Fiscal Ecological Cost of Land in China: Estimation and Regional Differences
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I wish to support authors and prefer a more inclusive scientific community. However and unfortunately, I am not sure this submission meets the standards of scientific reserach.
The reasons are as follows.
1) The set of costs included in the calculation appears rather random. Although Figure 2 tries to explain the logic behind the inclusion (or the absence) of certain costs, unfortunately the process doesn't appear to follow an established scientific approach.
2) In cases where information about an included cost is not readily available, the proposed method seems to ignore it completely. There also seem to be important costs missing from Figure 2. These make readers wonder to what extend the presented estimations reflect true costs.
3) Unfortunately, not much is learned from the clustering exercises in terms of ecological costs per se. One would expect a similar spatial pattern would apply to many other economic measures.
Overall, this piece unfortunately appears to be an incomplete accounting exercise and not fit for publication in an academic journal.
Author Response
We would like to thank you for your thoughtful questions and comments regarding our manuscript titled “Fiscal ecological cost of land in China: estimation and regional differences.” Please see our point-by-point responses below.
1) The set of costs included in the calculation appears rather random. Although Figure 2 tries to explain the logic behind the inclusion (or the absence) of certain costs, unfortunately the process doesn't appear to follow an established scientific approach.
Answer: We thank you very much for your review. "Land finance" is a special economic phenomenon in China. In order to quantify the ecological effects of this process, we refer to a large number of domestic and foreign literature and official statistics. Due to the huge natural, social and cultural differences among the 31 provinces, we simplified some of the indicators. Xie's "ecological equivalent factor method" was used to estimate the ecological cost in the early stage, the national average value was used in the index value of the medium-term ecological cost, and the index value of the later stage ecological cost was also selected according to China's policies and national conditions.
2) In cases where information about an included cost is not readily available, the proposed method seems to ignore it completely. There also seem to be important costs missing from Figure 2. These make readers wonder to what extend the presented estimations reflect true costs.
Answer: The costs included in our estimates are less comprehensive because they are not well suited to calculations at the national level. We will explore further in future studies to calculate more accurate and realistic values on a smaller scale.
3) Unfortunately, not much is learned from the clustering exercises in terms of ecological costs per se. One would expect a similar spatial pattern would apply to many other economic measures.
Answer: Perhaps the clustering method is not typical here, but it is a more suitable method in this state. We conducted variance analysis on the partition results, and its robustness proved that our partition results were reasonable.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Figure 2 should be placed after the reference in the text and not before it.
The article implements in a new field an already existing and verified methodology within the Chinese space. The assumptions, results and recommendations are circumscribed to local policy orientations, which somewhat limits the generalizing nature of the study. However, the issue remains valid on a global scale, given the context imposed by climate change and the need for rational use of resources. The linear approach used has its inherent limits but the results serve the purpose. The spatial contiguity revealed by figure no.3 is important because it facilitates the wide application of a possible set of homogeneous profile policies. Figure 2 should be placed after the reference in the text and not before it. Some labels in Table 6 should be changed because the current form induces a certain ambiguity (I would suggest 4 classes, 5 classes and 6 classes).
Author Response
We would like to thank you for your thoughtful questions and comments regarding our manuscript titled “Fiscal ecological cost of land in China: estimation and regional differences.” Please see our responses below.
Figure 2 should be placed after the reference in the text and not before it.
Answer: Thank you very much for your review. We changed the position of Figure 2 and made a more idiomatic expression of the paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
It will be better to separate intro and lit review into two different sections.
what is the policy implication of the study?
What is new, those we don't know previously, in this study?
Could you provide statistically differences in the numbers in those areas? for instance, t-test and ransom test?
Author Response
We would like to thank you for your thoughtful questions and comments regarding our manuscript titled “Fiscal ecological cost of land in China: estimation and regional differences.” Please see our point-by-point responses below.
- It will be better to separate intro and lit review into two different sections.
Thank you for your suggestion. We have modified the introduction as you recommend.
- What is the policy implication of the study?
To address this question, we have added the following paragraph to the discussion section (pp. 22):
6.2 Policy Implications
We put forward the concept of land fiscal ecological cost and explain the formation mechanism of this cost, which is of great significance for reducing dependence on land finance and ensuring the healthy development of urbanization. Through the above discussion, we clearly recognize the important position of land fiscal ecological costs in land fiscal revenue and the reasons for the formation of regional differences in fiscal ecological cost of land. Based on the above findings, we put forward policy recommendations including balanced farmland occupation and replenishment, reclamation and reuse of farmland, use of clean energy, research and development of environmentally protective materials for road surfaces, construction of green land, and urban cleaning. Therefore, this study has theoretical and practical value for the rich research content of land finance and the transformation and optimization of land finance.
- What is new, those we don't know previously, in this study?
To better explain the novelty of our study, we have added the following paragraph to the article (pp. 3–4):
At present, most studies on land finance focus on its causes, the positive and negative impacts it has on the economy and society, and the transformation and optimization of land finance. However, no scholars have studied the formation mechanism of the fiscal ecological cost of land. Nor have they explored the regional differences in this cost under the land finance model. To address this gap, this study explains the formation mechanism of the fiscal ecological cost of land in China. This cost includes ecological value loss due to the conversion of agricultural land as well as fuel consumption, exhaust gas, and dust. Also included are the urban heat island effect, fragmentation of land as a result of infrastructure construction in development zones, the construction cost of gardens and green space in urban areas, the cost of urban cleaning, and the cost of cultivated land reclamation, which is done to achieve a balance of agricultural land occupation and compensation. Based on panel data from 2003 to 2017, the study estimates the fiscal ecological costs of land in 31 Chinese provinces of China. These costs are scientifically divided to reveal the reasons for the formation of regional differences. Based on these findings, different policy recommendations for reducing the fiscal ecological cost of land are put forward.
- Could you provide statistically differences in the numbers in those areas? for instance, t-test and ransom test?
Thank you for this suggestion, we conducted a one-way ANOVA. The results are presented on pages 17–18.
5.3.2 ANOVA of Cluster Partition of Fiscal Ecological Cost of Land
According to the results of the cluster partition, we selected the amount of fiscal ecological cost of land and its proportion in land fiscal revenue for the 31 provinces from 2003 to 2017 as the dependent variable to conduct one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test with the area as the independent variable, as shown is Table 7.
Table 7. One-way ANOVA of land fiscal ecological cost and its proportion to land finance revenue in 31 provinces
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
||
|
Fiscal |
Between Groups |
123552.198 |
4 |
30888.050 |
67.312 |
.000 |
|
Within Groups |
11930.913 |
26 |
458.881 |
|||
|
Total |
135483.111 |
30 |
||||
|
Proportion |
Between Groups |
624.781 |
4 |
156.195 |
10.869 |
.000 |
|
Within Groups |
373.638 |
26 |
14.371 |
|||
|
Total |
998.419 |
30 |
||||
Sig.>а=0.05 indicates that the fiscal ecological cost of land and its proportion to land fiscal revenue is significantly different in the different areas. That is, the partition result in this study is reasonable.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for addresing the comments.
