An Assessment of the Impact of the Protection Zone Regime for Cultural Heritage Sites on the Value of Land for Individual Housing Construction in the Context of a Low-Activity Market

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I´ve read the article “Assessment of the impact of the protection zone regime for cultural heritage sites on the value of land for individual housing construction in the context of a low-activity market” with great interest. The topic addressed is very interesting and provides a different perspective on heritage sites and their surrounding areas, which are not often considered in scientific studies.

In general terms, the article is well-structured, very comprehensive, and has an extensive bibliography with current references. However, considering the current version of the manuscript, please note the following:

1.      Although this article is quite comprehensive, it seems overly lengthy. The author(s) should make an effort to condense the most relevant contributions of their research into fewer pages. Certain sections such as the abstract, the introduction or materials and methods are excessively long.

2.      In my opinion, the abstract needs to be revisited and reorganized to shorten it and remove repeated ideas. I recommend the following structure: a brief introduction/background, objectives, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.

3.      The introduction is very lengthy and should be separated from the Literature Review, which is a part of it. There are extensive passages of text without proper bibliographical references.

4.      Authors should review the references throughout the text, as some appear with first names (even in abbreviated form) in addition to surnames. In some instances, such as in point 2.1. of the Materials and Methods, the corresponding number in the final list of references is missing.

5.      Regarding formatting, there are certain points/subpoints that should be spaced out from the preceding text but aren't, making it difficult for the reader to distinguish between subjects.

6.      Graph 2 doesn't seem to be the best option for presenting this data. A simple column or bar graph would be more effective in conveying the information. The vertical axis should have a scale adjusted to the data.

7.      In figure 3, the source must be indicated, even if it was created by the author (Own elaboration).

8.      From my perspective, there is a long methodology presented for a very brief section of results and, especially, discussion. There is a clear imbalance that needs to be addressed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English should be reviewed by a native english speaker.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. They tried to make the manuscript better. We worked on the text, formatting and literature. The English language has also been changed. The attached file contains responses to comments. Sincerely, Dyachkova I.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article focuses on the importance of cultural heritage preservation and its impact on the value of land for individual residential construction, using the example of the historical centre of Orenburg. It explores the impact of heritage protection zone regulations on the market value of land, highlighting a lack of systematic consideration of such zones in real estate evaluation processes. The article uses the case of Orenburg to illustrate how cultural heritage protection zones influence the market value of land.

Some revisions are required:

1. It might also be interesting to list other valuation methods for determining the value of a property located near a cultural site (in paragraph 2.1), such as: contingent valuation, Revenue method, Analytical Procedure for Estimating the Market Value of an Urban Property and the Synthetic Procedure for Estimating the Market Value of an Urban Property 

2. It might be interesting to analyse and describe some good practices of historical cities where such an evaluation has already been carried out, reporting which evaluation methods were used, and what results were achieved

3. A methodological image of how the paper was organised could be inserted, with a brief description, before the paragraph 'Methods for assessing the impact of cultural heritage protection zones on the value of land plots'.

4. Check the formatting of the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing the manuscript and commenting. They helped make the text better. We hope that we were able to take into account all the wishes when making corrections. We also worked on the text and the English language. The attached file contains responses to comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your paper. The current version has been substantially improved and the authors responded to almost all the suggestions made in the first round.  In my oppinion, the article is still too long and no effort has been made to summarise it!

The current figure 4 is not legible and figure 6 has lost its readability from the first version to this one.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing our article. We have tried to take into account your comments and are attaching the corrected file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf