Coupling Coordination Relationship between Cultural Landscape Conservation and Socio-Economic System in Ethnic Villages of Southeast Guizhou
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper focused on the Coupling Coordination Relationship between Cultural Landscape Conservation and Socio-Economic System in Ethnic Villages of Southeast Guizhou, and it is a significant empirical study to understand relationships of cultural protection and tourism development in destination. However, I have some confusion on the paper.
1) ”cultural landscapes” is the research objects, and it is necessary to give readers a clear scope. Now, the paper has only stressed the traditional architectural heritage. But it is misalignment to the Evaluation index system.
2) the Evaluation index system should take a further enhancement: on the one hand, the paper missed literature review, and has a poor learn about the Relationship between Cultural Landscape Conservation and Socio-Economic System; on the other hand, the Evaluation index can not illustrate the characteristic on the Ethnic Villages, and index related with tourism is lack.
3) text body and references need to be correctly formatted.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe paper focused on the Coupling Coordination Relationship between Cultural Landscape Conservation and Socio-Economic System in Ethnic Villages of Southeast Guizhou, and it is a significant empirical study to understand relationships of cultural protection and tourism development in destination. However, I have some confusion on the paper.
1) ”cultural landscapes” is the research objects, and it is necessary to give readers a clear scope. Now, the paper has only stressed the traditional architectural heritage. But it is misalignment to the Evaluation index system.
2) the Evaluation index system should take a further enhancement: on the one hand, the paper missed literature review, and has a poor learn about the Relationship between Cultural Landscape Conservation and Socio-Economic System; on the other hand, the Evaluation index can not illustrate the characteristic on the Ethnic Villages, and index related with tourism is lack.
3) text body and references need to be correctly formatted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript attempts to analyze the relationship between cultural landscape and socio-economic level through a comprehensive evaluation model. The findings have potential to contribute our understanding of the spatiotemporal relationship between cultural landscape and socio-economic level. However, after a thorough review of the manuscript, I think the study lacks of novelty in methods and viewpoints.
My major comments are list as follows:
(1) There is a wealthy of high-quality literature on ethnic villages related to their distribution and influencing factors. Although cultural landscape is considered in your study, I do not find new elements compared to the existing studies. The research gap is unclear to me. The beginning of the introduction introduces ethnic village from China's view rather than a global view, which is not suitable in an international journal.
(2) The internal logic between cultural landscape and socio-economic level should be discussed in the study. How to define the term of cultural landscape? I’m puzzled with the classification of cultural landscape and intangible cultural landscape in Table 1. They have an inclusive relationship with each other.
(3) The authors claimed that ‘our research sampled 43 ethnic villages during fieldwork in July 2023’. How do you conduct your fieldwork? How long lasted? Did you investigate all 43 villages in July?
(4) The relationship between cultural landscape and socio-economic level is hard to quantitatively evaluated in 43 villages, which could result in improper results due to insufficient statistical samples.
(5) The results lacks of in-depths analysis. Some expressions are vague. For example, how do you PSCL-Lagging and SEL-Lagging Villages? What are the characteristics of them? I do not think the spatial associations and variation of CCD presented in Figure 7 are reasonable. The analysis lacks of logic basis.
(6) What are the implications on land use of your study? I do not think the topic fall in the scope of Land.
There are some minor issues, such as the readers have no idea on the villages name presented in Figure 3 and 5. Figure 2 should be named as Table 3.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe reviewed article addresses the interesting issue of trying to identify and evaluate the impact of socioeconomic development on the cultural landscape of 43 ethnic villages located in Leishan County in southeastern Guizhou, China. The article is mainly methodological and empirical in nature.
By using a comprehensive assessment model that took into accountd the preservation status of the cultural landscape (PSCL) and socio-economic level (SEL) an well as the coupling coordination relationship between PSCL and SEL, it was possible to assess their divergence, or the coupling coordination degree (CCD), in each surveyed village. This made it possible to clearly indicate which areas are characterized by a greater or lesser degree of imbalance in sustainable development. And this, in turn, made it possible to formulate specific recommendations for individual analysis results.
However, the reviewed article lacks a developed discussion of the results obtained and their background in comparison with similar results from different parts of the world. The issue of the development of valuable rural areas and the risks it poses is quite often addressed in scientific discourse, and it would be worthwhile to refer to them as well.
In conclusion, the reviewed article is very good in terms of methodology and workshop. With a little proofreading, it is suitable for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been improved based on comments. There are several issues need to be addressed:
(1) The implications on land use of the study should be disscussed in the discussion.
(2) The form of references should be should be standardized, such as inconsistent capitalization among references 1, 7, 8, 12, etc.
(3) The 'village' of village name presented in Figure 1 could be removed. For example, Wudong village can be replaced by Wudong.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
