Review Reports

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Firstly, I would like to provide a brief explanation of the modifications. Based on the reviewer’s suggestions, we have revised the title of the paper, changing "rural land" to "rural construction land." The updated title is: Study on the Driving Mechanisms and Regulation Pathways of Rural Construction Land Changes Based on the Decoupling-Potential Linkage Model: A Case Study of a County in Northern China. In response to the feedback, we have optimized the abstract and rewritten the introduction, which now includes an analysis of both domestic and international perspectives. We have also added references to data and content related to rural revitalization.

In the literature review, we have further categorized the research into three directions and clarified the gaps this study aims to address. In the methodology section, we have rewritten Section 2.2.3, which describes the rural construction land development potential evaluation method, establishing a comprehensive evaluation with 12 indicators. We have also provided a clear explanation of the applicability of the LMDI method (Section 2.2.5) for this study.

In the results section, we have conducted a detailed analysis of the factors driving the changes in the population-land relationship. Additionally, we have optimized the visualization of the analysis, modifying the population-land relationship bar charts and the decoupling type spatial distribution map.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

The revisions include a rewritten introduction and optimized references.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thank you.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

The construction land development potential method in Section 2.2.3 has been completely revised, and the suitability of the LMDI method for this study has been clearly explained.

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you. In response to the feedback, the results section has been further refined and deepened.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Thank you.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The author is studying the construction land of villages, not all types of land use. Therefore, it is suggested to modify the title of the paper to Study on the Driving Mechanisms and Regulation Pathways of Rural Construction Land Changes Based on the Decoupling-Potential Linkage Model: A Case Study of YanggaoCounty in Northern China

Response 1: Thank you for your insightful suggestion regarding the title of the paper. We understand that the focus of our study is specifically on rural construction land, not all types of land use. In response to your feedback, we have revised the title to "Study on the Driving Mechanisms and Regulation Pathways of Rural Construction Land Changes Based on the Decoupling-Potential Linkage Model: A Case Study of Yanggao County in Northern China." This revision better reflects the scope of our research, and we appreciate your guidance in improving the accuracy of the title.

Comments 2: In line46-48, suggest citing relevant literature to enhance the reliability of the data.

Response 2: Agree. We appreciate your suggestion. Upon reviewing your feedback, we noticed that the citation for the sentence in question was the same as the next sentence. Therefore, we have added the appropriate reference to both sentences to ensure proper citation and to improve the credibility of the data. Your input has helped us improve the manuscript, and we thank you for that. Revised section on page 2, line 56.

Comments 3: Suggest adding content on rural revitalization in China to the introduction.

Response 3: Agree. We have made the following modifications based on your suggestion.

Revised：To address these challenges and prevent further rural decline, the Chinese central government proposed the Rural Revitalization Strategy (RRS) in 2017. The strategy aims to break long-standing bottlenecks in rural development and achieve comprehensive upgrades in agriculture, rural areas, and the overall development of farmers. Following this, the Strategic Plan for Rural Revitalization (2018–2022) was released in September 2018, outlining five major goals for rural revitalization: prosperous life, industrial prosperity, ecological livability, rural civilization, and effective governance [1]. In line with these goals, the "Comprehensive Rural Revitalization Plan (2024–2027)" released in 2024 emphasizes deepening rural land system reforms, standardizing urban-rural land use balance, and prioritizing land for key rural industries. Revised section on page 2, line 66-75.

Comments 4: The driving factors of the five types of villages are not clearly explained, especially in the abstract. It is recommended to use some quantitative data to explain, otherwise it will be difficult for readers to judge the difference in driving forces among the five types of villages.

Response 4: Thank you for your insightful comment. In our study, the driving factors of rural construction land changes were analyzed by categorizing villages into two main types: those with net population inflow and those with net population outflow.

For villages experiencing net population inflow and an increase in construction land area, 35% were influenced by an increase in the proportion of permanent residents, and 32% were influenced by overall population growth. In villages with net population inflow but a decrease in construction land area, 38% of the decrease was due to improved land use efficiency, with the proportion of the floating population and total population accounting for 25% each.

For villages with net population outflow and an increase in construction land area, increased land use efficiency and the proportion of population outflow were key factors, affecting 36% and 30% of these villages, respectively. In villages with net population outflow and a decrease in construction land area, improved land use efficiency, a decrease in the proportion of permanent residents, and a reduction in total population negatively impacted 33%, 28%, and 28% of these villages, respectively.

To address your suggestion, we have revised the abstract to include these quantitative findings:

Version1: Specifically, in villages with net population inflow, changes in construction land are significantly influenced by factors such as the resident population (35% of villages) and land-use efficiency (38%). In villages with net population outflow, key influencing factors include land-use efficiency (36% of villages) and migrant population (30%).

Version2: In different population migration patterns, the reduction in land-use efficiency represents similar proportions (38% and 36%), with villages experiencing net population inflow performing better in improving land-use efficiency compared to those with net population outflow.

Comments 5: The LMDI model is often used in the decomposition of energy consumption factors, and its applicability and uniqueness in this article need to be further elaborated.

Response 5: Thank you for your insightful comment. We appreciate your attention to the applicability and uniqueness of the LMDI method in the context of our study. As you rightly pointed out, the LMDI method is widely used in energy and environmental economics to analyze factors influencing energy consumption and CO2 emissions. However, its versatility extends beyond these fields and has been successfully applied to the analysis of land use changes, particularly in the context of urbanization and rural development. For example, It has been applied to study the driving forces behind changes in rural residential land use under the effects of urbanization ^{[1, 2]}.

In our study, we adapt LMDI to decompose the driving factors behind changes in rural construction land, a subject that has not been widely explored using this method. By using LMDI, we are able to break down the complex interactions between population mobility, land use efficiency, population structure, and total population into distinct factors, providing a clear and quantitative understanding of how each factor contributes to land use changes in rural areas. This approach not only enhances the accuracy of our findings but also ensures consistency and theoretical rigor in the decomposition of these driving forces. We believe that this application of LMDI provides valuable insights into the dynamics of rural land changes, particularly under the "population-land separation" phenomenon.

The applicability of this method is explained on page 10, 2.2.5, lines 339-345.

Comments 6: The analysis of the reasons for the changes in the relationship between people and land in various villages in the results is not in-depth and needs further supplementation.

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have made revisions to the text, and the revised parts are as follows. See page 13, 3.1, line 413-441.

The evolving patterns of rural population-land relationships in Yanggao County highlight the imbalanced development across different regions during the process of new urbanization. This imbalance is characterized by urban expansion near the city, stagnation in the suburban areas, and degradation at the periphery. Longquan Town in the north, serving as the county seat and regional economic core, attracts rural populations through employment opportunities and public services, leading to unidirectional migration [38]. However, the traditional, one-size-fits-all approach to land management leads to continued expansion of construction land in areas experiencing population decline. This approach is driven by outdated planning models that fail to account for the current dynamics of population movement, causing a mismatch between land allocation and actual demand. For instance, Luowenzao Town sees an average annual rural population decrease of 2.54%, while rural construction land increases by 3.01% annually, resulting in a "population decline, land expansion" phenomenon [39]. Villages closer to the county seat experience stronger influence from the central town, with construction land expansion driven by infrastructure investments (annual growth of 0.8%). In contrast, remote villages face ecological constraints, such as limited arable land due to steep terrain, fragile ecosystems prone to erosion, and environmental protection regulations that restrict land development. These factors, combined with a lack of economic vitality, lead to a gradual decline in rural populations and more restrictive land use policies. This creates a "center-periphery" contraction gradient, where areas closer to the county seat thrive, while more remote areas experience stagnation or decline. The dynamics within Yanggao County's rural population-land system result from the interplay of three key forces: the push effect of urban siphoning, the pull effect of land inertia, and the resistance due to uniform institutional frameworks. [40]. The "push effect of urban siphoning" refers to the migration of rural populations toward urban centers, driven by the availability of better employment opportunities, infrastructure, and public services. This movement is encouraged by the increasing centralization of economic activities and the growth of urban areas. The "pull effect of land inertia" is the tendency for rural areas to continue expanding construction land even when population growth has slowed or reversed. This is a result of outdated land management practices that do not account for shifting demographic patterns, leading to unnecessary land allocation in areas where demand for land has diminished. Finally, "resistance due to uniform institutional frameworks" refers to the rigid, one-size-fits-all institutional policies that govern land use across both urban and rural areas. These policies often fail to adapt to the specific needs of different regions, restricting more flexible and targeted land management approaches that could better address local conditions.

Comments 7: The bar chart in Figure 3 is the same as the background color, and the legend in Figure 5 is too similar, which is not conducive to readers judging the specific type. It is recommended to optimize it.

Response 7: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response to your comment regarding the visual clarity of the figures, we have carefully revised and optimized the relevant charts. The modified figure can be found on page 11 and 15.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:    

5. Additional clarifications

[Here, mention any other clarifications you would like to provide to the journal editor/reviewer.]

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Firstly, I would like to provide a brief explanation of the modifications. Based on the reviewers’ suggestions, we have revised the title of the paper, changing "rural land" to "rural construction land." The updated title is: Study on the Driving Mechanisms and Regulation Pathways of Rural Construction Land Changes Based on the Decoupling-Potential Linkage Model: A Case Study of a County in Northern China. In response to the feedback, we have optimized the abstract and rewritten the introduction, which now includes an analysis of both domestic and international perspectives. We have also added references to data and content related to rural revitalization.

In the literature review, we have further categorized the research into three directions and clarified the gaps this study aims to address. In the methodology section, we have rewritten Section 2.2.3, which describes the rural construction land development potential evaluation method, establishing a comprehensive evaluation with 12 indicators. We have also provided a clear explanation of the applicability of the LMDI method (Section 2.2.5) for this study.

In the results section, we have conducted a detailed analysis of the factors driving the changes in the population-land relationship. Additionally, we have optimized the visualization of the analysis, modifying the population-land relationship bar charts and the decoupling type spatial distribution map. Finally, we have revised the discussion section, including adjustments to both its structure and content, and have rewritten the conclusion to better reflect the updated analysis.

In addition, We have divided your suggestions into five parts and responded to each one accordingly. We appreciate your constructive feedback, which has greatly helped improve the clarity, depth, and relevance of our study.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Thank you.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

We have refined the research design to ensure its appropriateness for the study. The methods section has been revised to provide a more comprehensive explanation of their applicability, both in the context of this study and in relation to similar international research.

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

We have made substantial improvements to the methods section. Specifically, Section 2.2.3, which describes the rural construction land development potential evaluation method, has been completely rewritten. We have established a set of 12 indicators to better assess land development potential, and have included a clear explanation of the suitability of these methods for this study.

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

We have revised the results to provide a deeper analysis of the underlying causes of changes in the population-land relationship. Additionally, we have updated the evaluation results and adjusted the corresponding linkage model outcomes to enhance clarity and accuracy.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

The conclusion section has been rewritten to ensure that it is more firmly supported by the results. We have also included reflections on international rural land governance experiences, providing a broader perspective on the implications of our findings.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The reasonableness of using the calculation formulas and their further development/adaptation still needs to be justified (2.2).

Response 1: T Thank you for your insightful advice. For the methods section, 2.2.1 Hotspot Analysis and 2.2.2 Tapio Decoupling Model, these methods have been widely applied in the study of global population-land systems and thus will not be elaborated further [1]. For method 2.2.3, we have made comprehensive revisions. Originally, the method included only the indicator of ideal per capita construction land area. We have now expanded it to encompass 12 evaluation indicators [2]. This comprehensive approach considers the distribution pattern of rural construction land, the need for remediation, external environmental factors, and remediation costs, providing a thorough and systematic evaluation of the potential for rural construction land remediation. Method 2.2.4 is an innovative method proposed in this paper, which combines population-land decoupling with land potential in the linkage model. Method 2.2.5 concerns the study of the driving mechanisms behind changes in construction land, primarily utilizing the Kaya Identity and Logarithmic Mean Divisia Index (LMDI) methods. The applicability of these methods to our research has been explained within the article.

The LMDI method is widely used in energy and environmental economics to analyze factors influencing energy consumption and CO2 emissions. However, its versatility extends beyond these fields and has been successfully applied to the analysis of land use changes, particularly in the context of urbanization and rural development. For example, It has been applied to study the driving forces behind changes in rural residential land use under the effects of urbanization [3]. In our study, we adapt LMDI to decompose the driving factors behind changes in rural construction land. By using LMDI, we are able to break down the complex interactions between population mobility, land use efficiency, population structure, and total population into distinct factors, providing a clear and quantitative understanding of how each factor contributes to land use changes in rural areas. This approach not only enhances the accuracy of our findings but also ensures consistency and theoretical rigor in the decomposition of these driving forces. We believe that this application of LMDI provides valuable insights into the dynamics of rural land changes, particularly under the "population-land separation" phenomenon.

Comments 2: However, the interpretation of the results is little or not at all integrated into the international discussion on governance approaches.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have included a discussion on international governance experience in section 4.1.1 of the article. Page 20, line 611-636.

The optimization of rural land resources requires models that are adaptable to local contexts, reflecting the diversity in regional development patterns. The proposed strategies for various land types—resource allocation, endogenous development, resource reserve, optimized development, contraction control, and reserve replenishment—highlight the complexity of balancing population growth, infrastructure needs, and environmental sustainability. However, international governance experiences offer valuable lessons for enhancing these models [4].

For instance, the progressive ruralism approach from Germany stresses the importance of democratizing local governance and securing stable public funding for rural development [5]. This aligns with the "flexible land supply and targeted allocation" model proposed for the resource allocation type, which requires dynamic adjustments based on population trends. Like Germany's emphasis on community participation in land governance, the "micro-renewal" model in the endogenous development type also advocates for collective land use, transforming idle homesteads into community-driven public service facilities. This mirrors Germany's decentralized approach to rural development, where land-use decisions are made with local input.

Similarly, the UK’s post-Brexit rural governance underlines the need to address broader societal factors—such as community infrastructure and environmental sustainability—in addition to agricultural concerns [6]. This approach informs the "quota trading and cross-regional transfer" model for resource reserve regions, where land quotas are traded to finance public services. By incorporating diverse sectors beyond agriculture into land governance, this model supports the sustainable development of rural areas, a concept also emphasized in China's efforts to modernize its rural redevelopment [7].

China’s experience with rural governance, particularly in regions like Tianjin, further exemplifies the role of hybrid governance structures, combining centralized oversight with localized decision-making. The "quota pre-allocation + balance of land occupation and compensation" mechanism, proposed for secondary potential villages, is a direct reflection of this approach, ensuring a balanced land distribution while addressing both economic and ecological goals. Additionally, the "reduction planning and ecological anchoring" strategy for contraction control regions draws from global best practices in environmental governance, including models that focus on ecological zones and sustainable land use, such as those employed in Germany and the UK[5, 8].

In sum, integrating international governance models into China's rural land optimization strategies offers the potential to create more flexible, context-sensitive land management systems. By combining advanced land-use policies with community-driven, environmentally sustainable approaches, these strategies can address the pressing challenges of rural revitalization, demographic shifts, and environmental preservation [9]. This comprehensive approach is essential for balancing growth and sustainability in rural areas, ensuring that land resources are optimized for both current and future generations.

Comments 3: In addition, the theoretical-conceptual derivation and justification of the planning and policy recommendations is missing. This applies in particular to lines 353, 357, 375, 380-383, 397-400, 421, 427-428.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In response to your feedback, we have carefully extracted the sentences you mentioned and provided detailed explanations for each one.

line353-357：The allocation mechanism, which is based on registered household population, is disconnected from the dynamic reality of population migration. This disjunction results in the inability to reclaim idle homesteads and the continued allocation of new construction land, thereby causing a spatial lock-in effect.

This sentence describes the current situation, indicating that the existing land allocation system cannot adapt to the phenomenon of rural population decline. We have further explained this sentence in the text. Please refer to page 14, section 3.2, lines 456-466 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Revised：

The allocation mechanism, which is based on registered household population, is disconnected from the dynamic reality of population migration. This disjunction results in the inability to reclaim idle homesteads and the continued allocation of new construction land, thereby causing a spatial lock-in effect. In other words, the existing land allocation system fails to adapt to the changing population distribution, leading to the inefficient use of land. Moreover, this trend is exacerbated by the reliance on land finance and the lagging management system of homestead land. As a result, areas with declining populations are unable to repurpose or reallocate unused land, while new land continues to be allocated in areas with less demand, reinforcing patterns of underutilized land and limiting spatial flexibility.

line375-376：However, the lag in public service provision makes it difficult to sustain this "growth bubble."

This paragraph also analyzes the current situation, indicating that in some areas there is population or land growth, but due to the lack of matching public service facilities, such growth cannot be sustained. We have revised the supporting explanation for this content in the text. Please refer to page 15, section 3.2, lines 484-486 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Revised：

Their land expansion is driven by short-term population return or infrastructure invest-ments. However, the inadequate provision of public services, such as healthcare, education, public transportation, and utilities, undermines the sustainability of this growth pattern.

line380-383：This spatial heterogeneity, characterized by "central expansion and peripheral col-lapse," is not only a byproduct of the path dependency of land-based fiscal policies but also reflects the underlying resistance to transitioning the rural population-land system from mere scale expansion to quality-oriented reconstruction.

This part mainly highlights the obstacles to achieving high-quality land development. Since other reviewers have also suggested modifications to this part, it has been deleted from the text.

line397-400：These findings suggest that the central region of Yanggao County is more suitable for prioritized planning and development. In contrast, the northern region should focus on optimizing land use and maintaining a balance between population and land re-sources to promote sustainable development across the entire county.

This section describes and analyzes the results of the potential for rural construction land remediation. Due to the adjustments and optimizations made to the methods, this content has been rewritten. Please refer to page 15, section 3.3, lines 502-526 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

line421-423：These villages need to activate their reserved land resources through the county-level indicator trading platform to support future regional development.

It needs to be explained that this item provides development suggestions for villages of this development type (resource reserve type). Due to the decrease in population and increase in land, and the significant potential for construction land development, construction land can be used as a reserve resource for index regulation within the village. The specific amount of regulation depends on the scale of new projects and is not clearly standardized, mainly adapting to local conditions.

line427-428：Enhancing land efficiency in these areas requires strategies such as "vertical development" and "functional replacement."

The article has supplemented this part with further explanations. Please refer to page 18, section 3.4, lines 448-558 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Revised：

Enhancing land efficiency in these areas requires strategies such as "vertical development," which refers to increasing the use of land by building upwards (e.g., constructing multi-story buildings instead of spreading horizontally), and "functional replacement," which involves transforming existing land uses to more efficient or appropriate uses based on the area’s development needs (e.g., converting underutilized idle land into industrial or commercial land) [4]. These strategies help maximize land use while respecting ecological and topographical constraints.

Comments 4: Here, pre-normative arguments are made (also chapter 4, line 502/503, 528, 554/555, 566/567) without explicating the corresponding targets and their justifications.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In response to your feedback, we have carefully extracted the sentences you mentioned and provided detailed explanations for each one.

Line499-504：A comprehensive analysis of the evolution of rural population-land relationships and the driving mechanisms of construction land changes in Yanggao County indi-cates that land management should transcend the singular "land quota exchange" ap-proach. Instead, a policy mix of "potential value increase—indicator transfer—cost constraint" should be established. This would enable a paradigm shift from passive adaptation to proactive regulation within the population-land system.

It should be noted that, the "land quota exchange" is a widely used land policy in China at present. The "land quota exchange" refers to the policy of linking the increase of urban construction land with a reduction in rural construction land, aimed at balancing land use by converting certain rural construction land into agricultural land. This system, known as "land increase and decrease linkage," has the goal of improving land quality, enhancing agricultural land, and optimizing the spatial layout of urban and rural land. However, it often focuses on meeting land-use targets rather than addressing the dynamic needs of rural areas.

line527-530：Implement a "quota trading and cross-regional transfer" model. Establish a county-level construction land quota reserve, allowing high-potential villages (with grade I development potential) to transfer land quotas across regions through land transac-tions, with proceeds specifically directed towards the construction of village-level public service facilities.

The "quota trading and cross-regional transfer" model mentioned here refers to the proposed solution without specific numerical values, which are determined based on the scale of new projects. The significance of this method is to provide a basis for land quota replacement and to standardize the land quota replacement process. (The concept of quota allocation is a part of China's land policy.) Section 4.1.2 of the article has supplemented this explanation.

Revised：

Implement a "quota trading and cross-regional transfer" model. Establish a county-level construction land quota reserve, allowing high-potential villages (with grade I development potential) to transfer land quotas across regions through land transactions, with proceeds specifically directed towards the construction of village-level public service facilities. These facilities include essential infrastructure and services such as schools, healthcare centers, community halls, recreational areas, and local markets that cater to the daily needs of the village population. For secondary potential villages, implement a "quota pre-allocation + balance of land occupation and compensation" mechanism, prioritizing the land needs for modern agricultural facilities. This mechanism involves the advance allocation of construction land quotas specifically for agricultural infrastructure development, ensuring timely land supply for projects such as smart greenhouses, cold-chain logistics centers, and agricultural product processing workshops. At the same time, it adheres to the principle of "balance of land occupation and compensation," meaning that any newly occupied construction land must be offset by reclaiming or restoring equivalent areas of cultivated land elsewhere in the village. For example, if 5 hectares of land are used for building a modern farming park, an equivalent area of low-efficiency land can be rehabilitated into high-quality farmland to maintain overall land balance. This model offers a pragmatic development path tailored to secondary potential villages, distinct from the cross-regional quota trading model suited for villages with the highest development potential.

line554-555：To address the characteristics of population-land synchronous fluctuations, a "dynamic quota pool" mechanism should be established.

This method refers to identifying surplus land in villages with significant construction land remediation potential and either population loss or construction land growth, using it as a reserve resource for the overall regional development of Yanggao County. Section 4.1.2, item six, line 709-719 has supplemented this explanation.

Revised：

The dynamic quota pool refers to a flexible system that adjusts land quotas based on changes in population dynamics. During periods of population growth, the reserved land should be released, with priority given to the development of public service facilities, such as health stations and logistics hubs, to improve the village's capacity to support its population. For example, if a village experiences a significant population increase, the dynamic quota pool can release additional land for the construction of essential services to accommodate the growing demand. During contraction periods, idle or underutilized land should be converted into ecological land credits, which are then deposited into the county-level trading platform for potential future use.

line565-567：This study not only offers new perspectives for understanding the driving mecha-nisms behind land-use changes but also provides a crucial theoretical and methodo-logical foundation for rural land regulation. By focusing on the supply and balance of rural land quotas, it offers a robust basis for assessment and quota calculation.

This content aligns with the development strategies mentioned earlier and explains the theoretical method provided by the article: combining population-land decoupling and construction land development potential to identify villages with surplus land resources for land quota replacement and trading allocation. This paragraph presents the research significance proposed by this article, which is that the theoretical method provides a theoretical basis for the supply and allocation of rural land quotas.

We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback and have made the necessary revisions accordingly.

Comments 5: There is also no reflection of the results on developments in countries outside China.

Response 5: Thank you for your insightful comment. The conclusion of the article has been revised based on your feedback. Please refer to page 24, section 5, lines 823-837 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Revised:

International rural land governance experiences demonstrate that systematic legisla-tion and ecological coordination are crucial. Germany's multiple revisions of the Land Consolidation Act have integrated ecological protection and village renewal into the core of land consolidation efforts, but its high-cost model depends on sus-tained financial support, making it difficult for some developing countries to repli-cate. Japan's Land Improvement Act has effectively alleviated farmland fragmenta-tion, yet aging populations have led to increased fallow rates, exposing deeper con-tradictions between policy and demographic structure. The Netherlands has achieved large-scale farming through "land exchange," but this relies on the govern-ment covering 70% of the costs, indicating a lack of market mechanisms. The UK's "Green Belt" policy has curbed urban sprawl, but nationalization of development rights has reduced land fluidity. These experiences reveal that a legal framework and ecological prioritization are indispensable; however, sustainable mechanisms must be designed to align with local demographic and economic characteristics to avoid the adaptability risks associated with transplanting single models.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:    (in red)

5. Additional clarifications

Dear Editor,

We would like to express our appreciation for the reviewer’s insightful comments, which have greatly contributed to the improvement of the manuscript. The reviewer raised several important concerns, particularly regarding the theoretical justification of the planning and policy recommendations, as well as the integration of the results into international governance discussions. We have carefully addressed these points and provided a more detailed discussion of international governance experiences, incorporating reflections on global land governance into the conclusion. Additionally, we have provided a point-by-point response to the specific lines highlighted by the reviewer.

One key issue raised by the reviewer pertains to the term "quota" used in the manuscript. The reviewer expressed concerns about whether this refers to an ideal value and the need for supporting justification. Upon further analysis, we would like to clarify that the "quota" mentioned in the paper refers to a development strategy we propose for villages with high construction land development potential but low population density. This strategy involves "storing" construction land in such villages and reallocating these quotas to areas in need of economic development or project expansion. This approach is aligned with China’s "land readjustment" policy, which is based on the principle of using and compensating land according to actual usage, rather than adhering to an ideal value. Therefore, there is no fixed "ideal number" or "good distribution" in this context, and the term "quota" should be understood as a strategic allocation rather than a prescriptive target.

We hope this clarification helps resolve any misunderstandings and provides a clearer understanding of our approach. We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing our revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough and detailed review. Your thoughtful suggestions and attention to detail have significantly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript, and we greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to providing such valuable feedback. Firstly, I would like to provide a brief explanation of the modifications. Based on the reviewers’ suggestions, we have revised the title of the paper, changing "rural land" to "rural construction land." The updated title is: Study on the Driving Mechanisms and Regulation Pathways of Rural Construction Land Changes Based on the Decoupling-Potential Linkage Model: A Case Study of a County in Northern China. In response to the feedback, we have optimized the abstract and rewritten the introduction, which now includes an analysis of both domestic and international perspectives. We have also added references to data and content related to rural revitalization.

In the literature review, we have further categorized the research into three directions and clarified the gaps this study aims to address. In the methodology section, we have rewritten Section 2.2.3, which describes the rural construction land development potential evaluation method, establishing a comprehensive evaluation with 12 indicators. We have also provided a clear explanation of the applicability of the LMDI method (Section 2.2.5) for this study.

In the results section, we have conducted a detailed analysis of the factors driving the changes in the population-land relationship. Finally, we have revised the discussion section, including adjustments to both its structure and content, and have rewritten the conclusion to better reflect the updated analysis.

It should be noted that, due to the significant structural adjustments and content revisions made to the manuscript, some terms and sentences that require further explanation were removed, and we apologize for any resulting confusion.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Thank you.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thank you.

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Thank you.

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Thank you.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: line 15, Abstract: "Yanggao County," should be followed by the province the county which the reader learns later is in Shanxi Province. This information should be included in the Abstract as well.

Response 1: Agree. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have now included the information that Yanggao County is located in Shanxi Province in the abstract, immediately following the county name. Please refer to page 1, line 16 of the revised manuscript.

Comments 2: line 20, Abstract: new paragraph beginning with "The results" etc.

Response 2: We appreciate your feedback on the structure of the abstract. While we understand the reasoning behind your suggestion to start a new paragraph with "The results," we have reviewed other articles published in this journal, and it appears that the majority of them present the abstract as a single paragraph. To maintain consistency with the journal's formatting style, we plan to consult with the editor on this matter and make any adjustments as needed. Thank you for your understanding.

Comments 3: Abstract: "floating population" should be defined for the nonspecialist reader.

Response 3: Due to the revision of the abstract, the term 'floating population' has been removed.

Comments 4: line 44: Section heading: "Introduction" is fine, but given the nature of the Introduction section, I would add the words: "Literature Review" which is what the Introduction is

Response 4: Regarding the suggestion to add "Literature Review" to the section heading, we decided not to make this change, as the Introduction section now includes both an overview and literature review. Thank you for your suggestion. We will communicate with the editor and make further modifications.

Comments 5: line 45:"rural shrinkage," I would improve in clarity by adding the word: "population" after the word, "rural," so it reads: "rural population shrinkage."

Response 5: We have removed the term "rural shrinkage" from the manuscript as part of a comprehensive rewrite of the introduction. Consequently, we did not include the suggested modification, as the content was adjusted to better align with the overall flow of the revised manuscript.

Comments 6: line 53: "This has resulted in significant waste of land resources?" Why? How? should be explained to the reader.

Response 6: The hollowing-out of rural areas and the prevalence of multiple dwellings per household have led to land abandonment and inefficient land use. Large-scale encroachment of construction land onto farmland is a widespread issue, which reduces the availability of arable land and disrupts agricultural production. As a result, land resources are wasted because the newly developed construction areas often remain underutilized, while agricultural land that could be more productively used is taken away.

Please refer to page 2, Section 1, line 63-65 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 7: line 79: new paragraph should be created after "Shi et al. (2021). Also, italicize et al. because foreign words.

Response 7: The introduction has undergone a restructuring, and the citation style has been modified as part of these revisions. As a result, the specific change you suggested regarding the new paragraph and formatting of the citation could not be applied, as it no longer aligns with the revised reference structure.

Comments 8: line 112: section heading: "General Situations" seems misworded; I would substitute "Traits" or "Characteristics" to be more precise here.

Response 8: Thank you for your feedback on the section heading. After considering your suggestion, we realized that the original title might cause some ambiguity. Since this section primarily provides an explanation of the study area and the data sources, we have updated the heading to "Study Area and Data Sources" to make the content clearer and more precise. We believe this change better reflects the focus of the section, and we appreciate your thoughtful input in guiding us to improve the clarity of the paper. Please refer to page 4, Section 2.1, line 149 of the revised manuscript.

Comments 9: lines 109-110: "the study ultimately provides a theoretical framework for optimizing land resource allocation." How? Need to describe so the reader can fully understand this important goal of the paper.

Response 9: Agree. Specifically, the framework proposes methods for assessing land supply and demand across different regions, identifies factors influencing land use change, and suggests strategies for reallocating land in a way that balances the needs of rural development and agricultural sustainability. This approach helps to ensure more efficient and equitable use of land resources, promoting sustainable rural development.

Please refer to page 4, Section 1, line 141-147 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 10: line 158: give full name of the author when first referring to Tapio here.

Response 10: Agree. Thank you for pointing out the need to provide the full name of the author when first referring to Tapio. We have revised the text to include Tapio's full name at the first mention, ensuring clarity and proper citation. Your attention to detail is greatly appreciated. Please refer to page 5, Section 2.2.2, line 201 of the revised manuscript.

Comments 11: line post-231: Table Column heading: "Modern connotation." The word "connotation seems misplaced here. I would use possible headings as:"Model Results," or "Model Consequences."

Response 11: We appreciate your feedback on the table column heading "Model connotation." After reviewing your suggestion, we agree that the term "connotation" may not be the best fit in this context. Since this column describes the characteristics and performance of various classification models, we have updated the heading to "Model Characteristics" as per your suggestion. This change better reflects the content and improves the clarity of the table. Thank you for your valuable input. Please refer to page 9, Section 2.2.4, line 291 of the revised manuscript.

Comments 12: line 287: "new urbanization developments:" should explain what these are here and not leave it to the reader to figure out what is meant here.

Response 12: Agree.

From 2015 to 2020, due to the introduction of China's new urbanization concept, the rural population in Yanggao County experienced a rapid decline, with an average annual decrease of 4.7%. New urbanization is characterized by coordinated development of urban and rural areas, urban-rural integration, interaction between industry and cities, resource conservation, ecological livability, and harmonious development. This concept plays a significant and positive role in promoting the high-quality development of urbanization in China.

Please refer to page 10, Section 3.1, line 353-359 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 13: line 347z; Table 4 section heading and column titles should be moved to the next page where the data are location so there is no page break.

Response 13: Agree. Thank you for your observation regarding the layout of Table 4. We have made the necessary adjustment by moving the section heading and column titles to the next page so that the data is not interrupted by a page break. This change ensures that the table is presented in a more cohesive and readable format. We appreciate your attention to detail and have made this correction.

Please refer to page 14, Section 3.2, line 452 of the revised manuscript.

Comments 14: line 357: "spatial lock-in effect:" should be explained to be clearer.

Response 14: Agree. The allocation mechanism, which is based on registered household population, is disconnected from the dynamic reality of population migration. This disjunction results in the inability to reclaim idle homesteads and the continued allocation of new construction land, thereby causing a spatial lock-in effect. In other words, the existing land allocation system fails to adapt to the changing population distribution, leading to the inefficient use of land. As a result, areas with declining populations are unable to repurpose or reallocate unused land, while new land continues to be allocated in areas with less demand, reinforcing patterns of underutilized land and limiting spatial flexibility.

Please refer to page 14, Section 3.2, line 460-466 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 15: lines 375-376: "lag in public service provision:" need to be clearer here with further explanation of what is being "lagged."

Response 15: Agree. Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the "lag in public service provision." To clarify, the lag refers to the delayed development and availability of essential public services in these villages, which are crucial for sustaining long-term growth and development. Specifically, this lag includes areas such as healthcare, education, transportation infrastructure (e.g., roads and public transit), access to utilities (such as water, electricity, and sewage systems), and social welfare services. These services often do not keep pace with the rapid land expansion driven by population return or infrastructure investments, leading to an imbalance where land development occurs before the necessary public services are put in place to support it. As a result, the "growth bubble" that occurs in these villages—driven by short-term population return or infrastructure development—cannot be sustained in the long term, as the lack of adequate services limits the quality of life and reduces the attractiveness of these areas for residents. This discrepancy between land expansion and public service provision is a key factor contributing to the instability and unsustainability of development in these villages. This section has been modified in terms of expression. Please refer to page 15, Section 3.2, line 484-486 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

We hope this explanation clarifies the issue, and we are grateful for your feedback.

Comments 16: line 428: "vertical development" and "functional replacement:" need to define what these terms mean for the nonspecialist reader to understand the references here.

Response 16: Agree. Enhancing land efficiency in these areas requires strategies such as "vertical develop-ment," which refers to increasing the use of land by building upwards (e.g., construct-ing multi-story buildings instead of spreading horizontally), and "functional replace-ment," which involves transforming existing land uses to more efficient or appropriate uses based on the area’s development needs (e.g., converting underutilized idle land into industrial or commercial land). These strategies help maximize land use while re-specting ecological and topographical constraints.

Please refer to page 18, Section 3.4, line 549-558 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 17: lines 431-432: "service optimization, and infrastructure enhancement to ensure basic living and development conditions." This sentence and technical terms used need to be clarified and specified for the reader to comprehend their meaning. Examples of each concept would enhance the clarity of the presentation here.

Response 17: Agree. Thank you for your insightful comment. We appreciate your suggestion to clarify the terms "service optimization" and "infrastructure enhancement" to ensure they are more understandable for the reader.

To address this, we have revised the relevant section to include specific examples and provide further explanations. "Service optimization" refers to improving the efficiency and accessibility of essential services in these villages, such as healthcare, education, and social welfare. For example, this could involve setting up mobile healthcare units or telemedicine services to meet the needs of the rural population, or introducing digital learning platforms to overcome barriers to education in sparsely populated areas.

Similarly, "infrastructure enhancement" involves upgrading critical physical infrastructure like roads, utilities (e.g., water, electricity, and sewage systems), and transportation networks. For instance, improving the road network to connect isolated villages or expanding internet access for remote working and learning are examples of infrastructure enhancements that can improve living conditions and support future development in these shrinking villages. Please refer to page 19, Section 3.4, line 563-573 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

We hope this explanation helps clarify the meaning of these terms and provides a clearer understanding of the strategies involved in shrinkage control. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Comments 18: lines 459-460: "with rural homestead reclamation and relative stable net population loss ratios, land use efficiency has significantly improved." How? Should discuss and explain to be clear.

Response 18: Agree. Thank you for your valuable comment. To address your concern, we have clarified how rural homestead reclamation and stable net population loss ratios contribute to the improvement in land use efficiency. Specifically, rural homestead reclamation refers to the process of converting abandoned or underutilized homestead land into more productive uses, such as agricultural land or for new development, thus reducing waste and improving the efficiency of the remaining land. By stabilizing population loss rates, these villages experience more controlled land usage, preventing over-expansion of construction areas and allowing for better management of the available land resources. These combined efforts lead to significant improvements in land use efficiency, even as the population continues to decline.

Please refer to page 20, Section 3.5, line 600-608 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 19: line 462: replace "Evolution" in section heading with "Evolving."  Also, make this substitution for the "evolution" in line 464.

Response 19: The entire discussion section, including Section 4.1, has been restructured and revised. As part of this process, we have removed Section 4.1 entirely, so the changes you suggested regarding the term "evolution" are no longer applicable. We apologize for any confusion caused by this revision.

Comments 20: lines 465-466: "new urbanization." What is that? Need to explain.

Response 20: Thank you for raising the question about the term "new urbanization" in lines 465-466. As you pointed out, we have already provided an explanation of "new urbanization" earlier in the manuscript (see Section 3.1, page 10, lines 353-359). This explanation should help provide a clearer understanding of the term. We hope this resolves some confusion, and we appreciate your attention to this matter.

Comments 21: lines 471-472: "based on historical planning inertia:" needs to be explained to be clear and precise.

Response 21: Thank you for your insightful comment. The original phrase referred to the outdated land planning models that continue to influence current land management decisions, despite changing population patterns. These old models were based on assumptions that no longer align with the reality of rural population shifts and urbanization trends. By explaining that this outdated approach results in the continued expansion of construction land in areas with declining populations, we aim to provide a clearer picture of how the land management system is misaligned with actual needs.

However, this portion was removed during the overall revision of the discussion section. As such, the phrase you mentioned no longer appears in the manuscript, and we have made adjustments to the content accordingly.

Comments 22: lines 476-477: "remote villages face ecological constraints:" need to specify what these are with examples as well to be clear.

Response 22: Agree. To address your concern, we have specified the ecological constraints faced by remote villages, including limited arable land due to steep terrain, vulnerability to soil erosion, and environmental protection regulations that limit land development. These constraints play a significant role in shaping land use policies and restricting the development potential of remote areas. By providing specific examples of these ecological factors, we aim to offer a clearer and more comprehensive explanation of the challenges faced by these villages. Please refer to page 13, Section 3.1, line 421-427 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 23: lines 480-481: do not merely cite a source when an explanation is needed for the argument being presented. "the push effect of urban siphoning, the pull effect of land inertia, and the resistance due to uniform institutional frameworks" all need to be explained by the authors and do not over-rely upon the cited source which the reader may not be familial with.

Response 23: Agree. In response to your comment, we have revised the paragraph to provide clear explanations of the three forces.

The dynamics within Yanggao County's rural population-land system result from the in-terplay of three key forces: the push effect of urban siphoning, the pull effect of land inertia, and the resistance due to uniform institutional frameworks. [45]. The "push effect of urban siphoning" refers to the migration of rural populations toward urban centers, driven by the availability of better employment opportunities, infrastructure, and public services. This movement is encouraged by the increasing centralization of economic activities and the growth of urban areas. The "pull effect of land inertia" is the tendency for rural areas to continue expanding construction land even when population growth has slowed or re-versed. This is a result of outdated land management practices that do not account for shifting demographic patterns, leading to unnecessary land allocation in areas where demand for land has diminished. Finally, "resistance due to uniform institutional frame-works" refers to the rigid, one-size-fits-all institutional policies that govern land use across both urban and rural areas. These policies often fail to adapt to the specific needs of dif-ferent regions, restricting more flexible and targeted land management approaches that could better address local conditions

Please refer to page 13, Section 3.1, line 427-441 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 24: lines 488-489: "an optimization development model" needs to be explained to be rationally useful and clear.

Response 24: Specifically, we describe it as a strategy that aims to improve the efficiency of land use by reclaiming underutilized land, repurposing existing structures, and enhancing infrastructure to better utilize available space. This model focuses on sustainability and resource concentration, which is particularly relevant in areas experiencing population decline. This is a type of village classification that we study.

Comments 25: line 490: what is "unconventional construction land expansion." Needs to be clarified to be rationally useful.

Response 25: Despite a declining population, construction land continues to expand due to outdated and rigid land management policies. These policies fail to adapt to the current demographic realities, leading to inefficient land use.

This term was removed during the revision of Section 4, as we restructured the discussion and eliminated some of the content. Therefore, the term no longer appears, and we have adjusted the text to align with the updated focus of the section.

Comments 26: lines 495-496: "may exacerbate rural hollowing." Again sources are cited but no discussion or clarification are provided by the authors for this alleged phenomenon "rural hallowing." Needed to make this important process clear.

Response 26: Rural hollowing refers to the phenomenon where excessive administrative intervention or overly restrictive land management practices may drive people away from rural areas. When such policies disrupt the natural economic dynamics of these regions, they can lead to depopulation and underdevelopment.

This concept was also removed during the revision of Section 4.

Comments 27: "reflects the contradiction between the blockage of market signal in land resource allocation and the lag in planning responses." This sentence needs further explanation and clarification to be clear to the reader and useful for the authors' argument

Response 27: Specifically, we now explain that while market forces could naturally guide efficient land use and adjust land allocations based on actual demand, rigid and outdated land planning policies often block these signals, preventing the market from operating freely. This lag in planning responses causes a mismatch between land supply and actual needs, which contributes to inefficiencies in rural land management.

However, this sentence was also removed during the revision of Section 4.

Comments 28: line 501: "land quota exchange" needs to be explained to the nonspecialist reader.

Response 28: Thank you for your comment. In response, we have clarified the concept of "land quota exchange" by explaining it as the policy where the increase in urban construction land is linked to a reduction in rural construction land, a system commonly known as "land increase and decrease linkage." This policy aims to balance land use by converting rural construction land into agricultural land.

However, this concept was also removed during the revision of Section 4.

Comments 29: line 503: prescribed "paradigm shift" from "passive adaptation to proactive regulation within the population-land system" needs to be explained and clarified for the reader.

Response 29: Passive adaptation is the reactive response to demographic changes, whereas proactive regulation involves anticipating and shaping land use in a way that promotes long-term sustainability and more efficient development. This shift would move beyond the reactive nature of current policies to a more strategic and forward-thinking approach.

However, this sentence was also removed during the revision of Section 4.

Comments 30: line 505: section heading: "Pathways for the Adjustment and Optimization of Rural Land Resources" are really policy recommendations by the authors. Therefore, I would use the subheading: "Policy Recommendations" here.

Response 30: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We considered your recommendation to change the section heading to "Policy Recommendations." However, after further review, we decided to use the subheading "Strategies" instead, as we believe it better captures the focus of the section, which discusses broader strategic approaches rather than specific policy recommendations. We appreciate your input and hope that the revised heading aligns well with the content of the section.

Please refer to page 20, Section 4.1, line 610 of the revised manuscript.

Comments 31: lines 520-521: "converting idle homesteads into collectively operated construction land" etc. How? needs to be explained here.

Response 31: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have clarified the process in the revised paragraph. For secondary potential villages, enhance land use efficiency through methods such as converting idle homesteads—typically vacant or underused residential properties—into collectively operated construction land. This conversion can be achieved by repurposing these homesteads for shared community purposes, such as constructing public service fa-cilities (e.g., community centers, markets, or local health clinics) or developing small-scale commercial spaces. These projects would be managed collectively by the village or a des-ignated cooperative, ensuring that the land is used efficiently for the benefit of the com-munity. Thank you again for your valuable suggestion.

Please refer to page 21, Section 4.1.2, line 650-657 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 32: line 530-531: "village-level public service facilities:" need explanation of what these are along with examples.

Response 32: Agree. These facilities include essential infrastructure and services such as schools, healthcare centers, community halls, recreational areas, and local markets that cater to the daily needs of the village population.

Please refer to page 21, Section 4.1.2, line 667-669 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 33: lines 531-533: "implement a 'quota pre-allocation + balance of land occupation and compensation' mechanism, prioritizing the land needs for modern agricultural facilities." This need to be explained and examples are needed to make clearer to the reader.

Response 33: Agree. This mechanism involves the advance allocation of construction land quotas specifically for agricultural infrastructure development, ensuring timely land supply for projects such as smart greenhouses, cold-chain logistics centers, and agricultural product processing workshops. At the same time, it adheres to the principle of "balance of land occupation and compensation," meaning that any newly occupied construction land must be offset by reclaiming or restoring equivalent areas of cultivated land elsewhere in the village. For example, if 5 hectares of land are used for building a modern farming park, an equivalent area of low-efficiency land can be rehabilitated into high-quality farmland to maintain overall land balance. This model offers a pragmatic development path tailored to secondary potential villages, distinct from the cross-regional quota trading model suited for villages with the highest development potential.

Please refer to page 21, Section 4.1.2, line 669-681 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 34: lines 541-542: "with priority given to the construction of new energy facilities or ecological corridors." What are "ecological corridors?" Why is this being claimed? Need to explain and defend to be rationally useful and persuasive.

Response 34: Agree. Thank you for your comment. To clarify the reference to "ecological corridors," we have added an explanation in the revised paragraph. Ecological corridors refer to strategically designed areas that connect fragmented ecosystems, enabling the movement and migration of wildlife and the flow of ecosystem services such as water, air, and biodiversity. Prioritizing ecological corridors for development helps mitigate the environmental impacts of urban expansion, promotes biodiversity, and enhances the resilience of rural areas against climate change. We argue that repurposing underutilized land for such purposes is not only environmentally beneficial but also aligns with sustainable land-use policies. This clarification also helps make the rationale behind prioritizing ecological corridors more clearer and persuasive. Thank you for your helpful suggestion, which has strengthened the argument in this section.

Please refer to page 21, Section 4.1.2, line 690-693 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 35: line 546: "ecological anchoring;" What is this? Need to explain to be rationally useful, preferably with examples.

Response 35: Agree. Thank you for your insightful comment. To clarify the term "ecological anchoring," we have added an explanation in the revised paragraph. Ecological anchoring involves the designation of protected ecological areas, such as wetlands or biodiversity corridors, which serve to preserve the local environment and act as natural buffers against further development. These areas help mitigate environmental impacts and maintain ecological stability, especially in regions with declining populations and land resources. We hope this explanation makes the concept more understandable and useful in the context of the paper. Thank you again for your constructive feedback.

Please refer to page 22, Section 4.1.2, line 698-702 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 36: lines 554-555: "dynamic quota pool:" need to explain and clarify with examples.

Response 36: Agree. Thank you for your valuable comment. To clarify the concept of the "dynamic quota pool," we have added an explanation in the revised paragraph. The dynamic quota pool refers to a flexible system that adjusts land quotas based on changes in population dynamics. During periods of population growth, the reserved land should be released, with priority given to the development of public service facilities, such as health stations and logistics hubs, to improve the village's capacity to support its population. For example, if a village experiences a significant population increase, the dynamic quota pool can release additional land for the construction of essential services to accommodate the growing demand. During contraction periods, idle or underutilized land should be converted into ecological land credits, which are then deposited into the county-level trading platform for potential future use. We hope this explanation helps to make the concept clearer and more practical. Thank you again for your insightful feedback.

Please refer to page 22, Section 4.1.2, line 709-719 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 37: lines 573-574: "targeted deconstruction pathways:" What are these? Need to explain to be rationally useful and clear.

Response 37: Agree. Thank you for your insightful comment. In response to your query about "targeted deconstruction pathways," we have revised the paragraph to provide a more detailed explanation. These pathways refer to alternative strategies that involve reevaluating and adjusting current land use and governance practices to better meet the needs of specific rural areas. They emphasize flexibility and customization rather than adhering to a rigid, uniform approach. We hope this clarification makes the concept clearer and more applicable to the context of land management.

Please refer to page 23, Section 4.3, line 785-789 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 38: line 574: "traditional governance logic" needs to be clarified and discussed further with examples, if possible.

Response 38: Agree. Thank you for your valuable comment. In the context of our study, "traditional governance logic" refers to the conventional approach in land resource management, which often focuses on centralized decision-making and top-down planning without sufficient consideration of local dynamics or the evolving needs of rural areas. For example, in many regions, land-use planning historically emphasized large-scale agricultural production and urban expansion, often without adequately addressing issues such as population decline or land efficiency in rural areas. This traditional logic has sometimes led to inefficient land allocation and poor adaptation to changing rural circumstances.

Please refer to page 23, Section 4.3, line 785-789 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:   

5. Additional clarifications

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the detailed and constructive feedback provided by the reviewer. In response to the reviewer’s numerous comments on the details and terminology used in the manuscript, we have made several additions and clarifications throughout the paper to ensure greater clarity and precision. As a result, the length of the manuscript has increased due to the incorporation of these explanations and refinements.

We hope that the revisions meet the expectations of both the reviewer and the journal, and we believe the enhanced clarity will significantly improve the overall quality of the paper. We truly appreciate the reviewer’s careful attention to detail.

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We truly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your comments have been invaluable in helping us strengthen our work, and we have carefully considered each of your suggestions. Firstly, I would like to provide a brief explanation of the modifications. Based on the reviewers’ suggestions, we have revised the title of the paper, changing "rural land" to "rural construction land." The updated title is: Study on the Driving Mechanisms and Regulation Pathways of Rural Construction Land Changes Based on the Decoupling-Potential Linkage Model: A Case Study of a County in Northern China. In response to the feedback, we have optimized the abstract and rewritten the introduction, which now includes an analysis of both domestic and international perspectives. We have also added references to data and content related to rural revitalization.

In the literature review, we have further categorized the research into three directions and clarified the gaps this study aims to address. In the methodology section, we have rewritten Section 2.2.3, which describes the rural construction land development potential evaluation method, establishing a comprehensive evaluation with 12 indicators. We have also provided a clear explanation of the applicability of the LMDI method (Section 2.2.5) for this study.

In the results section, we have conducted a detailed analysis of the factors driving the changes in the population-land relationship. Finally, we have revised the discussion section, including adjustments to both its structure and content, and have rewritten the conclusion to better reflect the updated analysis.

We appreciate your constructive feedback, which has greatly helped improve the clarity, depth, and relevance of our study.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

We have rewritten the introduction. From an international perspective, the literature review was sorted out and the research gaps were identified.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

We have refined the research design to ensure its appropriateness for the study. The methods section has been revised to provide a more comprehensive explanation of their applicability, both in the context of this study and in relation to similar international research.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

We have made substantial improvements to the methods section. Specifically, Section 2.2.3, which describes the rural construction land development potential evaluation method, has been completely rewritten. We have established a set of 12 indicators to better assess land development potential, and have included a clear explanation of the suitability of these methods for this study.

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

We have revised the results to provide a deeper analysis of the underlying causes of changes in the population-land relationship. Additionally, we have updated the evaluation results and adjusted the corresponding linkage model outcomes to enhance clarity and accuracy.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

The conclusion section has been rewritten to ensure that it is more firmly supported by the results. We have also included reflections on international rural land governance experiences, providing a broader perspective on the implications of our findings.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The introduction should be improved from an international perspective. The topic on rural population and land use is not a local issue in China. Additionally, the literature review is weak, numerous descriptive review is presented in Page 2. The research gap is unclear to readers. The introduction section should be rewritten.

Response 1: Agree. Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered your comments and made substantial revisions to improve the introduction and literature review sections, incorporating an international perspective and clarifying the research gap.

Introduction:

We have revised the introduction to highlight the global significance of the relationship between rural populations and land use changes. Recognizing that rural depopulation and land transformation are not unique to China, we have contextualized the issue within broader international trends. We now discuss how similar dynamics are observed in various countries, emphasizing the universal challenges and implications for rural development and land management.

Literature Review:

We have restructured the literature review into three distinct sections to provide a more coherent and focused discussion: 1）From the perspective of the rural population-land system, the evolution of rural population-land relationships is analyzed using decoupling and coupling models. 2）From the perspective of the scale of rural construction land, existing research primarily focuses on the dynamic changes in land expansion and the models of land transformation, analyzing the underlying driving mechanisms. 3）From the perspective of rural land use quality, evaluations of rural land intensification and land potential are conducted.

Research Gap:

We have clearly articulated the research gap by highlighting the lack of micro-level quantitative research on changes in rural construction land and their driving mechanisms at the village level. Additionally, we emphasize the need for studies that integrate population-land changes with land consolidation potential, pointing out the scarcity of such research in both national and international contexts.

These enhancements aim to provide a more comprehensive and globally relevant discussion, offering a clearer understanding of the research gap and the contribution of our study.

Please refer to page 2, Section 1, line 42-147 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 2: Figure 1 should provide more information on Yanggao County, such as the distribution of rural construction land.

Response 2: Agree. In response to your feedback, we have enhanced Figure 1 by including detailed information on the distribution of rural construction land within Yanggao County. Additionally, we have provided explanations for the categories of construction land depicted in the figure, specifically identifying rural residential land, village public service facility land, and village commercial land. These improvements aim to provide a clearer and more comprehensive visualization of the rural construction land distribution, thereby enhancing the overall understanding of the study area. We appreciate your insightful comments.

Please refer to page 4, Section 2.1.1, line 164-167 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 3: Data sources should explain clearly about the time period of statistics data. Additionally, I do not find the actual use of the 2020 data specifically derived from the Third National Land Survey in your study.

Response 3: Agree. We have revised the data sources section to provide a clearer explanation of the time periods for the statistical data used.

In the revised manuscript, we now specify that the rural population data and rural construction land data cover the period from 2010 to 2020, as provided by the Yanggao County Bureau of Statistics, the Public Security Bureau, and the Natural Resources Bureau. Additionally, we have clarified that the data on arable land patches, rural construction land patches, and road network density were specifically derived from the Third National Land Survey conducted in 2020. The slope and elevation data were sourced from the Geospatial Data Cloud.

We appreciate your attention to detail and believe these modifications enhance the transparency and comprehensiveness of our data sources section.

Please refer to page 4, Section 2.1.2, line 172-179 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 4: The "ideal per capita construction land area" (Table 2) is based on national standards and surveys, but its applicability to all villages is questionable. Local variations in land use needs (e.g., topography, cultural practices) are not sufficiently addressed.

Response 4: Agree. Thank you for your valuable feedback and insightful comments on our manuscript.

In response, we have rewritten the Section 2.2.3 "Evaluation model for the potential of rural construction land consolidation" to better address these concerns. Specifically, we have incorporated a more comprehensive evaluation model that considers multiple factors influencing the potential for rural construction land consolidation. This includes the following indicators:

1. Spatial Distribution Patterns

(1) Average Nearest Neighbor Distance (ENN_MN): Measures the dispersion of village construction land.

(2) Area-Weighted Mean Patch Fractal Dimension (FRAC_MN): Indicates the regularity of the construction land distribution.

(3) Patch Density (PD): Reflects the degree of clustering of construction land.

2. Demand for Rural Construction Land Consolidation

(1) Per Capita Construction Land Area Potential Coefficient (C): Reflects the demand for land optimization under the “one household, one plot” policy.

(2) Rural Construction Land Connectivity Index (COHESION): Indicates the need for landscape corridor construction.

(3) Rural Construction Land Fragmentation Index (DIVISION): Reflects the degree of separation of rural construction land.

3. External Environment of Construction Land

(1) Cultivated Land-to-Construction Land Area Ratio: Indicates the willingness for consolidation based on the balance between cultivated and construction land.

(2) Construction Land Area Ratio (CA): Reflects the concentration of residential areas.

(3) Average Slope: Higher average slope indicates greater potential for consolidation.

(4) Average Elevation: Higher average elevation indicates greater potential for consolidation.

4. Cost of Construction Land Consolidation

(1) Distance to Town Center: Reflects the cost of land consolidation projects.

(2) Road Network Density: Indicates the convenience of development and subsequent maintenance costs.

Based on the characteristics of the indicators, we determined their influence on homestead consolidation activities. We then utilized software platforms such as Frag-stats and ArcMap for calculation and visualization. The values for each evaluation unit are either internal averages or weighted averages derived from zonal statistics of raster data. Indicator weights were calculated using the entropy weight method, and the potential grading was ranked using the TOPSIS method. Ultimately, the potential grading was categorized into high potential villages, medium potential villages, and low potential villages, arranged in descending order.

It is worth mentioning that, in the article ^[1], the author used the ideal per capita construction land area index table to calculate the dynamic efficiency of rural construction land.

Additionally, we have added the following explanations regarding the use of the ideal value of per capita construction land: "It is important to note that the standards presented in this table are derived from macro-level data specific to China and may not be applicable universally. When applying the rural construction land consolidation potential evaluation model, it is essential to adjust these data to reflect local conditions accurately."

These changes can be found on page 6, Section 2.2.3, line 237-271 of the revised manuscript. Correspondingly, we have made modifications to the potential results of 3.3 Evaluation Results of Rural Construction Land Development Potential and 3.4 Linkage Models between Rural Population-Land Decoupling and Construction Land Development Potential.

We believe these modifications improve the overall robustness and applicability of our evaluation model. Thank you once again for your constructive feedback.

Comments 5: The results lack of in-depth analysis. For example, the lack of in-depth exploration of the mechanism root of "strong negative decoupling" (such as dependence on land finance and lagging management system of homestead land) has led to insufficient targeted policy recommendations.

Response 5: Agree. Thank you for your insightful feedback. We recognize that our initial analysis lacked sufficient depth in exploring the underlying mechanisms of "strong negative decoupling." In response to your comments, we have conducted a more thorough examination of the root causes. Firstly, we identified that the dependence on land finance drives local governments to prioritize land sales for revenue, leading to continuous construction land expansion even amid population decline. Secondly, the lagging management system of homestead land results in inefficient reclamation and repurposing of idle homesteads. Additionally, we found that inadequate land use planning and regulation exacerbate the issue, as current policies do not sufficiently address the mismatch between land allocation and demographic changes. Lastly, the lack of adequate infrastructure and services in rural areas discourages population retention and investment, further contributing to the imbalance. Based on these insights, we propose targeted policy recommendations, including comprehensive land finance reform, improved homestead land management, enhanced land use planning, and investment in rural infrastructure to foster sustainable rural development. We appreciate your guidance.

Please refer to page 15, Section 3.2, line 489-501 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 6: The discussion is more like results analysis, which cannot reflect the actual thinking related to the findings. For example, potential assessment does not differentiate between village functions (agricultural, industrial and trade), which may overestimate/underestimate the actual potential of some villages. The policy implication should propose a phased implementation path (short-term pilot, mid-term promotion, long-term optimization) to enhance the operability of the suggestions.

Response 6: Agree. Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your suggestions, we have made several important modifications to the discussion section of our paper to address the concerns raised.

Addition of Section 4.1.3 - Implications of the Policy Implementation Strategy: We have included a new section dedicated to outlining a phased implementation pathway for the proposed policy recommendations.

Introduction of Section 4.2 - Limitations of the Study: We have also added a section explicitly addressing the limitations of our study.

Reorganization of Content: To improve the coherence and depth of our analysis, we have made structural changes to the original content. Specifically, parts of the original Section 4.1, which discussed the driving mechanisms of rural land evolution and construction land changes, have been removed and integrated into Section 3.1 of the results.

Revised Discussion 1:

Initially, the intent was to integrate phased implementation pathways (short-term pilot, mid-term promotion, and long-term optimization) within the planning strategies for each type of village. However, upon further consideration, it seems more effective to address these pathways in a dedicated section, specifically in Section 4.1.3.

The main advantage of consolidating the phased implementation discussion into a single, standalone section is clarity. By presenting the phased approach separately, the overall strategy becomes easier to follow and understand. Readers can see the overarching methodology applied uniformly across different village classifications, ensuring a coherent and systematic framework. This prevents redundancy and potential confusion that might arise from repeating similar implementation phases within each village type's strategy.

Additionally, a dedicated section allows for a more detailed and focused discussion on the phased implementation process. It enables the inclusion of general principles and specific steps that are universally applicable, while also allowing for nuanced adjustments tailored to each village type when necessary. This separation enhances the operability of the recommendations, making the document more structured and its strategies more actionable.

The revised parts are as follows:

4.1.3 Implications of the policy implementation strategy

The proposed governance strategies for village classification emphasize a phased implementation pathway to enhance operability and effectiveness. By segmenting the policy into short-term pilot projects, mid-term promotion phases, and long-term opti-mization strategies, the approach ensures systematic and adaptable progress.

Short-term (Pilot Phase): Initiate pilot projects to test the feasibility of proposed mechanisms in selected areas. For instance, in resource allocation type villages, a "flexible land supply and targeted allocation" mechanism can be piloted in regions ex-periencing population growth. This phase aims to gather practical insights, identify potential challenges, and refine the strategies based on real-world outcomes.

Mid-term (Promotion Phase): After the pilot phase, successful strategies should be promoted and scaled up across broader regions. This includes implementing dynamic "population-land growth linkage" models and extending quota trading systems to fa-cilitate balanced development. The promotion phase focuses on adapting and stand-ardizing the approaches based on the pilot results, ensuring they are effective and sus-tainable.

Long-term (Optimization Phase): In the long term, continuous monitoring and re-finement of the strategies are essential. This phase involves optimizing the land supply mechanisms, enhancing the efficiency of resource use, and ensuring environmental sustainability. For instance, developing an elastic coefficient warning system to adjust land quotas dynamically based on population changes will help maintain a balanced and efficient land use strategy.

By structuring the policy implementation in these phased pathways, the recom-mendations become more actionable and adaptive, addressing both immediate needs and long-term goals.

Revised Discussion 2:

4.2 Limitations of the Study

A significant issue with the current methodology for evaluating rural construction land potential is the failure to differentiate between various village functions, such as agricultural, industrial, tourism, ecological protection, traditional settlements, and other possible classifications. This oversight can lead to inaccurate assessments, either overestimating or underestimating the actual potential of specific villages.

Each village type has distinct land use requirements and development trajectories. Agricultural villages primarily need land for farming and related infrastructure, while industrial villages require extensive areas for factories and production facilities. Tour-ism villages demand land for attractions, accommodations, and services catering to visitors. Ecological protection villages focus on preserving natural resources and may need land set aside for conservation efforts. Traditional villages, with their historical and cultural significance, have unique preservation and land use requirements.

The analysis reveals that applying a uniform per capita construction land indica-tor across these diverse village types often leads to misrepresentations. For instance, in Yanggao County, industrial villages in the north show a substantial need for industrial land, which is not adequately captured by the standard per capita measure, resulting in an underestimation of their potential. Conversely, tourism villages may have poten-tial for growth in visitor services that is not reflected when using a generalized as-sessment model, leading to an underutilization of their unique potential. Similarly, ecological protection villages might appear to have underutilized land when, in fact, their low development intensity is intentional and necessary for conservation.

To address these discrepancies, it is crucial to refine potential assessment models by incorporating specific functional classifications of villages. This approach should involve developing tailored indicators for each village type and dynamically adjusting these indicators based on evolving village functions.

Moreover, the mechanism for the withdrawal of rural construction land is the result of comprehensive negotiations among multiple stakeholders. It is influenced not only by external objective factors but also by the willingness of farmers to participate in land consolidation and the execution capacity of the government. Therefore, future efforts should incorporate various rural governance tools to promote the sustainable development of land resources through the coordinated allocation of rural land.

Finally, I would like to once again thank you for your valuable suggestions, which have been very helpful in improving our paper.

For specific content, please refer to page 22, 4.1.3, line 720-743 and page 23, 4.2, line 744-775.

Comments 7: The conclusion is wordy and should be rewritten to highlight the key findings. The references should be improved by adding more intentional articles.

Response 7: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your comment, we have rewritten the conclusion to make it more concise and focused, highlighting the key findings of the study. Additionally, we have enhanced the references by incorporating more relevant and intentional articles to strengthen the literature review and provide a broader context for our research. We appreciate your suggestions, which have helped to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Please refer to page 24, Section 5, line 795-837 of the revised manuscript.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback on the language quality. In response, we have carefully revised the manuscript to improve the overall clarity and flow. We focused on optimizing the language, ensuring consistency, and correcting grammatical errors. These revisions have been made to enhance the readability and precision of the text. We appreciate your suggestions, which have helped us improve the manuscript’s quality.

5. Additional clarifications

[Here, mention any other clarifications you would like to provide to the journal editor/reviewer.]

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you for your constructive feedback. We appreciate your continued support in improving the manuscript. In response to your suggestions, we have carefully revised the literature review section to provide a more academic and in-depth interpretation. The review is now reorganized into three thematic categories, each addressing specific aspects of the rural land use system, with deeper insights into the key findings and their implications.

Regarding the conclusion, we have consolidated the five points into three more focused and concise conclusions, as per your recommendation.

We hope these revisions meet your expectations and further enhance the clarity and quality of the manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable comments.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

We have reorganized the literature review section, deepened its content, and written a brief summary for each topic.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thank you.

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Thank you.

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

We have reorganized the conclusions into three points based on the reviewers' comments. The first point is the conclusion on changes in the human-land system, the second point addresses the potential of rural construction land and the driving mechanisms behind its changes, and the third point focuses on land governance.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The literature review presented in line 88-128 should be reorganized in an academic way. The current descriptive review is simple and lacking in-depth interpretation.

Response 1: Agree. Thank you for your valuable feedback. I acknowledge that the previous literature review lacked a more structured, in-depth analysis. In response to your comment, I have reorganized the review into three distinct thematic categories:

Analysis of Decoupling of Rural Population-Land System: I have highlighted how the decoupling model, originally from physics, has been widely applied to understand the disconnection between rural population dynamics and land use changes. The studies reviewed focus on quantifying the relationship between rural population shifts and land expansion, illustrating how rural population decline does not always correspond with a reduction in land area. The findings demonstrate that, despite population reductions, land expansion persists, leading to inefficient land use in many regions.

Dynamic Changes in Rural Construction Land: This section provides a detailed exploration of the temporal and spatial dynamics of rural construction land expansion. I focused on key studies that examine land transformation models and their underlying drivers, such as government policies, industrial restructuring, and urbanization. The review underscores how land use changes are not just influenced by demographic shifts, but also by broader socio-economic transformations. A critical point raised is the unbalanced growth in construction land, which presents both challenges and opportunities for urban-rural integration.

Rural Land Use Quality and Potential: Here, I delve into the evaluation of rural land use quality, especially concerning land intensification and its potential for further development. Through case studies, I have highlighted the spatial and temporal changes in land use and emphasized the need for targeted land management policies. The studies reviewed discuss how factors like homestead renovation and land consolidation can improve land efficiency and support sustainable development in rural areas.

In each of these sections, I have gone beyond merely summarizing the studies by providing deeper insights into the implications of their findings, and I have linked the findings together to illustrate broader trends in rural land use research. I hope this restructuring meets your expectations for a more comprehensive and analytical literature review. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions or comments.

Please refer to page 3, Section 1, line 88-145 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

Comments 2: The conclusion is summarized in five points, however; in my opinion, some points are not the key findings and should be simplified in 2 or 3 points.

Response 2: Agree. Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the conclusion. We appreciate your suggestion to simplify the summary. In response, we have revised the conclusion and condensed the five points into three more focused and concise conclusions. The first point is the conclusion on changes in the human-land system, the second point addresses the potential of rural construction land and the driving mechanisms behind its changes, and the third point focuses on land governance.

Please refer to page 24, Section 5, line 810-834 of the revised manuscript for further clarification.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:   

5. Additional clarifications