Urban Regeneration, Rent Regulation and the Private Rental Sector in Portugal: A Case Study on Inner-City Lisbon’s Social Sustainability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have gone through the manuscript entitled: “Urban regeneration, Rent Regulation and the Private Rental Sector in Portugal: a case study on inner-city Lisbon’s social sustainability” and found it interesting. However there is a slight modification required towards improving its readability:
The text on lines 100-104 is redundant. It is worthwhile instead to clarify the meaning of the parish in determining the study area. The reader may guess , that the study area was determined based on the census of the SMM affiliated parish , but I am not sure. This point needs clarification.
In Part 2, it is worth citing whether in other countries, there is also a political instrument of Rent regulation.
Line 109 "Kholodilin (2020) describes it as a restrictive government policy, although, as Clarke and Oxley (2018) point out, it has been associated with other instruments, such as subsidies (in different forms) that seek to expand housing supply...." it is worth clarifying what type of subsidies are involved? Are they subsidies for the construction of new housing? Are subsidies for housing buyers? Or subsidies for rents? The discussion on this topic is not entirely clear.
It is recommended that the article be remodeled to include a Methodology and methods section in which the authors describe what methods they used in their research, data sources, etc.
The title of the article indicates the social aspect of sustainability, which should be highlighted more in the article.
I also recommend enriching the literature and identifying the research gap and making a strong argument for why this topic is important in terms of the social aspect of sustainability.
In the review I pointed out parts of the text that are less understandable. I recommend avoiding long sentences.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your constructive criticisms and valuable suggestions.
Following your suggestions, we have revised the original version of the manuscript addressing the following fundamental objections (we quote in “inverted commas” some of your comments and our replies follow after).
“The text on lines 100-104 is redundant” - We agree and have deleted from the text.
“It is worthwhile instead to clarify the meaning of the parish in determining the study area. The reader may guess, that the study area was determined based on the census of the SMM affiliated parish, but I am not sure. This point needs clarification”. - We have done so, please see: p. 3, lines 97-98 and p. 5, lines 229-233.
“In Part 2, it is worth citing whether in other countries, there is also a political instrument of Rent regulation”. - In several parts of the paper is emphasized that policies of rent regulation have been used in other countries and that affect and that they affect i) how initial rents and rent changes are determined; ii) the extent of security of tenure available to tenants and the impact this has on landlords’ property rights; and iii) the mechanisms by which these regulations are enforced and their effectiveness. Please see: p. 2, lines 56-59; p. 3 lines 114-119 and p. 4, lines 173-191.
“Line 109 "Kholodilin (2020) describes it as a restrictive government policy, although, as Clarke and Oxley (2018) point out, it has been associated with other instruments, such as subsidies (in different forms) that seek to expand housing supply...." it is worth clarifying what type of subsidies are involved? Are they subsidies for the construction of new housing? Are subsidies for housing buyers? Or subsidies for rents? The discussion on this topic is not entirely clear". - We have clarified this aspect now in the discussions and conclusions.
“It is recommended that the article be remodeled to include a Methodology and methods section in which the authors describe what methods they used in their research, data sources, etc." - The structure of the manuscript was now adjusted to the standard "Introduction-Method-Result-Discussion-Conclusion" required by Land.
"The title of the article indicates the social aspect of sustainability, which should be highlighted more in the article." - Social sustainability in urban regeneration was mainly emphasized in the reformulation of the third research question and extensively analyzed in the discussion of results section.
"I also recommend enriching the literature and identifying the research gap and making a strong argument for why this topic is important in terms of the social aspect of sustainability." - Thank you very much for this comment! We have done so on p. 2
"Comments on the Quality of English Language: In the review I pointed out parts of the text that are less understandable. I recommend avoiding long sentences. " We revised the document and shortened long sentences to increase readability.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very relevant topic for today, not only for the Lisbon context but also as a global phenomenon and issue. The issue of rent regulation also linked to urban regeneration has brought several dilemmas and challenges for the public administration of cities. Phenomena such as gentrification or mass tourism can also be dimensions of this topic, as controversial as it is necessary for discussion.
Regarding the context, some details about the recent changes in Portugal regarding housing could be mentioned. For example, the elimination of the "gold visas".
The title of the proposal and the summary are appropriate with respect to the development of the proposal. It may be necessary to specify more clearly the objectives that the work seeks to address.
As mentioned, it is necessary to develop the methodological part, expanding more clearly on the techniques used and what information was sought with them. In the beginning, there is a brief commentary on this, but then there is a lack of further elaboration on this subject.
Likewise, the analysis is good. Some of the indicators that emerge from it could even be expanded for discussion.
Finally, the conclusions should be developed further, especially considering the rich analysis carried out.
There are not many critical comments to add. It is a very good scientific work, clearly ordered and developed.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your constructive criticisms and valuable suggestions.
Following your suggestions, we have revised the original version of the manuscript addressing the following fundamental objections (we quote in “inverted commas” some of your comments and our replies follow after).
“Regarding the context, some details about the recent changes in Portugal regarding housing could be mentioned. For example, the elimination of the "gold visas". - In fact, during the period of revision of this paper, the program to attract foreign investment "golden visa" was in the seat of the National Parliament to be discussed whether it would be extinguished or not. It turns out that some changes were introduced but the program is still active, so we decided not to mention this aspect in order not to disturb the line of thought of the paper.
"It may be necessary to specify more clearly the objectives that the work seeks to address." - The objectives were reformulated and improved in conjunction with the research questions. They gained clarity.
"As mentioned, it is necessary to develop the methodological part, expanding more clearly on the techniques used and what information was sought with them. In the beginning, there is a brief commentary on this, but then there is a lack of further elaboration on this subject." - We have incorporated a dedicated "Materials and Methods" section, elucidating the data sources and methods. This section also establishes a link between the materials and methods and the research questions.
"Finally, the conclusions should be developed further, especially considering the rich analysis carried out." - We have introduced a dedicated "Discussion" section where we analyze the results within the framework of existing knowledge and draw on their implications.
