Economic Sustainability and ‘Missing Middle Housing’: Associations between Housing Stock Diversity and Unemployment in Mid-Size U.S. Cities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript discusses the relationship between housing diversity and unemployment. The author finds that housing diversity leads to lower unemployment based on a sample of 146 US cities. My major comment is that the author should consider how to address the reverse causality problem: it is very likely that unemployment in a city reduces its housing diversity.
In addition, the motivations the author gave in the Introduction are not related to the research design and empirical findings: where are the missing middle housing and economic sustainability in the regression models and empirical findings?
Author Response
Reviewer #1
Point #1
“My major comment is that the author should consider how to address the reverse causality problem: it is very likely that unemployment in a city reduces its housing diversity.”
Point #2
“In addition, the motivations the author gave in the Introduction are not related to the research design and empirical findings: where are the missing middle housing and economic sustainability in the regression models and empirical findings?”
Response:
Thank you for your comments.
Point #1
The paper is not about causality, it about associations. “Causation” is not mentioned in the paper even once, but “associations” is in the title, and variations of the word association are used in the text 30 times. However, to answer the question… there are two sufficient responses:
1) Local unemployment rates are not a concern for housing developers in the U.S. in choosing what to build, only whether to build (and then only tangentially: many developments are built regardless of high local unemployment rates). In any event, this paper is about what to build.
2) If high unemployment led to less housing diversity, then low unemployment should lead to greater diversity. However, the US suburbs are the most employed geographies in the US and also have the least housing diversity
Point #2
The motivation behind this research is to establish a statistical relationship, if any, between unemployment and housing diversity. I do not see how any other motivations for conducting this research need to be reflected in the research design; the inclusion of proxies for unemployment and housing diversity should be sufficient
Missing middle housing is approximated in the regression model by using the Shannon’s H variable. In other words, more diversity necessarily implies more missing middle housing by virtue of what comprises the Shannon’s H variable: proportions of categories relative to the whole.
Economic sustainability is reflected in the unemployment variable itself: high unemployment is less normatively sustainable than low unemployment as an equity issue.
Reviewer 2 Report
This article tackles one of the pressing topics in economic sustainability and its relation to diversity in the housing unit. There are several promising issues in this study. First, the present article argues the missing house scale between single-family detached homes and multifamily diversity in US cities. The method section is well written and explains the materials well.
The main vagueness is in the introduction section. Some issues need more clarification for better readability of the argument presented.
1- The author builds his argument by saying that "Increasing the share of multifamily buildings is necessary in the era of climate change 51 and social sustainability." I do believe that this is a well-known fact. Providing supportive references will help to strengthen the argument.
2- The research aim is evident in the abstract. The authors in the abstract mentioned implicity that the objective of this study is to explore the interurban relationships between diverse housing stocks and employment. However, I would appreciate it if the author described the aim of this research in the introduction section based on the gap in the literature.
3- The research methods in brief also need to be mentioned in the introduction and a detailed explanation given in the "2. Materials and Methods" section.
4- The contribution or the added value of this research needs to be mentioned in the introduction section.
The "Materials and Methods" section needs to be more clear about why the author used the three-pillar conceptual framework. Why do the author use redundancy, modularity, and the diminishing marginal product of labour? This conceptual framework, as seen in the method section, needs to be discussed in the discussion section.
Another missing issue is linking the results with previous studies about workers and sustainability. I would recommend the following articles with some cases from cities:
- https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031726
- https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031699
- https://doi.org/10.3390/su14041990 -
Discussing the limitations of using research methods is also missing from the discussion section.
Minor issues, but crucial ones, need consideration in the revised version. Here, the author should ensure the Copywrite issues of using Figure 1. If the author did not obtain permission to use this figure in his manuscript, I would prefer it to be omitted.
The conclusion is usually the author's voice. In this regard, I would recommend not seeing references to [24] and [73] in this section. It is not good to argue about something new in the conclusion. So, the sentences built on this argument could be moved to the discussion section.
The conclusion needs to end with a call for future research based on the research limitations. The equation on page 5, line 128, needs to be written in the journal format for better readability—another minor issue related to the reference written as xxx. As the Sustainability journal is a single-blind review, replacing the triple 'x' will be good in this case.
Author Response
Reviewer #2:
“This article tackles one of the pressing topics in economic sustainability and its relation to diversity in the housing unit. There are several promising issues in this study. First, the present article argues the missing house scale between single-family detached homes and multifamily diversity in US cities. The method section is well written and explains the materials well.”
Response: Thank you for your kind comments.
“The main vagueness is in the introduction section. Some issues need more clarification for better readability of the argument presented.”
1- The author builds his argument by saying that "Increasing the share of multifamily buildings is necessary in the era of climate change 51 and social sustainability." I do believe that this is a well-known fact. Providing supportive references will help to strengthen the argument.
Response: I agree. I have included supporting references.
2- The research aim is evident in the abstract. The authors in the abstract mentioned implicity that the objective of this study is to explore the interurban relationships between diverse housing stocks and employment. However, I would appreciate it if the author described the aim of this research in the introduction section based on the gap in the literature.
Response: I agree: I failed to mention anything about the literature search. Thus, I have added the line “After a lengthy search of the literature, researchers found no extant research on the relationship between unemployment and housing diversity” on line 68-69
3- The research methods in brief also need to be mentioned in the introduction and a detailed explanation given in the "2. Materials and Methods" section.
Response: The methods and materials section already comprises 4000 words of a 9000-word paper and goes into great detail about which variables are being used and why. Since this is the case, I do not think it would be useful to the reader to blur the distinction between the introduction and methods section. However, I did re-word a few lines in the Introduction to better foreshadow the methodology.
4- The contribution or the added value of this research needs to be mentioned in the introduction section.
Response: The introduction section is heavily focused on the contribution of this paper: planners need economic arguments for more density and housing diversity. I agree the point needs to be driven home, so I have added the following text at lines 52-55: “Yet the planning community has not succeeded in shifting the housing construction paradigm towards either higher density or more diversity by using the empirical arguments that more sustainable built environments have better public health, environmental quality, or quality of life outcomes” and “What may be lacking is research showing sustainable built environments have better economic outcomes.” at line 67-68.
The "Materials and Methods" section needs to be more clear about why the author used the three-pillar conceptual framework. Why do the author use redundancy, modularity, and the diminishing marginal product of labour? This conceptual framework, as seen in the method section, needs to be discussed in the discussion section.
Response: I have added the phrase “principles from the field of economics” at line 207
Another missing issue is linking the results with previous studies about workers and sustainability. I would recommend the following articles with some cases from cities:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031726
Response: I appreciate the suggestions. However, the paper that is being suggested is about “understanding the challenges they perceive for implementing the circular economy” but this paper is not about “circular” economies, or barriers to their implementation, but rather about “well-functioning” economies (i.e. low unemployment). Furthermore, I am not sure that a case study of one city in Portugal helps contextualize a large-N study in the US.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031699
Response: The paper suggested is about “… worker satisfaction vis-à-vis outdoor places in terms of their environmental and socio-morphological aspects” which seems far removed from the purpose of my manuscript.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14041990
Response: the paper suggested is about Covid’s impact on career changes in Hungarian workers. Again, this is far too distant a topic from my research, which is about the association between housing diversity and unemployment rates in US cities.
Discussing the limitations of using research methods is also missing from the discussion section.
Response: This is a good point. Since the paper is very long, I opted to include the limitations on a point-by-point basis throughout the paper. For example, the caveat to Shannon’s H at lines 196-197. Also, for example, “SHH needs to be explored to further establish its potential as an urban control and test variable in social science research around cities” at lines 617-618
Minor issues, but crucial ones, need consideration in the revised version. Here, the author should ensure the Copywrite issues of using Figure 1. If the author did not obtain permission to use this figure in his manuscript, I would prefer it to be omitted.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The image has been removed.
The conclusion is usually the author's voice. In this regard, I would recommend not seeing references to [24] and [73] in this section. It is not good to argue about something new in the conclusion. So, the sentences built on this argument could be moved to the discussion section.
Response. Excellent point, but these are points raised in the introduction. Nevertheless, I have removed the references.
The conclusion needs to end with a call for future research based on the research limitations. The equation on page 5, line 128, needs to be written in the journal format for better readability—another minor issue related to the reference written as xxx. As the Sustainability journal is a single-blind review, replacing the triple 'x' will be good in this case. Reviewer #2
Response: Another excellent point. I have added “Further research should attempt to establish a link between a change in housing diversity and a change in unemployment rates using panel data.” At lines 637-638. The “xxxx” markers for the authors’ own references will be updated before publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript submitted (“Economic sustainability and ‘missing middle housing’: Associations between housing stock diversity and unemployment in mid-size U.S. cities”) is well written, concise and informative, the issue raised being of high interest in the present context of sustainable development. It was with great pleasure that I read the article which tackles an important topic that is a constantly priority discussion agenda in many growing urban areas, investigated by the author by means of a suggestive quantitative analysis.
The article contains the appropriate structure. It is correctly divided into relevant sections and their content coincides with their titles. Bibliography is correctly formulated.
The language of the article is mature, correct and adequate. English style is good.
My main recommendations are the following:
- Abstract – Please expand the abstract by clarifying the objectives, methods and data of the study.
- Introduction – I think this part should be supplemented by including some references to possible regional disparities within the USA. You only mention the case of Minnesota, but a territorial dimension would be more productive to better understand the topic.
- Conclusions - What is the novelty of the paper? I see it, but the author should formulate better this part, possibly in the framework of sustainable development.
Author Response
Reviewer #3:
Abstract – Please expand the abstract by clarifying the objectives, methods and data of the study.
Response: Thank you for your kind words and support. Please see the new updated abstract.
Introduction – I think this part should be supplemented by including some references to possible regional disparities within the USA. You only mention the case of Minnesota, but a territorial dimension would be more productive to better understand the topic.
Response: This is a point we considered. In the field of urban affairs, the American South is widely regarded as significantly different than the rest of the US in terms of regional variation. Latitude is used as a proxy for this difference. However, it is not a powerful estimator in these models, which suggests this Southern region is overstated, at least at the municipal level of analysis. In addition, the “Santa Barbara Method” of Molotch and Appelbaum is used produces a data set of cities reduces the effect of regional disparities: Moran’s I shows that the cities are randomly distributed around the United States.
Conclusions - What is the novelty of the paper? I see it, but the author should formulate better this part, possibly in the framework of sustainable development.
Response: The novelty of this work is summarized in lines 415-427. I feel this is enough. If the editor wishes, I can reiterate this statement in the conclusion, but the paper is already very long.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In the first half of the abstract and introduction, the author discussed the importance of enhancing housing diversity and increasing the share of multifamily building/missing middle housing. However, the focus is then shifted to the discussion of the economic outcome of sustainable built environments. If the paper wants to focus on the relationship of sustainable built environments and economic outcomes, it should give correct motivation on this and point out its significance.
In the previous response, the author argued that the paper is to document the association between built environment and economic outcome. The manuscript shows that "What about arguments formay be lacking is research showing sustainable built envi-ronments have better economic outcomes. Despite urban and sustainable development policy being dominated by economic issues such as job growth, wages, and employment [20-23], economic evidence favoring urban sustainability policies are lacking". The paper indeed aims to discuss how sustainable built environments can lead to improving/deteriorating economic outcomes. That is a causality problem. I would recommend that the author consider a more rigorous research design to answer this question.
Author Response
Comment #1
In the first half of the abstract and introduction, the author discussed the importance of enhancing housing diversity and increasing the share of multifamily building/missing middle housing. However, the focus is then shifted to the discussion of the economic outcome of sustainable built environments. If the paper wants to focus on the relationship of sustainable built environments and economic outcomes, it should give correct motivation on this and point out its significance.
Reply
Having re-read the introduction, I can see that my intentions were not so clear. The introduction was wordy and lacked connectivity. I have re-written the introduction to better connect the discussion.
Comment #2
In the previous response, the author argued that the paper is to document the association between built environment and economic outcome. The manuscript shows that "What about arguments formay be lacking is research showing sustainable built envi-ronments have better economic outcomes. Despite urban and sustainable development policy being dominated by economic issues such as job growth, wages, and employment [20-23], economic evidence favoring urban sustainability policies are lacking". The paper indeed aims to discuss how sustainable built environments can lead to improving/deteriorating economic outcomes. That is a causality problem. I would recommend that the author consider a more rigorous research design to answer this question.
I believe the first step in any research agenda is to illustrate an association: that x is associated with y. Causality is a higher bar to establish: that a change in x leads to a change in y. Having re-read the paper, there does not seem to be any suggestion therein that a change in housing diversity will lead to lower unemployment. However, I can see how someone might make this leap. Therefore, I have added text at the end of the introduction that hopes to obviate such a leap: this research only uses cross-sectional data. In addition, I have added a line in the conclusion about the next steps in the research agenda which will use panel data to show if a change in housing diversity had an impact on unemployment.
Reviewer 2 Report
Many thanks to the author for responding well to all inquiries. I am therefore pleased that I have chosen to accept this paper in its current form.
Author Response
Thank you so much! I do appreciate your earnestness and insight. Best wishes to you...
