The Impact of Governance Structures on the Distribution of Land Consolidation Benefits in Urban Areas: Case Studies in Ningbo, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Land consolidation is an important tool for land management considering the environmental, economic, and social potential. Land management, aimed at the sustainable development, is an important decision making factor at all management levels.

The study is dedicated to the topical issue of land consolidation in the course of land use transformation with the example of Ningbo, China.

Literature review is relevant and complies with the research line, literature sources cover China (but source 4). The area of research is relevant to the Journal subject area. The study is complete and accomplished. The study material is coherent and understandable.

The study could further benefit, if the authors had presented the graphical material on complex land consolidation before and after its implementation. It would be reasonable to make the title more concise. In addition to that, the following can be adviced: in order to get a better result, to examine the international experience of various types of land consolidation for various managerial tasks, especially those with negative results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has an exciting topic, proposing a spatial-institutional framework regarding the distribution of land consolidation benefits. It evaluated the governance structures' efficiency by comparing government-led and village collective self-organized governance structures.

 

The two governance systems are well described, but the comparison is lacking a more in-depth view. It needs to be developed. For the moment it is just a separate presentation of each case whereas it should be a comparative synthetic assessment.

Also, in the discussion part, the authors should assess which system is better or if a mixture of the two would be even more effective.

Although it is a qualitative analysis, a more structured comparative analysis is needed. A table, if not a SWOT analysis, could highlight both governance systems' more robust points and weaknesses. In what case is one perspective better than the other, and why?

The figures should be named with a title and not a phrase (the verb is unnecessary and should be eliminated).

Even though the paper extensively presents China’s care, we believe a more international approach would be desirable. For the moment, most of the authors that are cited are Chinese. The topic is so broad that the three authors in other countries will give an even more comprehensive perspective on the existing issues worldwide. Maybe also comparing the Chinese model to other models all over the world could be a good approach.

A general proofreading would be suitable.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx