Substantiation of Estimation Methods of Technogenic Noise Impact in Cadastral Value Determination of Land Plots
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very interesting article, but it seems to me more like a research report for a specific region. My suggestions are as follows:
1. I suggest adding more information about the study area, including the source and duration of the noise. And the legal regulations on noise.
2. Authors should condense scientific questions. This knowledge gap is not only for one city, but can be extended to other parts of the world.
3. I suggest not using software screenshots as figures. （Fig.8 and 9）
4. I suggest that the content of discussion should be increased, at least to increase the significance of the research results in other regions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your review of our paper. We carefully reviewed the comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. All corrections are marked in yellow in the text of the article. Please see the attachment. We would also like to respond to your comments in a structured way:
Comment 1:
«I suggest adding more information about the study area, including the source and duration of the noise. And the legal regulations on noise»
Response 1:
On page 4 (line 159-178) added detailed information about noise, its measurement methodology and some specifics. Regulatory documents and a sentence about noise sources have also been added
Comment 2:
«Authors should condense scientific questions. This knowledge gap is not only for one city, but can be extended to other parts of the world»
Response 2:
On page 1-2 (line 37-46), information is added about the recognition of noise as a fairly significant problem in the global community with supporting statistics. An introductory sentence is also given to further analyze the world's research on the issue under study.
Comment 3:
«I suggest not using software screenshots as figures. Fig.8-9»
Response 3:
Removed Figures 8-9 as another reviewer has the same suggestion.
Comment 4:
« I suggest that the content of discussion should be increased, at least to increase the significance of the research results in other regions»
Response 4:
Tried to expand on the discussion on page 17 (line 444-448)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
you have written an interesting article according to my opinion and to my field of interest.
The paper "Substantiation of estimation methods of technogenic noise impact in cadastral value determination of land plots" is an interesting and relevant contribution to the possible use of nose mapping as a property valuation factor. The topic and results of the paper are interesting to a wide range of experts and certainly fall within the scope of the journal. However, to make it more acceptable for publication and to increase its informativeness, I believe it is necessary to further elaborate on certain parts of the paper: Figure 1 is not thoroughly explained in the text, and some aspects may not be entirely clear at first glance – for example, how certain branches are determined. Figure 3 lacks the background to provide clearer context and some kind of scale, along with a representation that would show land parcels with recorded real estate traffic in an enlarged section. Additionally, I believe it would be informative to represent prices in another world currency, such as euros or dollars. Is it possible to include a thematic map that shows how real estate noise data is assigned? Figure 5 only displays buildings with house numbers, but it would be more informative if the buildings themselves were coloured according to the zone they are in. Figures 8 and 9 do not have sufficient resolution, so I suggest either restructuring the data into a tabular form or removing them entirely. I propose transferring or adding some of the results and discussion to the conclusion, which is currently too brief as it partly includes a discussion on model limitations.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your review of our paper. We carefully reviewed the comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. All corrections are marked in yellow in the text of the article. Please see the attachment. We would also like to respond to your comments in a structured way:
Comment 1:
«Figure 1 is not thoroughly explained in the text, and some aspects may not be entirely clear at first glance – for example, how certain branches are determined»
Response 1:
We have tried to disclose the layout of the methodology with different use cases depending on market conditions on page 2-3 (on line 94-109).
Comment 2:
«Figure 3 lacks the background to provide clearer context and some kind of scale, along with a representation that would show land parcels with recorded real estate traffic in an enlarged section»
Response 2:
We have modified the figure on page 6 by adding an enlarged footnote showing the surrounding land and buildings.
Comment 3:
«Additionally, I believe it would be informative to represent prices in another world currency, such as euros or dollars »
Response 3:
We have converted all values to euros at the current exchange rate. The changes are presented in the following lines: 239, 410, 411, 419, 421
In the table: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
In the figure: 8
Comment 4:
«Is it possible to include a thematic map that shows how real estate noise data is assigned? Figure 5 only displays buildings with house numbers, but it would be more informative if the buildings themselves were coloured according to the zone they are in»
Response 4:
Correction on this point is quite problematic because noise is of the nature of a sound wave and its distribution on the ground depends on vertical structures. In addition, buildings may belong to several zones at the same time, which causes difficulties in displaying the data
Comment 5:
«Figures 8 and 9 do not have sufficient resolution, so I suggest either restructuring the data into a tabular form or removing them entirely. I propose transferring or adding some of the results and discussion to the conclusion, which is currently too brief as it partly includes a discussion on model limitations»
Response 5:
Removed Figures 8-9 as another reviewer has the same suggestion.
Comment 6:
«I propose transferring or adding some of the results and discussion to the conclusion, which is currently too brief as it partly includes a discussion on model limitations »
Response 6:
We have tried to expand the content of the opinion, the changes can be traced on page 17 (line 462-468)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
