Urban Shrinkage from the Perspective of Economic Resilience and Population Change: A Case Study of the Shanxi-Shaanxi-Inner Mongolia Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article deals with an issue very topical, the ‘multidimensional’ phenomenon of urban shrinkage, still little investigated (especially in Italy), interpreting it in an original way, from the perspective of economic resilience and population change. The theoretical method proposed find an effective verification in the application to the case study. For the future development of the research it would be most appropriate the inclusion of landscape elements, as highlighted by the authors themselves, in particular housing vacancies -a substantial part of the built environment- and idle land - a strategic resources in the perspective of  sustainability-.

From a formal point of view, in the paragraph 5.2, the second part of the test (from line 528) has a different font and must be changed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Any comments

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read this paper with initial excitement. However, a few issues puzzled me upon reading it, and I would like to share them with the authors. Grammar and syntax turn up on the top of the list, and I will get to that in the next section presented below. But other than grammar and syntax, the authors use a very convoluted and complex way of sharing their research with the audience.  The text is fraught with repetition and redundancy, and I highly recommend that authors remove any and all redundancies.  They keep saying the same thing again and again. They repeatedly talk about economic receition and urban shrinkage. It might sound ok to say it once in the abstract and once or twice in the write-up. But the authors time and again say the same thing to a point where it might tire the readers.  The second observation has to do with unsubstantiated claims such as "disturbing factors such as deindustrialization, globalizaation,..." The question is how did the authors come to a conclusion that "globalization" is a disturbing factor? Based on what source?  Or, the authors claim that "Economic recession is a new phenomenon."  Based on what resource? The U.S. urban history exemplifies a posterchild of economic recession. We all know that Detroit, Michigan has gone through deindustrialization and shrinkage. So, by no means, economic recession or urban shrinkage are new concepts or new phenomena.  Or, they claim that "Urban shrinkage is sweeping across the world." Again, really? Across the world? Based on what evidence?  The other issue has to do with the conceptual framework. The authors introduce this conceptual framework but how or why they adopted this framework needs more discussion. They need to talk about the four and nine indicators or indices discussed in the paper. Finally, the authors need to do a better job explaining how their research makes a potential contribution to the literature. As it stands, the paper falls short of this important point.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language-wise, the paper needs an editorial overhaul. The authors use the passive (instead of active) voice (i.e., "is located," "are significantly differentiated," "is used," "is classified," "are represented," and "is located"), and nominalizations (i.e., "is a new phenomenon," "is a common problem," "is the scientific basis," "is sweeping across the world," "is evolving," "is also the frontier," "is in a special period," "is conducive to urban development," "is rich in energy," and "is an important area") excessively. The authors also use awkward syntax. Below, please find a few examples: "To scientifically reveal the influencing mechanism of urban shrinkage in the Shanxi-Shaanxi-Inner Mongolia region, according to the regional economic and social development status, nine indicators of population agglomeration, capital agglomeration, indus-trialization level, service industry development, resource industry dependence, opening up, government regulation, innovation guarantee, and institutional locking are selected to analyse the influencing factors and formation mechanism of urban shrinkage in the Shanxi-Shaanxi-Inner Mongolia region."  No reason to mention "Shanxi-Shaanxi-Inner Mongolia region" twice in the same sentence.  The authors should also pay more attention to punctuation problems. "Urban development has a complex and systematic nature. Drawing on relevant stud-217 ies [32,35], according to the relationship between urban economic resilience and popula-218 tion change, it is classified into four types: significant growth, smart growth, slowing 219 growth, and significant shrinkage (Table 1)."  is one such case. "It is classified into..." should be a new sentence and not part of the run-on sentence it is now. The entire text needs a holistic rewriting for grammar and syntax.  

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting study about Urban shrinkage from the perspective of economic resilience and population change, with a case study in the Shanxi-Shaanxi-Inner Mongolia region. The authors have collected a unique dataset although there is no novelty in the methodology used in this research.  The paper is generally quite well-written and structured.  The methodology is quite clearly described, and the results are supported by detailed maps. All supporting materials such as maps and tables supporting the paper and also the chosen methods for describing the phenomena are very relevant.
 
The results and discussion are also interesting to read.
Urban shrinkage is often viewed through a negative lens, but this insightful study of the Shanxi-Shaanxi-Inner Mongolia region sheds light on its positive aspects, particularly in terms of economic resilience and population change. By delving into the dynamics of urban shrinkage, the research offers valuable insights into how communities can adapt and thrive amidst demographic shifts and economic challenges. This case study highlights the region's ability to leverage urban shrinkage as an opportunity for sustainable development and resilience-building, showcasing innovative strategies for revitalization and growth.
Overall, it's a refreshing perspective that underscores the importance of embracing change and fostering resilience in urban environments.

In sub-section 5.2. (line 528-546), the authors still use a different font style. It must be revised. 
In Table 2. Definition and descriptive statistics of the independent variables (line 269), the authors must insert additional information regarding the process of selecting the variables.
Please delete the word "et al" in the references section. Please follow the author's guidelines to fix it. 

 

By addressing these areas for improvement, the clarity and effectiveness of the paper can be significantly enhanced, allowing readers to better understand and appreciate the valuable insights presented.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Global assessment

Originality and Scientific value

This paper intends to provide an original contribution to the study of urban shrinkage, incorporating the perspective of regional resilience.

 

Writing, structure and English language

The paper is structured in a correct manner. Also, there is a logical sequence throughout the several sections. 

However, the writing style is not adequate, as authors use too long sentences. Besides, there are some sentence structure problems, which makes me recommend a complete check of the manuscript for English language editing.

In page 14 there is a formatting problem in the size of font used.

The last paragraph of the Introduction is so long, that it makes the main paper’s objective fuzzy.

 

Methodology

In section 3 some aspects requiring clarification were detected:

-          Page 4, line 172: “the ratio of the three industrial structures was 7.79:43.73:48.48” – is this referring to the traditional classification into primary, secondary and tertiary sectors? This is not clear.

-          Page 5, line 190: “GDP added value”? Are authors using GDP or Gross Value Added? It is not clear.

-          Page 5, lines 194-196: “This paper assumes that urban GDP added value varies according to the national average level, and uses the national rate of change in GDP added value to predict the magnitude of change in urban GDP added value” – Does this meand that the expected change in formula (1) correspond to the national average change? This is not clear.

-          What do changes mean? Are they annual changes, calculated upon annual values of GDP (or GVA) and Population? Considering the value of these variables at the end of each year? Or y-o-y change in a different month? There should be a Table explaining in detail how each variable was calculated.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is structured in a correct manner. Also, there is a logical sequence throughout the several sections. 

However, the writing style is not adequate, as authors use too long sentences. Besides, there are some sentence structure problems, which makes me recommend a complete check of the manuscript for English language editing.

In page 14 there is a formatting problem in the size of font used.

The last paragraph of the Introduction is so long, that it makes the main paper’s objective fuzzy.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, the authors have not thoroughly addressed the received comments. They have made some changes. However, the language problems and also using inconsistent verbiage and jargon still remain despite repeated suggestions made in the previous round of review. The authors talk about economic resilience at the outset and the abstract but then keep using other expressions such as shrinkage without really spelling out these expressions and/or jargon for the average readership. This causes confusion--especially, in times when people search keywords all the time and using different verbiage might not be helpful.  The changes seem to have not changed the paper significantly and the problems still remain. More detailed comments have been marked on the manuscript copy. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language problems were alluded to in the previous section and also in the highlighted text attached.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx