Aging Population Spatial Distribution Discrepancy and Impacting Factor
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Improvements in medicine and public sanitation have a large positive impact on human lifespan, such as improving the quality of living space. Accordingly, it is judged to be an empirical study that can discuss the global aging phenomenon in a timely manner, and the following review opinions are provided.
1. The main issues of the study, spatial differences and qualitative differences in the labor force, are analyzed through Jiangsu province to analyze the differences between cities and provinces, and it is necessary to explain the time-series characteristics of the target area.
2. Why do you usually use Geographic Weighting Regression? Other additional analytical methods may well explain this study, which is the main reason for the use of GWR.
3. How can spatial characteristics be generalized from the analysis results of the study site from 2010 to 2020 and the comparison of differences with other regions? It is difficult to generalize only with the derivation of specific results of case areas.
4. In particular, what does the negative correlation between the aging population in the 2020s mean? Can it be seen as an event effect on other external factors?
5. The fact that the spatial heterogeneity of the aging population is not as great as the regional cities is considered to be only a common-sense study result. Discussion of specific analysis and differential analysis are necessary.
6. As for other opinions, what do the black and red fonts in the manuscript mean? When submitting a thesis, the final edited manuscript is submitted, and it is considered that continuous revisions have been submitted.
Author Response
Comment 1: The main issues of the study, spatial differences and qualitative differences in the labor force, are analyzed through Jiangsu province to analyze the differences between cities and provinces, and it is necessary to explain the time-series characteristics of the target area.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. I supplement the explanation of the time-series characteristics. I added the content of the rest factor from time-series aspect, as well the trend graphic.
Comment 2: Why do you usually use Geographic Weighting Regression? Other additional analytical methods may well explain this study, which is the main reason for the use of GWR.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. I supplement the content in paper. For instance: measuring the correlation between independent and dependent variables could adopt various regression methods. For instance, ordinary least square (OLS) has been widely used to identify the relationship, but it lacks of consideration of spatial variation. Geographically weighted regression (GWR) recognizes the spatial characteristics of aging population and its correlate factor, which contributes to understanding the aging population feature of space distribution, as well it defines variables specific impacting the aging population in the study area.
Comment 3: How can spatial characteristics be generalized from the analysis results of the study site from 2010 to 2020 and the comparison of differences with other regions? It is difficult to generalize only with the derivation of specific results of case areas.
Response 3: Thank you for your recommendation. I supplement the content in paper. For instance:
In 2010, the natural factor of demographic gradually weakened from northern to southern cities, but it remains positive. However, it increases from north to south cities and negatively impacts 2020. The Jiangsu province seems to have been divided into three cities group that impacting factor has the same situation in the group and are different from others. That indicates the spatial heterogeneity of aging population possibly does not occur at the city level but regional level.
I also add this part in limitation due to this paper merely consider one province to discuss.
Comment 4: In particular, what does the negative correlation between the aging population in the 2020s mean? Can it be seen as an event effect on other external factors?
Response 4: Thank you for your recommendation. I supplement the content in paper. For instance: the negative factor represents that it benefits to reducing aging population due to without a comfortable living environment for elderly people. For instance, they found death rates have a positive effect on population aging in developing countries due to a decline in the death rate first appearing in the lower age group and then gradually extending to the middle and old-age groups [12]. In this paper, we found the nature demographic is positive with aging population in 2010 but negative in 2020. That matches their founding [12] because the death rate belongs to the nature demographic factor in this paper.
Comment 5: The fact that the spatial heterogeneity of the aging population is not as great as the regional cities is considered to be only a common-sense study result. Discussion of specific analysis and differential analysis are necessary.
Response 5: Thank you for your recommendation. I supplement the content in paper. For instance:
The finding presents there is spatial heterogeneity in Jiangsu province. There is a significant boundary of impacting factor situation in the north city (Xuzhou, Lianyungang, Suqian, Huaian), central city (Yancheng, Yangzhou, Taizhou, Nanjing, Zhenjiang, Changzhou) and south city (Wuxi, Nantong, Suzhou). The Jiangsu province seems to have been divided into three cities group that impacting factor has the same situation in the group and are different from others. That indicates the spatial heterogeneity of aging population possibly does not occur at the city level but regional level.
Comment 6: As for other opinions, what do the black and red fonts in the manuscript mean? When submitting a thesis, the final edited manuscript is submitted, and it is considered that continuous revisions have been submitted.
Response 6: Thank you for your recommendation. Due to the rule of this journal “Any revisions to the manuscript should be marked up using the “Track Changes” function if you are using MS Word/LaTeX, such that any changes can be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers.”, so resubmit paper has revision mark.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I accept the amendments made to my review.
Reviewer
Author Response
Comment 1: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. I improved the English language of the whole paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
First of all, I would like to thank the editor for giving me an opportunity to contribute in this study.
1. what is the main contribution of this study comparef with many similar researches. Using spatial analysis technique or take the provincal level as study unit, this is not innovative enough.
2. The analysis of GWR is mainly presenting the social econmic, Demographic, Healthcare facilities, why not the specific indicators of per capita GDP, fertility. Besides, I am not sure whether the marginal effect evaluating method is based on the GWR results, if not , the results calculated is inconsistent.
3. A good round of proof reading would be helpful to remove any typing and grammatical errors. Some sentences ir words in red is incomprehensible and unreadable， “sustainable economic developing ”，“The demographic dividend is gradually reflected in the developing country”," to determine the among them in different cities to precisely reflect local features", et al.
Author Response
Comment 1: what is the main contribution of this study comparef with many similar researches. Using spatial analysis technique or take the provincal level as study unit, this is not innovative enough.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. I supplement the main contributions at the end of the Introduction paragraph. For instance: In this study, we will recognize the cause of aging population from impacting factors, which further understand the aging society. Spatial heterogeneity of aged population distribution will be assessed that identifies the spatial distribution of elderly people whether they have any regular characteristics or have potential correlation from geographic space.
Comment 2: The analysis of GWR is mainly presenting the social econmic, Demographic, Healthcare facilities, why not the specific indicators of per capita GDP, fertility. Besides, I am not sure whether the marginal effect evaluating method is based on the GWR results, if not , the results calculated is inconsistent.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. The per capita GDP and fertility belong to social economic and nature factor of demographic, respectively. I concerted these factors into one dimension because I found that the regression performance is not good if I measure it by a single factor. It not benefits to explain the aging population. Marginal effect evaluating method is not based on the GWR, but GWR merely represent the factor status in a specific area, and whereas not represent the holistic situation of this factor, so I adopt it to determine the comprehensive impacting situation for per factor.
Comment 3: A good round of proof reading would be helpful to remove any typing and grammatical errors. Some sentences ir words in red is incomprehensible and unreadable， “sustainable economic developing ”，“The demographic dividend is gradually reflected in the developing country”," to determine the among them in different cities to precisely reflect local features", et al.
Response 3: Thank you for your recommendation. I improved the English language of whole paper.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors used various geospatial tools and techniques to show the discrepancy in spatial distribution and the impacting factor of the aging population in Jiangsu Province, China. I have some suggestions that are listed below:
1. Line 16 to 19: Authors need to include some quantitative findings in the abstract and describe the findings' significance.
2. Line 96-100: Authors only described the objectives of this study but did not describe the significance of the study.
3. Line 199: it should be figure 2.4 instead of figure 2.3
4. Line 205: It should be Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR).
5. Line 314-316: Authors need to describe why these three cities have high-high clusters.
6. The findings present in figure 3.3(b) contradict (aging population higher vs. lower) with the findings present in 3.4(b). Authors need to provide justification for that.
7. Page 14, Section 5.2: I would recommend renaming this section as Discussion and making it a separate section. The conclusion chapter should come after the Discussion chapter. In this way, it will be easier for readers to follow the manuscript. In the discussion chapter, the authors should also justify and discuss the findings.
Overall, it was difficult to follow the manuscript. The authors need to clearly present and discuss the findings. The authors also need to clearly describe the significance of this study.
Author Response
Comment 1: Line 16 to 19: Authors need to include some quantitative findings in the abstract and describe the findings' significance.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. I supplement the quantitative findings in the abstract. For instance: the social economic negatively relates to the aging population in 2020 that its interval value is [-1.0585, -1.0632].
Comment 2: Line 96-100: Authors only described the objectives of this study but did not describe the significance of the study.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. I supplement the main contributions at the end of the Introduction paragraph. For instance: In this study, we will recognize the cause of aging population from impacting factors, which further understand the aging society. Spatial heterogeneity of aged population distribution will be assessed that identifies the spatial distribution of elderly people whether they have any regular characteristics or have potential correlation from geographic space.
Comment 3: Line 199: it should be figure 2.4 instead of figure 2.3.
Response 3: Thank you for your recommendation. I revised it.
Comment 4: Line 205: It should be Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR).
Response 4: Thank you for your recommendation. I revised it.
Comment 5: Line 314-316: Authors need to describe why these three cities have high-high clusters.
Response 5: Thank you for your recommendation. I supplement it. For instance: The average aging population ratio is 20.63% for these three cities, which is the highest (Figure 2.2) in 2020. Also, the population growth ratio declined from 2010 to 2020, and Yangzhou slightly increased (2.24%), which is the lowest positive rise in 2020. These three cities have a higher aging population and lower population growth ratio, which further strengthens the aging society that contributes to forming aging population high-high cluster.
Comment 6: The findings present in figure 3.3(b) contradict (aging population higher vs. lower) with the findings present in 3.4(b). Authors need to provide justification for that.
Response 6: Thank you for your recommendation. Figure 3.3(b) is city's autocorrelation of aging population, and the high-high cluster cities also are the highest aging population ratio in 2020. But it is different with 3.4(b) because 3.4(b) is Social economic impacting coefficient distribution in 2020, which represents social economic impacting situation for aging population in 2020.
Comment 7: Page 14, Section 5.2: I would recommend renaming this section as Discussion and making it a separate section. The conclusion chapter should come after the Discussion chapter. In this way, it will be easier for readers to follow the manuscript. In the discussion chapter, the authors should also justify and discuss the findings.
Response 7: Thank you for your recommendation. I restructure this part.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It is judged that the previous review opinions have been properly reflected.
Author Response
Comment 1: It is judged that the previous review opinions have been properly reflected.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. I modified the English language, some sentences, and the Figure number and supplemented some content in this paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
the gwr model can provide the significance of the influence coefficient of each variables.
there are also many grammas and style mistakes, such as 6. Conclusions and implications 5.1 Conclusions,
Author Response
Comment 1: the gwr model can provide the significance of the influence coefficient of each variables.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. I described the influence coefficient of each variable in the paper. For instance, Figures 12(a) and 12(b) display that the social-economic negatively relates to the aging population in 2010 and 2020, the interval value is [-1.0622, -1.0611] and [-0.3914, -0.3908], respectively, which the impacting ability declines.
Comment 2: there are also many grammas and style mistakes, such as 6. Conclusions and implications 5.1 Conclusions,
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. I modified the English language, some sentences, and the Figure number and supplemented some content in this paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
I would like to thank the authors for addressing all of my comments. The authors have improved this manuscript greatly, and added detail makes this paper much stronger.
Author Response
Comment 1: I would like to thank the authors for addressing all of my comments. The authors have improved this manuscript greatly, and added detail makes this paper much stronger.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. I modified the English language, some sentences, and the Figure number and supplemented some content in this paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
dear authors, your paper seems to me quite interesting, although I really have problems to follow your arguments in detail. A thorough language check will be necessary.
Just one thing: in the introduction you mention the practical relevance of your findings. However, the only reference to this statement is one simple sentence at the end of the parer "The local authority should provide more elderly-friendly infrastructure to satisfy the increasing demand".
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
After reviewing article „Aging population spatial distribution discrepancy and impacting factor” , I have comments and suggestions as follows:
Extensive editing of English language and style required, which significantly limits understanding of the article.
INTRODDUCTION: In my opinion, in paper missed a clear definition of the research goal Moreover, there is no definition of what exactly results brings to research?
MATERIALS AND METHODS: There is no information in this chapter about the source of the data used or their time range. Only the abstract provides information on the study material. There is no presentation of the research stages used. I propose to include a diagram of the research procedure, which would improve the reader's perception of the work. 2.1. Impact factor literature review needs rebuilding.
RESULTS: In my opinion, the description of the research area should be moved before Materials and Methods. At the same time the criteria for the selection of the study area were not specified. The results are formulated too generally and should be more elaborated.
CONCLUSIONS: After the amendments have been introduced, I propose to redact the conclusions.
Reviewer
Reviewer 3 Report
The aging problem is not only a regional problem, but a national problem, and it is recognized as a particularly prominent phenomenon in Asian countries such as Japan, China, and Korea. This study is judged to be a timely study that provides several implications from the case of Jiangsu Province in China. However, it is necessary to supplement the following contents. 1.Geographic Weighting Regression (GWR) requires a detailed explanation of how the research problem was defined and the model was designed. 2. What criteria (administrative unit, population size) did you consider the regional division of aging (heterogeneous difference between urban and rural areas)? 3.Isn't it necessary to include issues such as COVID-19 in particular among the demographic characteristics from 2010 to 2020? 4. Despite the meaningful research topic, the conclusion remains at the general level. In other words, it is necessary to emphasize the novelty of the conclusion more in line with the research design. 5. It is recommended to add a description of the variable and the description of the Dataset configuration.
Reviewer 4 Report
Compared with many related researches especially in Jiangsu Province in Chinese papers, the innovative is inadequate. The only advantage is the use of data from the year 2020. The analysis is more descriptive rather than explanatory.
- The study area should not be included into the results part. And the Figure 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 can be combined into one figure. Besides, the data source should be clarified clearly.
- I think the assessment framework of population aging is inappropriate. This figure only lists the relevant influencing factors and does not reveal the intrinsic mechanism of the aging process in Jiangsu Province.
- GWR's analysis only describes the spatial patterns of each influencing factor, without explaining why and how affects population aging. For example, why the socioeconomic impact on aging is opposite in 2010 and 2020. Explanations are needed for other indicators as well. In addition, the results of GWR should report t-tests of significance for each indicator.
- The discussion section does not answer the question of what makes this study unique and special from other studies and how this study can provide insights for other regions. Besides, the limitations for this study is not mentioned. Moreover, the policy implications is not provided.
- Some minor errors, R2 should be R2, from Table 1 then to Table 5.1, where other tables.
