response 5: Thank you for raising this important question. Per your suggestion, we have made one-on-one scatter plots between the independent variables and the dependent variable (FAR). Results showed that most of the POI-based variables have a monotonic trend with FAR which looks also roughly linear. The only exception is the house price variable, whose relationship with FAR is obviously not linear. However, after trying to take the natural logarithm of the house price variable, the linear relationship seems to be more evident. Therefore, we took the natural logarithm of the house price variable, and reconstructed the model. The new results bear some changes from the original ones, but generally, the structure of the significant variables remains unchanged, i.e., the original conclusions still hold. For your reference, the details can be found in Table 4 (page 8, line 266) and Table 5 (page 8, line 278).
Q6. Where did the “ideal/perfect models” come from (page 9)? How were they developed and calibrated? This is completely unclear and is crucial to the research results.
Response 6: Thank you for the question. We agree that these texts were totally unclear in the original manuscript. We have re-stated the entire rationale, procedure, and the relevant figure (Figure 2) and table (Table 2) in section 3.3 of the revised manuscript, which please kindly refer to for details.
Q7. I like the discussion of the results (pp. 11-13), although it may be worth enriching it with more literature. On the other hand, the conclusions (section 4.3) are disappointing, they are quite enigmatic and written in a hermetic language (especially since they are directed at practitioners). The short summary (next section 5) is missing.
Response 7: Thank you for your comments. Per your suggestion, first, we have moderately expanded the scope of literature that we dialogued with in the discussion section. Second, section 4.3 of the original manuscript was indeed too broad and helpless for the topic of the research, and we have removed the texts. Lastly, we have added a new section 6 "Conclusion", which summarizes the study's topic, methods, findings, and implications. Please kindly refer to the revised manuscript for details of the above revisions.
We regret there were problems with the English. The paper has been carefully revised by a professional language editing service to improve the grammar and readability.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript ´Urban Intensity in Theory and Practice: Empirical Determining Mechanism of Floor-Area Ratio and Its Deviation from the Classic Location Theories in Beijing´ investigates the formulation mechanism of urban intensity in Beijing.
The general approach of the manuscript is good. The manuscript is informative and well structured. The title matches the content. The topic fits the scope of Land journal, section, topic of the special issue and the case is relevant. The introduction and literature review provide sufficient background and include sufficient references.
Besides, the manuscript review raised some concerns.
1) The abstract should follow the style of structured elements including Background, Methods, Results and Conclusion.
2) There is a lack of clear research hypothesis in the Introduction, it should be better to add it and show that conclusions match the research idea.
3) Line 183. The authors should explain the weighting procedure more carefully, including the obtaining and further use of 'superimposed weights' and 'weights' in Table 2.
4) Discussion: the authors should add here the research limitations.
Generally, after revision, the paper can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 2
15th January, 2023
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Urban Intensity in Theory and Practice: Empirical Determining Mechanism of Floor-Area Ratio and Its Deviation from the Classic Location Theories in Beijing”(Manuscript ID：land-2056646). The comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed your comments and have made revisions to the original manuscript accordingly, which we hope would constitute a more satisfactory one. Please kindly find our response to your questions and comments below.
Sincerely,
The authors
Q1.The abstract should follow the style of structured elements including Background, Methods, Results and Conclusion.
Response 1: Thank you for the suggestion. We have updated the abstract such that it is now in line with this comment.
Q2.There is a lack of clear research hypothesis in the Introduction, it should be better to add it and show that conclusions match the research idea.
Response 2: Thank you for raising this important question. We have re-written the Introduction section, now with explicit statements of our research question and the respective hypotheses. Please kindly find below (and also in the revised manuscript on page 2, lines 69-86):
“The presented paper aims to bridge the knowledge gap by quantitatively investi-gating the formulation mechanisms of Beijing’s urban intensity. In the rest of this pa-per, we first present a critical literature review of the relevant theories on urban inten-sity. Next, utilizing the floor area ratio (FAR), i.e., the ratio of the total floor area of buildings in a certain plot of land to the area of the plot as an indicator of urban inten-sity [8], we take two jurisdictional districts in Beijing as cases, and develop empirical models of the spatial distribution mechanism of their status quo FAR under the guid-ance of classic economic geographical location theories. Meanwhile, based on applied economic geographical location theories, we construct three scenarios of “ideal” FAR distribution. Then, by comparing the two, we identify the areas with significant status quo deviations from the “ideal” pattern scenarios and analyze the reasons for such de-viations. We hope to answer the main research question of “what are the specific factors influencing the city’s intensity distribution, and by what mechanisms do they work to shape the seemingly erratic status quo urban intensity patterns?”. Our hypotheses, deduced from the above qualitative explanations, that complex factors including his-torical path dependency, policy orientations, and socioeconomic heterogeneity together shape the city’s intensity patterns will be tested with the above analyses. We conclude the paper by discussing the methodological and practical implications of the findings for the planning institution.”
Q3.Line 183. The authors should explain the weighting procedure more carefully, including the obtaining and further use of 'superimposed weights' and 'weights' in Table 2.
Response 3: Thank you for the question. We agree that these texts were totally unclear in the original manuscript. We have re-stated the entire rationale, procedure, and the relevant figure (Figure 2) and table (Table 2) in section 3.3 of the revised manuscript, which please kindly refer to for details.
Q4.Discussion: the authors should add here the research limitations.
Response 4: Thank you for your comment. Per your suggestion, we have added a new sub-section, section 5.4 Limitations and prospects (page 15, line 492-505), citing below for your reference (and also in the revised manuscript, page 14, lines 488-502):
“It should be noted that the city, as a large, complex, and dynamic system, is difficult to fully adapt to the specific situation of each parcel by relying only on model calcula-tions, which is an unavoidable limit of big data-based prediction. Therefore, the urban intensity calculation method proposed in this paper involves calibrate a reference value for urban planners and should not be treated too rigidly, and planning practitioners are advised to flexibly master the methodological framework, not the result figures per se of the paper to adapt to their specific contexts.
Additionally, in terms of the explanation of the status quo deviation of urban in-tensity distribution from the “theoretical” predictions, we have focused on economic, geographical and other ad hoc factors as stated earlier. However, subtle social interac-tions may also contribute to the fine-grained heterogeneity of urban intensity, of which an explanation may be traced back to the classic sociological works of the Chicago school [66]. The lack of coverage of theories of this type is certainly a major limitation in our narrative, and is also one we would like to address in more depth in future studies.”
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper investigates the theoretical urban intensity theory and how it performs in the real world by carrying out empirical studies in two urban districts in Beijing, China. Ideal and empirical models were built and compared by using multi-sources data. The policy implications were discussed well. However, the following issues need to be addressed for publishing.
1) The paper needs to break down the introduction and literature review into two separate sections. In the introduction, the authors need to illustrate what FAR is, what bid rental theory is, and how FAR performs under the classical bid-rent theory;
2) the study area figure 1 needs to have a Beijing map showing all districts to give readers a reference on distance decay for the city; meanwhile, it is suggested to demonstrate urban and non-urban areas, historic areas, or some major POIs to help readers understand the following discussed policy implications;
3) the study needs to clarify the FAR calculation in the methodology section. In my understanding, FAR is the total floor space divided by the total area. If the authors used this definition and calculation, it needs to clarify the data sources. If the paper used "proxy" for FAR, it is suggested to redefine it as intensity index, instead of FAR
4) The paper needs to add a conclusion section to summarize the method and findings of this study.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 3
15th January, 2023
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Urban Intensity in Theory and Practice: Empirical Determining Mechanism of Floor-Area Ratio and Its Deviation from the Classic Location Theories in Beijing”(Manuscript ID：land-2056646). The comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed your comments and have made revisions to the original manuscript accordingly, which we hope would constitute a more satisfactory one. Please kindly find our response to your questions and comments below.
Sincerely,
The authors
Q1.The paper needs to break down the introduction and literature review into two separate sections. In the introduction, the authors need to illustrate what FAR is, what bid rental theory is, and how FAR performs under the classical bid-rent theory.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. First, we have broken down the introduction and literature review into two separate sections. Second, regarding the FAR indicator, we are sorry for the inaccurate mentioning of it as a “proxy” of urban intensity in the original manuscript. Rather, we actually used FAR as a direct indicator of urban intensity. Other revisions cover a better presentation of the FAR concept with proper references, as well as a brief description on how FAR should be distributed spatially under the classic bid-rent theory. Please kindly refer to the revised texts in the “Introduction” section for details.
Q2.The study area figure 1 needs to have a Beijing map showing all districts to give readers a reference on distance decay for the city; meanwhile, it is suggested to demonstrate urban and non-urban areas, historic areas, or some major POIs to help readers understand the following discussed policy implications.
Response 2: Thank you, we do appreciate these important questions. We have remade Fig. 1, which now shows far more information than the orgional version including the jurisdictional boundaries, distribution and status-quo FAR across the city, along with key AOIs and POIs including the Forbidden City.
Q3.The study needs to clarify the FAR calculation in the methodology section. In my understanding, FAR is the total floor space divided by the total area. If the authors used this definition and calculation, it needs to clarify the data sources. If the paper used "proxy" for FAR, it is suggested to redefine it as intensity index, instead of FAR.
Response 3: Thank you for your comments. As they are again regarding the definition and our usage of FAR in the research, please kindly refer to our response to your question 1 above as a unified explanation. Regarding the data sources for calculating FAR, we used the building-level data from the 2016 Ge-ographic State Survey and land parcel data from the Landuse Change Survey. The information is also provided in Table 3 in the revised manuscript.
Q4.The paper needs to add a conclusion section to summarize the method and findings of this study.
Response 4: Thank you for your comment. Per your request, we have added a new section 6 "Conclusion", which summarizes the study's topic, methods, findings, and implications. Please kindly refer to the revised manuscript for details of the above revisions.
We regret there were problems with the English. The paper has been carefully revised by a professional language editing service to improve the grammar and readability.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper can be published in its current version.
Author Response
Response to reviewer
31st January, 2023
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comment concerning our manuscript entitled "Urban Intensity in Theory and Practice: Empirical Determining Mechanism of Floor-Area Ratio and Its Deviation from the Classic Location Theories in Beijing" (Manuscript ID：land-2056646). We revised the whole manuscript carefully to avoid language errors. In addition, We have invited MDPI English Editing Team, a formal language polishing organization, to polish our paper's English language and style. The English Editing Certificate can be found below. We believe that the language is now acceptable for the review process. The revised portions are marked up using the "Track Changes" function in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors made significant structural and content improvements following the previous round review. It is recommended to publish after minor language and format edits.
Author Response
Response to reviewer
31st January, 2023
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comment concerning our manuscript entitled "Urban Intensity in Theory and Practice: Empirical Determining Mechanism of Floor-Area Ratio and Its Deviation from the Classic Location Theories in Beijing" (Manuscript ID：land-2056646). The comment is valuable and helpful for improving our manuscript.
Suggestion: It is recommended to publish after minor language and format edits.
Response: Thanks a lot for reminding us of this important point. We revised the whole manuscript carefully to avoid language errors. In addition, We have invited MDPI English Editing Team, a formal language polishing organization, to polish our paper's English language and style. The English Editing Certificate can be found below. We believe that the language is now acceptable for the review process. The revised portions are marked up using the "Track Changes" function in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
