Land Management and Rural Development in Northwest China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the paper is interesting and significant. There are just a few things that needs to be taken into consideration: 

- the authors have not mentioned the differences between their research and the previous research, and what contributions they have made in the introduction section. 

- Discussion: The authors summarized the results obtained from the preceding quantitative analysis. However, I would like to ask whether the authors have found anything different from the previous research. It would be more interesting if the authors would indicate some differences and state the possible reasons for such differences. The inclusion of such differences would make this research much more interesting and meaningful.

- The theoretical implications should be added. 

Author Response

请参阅附件

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

with pleasure, I have read your paper about land management or rural areas development. I have a few suggestions - exactly your title does not provide information on what you measure or research

Title:  should be concise and precise. Maybe the "Land management and rural areas development in Northwest China" sound better for you?

I am afraid that the name of your country China is written with mistakes (affiliation 1 and 2). I see there Chian.

In Abstract, are you sure that there are counties like UK or USA in China? see (line19). I do not understand why you discuss your results in the abstract with quotation marks instead of providing the background and motivation of the study. Then explain the method and its limitations. Briefly list the results and explain the paper structure. 

Why do you constantly use the form "trade-off/synergy" instead of "trade-off or synergy relationships"? It is used in the provided manuscript in the title and abstract without explanation. 

Introduction

The idea of investigating the reason for the differences in the development of the rural areas is interesting.  Multifunctionality in line 39 needs to be explained. The city areas are more multifunctional than the countryside.

Can you support the sentences in lines 40-41 with the reference, please?

I am afraid you propose too long sentences, please try to write in shorter sentences. 

typo in line 55 (reference out of the template.

line 98 China has a government and this government-issued document you mentioned. A country is not a living person.

After reading the introduction, I know nothing about the paper's goal, the adopted method and the approaches. I Have no idea how the paper is organized and what the authors intend to do.

2. Overview of study areas 

line 131 grammar error;

line 137 river leakage? The pipe can leak not the river.

I understand it is your study, but there is no reference, even a single one in subchapters 2.1 and 2.2 where you provide many numerical details and data about the region. It is not acceptable that you do not support this part with the official governmental documents.

Figure 1 is also your elaboration, or was it downloaded? please provide this information to the readers.

After figure 1 there should be a part of the text.

3.  Data sources and research methods - this chapter also lacks references even though there are listed four sources they have to be also in the references section. 

The proposed method is not new, it has European origins exactly Zdzislaw Hellwig (Poland) proposed this method for measuring economic development and his student Stanislawa Bartosiewicz (Poland) popularized it worldwide.

The references section is focused mainly on the Chinese authors, and I understand that the development of China is the domain of local researchers. I suggest comparing it with European and North American scientists dealing with the subject of rural areas development.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Remarks, questions to be answered:

- What lies behind the selection of this particular study area? What were the criteria?

- Please explain why you have selected those basis indicators. If the indicators are wrong, then the rest of the paper does not provide much value,

- The conclusion is rather descriptive, with no valuable recommendation for socio-economic practice. Please add recommendations, also relevant from the perspective of international readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper improved and my pinion is positive

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept in present form.