Is Urban and Rural Construction Land Quota Trading “Chicken Ribs”? An Empirical Study on Chongqing, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have reviewed the manuscript titled " Is Urban and Rural Construction Land Quota Trading “Chicken Ribs”? An Empirical Study on Chongqing, China". This manuscript discusses the market-oriented allocation of land which is very important for building a new pattern for high-quality development.
I do find it suitable for the Land but I have the following observations on this MS.
The MS does contribute new in terms of methodology - a set of well-known methods have been applied for land quota allocation and these methods are important as well.
I fail to see any fruitful discussion on the generated datasets. But please provide a study area map. The introduction must be improved and the scientific problem has to be clearly identified and addressed.
I see little novelty in both scientific findings and methodological improvement. First, the authors should clearly state the scientific significance of mapping urban and rural construction land quota, rather than saying something very broad.
The introduction is weak, and the method section is trivial and vague at places. More recent literature work is required.
I don't feel qualified to judge the English language and style but the English language needs improvement.
Figure 4 needs to be revised and make more visible.
In Discussion, "Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and the working hypotheses.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
I have reviewed the manuscript titled "Is Urban and Rural Construction Land Quota Trading “Chicken Ribs”? An Empirical Study on Chongqing, China". This manuscript discusses the market-oriented allocation of land which is very important for building a new pattern for high-quality development.
I do find it suitable for the Land but I have the following observations on this MS.
The MS does contribute new in terms of methodology - a set of well-known methods have been applied for land quota allocation and these methods are important as well.
Point 1: I fail to see any fruitful discussion on the generated datasets. But please provide a study area map. The introduction must be improved and the scientific problem has to be clearly identified and addressed.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your recommendation. We add a map (Figure 3 on Page 7) to show the study area clearly. Besides, we agree with your suggestion on improving the introduction and clearly identified the scientific problem. Please see on Page 1-2.
Point 2: I see little novelty in both scientific findings and methodological improvement. First, the authors should clearly state the scientific significance of mapping urban and rural construction land quota, rather than saying something very broad.
Response 2: Thanks to reviewer for reminding. As for the scientific findings, we summaries the land quota trading program in Chinese context and the significance of introducing the market mechanism in land allocation. Please see Paragraph 4 in 2.2, Page 4. As for the methodological improvement, we employ the Synthetic Control Method to evalute the effect of the land quota trading program on land-use efficiency normatively. Please see Figure 5 on Page 8.
Point 3: The introduction is weak, and the method section is trivial and vague at places. More recent literature work is required.
Response 3: Thanks very much for reviewer’s comment. We have added recent literatures which related to our study topics. The new added references including: 11, 12, 14-18.
Point 4: I don't feel qualified to judge the English language and style but the English language needs improvement.
Response 4: Thank you for the reminder. We paied more attention on the English language and re-edited the whole manuscript.
Point 5: Figure 4 needs to be revised and make more visible.
Response 5: Thank you for your recommendation. We have revised the Figure 4 into Figure 8 which became more visible. Please see on Page 14.
Point 6: In Discussion, "Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and the working hypotheses.
Response 6: Thanks for your opinion. In order to correspond the hypotheses and contrast with previous works, we added references in “Discussion” section. Please see on Page 17.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have undertaken the study to assess the impact of land quota trading on economic growth. This is done by evaluating the land quota trading policy of Chongqing, China. Having gone through the document, it is evident that the research has focused on the ‘economic’ aspect of land administration in rural and urban areas and the theme has prevailed throughout the paper. Apparently, the objectives and the subsequent methodology have remained in line with the chosen title. However, following are the observations in order to improve the quality of the submission:
1. Although the title reflects the paper's contents, the question (‘?’) oriented title is not considered appropriate on many technical and scholarly grounds, which might also lower its visibility and, subsequently, citations as well (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3351256/). Therefore, there is a need to revise the title by keeping in view the technical contents and scholarly aspects of the subject dealt by the authors.
2. The authors have used the terminologies i.e. ‘chicken ribs’ in title and conclusion, along with ‘chicken breast’ in the conclusion parts of the manuscript. From the overall content, it is not clear what are the actual meanings or senses of the these terminologies applied by the authors. There is a need to describe them in introduction section along with creating linkages with research objective and the problem statement.
3. The Introduction section (Heading 1; Line 41, 42) mentions that previous studies on TDR done in the US and Europe focused on the ‘preservation’ aspect rather than the economic ‘development’. Referencing and building upon such statements considering the escalating global land use/degradation concerns, along with the SDGs specifically addressing land-use changes and tackling the subsequent unsustainable economic development gives away the idea that the study is solely concentrating on the economic development at the cost of the health of ecosystems. It is pertinent to mention that COP26 of UNFCCC underlined the significance of land use change practices in the context of climate change. Therefore, revisiting such statements is crucial to bring the paper in line with the ideas of sustainability. There is a need to draw linkages of the problem statement with the aspects of sustainable development rather to move alone with economic development which is one among three important pillars of sustainability. Addition of proper citations of atleast 5-6 more papers is also required in this regard.
4. In the line 173-175, it is understood that the rural landowners receive housing and monetary compensation post-trade, increasing the total social income. Since rural sectors are categorized by extensive agriculture, livestock rearing, and other ecosystem services that urban setting lack; saying that financial or relocation benefits can make up for the loss of aforementioned services is concerning. Compensation for the loss of agricultural rural lands turned into urban settings is practically unreasonable.
5. Under Section 4.2, the variables are currently identified in the context of the title and objective of the paper. However, there is a need to revisit the variables (if possible) include variables for the social and environmental aspects in the light of changes to be made in introduction against comment 3 above.
6. The variable selection done under section 4.2 as part of data source is wrongly placed. Besides, heading for section 4 is also not logical. Heading 4 should be titled as ‘Methodology’ and relocate its current sub-heading by adding a new sub-heading for a good breakdown and logical arrangement of the section along with addition of limitation of the methodology of the study as per following:
‘4.1 Research Approach’
‘4.2. Variable Selection’
‘4.3. Estimate Method’
‘4.4. Data Source’
‘4.5. Limitation of the methodology’
7. For clarity, a schematic illustration of the flow of processes involved in the quota trading under new as well as old policies may be suitably added under Heading 2, i.e., Research Background. Besides, add a flow diagram for the methodology under section 4.
8. Heading 5 should be titled as ‘Results’, with Synthesis Results and Placebo as subheadings of it.
9. At the moment, the discussion section is not clearly reflected. A distinct heading titled ‘Discussion’ should be added with some parts of the Results section transferred under the given heading, hence expanding on the results. The Discussion section should be logically developed with comparative analysis of the work already done as available in the existing literature. The discussion part should be supported with sufficient citations (at least to add 10-12 relevant papers on the subject). Strong arguments are needed if the authors want to continue with the current focus and research design-based results as already reported.
10. After new section titled Discussion, there is also a need to add another separate section to describe the limitation of the results vis-à-vis its applicability and need for further studies to complement in the overall context of sustainability. For this, description should be provided under the heading ‘Limitation of the Study’; before conclusion section. Its crux should also be reflected in the conclusion part.
11. Revisit the Abstract in the context of overall changes as suggested above.
12. Add three more additional keywords to enhance the visibility of the research paper.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
The authors have undertaken the study to assess the impact of land quota trading on economic growth. This is done by evaluating the land quota trading policy of Chongqing, China. Having gone through the document, it is evident that the research has focused on the ‘economic’ aspect of land administration in rural and urban areas and the theme has prevailed throughout the paper. Apparently, the objectives and the subsequent methodology have remained in line with the chosen title. However, following are the observations in order to improve the quality of the submission:
Point 1: Although the title reflects the paper's contents, the question (‘?’) oriented title is not considered appropriate on many technical and scholarly grounds, which might also lower its visibility and, subsequently, citations as well (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3351256/). Therefore, there is a need to revise the title by keeping in view the technical contents and scholarly aspects of the subject dealt by the authors.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. Actually, our original title is intriguing in the form of a question, and it includes the keywords of this study. We believe that this innovative-form are attractive for readers.
Point 2: The authors have used the terminologies i.e. ‘chicken ribs’ in title and conclusion, along with ‘chicken breast’ in the conclusion parts of the manuscript. From the overall content, it is not clear what are the actual meanings or senses of the these terminologies applied by the authors. There is a need to describe them in introduction section along with creating linkages with research objective and the problem statement.
Response 2: Thanks to the reviewer’s recommendation. We add a footnote to describe the meaning of “chicken ribs” and “chicken breast”. Please see on Page 2.
Point 3: The Introduction section (Heading 1; Line 41, 42) mentions that previous studies on TDR done in the US and Europe focused on the ‘preservation’ aspect rather than the economic ‘development’. Referencing and building upon such statements considering the escalating global land use/degradation concerns, along with the SDGs specifically addressing land-use changes and tackling the subsequent unsustainable economic development gives away the idea that the study is solely concentrating on the economic development at the cost of the health of ecosystems. It is pertinent to mention that COP26 of UNFCCC underlined the significance of land use change practices in the context of climate change. Therefore, revisiting such statements is crucial to bring the paper in line with the ideas of sustainability. There is a need to draw linkages of the problem statement with the aspects of sustainable development rather to move alone with economic development which is one among three important pillars of sustainability. Addition of proper citations of atleast 5-6 more papers is also required in this regard.
Response 3: We truly agree with your opinion, and the reivewer is sensitive to the frontier of land use study. As the reviewer said, this paper consider rarely the influence on ecological environment and sustainable development. The basic target of TDR or quasi-TDR programs is to the balance of economic development and environment protection. In fact, our study area implemented the land quota trading program aims to improve the spatial efficiency, and it don’t have impact on environmental problem. The implement of land quota trading program is definitely not concentrating on the economic development at the cost of the health of ecosystems. So we focus on the economic development effect of the land quota trading program. In case, we replenish the correlational research about the contribution of TDR or quasi-TDR programs. Please see Page 1-2. At the same time, we further expound the evolution of the land quota trading program in China. Please see Page 3-4. Of couse, we still consider that ecological environment and sustainable development is a great topic, and pay more attention on it relying on the local situation in the future studies.
Point 4: In the line 173-175, it is understood that the rural landowners receive housing and monetary compensation post-trade, increasing the total social income. Since rural sectors are categorized by extensive agriculture, livestock rearing, and other ecosystem services that urban setting lack; saying that financial or relocation benefits can make up for the loss of aforementioned services is concerning. Compensation for the loss of agricultural rural lands turned into urban settings is practically unreasonable.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your comment. Fair compensation is a difficult issue in practice. The authors will continue to expand the research on the compensation for the loss of agricultural rural lands turned into urban settings. For clearly describe our opinion, we have added “Discussion” section to response this comment. Please see on Page 17.
Point 5: Under Section 4.2, the variables are currently identified in the context of the title and objective of the paper. However, there is a need to revisit the variables (if possible) include variables for the social and environmental aspects in the light of changes to be made in introduction against comment 3 above.
Response 5: Thank you for the recommendation. Based on the study topic, we focus on the effect of the land quota trading program on economic development instead of the contribution on optimize the ecolocical environment. We believe our research design are reasonable and no need to revisit the variables.
Point 6: The variable selection done under section 4.2 as part of data source is wrongly placed. Besides, heading for section 4 is also not logical. Heading 4 should be titled as ‘Methodology’ and relocate its current sub-heading by adding a new sub-heading for a good breakdown and logical arrangement of the section along with addition of limitation of the methodology of the study as per following:
‘4.1 Research Approach’
‘4.2. Variable Selection’
‘4.3. Estimate Method’
‘4.4. Data Source’
‘4.5. Limitation of the methodology’
Response 6: Thanks to your detailed suggestion. We definitely agree with your view, and re-establish Section 4 “Methodology”. Considering to the research design and outline of the whole manuscript, we modify this section into 3 subheadings. Please see on Page 7-11.
Point 7: For clarity, a schematic illustration of the flow of processes involved in the quota trading under new as well as old policies may be suitably added under Heading 2, i.e., Research Background. Besides, add a flow diagram for the methodology under section 4.
Response 7: Thank you for your recommendation. A schematic illustration of the land use policy and a flow diagram for the methodology are added respectively. Please see Figure 1 and Figure 5.
Point 8: Heading 5 should be titled as ‘Results’, with Synthesis Results and Placebo as subheadings of it.
Response 8: Thank you very much. We re-title section 5 as “Results”, and revisit subheadings in this section corespondingly.
Point 9: At the moment, the discussion section is not clearly reflected. A distinct heading titled ‘Discussion’ should be added with some parts of the Results section transferred under the given heading, hence expanding on the results. The Discussion section should be logically developed with comparative analysis of the work already done as available in the existing literature. The discussion part should be supported with sufficient citations (at least to add 10-12 relevant papers on the subject). Strong arguments are needed if the authors want to continue with the current focus and research design-based results as already reported.
Response 9: Thank you for your rigorous comment. We add a new section, “Discussion”, which analyzes the limitations of this study and highlights the directions of futrure research. More than 10 references are involved in the manuscript. In addition, we also replenish some references to “Introduction” section for demonstrating the research significance.
Point 10: After new section titled Discussion, there is also a need to add another separate section to describe the limitation of the results vis-à-vis its applicability and need for further studies to complement in the overall context of sustainability. For this, description should be provided under the heading ‘Limitation of the Study’; before conclusion section. Its crux should also be reflected in the conclusion part.
Response 10: Thanks to your recommendation. We agree with reviewer’s opinion and examine the limitations of this study in “Discussion” section. Please see Page 17.
Point 11: Revisit the Abstract in the context of overall changes as suggested above.
Response 11: After revised the manuscript under the reviewers’ comments, we revisit the Abstract item by item. Thank you for the comments.
Point 12: Add three more additional keywords to enhance the visibility of the research paper
Response 12: Thank you for your advice and we add “spatial efficiency” as new keyword. Now there are 4 keywords of this study which associated with the research topic. Please see Page 1.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The current work represents a particularly interesting study that combines notions of land use policy, territorial planning and economics and comes with new proposals obtained based on previous experiences
However, I believe that for a better understanding of this work some modifications are necessary, which I will highlight below.
This chapter respects the scientific character of such a paper, the general topic of the article and of the study area being outlined and explained by a sufficient number of quotations (Citations).
In the case of the formulas used, I think it would be more appropriate to make a table (like a legend) in which we can more easily follow the abbreviations.
If we are discussing empiricism, then I think that the Theoretical framework chapter must also be supported by some references, or framed in a wider context.
The article addresses the application of 6 formulas (equations), and in the first part (Model Analysis and Research Hypothesis) the output new construction land, the output of construction land, the total output of construction etc. is explained mathematically. This makes reading very difficult and understanding the flow of this article. I suggest the introduction of a workflow chart to capture all the work steps in a synthesized manner and to facilitate the understanding of this work.
I notice that the literature focuses on works from the United States or China. Has this approach been used in other regions?
I notice that there is a larger chapter (Synthesis Results and Placebo Test) which is clearly presented, but the discussions that talk about the results obtained in a homogeneous manner are missing. It is not necessary to present the discussion chapter, but you can build some more solid conclusions through which you can talk about the applicability of the methods and about the future approaches.
Pay attention to expressions in English such as "more perfectly".
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
The current work represents a particularly interesting study that combines notions of land use policy, territorial planning and economics and comes with new proposals obtained based on previous experiences
However, I believe that for a better understanding of this work some modifications are necessary, which I will highlight below.
This chapter respects the scientific character of such a paper, the general topic of the article and of the study area being outlined and explained by a sufficient number of quotations (Citations).
Point 1: In the case of the formulas used, I think it would be more appropriate to make a table (like a legend) in which we can more easily follow the abbreviations.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your recommendation. We re-organize “Research Approach” section, and add Figure 5 to make the framework of our study clearly. Please see Page 8.
Point 2: If we are discussing empiricism, then I think that the Theoretical framework chapter must also be supported by some references, or framed in a wider context.
Response 2: Thanks to the comment. In order to explain the theoritical framework logically, we study previous literatures and cite more references to strengthen our research. Please see Page 4.
Point 3: The article addresses the application of 6 formulas (equations), and in the first part (Model Analysis and Research Hypothesis) the output new construction land, the output of construction land, the total output of construction etc. is explained mathematically. This makes reading very difficult and understanding the flow of this article. I suggest the introduction of a workflow chart to capture all the work steps in a synthesized manner and to facilitate the understanding of this work.
Response 3: Thank you for your advice of the workflow chart. We add Figure 5 to present the framework.
Point 4: I notice that the literature focuses on works from the United States or China. Has this approach been used in other regions?
Response 4: Thanks to your recommendation. We re-sort some databases in this field and cite some new literatures from developing regions such as Brazil and India. Please see Page 3.
Point 5: I notice that there is a larger chapter (Synthesis Results and Placebo Test) which is clearly presented, but the discussions that talk about the results obtained in a homogeneous manner are missing. It is not necessary to present the discussion chapter, but you can build some more solid conclusions through which you can talk about the applicability of the methods and about the future approaches.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. The “Discussion” section is necessary and we add this part which include analysis on the limitations of this study. Please see Page 17.
Point 6: Pay attention to expressions in English such as "more perfectly".
Response 6: Thanks very much. We check the whole manuscript sentence by sentence, and modify the expressions in English as possible as we can.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This is a very specific case study that needs some language revision, formatting and a better conceptualization.
1) I don't see any specific justification of the case study in a broader context.
2) Novelty and originality of the study need clarification.
3) We need a broader literature review, involving worldwide studies.
4) Conclusions need to be more practical.
5) Policy implications should be more general but at the same time more specific for the case study. There is room to enrich this part further.
Thank you.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
This is a very specific case study that needs some language revision, formatting and a better conceptualization.
Point 1: I don't see any specific justification of the case study in a broader context.
Response 1: Thank you very much for the recommendation. In fact, the land quota trading (LQT) program is a quasi-TDR program, the core is marketization of the development rights. Introducing the market force in land allocation is an effective strategy for regional economic development, not only in the U.S., but also in some developing countries. The LQT program in China is suitable for the background of Chinese economic transition, which aims to increase the economic efficiency by coordinating regulation and marketization. The LQT program in Chongqing is successful, which explored the market-oriented reform during land administration system, and this case provides a typical experience for other regions. We elucidate our opinion and the specific justification in “Introduction” section.
Point 2: Novelty and originality of the study need clarification.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your comment. This paper pays attention on a quasi-TDR program in China, the LQT program; emipirical study is employed to analyse the contribution of the LQT program on economic development. Taking into account with the novelty and originality of the study, we modify the “Introduction” section. Please see Page 1-2.
Point 3: We need a broader literature review, involving worldwide studies.
Response 3: Thanks to your recommendation. Same as the Point 1, we paid more attention on the literature review and cited other evidances from some developing regions such as Brazil and India. Please see Page 3.
Point 4: Conclusions need to be more practical.
Response 4: Thank you very much. We have added “Discussion” section to discuss the limitation of this study, and compared with previous works to highlight the practical application and contribution. Please see Page 17.
Point 5: Policy implications should be more general but at the same time more specific for the case study. There is room to enrich this part further.
Response 5: Thank you for your recommendation. We re-organized the policy implications, and emphsis the suggestions more general and more specific. Please see Page 18.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, thanks for addressing the comments of round 1. Please see my review comments for round 2 in blue text.
Point 1: Although the title reflects the paper's contents, the question (‘?’) oriented title is not considered appropriate on many technical and scholarly grounds, which might also lower its visibility and, subsequently, citations as well (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3351256/). Therefore, there is a need to revise the title by keeping in view the technical contents and scholarly aspects of the subject dealt by the authors.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. Actually, our original title is intriguing in the form of a question, and it includes the keywords of this study. We believe that this innovative-form are attractive for readers.
Review Comment 1 - Round 2: The suggestion regarding the removal of “?” from the title is not incorporated. It is recommended to revisit the title as per original suggestion in round 1 review.
Point 2: The authors have used the terminologies i.e. ‘chicken ribs’ in title and conclusion, along with ‘chicken breast’ in the conclusion parts of the manuscript. From the overall content, it is not clear what are the actual meanings or senses of the these terminologies applied by the authors. There is a need to describe them in introduction section along with creating linkages with research objective and the problem statement.
Response 2: Thanks to the reviewer’s recommendation. We add a footnote to describe the meaning of “chicken ribs” and “chicken breast”. Please see on Page 2.
Review Comment 2 - Round 2: Given comment is addressed partially however, the grammar of the footnote text is to be reviewed. There is still a need to relate the terms “chicken ribs” and “chicken breast” to the research objective and the problem statement in the Introduction section to provide clarity.
Point 3: The Introduction section (Heading 1; Line 41, 42) mentions that previous studies on TDR done in the US and Europe focused on the ‘preservation’ aspect rather than the economic ‘development’. Referencing and building upon such statements considering the escalating global land use/degradation concerns, along with the SDGs specifically addressing land-use changes and tackling the subsequent unsustainable economic development gives away the idea that the study is solely concentrating on the economic development at the cost of the health of ecosystems. It is pertinent to mention that COP26 of UNFCCC underlined the significance of land use change practices in the context of climate change. Therefore, revisiting such statements is crucial to bring the paper in line with the ideas of sustainability. There is a need to draw linkages of the problem statement with the aspects of sustainable development rather to move alone with economic development which is one among three important pillars of sustainability. Addition of proper citations of atleast 5-6 more papers is also required in this regard.
Response 3: We truly agree with your opinion, and the reivewer is sensitive to the frontier of land use study. As the reviewer said, this paper consider rarely the influence on ecological environment and sustainable development. The basic target of TDR or quasi-TDR programs is to the balance of economic development and environment protection. In fact, our study area implemented the land quota trading program aims to improve the spatial efficiency, and it don’t have impact on environmental problem. The implement of land quota trading program is definitely not concentrating on the economic development at the cost of the health of ecosystems. So we focus on the economic development effect of the land quota trading program. In case, we replenish the correlational research about the contribution of TDR or quasi-TDR programs. Please see Page 1-2. At the same time, we further expound the evolution of the land quota trading program in China. Please see Page 3-4. Of couse, we still consider that ecological environment and sustainable development is a great topic, and pay more attention on it relying on the local situation in the future studies.
Review Comment 3 - Round 2: Authors have provided an explanation on the comment which seems reasonable. However, some literature with 5-6 proper citations pertaining to sustainable land use and its economic implications globally and in China may be added to satisfy the potential readers.
Point 4: In the line 173-175, it is understood that the rural landowners receive housing and monetary compensation post-trade, increasing the total social income. Since rural sectors are categorized by extensive agriculture, livestock rearing, and other ecosystem services that urban setting lack; saying that financial or relocation benefits can make up for the loss of aforementioned services is concerning. Compensation for the loss of agricultural rural lands turned into urban settings is practically unreasonable.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your comment. Fair compensation is a difficult issue in practice. The authors will continue to expand the research on the compensation for the loss of agricultural rural lands turned into urban settings. For clearly describe our opinion, we have added “Discussion” section to response this comment. Please see on Page 17.
Review Comment 4 - Round 2: The comment has been addressed satisfactorily. No need for further action.
Point 5: Under Section 4.2, the variables are currently identified in the context of the title and objective of the paper. However, there is a need to revisit the variables (if possible) include variables for the social and environmental aspects in the light of changes to be made in introduction against comment 3 above.
Response 5: Thank you for the recommendation. Based on the study topic, we focus on the effect of the land quota trading program on economic development instead of the contribution on optimize the ecolocical environment. We believe our research design are reasonable and no need to revisit the variables.
Review Comment 5 - Round 2: No need for further action.
Point 6: The variable selection done under section 4.2 as part of data source is wrongly placed. Besides, heading for section 4 is also not logical. Heading 4 should be titled as ‘Methodology’ and relocate its current sub-heading by adding a new sub-heading for a good breakdown and logical arrangement of the section along with addition of limitation of the methodology of the study as per following:
‘4.1 Research Approach’
‘4.2. Variable Selection’
‘4.3. Estimate Method’
‘4.4. Data Source’
‘4.5. Limitation of the methodology’
Response 6: Thanks to your detailed suggestion. We definitely agree with your view, and re-establish Section 4 “Methodology”. Considering to the research design and outline of the whole manuscript, we modify this section into 3 subheadings. Please see on Page 7-11.
Review Comment 6 - Round 2: The comment has been addressed satisfactorily. No need for further action.
Point 7: For clarity, a schematic illustration of the flow of processes involved in the quota trading under new as well as old policies may be suitably added under Heading 2, i.e., Research Background. Besides, add a flow diagram for the methodology under section 4.
Response 7: Thank you for your recommendation. A schematic illustration of the land use policy and a flow diagram for the methodology are added respectively. Please see Figure 1 and Figure 5.
Review Comment 7 - Round 2: The comment has been addressed satisfactorily. No need for further action.
Point 8: Heading 5 should be titled as ‘Results’, with Synthesis Results and Placebo as subheadings of it.
Response 8: Thank you very much. We re-title section 5 as “Results”, and revisit subheadings in this section corespondingly.
Review Comment 8 - Round 2: The comment has been addressed satisfactorily. No need for further action.
Point 9: At the moment, the discussion section is not clearly reflected. A distinct heading titled ‘Discussion’ should be added with some parts of the Results section transferred under the given heading, hence expanding on the results. The Discussion section should be logically developed with comparative analysis of the work already done as available in the existing literature. The discussion part should be supported with sufficient citations (at least to add 10-12 relevant papers on the subject). Strong arguments are needed if the authors want to continue with the current focus and research design-based results as already reported.
Response 9: Thank you for your rigorous comment. We add a new section, “Discussion”, which analyzes the limitations of this study and highlights the directions of futrure research. More than 10 references are involved in the manuscript. In addition, we also replenish some references to “Introduction” section for demonstrating the research significance.
Review Comment 9 - Round 2: The comment has been addressed to a greater extent and can be considered satisfactory. No need for further action.
Point 10: After new section titled Discussion, there is also a need to add another separate section to describe the limitation of the results vis-à-vis its applicability and need for further studies to complement in the overall context of sustainability. For this, description should be provided under the heading ‘Limitation of the Study’; before conclusion section. Its crux should also be reflected in the conclusion part.
Response 10: Thanks to your recommendation. We agree with reviewer’s opinion and examine the limitations of this study in “Discussion” section. Please see Page 17.
Review Comment 10 - Round 2: The added limitations should be put under a sub-heading with the title as ‘Limitation’, as per original suggestion.
Point 11: Revisit the Abstract in the context of overall changes as suggested above.
Response 11: After revised the manuscript under the reviewers’ comments, we revisit the Abstract item by item. Thank you for the comments.
Review Comment 11- Round 2: The comment has been addressed satisfactorily.
Point 12: Add three more additional keywords to enhance the visibility of the research paper
Response 12: Thank you for your advice and we add “spatial efficiency” as new keyword. Now there are 4 keywords of this study which associated with the research topic. Please see Page 1.
Review Comment 12 - Round 2: The comment has been addressed satisfactorily.
Author Response
Point 1: Although the title reflects the paper's contents, the question (‘?’) oriented title is not considered appropriate on many technical and scholarly grounds, which might also lower its visibility and, subsequently, citations as well (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3351256/). Therefore, there is a need to revise the title by keeping in view the technical contents and scholarly aspects of the subject dealt by the authors.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. Actually, our original title is intriguing in the form of a question, and it includes the keywords of this study. We believe that this innovative-form are attractive for readers.
Review Comment 1 - Round 2: The suggestion regarding the removal of “?” from the title is not incorporated. It is recommended to revisit the title as per original suggestion in round 1 review.
Response 1 – Round2: Thanks for reviewer’s recommendation. We consider seriously about the suggestion on the removal of “?” from the title, but we prefer to keep this original form. In reality, some would regard the LQT program as an invaluable policy tool, but we argue that it is meaningful for further deregulation reform in land administration. The question-oriented title can not only acknowledge this division, but also help to attract the readers’ curiosity. Besides, we also search academic papers published in some renowned journals, and find a series of articles take this question-oriented title form, e.g.:
[1] Ojo, T.O.; Ogundeji, A.A.; Emenike, C.U. Does adoption of climate change adaptation strategy improve food security? A case of rice farmers in Ogun State, Nigeria. Land, 2022, 11, 1875.
[2] Bellemare, M.; Bloem, J. Does contract farming improve welfare? A review. World Development. 2018, 112, 259–271.
[3] Dolejš, M.; Raška, P.; Kohnová, S.; Schinke, R.; Warachowska, W.; Thaler, T.; Kočický, D. On the right track of flood planning policy? Land uptake in Central-European floodplains (1990–2018). Landscape and Urban Planning, 2022, 228, 104560.
So, we think the original title is suitable for the content of this paper. However, we really appreciate reviewer’s recommendation for driven us to reconsider the title.
Point 2: The authors have used the terminologies i.e. ‘chicken ribs’ in title and conclusion, along with ‘chicken breast’ in the conclusion parts of the manuscript. From the overall content, it is not clear what are the actual meanings or senses of the these terminologies applied by the authors. There is a need to describe them in introduction section along with creating linkages with research objective and the problem statement.
Response 2: Thanks to the reviewer’s recommendation. We add a footnote to describe the meaning of “chicken ribs” and “chicken breast”. Please see on Page 2.
Review Comment 2 - Round 2: Given comment is addressed partially however, the grammar of the footnote text is to be reviewed. There is still a need to relate the terms “chicken ribs” and “chicken breast” to the research objective and the problem statement in the Introduction section to provide clarity.
Response 2 – Round2: Thanks very much for your comment. First, we checked and improved the grammar. Then, we try to relate the terms “chicken ribs” and “chicken breast” to the research objective and the problem statement. When discussing the impact of the LQT program, some doubt that it is useless, just like “chicken ribs” which is tasteless and yet seems too wasteful to throw it away. Conversely, some would argue that the LQT program function well as tasty “chicken breast”, a kind of high protein diet. Please see Line 112-113, Page 2.
Point 3: The Introduction section (Heading 1; Line 41, 42) mentions that previous studies on TDR done in the US and Europe focused on the ‘preservation’ aspect rather than the economic ‘development’. Referencing and building upon such statements considering the escalating global land use/degradation concerns, along with the SDGs specifically addressing land-use changes and tackling the subsequent unsustainable economic development gives away the idea that the study is solely concentrating on the economic development at the cost of the health of ecosystems. It is pertinent to mention that COP26 of UNFCCC underlined the significance of land use change practices in the context of climate change. Therefore, revisiting such statements is crucial to bring the paper in line with the ideas of sustainability. There is a need to draw linkages of the problem statement with the aspects of sustainable development rather to move alone with economic development which is one among three important pillars of sustainability. Addition of proper citations of atleast 5-6 more papers is also required in this regard.
Response 3: We truly agree with your opinion, and the reivewer is sensitive to the frontier of land use study. As the reviewer said, this paper consider rarely the influence on ecological environment and sustainable development. The basic target of TDR or quasi-TDR programs is to the balance of economic development and environment protection. In fact, our study area implemented the land quota trading program aims to improve the spatial efficiency, and it don’t have impact on environmental problem. The implement of land quota trading program is definitely not concentrating on the economic development at the cost of the health of ecosystems. So we focus on the economic development effect of the land quota trading program. In case, we replenish the correlational research about the contribution of TDR or quasi-TDR programs. Please see Page 1-2. At the same time, we further expound the evolution of the land quota trading program in China. Please see Page 3-4. Of course, we still consider that ecological environment and sustainable development is a great topic, and pay more attention on it relying on the local situation in the future studies.
Review Comment 3 - Round 2: Authors have provided an explanation on the comment which seems reasonable. However, some literature with 5-6 proper citations pertaining to sustainable land use and its economic implications globally and in China may be added to satisfy the potential readers.
Response 3 – Round2: Thank you very much for the suggestion. Sustainable land use involves using land resources while maintaining an optimal equilibrium between economic growth and environmental protection. We searched accordingly and picked out 5 proper citations pertaining to sustainable land use and its economic implications globally and in China in the “Discussion” section. Besides, we re-modify the manuscript carefully. Please see Line 1130-1133, Page 17. The references are listed as follow:
- Meyfroidt, P.; de Bremond, A.; Ryan, C.; Archer, E.; Aspinall, R.; Chhabra, A.; Camara, G.; Corbera, E.; DeFries, R.; Diaz, S.; et al. Ten facts about land systems for sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2022, 119, 2109217118.
- McElwee, P.; Calvin, K.; Campbell, D.; Cherubini, F.; Grassi, G.; Korotkov, V.; Hoang, AL.; Lwasa, S.; Nkem, J.; Nkonya, E.; et al. The impact of interventions in the global land and agri-food sectors on Nature's Contributions to People and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Global Changes Biology. 2020, 26, 4691-4721.
- Pasakarnis, G.; Maliene, V.; Dixon-Gough, R.; Malys, N. Decision support framework to rank and prioritise the potential land areas for comprehensive land consolidation. Land Use Policy. 2021, 100, 104908.
- Guan, X.; Wei, H.; Lu, S.; Dai, Q.; Su, H. Assessment on the urbanization strategy in China: Achievements, challenges and reflections. Habitat International. 2018, 71, 97-109.
- Tu, S.; Long, H.; Zhang, Y.; Ge, D.; Qu, Y. Rural restructuring at village level under rapid urbanization in metropolitan suburbs of China and its implications for innovations in land use policy. Habitat International. 2018, 77, 143-152.
Point 10: After new section titled Discussion, there is also a need to add another separate section to describe the limitation of the results vis-à-vis its applicability and need for further studies to complement in the overall context of sustainability. For this, description should be provided under the heading ‘Limitation of the Study’; before conclusion section. Its crux should also be reflected in the conclusion part.
Response 10: Thanks to your recommendation. We agree with reviewer’s opinion and examine the limitations of this study in “Discussion” section. Please see Page 17.
Review Comment 10 - Round 2: The added limitations should be put under a sub-heading with the title as ‘Limitation’, as per original suggestion.
Response 10 – Round2: We appreciate your reasonable arrangement. We re-organized the “Discussion” section into 3 sub-headings: 6.1. Findings; 6.2. Limitations; 6.3. Future Studies. Please see Page 16-17.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper was revised carefully. I like the answer of the authors for every comment I raised in my report. I would suggest acceptance in the present form.
Author Response
Response – Round2: We appreciate your endorsement. After carefully check of the system, we received the “comments” as follow:
The paper was revised carefully. I like the answer of the authors for every comment I raised in my report. I would suggest acceptance in the present form.
We fully value the reviewer’s comments. At first, we misunderstood the reviewer’s comments as no need for further revision. But the system requires us response by uploading the response to reviewer. In this way, we do some minor revisions on literature review based on the Round 1 comments. Thanks again for your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
