Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title and abstract are appropriate to the given content in the paper. Background of the area and the introduction part are quite detailed.

Under Section 4.3 of environmental impact assessment, reader expects to know about the environmental impacts of lakeside residentialism. However a large part of the section misses listing and describing those impacts. Only a few lines vaguely say about already polluted lake, towards the end of the section. I clearly miss what are the environmental impacts (soil, water, temperature, flora and fauna presence and their distribution)  in the area from this kind of residentialism, how strong they area, are they reversible? This section will provide a solid case for the argument about the negative impact potential of such settlements although currently they are good for the local economy.

Instead of providing a Fig 11 for landuse landcover classification only, authors should try to provide a map of environmental impacts in the area and then describe and analyze its elements in the text.

I also would like the authors to find if there is any cultural or religious association of the original communities living there with the lake or its nearby areas? How this association has got affected by such residentialism? Whether the places of religious or cultural significance as public good are still easily accessible and locals can use them to perform their rituals or other processes? This information will also add the value to the paper.

The responses to the social aspects comments from the reviewer, will help to analytically support the statement by the authors as “Here, we see the collision of the tourism industry with the demands of citizens for access to the city and to housing in lakeside cities.  “ Line 648-649.

Authors seem to be fond of creating or using a lot of interesting terminologies as neo-rural amenity visitor, industrial exotic monoculture forestry operations or neoliberal lakeside residentialism. Can we simplify the wordings to make the text more easily readable?

Author Response

Title and abstract are appropriate to the given content in the paper. Background of the area and the introduction part are quite detailed.

Under Section 4.3 of environmental impact assessment, reader expects to know about the environmental impacts of lakeside residentialism. However a large part of the section misses listing and describing those impacts. Only a few lines vaguely say about already polluted lake, towards the end of the section. I clearly miss what are the environmental impacts (soil, water, temperature, flora and fauna presence and their distribution)  in the area from this kind of residentialism, how strong they area, are they reversible? This section will provide a solid case for the argument about the negative impact potential of such settlements although currently they are good for the local economy.

Instead of providing a Fig 11 for landuse landcover classification only, authors should try to provide a map of environmental impacts in the area and then describe and analyze its elements in the text.

The intensive occupation associated with tourist use in the study area is a process that is currently in full swing, which makes it difficult to map the impacts. However, the text was supplemented with quantitative data regarding the progress in forest loss, which translates into an increase in soil erosion. On the other hand, quantitative data was added regarding contamination, and regarding other concerns that arise from the local community in relation to water contamination. The reviewer must consider that as a result of the size of the study area, the progress of real estate development, especially in rural areas, is a recently made visible process, which seeks to be revealed by this work. We hope that this type of study triggers the alert to make more specific entries to the environmental impacts related to soil, fauna, and vegetation. Instead, this work aims to develop a global view of the processes and impacts associated with residentialism.

I also would like the authors to find if there is any cultural or religious association of the original communities living there with the lake or its nearby areas? How this association has got affected by such residentialism? Whether the places of religious or cultural significance as public good are still easily accessible and locals can use them to perform their rituals or other processes? This information will also add the value to the paper.

The sale of indigenous lands is added with the consequent impact on the identity and cultural heritage of the original community. The foregoing, within the framework of a study area affected by strong real estate development, which generates pressure on indigenous land.

The responses to the social aspects comments from the reviewer, will help to analytically support the statement by the authors as “Here, we see the collision of the tourism industry with the demands of citizens for access to the city and to housing in lakeside cities”Line 648-649.

Quantitative data on the housing deficit in the study area was added (see lines 600-627 and 566-571).

Authors seem to be fond of creating or using a lot of interesting terminologies as neo-rural amenity visitor, industrial exotic monoculture forestry operations or neoliberal lakeside residentialism. Can we simplify the wordings to make the text more easily readable?

The uses of these concepts seek to emphasize how the socio-spatial transformations of the area demand a reconceptualization of the categories related to tourist and rural spaces, reaching such a point that the content of the pre-existing concepts (touristification, neo-rurality) are affected in its foundation, arising the need to propose others that emphasize the differences. All these concepts are fully documented by the bibliography used in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is of interest to the journal as it argues the role played by neoliberal real estate development in the transformation of two lakeside cities in southern Chile. This is why it has a potential to enrich the current literature on the theme, combining neoliberal real estate development and waterfront in the Global South.

 

What the paper is failing is to cover more themes and provide a wider approach on waterfront in the Theoretical framework. For instance:

- in section 2.2 please add at the beginning the fact that the urban development of Spanish cities in waterfront lines and its touristic exploitation have been hugely affected by hosting mega-events (2018. Transformaciones urbanas y grandes eventos en Italia y España a partir de 1992. Ciudad y Territorio Estudios Territoriales, 50(196), 201–216); 

- in section 2.3 explain better the concepts of exchange use (2019, Reflexiones urbanísticas: un pensamiento de clase para el entendimiento de la ciudad, Valladolid, Instituto Universitario de Urbanística; 2015; 2015; Ciudad como producto versus la ciudad como obra, la, o la realidad urbana entre el espacio de la renta y el espacio social. Lección inaugural curso 2015-2016; here it is written in English too, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/2/782)

- Please, wide the lake-located cities approach to waterfront concerns, for instance by taking into account the the friction between the tourism industry and the demands of citizens for access to the city and to housing (2021, The effect of tourism activity on housing affordability, Annals of Tourism Research Volume 90; https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/2043).

In the discussion, I suggest to say which are the lessons learned from this analysis and the future research that can be developed starting from this interesting paper.

This is why I ask the Authors to provide a new version of the paper to check the changes.

 

 

 

Author Response

The paper is of interest to the journal as it argues the role played by neoliberal real estate development in the transformation of two lakeside cities in southern Chile. This is why it has a potential to enrich the current literature on the theme, combining neoliberal real estate development and waterfront in the Global South.

What the paper is failing is to cover more themes and provide a wider approach on waterfront in the Theoretical framework. For instance:

- in section 2.2 please add at the beginning the fact that the urban development of Spanish cities in waterfront lines and its touristic exploitation have been hugely affected by hosting mega-events (2018. Transformaciones urbanas y grandes eventos en Italia y España a partir de 1992. Ciudad y Territorio Estudios Territoriales, 50(196), 201–216);

Thank you very much for the observation. We have incorporated the reference as a deepening for the context of urban transformations.

- in section 2.3 explain better the concepts of exchange use (2019, Reflexiones urbanísticas: un pensamiento de clase para el entendimiento de la ciudad, Valladolid, Instituto Universitario de Urbanística; 2015; 2015; Ciudad como producto versus la ciudad como obra, la, o la realidad urbana entre el espacio de la renta y el espacio social. Lección inaugural curso 2015-2016; here it is written in English too, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/2/782)

Thank you very much for the observation. The reference was added taking the case of heritage, which was not within the proposed debate.

- Please, wide the lake-located cities approach to waterfront concerns, for instance by taking into account the the friction between the tourism industry and the demands of citizens for access to the city and to housing (2021, The effect of tourism activity on housing affordability, Annals of Tourism Research Volume 90; https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/2043).

Thanking the observation, the reference was added as a support for the theoretical discussion before the methodological framework.

In the discussion, I suggest to say which are the lessons learned from this analysis and the future research that can be developed starting from this interesting paper.

We have completed this observation more as a synthesis of topics than in a list of possible agendas. The discussion is brief, but the background notes the questions that open up with the manuscript.

This is why I ask the Authors to provide a new version of the paper to check the changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

At the outset, I emphasize that selected research problems are very important in the housing studies. The spatial extent is also a very important part of the work.

However, I have comments regarding the structure of the article.

1) The link between the theoretical and empirical layers is difficult to understand

-> Proposition - Please highlight related theory and empiricism using graph, layout

2) The designated three goals of the work were not fully realized: a) the relevance of the longer-term presence of new residents in the study area; b) the role of real estate developers in the creation of this offering through the commercialization of nature; and c) the effects of these processes in terms of the territory's environmental sustainability.

3) For me, it is not clear where point 2.3 applies in the empirical research. use value versus exchange value

4) It is critical for the article to expand on point 3.3. in methodology.

To sum up, the paper has great potential! Nevertheless, it is necessary to clarify the linkages between theory and empiricism more precisely.

Best regards,

Author Response

Thank you so much for the comments. In the new version we highlight in yellow the points that we seek to highlight regarding their appreciations. We know that it is a work that breaks the scheme, at least theoretically, since it does not resort to the mainstream. Thank you very much

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors

Congratulations for you excellent manuscript. The only thing I find that could enrich your article is beyond anything you have already pointed out the fact that unlike any other kinds of touristic processes, such as environmental racism, the gentrification is very visible nowadays, buy completely displacing residents of a neighborhood, therefore locals also suffer from it. Tourism gentrification is spreading specially draw to areas with high heritage value.

But  this suggestion does not affect the fact that the manuscript will be published as is, only if the other reviewer asks for changes they may consider adding this question or even for future investigations.

Wish you the best

 

Author Response

Thanks for the feedback.
In the new version of the work we seek to account for these points.
Gentrification was left out, however it is an ongoing process of displacement that we are observing, perhaps for future research.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The improvements are enough and the paper is ready for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

• I accept the paper as revised.
• Best regards