Industrial Revitalization of Rural Villages via Comprehensive Land Consolidation: Case Studies in Gansu, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The main topic of the presented research represent an interesting point for the development and the enhancement (from an economic, social, and cultural point of view) of rural areas and rural villages. I strongly suggest a wide reorganization of the paper's structure: 1-Introduciotn; 2-literature review (in order to explain the general and international cultural framework, considering not only chinese scholars and references but, since it is a worldwide theme, international researches; i.e. Pašakarnis, Giedrius & Maliene, Vida & Dixon-Gough, Robert & Malys, Naglis, 2021. "Decision support framework to rank and prioritise the potential land areas for comprehensive land consolidation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C); FAO Publishes Legal Guide on Land Consolidation for Sustainable Rural Development | IUCN; Land consolidation (fao.org)); 3-focus on Chinese situation and the definition of the specific case study; 4-methodology; 5-results; 6-discussion and conclusions.
In my oipinion the real core of this research is the logical framework in Figure 5 and its ramifications (Figures 8-9-10). Moreover, I identify three main levels for the logical structure of the research:
1) analysis of the context (considering data coming from different systems such as: demographic and social data, economic data, environmental characteristics, urban/villages/city analysis) and of the legislative framework (to underline what's possible to develop the rural villages revitalization);
2) authors' method - a black box that, starting from a specific place it is able to define the best contents for its enhancement or, strating from a specific functions/activities it is able to find the best place (i.e. Cattaneo T., De Lotto R., Venco E.M. (2015) Methodology and applications for Rurban Sustainable Development. In: Mastorakis N.E., Corbi O., Corbi I. (Eds.) Advances in Environmental and Agricultural Science, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Energy System, Environment, Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ICESEEI’15), Dubai, WSEAS Press, pp.111-120);
3) scenario planning and evaluation of the optimal one(s). From here, it is possible to implement urban/territorial policies to reach the goals.
Moreover, in relation to section 5.2, how do authors perform the analysis and the data collection? Direct survey in-situ? From satellite images? From any database? Personal knowledge of the places? In particular, in the conclusion and discussion sections, authors say "logical" for the analyzed reletionships: from my point of view it means totally qualitative and subjective analysis. Please explain.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is excessively centered on China. The Literature Review is exclusively Chinese and doesn't review some worldwide works about the same subject. All paper references are Chinese.
The paper is very descriptive and doesn’t give any contribution to knowledge advance. What conclusions can be extended to other similar regions in the world?
In my opinion, the authors should hard work to improve the paper's scientific level.
Minor revisions:
§ Title: Please replace “Development path of rural village industry revitalization via comprehensive land consolidation” by “Development path of rural village industry revitalization via comprehensive land consolidation in Gansu, China”
§ Abstract: Please reduce it
§ Keywords: Please review
§ Figure 1: Please improve quality
§ Line 86: Land Management Law reference is missing
§ Section 5: Missing References
§ Section 5: A lot of sentences are author's opinions, without any scientific support (e.g. “These two villages have a good ecological environment.” – lines 314-315; “The farmland landscape and woodland landscape within the village area are beautiful.” – lines 315-316; “…and the ecological environment is good.” – line 328; “…the tertiary industry has begun to take shape, and they also contain certain historical and cultural relics.” – lines 420-421; “…the industrial development ideas should be clarified, the current industrial foundation should be relied on, the leading industry should be optimized and strengthened, and auxiliary industries should be developed.” – lines 423-425)
§ Line 495: Missing references of “…various design specifications issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China,…”
§ Lines 503-504: Please put the document as a reference
§ Lines 528-532: Please put the document as a reference
§ Lines 730-735: This reference is absent from the text
§ Lines 746-747: This reference is absent from the text
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The Abstract is clear and comprehensive and and captures the main ideas and key findings of the paper.
Introduction. The authors refer to political reports in support of ideas/concepts related to the rural revitalization of the country (e.g., lines 42-44). It is recommended that they focus on scientific documents when advancing such ideas or concepts.
Lines 51-70. The authors present the study area (including the map with the positioning within the country). These issues should not be included in the Introduction section, but they should be addressed in a separate section. At the same time, in this section (Study area) should be presented the reasons why the 4 villages were selected for this paper (e.g., relevant demographic, socio-economic factors) - some aspects included in Subsection 5.1, as well as a map of the rural localities considered in this study.
The Introduction does not sufficiently present the scientific context of the analyzed issue to be based on established international research. Indeed, the authors present a history of land consolidation issues in section 2, based only on the situation in China. The authors can refer only to the situation in China, separately, in order to capture the particularities of this space, but, in the preamble, they should also present aspects identified in the international literature. Thus, the national (Chinese) context should be somehow placed in the general international context.
All bibliographical references are from the Chinese literature which, undoubtedly, is valuable, but not enough to present a proper scientific background of the issue at stake.
Subdivision of section 2 into three sub-sections I do not think is necessary, these evolutionary, historical aspects can be treated integrated in this section.
A clear presentation of objective (s) and research questions of the paper is also required.
Section 3 literature review could be integrated into the Introduction in order to present the scientific context of the analyzed issue. Again, we ask the authors to avoid political references and to make scientific references.
I assume that section 4 includes aspects related to the data and methods used in the paper. These aspects are not clear. Please specify concretely what are the methods and data used in the paper.
Starting with section 5, the authors start to present the results and the research findings of the paper. Subsection 5.1 should be included in a separate section (Study area) after the Introduction. See the recommendations above.
The authors are recommended to separate the Discussions from the Conclusions. The Discussions should discuss the current results in relation to what was written/found in other similar studies worldwide and in China. The Conclusions should briefly address the research findings of the study supported by some quantitative data of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors present a revised version of the paper with an important increasing in the overall quality and in the methodolody explanation. I appreciate the effort to answer and modify accordingly to reviewers' suggestions.
Minor issue: in table 1, if authors agree, it could be better to insert forestry land together with nature conservation.
Considering all, the paper is now ready to be published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment。
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper was significantly improved.
However, the paper is very descriptive and doesn’t contribute to knowledge advance. The rural village industry revitalization by land consolidation was implemented in many countries, and the authors propose the same in China. Where are the innovative proposals? The results of this strategy are monitored and assessed by scientific criteria? What conclusions can be extended to other similar regions in the world?
In my opinion, the authors still have hard work to improve the paper's scientific level.
Minor revisions:
§ Abstract: Is extensive and could be reduced
§ Lines 80-86: Missing References
§ Lines 96-101: Missing References
Some sentences are author's opinions, without any scientific support: e.g. “…an excellent ecological environment, and a beautiful living environment.” (lines 100-101); “These two villages have a good ecological environment.” (lines 298-299); “The farmland landscape and woodland landscape within the village area are beautiful.” (lines 299-300); “…and the ecological environment is good.” (line 312).
What is the difference between “an excellent ecological environment” (e.g. line 100) and “a good ecological environment” (e.g. line 312)? What is “a beautiful living environment” (e.g. line 101)?
What criteria are used to classify them? The authors must define them under scientific support.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I appreciate that the authors generally took into account and addressed the suggestions and recommendations made. In this version, the paper is significantly improved. However, there are some aspects to be considered by the authors.
The authors should still pay attention to the way they use some terms not only in English, but also in terms of using the scientific language. E.g., line 44 the use of "grasses"; the term is confusing, as land use category, the term is "grassland". Please check carefully similar uses.
Line 68 - what do you mean by "rough map"? This is not a proper formulation used in scientific papers.
I think that authors should use the plural "Discussions" and "Conclusions"
I still consider insufficient the international literature used in the paper. However, it is the authors’ personal decision to extend or no this theoretical approach.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
