Study on Changes in Comprehensive Land Prices for Expropriation Zones Based on Land Use Changes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments for the manuscript are as follows:

 

1. Line 18: The manuscript needs to be supplemented with the country where the study area is located.

 

2. Line 21: The manuscript contains a large number of vague expressions such as "it", "this", "there be", "the two," etc., which hinder readers' understanding of the manuscript.

 

3. Line 37: The introduction section of the manuscript needs to be supplemented with the research objectives and ideas.

 

4. Line 43: With the slowdown of China's economic development in the post-pandemic era, the demand for construction land, especially real estate land, has significantly decreased. Therefore, some descriptions in this paragraph do not match the actual situation in China.

 

5. Line 65: This paragraph overly emphasizes the land expropriation system in China and ignores the detailed comparison with other countries' systems.

 

6. Line 124-132: This part is the main research review content of the paper, and its length is too short and its content lacks depth.

 

7. Line 142: This part is an original theoretical analysis of the manuscript and should not be placed in the research review part of the introduction.

 

8. Line 180: Please explain the rationality of the zone price in 2024 being treated as in 2021.

 

9. Line 184: Please provide a map of the location relationship between the study area and China.

 

10. Line 195-196: Please explain how the POI data and road vector data before 2014 are obtained in the manuscript.

 

11. Line 297-304: This section is repetitive with the previous content, which is a low-level error.

 

12. Line 336: Please provide the corresponding frequency histogram.

 

13. Line 344: Please explain why Zone I and Zone II in 2009 are the largest of all years and whether this contradicts the description of Line 441 in the manuscript.

 

14. Line 383: The land use degree of Region I in 2021 is lower than that of 2018, which contradicts the description in Line 366 in the manuscript.

 

15. Line 385: A scatter plot of original data between land use degree and zone price is necessary for the manuscript to represent the relationship between the two better. The data from standardization and coupling analysis may blur the true relationship between land use degree and zone price.

 

16. Line 426: Changes in land classification standards should be addressed through corresponding methods to correct their impact. The method of directly modifying the transition area matrix is not scientific and cannot solve the land spatial distribution problem caused by changes in land classification standards. Moreover, the modification here is arbitrary, and further analysis of the transition area matrix is necessary.

 

17. Line 430: Since the national spatial planning has been released, the construction land quota and urban expansion boundaries should be used as constraints.

 

18. Line 446-449: Please provide and analyze specific data on the conversion between Zones.

 

19. Line 452-468: Some data in this section needs further explanation, such as "60% or more of the village area", "between 400 and 1111.08", etc. The main influencing factors of the zone delineate delineation in Lines 85-88 of the manuscript need to be primarily considered.

 

20. Line 168: Please verify if the value expressions of subfigures (e) and (f) are correct. Additionally, please provide the names and explanations of the subfigures.

 

21. Line 484: Firstly, the coupling coordination degree and relative development degree are calculated based on the zone price but are used in turn to forecast the zone price, which is a serious logical error. Secondly, the sample size used for analysis is too small to support regression analysis, especially multiple regression analysis. The main influencing factors of the zone price described in Lines 88-92 of the manuscript need to be primarily considered.

 

22. Line 514: The scatter plot lacks x and y axis labels.

 

23. Line 559-565: Please verify the annual net income per hectare of arable and forest land. The data is significantly overestimated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript contains a large number of vague expressions such as "it", "this", "there be", "the two," etc., which hinder readers' understanding of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on writing this paper. Although the topic is interesting, it needs some revisions before it can be published. 
General comments: The paper needs to be thoroughly proofread. It is suggested to get help from a professional. Some sentences are misleading and some information seems to be inconsistent.

Specific comments:
1. Line 14: “The rapid development of urbanization” – this is a misleading sentence, as in urban planning ‘development’ and ‘urbanization’ are used synonymously. It is suggested to change to “The rapid urbanization….”.

2. Line 19: What are the “other methods”? Kindly do not use ambiguous statements, especially in the abstract.

3. Lines 120 – 122: Are the authors suggesting this? Reference needed, if not!

4. Please consider renaming section 2 as “Methods” under which (a) study area (b) data collection and (c) data processing sub-topics can be included.

5. Line 217: Need not mention what command you are using in ArcGIS. Also, did you mean ArcMap, instead of ArcGIS?

6. Lines 322 – 326: Can this go in the study area section?

7. Lines 157 – 172: Is this appropriately placed? Can this be the last paragraph of the Introduction section? Is it a necessary information? Kindly check and clarify.

8. Lines 327 – 335: Kindly reconsider the tone of this. Is this your finding or already established from the literature review? Kindly clarify.

9. The authors have used the term ‘land use degree’ in some places and ‘land use intensity’ in other places. This is an important term for this study. Kindly be consistent.

10. Lines 424 – 425: This was not mentioned before. Do we have any records of the interaction with experts? If not, kindly consider excluding this sentence.

11. The fonts of the Roman numbers in “zone I, II, III” are different. Please be consistent. Check lines 470 to 481.

12. Sub title 5.1. Kindly consider changing it to “Analysis of the….”.

13. Sub title 5.2. Kindly consider changing it to “Validation of ….”.

14. The discussion section is completely missing. It is suggested to combine the discussion section either with the analysis section or the conclusion. Compare your study results with the results of similar studies. That would add value of the article and make it more impactful.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read your valuable study analysing the spatio-temporal relationship between land use and overall land prices for the expropriation zones between 2009 and 2021 for Cangzhou city. The research also takes into account social inequalities and sustainable development goals, which contributes to the multidisciplinary validity of the study and is particularly noteworthy.

The study employs several complex models (e.g. CA-Markov, hedonic price model) that allow for dynamic forecasting of land use changes and expropriation zone prices, but does not explain in detail the data sources and methodological choices why these particular methods were used in the research.

The paper also analyses a wide range of international literature on the subject, which helps to place the research in an international context and provides an opportunity for comparison with land use policies in other countries. However, it is recommended that the literature be expanded to provide a more thorough grounding of methodological choices, for example by demonstrating the application of hedonic models to land price analysis in other areas.

However, the research lacks hypotheses and research questions that would help to develop a more focused orientation of the study and allow a more targeted interpretation of the results, and their completion is strongly recommended.

Although the study mentions limitations related to data accuracy and other limitations, these are not sufficiently elaborated. A more detailed description of the limitations of the research would help to objectively assess the results and to recognise the limits of their application.

Furthermore, at the end of the analysis, it would be worthwhile to suggest directions that would allow the research results to be extended to other areas

In the case of figures, it is recommended that the figure appears after the reference in the text, for example, in the case of Figure 1, Table 1 is mentioned first, followed by the figure, and the reference to Figure 2 is missing from the text, as in the case of Table 3. In the case of Figures 6-14, the structure of the material needs to be improved so that the references and figures fit logically and continuously into the content of the text. This more structured arrangement would help to present the information content of the figures more clearly and facilitate consistent interpretation by readers.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Re: Manuscript ID: sustainability-3101739 and Tile: Study on the comprehensive land prices for land expropriation zones changes based on land use changes

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate all your comments and suggestions! These comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as important for guiding our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have incorporated the recommended changes into the manuscript, which we hope will meet with your approval. The main corrections in the paper and our responses to your comments are as follows:

 

Review:

Thank you for the opportunity to read your valuable study analysing the spatio-temporal relationship between land use and overall land prices for the expropriation zones between 2009 and 2021 for Cangzhou city. The research also takes into account social inequalities and sustainable development goals, which contributes to the multidisciplinary validity of the study and is particularly noteworthy.

 

The study employs several complex models (e.g. CA-Markov, hedonic price model) that allow for dynamic forecasting of land use changes and expropriation zone prices, but does not explain in detail the data sources and methodological choices why these particular methods were used in the research.

 

 

The paper also analyses a wide range of international literature on the subject, which helps to place the research in an international context and provides an opportunity for comparison with land use policies in other countries. However, it is recommended that the literature be expanded to provide a more thorough grounding of methodological choices, for example by demonstrating the application of hedonic models to land price analysis in other areas.

 

 

However, the research lacks hypotheses and research questions that would help to develop a more focused orientation of the study and allow a more targeted interpretation of the results, and their completion is strongly recommended.

 

 

Although the study mentions limitations related to data accuracy and other limitations, these are not sufficiently elaborated. A more detailed description of the limitations of the research would help to objectively assess the results and to recognise the limits of their application.

Furthermore, at the end of the analysis, it would be worthwhile to suggest directions that would allow the research results to be extended to other areas

 

In the case of figures, it is recommended that the figure appears after the reference in the text, for example, in the case of Figure 1, Table 1 is mentioned first, followed by the figure, and the reference to Figure 2 is missing from the text, as in the case of Table 3. In the case of Figures 6-14, the structure of the material needs to be improved so that the references and figures fit logically and continuously into the content of the text. This more structured arrangement would help to present the information content of the figures more clearly and facilitate consistent interpretation by readers.

 

Point:

(1) Response Regarding the Lack of Detailed Explanation of Data Sources

Thank you for the reviewer's attention to this issue. We have added detailed data sources:The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data were obtained from the Resource and Environment Science and Data Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (https://www.resdc.cn/), with a resolution of 1km. This dataset provides detailed spatial distribution information on GDP. Due to limited data availability, the GDP data from 2010 as a proxy for 2009, while the GDP data for 2018 and 2021 were estimated using interpolation. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) data were also sourced from the Resource and Environment Science and Data Center (https://www.resdc.cn/), with a resolution of 250m. These data effectively reflect the spatial and temporal distribution of vegetation cover and changes. Population density data were downloaded from the WorldPop website (https://hub.worldpop.org/), with a resolution of 1km. These data are generated using remote sensing imagery and statistical models, providing detailed global population distribution information. Notably, the population density data for 2021 is derived through interpolation. Nighttime light index data were derived from the EANTLI-Like nighttime light dataset developed by Zhong et al. , with a resolution of 1km. This dataset offers strong temporal continuity and high correlation with socioeconomic data, offering support for urban development research. The nighttime light data for 2021 is also obtained through interpolation. Road vector data and hydrographic data were extracted from land use change survey data provided by the Cangzhou Natural Resources and Planning Bureau. These datasets are characterized by high precision. Through collection and processing, the use years of the above indicator data are 2009, 2012, 2015, 2018 and 2021. Data on urban development boundaries were sourced from the Cangzhou Natural Resources and Planning Bureau. Due to differences in the data sources, preprocessing was required to meet the requirements of subsequent data processing. This involves standardizing all indicator data and land use data to a uniform resolution of 30 meters, a coordinate system of CGCS2000_3_Degree_GK_Zone_39, and a grid layout of 570 rows by 738 columns. For more details, please refer to lines 249 to 281 of the manuscript.

 

(2) Reply on the theoretical basis and rationality of the method selection

Thank you for your careful review of our manuscript. The CA Markov model is a widely used composite model in land use change simulation. It combines the simulation ability of cellular automata (CA) for spatial changes with the predictive advantage of Markov chain for temporal evolution, and can effectively capture the spatiotemporal dynamic changes of land use. This model is particularly suitable for regions with spatial heterogeneity and complex dynamic changes, and therefore was used in this study to simulate the future trends of land use data. In addition, the CA Markov model can use multi criteria evaluation methods and multi-objective decision support systems to flexibly set partition conversion rules and dynamically adjust rules to adapt to different regional characteristics and planning objectives. The features of this model make it possible to accurately predict the zone distribution.

We use a multiple linear regression model to predict regional prices. Previous studies have shown that this model has the characteristics of simplicity, efficiency, and ease of explanation, and can effectively reveal the quantitative relationship between land acquisition prices and influencing factors. For more details, please refer to lines 159 to 180 of the manuscript.

 

(3) Responses to the lack of research questions

Thank you for your valuable comments and your feedback helped us further improve the structure and logic of the research. Through the analysis of the research background and current research status, this study raises two scientific questions: (1) How can the impact of land use change on the distribution of land expropriation zones be quantified? (2) Can zone prices based on land use changes help narrow the gap between compensation standards and land market value? To this end, this study takes Cangzhou urban area, Hebei Province, China, as a case study and employs the CA-Markov model and multiple linear regression model for analysis. Specifically, the research objectives of this paper include: (1) revealing the coupling relationship between zone land price and land use changes as the starting point of the study; (2) simulating future land-use data as the foundation of the study; and (3) predicting the distribution and prices of zone as the core of the study. For more details, please refer to lines 192 to 201 of the manuscript.

 

(4) Reply to the inadequate elaboration of the research limitations and application directions

Thank you for pointing out the issues with the manuscript. We have further refined this section: (1) Given that the challenge in obtaining high-precision data, which resulted in some factors driving land use having resolutions of less than 30 m. This required the use of ArcGIS to uniformly set the pixel size to 30 m. However, this approach incurred some degree of accuracy loss resulting from the forced resolution enhancement. For example, GDP, NDVI, population density, and nighttime light index. At the same time, data for some missing years are obtained through interpolation, which somewhat reduces the rigor and scientific of this study. (2) The selection of factors driving land use in this paper was limited to the relationship between land use and the expropriation zone, neglecting the impacts of other factors such as social stability risk factors, policy measure, and price levels, which can also cause variations in the distribution and price of zones. Subsequent research could encompass a more comprehensive range of driving factors and explore the multi-dimensional mechanisms influencing zone prices based on land use changes. (3) Due to the particularity of the study area, the application scope of the results of this study is limited. It is only applicable to cities with high levels of development in the central urban area and exhibiting a typical pattern of expansion from the center to the surrounding areas. (4) The prediction results of this paper are the results of scientific research, and have not been improved from the management level. This requires the government to consider the local actual situation and social stability risk factors while referring to the predicted results, and make further adjustments to the boundaries and prices of the zones. For more details, please refer to lines 728 to 747 of the manuscript.

 

(5) Reply about the content structure and chart layout to be optimized

Thank you for pointing out the issues with the manuscript. We have optimized the content structure to move the relevant contents of the land use simulation to the first part of the core chapter. And some of the charts were reformat.

 

We sincerely appreciate your meticulous review and valuable suggestions and await your response.

 

Best regards,

Xu Dong

 

Corresponding Author: Dr. Meichen Fu, Prof.,
School of Land Science and Technology
China University of Geosciences (Beijing)
29, Xueyuan Road, Haidian District
Beijing, China 100083
Tel: +86-139 1157 0760

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the manuscript has no substantial improvement. My further comments for the manuscript are as follows:

 

1. Line 15: The article still contains a lot of vague expressions such as 'it ',' this', 'there be', etc. There are even similar issues in the abstract section.

 

2. Line 207: I disagree with using the zone prices in 2024 directly as the zone prices in 2021. Why not use the data interpolation method to predict the zone prices in 2021?

 

3. Line 322: This table mentions "Density of Urban Point-OF-Interest Facilities". Why did the author reply that POI data was not utilized?

 

4. Line 215, 222, and 448: The author assumes “zones generally do not undergo cross-level adjustments or downgrades”. However, Zones I and II have been downgraded since 2009. Therefore, the author's assumption is a false assumption that is not in line with reality, and the research foundation of the paper has been challenged.

 

5. Line 421: Please understand the difference between the scatter plot and the line chart. The scatter plot is used to represent the correlation between the land use degree and zone prices, while the line chart may not be effective.

 

6. Line 464: I don't understand why the author used simulated land data instead of real one. I think since the author believes that the problem is caused by changes in land use classification standards, why not convert the land use standards from the second land survey in 2015 to the third land survey standards in 2021? Next, calculate the land transition matrix based on the unified land use classification standards. This is the most common practice used by most people.

 

7. Line 498: The author did not explain the reasons for some modifications in the manuscript, such as why "between 400 and 1111.08" was changed to "between 400 and 1100". In addition, many modifications in the manuscript were not marked and explained by the author.

 

8. Line 525: My understanding is that red on the map represents high transition probabilities, blue represents low transition probabilities, and all maps should have a value range between 0 and 1. However, the legends and value ranges of different maps are different, and there is a lack of numerical units. I don't think this is a mistake that a qualified researcher would make.

 

9. Line 531: I don't know whether the author didn't understand what I meant or whether the author couldn't explain the question I raised. What I mean is that the author's logic of using the coupling coordination degree and relative development degree to predict zone prices is incorrect, because the coupling coordination degree and relative development degree are themselves calculated using zone prices. (CCD and RDD calculated using land use degrees and zone prices → zone prices ×)

The author corrected the error in using multiple regression models and instead used two univariate regression models to predict zone prices. I have not seen such a confusing practice, and I even believe that this approach is absurd and lacks scientific spirit. Furthermore, the author's application and interpretation of the predicted results of the two univariate regression models are even more confusing.

 

10. Line 606: This is a ridiculous error caused by the author's mistake in the data unit. Please verify the unit of 222.48 again. Similar issues exist elsewhere in the manuscript. Furthermore, this low-level error indicates the author's lack of experimentation with zone prices because anyone with some common sense would know that it is incredible that one hectare of arable land can get a net income of 13.02 million yuan per year.

 

The above comments are all based on the author's response to my previous comments. I think many of the author's responses are unreasonable, indicating the logical confusion in the author's manuscript writing. Furthermore, the numerous low-level errors in the paper indicate that the author lacks basic abilities in paper writing and scientific research. Therefore, the papers are far from the standard of publishing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article still contains a lot of vague expressions such as 'it ',' this', 'there be', etc. There are even similar issues in the abstract section.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Re: Manuscript ID: sustainability-3101739 and Tile: Study on the comprehensive land prices for land expropriation zones changes based on land use changes

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate all your comments and suggestions! These comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as important for guiding our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have incorporated the recommended changes into the manuscript, which we hope will meet with your approval. The main corrections in the paper and our responses to your comments are as follows:

 

Point 1. Line 15: The article still contains a lot of vague expressions such as 'it ',' this', 'there be', etc. There are even similar issues in the abstract section.

Response 1. Thank you for your suggestion. I sincerely apologize that my English proficiency did not meet the journal's standards. We have re-examined the entire manuscript and clarified the vague expressions.

 

Point 2 Line 207: I disagree with using the zone prices in 2024 directly as the zone prices in 2021. Why not use the data interpolation method to predict the zone prices in 2021?

Response 2. Thank you for your suggestion. However, the zone price is guided by policy, while also taking into account market value, social stability, and the long-term livelihood of the expropriated farmers in setting the land expropriation compensation standards. The interpolation method relies more on market data and statistical analysis rather than policy orientation. Using the interpolation method for prediction may not conform to the principles of establishing zone prices.

 

Point 3. Line 322: This table mentions "Density of Urban Point-OF-Interest Facilities". Why did the author reply that POI data was not utilized?

Response 3. Thank you for your careful review of our manuscript. We apologize for the oversight; the "Density of Urban Point-Of-Interest Facilities" in the table has not been removed. It has now been deleted. For more details, please refer to line 315 of the manuscript.

 

Point 4. Line 215, 222, and 448: The author assumes “zones generally do not undergo cross-level adjustments or downgrades”. However, Zones I and II have been downgraded since 2009. Therefore, the author's assumption is a false assumption that is not in line with reality, and the research foundation of the paper has been challenged.

Response 4. Thank you for your suggestion. The "Notice from the Hebei Provincial Department of Natural Resources on Carrying Out the Adjustment of Comprehensive Land Prices for Expropriation Zones in the Province" (hereinafter referred to as the "Notice") explicitly stipulates that "the land expropriation zone price shall not be lower than the current land expropriation compensation standard." Taking the Cangzhou urban area as an example, the price difference between the first and second zone is 450,000 CNY/hectare, and the price difference between the second and third zone is 360,000 CNY /hectare. According to the actual development situation, it is unlikely that the price of Zone Ⅲ will rise by 360,000 CNY /hectare in 2027, nor will the price of Zone Ⅱ rise by 450,000 CNY /hectare. If Zone Ⅰ is adjusted to Zone Ⅱ, or Zone Ⅲ is adjusted to Zone Ⅱ, it would result in a decrease in zone prices, which would be inconsistent with the work requirements in the "Notice." Therefore, the zones will not be downgraded in adjustment.

If the zone is adjusted across levels, such as directly from Zone Ⅲ to Zone Ⅰ, the increase in zone prices would be too significant, causing serious dissatisfaction among the villagers in the surrounding areas, which would be detrimental to social stability. Therefore, zones will not be adjusted across levels. For more details, please refer to lines 467 to 471 of the manuscript.

 

Point 5. Line 421: Please understand the difference between the scatter plot and the line chart. The scatter plot is used to represent the correlation between the land use degree and zone prices, while the line chart may not be effective.

Response 5. Thank you for pointing out the issues with the manuscript. A scatter plot illustrating the relationship between the degree of land use and zone prices has been provided. For more details, please refer to line 415 of the manuscript.

 

Point 6. Line 464: I don't understand why the author used simulated land data instead of real one. I think since the author believes that the problem is caused by changes in land use classification standards, why not convert the land use standards from the second land survey in 2015 to the third land survey standards in 2021? Next, calculate the land transition matrix based on the unified land use classification standards. This is the most common practice used by most people.

Response 6. We have unified the criteria for identifying land use types in different years. According to China's "The supplementary notice on the adjustment of the content and requirements related to the third national land survey," forest land that is readily restorable and can be restored to farmland through engineering measures is recognized as farmland. For more details, please refer to lines 226 to 230 of the manuscript.

 

Point 7. Line 498: The author did not explain the reasons for some modifications in the manuscript, such as why "between 400 and 1111.08" was changed to "between 400 and 1100". In addition, many modifications in the manuscript were not marked and explained by the author.

Response 7. Thank you for your careful review. Regarding the change from "between 400 and 1111.08" to "between 400 and 1100," it is mentioned in this manuscript that the adjustment was made based on the analysis in section 3.1.1. For more details, please refer to line 486 of the manuscript.

 

Point 8. Line 525: My understanding is that red on the map represents high transition probabilities, blue represents low transition probabilities, and all maps should have a value range between 0 and 1. However, the legends and value ranges of different maps are different, and there is a lack of numerical units. I don't think this is a mistake that a qualified researcher would make.

Response 8. Thank you for your suggestion. To more intuitively convey the differences in the numerical values of the conversion rules across various regions, Figure 13 is the conversion rule map for Zone Ⅲ, not a transition probability map; red represents high values, and blue represents low values. We have added numerical units in the caption of the figure.

 

Point 9. Line 531: I don't know whether the author didn't understand what I meant or whether the author couldn't explain the question I raised. What I mean is that the author's logic of using the coupling coordination degree and relative development degree to predict zone prices is incorrect, because the coupling coordination degree and relative development degree are themselves calculated using zone prices. (CCD and RDD calculated using land use degrees and zone prices → zone prices ×)

The author corrected the error in using multiple regression models and instead used two univariate regression models to predict zone prices. I have not seen such a confusing practice, and I even believe that this approach is absurd and lacks scientific spirit. Furthermore, the author's application and interpretation of the predicted results of the two univariate regression models are even more confusing.

Response 9. We utilized the hedonic pricing model to construct a linear functional equation between zone prices and their influencing factors, and then calculated the zone prices by forecasting the indicator values for 2027. For more details, please refer to section 3.4 of the manuscript.

 

Point 10. Line 606: This is a ridiculous error caused by the author's mistake in the data unit. Please verify the unit of 222.48 again. Similar issues exist elsewhere in the manuscript. Furthermore, this low-level error indicates the author's lack of experimentation with zone prices because anyone with some common sense would know that it is incredible that one hectare of arable land can get a net income of 13.02 million yuan per year.

Response 10. Your feedback has been incredibly helpful, and I’m deeply thankful for it. The unit for 222.48 is ten thousand CNY per hectare. The unit for 13.02 as "million CNY per hectare" in the manuscript was a translation error. We have corrected the unit to "ten thousand CNY per hectare." For more details, please refer to lines 588 to 590 of the manuscript.

 

We sincerely appreciate your meticulous review and valuable suggestions and await your response.

 

Best regards,

Xu Dong

 

Corresponding Author: Dr. Meichen Fu, Prof.,

School of Land Science and Technology

China University of Geosciences (Beijing)

29, Xueyuan Road, Haidian District

Beijing, China 100083

Tel: +86-139 1157 0760

E-Mail: fumeichen@cugb.edu.cn

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you revising the paper as suggested. While many comments are addressed satisfactorily, some comments still needs to be addressed.  

Specific comments:
1. The authors have used “land use pattern” and “land use” synonymously. It is suggested to remain consistent and use anyone.

2. Line 24: What do you mean by “the changes in land use pattern reflected land use”? Please rephrase this sentence to make better sense.

3. Line 29: “Land utilization”? Do you mean “land use”? If so, kindly be consistent in using the keywords.

4. Line 32: Mention the full form of CNY at least once somewhere.

5. Line 33: Rephrase the sentence to “support decision-making” to make better sense.

6. Line 46 – 50: What is the context? This question was asked before also. Are you talking about China as mentioned in Line 55? The whole paragraph is confusing to read.

7. Lines 140 – 142: The sentence ruins the flow and hence, doesn’t fit there. Makes it a confusing read. What is the aim of writing this paragraph?

8. Line 144 – 160: Seems unnecessary.

9. Lines 161 – 162: Reference? If the authors are claiming it, justify it, please!

10. Lines 200 – 211: This goes in the literature review.

11. Line 262: No need to mention the version of ArcMap again.

12. Lines 299 – 308: Seems unnecessary. It goes in the literature review as well.

13. Lines 362, 366, 369, 370, 373: “center of gravity”? Is this the correct term? Do you mean the “concentration”? Please use the correct term. Change it to “concentration”.

14. Figure 7: The titles of x and y axis should all start with capital letters. Be consistent.

15. Line 466: Reads poorly! Rephrase the sentence to make it more impactful.

16. Can you also show the zone boundaries in Figures 3, 6, 12, 13 for better readability?

17. Line 720: “Mutual feedback”? Is this the correct term? Please check.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Re: Manuscript ID: sustainability-3101739 and Tile: Study on the comprehensive land prices for land expropriation zones changes based on land use changes

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate all your comments and suggestions! These comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as important for guiding our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have incorporated the recommended changes into the manuscript, which we hope will meet with your approval. The main corrections in the paper and our responses to your comments are as follows:

 

1. The authors have used “land use pattern” and “land use” synonymously. It is suggested to remain consistent and use anyone.

Response 1. Thanks to your suggestion, we have changed "land use pattern" in the manuscript to "land use".

 

2. Line 24: What do you mean by “the changes in land use pattern reflected land use”? Please rephrase this sentence to make better sense.

Response 2. Thank you for your valuable advice. This sentence has been rephrase to make better sense. For more details, please refer to line 24 of the manuscript.

 

3. Line 29: “Land utilization”? Do you mean “land use”? If so, kindly be consistent in using the keywords.

Response 3. Thank you for your reminder, we have revised the term "Land utilization" in the manuscript to "land use".

 

4. Line 32: Mention the full form of CNY at least once somewhere.

Response 4. Thank you for raising this issue with our manuscript. The full form is mentioned where the CNY first appeared.

 

5. Line 33: Rephrase the sentence to “support decision-making” to make better sense.

Response 5. Thank you for your valuable advice. The sentence has been rewritten. For more details, please refer to line 35 of the manuscript.

 

6. Line 46 – 50: What is the context? This question was asked before also. Are you talking about China as mentioned in Line 55? The whole paragraph is confusing to read.

Response 6. Thank you for highlighting the confusion in the paragraph. In the first round of revisions, another reviewer noted that "With the slowdown of China's economic development in the post-pandemic era, the demand for construction land, especially real estate land, has significantly decreased." The original statement does not align with the actual situation in China. Therefore, we have added this Statement. We have revised the paragraph to provide a clearer context. For more details, please refer to lines 45 to 50 of the manuscript.

 

7. Lines 140 – 142: The sentence ruins the flow and hence, doesn’t fit there. Makes it a confusing read. What is the aim of writing this paragraph?

Response 7. We greatly appreciate the professional guidance you have offered. We have reorganized this section of the content. The logic between these three paragraphs is as follows: discussing the mutual feedback mechanism between land use and zone land price, selecting land use driving factors that are tailored to local conditions, and adjustment of zone land price in Cangzhou urban area. For more details, please refer to lines 146 to 154 of the manuscript.

 

8. Line 144 – 160: Seems unnecessary.

Response 8. Thank you for sharing your valuable insights. We have removed the relevant content of land use driven research in a broad sense and retained the relevant content of narrow research. This is mainly because the Cangzhou urban area is relatively small, and the differences in natural factors are not significant. Therefore, more social and economic factors are selected. Considering the confusion that readers may have during reading, this section explains at what scale natural factors and socio-economic factors are selected. For more details, please refer to lines 146 to 154 of the manuscript.

 

9. Lines 161 – 162: Reference? If the authors are claiming it, justify it, please!

Response 9. Thank you for your constructive criticism. We have provided evidence for this statement: Extensive scholarly exploration has been dedicated to the realms of land expropriation and compensation standards, encompassing a variety of aspects. This includes an examination of the types, causes, and spatial and temporal distribution of land expropriation conflicts [1-3], as well as the effects of land expropriation on the livelihoods of farmers [4,5]. Additionally, research have identified the factors that influence the zone land price [6], traced the spatiotemporal development of zone land price [7], and explored the methodologies for calculating zone price [8], forming a rich theoretical and practical foundation. Nevertheless, current international research exhibits a scarcity of studies focusing on zone land price through the lens of land use changes. For more details, please refer to lines 155 to 162 of the manuscript.

 

10. Lines 200 – 211: This goes in the literature review.

Response 10. Thank you for pointing out the issues with our manuscript. We have relocated the description of the national background to the introduction, while retaining the background description specific to the Cangzhou urban area. For more details, please refer to lines 200 to 217 of the manuscript.

 

11. Line 262: No need to mention the version of ArcMap again.

Response 11. Thank you for your careful review. We have retained the version only at the first mention and removed it from all other instances.

 

12. Lines 299 – 308: Seems unnecessary. It goes in the literature review as well.

Response 12. Thanks for your careful review. We have retained the content related to "Table 2. Index system for driving factors of land use," with all other content being removed. For more details, please refer to lines 298 to 303 of the manuscript.

 

 

13. Lines 362, 366, 369, 370, 373: “center of gravity”? Is this the correct term? Do you mean the “concentration”? Please use the correct term. Change it to “concentration”.

Response 13. Thank you for your insights. This passage primarily analyzes the migration patterns of the center of gravity for construction land. Referring to the literature on the subject [9,10], "center of gravity" is the appropriate term.

 

14. Figure 7: The titles of x and y axis should all start with capital letters. Be consistent.

Response 14. Thank you for your insights. The titles of x and y axis have been modified to start with capital letters. For more details, please refer to line 377 of the manuscript.

 

 

15. Line 466: Reads poorly! Rephrase the sentence to make it more impactful.

Response 15. Thank you for your insights. We deleted that part of the content.

 

16. Can you also show the zone boundaries in Figures 3, 6, 12, 13 for better readability?

Response 16. We greatly appreciate the professional guidance you have offered. Figure 3 has added zone boundaries and administrative boundaries. Figure 6 has added zone boundaries. Figure 12 shows the land use simulation results, and it is not quite appropriate to add predicted zone boundaries at this location, so only administrative boundaries have been added. Figure 13 mainly focuses on setting conversion rules for Zone Ⅲ, so only the boundary of Zone Ⅲ is displayed.

 

17. Line 720: “Mutual feedback”? Is this the correct term? Please check.

Response 17. Thank you for your advice. We have referred to the literature regarding the concept of "Mutual feedback."[11]

 

1. Lin, Q.; Tan, S.; Zhang, L.; Wang, S.; Wei, C.; Li, Y. Conflicts of land expropriation in China during 2006-2016: An overview and its spatio-temporal characteristics. Land Use Policy 2018, 76, 246-251, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.018.
2. Qian, Z. Land acquisition compensation in post-reform China: Evolution, structure and challenges in Hangzhou. Land Use Policy 2015, 46, 250-257, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.013.
3. Huang, C.; Sun, N. The economic analysis of corruption in the field of land expropriation. Journal of Management World 2013, 12, 174-175, doi:https://doi.org/10.19744/j.cnki.11-1235/f.2013.12.017.
4. Coulibaly, B.; Li, S. Impact of Agricultural Land Loss on Rural Livelihoods in Peri-Urban Areas: Empirical Evidence from Sebougou, Mali. Land 2020, 9, doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/land9120470.
5. Xie, Y. Land expropriation, shock to employment, and employment differentiation: Findings from land-lost farmers in Nanjing, China. Land Use Policy 2019, 87, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104040.
6. Wei, J.; Zheng, X.; Ge, J.; Du, C. Corr elation Analysis of Factors Influencing Integrated Land Section Price: A Case of Jizhou City,Hebei Province. China Land Science 2007, 49-53+64, doi:https://doi.org/10.13708/j.cnki.cn11-2640.2007.04.011.
7. Xu, S. Research on Spatial-temporal Evolution of Integrated Price for Land Requisition in Zhejiang Province. Master, 2021.
8. Lv, P.; Liu, X.; Long, S. Case Study on Methods of Integrated Price in a Section Demarcated for Land Expropriation. China Land Science 2005, 30-35, doi:https://doi.org/10.13708/j.cnki.cn11-2640.2005.06.008.
9. Wang, H.; Zhang, B.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Xu, S.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, Y.; Hong, S. Urban expansion patterns and their driving forces based on the center of gravity-GTWR model: A case study of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration. Journal of Geographical Sciences 2020, 30, 297-318, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-020-1729-4.
10. Li, R.; You, K.; Cai, W.; Wang, J.; Liu, Y.; Yu, Y. Will the southward center of gravity migration of population, floor area, and building energy consumption facilitate building carbon emission reduction in China? Building and Environment 2023, 242, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110576.
11. Long, H.; Qu, Y. Land use transitions and land management: A mutual feedback perspective. Land Use Policy 2018, 74, 111-120, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.03.021.

 

 

We sincerely appreciate your meticulous review and valuable suggestions and await your response.

 

Best regards,

Xu Dong

 

Corresponding Author: Dr. Meichen Fu, Prof.,

School of Land Science and Technology

China University of Geosciences (Beijing)

29, Xueyuan Road, Haidian District

Beijing, China 100083

Tel: +86-139 1157 0760

E-Mail: fumeichen@cugb.edu.cn

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments on the manuscript are as follows:

 

Line 213: I'm afraid I still disagree with using the zone prices in 2024 directly as the zone prices in 2021.

The author believes that "using the interpolation method for prediction may not conform to the principles of establishing zone prices", so does use the regression model to predict the zone prices conform to the principles?

Furthermore, since the author believes that "the zone price is guided by policy, while also taking into account market value, social stability, and the long-term livelihood of the expropriated farmers in setting the land expropriation compensation standards", why did the author not consider any of these factors when predicting and analyzing the zone prices?

 

Line 467: The zone price is different from the zone level, and the author confused the difference between the two. From 2019 to 2024, the prices of all three zone levels are increasing, but the zone levels in some regions have indeed downgraded. Therefore, the author's expression “zones generally do not undergo cross-level adjustments or downgrades” does not match the facts, which also causes the error in the following content analysis.

 

Line 513: Since the author replied that "Figure 13 is a transition probability map", then please explain the meaning of the number in the legend of the subfigure (C).

Furthermore, please clarify how these conversion rules work in the CA-Markov simulation, especially how to deal with the conflict between the rules.

 

Line 331 and 528:The prediction process of zone prices needs further explanation, otherwise, this study is not repeatable.

(1) How did the author handle the temporal and spatial granularity of the samples, especially how many samples were used for zone price prediction?

(2) In my opinion, the independent variable data (GDP, NDVI, population density, nighttime light index, and others) in 2017 is almost impossible to obtain. Please provide additional information on the obtaining method.

(3) As the key content of the manuscript, I do not believe that this section can support "comprehensive land prices for expropriation zones based on land use changes" mentioned in the title of the manuscript.

 

Line 587: In English expression, I have never seen "222.48 Ten Thousand CNY PER Hectare".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf