Revealing the Impact of Investment Benefits on Marketing Decision in Public Infrastructures Based on Game Theory: Case Study of Large-Scale Exhibition Infrastructures in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewed paper undoubtedly deserves attention.

Previously, I have not come across works that use the apparatus of evolutionary game theory to analyze investment processes. This rather characterizes my lack of competence in this field.

The results obtained by the authors related to the methods of modeling the evolutionary dynamics of relationships between the three participants of the investment scheme require careful analysis.

In terms of possible remarks and comments to the paper, I consider it necessary to draw attention to the following items.

Evolutionary parameters of the model are interpreted as probabilities of choice between decisions to participate or not to participate in the investment project. As is known, probabilities are adequate to situations of statistical repeatability. The question arises as to how adequate they are to the specific modeled situation with the construction of exhibition complexes. How often do such situations arise? How often do municipal authorities and their potential partners have to make such decisions? It would be desirable to clarify this point.

Some conclusions of the work are quite obvious and natural. The use of complex mathematical apparatus to obtain them seems somewhat redundant. For example: «The three stakeholders tend to invest jointly or not at all. The local government plays a leading role when all three stakeholders favour such construction, whereas the supporting service building investors are the most conservative when they disfavour it.» (549-551)

Also, attention should be paid to the purely empirical nature of the work. In essence, the conclusions are based on specific values of income and expenditures of investment projects. At the same time, within the framework of this study these values are assumed to be deterministic, which is not quite adequate to economic realities. In this regard, it would be desirable to reach some deeper theoretical generalizations.

In all likelihood, it is possible to find stylistic errors in the article, but I was unable to do so.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper "Revealing the Impact of Investment Benefits on Marketing Decision in Public Infrastructures Based on Game Theory: Case Study of Large-Scale Exhibition Infrastructures in China" by Zhibiao Chen, Chenlong Ma, and Chang Lin takes a close look at how local governments, investors in exhibition buildings, and investors in supporting service buildings interact with each other when it comes to investing in large-scale public infrastructures in China. It utilizes evolutionary game theory to model these interactions, focusing on the impact of various factors such as investment benefits, costs, subsidies, and profits, on the strategic decisions of these stakeholders.

The paper discusses the use of an evolutionary game model to predict stakeholder strategic behaviors, the impact of investment benefits on market decisions, and strategies for coordinated investment in urban renewal and development. The study's innovative approach lies in evolutionary game theory to optimize public infrastructure investment, revealing that coordinated investments can significantly improve urban renewal project outcomes and investor returns.

The current version of the paper is well organized and presents scientific soundness. However, there are potential areas for improvement, such as:

1. Make sure readers who are not familiar with evolutionary game theory can understand the mathematical models and theoretical notions. More literature reviews or examples could improve comprehension.

2. Empirical validation or case studies demonstrating the model's applicability to real-world scenarios could strengthen its predictions.

3. A more comprehensive view of the problem could be obtained by contrasting the model or strategy with alternative approaches to public infrastructure investment.

4. It is strongly suggested that expanding on the policy implications and practical recommendations for stakeholders based on the study's findings could make the research more actionable. 

Minor editing of the English language is required for a clear presentation of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract

 “Consequently, five research outcomes are derived, while five recommendations are proposed to facilitate 26 coordinated investments in other public infrastructures based on these findings”. Provide examples.

1. Introduction

The introduction and the case study are too generic. Authors are encouraged to revise the entire section and make them address issues relating to China. Utilise studies which have been conducted in China to beef up the case or problem statement of the study.

2. Literature

The lacks a literature review section. Refer to the following as a guide:

Ke, Y. (2014). Is public–private partnership a panacea for infrastructure development? The case of Beijing National Stadium. International Journal of Construction Management, 14(2), 90-100.

Akomea-Frimpong, I., Jin, X., Osei-Kyei, R., & Kukah, A. S. (2021). Public–private partnerships for sustainable infrastructure development in Ghana: a systematic review and recommendations. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 12(2), 237-257.

Zhou, S., Zhai, G., Lu, Y., & Shi, Y. (2021). The development of urban mega-projects in China: A case study of Nantong’s metro project. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 48(4), 759-774.

Use this section to explain the following terms from previous studies:

a. Large-scale exhibition infrastructures

b. Investment benefits

c. Marketing decisions

d. Relate the three previous terms.  

3. Research Methodology

Rename this section: “3. Building and analysis of evolutionary game model” to Research methodology

Provide references to the definitions in Table 1. Extend the column to four columns with the last column as the source/references of each of the definitions.

4. Results

Well presented and explained. Well done.

5. Conclusions.

Revise the conclusion and include implications of the study. Also, summarise the five findings presented in the conclusion into two statements.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

All my comments have been addressed. Accept the manuscript in its current form.