Revisiting China’s Rural Residential Land Consolidation: A Perspective of Functional Reconfiguration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article makes a valuable and innovative contribution to the literature on rural development, institutional reform, and property rights theory. The author's use of the concept of functional reconfiguration of property rights, linked to the credibility of institutions, offers a fresh and insightful perspective. The paper is theoretically robust, empirically grounded, and highly relevant to current policy and development discussions.

Expand the discussion of study limitations:

Although the author acknowledges in the conclusion that this is a single-case study (L Town), it would strengthen the paper to clearly highlight this limitation earlier, in the introduction or methodology section, and suggest directions for future comparative research.

Greater operationalization of social functions:

The paper touches on the social cohesion and cultural values of rural land, but it would be helpful to either incorporate more concrete indicators for these aspects or explicitly suggest that future studies should address this dimension more comprehensively.

Language and readability improvements:

In some sections (particularly the introduction and theoretical framework), the language could be simplified and sentences shortened to improve clarity and accessibility for a broader academic audience.

Minor formatting issues:

The author should ensure consistency in the referencing style between the in-text citations and the reference list, as there are some minor inconsistencies, especially regarding the formatting of English titles.

Author Response

Comment 1: Expand the discussion of study limitations:

Although the author acknowledges in the conclusion that this is a single-case study (L Town), it would strengthen the article to clearly highlight this limitation earlier, in the introduction or methodology section, and suggest directions for future comparative research.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment on the methodology. Based on your comment, I describe the limitations of single-case studies as well as future research directions in the section “4.2. Data collection”.

Comment 2: Greater operationalization of social functions:

The article touches on the social cohesion and cultural values of rural land, but it would be helpful to either incorporate more concrete indicators for these aspects or explicitly suggest that future studies should address this dimension more comprehensively.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment. I highly agree with it and have made additional discussions accordingly.

The article adds a new section “5.2. Reconfiguration of property rights functions of RRL” that discusses changes in property rights functions of RRL during RRL C.

This article divides the property rights functions of RRL into three categories: the residential, economic and security function. The residential function includes the primary residential function and the secondary residential function. The  former  refers to the supply of dwelling space for villagers, and the latter refers to the supply of space for storage and courtyard economy. The economic function refers to the villager's capacity to generate income through the utilization and disposal of the property rights of RRL. The security function refers to the role of the property rights of RRL in guaranteeing villagers’ residence right and rural stability.

Changes in the property rights functions of RRL are summarized as functional adjustment and functional substitution. The former refers to adjusting the area of RRL or changing its use when the provision of a function surpasses or fails to meet the demands of actors. The latter involves the transformation or compensation between different functions. Changes in the three types of functions are examined in “5.2. Reconfiguration of property rights functions of RRL”.

Comment 3: Language and readability improvements:

In some sections (particularly the introduction and theoretical framework), the language could be simplified and sentences shortened to improve clarity and accessibility for a broader academic audience.

Response 3: Thank you for your comments on the article's readability. The language throughout this article has been carefully revised, especially in the introduction and theoretical framework sections you mentioned.

Comment 4: Minor formatting issues:

The author should ensure consistency in the referencing style between the in-text citations and the reference list, as there are some minor inconsistencies, especially regarding the formatting of English titles.

Response 4: Thanks for your careful comment. According to your comment, I have checked the formatting of the references and revised them.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The authors should further elaborate and specify the definition and measurement of the ‘function’ of property rights. The paper presents the important perspective of focusing on the functions of property rights rather than their form, which is a highlight. However, the manuscript has not clearly defined what these functions are and how they can be identified, assessed or measured in the study.

2. My opinion is to refine the framework and methodology for the analysis of actor interaction.  The manuscript does not specify which core actors will be examined, what the patterns of interaction between them are, and what theories or methods will be used to analyse how these interactions affect the process and outcomes of rural homestead consolidation.

3.The authors attribute various problems with rural homesteads to collective ownership. Although property rights theory provides the analytical perspective, the reality is complex. It is recommended that the authors more fully demonstrate in the theoretical framework how collective ownership contributes to these specific problems by providing a more detailed elaboration of the theoretical mechanisms or by citing relevant research to support them, rather than merely making attributions.

4. Section 4.2 is too simple. The methodology requires a clean research design, detailed data collection methods, and reliable data sources. These details determine the scientific validity and accuracy of the paper, and the authors SHOULD REWRITE THE METHODOLOGY.

Author Response

Comment 1:The authors should further elaborate and specify the definition and measurement of the ‘function’ of property rights. The article presents the important perspective of focusing on the functions of property rights rather than their form, which is a highlight. However, the manuscript has not clearly defined what these functions are and how they can be identified, assessed or measured in the study.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments. I highly agree with this opinion, and have made additional discussions accordingly. This article adds to the discussion of property rights functions in the following two aspects.

First, the theoretical framework section clearly defines the institutional function as “the role of a set of rules that evolve from continuous adaptation to the environment (Ho, 2018)”.

Second, a new section (5.2. Reconfiguration of property rights functions of RRL) is included to discuss the changes in property rights functions of RRL during RRLC. in this section, the property rights functions of RRL are divided into three categories: the residential, economic and security function. The residential function includes the primary residential function and the secondary residential function. The  former  refers to the supply of dwelling space for villagers, and the latter refers to the supply of space for storage and courtyard economy. The economic function refers to the villager's capacity to generate income through the utilization and disposal of the property rights of RRL. The security function refers to the role of the property rights of RRL in guaranteeing villagers’ residence right and rural stability.

Changes in the property rights functions of RRL are summarized as functional adjustment and functional substitution. The former refers to adjusting the area of RRL or changing its use when the provision of a function surpasses or fails to meet the demands of actors. The latter involves the transformation or compensation between different functions. Changes in the three types of functions are examined in “5.2. Reconfiguration of property rights functions of RRL”.

Comment 2: My opinion is to refine the framework and methodology for the analysis of actor interaction.  The manuscript does not specify which core actors will be examined, what the patterns of interaction between them are, and what theories or methods will be used to analyse how these interactions affect the process and outcomes of rural homestead consolidation.

Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion. It helps to expand the understanding of interaction in this article. Based on your suggestion, the following modifications have been made.

First, the theoretical framework section points out the insufficiency of the Credibility Thesis's discussions on interaction, while the concept of action scenarios and interaction in the IAD framework can provide a thorough comprehension of interaction. Thus, using the IAD framework, this article identifies the actors involved in RRLC, and then examines their interactions in terms of both incentive structure and decision-making mechanisms.

Secondly, guided by the framework, the article analyses in detail the motivations for all actors to participate in RRLC and their involvement in the decision-making process in “5.1. Interaction model during RRLC”.

Comment 3: The authors attribute various problems with rural homesteads to collective ownership. Although property rights theory provides the analytical perspective, the reality is complex. It is recommended that the authors more fully demonstrate in the theoretical framework how collective ownership contributes to these specific problems by providing a more detailed elaboration of the theoretical mechanisms or by citing relevant research to support them, rather than merely making attributions.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. They are important for deepening the understanding of the credibility of property rights of RRL.

Based on your suggestion, this article discusses the negative impacts of the collective ownership of RRL on use and governance of RRL in section “3.1. Credibility of Collective Ownership of RRL before RRLC”, which leads to the necessity of implementing RRLC.

Comment 4:  Section 4.2 is too simple. The methodology requires a clean research design, detailed data collection methods, and reliable data sources. These details determine the scientific validity and accuracy of the article, and the authors SHOULD REWRITE THE METHODOLOGY.

Response 4: Thanks for your careful comments on the methodology. The data collection methods and data sources have been supplemented based on your comments (section “4.2. Data collection”).

This article contains three types of data sources: semi-structured interviews with officials from the county and township government's land-related departments, as well as the village party branch secretary and village group leaders, to get the basic situation of the town and villages, as well as the RRLC implementation process and its effects on rural households. Another type of data sources is a questionnaire survey, which is used to obtain information from participating villagers regarding the impact of RRLC on their living conditions, economic status, and democratic rights. Finally, this article collects secondary materials such as relevant government documents, contracts signed by the market entity and villages, to ensure the comprehensiveness and completeness of the information.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a comprehensive analysis of rural residential land consolidation (RRLC) in China, focusing on the functional reconfiguration of property rights. It offers valuable insights into the mechanisms underpinning RRLC and the interactions among various stakeholders. However, some areas require further clarification and elaboration.
1.The literature review could be expanded to include more recent studies on RRLC and its implications in other contexts. This would strengthen the theoretical foundation.
2.More details are needed regarding the sampling methods used for selecting interviewees and survey participants. Clarifying the criteria for participant selection would enhance the study's credibility.
3.Some sections, particularly those discussing the implications of the findings, could benefit from a deeper analysis. Exploring alternative interpretations of the results might provide a more nuanced understanding.
4.The article would benefit from a more thorough assessment of the long-term impacts of RRLC on the livelihoods of villagers, especially those who did not participate in the program.
5.ncorporating visual aids, such as charts or diagrams, could help illustrate complex interactions and frameworks more effectively.

Author Response

Comment 1:The literature review could be expanded to include more recent studies on RRLC and its implications in other contexts. This would strengthen the theoretical foundation.

Response 1: Thanks very much for your comments. According to your comments, the introduction section now includes the implementation of land consolidation in other countries, and then discusses the land consolidation in China.

Comment 2: More details are needed regarding the sampling methods used for selecting interviewees and survey participants. Clarifying the criteria for participant selection would enhance the study's credibility.

Response 2 : Thank you very much for your comments regarding the data collection methods and data sources.

The interviewees in this article fall into three categories: government officials, village cadres, and participating villagers. Based on your comments, the reasons for selecting government officials and village cadres, as well as the methodology for selecting the villagers interviewed have been added to the method section ( section “4.2. Data collection”).

Three types of actors are directly involved in the RRLC implementation. Officials from the land-related departments of the county and the township government was interviewed due to their decisive roles in land resource management and policy formulation. Village party branch secretary and village group leaders have more local knowledge.

Comment 3: Some sections, particularly those discussing the implications of the findings, could benefit from a deeper analysis. Exploring alternative interpretations of the results might provide a more nuanced understanding.

Response 3 : Thank you very much for your suggestions. Taking into account your suggestions and the structure of the article, this article combines the previous discussion and conclusion sections, and summarizes the mechanisms by which RRLC improves the credibility of property rights of RRL in the new conclusion section.

Firstly, the reconfiguration of property rights functions of RRL is fundamental to achieving credibility; secondly, a supportive partnership is essential for realising this reconfiguration; and finally, government-initiated adjustments to property rights of RRL provide an opportunity to form such a partnership.

Comment 4: The article would benefit from a more thorough assessment of the long-term impacts of RRLC on the livelihoods of villagers, especially those who did not participate in the program. 如果能对 RRLC 对村民生计的长期影响进行更全面的

Response 4 : Thank you very much for your suggestion.

This article recognises the importance of focusing on how non-participants are affected in RRLC. However, because non-participants are more dispersed and the majority of them have already moved to towns and cities, non-participants have not been included in this article. The article also points out this shortcoming in the conclusion section and suggests directions for future research.

Secondly, in a newly-added section (5.2. Reconfiguration of property rights functions of RRL). This section discusses the impact of RRLC on rural households' livelihoods in terms of residential, economic and security functions. Because the property rights functions of RRL are defined as actors’ desired interests, the realization of functions can thus show the degree to which villagers’ interests are satisfied.

According to the article, the long-term impact of RRLC on rural households is mainly reflected in improved home quality and living conditions, and RRLC provides a channel for villagers to increase their non-farm income. According to the questionnaire survey, rural households' non-farm income does increase after the RRLC compared to before the RRLC.

Comment 5: ncorporating visual aids, such as charts or diagrams, could help illustrate complex interactions and frameworks more effectively.

Response 5 :Thanks for your kind comment. I have used figure.3 to depict interactions among actors.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

thank you for asking me to comment on this interesting article. The article is about the description of the application of a functional reconfiguration of agricultural land ownership rights in an L village in Chendu China.
Although methodologically adequate, although brief in its description, it is an article that opens up further questions about the relationship between land and tenure in a system of economics and governance that is not known to operate in the West.
In this sense, it would be ideal to include in the article the conditions and evolution of these land tenure processes after Mao's revolution until now, in order to have a general framework for the analysis. Finally, based on these points (increasing the explanation of the methodology and incorporating the general and evolutionary explanation of land tenure in China), the conclusions should be rewritten, making them more comprehensive for the general public.

Author Response

Comment 1: thank you for asking me to comment on this interesting article. The article is about the description of the application of a functional reconfiguration of agricultural land ownership rights in an L village in Chendu China.
Although methodologically adequate, although brief in its description, it is an article that opens up further questions about the relationship between land and tenure in a system of economics and governance that is not known to operate in the West.
In this sense, it would be ideal to include in the article the conditions and evolution of these land tenure processes after Mao's revolution until now, in order to have a general framework for the analysis. Finally, based on these points (increasing the explanation of the methodology and incorporating the general and evolutionary explanation of land tenure in China), the conclusions should be rewritten, making them more comprehensive for the general public.

Response 1: Thanks for your valuable suggestions. They are important for deepening the understanding of the credibility of property rights of RRL.

Based on your suggestions, the section “3.1. Credibility of collective ownership of RRL before RRLC” briefly examines the evolution of the collective ownership of RRL, and focuses on its negative impacts on the management and utilization of RRL. These negative impacts challenges the credibility of collective ownership of RRL, while providing the background for the government's adjustment of property rights of RRL and advocacy for RRLC.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has addressed all the issues.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been revised as required and is recommended for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for responding to our suggestions
they have been taken on board and my feeling is that it has improved the article a lot.