The Impacts of Locational and Neighborhood Environmental Factors on the Spatial Clustering Pattern of Small Urban Houses: A Case of Urban Residential Housing in Seoul
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall I find the subject interesting, and the technical part of the study convincing. Also the paper is generally well-written. However, I have some problems main with the paper:
The paper lacks international perspective.
The research question should be re-formulated
The housing program and the specific conditions for housing developments and planning in South Korea/Seoul should be described more in detail
More analytical approach in the findings are needed
These issues are elaborated in the attached document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments.
Please refer to the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented topic, despite already debated in literature, is interesting for the use of urban planning factors as mainly analysis factors. This leads to very interesting aspects (little detailed in chapter 5) related to regulation aspects and definition of urban policies (strategies and actions). This allows inserting not only new standards for "parking lots" but also for the constructive characteristics of each building (among all energy performance standards and ecological standards) also in the low-rise residential areas.
Embraceable the idea of using these results to create coordination and comprehensive urban plan for the different boroughs in order to have homogeneous strategies that has to be implemented at the lower level with the local needs and specificities.
The presented methodology allows to be applied in a transcalare way (from regional to neighborhood – local scale) and in very different contexts.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for valuable comments.
Please refer to the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has improved considerably, and it is my impression that the authors have answers most of the questions I raised, and followed many of the suggestions.
Table 1 does a good job in pinpointing the aims of the URH program.
However, I have some comments to the revised paper:
The authors states that the study concerns both the location of URH and how the URH affects the local submarket:
“This study aims to examine the spatial clustering pattern of the URHs in terms of the spatial statistics, and analyze the impacts of both locational and neighborhood residential factors on the spatial submarket of the URH in the SMA”(line 75) and in line 215: However, little empirical research can be found on what influences the small housing have on the surrounding community because attention has been paid to the small housing only recently from an international perspective.
But it is a bit unclear how the URH could influence the locality. The authors refer to other studies that found negative impacts of small-scale housing (line 128-130): On the contrary, people on the other side contended that it might have negative impacts on adjacent communities: higher density, lacking parking spaces, and an influx of undesirable population. But I don't see the authors pursuing these thesis?
Reading the analysis and conclusions it seems like the findings mainly concerns the factors that affects the localization of the URH. The conclusion states that
The URH are more frequently located in outskirts
The URH’s represents a meaningful spatial clustering
The neighborhood characteristics have significant influenced of the localisation of the URH
I don’t find many answers to how the URH influences the surrounding community. In line 513 the authors says that…”Expansion of small-scale developments can lower the deterioration level of houses in the areas as a whole, which acts as an obstacle to the planned small-scale redevelopment project. This seems to say something about how URH can affect the local submarket, but it is very speculative, and the sentence is close to nonsense: How can “Expansion of small-scale developments” act as ”an obstacle to the planned small-scale redevelopment project”?
Next, the authors write: Also it can disrupt integrated improvements of the living condition in the areas. Therefore, it is crucial to establish policies and strategies for planning the housing supply and managing the residential environment in the low-rise residential areas.
Again, these effects seems very speculative, and not proved in the study, as I read it. In general it's not a good idea to suggest policies based on speculation.
I think parts of the conclusion becomes rather unnecessary speculative. The core part of identifying factors that influences the location of the URH is ok, so the authors should stick with these conclusions.
So my suggestion is that the authors only claim to say something about what influences the localization of the URH, as well as the concequences of this - and leave out the elements on how the URH influences the surrounding community, as well as the speculative elements of the conclusion - or maybe suggest them as subjects for “future research”.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We made a point-by-point response to the reviewer's comments.
Please refer to the attached.
Our manuscript has also been reviewed and proofread by the professional avail at https://www.editage.co.kr/.
Thanks you for your valuable and sincere comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
