Does the Differentiation of China’s Land Policy Promote Regional Economic Development?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a creative paper, but unfortunately, its writing and organization are not ideal. The authors need to make thorough and major revisions to the paper; otherwise, it should be rejected. Below are some improvement suggestions, and the author needs to provide better solutions.

1. The words in the title of the paper can be improved. The use of the word 'Bias' is unreasonable because it has a clear unhealthy or derogatory tendency. 'Differentiation' may be more appropriate. Because it is more neutral. I suggest the author replace the title and the entire text. Of course, it is also allowed if the author uses more reasonable words. Anyway, 'Bias' should be replaced.

2. The abstract of the paper should be rewritten. Because it does not meet the standards of academic papers and is not consistent with the template of Sustainability. The author should refer to the template of Sustainability to rewrite it.

3. The number of international references in the paper is limited, and the author's understanding of global research progress is insufficient. Meanwhile, the author did not clearly indicate the current research gap in the literature review section. For example, in which areas are there shortcomings or possibilities for improvement?

4. The paper lacks a clear definition of the questions to be addressed. They should be placed between lines 109 and 110, separated into segments. The author needs to propose what methods to use, what problems to solve, and what goals to achieve. Meanwhile, the description of contributions in lines 110 and 119 is not in a reasonable position. They should be placed in the conclusion section.

5. In Section 3.1, the author should supplement the scope map of the research area. For non-Chinese readers, without maps, they may not know where they are at all.

6. Lack of research steps, resulting in an inability to reproduce Between sections 3.1 and 3.2, the author needs to add research step diagrams and text. They will provide some key details and technical points for reproducing this study.

7. All images are blurry and difficult to read. The author needs to improve the clarity of the image.

8. The discussions should be separated into sections. The content includes extended thinking on the analysis results and comparative analysis with published papers (external evidence). The author needs to compare this article with the viewpoints of other scholars, identify similarities and differences, and explain possible reasons.

9. The policy recommendations are part of the discussion section. The current suggestions are relatively rough, and more targeted and reasonable suggestions need to be proposed based on the analysis results.

10. The conclusion needs to be rewritten to comprehensively summarize the research results of this article. Authors should read and refer to some excellent recently published sustainability papers.

11. As an international journal-published paper, the analysis results of this article should not be limited to China. Therefore, in the conclusion section, the author needs to indicate which other countries in the world this article has enlightening value for.

12. In the conclusion section, the author needs to indicate the research shortcomings or limitations of this article, especially the precautions to be taken in the process of cross-border application.

13. The data availability statement section needs improvement. The author needs to provide a clear source of data and try to provide the name of the website or information from which the data was obtained.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate your very detailed suggestions that are valuable for us to improve the quality of our paper. We made the revisions point by point according to your advice. Please kindly review our response.

1. The words in the title of the paper can be improved. The use of the word 'Bias' is unreasonable because it has a clear unhealthy or derogatory tendency. 'Differentiation' may be more appropriate. Because it is more neutral. I suggest the author replace the title and the entire text. Of course, it is also allowed if the author uses more reasonable words. Anyway, 'Bias' should be replaced

 

Response: The Bias has been replaced by Differentiation both in the title and the entire text.

 

2. The abstract of the paper should be rewritten. Because it does not meet the standards of academic papers and is not consistent with the template of Sustainability. The author should refer to the template of Sustainability to rewrite it.

Response: The abstract of the paper has been rewritten according to the template of Sustainability. It is including background, methods, results and conclusions that needed according to the template.

 

3. The number of international references in the paper is limited, and the author's understanding of global research progress is insufficient. Meanwhile, the author did not clearly indicate the current research gap in the literature review section. For example, in which areas are there shortcomings or possibilities for improvement?

Response: The number of references is increased to 61, we added some global research contents which are inserted into several part of the paper. We also point out the research gaps we tried to fill in the literature review section.

 

4. The paper lacks a clear definition of the questions to be addressed. They should be placed between lines 109 and 110, separated into segments. The author needs to propose what methods to use, what problems to solve, and what goals to achieve. Meanwhile, the description of contributions in lines 110 and 119 is not in a reasonable position. They should be placed in the conclusion section.

Response: We have clearly stated a paragraph to make a clear definition of the questions to be addressed and placed it between the original lines 109 and110.

 

5. In Section 3.1, the author should supplement the scope map of the research area. For non-Chinese readers, without maps, they may not know where they are at all.

Response: We have added a map of the scope of the study area to the paper.

 

6. Lack of research steps, resulting in an inability to reproduce Between sections 3.1 and 3.2, the author needs to add research step diagrams and text. They will provide some key details and technical points for reproducing this study.

Response: We have provided a research steps diagrams and text which detailed the technical points.

 

7. All images are blurry and difficult to read. The author needs to improve the clarity of the image.

Response: We have provided the clearest original images

 

8. The discussions should be separated into sections. The content includes extended thinking on the analysis results and comparative analysis with published papers (external evidence). The author needs to compare this article with the viewpoints of other scholars, identify similarities and differences, and explain possible reasons.

Response: We have put the discussions in a separate part-4.4 Discussion. We have compared our article with the viewpoints of other scholars, identify similarities and differences, and explain possible reasons.

9. The policy recommendations are part of the discussion section. The current suggestions are relatively rough, and more targeted and reasonable suggestions need to be proposed based on the analysis results.

Response: We have rewritten the policy recommendations and made more targeted and reasonable suggestions.

10. The conclusion needs to be rewritten to comprehensively summarize the research results of this article. Authors should read and refer to some excellent recently published sustainability papers.

Response: We have rewritten the conclusion and made more comprehensively summarize of research results of our article.

11. As an international journal-published paper, the analysis results of this article should not be limited to China. Therefore, in the conclusion section, the author needs to indicate which other countries in the world this article has enlightening value for.

Response: We emphasize the generalizability of the study findings in our study, it will not only provide countermeasure suggestions for the area in China, but also can be applied to many developing countries, especially those are rapidly developing to help the development of poor regions through targeted fiscal transfer policies.

12. In the conclusion section, the author needs to indicate the research shortcomings or limitations of this article, especially the precautions to be taken in the process of cross-border application.

Response: We have indicated the limitations of the study in the conclusion part from two aspects.

13. The data availability statement section needs improvement. The author needs to provide a clear source of data and try to provide the name of the website or information from which the data was obtained.

Response: We have provided the data sources in section 3.2.4, which are all from databases, and we can provide them to our readers if they request them.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article assesses the economic impact of the cross-provincial construction land index transfer policy by the synthetic Difference-in-Differences method, using the Management Measures for Cross-Provincial Transfer of Urban-Rural Construction Land Increase and Decrease Linkage Savings Indicators issued by the General Office of the State Council in March 2018 as the policy background. The growth effect and the equilibrium development effect of the policy economy were estimated, respectively, and it was found that prior to the start of the fight against poverty, the economic development of the three regions and the three states surveyed, which are the poorest regions in the country, was very uneven. According to authors, this has improved significantly, however, as the Chinese government has increased its poverty alleviation efforts in recent years, as evidenced by the rapid decline in the regional Theil Index.

The article submitted for review is undoubtedly interesting, especially from a methodological point of view. However, for a full understanding by the international reader, the paper in its present form has serious shortcomings. These shortcomings are related to the vague, unreliable, and inaccurate description of the overall context and specific conditions of the land use policy phenomenon in China. This makes the concept, aims, and principles of the cross-provincial construction land index transfer policy all the more unclear to the global reader.  These matters (details) need to be presented in a more systematic and understandable way for non-Chinese readers. In addition, the relationship of the conducted research to sustainable regional development needs to be presented more clearly and the estimated dependent variable from "the cross-provincial construction land index transfer policy" needs to be better justified. The conclusions should also be more general to be more of interest to the international reader. Once these corrections and additions have been made, the article can be reconsidered for publication in Sustainability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback on our manuscript submitted to Sustainability. Based on your comments, we have made substantial revisions to improve the clarity, context, and relevance of our paper to international readers.

We understand your concerns regarding the clarity of the overall context and specific conditions of land use policy in China, especially for international readers. We have revised the manuscript to provide a more detailed, accurate, and systematic description of the land use policy phenomenon in China, as well as the concept, aims, and principles of the cross-provincial construction land index transfer policy. We will ensure that the revised text is more comprehensible to non-Chinese readers.

Here is a summary of the changes and improvements we have made:

1. The abstract and introduction of the paper has been rewritten and improved according to the template of Sustainability. It is including background, methods, results and conclusions that needed according to the template.
2. We added sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 to provide a more comprehensive and detailed discussion on how differentiated land policies contribute to poverty alleviation and enhance economic growth in China.
3. In the conclusion section (5.1), we provided a clearer summary of our findings regarding the impact of the cross-provincial construction land index transfer policy on regional GDP and the Theil index. We emphasized the significance of the policy in increasing GDP and regional development disparities within the three regions and three states.
4. We acknowledged the limitations of our study, such as the use of GDP and the Theil index as dependent variables and the lack of data on more detailed administrative units. We also mentioned the focus on impoverished areas without estimating the policy's effects on developed areas, suggesting areas for future research.
5. In the policy recommendations section (5.2), we proposed a series of targeted strategies based on our findings, emphasizing the importance of multi-level and synergistic policies for poverty alleviation and sustainable development. We also highlighted the broader implications of our study for other developing countries undergoing rapid development.
6. We added two maps to help international readers more easily understand the policy areas.

We believe these revisions have successfully addressed your concerns and improved the overall quality and relevance of our manuscript. We hope that our revised paper now meets the standards for publication in Sustainability.

Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to your response.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author provides a good solution. Most of the comments have been responded to, and the new manuscript has made significant improvements. It is worth noting that some minor modifications still need to be made before accepting.

Firstly, the description of the research area can be moved to the third section as section 3.1. Including Figure 1 and its footnotes.

Secondly, the research steps are still lacking, and the entire study is implemented in several steps. The software used, data processed, and work carried out in each step are still unclear.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable time and effort in reviewing our work, and we are glad to hear that our revisions have made significant improvements. We have carefully considered your remaining comments and have made the following changes accordingly:

1. The description of the research area can be moved to the third section as section 3.1. Including Figure 1 and its footnotes.

Response: We have moved the description of the research area to section 3.1, including Figure 1 and its footnotes.

2. The research steps are still lacking, and the entire study is implemented in several steps. The software used, data processed, and work carried out in each step are still unclear.

Response: We understand your concerns regarding the lack of clarity in our research steps. We have now added a more comprehensive description of our research process in the position between section 3.1 and 3.2.

We sincerely hope these changes adequately address your concerns. We are committed to improving our manuscript to meet the highest standards and are open to any further suggestions you might have. Once again, we thank you for your insightful comments and look forward to your response.

Reviewer 2 Report

The amendments and clarifications made by the authors are satisfactory. I, therefore, recommend the article in its present form for publication in the Sustainability journal. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your recommendation.