Spatial Distribution Heterogeneity and Influencing Factors of Different Leisure Agriculture Types in the City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript needs revisions, clarifications and conceptual improvements.

What can be the motivation for this manuscript?

What are the aim/objectives?

What can be the gap in the literature and thus possible novelty/contribution?

It is not clearly defined similarity and difference between rural vs. urban, village vs. city, and agriculture vs. rural economy. These concepts are mixed throughout the manuscript.

Empirical results need better presentation and discussion.

What are the study implications?

What are the study limitations?

The manuscript needs additional polishing.

 

Some moderate improvements would be useful.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. I would personally provide the complete name for each abbreviation, when it first appears in the text, even when using the ArcMap 10.8 language (note, in addition, that “Observed>ExpectesK” should probably read “Observed>ExpectedK” in R226-227).

2. I would also provide each method presented in section 2.3 with a few preliminary remarks on how the method works, and what its limitations are. They should be written in clear, laypersonʼs terms.

3. Figures 4(a) and 4(b) should be switched: Figure 4(a) looks like the Lorentz curve, while Figure 4(b) looks like a normal distribution.

The text should undergo an additional round of proofreading. Here are a few observations:

1. Some title section are a bit misleading (e.g., “1.1. Literature Introduction” (R26), which should probably read “1.1. Introduction” and be followed by a “Literature Review”).

2. There are missing words from some sentences (e.g., “Leisure agriculture links sustainability and the multifunctionality of natural resources [and] is an essential engine for [...]” (R27-28), or “[...] maintain a balance between the ecological and [the] economic” (R55)).

3. Some sentences do not make sense (e.g., “[...] and the experience of agriculture-related activities to play the tourism function of agriculture [?] and rural region [?]” (R39-40), or “Clarifying the idea definitions of each categorisation noun [?] [...]” (R98-99). The same applies to the sentence “Count the number of leisure agriculture [...]” (R283-284). Who should count them?).

4. What does “Concerned about the countermeasures and solutions [...]” actually mean, in the context of the sentence at R60-62? An explanation (or rephrasing) might come in handy here.

5. “New Crown epidemic” in R70-71 should probably read “Corona epidemic”, or, even better, the “COVID-19 pandemic”.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The following are my comments on the manuscript:

1.     Title: Can be modified. Make it simple and precise.   

2.     Abstract: Needs improvement. Lacks consistency and coherence. Try to provide the abstract in the following manner: purpose, methodology, findings, and novelty. Also, refine the keywords. What is GDP? Mention it.           

3.     Introduction: Definition and need of addressing the problem has to be explained first. Next, discuss about the earlier studies on the problem to be addressed in this study. Highlight the research gaps identified and mention how this study is going to address the identified research gaps. Also, provide the major contributions of this study.

4.     Materials and methods: Section 2.1 looks long. Can be shortened. And also provide just important information alone. Is Table 1 needed? Consider merging Section 2.1 and 2.2. Regarding Section 2.3, all the methods can be provided under one heading. Also, provide suitable references for each method.                 

5.     Results: Many figures and tables were provided. All the figures and tables need to be discussed.  

6.     Discussion: Can be merged with results section. The results obtained has to be compared with earlier studies. Sufficient references have to be provided. Theoretical implications need to be provided. Further, practical implications can be improvised.    

7.     Conclusion: Summarize the study carefully. Mention the major findings of the study. Also, provide the limitations of this study along with the future scopes. 

8.     Reference: Try to cite latest articles. The following articles will help in improving the quality of the manuscript.

Identification of the critical activity in heat treatment process using TISM

Exploring key enablers of sustainable transportation in small-and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises

Overall, the manuscript has many shortcomings. There are many inconsistencies, typo errors, and grammatical errors. Give attention to uniformity. Attention must be given to presentation of the manuscript also. Hence, I recommend major revision.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been revised and improved.

Some minor polishing.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your positive comments on the refinement of the manuscript, and we continue to touch up the entire paper in response to the "Minor editing of English language required."

Best regards,

Yuyu Wu

Reviewer 3 Report

The comments given earlier have been addressed satisfactorily. Hence, I recommend the possible publication of the manuscript. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for positively commenting on the improvement of the manuscript. We have continued to improve the details of the paper.

Best regards,

Yuyu Wu