The Scale and Revenue of the Land-Use Balance Quota in Zhejiang Province: Based on the Inverted U-Shaped Curve

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article combines land use management policy with economic perspective, analyzed the impact of the balanced quota’s scale on its revenue of land use IDVB policy projects in Zhejiang Province, proposed research theoretical analysis according to the theory of scale economy, and put forward the hypothesis (whether there is a moderate scale under land use IDVB policy), and analyzed the hypothesis, and verified the hypothesis, the article perspective is unique and innovative, and the sample size of 1907 projects is in line with the research analysis.But, the article has a single research method, the analysis of the research text seems to be deficient in presentation, and there are irregularities in the charts and graphs in the text. The detailed problems are as follows.

 

P2.Line25-27   The article aims to analyze the relationship between the appropriate scale of land use IDVB policy projects and revenue from an economic perspective. The whole article does not mention the issue of rural resettlement; can the final part of the abstract be considered for revision? “The study enriches the theoretical support of land use master plan under IDVB policy based on economic perspective. Scientific basis for local government to provide moderate scale quota ......”

P3.Line109-110  This section provides an overview of the current state of research on balancing quotas and seems to lack an overview of research implication. 

P3.Line110-111  The introduction section explains and analyzes the IVDB of the study, it seems to lack the introduction of the study area Zhejiang Province and its IVDB, whether it can be considered to be added. 

P6.Line242    “and/or “Please do a spell check. 

P8.Line282-283   In Figure 2, it seems that the 11 cities and 62 counties proposed in the article are not clearly shown, and the counties and cities are mixed together, whether to take a look at consider separating them, or add the figure legend to illustrate the county and city administrative regions in the figure. It is not clear what the bars in the figure represent. In general the expression of Figure 2 is not clear, and it is suggested to consider revising it.

P9.Line291-292   The article only uses data on size and income from 11 Zhejiang municipal administrative regions for statistical analysis, which is inconsistent with the study population (11 cities and 62 counties) for which the hypothesis was proposed above and needs to be clearly defined.

P12.Line391-392  “ ...9.50 ha and 6.03 ha respectively...” Not stated in the text, please consider adding sources to enhance persuasiveness.

P13.Line420-421  The addition of the original hypothesis validation results may be considered. "The validation results indicate whether there is a moderate scale". 

P13.Line442 and P14.Line448  The two problematic factors in this discussion section only consider socio-economic factors (production perspective and market perspective.) and do not address the limitations of the natural factors of the region, generally speaking, the scale of the balanced quota and the In general, the scale of the balanced quota and the revenue are affected to some extent due to natural factors, and it is suggested that whether it can be properly considered. 

P14.Line470    “and/or “Please do a spell check. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents a quite interesting study, but for me some aspects must be improved: -        I’m interest to see your proposals for improving uneconomical management, one of the factor which will generate cost increasing, line 118-120;

- What conseguences beneficial for farmes dou you see, if your three proposals from the discussion part will be implemented?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Tables 3, 4, 5, lines 334, 385, 423 use the notation "Note: *, ** and *** denote a confidence level of 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively" which is an obvious mistake.

The word "significance lavel" should be used instead of "confidence lavel". The correct entry should read:

"Note: *, ** and *** denote a "significance level of 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively."

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx