Towards Attaining Sustainable Retail Property Locations: The Relationships between Supply, Demand, and Accessibility of Retail Spaces

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work presented is well structured and the topic interesting. Below are the comments.

Major points

• Abstract's narrative (mainly 18-21 rows) could be improved so to enable the reader to immediate comprehension 
• Ref 51 line, it would be better to define the reference framework of sustainability by using a footnote with the intended definition of "triple bottom line framework of sustainability"
• It would be better to remark the relevance/innovativeness of the study (particularly ref. 98-105) at the end of the paragraph 
• Line 308, "Experiments in this research..." it is not clear if experiments refer to the present research or those found in the literature
• Conclusions: (from line 481) I would better explicit limits of methodology so to remark further research development guidelines 

Minor points

• Figure 4: labels should be homogenised (mesoscales-macroscales)
• Add a reference to Table 3 in line 367
• Figures 5-6-7 have a different graphic presentation and it would be better to uniform them (maybe the third solution of F.7 is the most effective one); otherwise, better specify why they are differently represented

Author Response

Many thanks for taken your time to review this article. And many thanks for all your valuable comments. Here is our response to all your comments:

We have accepted this comment and we have improved row 18 -21 by adding ‘but’ (line 19) and ‘further’ (line 19)

We have accepted this recommendation. The triple bottom line framework of sustainability (line 51) refers to the known social, economy and environment pillars of sustainability. Please see the inserted footnote on Page 2 of the revised article.

Line 98 -105 - The relevance of the study has been clearly articulated at the beginning of the paragraph. We are of the opinion that doing same at the end of the paragraph will be tautology.

Line 308- Experiments in this research refers to this current research (paper) and not reviewed the reviewed works.

Line 481 – Comments on limitation of methodology have been indicated in line 484-488

We agree with you that this is minor. We have considered harmonising the labels in Figure 4. However, the format of the Figure could not permit editing.  

Table 3 – We have accepted recommendation of other reviewers that suggest deleting all labelled sources of Tables.

Figures 5 and 6 are at mesoscales, whilst F.7 is at macroscale, this is reason for the difference.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents the relationship between accessibility and stock & rental value of retail spaces. Authors use Space Syntax software (Depthmap) to construct the accessibility measure. They find that spatial accessibility could predict the rental value (not the space stock).

The manuscript is well written to follow, and procedures are also well described. I have some comments:

1. The terms integration, choice (p. 4), and NACH (p. 3) are key in this paper. I recommend authors explain those terms more in plain terms for non-experts in this area.
2. Change in rental value can be more responsive (elastic) to accessibility than the change in stock. Landlords can change rental rates relatively easily if there is more demand. However, adding more stock (space) can be difficult (non-elastic) due to regulations and development period, etc. That’s maybe why only rental value is predictable by accessibility.
3. In Table 5, please report R squared values.
4. Authors compare Figure 4 (realized) to Figures 5-7 (estimated). It would be more informative if they provided a figure for estimated values in the format of Figure 4.
5. I don’t think it’s necessary to have “Source: Authors’ own (2020).” as a note.

Author Response

Many thanks for your time to review our article. Here is our response to your comments:

• Yes, we do agree that integration, choice and NACH are key variables in this paper. Lines 182 – 192 (P4-P5) provides succinct explanation of these variables in way that non-experts in this area would understand.
• Yes, we agree with you on elasticity behaviours of demand and supply sides. Demand side is more elastic and volatile than the supply side and this might contribute to the reason for predictability of change in rental value using accessibility index.
• This recommendation has been accepted. R squared values for all the estimable layouts have been inserted in Table 5. Please see the revised article.
• The comment on comparing realised performance and estimated performance of retail property market was put into consideration. However, the paper has only estimated changes in retail rental value (estimable variable) within the estimable layouts (York mesoscale, Leeds mesoscale and Newcastle macroscale). Comparing would have distorted the main arguments in this paper.
• This comment has been accepted. We have now deleted all the insertions ‘Source: Authors’ own (2020)’

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, it is a a very interesting article. I would love also to see a connection with yields and Market Values and not only rents. 

I have to admit that I enjoyed reading your work!

Author Response

 

Thank you for your positive comments. The connections between spatial accessibility, market value and yield could be further explored in future researches, assuming relevant data exist.