Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Drivers of Public Welfare Land Ratios for Regional Development in China: A Central–Local Interaction Perspective

Land 2025, 14(6), 1208; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14061208

by Jin Dai^1,2, Qingbin Wang², Xiongwei Zhou¹ and Xinxian Qi^1,*

Reviewer 1: Anonymous

Reviewer 2:

Aline Lima

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Reviewer 4:

David Palma-Cancino

Land 2025, 14(6), 1208; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14061208

Submission received: 18 April 2025 / Revised: 25 May 2025 / Accepted: 27 May 2025 / Published: 5 June 2025

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Interactions and Transformations in Urban–Rural Land Use Systems and Their Nexus with Ecosystems)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors investigate the vital problem of land allocation and its influence on the development of the territories, their budget incomes and population wellbeing. However, some remarks should be considered.
1. Some words have a dash inside (for instance, “determi-nation” or “strategi-cally”, which might have happened while converting the text. Please check this issue.
2. It would be helpful to give more details regarding the analyzed term “public welfare land” to determine its characteristics and options for use. Given that “the classification standards for public welfare land, and the methods used to calculate its proportion remain unclear, " it is crucial to indicate what exactly was investigated by the authors under this term. Rapid urbanization has hindered the development of high buildings with recreation zones. Can some zones be used to fulfill local or regional public interests inside the industrial land?
3. To avoid any possible misunderstanding, further explanation of the term “public welfare land ratios” is needed. The authors refer to [13], but this source does not use this term directly. The references [1-3] use the term “social welfare” and it is not clear if the authors find “social welfare” and “public welfare” as the same. The reference [14] mentions both terms just once, without giving their concepts. Please provide an explanation of what the authors understand by all the main terms used.
4. Regarding the paper's title as “The driver of public welfare…”, it might be useful to analyze the combination of economic development and population wellbeing (specific businesses targeted to impact the public welfare: infrastructure, leisure, catering, entertainment, sports, etc.). Perhaps some cases of land use for public welfare (different from directly industrial) can give a good budget inflow. The authors may have investigated it, or it might be an idea for future research.
5. Due to the focus on the financial outcomes, it can be interesting to find out the impact of the population welfare on the territory's economic development. Perhaps the authors could briefly glance at the city's/local government's income proportion. How crucial are land transfer incomes and industrial tax share in the local budget? To better understand the public welfare research focus, giving some data on the population's average income would be helpful.
6. The sentence in lines 71-72 mentions “the different develop stages reflect varying development stages” which sounds like a tautology. The similar is “the impact of various variables” (line 519). Please consider rephrasing this fragment.
7. The source for “the 2019 national average public welfare land ratio” (first mention in line 120) must be given.
8. It looks like the text fragments “binary opposition. n practice,” (line 137); “his dual mandate creates a divergence” (line 156); “T To secure continuous tax” (line 209); “As we transition into the post-land finance era” (line 746) contain typing errors.
9. In Fig. 1, it is not completely clear what the circles mean (please consider adding a legend for them, a note, or any other appropriate way to explain what they are intended to indicate). The “Implementation Phase” can be written in one line without separating.
10. Table 1 is not mentioned in the text, and its explanation is needed.
11. Adding the statistical analysis of the regression model (possible in the Appendix) is necessary to evaluate the adequacy of the modelling.
12. It is advisable to add more information regarding the divided levels of the city size. What is meant by the “Planned city”? Also, the description used in the text is somewhat different from the one in Table 3 (in the text, there are, for instance, super-large and extra-large cities (line 353), but in Table 3, super cities and megacities are mentioned. In this table, the list of these sizes is given in a different order, which raises the question of dividing them into these categories. Please consider giving some more description regarding this point. The text in the first column was slightly cut (Ratio, Buit-up).
13. In Table 5 and the text below (line 553) “current” and “this” year are mentioned. Please specify which year is precisely analyzed.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your time and valuable feedback on our manuscript "Drivers of public welfare land ratios for regional development in China: A central-local interaction perspective." We greatly appreciate your thorough review and constructive comments, which have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all the comments raised and made corresponding revisions to our manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response to all comments. The Page and Line number mentioned below belongs to the revised clean copy.

Comment 1: Some formatting issues: dashes inside words such as "de-termination," "strate-gically," etc.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have addressed all formatting issues by removing dashes inside words throughout the manuscript. This included correcting terms such as "determination," "strategically," and others that had incorrect hyphenation.

Comment 2: It would be helpful to give more details regarding the analyzed term “public welfare land” to determine its characteristics and options for use. Given that “the classification standards for public welfare land, and the methods used to calculate its proportion remain unclear, " it is crucial to indicate what exactly was investigated by the authors under this term. Rapid urbanization has hindered the development of high buildings with recreation zones. Can some zones be used to fulfill local or regional public interests inside the industrial land?

Response: We thank you for this comment. We have substantially expanded our explanation of "public welfare land" in the introduction section to address these points.

Firstly, regarding the definition and classification, we have clarified in the Introduction section (Page 1 Line 36-43): "Public welfare land is defined as land allocated for local or regional public interests according to the national standard 'Classification and Planning of Urban Construction Land Use' (GB50137-2011). This specifically includes five categories: public management and public service facility land (A), green space and square land (G), road and transportation facility land (S), public facility land (U), and public service project land in residential areas (Ra)."

Secondly, we have elaborated on the characteristics of public welfare land in Introduction section (Page 1-2, Line 45-50): "These land types share common characteristics of being primarily non-profit-oriented, serving collective social needs, and typically requiring government investment and management. The provision of these lands creates positive externalities for urban residents and businesses, contributing to quality of life, environmental sustainability, and enhanced economic activity."

Thirdly, we have strengthened the elucidation of the significance of this research. This study identifies the proportion of public welfare land in different types and levels of cities from the perspective of central-local government relations, and analyzes its driving factors. This will help policy makers better understand the heterogeneity in public welfare land policy implementation and provide support for the formulation of differentiated public welfare land policy (Page 3 Line 130-139)

Finally, regarding the comment about “Can some zones be used to fulfill local or regional public interests inside the industrial land?”, we have added some sentence in the Discussion section: " Our analysis also shows that some progressive cities have indeed begun integrating public welfare spaces within industrial zones, particularly in newer industrial parks. These include shared recreational areas, public green spaces, transportation hubs, and community service facilities that serve both industrial workers and surrounding communities. This integration represents an emerging trend in China's land use planning that attempts to overcome the limitations imposed by rapid urbanization”. We have added this perspective to our discussion in Section 5.2 (Page 10 Line 628-634), analyzing how these innovative approaches to industrial land use planning might influence future public welfare land allocation strategies.

Comment 3: To avoid any possible misunderstanding, further explanation of the term “public welfare land ratios” is needed. The authors refer to [13], but this source does not use this term directly. The references [1-3] use the term “social welfare” and it is not clear if the authors find “social welfare” and “public welfare” as the same. The reference [14] mentions both terms just once, without giving their concepts. Please provide an explanation of what the authors understand by all the main terms used.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have provided a more comprehensive explanation of the term "public welfare land ratios" in the introduction section. We have clarified that it refers to the proportion of land allocated for public services and facilities within the total urban construction land (Page 2 Line 76-77). We apologize for the inconsistent use of "Social Welfare" and "Public Welfare" terminology. We recognize that Social Welfare represents a broader conceptual framework for the objectives of land use allocation and serves as the foundational basis for Public Welfare. In the Chinese context, where land functions as a public good, Public Welfare is primarily achieved through direct government investment in the construction and management of public facilities. Accordingly, we have standardized our use of the public welfare concept throughout the manuscript.

Comment 4: Regarding the paper's title as “The driver of public welfare…”, it might be useful to analyze the combination of economic development and population wellbeing (specific businesses targeted to impact the public welfare: infrastructure, leisure, catering, entertainment, sports, etc.). Perhaps some cases of land use for public welfare (different from directly industrial) can give a good budget inflow. The authors may have investigated it, or it might be an idea for future research.

Response: Thank you for your comment and suggestion. We have expanded the discussion and future research section on how public welfare land can generate budget inflow. In section 5.3, we've added content explaining how strategic investment in public welfare facilities can indirectly enhance fiscal resources by attracting investments and population, increasing land values, and stimulating economic activities. In the future we will investigate cases with pioneering approaches to land development that balance fiscal needs with public service provision.

Comment 5: Due to the focus on the financial outcomes, it can be interesting to find out the impact of the population welfare on the territory's economic development. Perhaps the authors could briefly glance at the city's/local government's income proportion. How crucial are land transfer incomes and industrial tax share in the local budget? To better understand the public welfare research focus, giving some data on the population's average income would be helpful.

Response: Thank you for your comment and suggestion. Based on our investigation of the city's/local government's income proportion, and by comparing the degree of land finance dependency across different types of cities, we concluded that super and mega cities are not particularly effective in enhancing population’s well-being through the allocation of land for public welfare purposes. Therefore, it is essential to emphasize the significance of reallocating public welfare land in improving urban residents' well-being in large cities and less developed regions (Page 7 Line 572-585, Table 4).

Comment 6: The sentence in lines 71-72 mentions “the different develop stages reflect varying development stages” which sounds like a tautology. The similar is “the impact of various variables” (line 519). Please consider rephrasing this fragment.

Response: We have rephrased the tautological expressions. "The different develop stages reflect varying development stages" has been revised to "Different economic development phases correspond to distinct urban development patterns." (Page 2 Line 83-84) Similarly, "the impact of various variables" has been rephrased as "the influence of different factors."(Page 7 Line483)

Comment 7: The source for “the 2019 national average public welfare land ratio” (first mention in line 120) must be given.

Response: Thank you for your comment. In response to feedback from other reviewers, we have removed sentences resembling conclusions from the introduction section. Furthermore, we have clarified in the data source section that the public welfare land ratio is derived from the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development's "China Urban and Rural Construction Statistical Yearbook 2020." (Page 7 Line 245-246)

Comment 8: It looks like the text fragments “binary opposition. n practice,” (line 137); “his dual mandate creates a divergence” (line 156); “T To secure continuous tax” (line 209); “As we transition into the post-land finance era” (line 746) contain typing errors.

Response: Thank you for your comment. All identified typing errors have been corrected, including "binary opposition. n practice" (changed to "binary opposition. In practice"), "his dual mandate" (changed to "This dual mandate"), "T To secure" (changed to "To secure"), and "As we transition" (corrected formatting).

Comment 9: In Fig. 1, it is not completely clear what the circles mean (please consider adding a legend for them, a note, or any other appropriate way to explain what they are intended to indicate). The “Implementation Phase” can be written in one line without separating.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added a legend to Figure 1. The left circle represents the central government, while the right circle represents the local government. We have also reformatted the "Implementation Phase" to appear on a single line.

Comment 10: Table 1 is not mentioned in the text, and its explanation is needed.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added an explanation of previous Table 1 (now Table 6) in the text (Page 15 Line 556).

Comment 11: Adding the statistical analysis of the regression model (possible in the Appendix) is necessary to evaluate the adequacy of the modelling.

Response: Thank you for your comment and suggestion. We have added statistical analysis of the regression model in a new Appendix Excel file.

Comment 12: It is advisable to add more information regarding the divided levels of the city size. What is meant by the “Planned city”? Also, the description used in the text is somewhat different from the one in Table 3 (in the text, there are, for instance, super-large and extra-large cities (line 353), but in Table 3, super cities and megacities are mentioned. In this table, the list of these sizes is given in a different order, which raises the question of dividing them into these categories. Please consider giving some more description regarding this point. The text in the first column was slightly cut (Ratio, Buit-up).

Response: We apologize for the lack of clear and consistent expression regarding city classifications. We have refined our definition of "Planned city" to "Separately listed city," which refers to municipalities that are separately listed in the state plan, such as Ningbo, Qingdao, and Dalian. These cities hold a special administrative status with planning authority equivalent to provincial-level units despite being geographically located within provinces. We have also standardized the terminology throughout the manuscript to ensure consistency between the main text and Table 3 (Now Table 2), using "super cities" and "mega cities" consistently across all sections. Additionally, the formatting issues in Table 3 (Now Table 2)have been corrected to improve readability and alignment with the revised terminology.

Comment 13: In Table 5 and the text below (line 553) “current” and “this” year are mentioned. Please specify which year is precisely analyzed.

Response: We have specified the exact year analyzed as 2019 in Table 5 (Now Table 6) and the accompanying text, replacing "current" and "this" with the specific year 2019.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Drivers of public welfare land ratios for regional development in China: A central-local interaction perspective

Objective: This study investigates how central-local government interactions shape public welfare land ratios in China's land development process. Based on comprehensive analysis of land expropriation data across different regions and administrative levels, the authors examine the spatial heterogeneity and underlying mechanisms of public welfare land allocation.

Highlights:

This research contributes to the literature by examining how multi-level governance structures affect public resource allocation in transitional economies, providing empirical evidence on institutional determinants of welfare land allocation, and recommending unified national standards with provincial-level adaptations to enhance both governance efficiency and social welfare outcomes.

Observations:

(a) About formatting:

Abstract: Incorrect text writing (ex. re-gional).

(b) Lines 321, 340, 343, 396:

Equations must be correctly referenced (equation 1, 2...).

The chosen representation must be different from the usual textual representation (equation symbol).

2.Central-local relations in land expropriation

2.1 The game between the central and grassroots governments in policy implementation

2.2 Local government choices and goal achievement in land expropriation

2.3 Policy Experiment Improvement Mechanism under Central-Local Interaction

Figure 1.

The argument is more like a discussion than an introduction. The methodological-theoretical basis could be described, including the criteria of the indicator choose and the authors who develop similar purpose.

(d) 3.1 Data sources

Adjust the text formatting to improve writing.

(e) Lines 336 to 344:

What are the author's references taken from?

(f) Lines 351 to 391:

Adjust the text formatting to improve writing.

Ex.:

1 - Urban scale:

2 - Proportion of recent five-year expansion in built-up area:

(g) 3.3 Research model

What are the author's references taken from?

(h) Lines 284 to 303:

(1) Land data: Based on the "China Urban Statistical Yearbook 2020" and 285

"China Urban and Rural Construction Statistical Yearbook 2020"

(2) Population data:

(3) Financial data:

The cartography of this information would be important in order to agree with the results obtained by the authors.

(i) Built-up area proportion of public welfare land (P) - According to the national standard "Classification and Planning of Urban Construction Land Use" (GB50137-2011), public management and public service facility land (A), green space and square land (G), road and transportation facility land (S), public facility land (U), and public service project land in residential areas (Ra) are classified as current public welfare land in built-up areas.

(P1 and P2）=（A+G+S+U+Ra)/ urban construction land area

Is it possible to present a cartographic representation of this equation, or of one of its components?

(j) In the discussion, the authors should present the limitations of the method used, taking into account the chosen variables of analysis.

Author Response

Comment 1: There are formatting issues in the abstract with incorrect text writing: "re-gional"...

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have corrected all formatting issues in the abstract, removing incorrect text writing such as "re-gional" and ensuring consistent formatting throughout.

Comment 2: Lines 321, 340, 343, 396: Equations must be correctly referenced (equation 1, 2...). The chosen representation must be different from the usual textual representation (equation symbol).

Response: Thank you for your comment. All equations have been properly numbered and formatted using equation symbols. Equations in lines 321, 340, 343, and 396 now appear as Equation (1), Equation (2), etc., with proper mathematical formatting.

Comment 3: The argument is more like a discussion than an introduction. The methodological-theoretical basis could be described, including the criteria of the indicator choose and the authors who develop similar purpose.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The criteria for the indicators we selected are discussed in detail in Section 3.2 Variable Selection. In response to this and other reviewers' comments, we have made Section 2 "Central-local Relations in Land Expropriation" more concise to improve the overall clarity and focus of the manuscript.

Comment 4: Section 3.1 Adjust the text formatting to improve writing.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have adjusted the text formatting in section 3.1 Data sources to improve readability and clarity.

Comment 5: Lines 336 to 344: What are the author's references taken from?

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added appropriate references for lines 336 to 344, citing sources for our methodological approaches and data interpretation frameworks.

Reference: Xinhua News Agency. "Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on Further Strengthening Urban Planning, Construction and Management." the website of the Central People's Government of the PRC, (accessed 25 MAY, 2025). https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2016-02/21/content_5044367.htm

Comment 6: Lines 351 to 391: Adjust the text formatting to improve writing. Ex.:

1 - Urban scale:2 - Proportion of recent five-year expansion in built-up area:

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have improved the formatting in lines 351 to 391, using numbered lists for clarity. For example, we now present information as:

① Urban scale: ② Proportion of recent five-year expansion in built-up area:

Comment 7: 3.3 Research model What are the author's references taken from?

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added appropriate references for the research model in section 3.3.

Reference: Chen, Wei, Yue Shen, Yanan Wang, and Qun Wu. "The Effect of Industrial Relocation on Industrial Land Use Efficiency in China: A Spatial Econometrics Approach." Journal of Cleaner Production 205 (2018): 525-35.

Comment 8: Lines 284 to 303: (1) Land data: Based on the "China Urban Statistical Yearbook 2020" and 285 "China Urban and Rural Construction Statistical Yearbook 2020" (2) Population data: (3) Financial data: The cartography of this information would be important in order to agree with the results obtained by the authors.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have created cartographic representations of the data, adding a new figure (Figure 2) that maps the spatial distribution of land, population, and financial data across China's regions. This visual representation helps support our empirical findings.

Comment 9: Built-up area proportion of public welfare land (P) - According to the national standard "Classification and Planning of Urban Construction Land Use" (GB50137-2011), public management and public service facility land (A), green space and square land (G), road and transportation facility land (S), public facility land (U), and public service project land in residential areas (Ra) are classified as current public welfare land in built-up areas.

(P1 and P2）=（A+G+S+U+Ra)/ urban construction land area

Is it possible to present a cartographic representation of this equation, or of one of its components?

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a cartographic representation of the equation for built-up area proportion of public welfare land (P), including a map showing the spatial distribution of its components across different regions in China. This has been incorporated as a new figure (Figure 3).

Comment 10: In the discussion, the authors should present the limitations of the method used, taking into account the chosen variables of analysis.

Response Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a section on the limitations in the discussion section (Page 12 Line 710-729). Mainly regarding the variables selection and spatial heterogeneity treatment issues.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Drivers of public welfare land ratios for regional development in China: A central-local interaction perspective

This paper analyzes how the governments treat the theme of land allocated for public welfare at both the local and central government levels.

The comments below are addressed to the authors. Consider a revision that would be helpful to add details and explanations to improve the quality of the work presentation.
1) In the abstract, several words are hyphenated, as "determi-nation" in line 12; "re-gional" in line 17; "ra-tio" in line 18; "strategi-cally" in line 22; "balanc-ing" in line 24; "con-tributes" in line 25; "re-source" in line 26; "uni-fied" in line 27; "adap-tations" in line 28.
2) The equation presented in subsection 3.2, line 321, should be numbered.
3) The equations presented in lines 340 and 343 should be numbered.
4) The equation presented in subsection 3.3, line 396, should be numbered.
5) The references [59] and [60], in line 212, should be written as [59, 60].

The topic is interesting and the paper is relevant to most Lad readers.

Finally, my recommendation is that the article requires revisions before it can be considered suitable for publication.

Author Response

Comment 1: Abstract has improperly hyphenated words: "de-termination", "re-gional", "ra-tio", "strate-gically", "balan-cing", "contri-butes", "re-source", "uni-fied", "adapta-tions".

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have corrected all hyphenated words in the abstract, including "determination," "regional," "ratio," "strategically," "balancing," "contributes," "resource," "unified," and "adaptations."

Comment 2: The equation presented in subsection 3.2, line 321 is not numbered.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have numbered all the equation presented in subsection 3.2, and line 321 as Equation (1).

Comment 3: The equations presented in lines 340 and 343 are not numbered.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have numbered the equations presented in lines 340 and 343 as Equations (2) and (3), respectively.

Comment 4: The equation presented in subsection 3.3, line 396 is not numbered.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have numbered the equation presented in subsection 3.3, line 396 as Equation (4).

Comment 5: Citation format in line 212 is incorrect: [59] and [60] should be [59, 60].

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have corrected the citation format in line 212, changing [59] and [60] to [59, 60].

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposes an interesting study on land policies for wellfare in China. However, I recommend minor corrections. The results are important and support the proposed conclusions, the discussion is well developed and shows the contrasts, as well as possible reasons for these contrasts with respect to other research. I consider the model used to be well established. However, I find that certain sections contain a lot of information, some of which is repetitive, so I suggest reducing the length of the introduction and section 2 in particular. In the introduction, there is a paragraph that reads more like a conclusion; please delete it or move to conclusions (lines 119-134). In the methodology, there is a section that is written more like results than a methodological description, so I suggest correcting it or deleting it (lines 408-415). Finally, there are numbers in the abstract, introduction, and section 2, that should not appear within the text (I am not referring to the numbering of the subsections). I hope you will address these recommendations so that we can finally accept the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf