Who Owns the City, and Why Should We Care?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have included all the suggestions made in the new version of the text.

Therefore, it must be published.

Author Response

Review Report 1

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- The authors have included all the suggestions made in the new version of the text.

Therefore, it must be published.

• Thanks a lot.

Reviewer 2 Report

Looks good to me. 

Author Response

Review Report 2

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- Looks good to me.

• Thanks a lot.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This is the interesting study, I have no remarks. Perhaps only the references could be a little more complex. Congrats!

Author Response

Review Report 3

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- This is an interesting study; I have no remarks. Perhaps only the references could be a little more complex. Congrats!

• Thanks a lot.

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is well structured, interesting and relevant to the scientific literature. Starting with the title which is very well conceived.
In any case, the paper has slight writing problems that could be solved.
(1) the abstract is quite clear, but it does not clearly present the results obtained by the study and the main implications.
(2) it presents few bibliographic references to support the investigation.
(3) in methods and data, it does not identify the period to which the data it presents refer.
(4) I would like to see the issue of tourism and COVID-19 more reflected, at least in the conclusions. See how you can put a retrospective analysis of properties in the context of COVID-19 changes, based on the following articles:
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n118
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116399
(5) point out the main limitations and future studies

Good luck! And congratulations.

Author Response

Review Report 4

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well structured, interesting and relevant to the scientific literature. Starting with the title which is very well conceived.Bottom of Form

In any case, the paper has slight writing problems that could be solved.

1-

  The abstract is quite clear, but it does not clearly present the results obtained by the study and the main implications.

• We have presented the important points to avoid lengthening the Abstract.

 

2- it presents a few bibliographic references to support the investigation.

• We have added new bibliographic references after the first revision as listed below.

4. Seyfried, W.R.; Appelo, B.A. Land Tenure in the Central Business District. Land Econ. 1966, 42(2), 171–178, doi:10.2307/3145617.
5. Dixon, T. Urban land and property ownership patterns in the UK: trends and forces for change. Land use policy 2009, 26, 543–553, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.017.
6. Eidelman, G. Rethinking public land ownership and urban development: A Canadian perspective. Cities 2016, 55, 122–126, doi:10.1016/j.cities.2015.12.003.
7. Scarborough, H.; Bennett, J. Cost-Benefit Analysis and Distributional Prefrences; Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2012; 1-136. ISBN 1359-6454.
8. Goodman, L.S.; Mayer, C. Homeownership and the American dream. J. Econ. Perspect. 2018, 32(1), 31–58, doi:10.1257/jep.32.1.31.
9. Griffiths, T. Stockholm A Cultural History; Oxford University Press, Inc. New York, 2009; ISBN 978-0-19-538637-0; 0987-0-19-538638-7.
10. Stockholm Business Region. Annual Report 2020; Stockholm Stad, 2021; 1-28.
11. Walker, T. Stockholm enters Global Cities top 30 for the first time. City A.M 2020. Available online: https://www.cityam.com/stockholm-in-global-cities-top-30-for-the-first-time/ (accessed on Febuary 2022).
12. Stockholm Stad. (2022). Available online: https://start.stockholm/om-stockholms-stad/utredningar-statistik-och-fakta/statistik/omradesfakta/ (accessed on Febuary 2022).

 

 

3- In methods and data, it does not identify the period to which the data it presents refer.

• Thank you for your note, the period to which the data it presents refer is 2018.

 

4- I would like to see the issue of tourism and COVID-19 more reflected, at least in the conclusions. See how you can put a retrospective analysis of properties in the context of COVID-19 changes, based on the following articles:

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n118

https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116399

• The period to which the data is present refers to the period before COVID-19. Tourism and COVID-19 are not our focus and subject in this paper.

 

5- Point out the main limitations and future studies

• We have mentioned that in our study.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study on homeowners, applied to Stockholm, addressed in this article is of great interest. In fact, the issue of urban land ownership and its recent changes is one of the major issues to be dealt with in today's city. In addition, the example of the Nordic countries is always highlighted for these research approaches.

The introduction and abstract are fine, as is the Literature Review. However, this review remains a bit incomplete, since the bibliography handled is not very extensive. A deeper and more documented search must be carried out, since a series of debates on home ownership and its changes in the European city are not treated in sufficient depth.

In the Data and Methods section, problems are repeated. All this even when the statistics handled are complete and of quality. The section tends to be descriptive. It is not conveniently explained why these study areas were established in the city. In addition, an explanation of the quality and reliability of the statistics handled is missing, which is assumed, but not clarified.

The Results and Discussion drop back into the description. We have a lot of data and a well-constructed typology, but the analysis is flat, descriptive. Some aspects of the explanation need to be deepened, nuanced and better clarified. It also falls into the case study, but its representativeness is not well justified nor, above all, the importance of Stockholm for the knowledge of changes in real estate ownership in European capitals. The whole explanation needs to be deepened and improved.

The Conclusion is still descriptive. Critical analysis is missing. Also a justification of the transferability of results. The bibliography needs to be expanded.

Major Revisions are recommended.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is interesting topic, but it is not prepared for publication yet.

 

Introduction

- it is too long and not topical

- please prepare shorter version where the topic and its importance is described and at the end aim is stated (the aim is present in first version and its clear, but it would be great if it is at the end of the introduction)

- research questions should be grounded in theory in section two

 

Section 2

- information here presented are great; however, sections for your research questions should be prepared

 

Section3

- it is not justified why those parts of Stockholm were selected as case studies – we do not know if they are from different types of the city – if yes how the parts were defined and how the case studies were chosen out the types? – were they randomly chosen?

- legend in figure 2 is wrong – it is impossible to use shades of one colour for not continuous categories

- please delimitate sectors out of which the case studies were chosen in the figure 2 – at least the four categories that are used further – inner, centre, north, south – again why such types of areas were chosen and how the representative is your sample???

- it is not described why 3 inner city case studies were chosen, 2 central case studies and one north and south case study – it is strange unbalanced research strategy

- the description of data used is totally missing!!!!!!!!!!

- the description of data handling is missing!!!!!!!!

 

Section 4

- lines 334-339: this should be somewhere in section 2

- line 358: do you mean 31.4%???

- From the section 4.1 it seems that you have data for whole Stockholm, so there is no need to select some case studies from four types of the city but you can compare these four types based on data from all districts of each of the type

- section 4.1 and 4.2 are only descriptive – use some statistics to compere case studies

- section 4.3 – methods should be in part 3

- why the area (and it seems that also the projection) are different in figures 2 and 3???

- there is no real discussion here, only description of result – discussion section according the research question have to be prepared

- where the method really applied on your data properly? – at least in the case of Bagarmossen the result seems to be rally strange – it is quite impossible to have here such steeply separated Swedish and other owners in linear (not “circular”) pattern – if yes, it has to be really deeply discussed

 

I am not native speaker, but the English is very difficult to follow.

Reviewer 3 Report

Very interesting and worthwhile paper.