Modelling the Relationship of Infrastructure and Externalities Using Urban Scaling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the article is very interesting. The method is not very original. the application that is made on the cities of Korea is interesting.
Although not particularly innovative, the article gives an innovative vision of a little-known territory.
I recommend the authors to review the conclusions in more innovative terms for the discipline.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The topic of the article is very interesting. The method is not very original. the application that is made on the cities of Korea is interesting. Although not particularly innovative, the article gives an innovative vision of a little-known territory.

(Reviewer1-Comment1) (Revision) Please see line 756-758, 788-794.

I recommend the authors to review the conclusions in more innovative terms for the discipline.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

To begin with, congratulations on your interesting, insightful analysis of the topic.

To improve the quality of the paper:

• The title of the ‘Methodology’ section is misleading. In fact, the chapter doesn’t concern it. The text included in the above mentioned section could be moved partly to the ‘Literature review’ (or ‘Introduction’), partly to ‘Discussion’ section.
• The ‘Main findings’ section includes content that should be indicated in ‘Methodology’ section’.
• The ‘Outline’ section is something curious. It seems to me that the division of the whole structure of the text has to be reconsidered. The paper could be organized into the following sections: 1) Introduction; 2) Literature review; 3) Research methods; 4) Study area; 5) Results; 6) Discussion; 7) Summary.
• In the chapter ‘Materials and Methods’ concentrate just on the methodology applied. Delete the sentences like ‘Many studies have been conducted to measure the externality of aggregation [44] (see also 215 Duranton and Puga 2004).’ (215-216). Such remarks should be moved to the ‘Literature’ section or ‘Discussion’.
• Figure 1, Figure 4 – it is recommended to enlarge the figures to make the captions more visible. Figure 1 - the view of the whole country against the backgroud of Asia could be helpful. Figure 4 – some captions aren.t properly visible, some text (under the axis) is cut.
• The text written in the ‘Study design’ could be included in ‘Research methods’ section. There is no need to devide the whole text into so many sections.
• The bibliography is rich enough. Try to common the editing rules. Sometimes the titles are wriiten in in italics (for example 688, 693), sometimes not (for example 711, 713). The same with the publishers.
• Maybe it would be worthy to make the publication vivid including remote sensing images / orthophotomaps of the analysed area (just for the Authors consideration).
• Try to emphasise the research questions/hypotheses. It is hard to find them clearly stated in the text. 

Best wishes,

Reviewer

Author Response

Reviewer 2

To begin with, congratulations on your interesting, insightful analysis of the topic.

To improve the quality of the paper:

(Reviewer 2 - Comment 1) (Revision) Please see line 130.

The title of the ‘Methodology’ section is misleading. In fact, the chapter doesn’t concern it. The text included in the above mentioned section could be moved partly to the ‘Literature review’ (or ‘Introduction’), partly to ‘Discussion’ section.

(Reviewer 2 - Comment 2) (Revision) Please see line 94-111.

The ‘Main findings’ section includes content that should be indicated in ‘Methodology’ section’.

(Reviewer 2 - Comment 3) (Revision) Please see line 112-128, 197-214, 380, 494, 687.

The ‘Outline’ section is something curious. It seems to me that the division of the whole structure of the text has to be reconsidered. The paper could be organized into the following sections: 1) Introduction; 2) Literature review; 3) Research methods; 4) Study area; 5) Results; 6) Discussion; 7) Summary.

(Reviewer 2 - Comment 4) (Revision) Please see line 38, 235, 252.

In the chapter ‘Materials and Methods’ concentrate just on the methodology applied. Delete the sentences like ‘Many studies have been conducted to measure the externality of aggregation [44] (see also 215 Duranton and Puga 2004).’ (215-216). Such remarks should be moved to the ‘Literature’ section or ‘Discussion’.

(Reviewer 2 - Comment 5) (Revision) Please see line 406, 656.

Figure 1, Figure 4 – it is recommended to enlarge the figures to make the captions more visible. Figure 1 - the view of the whole country against the backgroud of Asia could be helpful. Figure 4 – some captions aren.t properly visible, some text (under the axis) is cut.

(Reviewer 2 - Comment 6) (Revision) Please see line 311-315, 326-329.

The text written in the ‘Study design’ could be included in ‘Research methods’ section. There is no need to devide the whole text into so many sections. The bibliography is rich enough.

(Reviewer 2 - Comment 7) (Revision) Editing seems correct.

Try to common the editing rules. Sometimes the titles are wriiten in in italics (for example 688, 693), sometimes not (for example 711, 713). The same with the publishers.

(Reviewer 2 - Comment 8) (Revision) Remote sensing image will be applied to the next paper.

Maybe it would be worthy to make the publication vivid including remote sensing images / orthophotomaps of the analysed area (just for the Authors consideration).

(Reviewer 2 - Comment 9) (Revision) Please see line 183-195, 273-276, 317-329.

Try to emphasise the research questions/hypotheses. It is hard to find them clearly stated in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article reveals a very interesting work on the relationship among industries, infrastructures and cities. The study case is relevant, specially for the objective of the research. Methodology and information sources are well presented.

But, I found two personal objections:

1.- Theory and methods appear to be a little bit old, coherent for the XXth Century last decades, but not for our contemporary socio economic trends.

2.- To understand Urban structures, dinamics and growth it is absolutely ncessary to take on account not only the manufacturing activities, but mainly the others sectors considerd as Tertiary in his larger sense. 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

This article reveals a very interesting work on the relationship among industries, infrastructures and cities. The study case is relevant, specially for the objective of the research. Methodology and information sources are well presented. But, I found two personal objections:

(Reviewer 3 - Comment 1) (Revision) Please see line 802-805

1.- Theory and methods appear to be a little bit old, coherent for the XXth Century last decades, but not for our contemporary socio economic trends.

(Reviewer 3 - Comment 2) (Revision) Please see line 802-805

2.- To understand Urban structures, dinamics and growth it is absolutely ncessary to take on account not only the manufacturing activities, but mainly the others sectors considerd as Tertiary in his larger sense.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank You for including my remarks. Congratulations on great koń.