Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This manuscript presents a comprehensive empirical study on the spatiotemporal evolution and influencing factors of the coupling coordination of cultivated land multifunctionality in the Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB). The topic is timely and relevant to China’s land use policy, food security, and ecological strategy. The authors employ widely accepted quantitative methods and analyze a substantial dataset spanning over a decade. Overall, the paper demonstrates strong empirical rigor and policy relevance.   However, after a thorough reading, I have several concerns that should be addressed to enhance the academic robustness and policy value of the paper:   Major Concerns

1. The classification of cultivated land functions into grain production (GPF), social support (SCF), and ecological maintenance (EMF) appears largely empirical. There is a lack of theoretical grounding or connection to international frameworks such as those from the OECD or FAO. Recent global research on land multifunctionality has progressed toward analyzing trade-offs, synergies, and institutional responses, which are not sufficiently engaged in this study.
2. While the authors apply established models (Entropy-TOPSIS, CCD, Geodetector), key implementation details are missing. There is no discussion of normalization methods, parameter estimation, or sensitivity tests on entropy weights. I suggest the authors provide more information on how weights were derived and include a robustness check.
3. Suggestions like "strengthen technical support" or "promote differentiated management" are vague and not grounded in any institutional or incentive analysis. The feasibility of these recommendations under local governance constraints is not discussed. I recommend that the authors outline more specific policy tools, implementation challenges, or cost-benefit considerations.

Minor Issues  

1. [Line 33–34]: Sentence on the range of CCD is redundant with the previous sentence. Consider removing or combining.
2. [Line 179–181]: The description of how Chaohu’s data were split is vague. Please clarify the data processing method or assumptions made.
3. [Lines 207–226]: Table 1 lacks source references for key indicators such as “per capita grain security rate” or “cultivated land fragmentation.” Clarify data sources and calculation methods.
4. [Line 295]: The formula for Moran’s I omits an explanation for 𝜔ᵢⱼ (the spatial weight). This should be defined clearly (e.g., contiguity or distance-based).
5. [Line 691–694]: The order of acronym definitions (CCD, GPF, etc.) does not match their first appearance in the text. Please revise for consistency.

  Comments on the Quality of English Language

English can be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. Thanks a lot for the helpful comments and recommendations and thank you for your time spent. Based on the reviewers' comments, we have made comprehensive revisions to the manuscript. The modified sections are marked in red in the clean version (sustainability-3698216-clean version). Additionally, we have polished the entire text using MDPI's editing service. For detailed changes, please refer to the revised track-changes version (sustainability-3698216-revised version). Below are our point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments. The specific modifications can be seen in the red-highlighted sections of the clean version.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors：

This manuscript presents a comprehensive empirical study on the spatiotemporal evolution and influencing factors of the coupling coordination of cultivated land multifunctionality in the Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB). The topic is timely and relevant to China’s land use policy, food security, and ecological strategy. The authors employ widely accepted quantitative methods and analyze a substantial dataset spanning over a decade. Overall, the paper demonstrates strong empirical rigor and policy relevance.   However, after a thorough reading, I have several concerns that should be addressed to enhance the academic robustness and policy value of the paper:

Major Concerns

1. The classification of cultivated land functions into grain production (GPF), social support (SCF), and ecological maintenance (EMF) appears largely empirical. There is a lack of theoretical grounding or connection to international frameworks such as those from the OECD or FAO. Recent global research on land multifunctionality has progressed toward analyzing trade-offs, synergies, and institutional responses, which are not sufficiently engaged in this study.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Regarding your concern about the lack of theoretical basis for the classification of cultivated land functions, we have carefully reconsidered this issue and supplemented theoretical justification in Lines 221–227 by referencing international frameworks such as OECD and FAO. The specific revisions are as follows:

“The classification in this study aligns with the core functions of the OECD framework, where the GPF corresponds to "food provisioning," the SCF corresponds to "rural employment security," and the EMF corresponds to "ecosystem conservation." Meanwhile, the framework of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) demonstrates a high degree of consistency with this study, encompassing three critical dimensions: food production, social carrying capacity, and ecological sustainability.”

We sincerely appreciate your insightful suggestion regarding the current global research trend on land multifunctionality, which has shifted toward trade-off analysis, synergistic effects, and institutional response mechanisms—an aspect that was insufficiently addressed in our manuscript. Thank you for this valuable perspective. We fully acknowledge the evolving focus in land multifunctionality research, particularly on trade-offs, synergies, and institutional responses. Your feedback has provided critical guidance for further deepening this study. In future research, we will adopt interdisciplinary approaches to explore trade-off analysis, synergistic effects, and institutional response mechanisms in land multifunctionality.

2. While the authors apply established models (Entropy-TOPSIS, CCD, Geodetector), key implementation details are missing. There is no discussion of normalization methods, parameter estimation, or sensitivity tests on entropy weights. I suggest the authors provide more information on how weights were derived and include a robustness check.

Response: We are deeply grateful for your constructive feedback on our work, especially your expert recommendations concerning the technical aspects of the modeling approach. We sincerely appreciate your insightful suggestions. In response to your comments, we have made the following revisions to enhance the methodological rigor of our study:

• Data Standardization (Lines 285-286)

Added detailed descriptions of the data normalization procedures, specifying the operational steps to ensure scientific validity in data processing.

• Weight Calculation Basis (Lines 300-303)

Strengthened the explanation of the entropy weight method, including a clearer exposition of the weight determination process to improve methodological transparency.

Regarding your valuable suggestion on robustness checks, we fully acknowledge its importance in methodological validation. While the current model and analytical approaches adopted in this study are well-established in the literature (with most existing applications of this method not routinely including robustness tests), we completely agree that incorporating such checks would further strengthen the findings. This represents an important direction for our future research refinement.

We are truly grateful for your expert guidance, which has not only improved this manuscript but will also positively influence our subsequent research endeavors.

3. Suggestions like "strengthen technical support" or "promote differentiated management" are vague and not grounded in any institutional or incentive analysis. The feasibility of these recommendations under local governance constraints is not discussed. I recommend that the authors outline more specific policy tools, implementation challenges, or cost-benefit considerations.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions regarding the policy recommendations section. We have thoroughly revised this part to incorporate your insightful comments, with the following key improvements:

• Enhanced Policy Recommendations (Lines 740-811, Section 4.2)

Substantially expanded the discussion on policy instruments, particularly regarding ecological compensation standards

Incorporated detailed cost-benefit considerations into the policy framework

Strengthened the linkage between research findings and practical policy implementation

• Specific Revisions Include:

Explicit formulation of tiered ecological compensation mechanisms

Integration of cost-effectiveness analysis for policy tools

Added implementation pathways for different stakeholder groups

The revised version now provides policymakers with more actionable guidance while maintaining academic rigor. We believe these modifications have significantly improved the practical relevance of our study.

Thank you again for your constructive feedback, which has helped us strengthen the policy implications of our research.

Minor Issues

1. [Line 33–34]: Sentence on the range of CCD is redundant with the previous sentence. Consider removing or combining.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and removed the redundant description regarding the CCD value range in Lines 34-35.

2. [Line 179–181]: The description of how Chaohu’s data were split is vague. Please clarify the data processing method or assumptions made.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. In response to the reviewer's comments, we have supplemented the data segmentation approach and processing methods for Chaohu City in Lines 186-190, with specific modifications detailed as follows:

“Chao Lake City of Anhui Province was divided into one district and four counties in 2011, which were assigned to the cities of Hefei, Wuhu, and Maanshan. Therefore, the relevant data for Chao Lake City was merged with the data for Hefei, Wuhu, and Maanshan based on the land area of the assigned administrative regions to ensure the unity of the research units.”

3. [Lines 207–226]: Table 1 lacks source references for key indicators such as “per capita grain security rate” or “cultivated land fragmentation.” Clarify data sources and calculation methods.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. In response to the reviewer's comments, we have supplemented the data sources for key indicators including "per capita food security rate" and "cultivated land fragmentation degree" in Lines 262-268 of the revised manuscript, with the specific additions detailed as follows:

“The data on per capita grain security rate, which involves the grain yield and total population, derives from the statistical yearbooks of various cities. Cultivated land fragmentation is based on cultivated land patch data extracted via ArcGIS from the 2020 land-cover dataset provided by Wuhan University (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5816591) and total area of cultivated land data sourced from the National Land Survey Results Sharing Platform (https://gtdc.mnr.gov.cn/Share#/).”

The computational methodologies for the key indicators - "per capita food security rate" and "cultivated land fragmentation degree" - are now clearly delineated in the notes accompanying Table 1.

4. [Line 295]: The formula for Moran’s I omits an explanation for ?ᵢⱼ (the spatial weight). This should be defined clearly (e.g., contiguity or distance-based).

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Following the expert's recommendations, we have supplemented the theoretical explanation of the spatial weight matrix (ωᵢⱼ) used in Moran's I index calculation, with these clarifications appearing in Lines 355-357 of the text. The specific modifications include:

“The data basis of this study is the CCD of cultivated land multifunctionality in each city of the YREB, so the spatial weight matrix was constructed based on geographical adjacency.”

5. [Line 691–694]: The order of acronym definitions (CCD, GPF, etc.) does not match their first appearance in the text. Please revise for consistency.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Following the reviewer's suggestions, we have reorganized the abbreviations in Lines 852-857 according to the standard definition sequence. The specific reordering is as follows:

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

YREB    Yangtze River Economic Belt

GPF     grain production function

SCF     social carrying function

EMF    ecological maintenance function

CCD    coupling coordination degree.

Thank you again for your valuable advice on my manuscript.

With best regards,

All authors

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The Moran's I value (line 35: 0.376 → 0.43) in conclusion (3) of the abstract section is inconsistent with the main text (line 491: 0.376 → 0.437).
2. The uniqueness of the YREB as a specific region is not sufficiently emphasized in the introduction. It is recommended to further highlight the strategic importance of the YREB in national strategy, its distinctive socio-economic development characteristics, and the unique impacts of these characteristics on the multifunctional coupling and coordination of farmland. Additionally, the direct practical significance of this study for regional sustainable development and farmland resource management policy formulation, as well as its reference value for other similar regions, should be further emphasized.
3. Lines 114–116 and lines 121–123 contain redundant statements.
4. When explaining the specific reasons and basis for selecting indicators, further detailed elaboration is recommended, such as why these specific indicators were chosen to measure corresponding functions, whether more suitable indicators are available as alternatives, etc., to enhance the scientific rigor and persuasiveness of the indicator system construction.
5. The paper does not explain how to handle data continuity issues arising from administrative boundary changes (e.g., the division of Chaohu City).
6. The paper does not explain the Geodetector factor screening process.
7. It is recommended to provide a concise description of research methods that are already well-established.
8. When explaining the causes of changes in various functions, the paper could further explore local socio-economic development events and policy factors to enhance the depth and comprehensiveness of the results interpretation.
9. When analyzing differences in coupling coordination degree changes across regions, further exploration of the specific driving factors behind these regional differences is recommended, rather than merely explaining them from general perspectives of natural conditions and socioeconomic factors.
10. Figure 10 already displays the q-values from single-factor detection (as shown in Table 5). It is suggested to remove the redundant Table 5 and annotate the significance of single-factor detection in Figure 10.
11. The research results have been discussed to a certain extent, but the discussion is relatively superficial. It is recommended to further compare and analyze the results with other relevant research findings, explore the consistency and differences between the results of this study and existing research, and conduct an in-depth analysis of the reasons. Additionally, it is recommended to combine actual circumstances to conduct a more in-depth discussion on future development trends.
12. Policy recommendations such as implementing regional development strategies and strengthening functional zoning management were proposed, but these recommendations are relatively macro-level and lack operational feasibility at the implementation level. It is recommended to further refine the policy recommendations, clarify specific implementation pathways and safeguards, and enhance their targeting and operational feasibility.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. Thanks a lot for the helpful comments and recommendations and thank you for your time spent. Based on the reviewers' comments, we have made comprehensive revisions to the manuscript. The modified sections are marked in red in the clean version (sustainability-3698216-clean version). Additionally, we have polished the entire text using MDPI's editing service. For detailed changes, please refer to the revised track-changes version (sustainability-3698216-revised version). Below are our point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments. The specific modifications can be seen in the red-highlighted sections of the clean version.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors：

1. The Moran's I value (line 35: 0.376 →43) in conclusion (3) of the abstract section is inconsistent with the main text (line 491: 0.376 → 0.437).

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. In accordance with the reviewer's comments, we have carefully verified the data and identified an omission in the third decimal place. Consequently, we have revised the data in Line 34 from 0.43 to 0.437 to ensure complete numerical accuracy.

2. The uniqueness of the YREB as a specific region is not sufficiently emphasized in the introduction. It is recommended to further highlight the strategic importance of the YREB in national strategy, its distinctive socio-economic development characteristics, and the unique impacts of these characteristics on the multifunctional coupling and coordination of farmland. Additionally, the direct practical significance of this study for regional sustainable development and farmland resource management policy formulation, as well as its reference value for other similar regions, should be further emphasized.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. In response to the reviewer's comments, we have enhanced the discussion on the uniqueness of the study area in Lines 121-132 and 141-145. The supplementary content includes:

“The YREB spans East, Central, and Western China, covering 11 provinces and municipalities, accounting for 21.4% of the nation's area and over 40% and 45% of the national population and economic output, respectively. As a key driver of high-quality economic development, it plays a crucial linking role in building a new development pattern. It has notable socioeconomic features like a large population, rapid urbanization, diverse industries, and close regional cooperation. These factors have a profound and unique impact on the multifunctional coupling and coordination of farmland. On the one hand, urbanization reduces the area of cropland and high-quality farmland, thereby weakening its economic production function. On the other hand, the dense population increases the demand for farmland's ecological service function. Farmland also serves the social and cultural function of preserving and passing on farming culture. These three aspects are interwoven, forming a complex coupling and coordination relationship..........

This study can offer a basis for formulating precise farmland resource management policies in the region. The policy recommendations would help balance economic development needs with the maintenance of farmland's ecological and sociocultural functions, promoting sustainable regional development. The research results also provide an important reference for other similar areas.”

3. Lines 114–116 and lines 121–123 contain redundant statements.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have conducted a thorough review of the entire manuscript and made the following revisions: redundant content has been removed while additional materials have been incorporated, with detailed modifications visible in Lines 110-119.

“The innovation of this study lies in the selection of 125 cities in the Yangtze River Economic Belt as the study area. This work offers a more representative and unique geographical perspective than most domestic studies on small regions or provinces or foreign studies on national or specific river basin scales. It offers a better analysis of regional differences among cities in national key strategic areas. Furthermore, the evaluation index system developed in this study based on farmland endowment characteristics and encompassing food production, social support, and ecological functions, along with exploratory spatial analysis tools, is rare in similar studies. It provides a solid scientific basis for targeted policymaking. This enriches the cultivated land function assessment and provides new ideas and a basis for cultivated land evaluation in other fields.”

4. When explaining the specific reasons and basis for selecting indicators, further detailed elaboration is recommended, such as why these specific indicators were chosen to measure corresponding functions, whether more suitable indicators are available as alternatives, etc., to enhance the scientific rigor and persuasiveness of the indicator system construction.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestions regarding the indicator selection. After thorough discussion and careful consideration, we have refined our methodology to enhance the scientific rigor of the study. In response to your comments, we have provided detailed justifications for the selection of the three key functional indicators. These modifications can be found in Lines 230-237 and 242-262 of the revised manuscript, with the specific improvements outlined below.

“Among them, the crop yield directly reflects the output level of arable land key to basic living requirements in these areas. The multiple cropping index demonstrates the intensity of cultivated land use over time. A higher multiple cropping index means that arable land can produce a variety of crops more efficiently. The land reclamation rate reflects the degree of development of cultivated land resources. The higher the reclamation rate, the more arable land resources are available in a region, which can macroscopically indicate the region's potential to support grain production................ The per capita grain security rate directly reflects the degree to which cultivated land meets people's basic food needs. The per capita cultivated land area determines the average amount of land resources allocated to each resident. When cultivated land is relatively abundant, it can better accommodate surplus rural labor and ensure that residents' basic living needs are met. Comparing urban and rural incomes reveals the distinct roles of arable land in urban and rural economies as well as its contribution to the incomes of rural residents. The proportion of agricultural output value reflects the contribution of arablelandbased agriculture to economic growth and its role in supporting employment and rural stability, indirectly showing the social security function of arable land. The EMF of cultivated land is reflected in its role in climate regulation, water source conservation, and soil and water retention. To measure this, four indexes were chosen: the degree of ecological advantage of cultivated land, the proportion of ecological land use, cultivated land fragmentation, and the chemical load on cultivated land. Cultivated land fragmentation shows the distribution of arable land. Highly concentrated and contiguous land is better for ecological services. The ecological dominance of cultivated land reveals its role in biodiversity and climate regulation, which facilitates the assessment of its ecological quality. The chemical load on cultivated land indicates the chemical pollution pressure during agricultural production and reflects the health of the ecological environment. An appropriate proportion of ecological land use can create a good ecological environment for cultivated land, maintaining its ecological balance and stability.”

5. The paper does not explain how to handle data continuity issues arising from administrative boundary changes (e.g., the division of Chaohu City).

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. In response to the reviewer’s comments, we have supplemented the methodology in Lines 186–190 to address data discontinuity issues caused by administrative division adjustments (e.g., the division of Chaohu City). The specific modifications include:

“Chao Lake City of Anhui Province was divided into one district and four counties in 2011, which were assigned to the cities of Hefei, Wuhu, and Maanshan. Therefore, the relevant data for Chao Lake City was merged with the data for Hefei, Wuhu, and Maanshan based on the land area of the assigned administrative regions to ensure the unity of the research units.”

6. The paper does not explain the Geodetector factor screening process.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your insightful observation regarding the omission of the geographical detector factor screening process. After thorough deliberation and careful revision, we have significantly enhanced this section to ensure more rigorous and comprehensive research logic.

Regarding the factor selection methodology:

• Our preliminary screening was based on well-established theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence from related fields, while also considering data availability constraints.
• In strict accordance with geographical detector principles and established literature, we employed ArcGIS software to discretize all variables into quintiles using the natural breaks method (Jenks optimization).

These methodological refinements are detailed in Lines 600-605 of our revised manuscript. We are profoundly grateful for your constructive feedback, which has directly contributed to improving both our methodological approach and overall research quality.

7. It is recommended to provide a concise description of research methods that are already well-established.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. According to the expert's comments, we have added descriptions of the principles of the entropy weight method in Lines 272-281 and the coupling coordination model in Lines 326-330. The specific modifications are as follows:

“The entropy-weight TOPSIS model, a multi-index decision-making analysis approach, integrates the entropy-weight method and the TOPSIS method. It determines the weight of each index using the entropy-weight method. Then, it employs TOPSIS to identify the optimal solution. The entropy-weight method, based on information entropy, measures information uncertainty and randomness to evaluate the importance of indices. TOPSIS, a multi-index decision-making analysis tool, identifies optimal and worst solutions from a normalized data matrix. It calculates the distance of each evaluation object to these solutions, assessing superiority based on their relative closeness to the optimal solution. A relative closeness near 1 indicates near optimality, while a relative closeness near zero suggests near worst status; greater relative closeness means better evaluation results.

In physics, coupling refers to the interdependence of two or more systems, with the coupling degree indicating the strength of their interaction. The coordination degree, on the other hand, describes the harmony of their activities. The coupling coordination degree model is a useful tool for analyzing the interplay among two or more systems. It reveals the extent of their interaction and reflects whether they are developing in harmony.”

8. When explaining the causes of changes in various functions, the paper could further explore local socio-economic development events and policy factors to enhance the depth and comprehensiveness of the results interpretation.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestion regarding the need to deepen the analysis of driving factors behind functional changes. In response to your comments, we have:

• Conducted thorough discussions and substantially enhanced our analysis
• Incorporated examination of socioeconomic events (e.g., industrial relocation)
• Provided detailed explanations for the causes behind changes in the three key functions

The specific revisions appear in:

Lines 418-423: This primarily stems from national and local-level agricultural subsidy policies, including direct grain subsidies, comprehensive agrarian production and materials subsidies, and subsidies for farm machinery purchases. These policies have increased farmers' enthusiasm for grain growing, reduced agricultural production costs, improved grain production efficiency, and thereby enhanced the GPF.

Lines 448-450: This is mainly due to the rural revitalization strategy. Greater financial support for rural areas has improved infrastructure and public services, thereby boosting the rural economy and farmers' incomes and enhancing the SCF.

Lines 479-484: As agricultural production becomes increasingly large-scale and intensive, the use of agricultural chemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides, has risen. Their non-point source pollution increasingly harms farmland ecosystems. Meanwhile, rapid urbanization and urban expansion have consumed a large amount of ecological land, indirectly weakening the EMF.

9. When analyzing differences in coupling coordination degree changes across regions, further exploration of the specific driving factors behind these regional differences is recommended, rather than merely explaining them from general perspectives of natural conditions and socioeconomic factors.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Regarding your suggestion to further investigate specific driving factors (e.g., cultivated land protection policy implementation, agricultural mechanization level) in the analysis of regional differences in coupling coordination degree, we have conducted thorough discussions and made corresponding refinements, incorporating analyses of cultivated land protection policy implementation and agricultural mechanization level. The specific revisions are detailed in the Discussion section (Lines 695-707). The specific modifications are as follows:

“Moreover, the governments in the central and eastern regions rigorously enforce cultivated land protection policies. They implement land use controls to curb cultivated land "non-agriculturalization" and "non-organization," ensuring cultivated land quantity and quality. This lays a foundation for the multifunctional integration of cultivated land. Meanwhile, the central and eastern regions have high levels of agricultural mechanization. Their extensive plains and centralized farmland layouts are ideal for large-scale agrarian machinery, which boosts production efficiency, reduces costs, and enables farmers to balance food production, ecological protection, and social development. This fosters farmland multifunctional coordinated development. However, the western region's complex terrain and scattered plots limit agricultural mechanization, hindering agricultural productivity and multifunctional integration. Recently, with the improvement in farm infrastructure and advancing mechanization, the gap between the central and eastern regions is narrowing.”

10. Figure 10 already displays the q-values from single-factor detection (as shown in Table 5). It is suggested to remove the redundant Table 5 and annotate the significance of single-factor detection in Figure 10.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your comment regarding potential redundancy in our figures and tables. After careful consideration and thorough verification, we would like to clarify that:

Figure 10 presents interaction detection results, while Table 5 displays single-factor detection outcomes. These two elements differ fundamentally in their data content and analytical focus:

Table 5 provides analysis of individual factors

Figure 10 focuses specifically on interactions between multiple factors

Therefore, Table 5 and Figure 10 do not represent duplicate presentations of the same data.

While we are unable to remove Table 5 as suggested, we are truly grateful for your valuable input. Your feedback has reminded us to:

• Pay closer attention to content refinement in future research
• Enhance logical coherence in our presentations
• Prevent potential misunderstandings through clearer organization

We will incorporate these important lessons in our subsequent work. Thank you again for your thoughtful guidance, which has helped us improve our scholarly communication.

11. The research results have been discussed to a certain extent, but the discussion is relatively superficial. It is recommended to further compare and analyze the results with other relevant research findings, explore the consistency and differences between the results of this study and existing research, and conduct an in-depth analysis of the reasons. Additionally, it is recommended to combine actual circumstances to conduct a more in-depth discussion on future development trends.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. In response to your suggestions for strengthening the Discussion section, we have made the following improvements:

• Comparative Analyses: Based on your two specific points, we have added horizontal comparisons in Lines 653-659, 676-680, and 727-728.
• Future Trend Projections: In Lines 708-719, we have incorporated regional development plans to predict the future evolution trends of multifunctional coordination.

The detailed modifications are presented below:

Lines 653-659：The study reveals that from 2010 to 2022, in the YREB, the GPF of cultivated land continued to rise, while the SCF initially declined and then increased. The EMF initially improved but then dropped. This aligns with the research of An Yue [10], Zhang Yue [15], and Yu Sen [56]. Spatially, the GPF is higher in the central and eastern regions and lower in the western region, which is consistent with the findings of Xiong Changsheng [3] and Xiang Hui [57]. This spatial difference is closely related to regional economic development and natural endowments.

Lines 676-680: It was found that the spatial clustering of the multi-functional coupling and coordination degree of farmland in the Yangtze River Economic Belt has become more pronounced over time. This finding is consistent with those of Fan Yeting [13], Pang Xiaofei [58], Lu Chang [59], and others.

Lines 727-728：This is in line with the research conclusions of Zhang Yongdong [60], Chen Xingyu [61], and others.

Lines 708-719: In the future, under the guidance of the Yangtze River Economic Belt National Land Space Plan and national development strategies, the eastern regions, with strong economic foundations, superior natural endowments, and policy support, are expected to enhance farmland multifunctional coordination steadily. Central areas, which are key commodity grain production bases with good farmland endowments (e.g., the Dongting Lake and Jianghan plains), will experience significant improvements in coordination as agricultural mechanization and infrastructure development advance. Although western regions have complex terrain and scattered plots, poverty alleviation, rural revitalization, and improved farm infrastructure and mechanization will boost farmland social-carrying functions, gradually increasing coordination and narrowing the gap between central and eastern regions. Thus, a trend of "steady improvement in the east and west, and accelerated rise in the central region" is likely to emerge.

12. Policy recommendations such as implementing regional development strategies and strengthening functional zoning management were proposed, but these recommendations are relatively macro-level and lack operational feasibility at the implementation level. It is recommended to further refine the policy recommendations, clarify specific implementation pathways and safeguards, and enhance their targeting and operational feasibility.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Following your suggestions, we have refined the policy recommendations from three key perspectives: implementation pathways, safeguard measures, and cost considerations. The detailed revisions can be found in Section 4.2 "Policy Recommendations" (Lines 740-811).

Thank you again for your valuable advice on my manuscript.

With best regards,

All authors

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a timely investigation into the spatial-temporal evolution and coupling coordination of cultivated land multifunctionality in the Yangtze River Economic Belt. The study is well-structured, and the use of advanced analytical tools (entropy-TOPSIS, CCD model, spatial autocorrelation, Geodetector) is appropriate and comprehensive. However, several areas need improvement:

1. Language and Clarity: The manuscript would benefit from a thorough English language revision. There are numerous grammatical and syntactical issues that reduce clarity. Some passages are overly long or awkwardly phrased.

2. Discussion Depth: The interpretation of key findings, especially in the discussion and conclusions, can be deepened. While the results are clearly presented, the implications—particularly for land-use policy and sustainability practices—should be more explicitly linked to the literature.

3. Repetition: Some content, particularly in the introduction and methodology sections, is repetitive. Consolidating these would improve conciseness.

4. Methodological Explanation: While the models used are appropriate, their description is very technical and would benefit from simplification or visual aids (e.g., a concise table summarizing steps or assumptions of the models).

5. Policy Implications: The policy recommendations are sound but somewhat generic. They would be stronger if supported by specific case examples from the study regions.

6. Contribution Framing: The manuscript claims innovation in geographic scope and methodological integration. This claim could be better supported by contrasting more clearly with existing national or regional studies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would benefit from professional English language editing. While the technical content is understandable, there are numerous grammatical errors, awkward phrasings, and overly complex sentence structures that hinder readability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. Thanks a lot for the helpful comments and recommendations and thank you for your time spent. Based on the reviewers' comments, we have made comprehensive revisions to the manuscript. The modified sections are marked in red in the clean version (sustainability-3698216-clean version). Additionally, we have polished the entire text using MDPI's editing service. For detailed changes, please refer to the revised track-changes version (sustainability-3698216-revised version). Below are our point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments. The specific modifications can be seen in the red-highlighted sections of the clean version.

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors：

This manuscript presents a timely investigation into the spatial-temporal evolution and coupling coordination of cultivated land multifunctionality in the Yangtze River Economic Belt. The study is well-structured, and the use of advanced analytical tools (entropy-TOPSIS, CCD model, spatial autocorrelation, Geodetector) is appropriate and comprehensive. However, several areas need improvement.

1. Language and Clarity: The manuscript would benefit from a thorough English language revision. There are numerous grammatical and syntactical issues that reduce clarity. Some passages are overly long or awkwardly phrased.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. In response to the reviewers' comments, we have polished the entire text using MDPI's editing service. For detailed changes, please refer to the revised track-changes version (sustainability-3698216-revised version).

2. Discussion Depth: The interpretation of key findings, especially in the discussion and conclusions, can be deepened. While the results are clearly presented, the implications—particularly for land-use policy and sustainability practices—should be more explicitly linked to the literature.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have further enhanced the Discussion section with substantive revisions in the following locations:

Lines 653-659：The study reveals that from 2010 to 2022, in the YREB, the GPF of cultivated land continued to rise, while the SCF initially declined and then increased. The EMF initially improved but then dropped. This aligns with the research of An Yue [10], Zhang Yue [15], and Yu Sen [56]. Spatially, the GPF is higher in the central and eastern regions and lower in the western region, which is consistent with the findings of Xiong Changsheng [3] and Xiang Hui [57]. This spatial difference is closely related to regional economic development and natural endowments.

Lines 676-680: It was found that the spatial clustering of the multi-functional coupling and coordination degree of farmland in the Yangtze River Economic Belt has become more pronounced over time. This finding is consistent with those of Fan Yeting [13], Pang Xiaofei [58], Lu Chang [59], and others.

Lines 727-728: This is in line with the research conclusions of Zhang Yongdong [60], Chen Xingyu [61], and others.

Lines 708-719: In the future, under the guidance of the Yangtze River Economic Belt National Land Space Plan and national development strategies, the eastern regions, with strong economic foundations, superior natural endowments, and policy support, are expected to enhance farmland multifunctional coordination steadily. Central areas, which are key commodity grain production bases with good farmland endowments (e.g., the Dongting Lake and Jianghan plains), will experience significant improvements in coordination as agricultural mechanization and infrastructure development advance. Although western regions have complex terrain and scattered plots, poverty alleviation, rural revitalization, and improved farm infrastructure and mechanization will boost farmland social-carrying functions, gradually increasing coordination and narrowing the gap between central and eastern regions. Thus, a trend of "steady improvement in the east and west, and accelerated rise in the central region" is likely to emerge.

Lines 734-737: Thus, this study complements existing research by revealing the characteristics and influencing factors of farmland multi-functional coupling and coordinated development. It also offers theoretical and practical insights for enhancing land-use policies and advancing sustainable practices.

3. Repetition: Some content, particularly in the introduction and methodology sections, is repetitive. Consolidating these would improve conciseness.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. In response to your valuable comments regarding redundant content in the Introduction and Methodology sections, we have conducted a thorough review and optimization of these parts, removing repetitive descriptions and reorganizing the content for better logical flow. Additionally, we have employed MDPI's professional editing service to polish the entire manuscript. For detailed changes, please refer to the revised track-changes version (sustainability-3698216-revised version).

4. Methodological Explanation: While the models used are appropriate, their description is very technical and would benefit from simplification or visual aids (e.g., a concise table summarizing steps or assumptions of the models).

Response: We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestions regarding our methodology section. We have carefully reviewed your comments and have optimized and adjusted the Methods section to enhance its clarity while maintaining academic rigor. During the revision process, we supplemented the methodological rationale in Lines 272–281 and 326–330, while refining the language to reduce overly technical descriptions. Although this revision does not include tabular summaries of model procedures or assumptions, we will explore additional visual presentation methods in future research to facilitate reader comprehension.

We sincerely appreciate your attention and support. We remain committed to improving the presentation of our research methodology to enhance readability and understandability.

5. Policy Implications: The policy recommendations are sound but somewhat generic. They would be stronger if supported by specific case examples from the study regions.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Following your suggestions, we have comprehensively revised the policy recommendations section by incorporating typical case studies from the research area. The detailed modifications can be found in Section 4.2 "Policy Recommendations" (Lines 740-811) of the manuscript.

6. Contribution Framing: The manuscript claims innovation in geographic scope and methodological integration. This claim could be better supported by contrasting more clearly with existing national or regional studies.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. In response to your valuable suggestion regarding strengthening the innovation demonstration, we have supplemented comprehensive comparisons with both domestic and international peer studies in Lines 110-119. The specific modifications include:

“The innovation of this study lies in the selection of 125 cities in the Yangtze River Economic Belt as the study area. This work offers a more representative and unique geographical perspective than most domestic studies on small regions or provinces or foreign studies on national or specific river basin scales. It offers a better analysis of regional differences among cities in national key strategic areas. Furthermore, the evaluation index system developed in this study based on farmland endowment characteristics and encompassing food production, social support, and ecological functions, along with exploratory spatial analysis tools, is rare in similar studies. It provides a solid scientific basis for targeted policymaking. This enriches the cultivated land function assessment and provides new ideas and a basis for cultivated land evaluation in other fields.”

Thank you again for your valuable advice on my manuscript.

With best regards,

All authors

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your thorough revisions. The language is clear and the responses are well addressed. I am satisfied with the changes and have no further comments. I recommend acceptance.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

great improvements