Ecological Benefit Spillover and Ecological Financial Transfer of Cultivated Land Protection in River Basins: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your manuscript on ecological benefit spillover and ecological financial transfer in the Yangtze River Economic Belt. It is a noteworthy research output. You have done an excellent and thorough job of presenting various ecological and economic scenarios for the region. I think your paper will be worthy of study by economists and ecologists interested in the region. Overall, the topic and presentation of the paper seems appropriate to me. The formulas are quite technical, but your paper seems to discuss them adequately. You also present a logical rationale for the study in the Introduction section. The English grammar of the manuscript is good. I would recommend a final proofing by an English editor to iron out any small grammar issues. The References section generally looks good as well, though some minor formatting inconsistencies need to be addressed, for uniformity. Depending on who will be reading your paper, I would look again at your Conclusions to make sure the "take away" message is clear to the average reader who may not be familiar with this technical economic discussion. 

Overall, great job.
Best,
Sam A., Ph.D.
Research Scientist

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “ Ecological Benefit Spillover and Ecological Financial Transfer of Cultivated Land Protection in River Basins：A Case Study of Yangtze River ’’( ID: sustainability-899519). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper(Annex 1:Revised Manuscript). The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’ s comments are as flowing:

1. I would recommend a final proofing by an English editor to iron out any small grammar issues.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. To proofread the English language and style, we sought professional English editing services. On the one hand, we look for English language help from experts in the professional field. On the other hand, we also submitted the manuscript to a professional English editing agency for editing. At the same time, we also attached a proof of polishing, which is provided by a professional English editing service agency. Please refer to Annex 2：Certificate of English Editing.

2. Some minor formatting inconsistencies need to be addressed, for uniformity.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We have adjusted some references and standardized the format of references to meet journal requirements. I am very sorry for not paying attention to these details because of my careless.

The revised references are as follows(Line 894-991, Page 24-26):

1. Liu, X.; Lynch, L. Do Agricultural Land Preservation Programs reduce farmland loss? Evidence from a propensity score matching estimator. Land Econ. 2011, 87, 183-201.
2. Sgroi, F.;Foderà, M.;Dana, L.P.; Mangiapane,G.;, Tudisca,S.; Trapani, A.M.D.; Testa, T. Evaluation of payment for ecosystem services in Mediterranean forest: an empirical survey. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 90:399-404.
3. Huber, R.; Hunziker, M.; Lehmann, B. Valuation of agricultural land-use scenarios with choice experiments: a political market share approach.J. Environ. Plann. Man. 2011,54, 93-113.
4. Drake, L.The Non-market Value of Swedish Agricultural Landscape.Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ.1992, 19, 351-364.
5. Yang, X.; Zhang, A.L.; Zhang,F. Farmers' Heterogeneous Willingness to Pay for Farmland Non-Market Goods and Services on the Basis of a Mixed Logit Model-A Case Study of Wuhan, China. Int. J. Env. Res. Pub. He. 2019, 16, 1-14.
6. Xue, X.; Xie, H.L.; Cheng, S.; Wu, Q.; Lu, H. Estimation of Ecological Compensation Standards for Fallow Heavy Metal-Polluted Farmland in China Based on FarmerWillingness to Accept. Sustainability2017, 9, 1859.
7. Jin, J.J.; Jiang, C.; Truong, D.T.; Li, L. Public preferences for cultivated land protection in Wenling City,China: A choice experiment study. LandUsePolicy 2013, 30, 337-343.

8.Cho, S.H.; Newman, D.H.; Bowker, J.M. Measuring rural homeowners' willingness to pay for land conservation easements. Forest Policy Econ. 2005, 7, 757-770.

9.Banzhaf, H.S. Economics at the fringe: Non-market valuation studies and their role in land use plans in the United States. J. Environ. Manage. 2010, 91, 592-602.

10. Sutton, P.C.; Costanza, R. Global estimates of market and non-market values derived from nighttime satellite imagery, land cover, and ecosystem service valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 509-527.
11. Costanza, R.; Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; Ploge, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services.Global Environ. Chang. 2014, 26, 152-158.
12. Ring, I. Integrating local ecological services into intergovernmental fiscal transfers: The case of the ecological ICMS in Brazil. Land Use Policy2008, 25, 485-497.
13. Santos, S. Phase contrast and operation regimes in multifrequency atomic force microscopy. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2014, 104, 1-5.
14. Zbinden, S.; Lee, D.R. Paying for Environmental Services: An Analysis of Participation in Costa Rica’s PSA Program. World Dev. 2005, 33, 255-272.
15. Burnett, P. Urban Industrial Composition and the Spatial Expansion of Cities. Land Econ. 2012, 88, 764-781.
16. Wang, H.; Tao, R. Trading land development rights under a planned land use system:the " Zhejiang model " .China World Econ. 2009,17, 66-82.
17. Wen, L.J.; Van, B.; Jared, R.S.; Zhang, A.L. Can China"s land coupon program activate rural assets? An empirical investigation of program characteristics and results of Chongqing.Habitat Int. 2017, 59, 80-89.
18. Liu, L.H.; Yang, L.R. Research on ecological compensation of provincial cultivated land in China. China Pop. Resour. Envir. 2019,29, 52-62.(In Chinese)
19. Niu, H.P.; Xiao, D.Y.; Gao, Z.F. Measurement and scale effect of grain-production dominated zone cultivated land protection externalities under multi-level boundaries. Resour. Sci. 2016, 38, 1491-1502.(In Chinese)
20. Delire, C.; Foley, J.A. Evaluating the performance of a land Surface / ecosystem model with biophysical measurements from contrasting environments. J. Geophys. Res-Atmos.1999, 104, 16895-16909.
21. Wang, K.Q.; Zhang,W.X. Study on compensation mechanism of cultivated land protection: Based on virtual cultivated land. Energ. Procedia2011, 13, 9997-10003.
22. Liang, L.T.; Zhu, K.C. Interregional agricultural eco-compensation based on virtual cultivated land flow: Regional division and compensation standard accounting. Geogr. Res.. 2019, 38, 1932-1948.(In Chinese)
23. Uematsu, H.; Khanal, A.R.; Mishra, A.K. The impact of natural amenity on farmland values: A quantile regression approach. Land Use Policy 2013, 33, 151-160.
24. Bastian, C.T.; Mcleod, D.M.; Germino, M.J.; Reiners, W.A.; Blasko,B.J. Environmental amenities and agricultural land values: a hedonic model using geographic information systems data. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 40, 337-349.
25. Erik, N.Modeling the tradeoffs between ecosystem services and biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 2009, 7, 4-11.
26. Moore, D.W., Booth, P. , Alix, A., Apitz, S.E., Forrow, D., Huber-Sannwald, E., Jayasundara, N. Application of ecosystem services in natural resource management decision making.Integr. Environ.Asses. 2017,13(1), 74-84.
27. 27. Whittingham, M.J. The future of agri-environment schemes: biodiversity gains andecosystem service delivery?  J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48(3):509-513.
28. Yi, H., Güneralp, B., Filippi, A.M., Kreuter,U.P., Güneralpab,İ. Impacts of Land Change on Ecosystem Services in the San Antonio River Basin, Texas, from 1984 to 2010. Ecol. Econ.2017(135):125-135.
29. 29. Schulz, N., Breustedt, G., Latacz-Lohmann, U. Assessing farmers' willingness to accept“greening”: Insights from a discrete choice experiment in Germany.J. Agr. Econ. 2014, 65(1):26-48.
30. Ward, P.S., Bell, A.R., Parkhurst, G.M., Droppelmannd, K., Mapemba, L. Heterogeneouspreferences and the effectsof incentives in promoting conservation agriculture in Malawi. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016(222):67-79.
31. Chai, D.; Lin, M.R. Theory and Empirical Study on Compensation for Inter-provincial Horizontal Cultivated Land Protection Based on "Full Value" Accounting of Cultivated Land. Mod. Econ. Sci. 2018,40, 69-77+126-127.(In Chinese)
32. 32. Feng, D.Y.; Wu, W.L.; Liang, L.; Li, L.; Zhao, G.S.Payments for watershed ecosystem services: mechanism, progressand challenges. Ecosyst. Health. ust. 2018, 4(1):13-28.

33.Kleijn, D.; Sutherland, W.J. How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity?. J. Appl. Ecol. 2003, 40, 947-969.

34. Batáry, P.;Dicks, L.V.;Kleijn, D.; Sutherland, W.J. The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 1006-1016.
35. Pannell, D.; Vanclay, F. Changing land management: adoption of new practices by rural landholders. CSIRO Publishing. 2011.
36. Zhou, X.P.; Song, L.J.; Chai, D.; Liu Y.M. Empirical research on zoning of externalities compensation for regional cultivated land protection. Econ.Geog.2010, 30, 1546-1551.(In Chinese) 
37. Cao, R.F.; Zhang, A.L.; Wen, L.J. Trans-regional compensation mechanism under imbalanced land development: From the local government economic welfare perspective[J]. Habitat. Int. 2018, 77, 56-63.
38. Xin Yang, Fan Zhang, Cheng Luo, Anlu Zhang.Farmland Ecological Compensation Zoning and Horizontal Fiscal Payment Mechanism in Wuhan Agglomeration, China, From the Perspective of Ecological Footprint.Sustainability 2019, 11, 2326.
39. Guo, J.; Zhu,T.Q.; Ou, M.H.; Pei, F.S.; Gan, X.Y.; Ou, W.X.; Tao, Y. A Framework of Payment for Ecosystem Services to Protect Cropland: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta in China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 178.
40. Herzog, F.; Dreier, S.; Hofer, G.; Marfurt,C.; Schüpbach, B.; Spiess, M.; Walter, T. Effect of ecological compensation areas on floristic and breeding bird diversity in Swiss agricultural landscapes. Agr.Ecosyst.Environ. 2005, 108, 189-204.
41. Kremen, C. Managing ecosystem services: What do we need to know about their ecology?. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 5, 468-479.
42. Dinar, A.; Nigatu, G.S. Distributional considerations of international water resources under externality: The case of Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt on the Blue Nile. Water Resour. Econ. 2013, 2-3, 1-16.
43. Freeman, A.M. The Measurement of Environmental and ResourceValues:Theory and Methods. Washington, DC :Resources for the Future. 1993, 114-115.

44.Hanley, N.; Spash, C.L. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Envi-ronment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 1993, 78-81.

45. Xie, G.D.; Zhang, C.X.; Zhang, L.M.; Chen,W.H.; Li, S.M. Improvement of the Evaluation Method for Ecosystem Service Value Based on Per Unit Area.J. Nat. Res. 2015, 30, 1243-1254.(In Chinese)
46. Xiang, P.A.; Huang, H.; Yan, H.M.; Zhou, Y.; Zheng, H.; Huang,X.G. Environmental cost of rice production in Dongting Lake area of Hunan Province.Chinese J. Appl.Eco. 2005, 11, 183-189.(In Chinese)
47. Wackernagel, M.; Kitzes, J.; Moran, D.; Goldfinger, S.; Thomas, M. The ecological footprint of cities and regions:comparing resource availability with resource demand. Environ. Urban. 2006, 18, 103-112.
48. Cai, Y.Y.; Zhang, A.L. Calculation of Farmland Ecological Compensation Standards from the Perspective of Consumer Demand Desire-Taking Wuhan Urban Residents Survey as an Example. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics. 2011,6, 43-52.(In Chinese)

3. I would look again at your Conclusions to make sure the "take away" message is clear to the average reader who may not be familiar with this technical economic discussion. 

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. We have made major revisions to the conclusion section of the paper to make sure the "take away" message is clear to readers. In the conclusion and discussion section of the paper, we mainly introduced the research innovations, the research conclusions, the policy implications of the conclusions and the problems that need to be improved. From this part, readers can clearly obtain the research design, research conclusions, outstanding contributions and problems to be solved. Please refer to the section marked in red in the revised manuscript for details(Line 804-874,Page22-24).

The revised 5 sections are as follows:

This study calculated the ecological benefits and spatial spillover of cultivated land in the Yangtze River Economic Belt. It comprehensively considered the power of cultivated land protection and the financial rights of cultivated land development. The standards and quotas of ecological financial transfer of cultivated land in the basin were calculated. The main contributions of the paper are as follows: First, the paper provided ideas and methods for calculating the ecological benefits of cultivated land on a macro scale. Based on the trinity concept of comprehensive protection of quantity, quality, and ecology of cultivated land, we calculated the ecological benefits of cultivated land protection on a macro scale, which should help to unify the measurement standards of cultivated land ecological benefits and improve measurement accuracy on a macro scale. Second, the ecological compensation standard for cultivated land calculated in this paper not only improved the accuracy and efficiency of ecological compensation for cultivated land, but also considered regional equity. The ecological spatial spillover of cultivated land was the basis of ecological compensation for cultivated land. However, the power of cultivated land protection and the financial rights of cultivated land development also affected the ecological benefits and compensation effects of cultivated land. By weighing the power of cultivated land protection and the financial rights of cultivated land development, we designed the final standards and quotas of ecological compensation for cultivated land to make ecological compensation more accurate. The final ecological compensation standard for cultivated land improved the effect of economic incentives, while also considering the fairness problem caused by ecological compensation for cultivated land. Third, the paper innovated the mechanisms and systems of ecological economic compensation for cultivated land. Cultivated land ecological compensation has a significant spatial scale-dependent effect [26]. Considering the spatial scale characteristics and differences within and outside the watershed, we have constructed a vertical and horizontal ecological fiscal transfer policy for cultivated land in the watershed. The policy was feasible and targeted, and could provide a reference for the innovation of ecological compensation mechanisms for cultivated land.

Our research found that the ecological benefits of cultivated land in the Yangtze River Economic Belt have cross-basin spillover and inter-basin spillover, and the inter-provincial differences of the spatial spillover are obvious. The ecological benefits of cultivated land protection in the watershed are determined by the quantity, quality, and ecology of the cultivated land. The strength of cultivated land protection, the local economic financial rights, and the ecological compensation policies of cultivated land would also affect the ecological benefits of cultivated land protection. Ecological compensation for cultivated land must consider the matching scale of responsibilities and obligations, financial rights and powers of cultivated land protection in the watershed. Based on identifying the spillover boundary of the ecological benefits of cultivated land, the ecological compensation standards of cultivated land were designed, taking into account factors such as spillover, economic financial rights and powers of cultivated land protection. The ecological compensation standards could improve the effectiveness of ecological compensation for cultivated land and the feasibility of ecological financial transfers for cultivated land.

This article has significant policy implications. First, the pertinence and effectiveness of the ecological compensation policy for cultivated land in the watershed must be improved. At present, the ecological benefits of cultivated land in the watershed are heterogeneous. Moreover, the ecological compensation of cultivated land in the watershed involves many administrative units and the spillover boundary of ecological benefits of cultivated land is blurred. There is an urgent need to establish and implement a differentiated ecological compensation mechanism for cultivated land to improve the compensation efficiency. Second, the design basis of the ecological compensation standard for cultivated land should be the spillover amount of ecological benefits, not the ecological benefits of cultivated land. It is a prerequisite for achieving precise compensation to define the spillover boundary and amounts of the ecological benefits of cultivated land protection accurately, which can also avoid the deviation of compensation standards from practice. Third, the ecological financial transfer system of cultivated land should consider the local economic rights and the power of cultivated land protection. Diversified ecological financial transfer practices should be widely adopted. Only this way can economic incentive and restraint measures of cultivated land ecological compensation be effective while ensuring fairness.

This study still has some shortcomings and problems that should be addressed. The calculation of ecological benefits of cultivated land protection draws from the estimation methods of ecological service value and negative externalities at the international and national levels.Applying the methods to the Yangtze River Economic Belt is also faced with the differences in crop types, planting structures, farming systems and field management techniques. so it needs to be further revised Through the regional cultivated land use and management characteristics.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript.  These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We appreciate for you warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Best,
   Zhang, J.F, Ph.D.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a potentially interesting study but sometimes it lacks clarity from the reader perspective. There appear many concept such as “ecological benefit”, “ecological profit” etc. that are described in the methodology section but they could be also defined in a more intuitive way right from the beginning. The problem now is that for a couple of pages, the reader doesn’t know what exactly will be evaluated in this study. Your theoretical framework is quite complex, and the section 2. is very long (maybe too long from my perspective).  Please provide clearer intuition for your analyses.

- you should define ecological benefits in abstract since we do not know the exactly what it means after reading abstract only

- similarly, in in the introduction you should write more clearly how you will define ecological benefits. The statement in line 131-138 is very long and remains unclear

- l. 428 -449 this information can be moved to introduction as they serve as the explanation why this study should be done in this specific area

- l. 563 – you should write more about the panel model chosen for analysis -  please provide within R2 also if possible. In table 3 – we speak rather about coefficient of determination and not “determinable”

- in conclusion section you could provide some clear policy implications as well as lines for further research  

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “ Ecological Benefit Spillover and Ecological Financial Transfer of Cultivated Land Protection in River Basins：A Case Study of Yangtze River ’’( ID: sustainability-899519). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper(Annex 1:Revised Manuscript). The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’ s comments are as flowing:

Reviewer 2:

1. Your theoretical framework is quite complex, and the section 2. is very long. Please provide clearer intuition for your analyses.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. Considering the reviewer’s suggestions, we streamlined the theoretical framework of the paper to make the research purpose and design simpler and clearer. In section 2., we mainly discussed four aspects, including the theoretical basis, practical dilemma, technical basis and key issues of cultivated land ecological compensation. In order to provide a clearer intuition, first we added a general paragraph at the beginning of this section. Such as " This part analyzes and elaborates the theory and mechanism of ecological compensation for cultivated land protection from the theoretical basis, practical dilemma, technical basis and key issues of cultivated land ecological compensation. " At the same time, we streamlined the word count and content of this section, and adjusted the expression and language style of some paragraphs. Expressions such as “Theoretical Carding” have been changed to “Theoretical analysis”

Please refer to the section marked in red in the revised manuscript for details(Line 201-327,Page5-8).

2. You should define ecological benefits in abstract and introduction.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. According to the reviewer’s opinions, we defined the concept of cultivated land ecological benefits in the abstract and introduction of the manuscript, which were consistent with the method section. It is defined as follows:" The ecological benefit of cultivated land is the nonmarket value or ecological service value created by cultivated land protection."

Please refer to the section marked in red in the revised manuscript for details(Line 13-14,Page1;Line 55-56,Page2;).

3. The statement in line 131-138 is very long and remains unclear.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. According to the reviewer’s opinions, we have made major revisions to this part of the paper. On the one hand, this part is used as an independent paragraph to summarize the research ideas, basis, content and purpose of this paper. On the other hand, we listed the main work of the paper to highlight the research significance and academic contribution of the paper. The revised content is as follows:

“With the Yangtze River Economic Belt as the research area, this study discusses the government-led ecological compensation standards for cultivated land and ecological fiscal transfer quotas at the river basin scale. This article is arranged as follows. Based on the trinity concept of comprehensive protection that addresses quantity, quality, and ecology of cultivated land, we calculate the ecological benefits of cultivated land at the river basin scale to more accurately determine its ecological benefits. Based on the theory of ecological supply and demand balance, the article identifies the spillover boundary and spillover amount of ecological benefits of cultivated land and provides a technical basis for accurate ecological compensation of cultivated land. Considering the responsibilities of cultivated land ecological protection, local economic property rights and the ecological benefits spillover of cultivated land, we determine the government-led ecological compensation standards for cultivated land and ecological fiscal plans. It is expected to provide a scientific basis for the innovation of the ecological compensation mechanism for cultivated land on a macro scale.”

Please refer to the section marked in red in the revised manuscript for details(Line 183-197,Page5).

4. 428 -449 this information can be moved to introduction as they serve as the explanation why this study should be done in this specific area.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. According to the reviewer’s opinions, we moved the information mainly introducing the overview of the research area, to the introduction section and streamlined the information. The revised content is as follows:

“The Yangtze River Economic Belt ,is a large basin eco-economic system. It is not only an important production base for grain and agricultural products in China, but also an economic growth pole and a densely urban zone. Through the strategy of "Yangtze River Development", the Yangtze River Economic Belt has developed rapidly and has become an important economic and strategic region for China. However, by prioritizing development and city-oriented strategies, high-quality cultivated land has decreased sharply, the ecological environment has deteriorated, and the pressure on the protection of cultivated land resources has increased. In 2016, General Secretary Xi Jinping made it clear that the restoration of the ecological environment of the Yangtze River should be a key priority, focusing on large-scale protection rather than large-scale development. Under the "Yangtze River Protection" strategy, the balance between economic development and resource protection, especially the protection of high-quality cultivated land, is is essential to China’s economy as well as its food and ecological security. “

Please refer to the section marked in red in the revised manuscript for details(Line 169-182,Page4-5).

5. 563–you should write more about the panel model chosen for analysis - please provide within R2 also if possible. In table 3–we speak rather about coefficient of determination and not “determinable”

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. In response to the reviewer’s comments, we made the following revisions:

We provided more information on panel model test results for model effect selection, and model estimation effects.Such as “Likelihood Ratio is used to judge model effects. The test results show that the F value is 175.146 and P value is much less than 0.5. So the fixed effects model is appropriate. ”

In Table 3, we have supplemented the report of panel model estimation results and revised the expression of some variables. We provided within R-squared and changed “determinable” to  “Adjusted R-squared”.

Please refer to the section marked in red in the revised manuscript for details(Line 653-655,Page18).

6. In conclusion section you could provide some clear policy implications as well as lines for further research.

Response: As reviewer suggested that we added the policy implications as well as further research directions in conclusion section.The policy implications are as follows:

“This article has significant policy implications. First, the pertinence and effectiveness of the ecological compensation policy for cultivated land in the watershed must be improved. At present, the ecological benefits of cultivated land in the watershed are heterogeneous. Moreover, the ecological compensation of cultivated land in the watershed involves many administrative units and the spillover boundary of ecological benefits of cultivated land is blurred. There is an urgent need to establish and implement a differentiated ecological compensation mechanism for cultivated land to improve the compensation efficiency. Second, the design basis of the ecological compensation standard for cultivated land should be the spillover amount of ecological benefits, not the ecological benefits of cultivated land. It is a prerequisite for achieving precise compensation to define the spillover boundary and amounts of the ecological benefits of cultivated land protection accurately, which can also avoid the deviation of compensation standards from practice. Third, the ecological financial transfer system of cultivated land should consider the local economic rights and the power of cultivated land protection. Diversified ecological financial transfer practices should be widely adopted. Only this way can economic incentive and restraint measures of cultivated land ecological compensation be effective while ensuring fairness.”

The further research directions are as follows:

“This study still has some shortcomings and problems that should be addressed. The calculation of ecological benefits of cultivated land protection draws from the estimation methods of ecological service value and negative externalities at the international and national levels.Applying the methods to the Yangtze River Economic Belt is also faced with the differences in crop types, planting structures, farming systems and field management techniques. so it needs to be further revised Through the regional cultivated land use and management characteristics.“

Please refer to the section marked in red in the revised manuscript for details(Line 183-197,Page5).

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript.  These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We appreciate for you warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Best,
    Zhang, J.F, Ph.D.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript needs extensive revision to be publishable.

Language corrections are particularly necessary. expressions like 'theoretical carding' or 'trinity protection' are not comprehensible.

The literature review is quite modest. Ecological compensation is a theoretical and practical issue with a wide underlying literature spanning from ecology to planning and economics discipline. You have to demonstrate such linkages.

How to calculate (or estimate) spatial spillovers should be clarified.

Table 3. Determinable coefficient. What is this? the R2? It seems you have used an automatic translator... please clarify.

Conclusions and discussion is a very short paragraph. Too short for a so long article. You have to discuss more the implications of your study, and please provide two paragraphs one for discussion (longer) and one for conclusion (shorter).

Please answer a key question regarding why international readers should be interested in your approach. Sustainability is an international journal and you should clarify the contribution of your study to the international literature.

Thank you.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “ Ecological Benefit Spillover and Ecological Financial Transfer of Cultivated Land Protection in River Basins：A Case Study of Yangtze River ’’( ID: sustainability-899519). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’ s comments are as flowing:

Reviewer3:

1. Language corrections are particularly necessary. expressions like 'theoretical carding' or 'trinity protection' are not comprehensible.

Response: I am so sorry to bring you so much trouble because of language expression. To proofread the English language and style, we sought professional English editing services. On the one hand,we look for English language help from experts in the professional field to modify the expression of technical terms. For example, the expression of "theoretical combing" has been modified to 'theoretical analysis', and the expression of 'trinity protection' has been modified to 'trinity comprehensive protection of quantity, quality, and ecology of cultivated land'. On the other hand, we submitted the manuscript to a professional English editing agency for editing. At the same time, we also attached a proof of polishing, which was provided by a professional English editing service agency.

Please refer to the section marked in red in the revised manuscript for details(Line 14-15,Page1;Line 201,Page5;Line 302-303,Page7).

2. The literature review is quite modest. Ecological compensation is a theoretical and practical issue with a wide underlying literature spanning from ecology to planning and economics discipline. You have to demonstrate such linkages.

Response: I am so sorry to bring you so much trouble because of language expression.  Based on the reviewer’s suggestions, we revised and supplemented the literature review. The main revisions are as follows:

 (1)we have added research literature in related fields, such as "Payments for watershed ecosystem services: mechanism, progress and challenges", "A Framework of Payment for Ecosystem Services to Protect Cropland: A Case Study of the Yangtze River" Delta in China", "Application of ecosystem services in natural resource management decision making." etc. We reviewed the relevant literature as much as possible, which the methods for calculating the ecological benefits of cultivated land and the ecological compensation mechanism of cultivated land. Meanwhile, we also deleted some Chinese documents.

(2) the structure of the literature review has been adjusted. First of all, we reviewed the basis and methods for calculating the ecological benefits of cultivated land. Secondly, we compared the international experience and Chinese experience of ecological calculation and compensation for cultivated land protection. And then we proposed the research progress of cultivated land ecological compensation in China. Finally, based on the background of China's specific land system, we reviewed China's cultivated land ecological compensation mechanism and practical exploration, highlighting the practical significance of China's cultivated land ecological compensation research.

(3) We link the literature review with the key issues to be solved in the paper, in order to highlight the innovation and academic value of this paper. In the literature review, we further clearly pointed out the shortcomings of the ecological benefit calculation method and the ecological compensation government mechanism for cultivated land on the macro-scale. And then we proposed the main content of this paper and the key issues to be solved.

Please refer to the section marked in red in the revised manuscript for details(Line 55-197,Page2-5). 

3. How to calculate (or estimate) spatial spillovers should be clarified.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestions. In the first paragraph of section 3.2, we explained the calculation ideas for the ecological spatial spillover of cultivated land. Further, according to calculation ideas and methods, the calculation process of ecological spatial spillover of cultivated land is divided into three steps. The three steps are as follows:

First, the ecological footprint model and ecological carrying capacity model are used to identify the ecological profit and loss of cultivated land. ......

Secondly, the ecological profit or loss status and the ecological benefit spillover of cultivated land are identified, by comparing the balance between ecological supply and demand of cultivated land. ......

Finally, the ecological overload index of cultivated land is introduced to calculate the spillover amount of cultivated land ecological benefits.......

The revised details can be found in Line 399-456, page 11-13.

4. Table 3. Determinable coefficient. What is this? the R2? It seems you have used an automatic translator... please clarify.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s advice. You are correct. In Table 3, the expression of “Determinable coefficient” has been changed to “Adjusted R-squared”, and the result of R2 is directly reported in Table 3. At the same time, we provide information on the reasons for panel model selection and the results of the test and the effect of model estimation.Such as “Likelihood Ratio is used to judge model effects. The test results show that the F value is 175.146 and P value is much less than 0.5. So the fixed effects model is appropriate. ”

Please refer to the section marked in red in the revised manuscript for details(Line 653-655,Page18).

5. You have to discuss more the implications of your study, and please provide two paragraphs one for discussion (longer) and one for conclusion (shorter).

Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s kind advice. Just like what the reviewer said, conclusions and discussion was a very short paragraph.More information was not shown.we have made major revisions to the conclusion of the paper to provide readers with more information. We divide the 5 sections of the paper into three parts, which are the innovation and significance of research, research conclusions, policy enlightenment and directions for improvement.

The revised research innovation and significance can be found in Line790-819,page22-23.

This study calculated the ecological benefits and spatial spillover of cultivated land in the Yangtze River Economic Belt. It comprehensively considered the power of cultivated land protection and the financial rights of cultivated land development. The standards and quotas of ecological financial transfer of cultivated land in the basin were calculated. The main contributions of the paper are as follows: First, the paper provided ideas and methods for calculating the ecological benefits of cultivated land on a macro scale. Based on the trinity concept of comprehensive protection of quantity, quality, and ecology of cultivated land, we calculated the ecological benefits of cultivated land protection on a macro scale, which should help to unify the measurement standards of cultivated land ecological benefits and improve measurement accuracy on a macro scale. Second, the ecological compensation standard for cultivated land calculated in this paper not only improved the accuracy and efficiency of ecological compensation for cultivated land, but also considered regional equity. The ecological spatial spillover of cultivated land was the basis of ecological compensation for cultivated land. However, the power of cultivated land protection and the financial rights of cultivated land development also affected the ecological benefits and compensation effects of cultivated land. By weighing the power of cultivated land protection and the financial rights of cultivated land development, we designed the final standards and quotas of ecological compensation for cultivated land to make ecological compensation more accurate. The final ecological compensation standard for cultivated land improved the effect of economic incentives, while also considering the fairness problem caused by ecological compensation for cultivated land. Third, the paper innovated the mechanisms and systems of ecological economic compensation for cultivated land. Cultivated land ecological compensation has a significant spatial scale-dependent effect [26]. Considering the spatial scale characteristics and differences within and outside the watershed, we have constructed a vertical and horizontal ecological fiscal transfer policy for cultivated land in the watershed. The policy was feasible and targeted, and could provide a reference for the innovation of ecological compensation mechanisms for cultivated land.

The revised research conclusions can be found in Line820-835,page23.

Our research found that the ecological benefits of cultivated land in the Yangtze River Economic Belt have cross-basin spillover and inter-basin spillover, and the inter-provincial differences of the spatial spillover are obvious. The ecological benefits of cultivated land protection in the watershed are determined by the quantity, quality, and ecology of the cultivated land. The strength of cultivated land protection, the local economic financial rights, and the ecological compensation policies of cultivated land would also affect the ecological benefits of cultivated land protection. Ecological compensation for cultivated land must consider the matching scale of responsibilities and obligations, financial rights and powers of cultivated land protection in the watershed. Based on identifying the spillover boundary of the ecological benefits of cultivated land, the ecological compensation standards of cultivated land were designed, taking into account factors such as spillover, economic financial rights and powers of cultivated land protection. The ecological compensation standards could improve the effectiveness of ecological compensation for cultivated land and the feasibility of ecological financial transfers for cultivated land.

The policy implications and directions for improvement can be found in Line836-860,page23-24.

This article has significant policy implications. First, the pertinence and effectiveness of the ecological compensation policy for cultivated land in the watershed must be improved. At present, the ecological benefits of cultivated land in the watershed are heterogeneous. Moreover, the ecological compensation of cultivated land in the watershed involves many administrative units and the spillover boundary of ecological benefits of cultivated land is blurred. There is an urgent need to establish and implement a differentiated ecological compensation mechanism for cultivated land to improve the compensation efficiency. Second, the design basis of the ecological compensation standard for cultivated land should be the spillover amount of ecological benefits, not the ecological benefits of cultivated land. It is a prerequisite for achieving precise compensation to define the spillover boundary and amounts of the ecological benefits of cultivated land protection accurately, which can also avoid the deviation of compensation standards from practice. Third, the ecological financial transfer system of cultivated land should consider the local economic rights and the power of cultivated land protection. Diversified ecological financial transfer practices should be widely adopted. Only this way can economic incentive and restraint measures of cultivated land ecological compensation be effective while ensuring fairness.

This study still has some shortcomings and problems that should be addressed. The calculation of ecological benefits of cultivated land protection draws from the estimation methods of ecological service value and negative externalities at the international and national levels.Applying the methods to the Yangtze River Economic Belt is also faced with the differences in crop types, planting structures, farming systems and field management techniques. so it needs to be further revised Through the regional cultivated land use and management characteristics.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript.  These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We appreciate for you warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Best,
    Zhang, J.F, Ph.D.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Good revisions overall, thank you