Advancing the Study of Rural Spatial Commodification and Land Use Transition: Towards an Integrated Coupling Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study focuses on the integrated coupling between rural spatial commodification and land use transition, featuring a novel research topic with both theoretical value and practical guiding significance. The overall structure is complete, and the literature foundation is solid. However, I still have the following questions and suggestions regarding the paper:

1. The integration logic of the theory of spatial production and the theory of rural regional system in the analysis of coupling mechanisms is not sufficiently clear. It is recommended to supplement the specific integration path of these two theories.

2. Does the classification of rural space into "agricultural-construction-ecological" types in the context of rural spatial commodification cover all rural spatial categories? The comprehensiveness of the classification basis needs to be further elaborated.

3. Can some indicators in the quantitative index system accurately reflect the essence of rural spatial commodification (e.g., "number of Taobao villages", "number of beautiful and leisure villages")? What are the selection basis and weight determination methods for each indicator?

4. The existing regulatory policies tend to be overly macro-oriented. Could the authors propose differentiated policy schemes by region and type based on the differences in resource endowments across various areas, and clarify specific regulatory tools to enhance the policy feasibility and operability?

5. The descriptions of figures and tables need further improvement. It is suggested to supplement the explanation of the logical correlation among various modules in Figures 1–5.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The overall English expression of the entire manuscript needs to be revised and polished. Currently, some of the sentences are too long, such as Lines 21-24, Lines 36-40, Lines 44-50 and Lines 56-59. Please optimize the expression of complex sentence structures throughout the entire manuscript. And pay attention to using consistent terms for specific nouns, such as "commodification" and "commercialization".
2. Lines 36-40 emphasize that the conceptual paradigm and perceptual imagery in rural areas have changed, and additional citations are needed for the argument. Lines 51-53 regarding tangible assets and intangible resources would also benefit from citation of relevant literature.
3. The logic between the paragraphs in the introduction is rather chaotic, and the expressions also need to be optimized. Especially in the first paragraph, it is necessary to further clarify the scope of the research. Does this topic only apply to China? Is it universally applicable to global rural development? Moreover, it is suggested that at the end of the introduction, 2-3 sentences should be used to clearly state the research objectives and specific contributions of this question.
4. In Sections 2.1 and 2.2, although the authors have comprehensively reviewed the relevant research progress from multiple perspectives, they lack effective summary analysis, which makes the literature review appear fragmented and insufficient in depth.
5. In Section 2.1.1, the authors reviewed the definitions of "Rural Spatial Commodification" provided by various scholars. However, they only mentioned "In recent years, research on rural spatial commodification has gradually emerged in China" on Lines 136-137. Without adequately elaborating on the particularity of rural space commodification in the context of China's national conditions, it is suggested that relevant analyses be added.
6. Lines 267-271, What are the "advanced stages" of LUCC? What exactly are these "divergent spatiotemporal scales and trajectory characteristics"? Further explanations are needed.
7. In Section 4.4, the scenario setting is rather general, and there is a lack of elaboration on the land use decision-making behaviors of the stakeholders. It is suggested that in the scenario analysis, considerations of external shocks such as policy intervention and market fluctuations should be added.
8. It is necessary to add the conclusion of this work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article essentially concerns the integration of a modern approach to rural geography with Land Use and Cover Change (LUCC). Drawing on Henri Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space and the transition from a “productivist” to a “post‑productivist” model, the authors move in an orderly and logical manner from theory to its implementation, thereby establishing methodological foundations for contemporary rural area management. It should be emphasised that the text as a whole is written in a highly coherent and transparent way; the main reservation that arises relates to the extent to which the manuscript fits within the rather rigid framework imposed by the journal on the articles it publishes.
Turning to the details: the abstract and introduction provide a synthetic account of the authors’ research intentions, highlighting the principal research objective of the study – I have no comments on this part.
The literature review section is generally divided into two parts. The first concerns the issue of Rural Spatial Commodification and proceeds from conceptualisation, through a typological component, to a description of mechanisms and impact effects. I have only two minor remarks here: first, I suggest removing the title “Tabayashi” (line 159); second, it is unnecessary to state that Fan Lichui is a Chinese scholar (lines 202 and 219). The second part of this section concerns the characteristics of LUCC and likewise moves from conceptual elements to effects, effectively forming a logical mirror image of the first part. It is worth noting that the third subsection of this chapter provides a coherent linkage between these two research areas, reflected in subsection 2.3.
The following chapter serves as a bridge between the literature review and the authors’ proposed research framework, and is based on the identification of three research gaps. In my view, the diagnosed gaps are valid. I have no comments on this section.
The next part concerns the proposed integrated theoretical‑methodological model, which consists of five main stages that are described in considerable detail and presented in illustrative form. This section is also written clearly, and the figures are easy to interpret. In my opinion, this part likewise requires no revision.
The final section concerns the discussion. Although it includes the key elements typically found in this part of a paper, I am uncertain whether it should be titled “Discussion and Conclusions” and whether it should include a separate concluding paragraph summarising the entire study, with particular emphasis on the practical applicability of the proposed concept. An alternative would be to introduce a standalone “Conclusions” subsection, although in my view the former solution would be more appropriate for this text.
Additionally, there are minor editorial errors in the manuscript, but these can be corrected during the editing process.

To conclude, I congratulate the authors on their approach and on a piece of work that, in my view, is worthy of emulation. The minor revisions required should be very easy to address. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded to my comments in detail and I have no further questions.