Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript studied the impact of airports on local economic development through a case study of Brisbane Airport using primary data sourced from interviews and a survey. The results of the study suggested that the role of airports as transport hubs is not the dominant mechanism that drives industries instead, the local urban context is a dominant driver for development in and around airports. The manuscript is interesting and well written; however, it needs improvement. My specific comments are as under: 

 

1.      Avoid lump-sum references in the introduction section. For example, see line 32.

2. The author must provide the details of the cited works. What have they done and what were the shortcomings of their study? How will this study address those shortcomings?

3.      I am unable to grasp the novelty of this work. It would be better to explain what noval contribution is made to the problem under study?

4.      The study is based on a single site; Brisbane Airport. It may be interesting to include data from other sites to reach a more reliable conclusion.

5.      How the number of sample is selected?

6.      How the participents are selected in the survey?

7.      It would be interesting to give a simple mathematical description of the PCA for the interested readers.

8.      Why only four PC are selected? They only explain 65% of the variation of the data.

 

9.      Please add the study limitations and future recommendations to the conclusion section.

Need a careful proofread.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

17 define that context for the abstract.

Table 1 should be referenced correctly using numbers in brackets not years, with the authors names. (Same for other tables).

210 I do not agree with the term embedded case study. An embedded case study would be with in a larger research design. This is clearly just a case study.

224 suggest making this image as large as possible.

260 why is Melbourne not included?

283 Can you confirm the results of the interviews did not inform the questionnaire.

371 This component is made up of the 4 lowest scores, this suggests it is the opposite. The passing comment on 392 is not sufficient.

380 I would prefer the components grouped and the factors for component 1 first, then 2 etc.

448 ref missing.

Great work well referenced. In general, not surprised that factor 6 was the most significant. For airport operators, these are now primarily facilities management firms, that specialise in warehouse space, given the topography of an airport. There is no profit in aviation, especially for airports like Moorabbin. I suggest this be addressed further.

I suggest a third party check. I am not the best person to do this, I spot obvious things like empty square brackets.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

As the authors addressed my concerns, I would recommend the paper for publication in its present form.

ok