Has the Opening of High-Speed Rail Promoted the Balanced Development between Cities?—Evidence of Commercial and Residential Use Land Prices in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The theme is interesting, thus covering a topical matter in assessing the impact of High-Speed Rail on the regional economy.
In my opinion, the paper is acceptably structured. I would suggest a few remarks for improving the document, as follows.
The background should be enhanced, also taking into account the extensive reference literature in the field of land-use and transport interaction modeling approaches.
The main research objectives should be better explained to check their pursuit once the main analyses (applied to the case study) have been performed.
A flowchart showing all the steps affecting the research should be provided to make the methodology more understandable.
The critical research assumptions should be better justified: e.g., regarding the Producer standpoint, why the region has a monopoly on a single commodity?
It would be better to put in a table the core variable as described on pages 6 and 7 to show all the cities belonging to the 1st, 2nd, and low tiers at a glance. A map could also be added to show the geographical framework better.
The proposed case study covers a peculiar context (the Chinese urban environment), so it would be helpful to mention, in the conclusions at least, a sort of potential transferability of the main concepts (or criteria) to other cities/contexts.
All acronyms (even the obvious ones) must be written in full the first time they are mentioned: e.g., DID.
A check of the language style is suggested to avoid the redundancy of words. Moreover, a review of punctuation, and spacing is recommended (e.g., rows: 30; 59, 94, 101, 111, 166, 199, 296, etc.).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an insightful paper on the effects of HSR on land prices with an empirical application on Chinese cities. The paper is publishable subject to a minor revision addressing the following points:
- Section 1: The literature review could be expanded a bit, e.g. there is work by F. Pagliara and D. Simmonds that would be relevant to mention
- Section 2: The mathematical relations could be put in an annex with the main text summarising the key aspects of the model
- Section 2: Tradable goods are mentioned. It could be of relevance whether the regional products are similar or different (as this could have implication for the level of competition)
- Section 3: Model to be estimated (2): It could be important to explain how multicollinearity is addressed given that HSR appears twice in the relation. Also provide explanations for each variable / coefficient in order to assist readers
- Section 3.2: Definitions of urban area vs. city area to be included in order to understand what is covered and how the 2 concepts differ
- Section 3.2: A few sentences should be included to explain the chosen variables / model as well as whether alternative model specifications were considered
- Section 3.2 (table 1): It could be useful to include another column were information about measurement unit for the different variables could be specified
- Section 3.2 (table 1): For variable 'social consumer goods' i would remove 'social' or include an explanation for keeping 'social'
- Section 4: Overall, the results are interesting. I would though suggest to include some of the detailed tables in annexes and only provide summary tables here. This may also create space for further discussion of the results and their policy implications
- Section 4: Would it be possible with the available data to go beyond year 5 effects. This could also be suggested in the conclusions as ideas for further research
- Section 7: It may be relevant to consider the extent to which the results are transferable to other contexts in other countries
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thanks!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
