Analyzing the Impact of Geographic Environment Differences on the Dual Backwardness of Rural Economy and Information in the Perspective of Digital Poverty

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The aim of the paper was to investigate and identify the impact of geographical disparities on digital poverty. However, I believe that this goal has not been fully achieved.

At the same time, the examination of the topic is timely and promising.

Contrary to the title, the study did not analyse the impact of the geographical environment, but tried to assess some aspects of digital poverty and its context among people living in two rural localities in a specific region (central province of China), using semi-structured interviews. It is definitely necessary to rethink and reconceptualise this, bringing the title and content in sync.

I believe the abstract is not appropriate and sufficient, because the aim(s) of the study, the methodology used, the main findings and indications of originality, theoretical and practical implications are missing.

The introduction section is not clear and relevant references are missing. The very first sentence (line 23-28), for example, contains duplications. The word Internet is written in both lowercase and uppercase letters. The rationale and relevance of the study should be highlighted.

The introduction is followed by „Literature review” which is not sufficient and effective. It covers two topic, and for instance does not address the term/topic of geographic environment, it does not deal with the concept, meaning and importance of geographical environment and its differentiating nature. Relevant references are missing in this section as well. In line 123 slower should be replaced by quicker or faster (see "on the contrary" in line 121).

The methodology of research is too briefly described, and not well documented. Please, provide more information about interviews (when it happened, who did it, how the interviewees were selected, how the answers were coded, what software was used, etc.). Provide more information about the localities that were investigated: location, show them on a map etc.. It is mentioned (in line 161) that the examined locations are quite dissimilar from one other, but „what do you mean?”, „in wich aspects they are quite different?”, „in which geographical environmental factors they differ from each other?”. How were the participants selected, by what method, based on what criteria? I consider it necessary to demonstrate how the method and the questions used, can provide answers, and how they can contribute to achieving the objective set.

Results, discussion and conlusions should be improved. Please show more about the results, make it more understandable: present relevant quotes from the interviews; make summary tables about answers you got; link your results wit other studies on similar topic. Structure conclusions and link them to results, and use references, so clearly and unambiguously link results to proposed strategies. Please, consider the limitations and discuss the theoretical and practical implications.

(It is mentioned in line 241-242 that „In addition, most of the residents of sample 2 who take part in the excitement are in their senior years.” This can significantly influence the answers received during the interviews and thus also the conclusions.)

I hope the authors will find these comments useful to improve the quality of their paper.

Good luck and all the best!

Author Response

Thank you for your review of our paper and for your positive feedback. We are glad to hear that you find the examination of our topic timely and promising. Your support and encouragement are greatly appreciated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very important paper that addresses an issue that is understudied.  For this reason, it needs to be improved in certain key ways so that it can have the impact it deserves.  

First, the introduction overstates the elimination of traditional poverty in China.  The government has done a great deal but the scholarly world knows that traditional poverty in China is still significant. This isn't your main point so find a more neutral and accurate way to describe the efforts the government has made and move on to your real topic. 

A few picky details:  line 66-67 seems to have one phrase repeated.  The sentence that starts on line 150 in the middle that starts with "There is a literary analysis . . . " is, I think mistranslated.  I think you mean an analysis in the literature and then the rest of the sentence needs to be retranslated.  I'm not sure the intent.  

In terms of the overall argument, the concept that the internal digital divide in large countries (or even small ones) is serious and reinforces traditional poverty, is very important.  This problem is internationally true and few countries have even tried to address it.  South Korea is an exception but they are small and only 10% of their population lives outside urban areas.  It is really interesting that rural/urban digital divides and the digital poverty that follows is true in so many countries and across a diversity of economic systems.  

Here is the one big question I think you need to answer:  in regard to traditional poverty, the transnational answer in the 20th century after WWII, the Chinese Revolution, the post-colonial process in Africa, etc. has been to move rural populations into cities and mechanize agriculture.  This approach has had some positive impacts but is ecologically unsustainable and has not eliminated rural poverty.  So, your paper has an interesting discussion of lack of interest in digital literacy among rural dwellers, why should that change?  The paper cites online shopping and connection to the larger world as benefits of expanding digital access but is that what relatively old people living in the mountains of western China want? especially if they are minorities with an iffy relationship to the government?  Digital access comes with loss of privacy.  Digital work may not appeal to people whose lives are currently involved with subsistence farming. The question I am asking is this, in what way does digital access and empowerment enhance the life these individuals are currently living to the extent that they prefer that lifestyle?  You may have some answers to this question in your qualitative data or you may only have the lack of interest.  Either way, you could quote some of your research subjects to illustrate your findings.  

The other question you could discuss a little more is the question of age.  Older people tend to be less excited about new technology (I'm old so I can say this) but they also have needs that tech can help.  All you need to do for this paper is suggest that a policy that targets increasing digital use by older rural populations needs to include functions that serve their existing needs so farming, weather, telehealth, inexpensive phone calls to far away children etc.  

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. Thank you for your thorough review and for bringing the details to our attention. We appreciate your time and effort in helping us improve our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In its current form, the manuscript is more focused, coherent and clearer than the previous version. Overall, the content has been improved, the results are more concrete and the sections are more integrated. I recommend that the manuscript be accepted and published.