Spatial–Temporal Coupling Analysis of Land Use Function and Urban–Rural Integration in Heilongjiang, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTaking Heilongjiang Province in China as an example, this paper assesses the land-use function and the level of urban-rural integration in the study area separately. And on this basis, this paper explores the coupled and coordinated measurement of the land-use function and the level of urban-rural integration as well as their spatial characteristics. Based on the conclusions of the study, some recommendations are made for optimizing land use functions, accelerating urban-rural integration development, and promoting factor flows between urban and rural areas.
The article has done some work, but the innovativeness is not very prominent. As the authors illustrated in the Discussion, the findings of this research are consistent with the existing studies. And it does not reflect a significant enhancement in methodology or research perspective. Besides, the following suggestions are proposed to be considered:
The normativity of the paper is not very well. For example, the translation of the title, the selection of keywords, the use of punctuation, the setting of tables and graphs, and the consistency of the formatting of the references. To be specific:
1. The title of the paper is suggested to be revised as: Spatial-temporal Coupling analysis of Land Use Function and Urban-rural Integration in Heilongjiang, China
2. In the Abstract, the overall trend shows an increasing trend, the individual regions, the obstacle factors that hindered the land use function and Urban-rural integration should been the obstacles…The above sentence is poorly formulated and very winding.
3. Heilongjiang Province is the study area. It is not belonged to the Keywords extracted for this study.
4. In line 132, Chinese punctuation appears in the sentence.
5. In 179-182, Absence of subject in the sentence.
6. In Table 1,108 RMB,104 person should be written as 108 RMB、104person. Monetary units such as Yuan and RMB should be harmonized.
7. In line 385, please check the punctuation.
8. In line 389, from 2017 to 2022, the level of coupling and coordination between the two will enter a period of rapid development. Will enter?
9. In line 400, According to Table 4, the evaluation results are divided into stages (Table 3). Table 4 is more like a graph. And the text introduces Table 4 before citing Table 3, which is not in the right order.
10. In line 404, from Table 5 and figure 10. I cannot find the Table 5.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageExtensive editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your comments were beneficial in improving our article as they were interesting. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI believe that with the changes introduced, the document has improved substantially, so it can be published in this form.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your comments were beneficial in improving our article as they were interesting. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is a much promising paper. However, strong improvements are necessary:
17-24: the three concise conclusions should become much better clarified, so as to enable citation only by the abstract
2.1: The three-pillar model (economic, social, ecological) is a classical but also trivial and too vague one. The fig.1 paradoxically presents more details the text. The text should better support and clarify the innovativeness or the specificity of this model and figure in this case.
About all formulas of the article (169-173 etc): not clear formula at all. Some examples of these variables would be helpful. How are they measurable or calculable? The same question applies concerning all other formulas of the article. The formulas are a main value of this article. The authors should lay much more emphasis on these so as to be more clear and usable by other researchers. They also should try to point out strengths and weaknesses/ limitations of each formula and what exactly they practically mean for the policy makers. These can be integrated in 4.4.
179-182: clarify with examples. How objective are these criteria?
192—3: what are these “other methods”? at least an example?
Table 1: what’ s the point of “indicator code”?
Table 3 and 4: are these tables surely necessary?
4.4 is too short and vague
5.2: make it less trivial or much shorter
Comment not only the data processing method but also data collection method incl. strengths and weaknesses.
Comments on the Quality of English Language152: “the destroy” or “the destruction”?
153 “need give”: Is it a syntax error? (check language once again in the whole text)
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your comments were beneficial in improving our article as they were interesting.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Extensive editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your comments were beneficial in improving our article as they were interesting. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsnow it is ok for presentation
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your comments were beneficial in improving our article as they were interesting. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis reviewer appreciates being allowed to review this work, whose approach seems appropriate, but to be published it needs a series of improvements.
Formal issues
1. The abstract is excessively long (292 words), they should adjust it to the instructions for authors: 200 words (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions), and the same can be said.
2. Acronyms cannot be used in the summary, this leads to having to read the text to understand the content of this summary, which does not fulfill its function (the content is not understood).
3. There are many symbols throughout the text (line 2005 ① instead of (1) or 1)...) the parentheses in (Fig. 2）... which do not correspond to Latin encoding and the font used (Palatino Linotype) in the magazine template.
4. Maps (except figure 2) should avoid the “island effect” (territories outside the borders of China and the province do not appear). It is not necessary to change it, but keep it in mind when mapping.
5. Figure 2 must include a map of the situation within the R.P. China.
6. Expand the toponymy of the cities in all the figures, it is difficult to read, and the work is based on it.
7. [Brackets] should be used only for citations, as stated in the instructions for authors (line 287).
8. Review English in depth, especially connectors. There are parts of the text that are juxtaposition of phrases, there is no relationship between them (especially serious in the Introduction). English is a connected language, ideas must complement and create a discourse. Part of the text has been transliterated from the original language into English. In its current state it is not publishable.
Content issues
1. The results are consistent with the methodology. However, the contents do not always match the heading. The discussion interprets the results, and that is results analysis. The discussion is a contrast between what has been found and what others have found. The work needs a rereading.
Structure issues
1. This reviewer finds the structure somewhat lacking. At all times the authors must attend to the correlation of contents. The introduction could collect the theoretical framework (this would avoid certain redundancy), it is correlated with the methodology, this with the analysis of the results, the discussion and the conclusions.
2. The text appears very compartmentalized, a more fluid speech can be created without so many separate parts.
3. Section 6 could be part of the conclusions, and be somewhat shorter (part could be transferred to a diagram or table of contents).
Author Response
Thank you for your time and helpful suggestions. Your comments were beneficial in improving our article as they were interesting. Additionally, we have gained a tremendous of experience during this editing process. These skills will come in very handy in the future. All of your recommendations have been carefully considered and included in the article.We prepared a letter to explain the review process based on the academic editors' recommendation. If we may provide any further clarifications about the revision, please do not hesitate to contact us.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTaking Heilongjiang Province in China as an example, this paper assesses the land-use function and the level of urban-rural integration in the study area separately. And on this basis, this paper explores the coupled and coordinated measurement of the land-use function and the level of urban-rural integration as well as their spatial characteristics. Based on the conclusions of the study, some recommendations are made for optimizing land use functions, accelerating urban-rural integration development, and promoting factor flows between urban and rural areas.
The article has done some work, but the innovativeness is not very prominent. In the introduction, the authors mention that few scholars have studied the coupling relationship between land use function and urban-rural integration. In fact, the research on the evaluation of land use function, the evaluation of urban-rural integration and the coupling relationship between them is not novel.
Besides, the following suggestions are proposed to be considered:
First, in the abstract, the conclusion (3) belongs to policy recommendations, not to MAIN CONCLUSIONS.
Second, in the Introduction, the national-level policy plans on urban-rural integration, such as China's 14th Five-Year Plan, are introduced. It is suggested that the background of the research be elaborated from a broader international perspective.
Third, in the Theory Frame and Methods, the “theory frame” should be “theoretical framework”.
Fourth, in the Discussion, which is more about the interpretation of the results, is equivalent to the section of “Results analysis”. An extended discussion is recommended. What are the findings of this study that deserve further discussion in comparison with existing studies.
Fifthly, the Section 6 makes some specific recommendations regarding the study area, but its reference value is not fully presented. This also reflects that the international significance of this study is not prominent enough.
Sixth, in terms of references and the whole article, it is more suitable to be published in Chinese domestic journals.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thank you for your time and helpful suggestions. Your comments were beneficial in improving our article as they were interesting. Additionally, we have gained a tremendous of experience during this editing process. These skills will come in very handy in the future. All of your recommendations have been carefully considered and included in the article.We prepared a letter to explain the review process based on the academic editors' recommendation. If we may provide any further clarifications about the revision, please do not hesitate to contact us.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper claims to investigate the connection between rural and urban areas (urban rural integration), but the comparison is made between land use functions (urban and rural, table 1) and something that resembles living standard criteria (urban and rural, table 2). This is a different comparison, it needs to be better explained what is actually happening here and why this is interesting.
This is also reflected in Figure 1, where I would expect to see a rural system and an urban system, with the relationships between them being explored. However, not all parts of the model are explained; part of the theoretical framework is a repetition of the introduction, which could be replaced by a better explanation of Figure 1.This paper relies on statistics. It is not clear how the collaboration between the two systems works (only that there is a connection). That is a great loss, because it does not provide a real understanding of the situation and only very superficial recommendations can be made (e.g. sustainable development is needed). The paper becomes much more interesting when the effect of the different factors on each other is described. Now it is too much of a summary of statistical relationships.
As far as I understand it, the higher the criteria in table 2 score, the better it is. but it seems to me that at some point these criteria can also conflict with each other. More roads and more houses often mean that nature is in trouble. The same applies to an increase in income, which at some point can also conflict with ecological goals. Why isn't there an optimum for some criteria?
On line 104 it is said that previous research was based on imperfect construction of the evaluation index system and incomplete selection of indicators. This paper will do this better. But on line 564 it is said that the results of this study are consistent with results of previous studies. What then is the added value of this paper?
Author Response
Thank you for your time and helpful suggestions. Your comments were beneficial in improving our article as they were interesting. Additionally, we have gained a tremendous of experience during this editing process. These skills will come in very handy in the future. All of your recommendations have been carefully considered and included in the article.We prepared a letter to explain the review process based on the academic editors' recommendation. If we may provide any further clarifications about the revision, please do not hesitate to contact us.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. It is hard for readers to follow abbreviations in manuscript, especially URI and LUF in Line 10 and Lines 12-13. I suggest clarifying them as land use function and urban-rural integration，separately.
2. The URI is hard to be evaluated by four aspects presented in line 140-141, they are more appropriate to access region development level, not urban-rural integration level.
3. The analysis frame in figure 1 (presented in the section of "Theory framework ") is not clear. It deserves deep analysis the inner correlation between LUF and URI. Furthermore, it also needs some citations to support to build your analysis framework.
4. It is necessary to clarify those terms such as land use function transaction and evolution of land use function. It is important that how to differentiate and evaluate them?
5. Most of indexes in Table 1 are irrelevant to land use.
6. Suggest cite those “Yang et al.” in Line 214 more formally.
7. Line 231, Table 2. The gap between urban per capita GDP and rural per capita GDP would be better than urban and rural per capita GDP to evaluate URI. Furthermore, is the indicator attribute like as “Urban and rural ordinary middle school students teacher-student ratio” “negative" at any case?
8. Line 242-243, Table 3. The total weight of the LUF’ indexes are 100.99. It should be 100.
9. Add legends into Figure 2. , that land use status of Heilongjiang Province in 2022 would be clearer than current section.
10. Add legends into Fig. 5 and 8. Then the context in Lines 366-373 and Lines 428-439 can be presented clearly.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required after revision.
Author Response
Thank you for your time and helpful suggestions. Your comments were beneficial in improving our article as they were interesting. Additionally, we have gained a tremendous of experience during this editing process. These skills will come in very handy in the future. All of your recommendations have been carefully considered and included in the article.We prepared a letter to explain the review process based on the academic editors' recommendation. If we may provide any further clarifications about the revision, please do not hesitate to contact us.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think the authors have made a significant effort to respond to the proposed revision.
I only make one criticism to the authors, which they should always keep in mind for other articles and another revision (if any): the revised versions of the manuscript must always have change control (as indicated by the publisher). Estyo is essential, because (1) it helps reviewers not have to reread the entire text to verify that what the authors say in the coverletter is true; (b) allows contrast with the changes suggested by the rest of the reviewers.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has made some revisions to the manuscript, but the innovation of the paper is not prominent enough.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors Dear writers, the theoretical framework is better now, but the other fundamental problems are not solved (will be postponed to the future)
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMost of indexes in Table 1 are worth thinking more to evaluate the level of URI development.
