Study on Rural Classification and Resilience Evaluation Based on PSR Model: A Case Study of Lvshunkou District, Dalian City, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I enjoyed reading this article. 

The paper constructs a rural classification index system for the Lusshunkou District. In doing so, it focuses upon several different aspects of rural resilience (including geographical and social issues) and aims to offer some conclusions on how to improve rural resilience. 

Overall, I thought that the paper was interesting and added several interesting insights and conclusions for the literature. 

I do however, have some concerns. 

Firstly, the framing of the paper reads like a policy report unique to a particular area rather than a general contribution to the literature. The focus on this one regions is interesting, but not for a general audience. I believe that the authors could do more to motivate why this study should interest those from outside the city/local area. 

Secondly, and related to the above, the paper could do with a much clearer research question - ideally at the start of the paper. This will help the reader appreciate the findings here; 

Thirdly, the discussion of rural resilience and framing in the broader literature is relatively sparse. There is a highly developed literature on rural resilience that should be factored in. This should include being much clearer on the definition of resilience, how it has been framed in the literature and the findings from other studies. Key papers to consider (although this is not exhaustive)

Ashkenazy et al. (2018), "Operationalising resilience in farms and rural regions - Findings from fourteen case studies", Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 59

And for a more recent study: 

McIntyre and Roy (2023), "Revisiting the dimensions of rural resilience: The Covid-19 Pandemic", Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 103

There is also a literature on rural leadership (which seems important for the governance dimension) that could be explored more. For example

Davies, A., Lockstone-Binney, L., and Holmes, K., 2021. Recognising the value of volunteers in performing and supporting leadership in rural communities, Journal of Rural Studies

Forthly, I found the contribution on rural governance to be particularly interesting. However, I was surprised that some measures of governance (and crucially local leadership) were not included in the construction of an index. The role of leadership and policy capabilities has been shown to be a key element of measuring rural resilience in practice. I would like to see a measure of this included in the index. I do not believe it is sufficient to focus on this in the responses without robust examination in the construction of an index. 

Fifthly, the methodology section is much too short and rushed. It needs more explanation of each step in the calculations beyond simply listing equations. 

Sixthly, I found the policy recommendations in the discussion section to be a little lightweight and too general. 'Improve public services' doesn't really offer any practical advice for example, for policymakers. 

Finally, a lot of the discussion around reslience jumps between responsiveness to one-off shocks/natural disasters vis-a-vis longer term structural questions (such as population ageing). These are quite different elements that will shape rural resilience and therefore I believe that they need to be considered separately.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text is difficult to follow in some places. Some words used are not the most appropriate. I would suggest a further detailed read of the paper and consideration of the explanations before resubmission.

Table 2 is difficult to follow. 

Author Response

Comments 1:[Firstly, the framing of the paper reads like a policy report unique to a particular area rather than a general contribution to the literature. The focus on this one regions is interesting, but not for a general audience. I believe that the authors could do more to motivate why this study should interest those from outside the city/local area.]

Response 1: [We greatly appreciate your insightful comments and the time you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. In response to your suggestion, We will expand the literature review section to include more international and cross-regional studies to show how our research builds on existing knowledge.Besides, in the discussion section, we will highlight how our findings and findings can provide insights and references for policymaking in other regions or in similar situations. For details, see page 1, line 27-30]

 

Comments 2:[Secondly, and related to the above, the paper could do with a much clearer research question - ideally at the start of the paper. This will help the reader appreciate the findings here;]

Response 2: [Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.We will reformulate and clarify our research question in the introduction of the paper, ensuring that it will capture the reader's attention from the outset and lead them to understand the motivation and purpose of the research.For details, see page 1, line 24 to 27. “With the rural revitalization strategy proposed by the state, how to comprehensively improve the overall resilience of the rural system, enhance the social governance capacity of rural areas, and promote the integrated development of urban and rural areas is the key to solving rural social problems.”]

 

Comments 3: [Thirdly, the discussion of rural resilience and framing in the broader literature is relatively sparse. There is a highly developed literature on rural resilience that should be factored in. This should include being much clearer on the definition of resilience, how it has been framed in the literature and the findings from other studies. Key papers to consider (although this is not exhaustive) .]

Response 3: [Thank you for your constructive comments. We will provide a more in-depth review of the relevant literature on rural resilience, particularly those that have had a significant impact in the field, and in particular the 3 references that you have raised, which we have inserted into the literature to ensure that our discussion is on a solid theoretical footing. For details, see page 1, reference 4, 12,26.]

 

Comments 4: [Forthly, I found the contribution on rural governance to be particularly interesting. However, I was surprised that some measures of governance (and crucially local leadership) were not included in the construction of an index. The role of leadership and policy capabilities has been shown to be a key element of measuring rural resilience in practice. I would like to see a measure of this included in the index. I do not believe it is sufficient to focus on this in the responses without robust examination in the construction of an index.]

Response 4: [We greatly appreciate your insightful comments and the valuable perspective you have offered on the inclusion of governance measures, particularly local leadership, in our index construction. Your suggestion highlights an important dimension of rural resilience that we recognize merits thorough consideration.

After careful deliberation, we have concluded that incorporating a comprehensive measure of governance, including local leadership, into the index construction is a complex endeavor that extends beyond the immediate scope of our current study. The development of such a measure requires an in-depth analysis and validation process to ensure its accuracy and relevance, which involves additional data collection, methodological refinement, and potentially a new round of expert consultations.

While we are fully committed to the pursuit of a robust and holistic index, it is with a keen sense of the academic rigor and responsible research that we must acknowledge the constraints of the present work's timeline and scope. We believe that to do justice to the intricacies of governance and leadership measures, it necessitates a dedicated research focus that can be addressed in future work.

In the meantime, we have made sure to give due emphasis to the role of governance and local leadership in our discussions, ensuring that their significance is not overlooked. We have also outlined the potential directions for including these measures in future research endeavors, which we hope will provide a foundation for more extensive work in this area.

We trust that our response aligns with the high standards of academic inquiry you advocate and that our future research will be able to delve into the nuances of rural governance with the depth and care it deserves.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful feedback.]

 

Comments 5: Fifthly, the methodology section is much too short and rushed. It needs more explanation of each step in the calculations beyond simply listing equations.

Response 5: [Thank you for your constructive comments. We will provide a more detailed description of each computational step, including the theoretical basis of the methods used and the reasons for choosing them. For details, see page 7, line214-230. ]

 

Comments 6: Sixthly, I found the policy recommendations in the discussion section to be a little lightweight and too general. 'Improve public services' doesn't really offer any practical advice for example, for policymakers.

Response 6: [Thank you for your constructive comments. For each area of public services, we have included actionable strategies that policymakers can implement, such as increasing funding for underprivileged schools or investing in modern healthcare facilities.We also have included recommendations for establishing monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to assess the impact of policy changes over time.Recognizing the importance of community involvement, we have suggested methods for engaging local communities in the planning and execution of public service improvements. For details, see page 13, line362-365, line 371-382. ]

 

Comments 7: Finally, a lot of the discussion around reslience jumps between responsiveness to one-off shocks/natural disasters vis-a-vis longer term structural questions (such as population ageing). These are quite different elements that will shape rural resilience and therefore I believe that they need to be considered separately.

Response 7: [Thank you for your constructive comments. We agree with this comment. We will enhance the policy implications section to reflect the distinct strategies needed to address immediate shocks versus those required for long-term structural resilience. We will discuss community-level strategies that can be flexibly applied to both types of challenges, highlighting the importance of community engagement and adaptability. For details, see page 13, line380-382, line428-430. ]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a very interesting model that could contribute to rural resilience theory.   The manuscript’s discussion and recommendations are the strongest part of the paper as they indicate the value of categorizing villages and coupling these with specific recommendations for enhancing resilience. The factors selected for each of the components align with current research in the field of rural resilience theory. However, the paper requires a major rewrite not only in terms of sentence structure, but also the structure of the paper.  The description of the PSR should flow more clearly from the literature review.

The manuscript would be strengthened in the literature review and methods. Several of the cited papers provide a clearer connection between literature and methods selected, such as employing the PSR method and TOPSIS method as examples of presenting the PSR and TOPSIS methods.  Both need to be explained more clearly and linked to the contributing literature.  There needs to be more explanation in both methods and results of these methods.

Lines 24-29

The introductory sentences should be reworked for clarity. The second paragraph is clearer in terms of providing context for the study.

Overall, more care needs to be taken on verb tense – particularly in the introduction and literature review which uses both past and present tense.

Lines 59-62

The authors should provide more description here and an explanation and connection to the table cited. I am not acquainted with the term “accungement”

Lines 64-66
It would be helpful to have the authors provide a bit more explanation on each of the categories referenced in this sentence. 

Lines 112-120

This is a well crafted section of the methods/research scope.

Lines 140-143

It is not clear why the FVC. The connection to literature should be clearer

Table 2

This needs to be edited for clarity by having each factor on a separate line

Lines 445-446

It seems that one of the village types is duplicated.

Lines 462-467

The conclusion is not as clear as it could be

Table 4 does a nice job of explaining the rationale for the selection of variables.  One way to strengthen the paper might be to link specific literature to each variable selected

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper needs to be editing for sentence structure flow and use of terms.  The sentences could be more succinct in general.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes a rural classification and resilience evaluation method based on the PSR (Pressure-State-Response) model, using Lushun District in Dalian City, China as a case study. The authors construct a rural classification index system and a rural resilience evaluation index system, and apply the entropy weight TOPSIS method to analyze the resilience of different types of villages. The paper provides a comprehensive framework for assessing rural resilience and offers strategies for improving resilience in different village types from the aspects of space, industry, ecology, and governance. The study has practical significance in guiding rural revitalization and long-term governance in Lushun District and similar regions. That being said, the paper has considerable margin for improvement. Here are my comments and suggestions for the atuhors:

1. The authors mention that the rural classification index system is constructed based on "policy guidance and literature research" (Section 2.4.1). However, they do not provide specific references or policy documents that support their selection of indicators. Clarifying the sources and rationale behind the index system would strengthen the paper's methodology.
2. The description of the entropy weight TOPSIS method (Section 2.4.3) lacks clarity. The authors present a series of formulas without sufficient explanation of the variables and their meanings. A more detailed explanation of the method and its application in the context of rural resilience evaluation would improve the paper's readability and reproducibility.
3. The authors state that they used questionnaires and field visits to obtain data on population, public service facilities, elderly population, and medical insurance participants (Section 2.3). However, they do not provide information on the sample size, sampling method, or questionnaire design. These details are important for assessing the reliability and representativeness of the data.
4. The results section (Section 3) could benefit from more in-depth analysis and discussion. While the authors present the spatial distribution and differentiation of rural resilience, they do not provide a thorough interpretation of the underlying factors or compare their findings with existing literature. A more comprehensive discussion would enhance the paper's contribution to the field.
5. The authors propose strategies for improving rural resilience in different village types (Section 4). However, some of the strategies lack specificity and actionable steps. For example, the authors suggest "strengthening the management and protection of rural roads" for characteristic protected villages (Section 4.1) but do not elaborate on how this can be achieved. More concrete recommendations would make the paper more valuable for policymakers and practitioners.
6. The paper would benefit from a more critical reflection on the limitations of the study. For instance, the authors do not discuss the potential biases or uncertainties associated with their data sources, classification methods, or resilience evaluation approach. Acknowledging and discussing these limitations would demonstrate a more rigorous and transparent research process.
7. The authors do not provide a clear justification for selecting Lushun District as the case study area. While they mention that Lushun District was identified as a pilot reform area for rural housing land system (Section 1), they do not explain how this makes it a suitable case for studying rural resilience. A stronger rationale for the case selection would enhance the paper's relevance and generalizability.
8. The paper would benefit from a more thorough proofreading to address grammatical errors and improve clarity. For example, in Section 2.4.1, the sentence "From the perspective of quantitative relationship (Figure 1), rural integration > cluster construction > characteristic protection > renovation and upgrading villages" is unclear and requires rephrasing.

Author Response

Comments 1: [The authors mention that the rural classification index system is constructed based on "policy guidance and literature research" (Section 2.4.1). However, they do not provide specific references or policy documents that support their selection of indicators. Clarifying the sources and rationale behind the index system would strengthen the paper's methodology.]

Response 1:[Thank you for your constructive comments. We have added a subsection detailing the policy guidance that underpins our selection of indicators. This includes references to strategic plans and policy directives related to rural development. For details, see page 4, line 151.]

 

Comments 2: [The description of the entropy weight TOPSIS method (Section 2.4.3) lacks clarity. The authors present a series of formulas without sufficient explanation of the variables and their meanings. A more detailed explanation of the method and its application in the context of rural resilience evaluation would improve the paper's readability and reproducibility.]

Response 2: [Thank you for your constructive comments.We have broken down the application of the entropy weight TOPSIS method into clear, sequential steps, with a focus on its application in the context of rural resilience evaluation. For details, see page 7, line214-230. ]

 

Comments 3: [The authors state that they used questionnaires and field visits to obtain data on population, public service facilities, elderly population, and medical insurance participants (Section 2.3). However, they do not provide information on the sample size, sampling method, or questionnaire design. These details are important for assessing the reliability and representativeness of the data.]

Response 3: [We are very grateful for your insightful comments. We have clarified the sample size used in our study, totaling 69 villages, with a questionnaire survey form distributed to each village, requesting the village party secretary or head to fill in and return.For details, see page 4, 140-142. We have also added a new Rural data survey form, for details, see page 4, table 2. ]

 

Comments 4: [The results section (Section 3) could benefit from more in-depth analysis and discussion. While the authors present the spatial distribution and differentiation of rural resilience, they do not provide a thorough interpretation of the underlying factors or compare their findings with existing literature. A more comprehensive discussion would enhance the paper's contribution to the field.]

Response 4: 

Response 4: [ In response to your constructive comments, we recognize that due to space limitations in the initial submission, we were unable to delve as deeply into the underlying factors and comparative literature analysis as would be ideal. We concur that a more comprehensive discussion is essential to fully realize the paper's potential contribution to the field.To address this, we have taken the following steps in our revised manuscript: We have added a brief methodological reflection that considers the strengths and limitations of our approach, as well as how these might affect the interpretation of our results. For details, see page 15, line 472-477.]

 

Comments 5 :[The authors propose strategies for improving rural resilience in different village types (Section 4). However, some of the strategies lack specificity and actionable steps. For example, the authors suggest "strengthening the management and protection of rural roads" for characteristic protected villages (Section 4.1) but do not elaborate on how this can be achieved. More concrete recommendations would make the paper more valuable for policymakers and practitioners.]

Response 5: [Thank you for pointing this out. We reintroduced a more specific development strategy for each type of village, meanwhile, where applicable, we have included brief case studies or examples of where similar strategies have been successfully implemented, providing a practical reference for the proposed recommendations. For details, see page 13, line 362-382. ]

 

Comments 6 :[The paper would benefit from a more critical reflection on the limitations of the study. For instance, the authors do not discuss the potential biases or uncertainties associated with their data sources, classification methods, or resilience evaluation approach. Acknowledging and discussing these limitations would demonstrate a more rigorous and transparent research process.]

Response 6: [Thank you for pointing this out. We have included a critical reflection on the classification methods used in our study. We recognize that the chosen methods may have limitations in terms of sensitivity or specificity and discuss how these might affect the interpretation of our results. Besides we have acknowledged any methodological constraints that could have influenced the study, such as the scope of the research questions, the study design, or the analytical techniques employed. For details, see page 15, line 472-477. ]

 

Comments 7: [The authors do not provide a clear justification for selecting Lushun District as the case study area. While they mention that Lushun District was identified as a pilot reform area for rural housing land system (Section 1), they do not explain how this makes it a suitable case for studying rural resilience. A stronger rationale for the case selection would enhance the paper's relevance and generalizability.]

Response 7: [We greatly appreciate your insightful comments. We have clarified that Lushun District was identified as a pilot area for rural housing land system reforms . This unique position provides a distinctive context for studying rural resilience, as the reforms may have significant implications for the resilience of rural communities. We also have emphasized the significance of the study in contributing to the body of knowledge on rural resilience, particularly in the context of policy reforms and their impact on community resilience. For details, see page 3, line 116-124. ]

 

Comments 8: [The paper would benefit from a more thorough proofreading to address grammatical errors and improve clarity. For example, in Section 2.4.1, the sentence "From the perspective of quantitative relationship (Figure 1), rural integration > cluster construction > characteristic protection > renovation and upgrading villages" is unclear and requires rephrasing.]

Response 8: [Thank you for your constructive comments.We have rephrased the sentence in Section 2.4.1 to improve its clarity. The revised sentence now reads, "Quantitative analysis, as depicted in Figure 1, indicates a hierarchy of focus areas where rural integration takes precedence, followed by cluster construction, characteristic protection, and finally, the renovation and upgrading of villages." About Grammar and Syntax Review: We have conducted a detailed grammar and syntax review to correct any errors and ensure that the manuscript adheres to standard academic writing conventions. For details, see page 8, line 240-243. ]

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no further comments.

Author Response

We appreciate your careful consideration of our manuscript and are glad to hear that you have no additional suggestions for improvement.