Effects of Tax Incentive Policies for Land Use on Local Socioeconomic Conditions: A Case of Tax Policies for Urban Regeneration Projects in Republic of Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions on my earlier version of the manuscript submitted to Land. Following your suggestions, I have carefully revised my manuscript.
Point 1: The author does not propose the creativity or value of this paper, and it is
recommended that the author should supplement it in the Introduction.
Response 1: As you commented I agree that the creativity or value of this paper is lacking. So, the following content was added. Please refer to Line 54-64.
“Most of the research to date has focused on analyzing the effects of government policies to support land use. However, there has been limited research specifically analyzing the impact of government tax incentives on land use, i.e., URP. Nevertheless, this study contributes by examining the effectiveness of different tax incentive policies for URP from a socio-economic perspective.”
Point 2: The period in which the research data was used was not stated, nor was the sample
statistics stated.
Response 2: As you commented, we found that there were no data period and explanation of sample statistics in our paper. So, we added them at Line 182-184 and Line 259-274. Please refer to there.
Point 3: "Independent variable ln(GRDP", "independent variable in Table 1~3" should all be
dependent variables. Please check carefully.
Response 3: As you pointed out it. The typographical error in "Independent or dependent variable" has been corrected.
Point 4: There is a lack of instructions on how to set variables, such as Local is a dummy
variable’, how to set it as a dummy variable.
Response 4: As you pointed out, there was no definition for the Local variable. So, the definition of a local variable was added to Line 207-208.
Point 5: In terms of model setting, Local variables should also be placed separately in the model, and the endogeneity issue in the model is not explained. The three regression models
should have the relationship between endogenous and exogenous, and it is wrong to
estimate each separately.
Response 5: Firstly, we acknowledge the reviewer's suggestion to include the "Local" variable as a separate variable in the research model. However, we concur that introducing this variable could lead to significant issues of multicollinearity, and as the "Local" variable is not the primary focus of interest in this study but rather serves a supplementary role, it was exclusively included as an interaction variable. Furthermore, all three research models were subjected to the Heckman model to assess endogeneity issues, but no statistically significant differences were observed in the presented results. Given that GRDP, Proportion of Aged Housing, and Housing Price Fluctuation are independent variables, and distinct sets of independent variables (right-hand variables) were employed to formulate the research models for each of these variables, we believe that endogeneity is not a significant concern in this study.
Point 6: Local variables are inappropriately called "non-metropolitan region variables".
Response 6: The "Local" variable is defined as non-metropolitan region variables due to significant differences in real estate prices, including housing, between South Korea's metropolitan areas (Seoul, Gyeonggi, and Incheon) and regions outside them. These differences are attributed to the higher population density in metropolitan areas, which has been extensively studied in literature analyzing housing and real estate prices or volatility. While there may be major cities in non-capital regions, they are considered part of the non-metropolitan category because they exhibit lower population density and lower real estate values and volatility in comparison to metropolitan areas.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
- A very well written paper
- Section 2.2 is titled literature review. This is not suitable in a main thematic section. I suggest that 2.0 overall is the literature review and it could remain at its thematic name and another theme is given to 2.2.
- More recent literature sources can be used. It is important that the research is linked to the most updated available knowledge in the literature.
- The conclusion and discussion section is very brief. It lacks a robust connection with available knowledge.
- The overall layout of the paper needs to be adjusted. For example, table 4 runs in two pages and the text underneath is distorted. Spacing needs to be adjusted before and after tables.
Very minor editing is required. The paper is well-written.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions on my earlier version of the manuscript submitted to Land. Following your suggestions, I have carefully revised my manuscript.
Point 1: Section 2.2 is titled literature review. This is not suitable in a main thematic section. I suggest that 2.0 overall is the literature review and it could remain at its thematic name and another theme is given to 2.2.
Response 1: As you commented, we agree with the reviewer's observation that the section titles are not systematically organized. Therefore, we have modified the titles of Chapter 2 and Section 2.2 to "Urban Regeneration Policies in South Korea and Theoretical Background" and "Theoretical Background," respectively.
Point 2: More recent literature sources can be used. It is important that the research is linked to the most updated available knowledge in the literature.
Response 2: Recent literature has been incorporated into the body of this study.
Point 3: The conclusion and discussion section is very brief. It lacks a robust connection with available knowledge.
Response 3: As you pointed out it, In the discussion section, we have strengthened our links with existing knowledge by introducing further technical specifics. Please refer to Line 489-497.
Point 4: The overall layout of the paper needs to be adjusted. For example, table 4 runs in two pages and the text underneath is distorted. Spacing needs to be adjusted before and after tables.
Response 4: We have made some general editing and formatting adjustments to the text for brief presentation.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I have reviewed the manuscript entitled “Effects of Tax Incentive Policies for Land Use on Local Socio-economic Conditions: A Case of South Korea's Tax Policies for Urban Regeneration Projects”.
Dear author, the paper presents an interesting study with a strong scientific impact. This article is devoted to a rather relevant and non-trivial topic. The results of this study are beneficial for research, industry professionals, and policymakers.
However, I just have some comments:
1. The abstract should specify why this study is important. What is exactly the relevance of this issue?
2. The section on the introduction needs to be structured better. The article's structure with an explanation of the subsequent phases is completely missing. It does not give the reader a clear idea of what to expect in the following sections.
3. It is not clear what the area of study is. There is a complete lack of a section specifying the data sample used and the area of study.
4. The study does not link the results with future perspectives. It is recommended to revise section 5.
Please complete the paper in this regard.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions on my earlier version of the manuscript submitted to Land. Following your suggestions, I have carefully revised my manuscript.
Point 1: The abstract should specify why this study is important. What is exactly the relevance of this issue?
Response 1: As you commented, we agree with the reviewer's suggestion that the abstract needs modifications. Therefore, we have revised it to prioritize the importance of this study and its research direction. Please refer to the abstract in this paper.
Point 2: The section on the introduction needs to be structured better. The article's structure with an explanation of the subsequent phases is completely missing. It does not give the reader a clear idea of what to expect in the following sections.
Response 2: As you pointed out it, we have revised the Introduction section and added an overview of the research framework. Please refer to the introduction.
Point 3: It is not clear what the area of study is. There is a complete lack of a section specifying the data sample used and the area of study.
Response 3: As you commented, we found that there were no data period and explanation of sample statistics in our paper. So, we added them at Line 182-184 and Line 259-274. Please refer to there.
Point 4: The study does not link the results with future perspectives. It is recommended to revise section 5.
Response 4: As you commented, we have included additional content in Section 5 linking the results to future perspectives. Please refer to Line 490-498.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
none
Reviewer 3 Report
The quality of the paper has been improved. The authors amended the paper according to the suggestions. I think that the readers will appreciate the paper in the present form. I recommend the paper for publication in that form and would like to congratulate the authors for interesting original paper preparation.
