Effect of Land Marketization on the High-Quality Development of Industry in Guangdong Province, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you to the editor for inviting me to review this promising article. The authors propose a theoretical framework for analysing the relationship between land marketisation and industrial high-quality development. The study constructs an assessment system to evaluate regional industrial high-quality development in seven dimensions: innovation capacity, efficient development, structural optimisation, risk control, openness, social contribution and green development. The impact of land marketisation on industrial High-Quality Development (HQD) in Guangdong Province is explored. I have carefully reviewed this article and some key issues need to be carefully addressed before publication. My specific comments are as follows.
1- The abstract should succinctly summarise the aim of the study, the methodology, the main findings and the conclusions. It is recommended that the authors ensure that the abstract contains a brief description of the research methodology and data, as well as the main contributions of the study.
2- The introduction section should discuss in more detail the theoretical links between land marketisation and industrial quality development. It is recommended that the authors further elaborate on why Guangdong Province was chosen for the study and how it is representative of land marketisation and industrial development in China.
3- The research hypotheses should be clearly based on the theoretical background and existing literature. It is recommended that the authors provide additional literature support to strengthen the rationality of the hypotheses.
4- It is recommended that the authors provide more details about the land marketisation measurement methodology, including the rationale for the weight allocation and the stability of the data.
5- Indicators and Method for Measuring Industrial HQD.The construction of the indicator system needs more theoretical and empirical support. It is recommended that the authors provide a more in-depth explanation of the importance and calculation method of each indicator.
6-The Theil Index and Its Decomposition. It is recommended that the authors clearly explain the process of calculating the Theil Index and the interpretation of the results, and how it helps to understand regional differences.
7-Econometric Modelling . It is recommended that the author detail the selection and assumptions of the model and how potential endogeneity issues are tested and dealt with.
8-Temporal Changes and Spatial Heterogeneity of Land Marketisation and Industrial HQD. It is recommended that the authors provide more graphs and analyses of temporal changes and spatial distribution to better demonstrate the differences within Guangdong Province.
9-Empirical Testing and Analysis. the results section requires a detailed explanation of the results of the model estimation. It is recommended that the authors discuss the economic significance and statistical significance of the estimated coefficients for each variable.
10 - The Conclusion section should clearly summarise the research findings and correspond to the research questions and hypotheses presented in the Introduction. It is recommended that the authors discuss the limitations of the study and directions for future research.
11-References. Ensure that all references cited are accurate and complete, predominantly from the last five years, and follow the citation format of the journal.
Author Response
Point 1: The abstract should succinctly summarise the aim of the study, the methodology, the main findings and the conclusions. It is recommended that the authors ensure that the abstract contains a brief description of the research methodology and data, as well as the main contributions of the study.
Response: We have reorganized and revised the abstract. The revised abstract is as follows. The red text reflects the purpose of this study, the methods and data employed, as well as the main conclusions and contributions.
Abstract: This study developed a theoretical framework on the relationship between land marketization and industrial high-quality development (HQD) to guide the formulation of policies for advancing new industrialization and high-level manufacturing capabilities. An evaluation system was constructed that can assess regional industrial HQD in seven dimensions: innovation, efficiency, structural optimization, financial risk control, openness, social welfare, and greenness. Based on data related to urban primary land markets and different industries in Guangdong province, China, from 2007 to 2021, the effect of land marketization on industrial HQD was explored using the evaluation models of land marketization and industrial HQD, the Theil index, a panel data model, and the difference generalized method of moments. The findings revealed that land marketization and industrial HQD have increased gradually in Guangdong. In Pearl River Delta (PRD), both factors have increased rapidly, albeit with low levels of land marketization and high levels of industrial HQD. Notably, the province-wide scores for financial risk control and openness have declined. In PRD, scores for efficient and financial risk control have consistently been lower than those outside the PRD. Positive relationships were discovered between land marketization and various aspects of industrial HQD, including industrial innovation, efficiency, structural optimization, greenness, and social welfare. Conversely, land marketization was found to have negative relationships with financial risk control and openness. Compared with that in non-PRD, land marketization in PRD was more conducive to industrial HQD, innovation, efficiency, structural optimization, and openness but less conducive to greenness, social welfare, and financial risk control. This research concluded that land marketization can promote industrial HQD through rising land prices and an open and fair environment for land market trading. The results of this study enrich the theoretical knowledge on the effects of industrial HQD in China; thus, they can be used as a reference in the formulation of industrial HQD policies related to market-oriented reform and land allocation in China.
Point 2: The introduction section should discuss in more detail the theoretical links between land marketisation and industrial quality development. It is recommended that the authors further elaborate on why Guangdong Province was chosen for the study and how it is representative of land marketisation and industrial development in China.
Response: We have added the following text in the third paragraph of the introduction to strengthen the theoretical connection between land marketization and high-quality industrial development. Additionally, we have included the following text in the fourth paragraph to explain why Guangdong Province was chosen as the study area and to what extent it represents the relationship between land marketization and industrial development in China.
(1) The supplementary theoretical link between land marketization and high-quality industrial development is as follows:
A close theoretical link exists between land marketization and industrial HQD, which is mainly reflected in aspects such as resource allocation efficiency, innovation drive, industrial structure optimization, and sustainable economic development. First, land marketization enables land resources to be allocated through market mechanisms, thus allowing land resources to be diverted to efficient and competitive industrial sectors [25]. This approach reduces the wastage of land resources, increases the overall resource allocation efficiency, and provides a solid foundation for industrial HQD. Second, a fair and just land market trading environment helps enterprises spend more capital on technological innovation and product development. Moreover, such an environment promotes the creation of technology-and knowledge-intensive industries [26,27]. Third, land marketization promotes the optimization and upgrading of industrial structure. Furthermore, it promotes synergistic cooperation between upstream and downstream enterprises in the industrial supply chain, thus facilitating the creation of an industrial cluster effect and enhancing the overall competitiveness of industry [28]. Finally, land marketization can encourage enterprises to place greater focus on land conservation, intensive land use, ecological protection, and environmental protection, thus promoting the development of green manufacturing and the circular economy [25]. To sum up, existing research on land marketization has only explored its effect on single dimensions of industrial development.
(2) The supplementary reasons for selecting Guangdong Province as the research subject, as well as the extent to which it represents China's land marketization and industrial development, are as follows:
In summary, scholars have extensively evaluated regional industrial HQD and examined its effects. However, comprehensive evaluations of industrial HQD have often focused on provincial regions in China, with prefecture-level cities being neglected because of limitations in data availability. Moreover, comprehensive systems for evaluating industrial HQD rarely incorporate financial risk control and contribution to social welfare of enterprises. Furthermore, the effects of industrial HQD have seldom been analyzed from the perspective of land marketization. Since the opening up of the Chinese economy in 1978, Guangdong province has rapidly developed a modern industrial system, becoming a crucial global industrial base and a leader in China’s industrial development. The economic scale and industrial structure of Guangdong province are similar to those of China overall, and the province’s industrial development path and model offer valuable insights for other regions in China. Guangdong must play a crucial role in the achievement of industrial HQD in China. In addition, Guangdong is at the forefront of land marketization reform and has a relatively well-developed land market and land management system. Therefore, examining the relationship between land marketization and industrial HQD in Guangdong is crucial for understanding overall economic trends and policy effects in China, making Guangdong an ideal case study for examining the relationship between land marketization and industrial HQD in China. This study investigated the temporal changes and regional differences in land marketization and industrial HQD across 21 prefecture-level cities in Guangdong from 2007 to 2021, and then analyzed the effects of land marketization on industrial HQD. The findings of this study are expected to (1) enrich research regarding the effects of industrial HQD and indicator systems for evaluating this HQD, (2) reveal the positive and negative effects of land marketization on industrial HQD, and (3) provide a reference for promoting new industrialization measures and constructing a robust manufacturing sector in China and other developing countries.
Point 3: The research hypotheses should be clearly based on the theoretical background and existing literature. It is recommended that the authors provide additional literature support to strengthen the rationality of the hypotheses.
Response: We have added relevant research developments in the research hypothesis section to further clarify the theoretical background and strengthen the rationale of the hypotheses. The text in red font below indicates the added content.
In industrial HQD, technological innovation should be the core driving force of development, and the focus should be on high-end and green manufacturing. Industrial HQD should adhere to the principles of quality, efficiency, and financial risk control; enable the effective leveraging of international capital and markets; and generate wealth and employment opportunities for society.
Land is a fundamental resource in industrial production, and market-oriented land reforms have facilitated China’s rapid urbanization and industrialization. Land marketization reform has enhanced the role of market mechanisms in the allocation of land resources, with land value being increasingly reflected by market operations (Figure 1). When land is allocated for free or at a subsidized rate, its price does not reflect its scarcity. In this scenario, producers can secure profits by virtue of the suppressed land cost; thus, they often lack the motivation to maximize production efficiency [29]. Land marketization can regulate the relationship between land supply and land demand, thereby guiding the efficient allocation and utilization of land resources and promoting the optimization and upgrading of industrial structure. Specifically, to increase profits and reduce costs when the price of land is rising, producers would be motivated to develop or adopt new technology, organizational structures, and products, thus contributing to industrial upgrading [25,30]. For example, by optimizing the input structure of production factors, enterprises can increase their investment in technological innovation and improve their production efficiency. Studies have demonstrated that under intense market competition and rising production costs, enterprises can only rely on technological innovation to avoid falling behind in market [27]. Technological innovation not only transforms traditional industrial production and business models but also promotes cross-sectoral integration and the rapid development of new industries [31]. Furthermore, it reduces pollution emissions, enabling sustainable ecological development. Although technological progress might reduce labor input in certain sectors, it typically increases labor demand in other sectors or at new operational levels [26]. Other studies have argued that technological advancements enhance the competitiveness and production efficiency of enterprises, thereby expanding their scale, resulting in the enterprises requiring more labor to support higher production demand [32]. Moreover, in response to rising production costs, some enterprises opt to relocate their investments to less-developed areas where land costs are relatively low [28]. Therefore, the growth of high-end and environmentally friendly industries can displace the resources and market space of declining industries, leading to the transformation and upgrading of regional industrial structures and ultimately the promotion of industrial HQD.
Land marketization also implies that land market operations adhere to standard legal principles. Enhanced land marketization contributes to the creation of an open and fair market trading environment, thus optimizing the business environment and reducing the intervention of local officials [33,34]. A market environment without fair competition inhibits technological innovation by enterprises. By contrast, in market environments with fair competition, the pressure of competition motivates entrepreneurs to launch new products, conduct research and development related to new technologies, enter new markets, and explore new and innovative processes and production activities to obtain greater profits [35]. An open and transparent land market can help curb corruption in land transactions, reduce unreasonable transaction costs, and mitigate business risks, thereby promoting the enterprises development. A study indicated that market-oriented land transfers can reduce the costs and inefficiencies associated with rent-seeking corruption, thus enhancing the productivity of industrial enterprises [36]. One study revealed that the land output elasticity in China’s development parks is higher for industries located on transferred land than for industries located on allocated land [37]. From the perspective of enterprises, increased land marketization leads to institutionalized and impersonal market competition rules gradually replacing relationship-based and personalized transaction rules because land resources are primarily allocated to entrepreneurs through market mechanisms [38]. An open and fair land market also fosters a level playing field for entrepreneurial innovation activities. The market principle of survival of the fittest incentivizes entrepreneurs to invest resources into innovative productive activities to gain a competitive advantage [35]. Moreover, optimizing the business environment enhances the sense of security for enterprises, attracting international investment and promoting export-based economic development. A high-quality business environment helps to attract international partners and promote transnational cooperation projects [39]. International cooperation and exchange can bring opportunities for technology transfer, resource sharing, and market expansion, which in turn accelerate the technological transformation and upgrading of enterprises and improve their market competitiveness [40]. Studies have found that US multinational corporations are more willing to operate in areas with strong intellectual property protection, minimal government intervention in business operations, low corruption, and effective contract enforcement than in areas without these characteristics [13].
Point 4: It is recommended that the authors provide more details about the land marketisation measurement methodology, including the rationale for the weight allocation and the stability of the data.
Response: We have added the following text in the research methods section to detail the basis for weight distribution when measuring land marketization and to explain how to ensure the stability of expert ratings.
The calculation involved summing the product of the land supply area under each land transfer method and a corresponding weight. The weights were determined by inviting experienced experts in the field of land management research to conduct multiple rounds of comprehensive scoring for the four land transfer methods in terms of their competition, transparency, and revenue from the land transfer price. The methods were scored from 0 to 1, and scoring was continued until the deviation of the scores from their mean value did not exceed a predetermined threshold. After this threshold was reached, the average score provided for each method was used as its weight. The weights determined for agreement, listing, bidding, and auction were 0.10, 0.25, 0.30, and 0.35, respectively.
Point 5: Indicators and Method for Measuring Industrial HQD.The construction of the indicator system needs more theoretical and empirical support. It is recommended that the authors provide a more in-depth explanation of the importance and calculation method of each indicator.
Response: We have added relevant theoretical and empirical research perspectives in "3.2 Indicators and Method for Measuring Industrial HQD" to support the construction of the indicator system and provide an in-depth explanation of the importance and calculation methods for each indicator. The text in red font below indicates the added content.
Technological innovation plays a crucial role in enhancing productivity, reducing costs, improving product quality, and generating new business opportunities for enterprises [43]. Such innovation requires substantial capital and human resource investments to drive high-quality technological research and development, which enhance economic vitality and competitiveness [44]. We evaluated industrial innovation by using indicators such as the ratio of research and development expenditure to industrial value added, the per capita number of granted patents, and the proportion of individuals engaged in scientific and technological activities relative to the resident population.
Efficiency refers to the achievement of high output with minimal resource consumption, which provides a competitive advantage in market [45]. Higher development efficiency typically translates into higher profitability, which is characterized by higher profit margins and better asset utilization [46]. We evaluated efficiency in industrial development by using indicators such as the total asset contribution rate, product sales rate, labor productivity per employee, and cost–expense margin.
Structural optimization not only enables the achievement of HQD but also drives sustained economic and social progress. It allows the optimization of resource allocation, the achievement of technological progress, and the enhancement of economic efficiency, thus facilitating economic development and the realization of HQD and sustainable development goals [47]. Structural optimization involves increasing the proportion of high-value segments such as research and development, design, branding, and marketing, thereby boosting total factor productivity and promoting a shift from economic growth to HQD [3]. We evaluated structural optimization in terms of new product sales revenue as a percentage of main operating revenue and the share of industrial value added by high-end manufacturing.
Effective financial risk management is a crucial safeguard and driving force for achieving HQD. Strengthening financial risk control can increase a company’s financial strength, improve its debt repayment ability and profitability, enhance its market position and brand influence, and reduce obstacles and damage caused by risk events in the economic development process, thereby promoting HQD [48,49]. We used indicators such as the debt-to-asset ratio and current asset turnover to evaluate financial risk management.
In the context of globalization, the key to achieving industrial HQD lies in openness. High-level openness provides the driving force for constructing a high-standard market economy system, ensures stable and secure supply chain guarantees for creating a new development pattern, and allows access to high-quality global resources for independent innovation [47,50]. Openness focuses on leveraging international capital and markets to enhance the export competitiveness of manufacturing industry [51]. We evaluated openness in terms of the ratio of enterprises with foreign investment to the total number of enterprises and the ratio of total imports and exports with foreign investment to gross domestic product.
The creation of social welfare is not only a part of corporate social responsibility but also a crucial factor for achieving HQD in enterprises. By actively fulfilling their social responsibilities and making social welfare, enterprises can enhance their competitiveness and sustainable development capabilities, thus obtaining economic and social benefits [52]. The social welfare creation of industrial HQD was evaluated in terms of job creation and sustained tax revenues.
Greenness emphasizes the achievement of environmental protection by reducing pollution, mitigating ecological damage, and safeguarding biodiversity [53]. By actively promoting green development, enterprises can achieve a balance between economic, social, and environmental benefits, thereby realizing long-term sustainable development goals [54]. We evaluated greenness by using indicators such as industrial particulate matter emissions per unit of industrial value added, industrial sulfur dioxide emissions per unit of industrial value added, and energy consumption per unit of industrial value added.
Point 6: The Theil Index and Its Decomposition. It is recommended that the authors clearly explain the process of calculating the Theil Index and the interpretation of the results, and how it helps to understand regional differences.
Response: We have reorganized the language to clearly show how the Theil Index is calculated and how the results are interpreted, and how it helps to understand regional differences.
Point 7: Econometric Modelling. It is recommended that the author detail the selection and assumptions of the model and how potential endogeneity issues are tested and dealt with.
Response: We have added relevant text to provide a detailed explanation of how to choose between fixed effects and random effects models in the regression analysis. Additionally, we have included statements to clarify the assumptions of the model. We have also supplemented the content related to the testing and handling of endogeneity issues. The added content is as follows:
When causal relationships between variables are analyzed using panel data models, the existence of fixed or random effects can be assumed. A fixed-effects model assumes that individual effects are constant and related to changes in explanatory variables. By contrast, a random-effects model assumes that individual effects are random and independent of explanatory variables. The Hausman test was used to determine whether a fixed-effects model or random-effects model was more suitable in this study. This test involves comparing the estimation results of a fixed-effects model with those of a random-effects model and investigating whether explanatory variables are correlated with individual effects. If the results of the test are significant, the fixed-effects model should be used; however, if these results are nonsignificant, a random-effects model should be used. In addition, although completely avoiding endogeneity-related problems in econometric regression models is difficult, these problems can be addressed and controlled using appropriate techniques and methods. This study employed the difference generalized method of moments (GMM), which offers flexibility and advantages in controlling autocorrelation and endogeneity, to mitigate the effect of endogeneity-related problems on the model estimation results. The results obtained with the difference GMM were evaluated using the Sargan test, with significance greater than 0.1 indicating that the choice of instrument variables in the model was valid. Moreover, the results obtained using the difference GMM were reliable if they achieved the threshold significance level in the Arellano–Bond AR(1) test but not in the Arellano–Bond AR(2) test. Figure 2 displays the models used in this study for hypothesis testing.
Point 8: Temporal Changes and Spatial Heterogeneity of Land Marketisation and Industrial HQD. It is recommended that the authors provide more graphs and analyses of temporal changes and spatial distribution to better demonstrate the differences within Guangdong Province.
Response:
(1) The supplementary two distribution maps of land marketization levels and their related descriptions are as follows:
In 2007, the cities with high levels of land marketization were concentrated in economically less-developed regions outside the PRD, whereas the cities with low levels of land marketization were concentrated in PRD and eastern Guangdong (Figure 6). However, by 2021, the cities with high levels of land marketization were concentrated in western and eastern Guangdong, whereas the cities with low levels of land marketization were still concentrated in PRD.
(2) The supplementary two distribution maps of high-quality industrial development levels and their related descriptions are as follows:
In 2007, cities with high levels of industrial HQD were concentrated in the PRD region, with this concentration becoming more intense by 2021 (Figure 9).
Point 9: Empirical Testing and Analysis. the results section requires a detailed explanation of the results of the model estimation. It is recommended that the authors discuss the economic significance and statistical significance of the estimated coefficients for each variable.
Response: We have added the following text in Section 5.1 to explain the economic and statistical significance of each variable's estimated coefficient.
The results of the difference GMM revealed that the estimated coefficient for financial development level was positive but not significant. However, other model estimates indicated that a significant positive relationship existed between financial development level and industrial HQD. This finding suggests that a high level of financial development can ensure access to sufficient funding support, promote technological innovation, encourage resource allocation optimization, improve market efficiency, and facilitate the creation of a favorable policy and market environment for the HQD of enterprises. The estimated coefficients for industrial concentration were significantly positive in all models, indicating that moderate industrial concentration can promote industrial HQD through economies of scale, technological innovation, resource optimization, and market competition. The estimated coefficients for information technology level were positive but not significant only in the results obtained with the difference GMM; these coefficients were significantly positive in all other estimation results. This finding suggests that information technology development supports industrial HQD by improving production efficiency, optimizing resource management, enhancing production flexibility, and reducing costs.
Point 10: The Conclusion section should clearly summarise the research findings and correspond to the research questions and hypotheses presented in the Introduction. It is recommended that the authors discuss the limitations of the study and directions for future research.
Response: We have reorganized the language in the conclusion section to clearly reflect the research findings and whether the proposed hypotheses and questions have been confirmed. Additionally, while we previously addressed the limitations of the study and future research directions in the discussion section, we have reorganized this content and added one more limitation and future research direction to emphasize this part more prominently in response to the review comments.
The revised conclusion is as follows:
- Conclusions
This study explored the temporal evolution of and regional differences in urban land marketization and industrial HQD in Guangdong from 2007 to 2021. It conducted econometric analysis to examine the effect of land marketization on industrial HQD. The conclusions of this study are as follows:
(1) Urban land marketization is developing slowly in Guangdong, with agreement and listing being the primary methods of land transfer. Although the land marketization level in the non-PRD region is higher than that in the PRD region, the land marketization level in the PRD region has significantly increased from 2007 to 2021.
(2) Industrial HQD has occurred slowly in Guangdong. The PRD region exhibits higher levels of industrial HQD than does the non-PRD region, and this gap has widened over time. The scores of only industrial financial risk control and openness out of the seven indicators of HQD have declined in Guangdong. The PRD region has outperformed the non-PRD region in terms of industrial innovation, structural optimization, social welfare, greenness, and openness. The disparities in the scores of industrial innovation, structural optimization, and social welfare between the PRD and non-PRD regions have increased over time, whereas the disparities in the scores of efficiency, financial risk control, greenness, and openness have decreased over time.
(3) The results of this study validate Hypothesis 1, indicating that an increase in land marketization level significantly promotes industrial HQD. This effect was found to be more pronounced in PRD than in non-PRD. Moreover, land marketization level has positive relationships with industrial innovation, structural optimization, efficiency, greenness, and social welfare; however, it has negative effects on enterprise financial risk control and openness. An increase in land marketization level causes greater enhancements in industrial innovation, efficiency, structural optimization, and openness but smaller enhancements in greenness, social welfare, and financial risk control in PRD than in non-PRD. Land marketization influences industrial HQD through increases in land price or improvements in the business environment, with this mechanism being stronger in the PRD region than in the non-PRD region. The aforementioned findings validate Hypotheses 2 and 3.
The revised research limitations and future research directions are as follows:
6.3 Limitations and Future Research
Land marketization in China has alleviated financing constraints and expanded the scale of financing, thereby promoting economic growth and corporate innovation [66]. However, these studies have mainly evaluated land financing in terms of land transfer fees, rents, and other land revenues from the primary land market. This quantitative method of evaluating land financing has certain limitations. First, land financing predominantly occurs in the secondary land market. Second, Chinese industrial enterprises face long return-on-investment cycles, high risks associated with collateral realization, and difficulties in obtaining bank loans. Therefore, future research can identify suitable land financing indicators to explore how land marketization promotes industrial HQD through enhancement of land financing. Another limitation of this study is that the indicator system developed for evaluating industrial HQD requires improvement. For example, in the evaluation of enterprises’ financial risk management, this study did not consider factors such as cash flow ratios, net profit margins, and inventory turnover rates. Future studies can refine the indicator system of this study to more accurately reflect the level of industrial HQD.
Point 11: References. Ensure that all references cited are accurate and complete, predominantly from the last five years, and follow the citation format of the journal.
Response: According to the Land journal's citation format, we have rechecked the authors, titles, and publication information of the cited references and removed some older references. In the revised manuscript, 43 references from the past five years (2019-2024) are included, accounting for 74.14%.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper studies land marketization in Canton province of China, showing that the Pearl River Delta (PRD) outperforms other regions. I would advise the authors to consider some robustness checks as pooled OLS in contrast with differential GMM to show if the results are consistent.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Some English words are difficult to understand without Chinese background. Please fix them so as to become more legible to the native English speakers.
Author Response
Point 1: This paper studies land marketization in Canton province of China, showing that the Pearl River Delta (PRD) outperforms other regions. I would advise the authors to consider some robustness checks as pooled OLS in contrast with differential GMM to show if the results are consistent.
Response: There are many methods for robustness testing. In fact, we employed a stepwise approach by adding control variables to enhance the robustness of the regression results. Additionally, we compared the panel data model estimation results with those from differential GMM, finding consistent results regarding the impact of land marketization on industrial high-quality development. According to the review comments, we re-estimated using mixed least squares (pooled OLS) and found that the estimated coefficient for land marketization did not align with the differential GMM results (Please check the attachment). Possible reasons for this discrepancy include differences in model assumptions, treatment of random effects, estimation methods, and data sensitivity. Therefore, based on the research questions and hypotheses of this study, we have chosen to retain the original estimation methods and robustness testing approach.
Point 2: Some English words are difficult to understand without Chinese background. Please fix them so as to become more legible to the native English speakers.
Response: In response to the reviewer's comments, we sent the manuscript with annotations to Shanghai Zhibian Translation Service Co., Ltd., once again inviting them to review and revise the language throughout the document to ensure it is more easily understood by native English speakers. However, both I and the editing company do not fully endorse all the language modification suggestions proposed by the reviewer. The proof of language editing is as follows:
). Possible reasons for this discrepancy include differences in model assumptions, treatment of random effects, estimation methods, and data sensitivity. Therefore, based on the research questions and hypotheses of this study, we have chosen to retain the original estimation methods and robustness testing approach.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsKindly see the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: The study is touching various aspects, however, it does not look into the latest research andmethodologicalapproaches. It does not summarize what has been achieved in most recentstudies and what the remaining gaps are.
Response: We have added the latest research findings on the regional high-quality development evaluation index system in the second paragraph of the introduction, the latest research on the relationship between land marketization and industrial high-quality development in the third paragraph, and identified existing gaps in the industrial high-quality development evaluation index system and its impact mechanisms in the fourth paragraph.
The content added in the second paragraph is as follows:
Overall, no unified indicator system exists for assessing HQD. HQD is usually assessed using economic indicators (e.g., per capita gross domestic product, proportion of tertiary industry, and openness) [15,16], innovation indicators (e.g., scientific research investment and per capita patents) [13,14], environmental indicators (e.g., pollutant emissions and green total factor productivity) [15,17], ecological indicators (e.g., green coverage of built-up areas and forest coverage rate) [15,18], and livelihood indicators (e.g., per capita income and social security) [19,20].
The additional content in the third paragraph is as follows:
A close theoretical link exists between land marketization and industrial HQD, which is mainly reflected in aspects such as resource allocation efficiency, innovation drive, industrial structure optimization, and sustainable economic development. First, land marketization enables land resources to be allocated through market mechanisms, thus allowing land resources to be diverted to efficient and competitive industrial sectors [25]. This approach reduces the wastage of land resources, increases the overall resource al-location efficiency, and provides a solid foundation for industrial HQD. Second, a fair and just land market trading environment helps enterprises spend more capital on technological innovation and product development. Moreover, such an environment promotes the creation of technology-and knowledge-intensive industries [26,27]. Third, land marketization promotes the optimization and upgrading of industrial structure. Furthermore, it promotes synergistic cooperation between upstream and downstream enterprises in the industrial supply chain, thus facilitating the creation of an industrial cluster effect and enhancing the overall competitiveness of industry [28]. Finally, land marketization can encourage enterprises to place greater focus on land conservation, intensive land use, ecological protection, and environmental protection, thus promoting the development of green manufacturing and the circular economy [25]. To sum up, existing research on land marketization has only explored its effect on single dimensions of industrial development.
The additional content in the fourth paragraph is as follows:
In summary, scholars have extensively evaluated regional industrial HQD and examined its effects. However, comprehensive evaluations of industrial HQD have often focused on provincial regions in China, with prefecture-level cities being neglected because of limitations in data availability. Moreover, comprehensive systems for evaluating industrial HQD rarely incorporate financial risk control and contribution to social welfare of enterprises.
Point 2: The introduction of the manuscript is okay, however, there should be discussion in the introduction or literature review about the similar studies conducted in other countries.
Response: We discussed similar research from other countries in the second paragraph of the introduction. The additional relevant content is as follows.
Research on HQD in Europe and the United States generally focuses on not only the speed of economic growth but also the quality of economic growth, including factors such as innovation, sustainability, and social well-being. Such research is informed by theoretical frameworks such as sustainable development theory and innovation-driven development theory. The primary indicators used to evaluate development quality are the Human Development Index and Global Competitiveness Index [6,7]. Industrial HQD is closely related to concepts such as sustainable development, industrial transformation and upgrading, and the green economy.
Point 3: The research gap validity and reliability is missing. Therefore, include references.
Response: We further expanded on relevant research progress in the introduction, summarizing it and identifying current research gaps to highlight the validity and reliability issues of the research gaps. Please review the response to the first comment from this reviewer.
Point 4: There are so many methodologies in methodology part. The justification for using different methods and appropriate research design should be included.
Response:
In section 3.2, Indicators and Method for Measuring Industrial HQD, we have added the following content to explain the rationale for using the entropy method to determine the weights of each indicator.
This method calculates weights based on the discrete degree of the data itself, which reduces the influence of subjective judgment on the evaluation results and improves the objectivity and fairness of the evaluation.
In section 3.3, Theil Index and its Decomposition, we have added the following content to explain the rationale for using the Theil index to study regional differences in land marketization levels and industrial high-quality development levels in Guangdong Province.
Theil index can be decomposed to gain insights into the variation in the level of land marketization or industrial HQD between different regions or within a region. Thus, this index is a powerful tool for analyzing inequalities in the level of land marketization or industrial HQD.
In section 3.4, Econometric Model, we have added the following content to explain the rationale for estimating various models and included a figure to clearly illustrate the design of this study's quantitative analysis of the impact of land marketization on industrial high-quality development (Please check the attachment).
The model expressed in Equation (8) has high explanatory power and accuracy, and it effectively reveals the influence of land marketization level on industrial HQD in different regions. The insights obtained using the aforementioned model can be employed to formulate more customized policies or interventions for industrial development.
Point 5: The methodology part still need to be clearly described.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have added details in the research methodology section regarding the basis for weight allocation in the calculation of land marketization and how to ensure the stability of expert evaluations, the importance and quantification methods of each indicator in the industrial high-quality development evaluation system, the selection and assumptions of econometric models, as well as how to test and address potential endogeneity issues. Please review the responses to points 4, 5, 6, and 7 from the first reviewer.
Point 6: The conclusion of the study should be written in the last after discussion part.
Response: We have carefully revised the manuscript according to the feedback. Please see the revised version.
Point 7: In the discussion, the authors needs to validate their results by comparing them with similar studies.
Response:
（1）We have added the impact of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in 2008 on the global economy and the impact of Amazon's establishment of multiple warehouses and distribution centers in the United States on local employment, tax revenues, and the construction of public service facilities, in order to further highlight the importance of corporate financial risk management and social responsibility in the process of high-quality development.
In 2008, Lehman Brothers in the United States declared bankruptcy because of severe balance sheet issues and liquidity crises, and this directly triggered severe turmoil in global financial markets and caused a global economic recession [59]. Therefore, finan-cial risk control is crucial for the survival and development of enterprises. Such control not only helps enterprises avoid potential financial crises but also improves their op-erating efficiency and competitiveness and ensures stable development of the national economy [48]. Corporate social responsibility are efforts made to support social and environmental sustainability, such as improving social conditions, generating greater tax revenue, and creating employment. For example, Amazon has established multiple warehouses and distribution centers across the United States. These facilities have not only generated considerable local and national taxes but have also provided numerous job opportunities. The tax revenue has been used by relevant governments to support public services and infrastructure development, which promote economic growth [60].
（2）We compare our findings with the impact of land marketization reforms on economic development in Vietnam to further substantiate the results of this study. The relevant additions are listed below.
The implementation of Vietnam's “Doi Moi” policy in 1986 caused a gradual shift from land being centrally managed by the state to individuals and businesses obtaining and trading land-use rights on the market. The land law implemented in Vietnam in 1987 established a legal foundation for land marketization, promoting the certification and trading of land-use rights in Vietnam. This institutional reform facilitated the creation of a fair and just land market environment, promoted the allocation of land resources in accordance with market principles, and contributed to economic development [62].
Point 8: The factors mentioned in the analytical framework in figure 1 is based mostly on assumptions.
Response: We are very sorry that we did not understand this comment. We guess the reviewer's comment was to add relevant theoretical background in the research hypothesis section. If so, we added relevant theoretical and empirical research perspectives to support the research hypotheses in the framework of Figure 1. For the addition, please see the response to the first reviewer's comment on point 3.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed all of my concerns of the revised paper, I recommend to accept it.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comment!
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease check the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comment!
Point 1： After all, why study the Pearl River Delta but not the Yangtze River Delta, which are equally, if not more, important?
Both the Pearl River Delta (PRD) and the Yangtze River Delta (YRD) are important industrial concentration zones and pioneering market-oriented reform zones in China. Studying the relationship between land marketization and industrial high-quality development in the PRD can reflect the impact of land marketization on industrial high-quality development in the YRD.
Point 2： Based on your comments, we show you here the Delphi method of determining the weights of four land transfer transactions: agreement, listing, bidding, and auction.
We invited three experts to conduct two rounds of scoring until the absolute value of the deviation of the score from its mean did not exceed 0.1. Please check the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think the manuscript is ready for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comment!
