The Spatial–Temporal Characteristics and Driving Forces of the Coupled and Coordinated Development between New Urbanization and Rural Revitalization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is consistent with the requirements of Sustainability, and its content is normative and valuable. The author deeply discussed the relationship between urbanization and rural revitalization, which has important reference value for government decision-making. However, it still requires minor modifications before being officially published.

Firstly, highlight research gaps and clarify research questions.

Second, digitalization is the latest model of rural revitalization, especially under the impact of the COVID-19, the construction of smart villages has become a new global trend. The paper should give some attention to the latest literature on rural revitalization and digital development. You can refer to the following literature.

The Evolution Model of and Factors Influencing Digital Villages

doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030659

Thirdly, a large number of new papers have emerged in the field of urbanization and rural revitalization in recent years. Authors should read and cite more international latest literature, which currently belongs to Chinese literature.

The Dynamics and Driving Mechanisms of Rural Revitalization in Western China

doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13071448

Fourthly, the strategy section in section 6.2 is too concise, and the author should provide more detailed strategies to guide urbanization construction and rural revitalization.

Finally, I believe that the paper is generally innovative and constructive, and can be published after minor revisions. Wishing the author’s good luck.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses an interesting and relevant topic and appears fairly novel in approach. The structure of the paper, in terms of ordering of main sections, is fine. However within some sections, most crucially the section on research design, there is a lack of clarity, so that the merits of the paper are potentially lost.

Terminology used is unclear in various sections. Where reference is made to “systems” vs “subsystems”, “types”, “factors” etc, it is not always apparent what exactly these refer to.

Some specific comments are laid out below in the order of the paper: 

Line 168: It is unclear what you mean by a “model for driving mechanisms”

Section 2:  In this section assumed benefits of changing the nature of rural areas are enumerated, including for example assumed advances in governance, but there is no consideration of long-term costs that are imposed by the loss of rural characteristics, lifestyle or culture.

 

Line 177: You refer to “integration of space, economy, and elements” what are the elements you mean?

Line 197: You state “population movement brings modern civilization” The use of the idea of introducing “civilisation” in rural areas could be taken as derogatory. Use a different term.

 

Section 3.1 Index construction –

·       the elements used in the construction of indices are laid out in table 1, but I do not see details of how the indices are constructed from them, or are there supposed to be 42 indices?

·       Explain the signs of the indicators in the table - for example why is density associated with a negative sign? Similarly, there is a positive on unemployment rate – why is this?  If constructing an index, is there a weight attached, not just a sign?

Section 3.3

This section needs a lot of work to set out the theory and methods clearly.

·       The formulae for Coupling system and coupling degree need spelled out more clearly. For instance, within the context you are using the formulae, what do you mean by the ‘subsystems’ (used in line 303) as opposed to the ‘systems’?

·       How is u_{i ­}(lower case in formula 1) defined and (upper case in formula 3) U_i ?

·       Starting line 309: “Given that urban areas have a slightly greater driving effect on rural areas compared to the reciprocal effect of rural areas on urban areas, this study sets alpha to 0.6 and beta to 0.4.”   What is the backing for this choice? Why not 0.55, 0.45 or 0.65, 0.35?   Is there not a scientific way to establish appropriate values? What is the implication of your choice for the results?

·       “Where L represents the type of factors”  (L is a number in a summation – it cannot be an indicator of a “type”) . Do you mean the number of types?

·       Line 319: “The Geographic Detector is a statistical method used to investigate the spatial variations of a research subject and reveal its driving forces”  Do you mean to uncover the reasons for disparities between areas?

·       Line 327: You refer to formula 5 in the text as following. It is formula 4 that follows.

Results

Given the lack of clarity in section 3, setting out the nature of the data used and research methods, it is difficult to determine whether the analysis has achieved its aims and to evaluate the results.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some of the lack of clarity and mistakes, particularly lack of precision in section 3, may reflect problems with English. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article falls within the scope of sustainability, but the following content needs further modification:

1.     The abstract is too long and should be refined further.

2.     The introduction section lacks foreshadowing for the policy background and requires additional literature support. The cohesion of the introduction section can be improved. I recommend the authors to read and cite the following papers.

•          Linking urbanization and air quality together: A review and a perspective on the future sustainable urban development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 346, 130988.

•          Exploring the temporal and spatial effects of city size on regional economic integration: Evidence from the Yangtze River Economic Belt in China. Land Use Policy, 132, 106770.

 

3.     Similarly, the introduction section is too lengthy and needs to be refined further.

4.     The Coupled Mechanism section should include references to support the presented information.

5.     Further explanation is needed for the selection of indicators in Table 1. Why were these specific indicators chosen?

6.     What are the innovative aspects of this article? I suggest the authors refine and clarify the innovative aspects.

7.     The policy recommendations in the article do not seem to align well with the conclusions. It is important to strengthen the correspondence between the conclusions and policy recommendations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my concerns. I agree the publication of this article. Moreover, I suggest the authors cite some recent MDPI papers when proofing, such as those published in Sustainability and Land. 

In all, I am satisfied with your revisions. Good luck.