Research on Sustainable Urban–Rural Integration Development: Measuring Levels, Influencing Factors, and Exploring Driving Mechanisms—Taking Eight Cities in the Greater Bay Area as Examples

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting and meaningful study. Based on the data of 8 cities in the Greater Bay Area, the author established the rural-urban integration index and analyzed the driving mechanism. In general, the research topic is meaningful, the research design is relatively reasonable, and the conclusions are basically in line with common sense. In order to better improve the quality of the paper, several suggestions for reference:

         (1) The summary is too long, it is recommended to be properly refined, some irrelevant content can not be included in the summary.

         (2) In the introduction, the author has made some descriptions of the importance of the whole research, but the urgency and marginal contribution of the whole research are not clearly presented. Therefore, it is suggested that the author summarize the core arguments of the review in advance, and clearly summarize the marginal contribution of this study in the introduction. These marginal contributions can be research perspectives, can be research content, can be research methods.

         (3) It is suggested that the review and theoretical analysis framework sections be combined. The current reviews are too scattered and are relatively far from the goal of the whole research, and are more about the introduction of some core concepts. It is suggested that the review and theoretical analysis framework should be combined, and some content should be appropriately compressed.

         (4) In the part of research design, the selection of variables and methods should have theoretical basis, and it is best to choose some classical literature as support.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

List of Responses

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Research on Sustainable Urban-Rural Integration Development: Measuring Levels, Influencing Factors, and Exploring Driving Mechanisms — Taking Eight Cities in the Greater Bay Area as Examples” (ID: 2891463). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Response to comment 1: (The summary is too long, it is recommended to be properly refined, some irrelevant content can not be included in the summary.)

Response 1: I appreciate your feedback on the abstract. I've revised it to be more concise, ensuring that only the most relevant and impactful information is included.

Response to comment 2: (In the introduction, the author has made some descriptions of the importance of the whole research, but the urgency and marginal contribution of the whole research are not clearly presented. Therefore, it is suggested that the author summarize the core arguments of the review in advance, and clearly summarize the marginal contribution of this study in the introduction. These marginal contributions can be research perspectives, can be research content, can be research methods.)

Response 2: Thanks to your comments, I have briefly summarized the contributions of this paper in terms of research perspective, research methodology and research content in the introduction section.

Response to comment 3: (It is suggested that the review and theoretical analysis framework sections be combined. The current reviews are too scattered and are relatively far from the goal of the whole research, and are more about the introduction of some core concepts. It is suggested that the review and theoretical analysis framework should be combined, and some content should be appropriately compressed.)

Response 3: Thank you for the suggestion. I've already integrated the literature review with the theoretical framework, aiming to create a more cohesive and focused narrative that aligns closely with our research objectives.

Response to comment 4: (In the part of research design, the selection of variables and methods should have theoretical basis, and it is best to choose some classical literature as support.)

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion, now supported by the addition of classical literature in the study design section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Urban-rural integration is a relevant research topic, and apparently in China also a topic that gets considerably urgency in national, provincial and regional policies. It makes sense to choose the Greater Bay Area as the region to analyse this process. Your manuscript may become a valuable contribution to the academic and policy debates about this, but I think several major and minor changes may still be needed. As you will see below, some of those may be self-evident for Chinese researchers and policy-makers familiar with the Chinese urban-rural integration process and policies, but less common and less evident for readers from other countries (like me). Keep in mind that you are writing for an international audience.

To start with the major issues:

1. Your manuscript is very long for an academic journal article. Maybe this journal does not have a max. word count, but most journal articles (also in this journal I guess?) would be about half of the length of your manuscript? There is definitely substantial shortening potential in some parts of your manuscript, especially in the last section 'Conclusions and Implications' (usually such a section would be one or two pages, but in your manuscript it is more than 5 pages?)

Your abstract also is unusually long?

2. Section 2 seems to provide a quite solid and complete overview of relevant literature, theories and debates. I only wonder if there are also any alternatives to rural-urban integration discussed in such debates? Is rural-urban integration the only way to revitalise rural areas and to take the next step in urban development? Is rural-urban integration only beneficial for rural and/or urban areas, or could it also have negative effects?

3. I wonder if what you are analysing is really urban-rural integration? Which of the indicators listed in Table (p. 8-9) are measuring any kind of integration? My impression is: none of them? It looks like these indicators mainly express features of / levels of development and urbanisation in urban and rural areas. But what do these indicators say about the extent of urban-rural integration? For this I think you would rather need indicators of relationships, connectivity, networks?

4. Section 6 Discussion: what is happening in this section? Usually a discussion section is not starting a new analysis, but reflecting on the results of your analysis and interpret what they could mean. Instead, this is a next part of your analysis? What is your analysis in this section based on,  and how is it related to your empirical analysis? In the first sentence you state: “This study organizes government work reports and policy texts on urban-rural integration reforms from eight cities in the Greater Bay Area.” But you do not refer to any source in this section, so it is unclear which reports and texts you have analysed?

Added to this, some questions and comments about minor/ detail (but not unimportant) issues:

5. p. 3, lines 103-106: “Given the high urbanization levels in Hong Kong, Macau, and Shenzhen, lacking rural samples, this study primarily focuses on the other eight major cities (Guangzhou, Foshan, Dongguan, Huizhou, Zhuhai, Jiangmen, Zhongshan, Zhaoqing) of the Greater Bay Area.” Indeed it would be hard to find substantial (if any) rural samples in Macau. But it should be possible to find substantial rural samples in Shenzhen? And maybe also in Hong Kong? This may also depend on what you consider ‘rural samples’, does this also include people with a non-urban hukou living in ‘urban villages’ (or ‘villages within cities’), of which Shenzhen probably still has many (though many have meanwhile been redeveloped into urban neighbourhoods)?

6. p. 3, lines 199-120: “As cities reached a certain level of development, their growth slowed due to rural backwardness.” Maybe it is common in China to discuss and perceive urban-rural relations like this, but for as a non-Chinese I think this is a strange and problematic statement. There can be many reasons for slowing of urban growth and development, most often ‘rural backwardness’ would not be among those reasons I think? Also the term ‘backwardness’ sounds problematic to me, as if rural areas and residents would be to blame somehow for lagging behind in their development?

7. p. 5, lines 247-249: “The Pearl River Delta region, with its rapid urbanization, has formed a new pattern of urban-rural integration, characterized by cities within villages and villages within cities.” I am familiar with the ‘villages within cities’ concept, but what are ‘cities within villages’?

8. p. 7, lines 339-340: “Currently, although China's urban and rural areas are developing towards integration, they have been divided into core areas, satellite areas, and peripheral areas.” This may be a common division for Chinese readers, but you are writing for an international audience. Can you briefly explain what this division is based on and what the characteristics of each of the three categories are? Apparently ‘core’ is mainly ‘urban’ and ‘periphery’ is mainly ‘rural’, but what is ‘satellite’ then? Something in-between?

9. p. 8, lines 368-375 (first sentence of section 4.1): too long and complex sentence, better to split up in two or three sentences.

10. p. 15, Figure 3. It would make more sense to present the maps in chronological order instead of going back in time. So: a 1986-1995, b 1996-2005, c 2006-2015, d 2016-2022.

11. p. 16, lines 611-614: “Hence, the 25%, 50%, and 75% quantile regression models from Table 3 are used to discuss the differences in the factors influencing urban-rural integration at different development stages, summarizing the temporal evolution trends of the driving mechanisms in the Greater Bay Area.”

- I think you mean Table 4, not Table 3?

- 25, 50 and 75% of what? I’m not sure what you are analysing here and how?

Author Response

List of Responses

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Research on Sustainable Urban-Rural Integration Development: Measuring Levels, Influencing Factors, and Exploring Driving Mechanisms — Taking Eight Cities in the Greater Bay Area as Examples” (ID: 2891463). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Response to comment 1: (Your manuscript is very long for an academic journal article. Maybe this journal does not have a max. word count, but most journal articles (also in this journal I guess?) would be about half of the length of your manuscript? There is definitely substantial shortening potential in some parts of your manuscript, especially in the last section 'Conclusions and Implications' (usually such a section would be one or two pages, but in your manuscript it is more than 5 pages?)Your abstract also is unusually long?)

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestions. I have reduced the content of the conclusions and implications section appropriately to shorten the length of the article. Also decreased the content of the abstract.

Response to comment 2: (Section 2 seems to provide a quite solid and complete overview of relevant literature, theories and debates. I only wonder if there are also any alternatives to rural-urban integration discussed in such debates? Is rural-urban integration the only way to revitalise rural areas and to take the next step in urban development? Is rural-urban integration only beneficial for rural and/or urban areas, or could it also have negative effects?)

Response 2: Thank you for your question. Due to space constraints, we have not discussed alternatives to urban-rural integration for the time being. Urban-rural integration is seen as one of the important ways to revitalize rural areas and the next stage of urban development, but it is not the only way. Urban-rural integration emphasizes the synergistic development between cities and villages, and achieves common economic and social progress in both urban and rural areas by optimizing resource allocation, promoting population mobility, and strengthening industrial synergies. Urban-rural integration benefits both rural and urban areas. For rural areas, urban-rural integration can bring in capital, technology, talent and other resources to promote agricultural modernization and upgrade rural infrastructure and public services, thereby promoting rural revitalization. At the same time, urban-rural integration can also provide more employment opportunities for farmers, increase their incomes and improve the rural living environment. For urban areas, urban-rural integration can alleviate the problems of resource constraints and population pressure in cities and expand urban development space. By guiding the orderly movement of rural populations to cities, it can promote the optimization and upgrading of urban population and industrial structures, and improve the competitiveness and sustainable development of cities. However, urban-rural integration may also have some negative impacts. For example, problems such as uneven distribution of resources and conflicts of interest may arise in the process of integration, requiring greater coordination and management on the part of the Government and all sectors of society. In addition, urban-rural integration may also lead to the loss of some traditional rural cultures, which needs to be emphasized and preserved in the process of integration. However, in the long run, we believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Response to comment 3: (I wonder if what you are analysing is really urban-rural integration? Which of the indicators listed in Table (p. 8-9) are measuring any kind of integration? My impression is: none of them? It looks like these indicators mainly express features of / levels of development and urbanisation in urban and rural areas. But what do these indicators say about the extent of urban-rural integration? For this I think you would rather need indicators of relationships, connectivity, networks?)

Response 3: Thank you for your question. Urban-rural integration is the result of a combination of industrial integration, demographic integration, cultural life integration and other factors. For example, agricultural labor productivity is the basis of urban-rural integration and development, and its increase implies an increase in the level of agricultural mechanization and the degree of agricultural technology, which precisely demonstrates the deep integration of industry and agriculture. We chose these indicators to measure the degree of urban-rural integration by referring to previous studies and the actual situation in China. If you still have any questions, please feel free to ask again.

Response to comment 4: (Section 6 Discussion: what is happening in this section? Usually a discussion section is not starting a new analysis, but reflecting on the results of your analysis and interpret what they could mean. Instead, this is a next part of your analysis? What is your analysis in this section based on,  and how is it related to your empirical analysis? In the first sentence you state: “This study organizes government work reports and policy texts on urban-rural integration reforms from eight cities in the Greater Bay Area.” But you do not refer to any source in this section, so it is unclear which reports and texts you have analysed?)

Response 4: Thank you for your question. I originally envisioned the first section of Part VI to be a discussion of the current status of industrial integration, demographic integration, and cultural life integration based on the existing work reports of the regional governments in the Greater Bay Area, but it seems inappropriate at this time, so I have removed it, leaving only the analysis of the relationship between the mechanisms that drive urban-rural integration, and adding a discussion of the use of mechanisms in the process of urban-rural integration in other Bay Areas around the world.

Response to comment 5: ( p. 3, lines 103-106: “Given the high urbanization levels in Hong Kong, Macau, and Shenzhen, lacking rural samples, this study primarily focuses on the other eight major cities (Guangzhou, Foshan, Dongguan, Huizhou, Zhuhai, Jiangmen, Zhongshan, Zhaoqing) of the Greater Bay Area.” Indeed it would be hard to find substantial (if any) rural samples in Macau. But it should be possible to find substantial rural samples in Shenzhen? And maybe also in Hong Kong? This may also depend on what you consider ‘rural samples’, does this also include people with a non-urban hukou living in ‘urban villages’ (or ‘villages within cities’), of which Shenzhen probably still has many (though many have meanwhile been redeveloped into urban neighbourhoods)?)

Response 5: Thank you for your comments. Here are our responses

(1) Rural Sample Issue: The term "rural sample" mainly refers to groups whose living and working environments closely resemble traditional rural characteristics, including aspects such as land use, lifestyle, and occupational structure. Despite the rapid urbanization process in Shenzhen, as you pointed out, there are still many "urban villages" within the city. Although these areas are geographically located within urban areas, they exhibit significant differences in socio-economic characteristics and resident lifestyles compared to surrounding urban regions. To some extent, they reflect a transitional state between traditional rural and modern urbanization processes. Since urban villages are not included in government statistical yearbooks, our study does not encompass these areas.

(2) Region Selection Issue: In cities like Shenzhen and Hong Kong, some residents living in urban villages or similar areas can be found. However, with the advancement of urbanization, these areas have been transformed into modern residential zones, with original residents relocated to new housing areas. Hence, while some rural samples may still be found in Shenzhen and Hong Kong, they lack typicality as their environment and lifestyles have been influenced by urbanization. These samples are not easily comparable to traditional rural samples within the Greater Bay Area cities. In contrast, other major cities within the Greater Bay Area, such as Guangzhou, Foshan, and Dongguan, may offer more representative rural samples. This is because these areas exhibit relatively lower levels of urbanization, resulting in a clearer distribution of rural and urban populations. Therefore, our study can better compare urbanization phenomena among different cities without being affected by varying degrees of urbanization.

Response to comment 6: (p. 3, lines 199-120: “As cities reached a certain level of development, their growth slowed due to rural backwardness.” Maybe it is common in China to discuss and perceive urban-rural relations like this, but for as a non-Chinese I think this is a strange and problematic statement. There can be many reasons for slowing of urban growth and development, most often ‘rural backwardness’ would not be among those reasons I think? Also the term ‘backwardness’ sounds problematic to me, as if rural areas and residents would be to blame somehow for lagging behind in their development?)

Response 6: Thank you for your attention and comments on our study. In our research, we have further examined and adjusted this statement, and removed the relevant content to more accurately reflect the various dynamics and factors of urbanization processes. We understand your perspective as a non-Chinese and greatly appreciate your insights. However, in China, influenced by urban-rural policies, the relationship between urban and rural areas has transitioned from prioritizing urban development to urban-led rural development, and then to integrated urban-rural development. Throughout these changes in urban-rural relations, rural backwardness inevitably constrains urban development, as it leads to economic, cultural, and social capital asymmetry between urban and rural areas, ultimately having a negative impact on urban development.

Response to comment 7: (p. 5, lines 247-249: “The Pearl River Delta region, with its rapid urbanization, has formed a new pattern of urban-rural integration, characterized by cities within villages and villages within cities.” I am familiar with the ‘villages within cities’ concept, but what are ‘cities within villages’?)

Response 7: Thanks for the correction, it's been changed.

Response to comment 8: (p. 7, lines 339-340: “Currently, although China's urban and rural areas are developing towards integration, they have been divided into core areas, satellite areas, and peripheral areas.” This may be a common division for Chinese readers, but you are writing for an international audience. Can you briefly explain what this division is based on and what the characteristics of each of the three categories are? Apparently ‘core’ is mainly ‘urban’ and ‘periphery’ is mainly ‘rural’, but what is ‘satellite’ then? Something in-between?)

Response 8: In the context of China's urban-rural integration, particularly within the Greater Bay Area, the regional division into Core Areas, Satellite Areas, and Peripheral Areas serves as a foundational framework for understanding spatial dynamics and development strategies. This tripartite classification is pivotal for analyzing and addressing the nuanced challenges and opportunities across different zones within the urban-rural integration.

• Core Areas: These areas represent the epicenters of economic development, technological innovation, and infrastructural advancement. Characterized by the most developed economies, densest populations, and highest concentration of resources and services, Core Areas, including cities like Guangzhou, Foshan, and Dongguan, drive regional growth and integration. Their role in urban-rural integration is crucial, as they not only serve as engines of economic activity but also as focal points for policy interventions and resource allocation designed to foster regional cohesion.
• Satellite Areas: Situated in the orbit of Core Areas, Satellite Areas, such as Huizhou, Zhuhai, and Zhongshan, possess a degree of economic autonomy and development potential but are significantly influenced by and reliant on the Core Areas for economic stimuli, resources, and services. These areas often serve as intermediary zones, facilitating the diffusion of economic activities, technologies, and innovations from the Core to the Peripheral Areas. Their development is strategic, aiming at harnessing the complementarities and synergies with Core Areas while addressing spatial and socioeconomic disparities.
• Peripheral Areas: Peripheral Areas, including Jiangmen and Zhaoqing, are characterized by relatively lower levels of economic development, infrastructural provisions, and access to services. These areas, often embodying the rural end of the urban-rural spectrum, face pronounced challenges in terms of economic opportunities, social services, and integration into the broader regional economy. The development approach here focuses on leveraging government interventions and targeted investments to uplift these areas, thereby narrowing the urban-rural divide and fostering a more inclusive model of regional development.

This spatial categorization is instrumental in tailoring development policies and interventions to the specific needs, potentials, and challenges of each area, facilitating a more nuanced and effective approach to urban-rural integration. It acknowledges the heterogeneity within the region, enabling a differentiated strategy that combines market forces, government interventions, and social fusion to achieve balanced and sustainable development across the urban-rural integration.

Response to comment 9: (p. 8, lines 368-375 (first sentence of section 4.1): too long and complex sentence, better to split up in two or three sentences.)

Response 9: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised it.

Response to comment 10: (p. 15, Figure 3. It would make more sense to present the maps in chronological order instead of going back in time. So: a 1986-1995, b 1996-2005, c 2006-2015, d 2016-2022.)

Response 10: Thank you for your question, the order of the diagrams has been modified.

Response to comment 11: (p. 16, lines 611-614: “Hence, the 25%, 50%, and 75% quantile regression models from Table 3 are used to discuss the differences in the factors influencing urban-rural integration at different development stages, summarizing the temporal evolution trends of the driving mechanisms in the Greater Bay Area.”

- I think you mean Table 4, not Table 3?

- 25, 50 and 75% of what? I’m not sure what you are analysing here and how?)

Response 11: Thank you for your question. This refers to Table 4.The terms "25%, 50% and 75%" refer to the development level of urban-rural integration. Here we analyze the differences in the factors influencing urban-rural integration at different stages of development through mixed effects, fixed effects and random effects regression, and summarize the evolutionary trend of the time dimension of the use of urban-rural integration driving mechanisms in the Greater Bay Area.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article is another case study on the theory of urban-rural integration within China. The structure of the article especially in the theoretical part replicates the content of other authors dealing with this topic in recent years.

The study may be an important voice in the research on China's socio-economic development and urbanisation processes taking place in the country, but it may be partly incomprehensible to the reader representing other continents and countries with a different political system than China. 

In light of the above, it would be useful to clarify:

1) Whether, and if so to what extent, the process of urban-rural integration is identical to the processes of urbanisation/suburbanisation/urban sprawl observed, for example, in Europe or America?

2) Is the concept of urban-rural integration somehow linked to the formation of an urban-rural continuum? 

3) To what extent does the process of urban-rural integration fit in with the concept of sustainable development in rural and urban areas?

In order to make the article more readable to a wider audience, I would suggest supplementing the analysis by presenting the results in graphical form (cartograms, cartodiagrams) - the components relating to population, culture, economic development, etc. (Figure 3 is very clear in this respect and completes the analysis made in the text).

I also suggest the authors refer to the researches on urbanisation processes and transformations in urban-rural structures in e.g. Europe, North America, where these processes are visible and studied. The comparison of results would be interesting

Author Response

List of Responses

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Research on Sustainable Urban-Rural Integration Development: Measuring Levels, Influencing Factors, and Exploring Driving Mechanisms — Taking Eight Cities in the Greater Bay Area as Examples” (ID: 2891463). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Response to comment 1: (Whether, and if so to what extent, the process of urban-rural integration is identical to the processes of urbanisation/suburbanisation/urban sprawl observed, for example, in Europe or America?)

Response 1: Thank you for your question. There are some similarities between China's urban-rural integration and the urbanization, suburbanization, and urban expansion observed in Europe and the United States. However, due to different historical, cultural, and economic backgrounds, the differences are relatively significant, and the degree of similarity is relatively low. Specifically, in China, urban-rural integration often involves the expansion of cities into rural areas and the transformation of rural areas into urban ones, leading to blurred boundaries between urban and rural areas. In contrast, urbanization in Europe and the United States tends to involve the outward expansion of cities into external suburbs, which often have relatively independent community characteristics. Additionally, the pace of urbanization and suburbanization in China may be faster, partly due to the rapid industrialization and urbanization processes in the country. Government policies on urbanization also play a significant role in driving urban expansion.

Response to comment 2: (Is the concept of urban-rural integration somehow linked to the formation of an urban-rural continuum? )

Response 2: Thank you for your question. Yes, as you say, there is indeed a link between the two. Both the urban-rural continuum paradigm and the urban-rural integration paradigm view society as a unified and continuous whole, implying that rural and urban areas are not in opposition to each other, but rather in a mutually reinforcing and integrated relationship. Although they are both concerned with the development of rural-urban relations, they have different emphases and connotations. Urban-rural integration is a broader concept, which mainly emphasizes the breaking down of the urban-rural dichotomy and the integrated planning and comprehensive study of industry and agriculture, urban and rural areas, and urban and rural residents as a whole. The urban-rural continuum, on the other hand, focuses more on describing the continuity of a range of social types from rural to metropolitan societies. It focuses on the continuity and mutual influence between urban and rural areas in terms of population migration, industrial chain formation, and changes in rural industrial structure. The urban-rural continuum reflects the attractiveness of the suburbs to the population in terms of environment, industry, infrastructure, etc., as well as the interdependence of the urban and rural economies within the metropolitan area.

Response to comment 3: (To what extent does the process of urban-rural integration fit in with the concept of sustainable development in rural and urban areas?)

Response 3: The concepts of urban-rural integration and sustainable urban-rural development are closely interconnected and highly compatible, with urban-rural integration being pivotal for achieving sustainable development as it encompasses the comprehensive advancement of industrial structures, the promotion of equitable population distribution, and the enhancement of cohesion in urban and rural cultures and lifestyles. This is manifested in several specific areas:

Firstly, concerning economic sustainability and industrial integration, this paper analyzes how urban-rural integration promotes economic sustainability, particularly through industrial integration. The practice of urban-rural integration in the Greater Bay Area, by enhancing the value-added proportion of the tertiary sector, agricultural labor productivity, and the share of services in GDP, facilitates the optimization of the economic structure. This structural adjustment not only reflects the complementarity and integration of urban and rural industries but also embodies the pursuit of more efficient resource utilization and sustainable industrial development.

Secondly, social equity and population integration are driven by urban-rural integration, which fosters social equity through population integration. The importance of population integration in ensuring equitable access to resources, services, and opportunities for both urban and rural residents is highlighted. This involves reforms in the household registration system, improvements in public services, and the elevation of the living standards of rural migrants in urban areas, all of which are crucial for sustainable social development.

Thirdly, the living environment and cultural life integration are considered key components in promoting a unified urban-rural identity and enhancing the quality of life for all residents. This includes narrowing cultural gaps, promoting mutual respect and understanding, and ensuring equal participation in cultural and recreational activities, contributing to the proximity of cultural interactions and lifestyles between urban and rural residents, thereby creating a harmonious and sustainable living environment.

Lastly, the paper outlines the critical roles of the market economy, government intervention, and social fusion as driving mechanisms for urban-rural integration. The market economy enhances resource allocation and economic vitality; government intervention provides policy support, infrastructure development, and public services; and social fusion fosters cultural integration and strengthens social cohesion. These mechanisms interact to propel the urban-rural integration process, making it a multifaceted and dynamic process that closely aligns with the objectives of sustainable development.

Urban-rural integration is a comprehensive strategy that addresses the economic, social, and cultural dimensions of development, ultimately contributing to the realization of sustainability goals. This approach aligns with the broader objective of achieving balanced growth, equity, and environmental sustainability, which are core principles of sustainable development.

Response to comment 4: In order to make the article more readable to a wider audience, I would suggest supplementing the analysis by presenting the results in graphical form (cartograms, cartodiagrams) - the components relating to population, culture, economic development, etc. (Figure 3 is very clear in this respect and completes the analysis made in the text).

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestions. We think the analysis in the text is sufficient to show Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our paper. Due to space constraints and the fact that this area is not the focus of our research, we have thoughtfully concluded that we do not intend to proceed with the addition of graphs and charts for the time being. However, we will seriously consider your suggestions and draw on them in our future research.

Response to comment 5: I also suggest the authors refer to the researches on urbanisation processes and transformations in urban-rural structures in e.g. Europe, North America, where these processes are visible and studied. The comparison of results would be interesting.

Response 5: Thank you for your question. This section (5.2 Comparison of the Four Major International Bay Areas) has collated references to revisit the discussion and draw empirical insights by comparing and discussing the experiences of other Bay Areas around the world in the use of driving mechanisms in urban-rural integration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The reviewer proposes an in-depth review of some parts of the paper that appears far from the academic scientific level with regard to the discipline of economic policies and their territorial impact in the various regional categories considered. The analysis of proposals for the socially and economically sustainable development of the Greaer Bay Area, a large candidate area to act as a driver of world industrial development, requires an exploration of the literature and above all comparisons with other experiences in the world.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

List of Responses

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Research on Sustainable Urban-Rural Integration Development: Measuring Levels, Influencing Factors, and Exploring Driving Mechanisms — Taking Eight Cities in the Greater Bay Area as Examples” (ID: 2891463). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Response to comment 1: The reviewer proposes an in-depth review of some parts of the paper that appears far from the academic scientific level with regard to the discipline of economic policies and their territorial impact in the various regional categories considered. The analysis of proposals for the socially and economically sustainable development of the Greater Bay Area, a large candidate area to act as a driver of world industrial development, requires an exploration of the literature and above all comparisons with other experiences in the world.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. In response to your comments, we have comprehensively revised and expanded the paper, with a special focus on deepening the literature review, enhancing methodological rigor, and providing a more in-depth analysis of the proposal for sustainable socio-economic development in China's Greater Bay Area. In addition, we have added a comparative analysis with the development experiences of other Bay Areas in the world (San Francisco Bay Area, New York Bay Area, and Tokyo Bay Area) to enrich our research background and global perspective.

Response to comment 2: Could excluding the three major poles of the world city Macao-Hong-Kong and Shenzen from the research have a negative effect on the results?Argumentations follow after in the paper, but It seems appropriate to anticipate a methodological justification at the end of the introduction after this sentence.

Response 2: In cities like Shenzhen and Hong Kong, there are some non-urban residents living in urban villages or similar areas. However, with the advancement of urbanization, these areas have been transformed into modern residential areas, and the original residents have relocated to new residential areas. Therefore, although some rural samples may still be found in Shenzhen and Hong Kong, they lack typicality because their environment and lifestyle have been influenced by urbanization. These samples are not comparable to traditional rural samples in the Greater Bay Area cities. In contrast, it may be easier to find more representative rural samples in other major cities in the Greater Bay Area, such as Guangzhou, Foshan, and Dongguan, because the degree of urbanization in these areas is relatively lower, and the distribution of rural and urban populations is clearer. Therefore, we selected these cities as the main research samples because of their wide geographical distribution in the Greater Bay Area, representing different stages and characteristics of urbanization in the region. Through comparative analysis of these cities, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of urbanization phenomena among different cities in the Greater Bay Area and avoid the influence of varying degrees of urbanization. Thus, we believe that excluding Macau, Hong Kong, and Shenzhen, the three world-class city poles, is an important step to ensure the rationality and reliability of the research methodology.

Response to comment 3: The reviewer proposes that this entire paragraph, considering the immense literature in the field of studies of city history and history of urban and spatial planning regarding the integration of city and country, proposes its deletion since the contents are not essential to support the final discussion and conclusions.

Response 3: Following yours advice, I have removed Section 2.1 from our manuscript. I understand the importance of focusing our discussion on elements that directly contribute to our conclusions and the study's core arguments. This adjustment ensures that our paper remains concise and relevant to our key findings.

Response to comment 4: There are three direct factors and one transversal factor. So that there're 4 driver not 3.

Response 4：Thank you for your question, we have now corrected it to 4 driver factors.

Response to comment 5: It is really difficult to argue the validity of Marxist theory even today in a totally changed world. It is advisable to complete this fundamental paragraph by updating the literature, always remaining within the framework of critical and analytical studies inspired by Marxist theory in an attempt to counter the excessive power of market laws on the living conditions of workers living in cities and countryside and with respect to the possibilities of supporting newly created small and medium-sized enterprises.

Response 5: Thank you for your insightful suggestions, which have significantly enhanced the depth and relevance of our research. In response to your guidance, I have deleted the mentioned section and integrated its core insights with the literature review. This allows us to maintain a critical and analytical perspective under the inspiration of Marxist theory, ensuring that our discussion is relevant and supported by the most current literature.

Response to comment 6: This is the core part of the paper: its impossible to present these discussions without some references. Its very important to sustain the argumentation comparing other similar experiences in the world. Probably the main difficulty its represented by the eexceptionality of the case study in the world. But in this case the authors can highlight the deep difference with othe similar case (Siclicon Valley, New York ITC districts , etc.).

Response 6: Thank you for your question. This section has collated references to revisit the discussion and draw empirical insights by comparing and discussing the experiences of other Bay Areas around the world in the use of driving mechanisms in urban-rural integration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

no comment after deep major revision.