Research on the Quadrilateral Evolutionary Game of Governance for Small Property Rights Housing on Rural Land in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to thank the editor of the Journal of Land for providing this opportunity to read this great work. The article examines the increasing challenges posed by the proliferation of small property right housing in rural China, an issue compounded by China's rapid urbanization and the rising costs of traditional commercial property. The study introduces a quadrilateral evolutionary game model involving four key stakeholders: the government, consumers, developers, and real estate agents. Through this model, the article explores the strategic choices and influences affecting each stakeholder throughout various stages of governance of small property right housing. the following improvements are suggested to improve to overall quality of the article:
In the Abstract, the presentation could be enhanced by including a concise summary of the methodology, specifically the aspects of the evolutionary game model employed. It's also important to mention the limitations of the study to set accurate expectations for the readers. A brief mention of the key findings would provide a more comprehensive overview of the study, and a clearer articulation of its current significance in the context of existing literature is necessary.
The Introduction would benefit from additional background information on the historical development of small property right housing in China. It currently lacks a clear statement of the research problem and its relevance to the broader field of urbanism, which is crucial for grounding the study. Including a hypothesis or research question would guide the study more effectively. Additionally, an outline of the article's structure would aid in navigation and comprehension. In order to increase the internal validity of the study I am higly suggesting to cite the following studies in the introduction part of your study. Exploring Identity Issues in Development Areas of Vernacular Rural Settlements: A Case Study of Behramkale, Türkiye ; Morphological and GIS-based land use Analysis: A Critical Exploration of a Rural Neighborhood ; Sustainable Construction for Affordable Housing Program in Kabul.
Regarding the Methodology, the assumptions behind the model require further justification or elaboration to strengthen the study's foundation. A more detailed explanation of the data sources and their relevance would enhance the credibility of the research. The section could also benefit from addressing potential biases in the model and the methods used to mitigate them. Moreover, the approach to numerical simulation, including the software or tools used, should be better described to enhance reproducibility and understanding.
In the Discussion section, a more extensive comparison of the findings with existing literature would provide a richer context for the study. The section lacks a critical evaluation of the model's outcomes and their broader implications, which is essential for understanding the study's impact. Discussing the potential generalizability of the findings and clearly articulating the implications for policy and practice would significantly enhance this section.
Finally, the Conclusion should succinctly summarize the key findings of the research for clarity. A statement on the practical applications of the study would highlight its relevance, and the conclusion should more clearly delineate the novel contributions of the study to the existing body of knowledge. Furthermore, the section would benefit from offering detailed suggestions for future research, providing a pathway for continued exploration in this area.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for your letter and advice. We have revised the paper, and would like to re-submit it for your consideration.
We have revised the version of the manuscript in the link and reduce the repetition rate, we have checked that all references are relevant to the contents of the manuscript. We have addressed the comments raised by the reviewers, and the amendments are highlighted, revisions in the manuscript are indicated in blue font.
We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you and best regards.
Sincerely,
Xinpei Qiao
Comment 1: In the Abstract, the presentation could be enhanced by including a concise summary of the methodology, specifically the aspects of the evolutionary game model employed. It's also important to mention the limitations of the study to set accurate expectations for the readers. A brief mention of the key findings would provide a more comprehensive overview of the study, and a clearer articulation of its current significance in the context of existing literature is necessary.
Response：We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised. Some additions to the original Abstract. The new sentence reads as follows:
By analyzing various equilibrium points corresponding to different stages of small property right housing governance, simulation analysis is conducted using Matlab software to examine the strategic choices of each stakeholder. By adjusting and simulating various parameters, the study investigates the key factors influencing the governance of small property right housing. (line 21-25)
This paper contributes additional insights to the existing body of theoretical literature through quantitative analysis. Nonetheless, there is a need for further refinement of the parameter settings used in the study. Additionally, while the simulation analysis provides valuable perspectives, it is somewhat subjective and possesses certain limitations. (line 35-38)
Comment 2: The Introduction would benefit from additional background information on the historical development of small property right housing in China. It currently lacks a clear statement of the research problem and its relevance to the broader field of urbanism, which is crucial for grounding the study. Including a hypothesis or research question would guide the study more effectively. Additionally, an outline of the article's structure would aid in navigation and comprehension. In order to increase the internal validity of the study I am higly suggesting to cite the following studies in the introduction part of your study. Exploring Identity Issues in Development Areas of Vernacular Rural Settlements: A Case Study of Behramkale, Türkiye ; Morphological and GIS-based land use Analysis: A Critical Exploration of a Rural Neighborhood ; Sustainable Construction for Affordable Housing Program in Kabul.
Response：We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised. We read and cited the first and second literature you provided, Some additions to the original Introduction. The new sentence reads as follows:
Rural housing represents a global challenge that is linked to sustainable development, social justice, and quality of life, the completeness of relevant basic public facilities and the suitability of the environment remain issues that need resolution.Sustainable development in rural areas is of great importance to all countries.[1,2] (line 42-45)
Due to the lack of a building permit and formal property rights, transactions for such houses are not conducted through the official real estate registration and transaction systems. The method of transaction is often through advertising or direct transactions between individuals, with the handover of the house being completed simply by signing a purchase contract. Although formal land registration cannot be carried out, there are practices where some notary offices notarize transaction contracts. Additionally, some local governments have adopted a tolerant attitude towards this situation. (line 79-86)
At the social level, failure to regulate the transaction of small property right housing will cause confusion in the real estate market, affecting the current urban planning and development as well as social stability. (line 94-96)
Comment 3: Regarding the Methodology, the assumptions behind the model require further justification or elaboration to strengthen the study's foundation. A more detailed explanation of the data sources and their relevance would enhance the credibility of the research. The section could also benefit from addressing potential biases in the model and the methods used to mitigate them. Moreover, the approach to numerical simulation, including the software or tools used, should be better described to enhance reproducibility and understanding.
Response：We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised. Some additions to the original Methodology. The new sentence and Table reads as follows:
Table 1. Symbols and Descriptions.
|
Parameter |
Description |
|
Rg |
Credibility of the government (Government credibility and social influence, real estate market and social stability) |
|
Cg |
Regulatory costs to the Government (Legal and administrative costs, enforcement and oversight costs, public outreach and education costs) |
|
K |
Government fines (Developers building illegally) |
|
G |
Government fines (Real estate agents choose to sell) |
|
P |
Price difference between small property right housing and commercial housing (Economic benefits to consumers) |
|
Cc |
The cost to consumers of purchasing a small property right housing (House purchase costs, maintenance costs, agency fees) |
|
n |
Risk probability factor |
|
I |
Risk of loss in purchasing a small property right housing |
|
Rd |
Expected benefits to the Developers (Sales revenue, return on investment) |
|
Cd |
Costs to the Developers (Land costs, construction costs, marketing costs) |
|
Rr |
Expected benefits to the Real estate agents (Agency fees, developer cooperation commission) |
|
Cr |
Costs to the Real estate agents (Information costs, training costs, reputation risks) |
|
L |
Government subsidies to the Real estate agents (Subsidies for education and training and market regulation to raise the legal awareness of real estate agents) |
(1-x,1-y,1-z,1-m) implies that there is neither benefit nor loss for the quadrilateral subject, and the point represents the situation when small property right housing is not present. (x,y,z,m) implies that the government pays the cost of governance and obtains the corresponding fines, the developers and real estate agents get the benefits but need to pay the fines, and the consumers get the corresponding difference in price but take the risk of loss and pay the costs, this point represents the current state of small property right housing governance. Using these two points as a basis, combined with the model assumption in Section 3. Table 2 shows the strategy choices of quadratic subjects under different strategies. (line 249-256)
In the first set of diagrams (Figures 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11), the y, z, and m coordinate axes represent the strategic choices of the three remaining parties, under the assumption of varying initial probabilities for government strategy selection. The second set of diagrams (Figures 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12) features time change on the horizontal axis (t) and the strategic choices of the four parties on the vertical axis. The shorter the time span (t), the more pronounced the short-term strategic shifts of each participant will be. In this context, we utilize Matlab software to conduct simulation analysis. (line 293-299)
To better illustrate the setting of probability values, The new sentence reads as follows:
In order to make the results more objective, taking the initial probability median value 0.5 of the four parties' main strategy selection as the standard, four values are randomly set. Those with initial probability values higher than 0.5 are high probability groups, and those with initial probability values lower than 0.5 are low probability groups. This paper sets up a high probability group (0.8,0.6,0.7,0.9) and a low probability group (0.2,0.3,0.1,0.4) to conduct sensitivity analysis on the main parameters. (line 410-417)
Comment 4: In the Discussion section, a more extensive comparison of the findings with existing literature would provide a richer context for the study. The section lacks a critical evaluation of the model's outcomes and their broader implications, which is essential for understanding the study's impact. Discussing the potential generalizability of the findings and clearly articulating the implications for policy and practice would significantly enhance this section.
Comment 5: Finally, the Conclusion should succinctly summarize the key findings of the research for clarity. A statement on the practical applications of the study would highlight its relevance, and the conclusion should more clearly delineate the novel contributions of the study to the existing body of knowledge. Furthermore, the section would benefit from offering detailed suggestions for future research, providing a pathway for continued exploration in this area.
Response：We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised. Some additions to the original Discussion (Conclusion and Research Prospects). The new sentence reads as follows:
Illegal construction practices by developers are the main cause of the small property rights housing problems. (line 493-494)
Government incentives can provide an external driving force for the standardization of the real estate market, while the improvement of consumer awareness is an internal supporting force. The combination of the two can effectively promote the standardization of the real estate transaction market. The healthy development of the real estate market cannot be separated from the cooperation of all social subjects. (line 500-505)
By refusing to buy small property rights, consumers can avoid damage to their personal property, while at the same time safeguarding the public interest of society and the stability of the real estate market. When consumers are more inclined to choose legal real estate products, the market will naturally eliminate those non-compliant products and services, promoting the market's self-purification. (line 509-513)
In this study, numerical simulation is carried out through evolutionary games, and corresponding conclusions are drawn to provide suggestions for the governance of small property rights. There is consistency with the current literature in terms of government functions and governance policies, based on which we explore the roles of other social actors through the evolutionary game model, which fills the gaps in the current literature in this area. However, there are still some limitations, in the parameter setting, we mainly start from the cost and benefit, the parameter setting still needs to be further refined, such as the government incentive mechanism to be further studied. The potential impacts of the strategies of various stakeholders and consumer psychology have not been discussed in more depth. The evolutionary game model is more subjective, and the simulation analysis is used in the parameter setting due to the lack of relevant data, and the empirical analysis of each parameter will be the direction of our future research. (line 564-575)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1) Explain how it is possible that a building without a building permit can be sold; in many countries this is not possible because - before the sale - it must be registered in the land registry and this is only possible if it has been built with a regular permit. At the time of the sale, the notary checks this and if it is not exist, the building can't be sold.
2) Line 202: Change “. the… ” in: “ . The…”
3) Paragraph 4. Model Establishment and Solution. Please, explain better the method, especially the combination of the table 2.
4) 3] Table 1: Why the benefits for consumers are not considered as a parameter? For example, if the purchase price is lower, for the consumer this is an economic benefit. Will be also useful describe the costs and the benefits connected with the four stakeholders (for example which are the Government subsidies to the Real estate agent?).
5) The results pf parameters combination (figures 1-6) are not clear; for example what is represented in the horizontal axis with a scale from 0 to 10 or 0 to 20?
6) Paragraph 5.2 Specify how are setup the high probability group: 8.6.7.9 and the low probability group: 2,3,1,4 and why for the high probability group the numbers are with dot and for the low probability group are with comma? Are they different scale?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for your letter and advice. We have revised the paper, and would like to re-submit it for your consideration.
We have revised the version of the manuscript in the link and reduce the repetition rate, we have checked that all references are relevant to the contents of the manuscript. We have addressed the comments raised by the reviewers, and the amendments are highlighted, revisions in the manuscript are indicated in blue font.
We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you and best regards.
Sincerely,
Xinpei Qiao
Comment 1: Explain how it is possible that a building without a building permit can be sold; in many countries this is not possible because - before the sale - it must be registered in the land registry and this is only possible if it has been built with a regular permit. At the time of the sale, the notary checks this and if it is not exist, the building can't be sold.
Response：We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised. Some additions to the original Introduction. The new sentence reads as follows:
Due to the lack of a building permit and formal property rights, transactions for such houses are not conducted through the official real estate registration and transaction systems. The method of transaction is often through advertising or direct transactions between individuals, with the handover of the house being completed simply by signing a purchase contract. Although formal land registration cannot be carried out, there are practices where some notary offices notarize transaction contracts. Additionally, some local governments have adopted a tolerant attitude towards this situation. (line 79-86)
Comment 2: Line 202: Change ‘’. the…’’ in: ‘’ . The…’’
Response：We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised. Change ‘’. the… ‘’ in: ‘’ . The…’’
Comment 3: Paragraph 4. Model Establishment and Solution. Please, explain better the method, especially the combination of the table 2.
Response：We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised. Some additions to the Paragraph 4. The new sentence reads as follows:
(1-x,1-y,1-z,1-m) implies that there is neither benefit nor loss for the quadrilateral subject, and the point represents the situation when small property right housing is not present. (x,y,z,m) implies that the government pays the cost of governance and obtains the corresponding fines, the developers and real estate agents get the benefits but need to pay the fines, and the consumers get the corresponding difference in price but take the risk of loss and pay the costs, this point represents the current state of small property right housing governance. Using these two points as a basis, combined with the model assumption in Section 3. Table 2 shows the strategy choices of quadratic subjects under different strategies. (line 249-256)
Comment 4: Table 1: Why the benefits for consumers are not considered as a parameter? For example, if the purchase price is lower, for the consumer this is an economic benefit. Will be also useful describe the costs and the benefits connected with the four stakeholders (for example which are the Government subsidies to the Real estate agent?).
Response：We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised. We further elaborate on the parameters in Table 1. The new Table as follows:
In Table 1, we set the consumer’s benefits as parameter P(Price difference between small property right housing and commercial housing). When a consumer purchases small property right housing, the price difference P between it and a normal commercial house is the economic benefit of the consumer. This difference is shown in Table 2 in the form of consumer benefit.
Table 1. Symbols and Descriptions.
|
Parameter |
Description |
|
Rg |
Credibility of the government (Government credibility and social influence, real estate market and social stability) |
|
Cg |
Regulatory costs to the Government (Legal and administrative costs, enforcement and oversight costs, public outreach and education costs) |
|
K |
Government fines (Developers building illegally) |
|
G |
Government fines (Real estate agents choose to sell) |
|
P |
Price difference between small property right housing and commercial housing (Economic benefits to consumers) |
|
Cc |
The cost to consumers of purchasing a small property right housing (House purchase costs, maintenance costs, agency fees) |
|
n |
Risk probability factor |
|
I |
Risk of loss in purchasing a small property right housing |
|
Rd |
Expected benefits to the Developers (Sales revenue, return on investment) |
|
Cd |
Costs to the Developers (Land costs, construction costs, marketing costs) |
|
Rr |
Expected benefits to the Real estate agents (Agency fees, developer cooperation commission) |
|
Cr |
Costs to the Real estate agents (Information costs, training costs, reputation risks) |
|
L |
Government subsidies to the Real estate agents (Subsidies for education and training and market regulation to raise the legal awareness of real estate agents) |
Comment 5: The results pf parameters combination (figures 1-6) are not clear; for example what is represented in the horizontal axis with a scale from 0 to 10 or 0 to 20?
Response：We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised. Some additions to the Section 5 (5.1). The new sentence reads as follows:
In the first set of diagrams (Figures 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11), the y, z, and m coordinate axes represent the strategic choices of the three remaining parties, under the assumption of varying initial probabilities for government strategy selection. The second set of diagrams (Figures 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12) features time change on the horizontal axis (t) and the strategic choices of the four parties on the vertical axis. The shorter the time span (t), the more pronounced the short-term strategic shifts of each participant will be. In this context, we utilize Matlab software to conduct simulation analysis. (line 293-299)
Comment 6: Paragraph 5.2 Specify how are setup the high probability group: 8.6.7.9 and the low probability group: 2,3,1,4 and why for the high probability group the numbers are with dot and for the low probability group are with comma? Are they different scale?
Response：We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised. We made an error when marking the original punctuation and numbers marks. The high probability group and the low probability group have the same scale. We change the high probability group: (8.6.7.9) to (0.8,0.6,0.7,0.9), the low probability group: (2,3,1,4) to (0.2,0.3,0.1,0.4).
To better illustrate the setting of probability values, The new sentence reads as follows:
In order to make the results more objective, taking the initial probability median value 0.5 of the four parties' main strategy selection as the standard, four values are randomly set. Those with initial probability values higher than 0.5 are high probability groups, and those with initial probability values lower than 0.5 are low probability groups. This paper sets up a high probability group (0.8,0.6,0.7,0.9) and a low probability group (0.2,0.3,0.1,0.4) to conduct sensitivity analysis on the main parameters. (line 410-417)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntroduction:
In the introduction section, this manuscript focuses on the prevalence of small property rights housing in China and the challenges it poses to urbanization and land governance. The authors have identified a gap in the literature by focusing on the governance of such housing, which is often built without proper permits and approvals. However, it could be improved by providing a more detailed background on the current state of small property rights housing in China and its implications for land use policy and urban development.
Literature Review:
The literature review section is covering various aspects of property rights, housing prices, and governance strategies. And the authors have successfully synthesized existing research to establish the importance of their study. However, the review could benefit from a more critical analysis of the methodologies used in previous studies, particularly those related to evolutionary game theory and its application to housing governance. Additionally, a discussion on the limitations of existing research and how this study addresses them would strengthen the literature review.
Methods:
In the methodology section, the quadrilateral evolutionary game model is clearly outlined. However, the manuscript would benefit from a more detailed explanation of the rationale behind the chosen parameters and their potential impact on the model's outcomes. Furthermore, the authors could discuss the assumptions made in the model and their implications for the study's findings.
Results:
The results section presents a systematic analysis of the strategic choices of the government, consumers, developers, and real estate agents at different stages of governance. However, the manuscript could provide more detailed insights into the implications of the findings, such as the potential consequences of different strategic choices on the housing market and land use policies.
Discussion:
The discussion section provides an analysis of the study's findings, linking them to the broader context of land governance and urban development in China. It could be enhanced by exploring the potential policy implications of the study's findings, such as the role of government incentives and the importance of consumer awareness in shaping market behavior.
Overall, it is suggested that the introduction could provide more context, the literature review could benefit from more critical analysis, the methods section could explain the rationale behind the chosen parameters, the results section could offer more detailed insights, and the discussion could explore the policy implications and limitations of the study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for your letter and advice. We have revised the paper, and would like to re-submit it for your consideration.
We have revised the version of the manuscript in the link and reduce the repetition rate, we have checked that all references are relevant to the contents of the manuscript. We have addressed the comments raised by the reviewers, and the amendments are highlighted, revisions in the manuscript are indicated in blue font.
We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you and best regards.
Sincerely,
Xinpei Qiao
Comment 1: In the introduction section, this manuscript focuses on the prevalence of small property rights housing in China and the challenges it poses to urbanization and land governance. The authors have identified a gap in the literature by focusing on the governance of such housing, which is often built without proper permits and approvals. However, it could be improved by providing a more detailed background on the current state of small property rights housing in China and its implications for land use policy and urban development.
Response：We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised. Some additions to the original Introduction. The new sentence reads as follows:
Due to the lack of a building permit and formal property rights, transactions for such houses are not conducted through the official real estate registration and transaction systems. The method of transaction is often through advertising or direct transactions between individuals, with the handover of the house being completed simply by signing a purchase contract. Although formal land registration cannot be carried out, there are practices where some notary offices notarize transaction contracts. Additionally, some local governments have adopted a tolerant attitude towards this situation. (line 79-86)
At the social level, failure to regulate the transaction of small property right housing will cause confusion in the real estate market, affecting the current urban planning and development as well as social stability. (line 94-96)
Comment 2: The literature review section is covering various aspects of property rights, housing prices, and governance strategies. And the authors have successfully synthesized existing research to establish the importance of their study. However, the review could benefit from a more critical analysis of the methodologies used in previous studies, particularly those related to evolutionary game theory and its application to housing governance. Additionally, a discussion on the limitations of existing research and how this study addresses them would strengthen the literature review.
Response：We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised. Some additions to the original literature review. The new sentence reads as follows:
There are gaps in the application of game theory and evolutionary game modeling, and the roles of the various stakeholders are not widely articulated. In this paper, we study the role of each social subject in the development and governance of small property right housing, construct an evolutionary game model for the governance of small property right housing with consumers, government, developers and real estate agents as the four main stakeholders. Through the simulation of the main parameters to draw conclusions, adds to the current literature on mechanisms for cooperation among social subjects, it is of great significance for the further governance of small property right housing in China. (161-169)
Comment 3: In the methodology section, the quadrilateral evolutionary game model is clearly outlined. However, the manuscript would benefit from a more detailed explanation of the rationale behind the chosen parameters and their potential impact on the model's outcomes. Furthermore, the authors could discuss the assumptions made in the model and their implications for the study's findings.
Response：We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised. We further elaborate on the parameters in Table 1. The basic principles of parametric simulation are further explained, The new Table and sentence reads as follows:
Table 1. Symbols and Descriptions.
|
Parameter |
Description |
|
Rg |
Credibility of the government (Government credibility and social influence, real estate market and social stability) |
|
Cg |
Regulatory costs to the Government (Legal and administrative costs, enforcement and oversight costs, public outreach and education costs) |
|
K |
Government fines (Developers building illegally) |
|
G |
Government fines (Real estate agents choose to sell) |
|
P |
Price difference between small property right housing and commercial housing (Economic benefits to consumers) |
|
Cc |
The cost to consumers of purchasing a small property right housing (House purchase costs, maintenance costs, agency fees) |
|
n |
Risk probability factor |
|
I |
Risk of loss in purchasing a small property right housing |
|
Rd |
Expected benefits to the Developers (Sales revenue, return on investment) |
|
Cd |
Costs to the Developers (Land costs, construction costs, marketing costs) |
|
Rr |
Expected benefits to the Real estate agents (Agency fees, developer cooperation commission) |
|
Cr |
Costs to the Real estate agents (Information costs, training costs, reputation risks) |
|
L |
Government subsidies to the Real estate agents (Subsidies for education and training and market regulation to raise the legal awareness of real estate agents) |
In the first set of diagrams (Figures 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11), the y, z, and m coordinate axes represent the strategic choices of the three remaining parties, under the assumption of varying initial probabilities for government strategy selection. The second set of diagrams (Figures 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12) features time change on the horizontal axis (t) and the strategic choices of the four parties on the vertical axis. The shorter the time span (t), the more pronounced the short-term strategic shifts of each participant will be. In this context, we utilize Matlab software to conduct simulation analysis. (line 293-299)
In order to make the results more objective, taking the initial probability median value 0.5 of the four parties' main strategy selection as the standard, four values are randomly set. Those with initial probability values higher than 0.5 are high probability groups, and those with initial probability values lower than 0.5 are low probability groups. This paper sets up a high probability group (0.8,0.6,0.7,0.9) and a low probability group (0.2,0.3,0.1,0.4) to conduct sensitivity analysis on the main parameters. (line 410-417)
Comment 4: The results section presents a systematic analysis of the strategic choices of the government, consumers, developers, and real estate agents at different stages of governance. However, the manuscript could provide more detailed insights into the implications of the findings, such as the potential consequences of different strategic choices on the housing market and land use policies.
Response：We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised. Some additions to the original Conclusions. The new sentence reads as follows:
Illegal construction practices by developers are the main cause of the small property rights housing problems.(line 493-494)
By refusing to buy small property rights, consumers can avoid damage to their personal property, while at the same time safeguarding the public interest of society and the stability of the real estate market. When consumers are more inclined to choose legal real estate products, the market will naturally eliminate those non-compliant products and services, promoting the market's self-purification. (line 509-513)
Comment 5: The discussion section provides an analysis of the study's findings, linking them to the broader context of land governance and urban development in China. It could be enhanced by exploring the potential policy implications of the study's findings, such as the role of government incentives and the importance of consumer awareness in shaping market behavior.
Response：We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised. Some additions to the original Discussion. The new sentence reads as follows:
Government incentives can provide an external driving force for the standardization of the real estate market, while the improvement of consumer awareness is an internal supporting force. The combination of the two can effectively promote the standardization of the real estate transaction market. The healthy development of the real estate market cannot be separated from the cooperation of all social subjects. (line 500-505)
In this study, numerical simulation is carried out through evolutionary games, and corresponding conclusions are drawn to provide suggestions for the governance of small property rights. There is consistency with the current literature in terms of government functions and governance policies, based on which we explore the roles of other social actors through the evolutionary game model, which fills the gaps in the current literature in this area. However, there are still some limitations, in the parameter setting, we mainly start from the cost and benefit, the parameter setting still needs to be further refined, such as the government incentive mechanism to be further studied. The potential impacts of the strategies of various stakeholders and consumer psychology have not been discussed in more depth. The evolutionary game model is more subjective, and the simulation analysis is used in the parameter setting due to the lack of relevant data, and the empirical analysis of each parameter will be the direction of our future research. (line 564-575)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been sufficiently improved based on the given comments. It has been developed theoretically. The methodological part of the article has also been developed. It has now clearly stated contribution in the article. I can see that the internal validity of the revised manuscript has also been increased. From my point of view, the article is ready for publication.
Author Response
Thanks for reading and commenting, these suggestions are very important to improve the quality of the article, we will gradually improve the quality of the article in the future work.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1) Explain how it is possible that a building without a building permit can be sold; in many countries this is not possible because before the sale it must be registered in the land registry and this is only possible if it has been built with a regular permit. At the time of the sale, the notary checks this and if it is not existed, the building can't be sold.
OK
2) Line 202: Change “. the… ” in: “ . The…”
OK
3) Paragraph 4. Model Establishment and Solution. Please, explain better the method, especially the combination of the table 2.
OK
4) 3] Table 1: Why the benefits for consumers are not considered as a parameter? For example, if the purchase price is lower, for the consumer this is an economic benefit. Will be also useful describe the costs and the benefits connected with the four stakeholders (for example which are the Government subsidies to the Real estate agent?).
OK
5) The results pf parameters combination (figures 1-6) are not clear; for example what is represented in the horizontal axis with a scale from 0 to 10 or 0 to 20?
OK
6) Paragraph 5.2 Specify how are setup the high probability group: 8.6.7.9 and the low probability group: 2,3,1,4 and why for the high probability group the numbers are with dot and for the low probability group are with comma? Are they different scale?
OK
Author Response
Thanks for reading and commenting, these suggestions are very important to improve the quality of the article, we will gradually improve the quality of the article in the future work.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study addresses the pressing issue of small property right housing on rural land in China, which is a significant challenge due to rapid urbanization and the rise in housing demand. The topic is relevant and timely, given the legal ambiguities and social implications associated with such housing.
1. The background section could benefit from a more detailed historical context and a clearer explanation of the policy environment that has led to the emergence of this phenomenon.
2. The authors employ an evolutionary game model to analyze the strategic interactions among the government, consumers, developers, and real estate agents. This approach is innovative and well-suited to the complexity of the issue. However, the model's assumptions and parameters need to be more rigorously justified, and the sensitivity analysis could be expanded to test the robustness of the model's predictions.
3. The study lacks a comprehensive dataset to support the model's inputs and assumptions. The use of hypothetical scenarios and a lack of empirical data may limit the generalizability of the findings. Future research should consider incorporating real-world data to validate and refine the model.
4. The literature review provides a solid foundation for the study. However, the review could benefit from a more systematic approach, such as a meta-analysis, to synthesize the existing body of knowledge.
5. The discussion section offers valuable insights into the implications of the study's findings. However, it could be more critical in addressing the study's limitations and how they might affect the conclusions drawn. The authors could also discuss alternative policy options and their potential impacts, providing a more balanced view of the governance of small property right housing.
Overall, to enhance its impact, the authors should consider the following:
- Justifying the model's assumptions and parameters with empirical data.
- Expanding the sensitivity analysis to test the model's robustness.
- Offering more detailed and actionable policy recommendations.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for your letter and advice. We have revised the paper, and would like to re-submit it for your consideration.
We have revised the version of the manuscript in the link, addressed the comments raised by the reviewers, and the amendments are highlighted, revisions in the manuscript are indicated in yellow font.
We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thank you and best regards.
Sincerely,
Xinpei Qiao
Comment 1: Justifying the model's assumptions and parameters with empirical data.
Response：We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The issue of small property right housing is complex and a complete database has not yet been developed. Due to the current lack of relevant statistics and difficulty in obtaining empirical data, this article uses simulation analysis. Even without the direct use of real data, models of evolutionary games can provide reliable predictions, making the results more objective through two probability groups, high and low probability. The questionnaire and empirical data statistics will be the direction of our future improvement and research. For future research we will incorporate real data to validate and refine the model, and the literature review uses a more systematic approach.
Comment 2: Expanding the sensitivity analysis to test the model's robustness.
Response：We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised. Some additions to the original sensitivity analysis. The new sentence reads as follows:
Effective management of small property right housing can demonstrate the government's determination to uphold laws and regulations and promote social justice, and enhance public trust in the government. As the expected benefits increase, the government is more likely to invest the necessary financial and administrative resources to address the small property right housing problem, thereby enhancing the government's image and credibility. (line 431-436)
The management of small property right housing involves complex legal procedures, including land expropriation, adjustment of property rights, compensation and resettlement. These procedures require a large investment of administrative resources and professional staff, resulting in increased governance costs. This has weakened or slowed down the governance process. (line 441-446)
Consumers tend to weigh the potential benefits against the risks when making a purchase decision, and higher risks often mean greater potential negative impacts, which naturally inhibits purchase intentions. To avoid risk, consumers may choose more stable and secure real estate investment options. (line 452-456)
Even though there are certain legal risks and market limitations associated with small property right housing, consumers may perceive this type of property as cost-effective, especially at a time when housing demand is high. (line 463-466)
This decision is consistent with the developer's strategy of maximizing profit and minimizing risk. (line 472-473)
This is due to the fact that the construction of small property right housing reduces the return on investment of the project and increases the financial risk. (line 477-479)
This means lower house prices or more difficult transactions, which reduces the commission agents receive from each transaction and affects their overall income. (line 485-487)
This is due to the fact that a higher cost of sale reduces the net profit that the intermediary receives from the transaction. (line 493-495)
High fines establish a significant financial cost for non-compliance and have a deterrent effect on developers. When developers realize that the cost of non-compliance is higher than the cost of compliance, they are more likely to choose to develop real estate in a legally compliant manner. (line 504-507)
Fines reduce illegal transactions of small property right housing through direct financial penalties, reduce irregularities in the market, and reduce the risks and losses suffered by consumers as a result of irregular transactions. (line 514-516)
Comment 3: Offering more detailed and actionable policy recommendations.
Response：We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised. Some additions to the original Introduction and Discussion. The new sentence reads as follows:
The governance policy for small property right housing is mostly in the form of normative documents. For example, the 2009 Decision of the Standing Committee of the Shenzhen Municipal People's Congress on the Handling of Illegal Buildings Remaining from the History of Rural Urbanization provides for the categorization of small property right housing to differentiate the degree of illegality on the basis of which the right to ownership or demolition will be established. There are currently no specialized laws and regulations. (line 62-68)
From a legislative perspective, a legal basis for the governance of small property right housing can be provided through the formulation of laws or policies that specifically address the issue of small property right housing, clarifying the definition of small property right housing, construction standards, trading restrictions and legal consequences. (line 568-572)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
