Multifunctional Evolution and Allocation Optimization of Rural Residential Land in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper comprehensively and systematically studies the optimization of function allocation of rural residential areas in China. The topic selection direction is in line with the category of LAND, and the research content, methods and conclusions are also in line with norms, which is highly innovative. Some suggestions for further improvement are as follows: The first is to strengthen the description of provincial research scale, highlighting the intention of research. The second is to link up the theoretical framework and the evaluation content, corresponding several functions mentioned in the framework to the five aspects of evaluation. The third is to further highlight the research theme, and appropriately compress or conclude the auxiliary content. The fourth is to check the document format to meet the requirements of journals. To sum up, it is suggested to overhaul the article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The abstract should be rewritten and not be interesting for the readers. The authors should address the issue very well.
The introduction is good but missing a few references. Some sentences are facts, but the authors did not add any references in the paragraph.
Section 2's theoretical framework is well discussed but the sentences should be rewritten. The authors should explain clearly the theoretical framework.
Figure 1 is a theoretical framework? Please namely as Theoretical Framework of.........................
3.1 Method or methodology?
Your methodology part should be rewritten. A lot of information.
Result ok.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This reviewer thanks you for allowing him to review this work, which seems to be the result of good research, but needs a series of improvements to be published.
formal questions
1. The abstract is excessively long, it must be adjusted to the instructions for authors (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions)
2. The work is excessively long, especially the methodology and the results. They should be more attentive, have less explanations and go to the important thing, without rodeos. This would allow reducing the number of pages in the document
3. In Figure 3, the color plots cannot be distinguished, perhaps it would be better to use the complete page (2 graphics per row, instead of 3). I would recommend including a map of China here, readers do not have to know the administrative division of China.
4. In figure 6 the legend corresponding to the plots is missing. The "island effect" should be avoided, presenting China in its territorial context, and marking the grid of the South of China-Islands on the map.
Content Questions
1. The topic must be better contextualized within a unique political system, which is not known outside of China.
2. The content seems adequate, but this reviewer raises a doubt: Can you really classify rural residential land by provinces in China? They are 9.6 million km2 and 23 provinces, some with more than 1 million km2... and it is possible that the provincial contexts do not sean the most suitable ones. It is just a reflection, on which the authors can introduce in the clarification methodology.
Structure questions
This reviewer considers that the structure is deficient. At all times the authors must attend to the correlation of contents. In this way the introduction correlates with the theoretical framework, this correlates with the introduction and the methodology, this with the analysis of the results..., but the discussion and the conclusions do not correspond with this correlation.
1. The discussion must present the meaning of the results: "We found and this contrasts or coincides with what they will find..." literature.
2. The conclusions are more of a summary than a conclusion. It should indicate the corroboration of hypotheses, methodological contribution... and if so consider limitations and future lines of investigation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
This reviewer believes that the authors have made a significant effort to improve the article.
I only make a minor precision: in the abstract (lines 18-21) it should not include elements that it is necessary to read the entire article to understand it; could "there are different multifunction patterns".
On the other hand, I differ in the interpretation that the authors make of 6 (in the new version figure 7), the frames still do not appear in the legend, which affects the cartographic semiology.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
