The Spatial Effect of Administrative Division on Land-Use Intensity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is appropriate for publication in the journal with minor corrections.

The topic is attention-grabbing and correlates with the complex aspects of land use changes and unsustainable urban sprawl. The spatial spillover effects of administrative governance are important environmental, rural development and social issues. The reviewer confirms the authors’ goal and agrees with the main assumptions. The authors correctly point out the regional situation and present an accurate overview and well-illustrated results about administrative divisions system and utilization of space. The literature is sufficient. The methods are well formulated and bring some new contributions also. The reviewer suggests minor fixes for the following: It would be appropriate to include brief information about the nationwide situation in the introduction. The international aspects are incomplete. The authors of the article make the mistake of writing only about China. Conclusions should also be internationally relevant. It would be appropriate to indicate how the results could be used both in science and in spatial planning. The importance of research for practise should be added, not just at the regional or national level, but it should highlight the usefulness of the results for functional urban areas in other countries.

Author Response

The article is appropriate for publication in the journal with minor corrections.The topic is attention-grabbing and correlates with the complex aspects of land use changes and unsustainable urban sprawl. The spatial spillover effects of administrative governance are important environmental, rural development and social issues. The reviewer confirms the authors’ goal and agrees with the main assumptions. The authors correctly point out the regional situation and present an accurate overview and well-illustrated results about administrative divisions system and utilization of space. The literature is sufficient. The methods are well formulated and bring some new contributions also.The reviewer suggests minor fixes for the following: It would be appropriate to include brief information about the nationwide situation in the introduction. The international aspects are incomplete. The authors of the article make the mistake of writing only about China. Conclusions should also be internationally relevant. It would be appropriate to indicate how the results could be used both in science and in spatial planning. The importance of research for practise should be added, not just at the regional or national level, but it should highlight the usefulness of the results for functional urban areas in other countries.

Thank you for your comment. We admitted that the information of international situation is incomplete in the introduction and conclusions. We have read some related literature, and added the description of international situation in the introduction section. We reorganized and rewritten the conclusions. We also added the suggestion in spatial planning, and summarized the usefulness of the results for functional urban areas in other countries.

The major revised in introduction section from line 46 to 64:

Land use intensity (LUI) is a complex and constantly updated and deepened concept. LUI is defined as the extent of land being used, which is also an indication of the amount and degree of land development in an area [4,5]. It refers to the development and utilization of territorial space in a region and reflect the comprehensive effects that the natural environment and human activities have on land [6,7]. The changes in land use is an important aspect to reflect the variation in regional social and economic development and spatial differentiation [8]. However, land use changes were relatively different in each country, being influenced by place specific factors associated to geographical, demographic and socioeconomic conditions and the related historical, political and cultural background [9]. Of all land changes, 60% are associated with direct human activities and 40% with indirect drivers [10]. For example, Europe as the most developed and urbanized continent at the global scale, the urbanization is the dominant factor of the land use changes in most European countries [11]. In Asia countries, the land use changes are driven by economic development, population and government policies. Exploring the driving forces of land use changes is essential for realizing sustainable urban development worldwide.

The major revised in conclusion section from line 637 to 642, and 667 to 678:

In the context of rapid urbanization worldwide, the expansion of construction land and increasingly intensified land development have brought about great changes in the spatial structure and functions of the land. Meanwhile, a series of social and eco-environmental problems such as the reductions in arable land, soil erosion and forest destruction worldwide. Therefore, land use and land development have become a common concern of urban planning and development internationally.

The results of this study provide references for the intensive land use and sustainable development. The positive spillover effects of administrative division should be fully considered to improve the land development in the process of spatial governance and policies making, so that we can better solve the global contradiction between land supply and demand. Countries should adopt specific land development and spatial structure readjustment strategies in different regions. The spatial planning is a powerful policy tool to balance economic growth and land development, the spillover effect should be taken into account to achieve regional economic cooperation and policy coordination, to balance land use and land protection effectively. Furthermore, the spillover effect of urban areas is supposed to influence the function of adjacent regions, which can be fully used to strengthen the ties between regions. There are also some limitations, such as the effect of administrative division is difficult to quantify, which can be considered for future investigation. The existence of administrative barrier effects within the province also be further explored and verified in future research.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is nice and relatively well written. The argument is of sure interest. I see some changes necessary to improve the overall quality of the ms prior to publication.

1) Language usage. Please check it extensively all over the text. e.g. line 242, the use of the verb 'demonstrated' is wrong for a math equation. These are all minor mistakes or incoherencies, so please remove, change and check all over the text. In some case, please give shorter sentences.

2) I see very useful the graphs about coefficients' change over time, but I don't see sufficient explanation of the socioeconomic processes underlying this change.

3) Literature review is broad but not comprehensive of the most relevant experiences outside Asia.

4) Figures should be improved for quality, especially as far as the maps are concerned. I would suggest at least to make bigger each map in order to better see numbers and names inside.

Thank you very much. I see potential in your manuscript.

Author Response

The manuscript is nice and relatively well written. The argument is of sure interest. I see some changes necessary to improve the overall quality of the ms prior to publication.

1) Language usage. Please check it extensively all over the text. e.g. line 242, the use of the verb 'demonstrated' is wrong for a math equation. These are all minor mistakes or incoherencies, so please remove, change and check all over the text. In some case, please give shorter sentences.

Thank you for your comment. We have carefully checked the language usage all over the text again and correct the mistakes. The verb ‘demonstrated’ in line 242 is wrong for a math equation and we have removed it. We also have checked the sentences all over the text, and modified some particularly long sentences into shorter sentences.

2) I see very useful the graphs about coefficients' change over time, but I don't see sufficient explanation of the socioeconomic processes underlying this change.

Thank you for your comment. We have made explanation of the graphs about the coefficients’ change over time in the last paragraph of Discussion section in line 619 to 633 as follows.

The results show that when different coefficients were introduced, the influencing social economic factors on the LUI were different, and the influence of administrative units on neighboring units also shows different trends. The results revealed that the l coefficient of 0.5 is the threshold value of administrative barriers, where the coefficient changed to different tendencies, such as changes from strengthening to weakening, from relatively stable to a sharp or a noticeable increase. That is, restricted by the administrative management and administrative boundaries under the administrative division, the spatial spillover effect between adjacent county-level administrative units belonging to different provinces is only half of that of adjacent county-level administrative units belonging to the same province. As the effect of administrative barriers weakens, the flow of production factors such as labor and capital between regions will be promoted. The existence of administrative barrier effects urges us to rethink the optimization of administrative governance during land use change. Therefore, to effectively break through the effect of administrative barrier is an effective measure to optimize structure of land use and improve the efficiency of land development.

3) Literature review is broad but not comprehensive of the most relevant experiences outside Asia.

Thank you for your comment. We admitted that the literature review is not comprehensive of the most relevant experiences outside Asia. We have read some more related literature and improved the information and experiences outside Asia.

The major revised in introduction section from line 46 to 64:

Land use intensity (LUI) is a complex and constantly updated and deepened concept. LUI is defined as the extent of land being used, which is also an indication of the amount and degree of land development in an area [4,5]. It refers to the development and utilization of territorial space in a region and reflect the comprehensive effects that the natural environment and human activities have on land [6,7]. The change in land use is an important aspect to reflect the variation in regional social and economic development and spatial differentiation [8]. However, land use changes were relatively different in each country, being influenced by place specific factors associated to geographical, demographic and socioeconomic conditions and the related historical, political and cultural background [9]. Of all land changes, 60% are associated with direct human activities and 40% with indirect drivers [10]. For example, Europe as the most developed and urbanized continent at the global scale, the urbanization is the dominant factor of the land use changes in most European countries [11]. In Asia countries, the land use changes are driven by economic development, population and government policies. Exploring the driving forces of land use changes is essential for realizing sustainable urban development worldwide.

4)Figures should be improved for quality, especially as far as the maps are concerned. I would suggest at least to make bigger each map in order to better see numbers and names inside.

Thank you for your comment. We have improved the quality of all the five Figures. Especially for the study area map as shown in Figure 2, we carefully modified the layout and enlarged the entire study area map, so that the elements in the map, such as names and numbers, can be clearly displayed and seen. For other Figures, we have also made relevant improvements and make bigger.

Reviewer 3 Report

The analyzed paper has an important potential to be published, but I suggest to reflect more on the main concept and to improve some parts. My comments and suggestions are the followings:

General issues:

 - A discussable aspect is the using, as basic concept of this paper, “land development intensity”! I believe that this concept is less relevant in comparison with the “land-use intensity”, because the “land development” it’s a contradictory word’ association! On the one hand the development is a very complex concept, and land dynamics show a diverse using, on the other. However, the authors connect this concept to some driving factors as FAIL, PGDP and PTI, I’m not convicted that the “land development” is the most appropriate concept, especially seen as the proportion of construction land in the total area of administrative units (see Formula 1)!

I agree that increasing of construction land in a space reflects an intensive social-economic activity, but is difficult to generalize this idea. For example, during the deindustrialization process, a huge proportion of construction land (where the industrial activities collapsed) not means development! My opinion is that you have to choose between using the “land-use intensity” index (already agreed) or redefine the “land development intensity” index, which complicates entire approach. Land development intensity index asks many dynamic components targeting different social, economic, and cultural indicators to correctly express “development”. In such analysis it’s about “territorial/spatial development”, which fundamentally change your initial idea.

- In a paper, it’s impossible excessively use a huge number of analytical methods! It seems that authors try to use different approach ways to arrive at the same conclusions. In this case I suggest, first of all, to keep the main steps and ideas expressed in the “Materials and methods” section.

 Specific comments and suggestions:

 1. Regarding the Title of the paper I appreciate the authors’ idea, but I believe that “Land Development Intensity” could be replaced with “Land-use Intensity”. This change not seriously affects the content and approach of the topic.

2. The Abstract is acceptable, reflecting the used methods, main findings and opening an interesting reflection on the direct spatial spillover effects among different administrative units, measured by the proposed index.

3. I consider that the Introduction is a relevant presentation of the scientific context, connected with the main topic of the paper.

4. Concerning the Theoretical Framework section, I highly appreciate the Fig. 1, which clearly shows the vision of the authors on this interesting approach. Just on this figure, I suggest to replace the “Players” with the “Actors” in the box Cooperative Game “Players”. This framework is sustained by relevant references.

5. Materials and methods section is clear, with sufficient elements to be well understood by readers. I have only some technical issues:

• Legend of the map, belonging to Figure 2, askes the provincial/regional boundary, too;
• Figure 3 requires small corrections: splitting of “urbanagglomeration”, and reformulating of the vertical text from the right part: “Introduction of λ coefficient as administrative barrier”

6. Looking to Results and Discussion as a unique section, all seems to be acceptable. Separately, there is an unbalanced approach. The results section comprises many issues which could be better placed in the Discussion section. It’s about to many details and description of each tables in the Results section! The Results should be very clear and concise. Many comments could be integrated in the following section, which seems to be less relevant. In addition, some parts of Discussion section could be moved in the Conclusion section.

So, I suggest to authors to proceed a better concentration of the results, and to develop the Discussion and Conclusion sections, using about the same ideas and content (moving them from one to another).

Please, eliminate the first paragraph belonging to Results section (rows 311-314), which is a kind of recommendation! In the same context, please replace R2 with R².

7. Conclusion requires an improvement with some ideas, already expressed in the previous section, and to show the study limitations.

Author Response

The analyzed paper has an important potential to be published, but I suggest to reflect more on the main concept and to improve some parts. My comments and suggestions are the followings:

General issues:

 - A discussable aspect is the using, as basic concept of this paper, “land development intensity”! I believe that this concept is less relevant in comparison with the “land-use intensity”, because the “land development” it’s a contradictory word’ association! On the one hand the development is a very complex concept, and land dynamics show a diverse using, on the other. However, the authors connect this concept to some driving factors as FAIL, PGDP and PTI, I’m not convicted that the “land development” is the most appropriate concept, especially seen as the proportion of construction land in the total area of administrative units (see Formula 1)!

I agree that increasing of construction land in a space reflects an intensive social-economic activity, but is difficult to generalize this idea. For example, during the deindustrialization process, a huge proportion of construction land (where the industrial activities collapsed) not means development! My opinion is that you have to choose between using the “land-use intensity” index (already agreed) or redefine the “land development intensity” index, which complicates entire approach. Land development intensity index asks many dynamic components targeting different social, economic, and cultural indicators to correctly express “development”. In such analysis it’s about “territorial/spatial development”, which fundamentally change your initial idea.

Thank you for your comment. We admit the accuracy of the term “land development intensity” might be a problem. There is one point we would like to explain first. In the term “land development intensity”, the term of “development” primarily refers to the land utilization, rather the positive progress. Quantitatively, it is the extent to which the land in urban areas is developed, which was measured using the ratio of the construction land (developed land or used land) occupying the total area of the administrative area. In order to clarify this concept, we have replaced the “Land Development Intensity” to “Land-use Intensity” in the whole manuscript.

- In a paper, it’s impossible excessively use a huge number of analytical methods! It seems that authors try to use different approach ways to arrive at the same conclusions. In this case I suggest, first of all, to keep the main steps and ideas expressed in the “Materials and methods” section.

Thank you for your comment. We have introduced the main steps and ideas on the methods in the section 3.2 before the methods part from line 219 to 224:

In this study, the measurement of LUI, the selection of driving factors and the spatial econometric model are used to explore the spatial effect of administrative division on land-use intensity. The administrative adjacency relationship was transformed and integrated into spatial econometric model. Furthermore, the amplifying coefficient was introduced to explore the existence and the effect of administrative barrier.

 Specific comments and suggestions:

1. Regarding the Title of the paper I appreciate the authors’ idea, but I believe that “Land Development Intensity” could be replaced with “Land-use Intensity”. This change not seriously affects the content and approach of the topic.

Thank you for your comment. We have replaced the “Land Development Intensity” to “Land-use Intensity”.

2. The Abstract is acceptable, reflecting the used methods, main findings and opening an interesting reflection on the direct spatial spillover effects among different administrative units, measured by the proposed index.

Thank you for your comment.

3. I consider that the Introduction is a relevant presentation of the scientific context, connected with the main topic of the paper.

Thank you for your comment.

4. Concerning the Theoretical Framework section, I highly appreciate the Fig. 1, which clearly shows the vision of the authors on this interesting approach. Just on this figure, I suggest to replace the “Players” with the “Actors” in the box Cooperative Game “Players”. This framework is sustained by relevant references.

Thank you for your comment. We have replaced the “Players” with the “Actors” in the box Cooperative Game “Players”. We also replaced the “Players” with the “Actors” in the Theoretical Framework section.

5. Materials and methods section is clear, with sufficient elements to be well understood by readers. I have only some technical issues:

Legend of the map, belonging to Figure 2, askes the provincial/regional boundary, too;

Figure 3 requires small corrections: splitting of “urbanagglomeration”, and reformulating of the vertical text from the right part: “Introduction of λ coefficient as administrative barrier”

Thank you for your comment. We have updated the provincial boundary of legend, which belonging to Figure 2. And have separated of “urbanagglomeration”, and reformulated of the vertical text from the right part: “Introduction of λ coefficient as administrative barrier”.

6. Looking to Results and Discussion as a unique section, all seems to be acceptable. Separately, there is an unbalanced approach. The results section comprises many issues which could be better placed in the Discussion section. It’s about to many details and description of each tables in the Results section! The Results should be very clear and concise. Many comments could be integrated in the following section, which seems to be less relevant. In addition, some parts of Discussion section could be moved in the Conclusion section.

So, I suggest to authors to proceed a better concentration of the results, and to develop the Discussion and Conclusion sections, using about the same ideas and content (moving them from one to another).

Thank you for your comment. We admitted that the results part contains a lot of details and description of each tables. We looked through the results section and moved the issues in the discussion section. For the Discussion and Conclusion sections, we have carefully revised them to using about the same ideas and content.

Please, eliminate the first paragraph belonging to Results section (rows 311-314), which is a kind of recommendation! In the same context, please replace R2 with R².

Thank you for your comment. We have eliminated the first paragraph belonging to Results section (rows 311-314), and we have replaced all the “R2” with “R²” in the Results section.

7. Conclusion requires an improvement with some ideas, already expressed in the previous section, and to show the study limitations.

Thank you for your comment. We have improved the Conclusion with some ideas. We have also summarized the limitations of our study.

The major revised in conclusion section (rows 637-642, and 667-678):

In the context of rapid urbanization worldwide, the expansion of construction land and increasingly intensified land development have brought about great changes in the spatial structure and functions of the land. Meanwhile, a series of social and eco-environmental problems such as the reductions in arable land, soil erosion and forest destruction worldwide. Therefore, land use and land development have become a common concern of urban planning and development internationally.

The results of this study provide references for the intensive land use and sustainable development. The positive spillover effects of administrative division should be fully considered to improve the land development in the process of spatial governance and policies making, so that we can better solve the global contradiction between land supply and demand. Countries should adopt specific land development and spatial structure readjustment strategies in different regions. The spatial planning is a powerful policy tool to balance economic growth and land development, the spillover effect should be taken into account to achieve regional economic cooperation and policy coordination, to balance land use and land protection effectively. Furthermore, the spillover effect of urban areas is supposed to influence the function of adjacent regions, which can be fully used to strengthen the ties between regions. There are also some limitations, such as the effect of administrative division is difficult to quantify, which can be considered for future investigation. The existence of administrative barrier effects within the province also be further explored and verified in future research.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the efforts of the authors to improve their manuscript. I like this article.

Reviewer 3 Report

I highly appreciate the authors' efforts to analyze and to improve their initial version of the paper. I consider that the paper can be published in this last form.