How Does Population Shrinkage Affect Economic Resilience? A Case Study of Resource-Based Cities in Northeast China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• The first sentence of the abstract does not seem logically true. Constraints on resources do not necessarily lead to a lack of economic resilience.
• Page 2 Line 48: “..because the 48 resilience of their economic system is seriously insufficient”. Please be careful with the use of terms. Not clear how resilience can be insufficient. Sufficiency is a sub-characteristic of resilience and it is not right to say resilience is sufficient or insufficient. Please correct all other similar issues (including the other one in the same paragraph)
• Line 54 and 55. Shrinkage is happening in many countries but not all over the world. Please modify
• In the Introduction or (by adding a separate literature review section) the authors should also briefly explain the current state of knowledge on assessing economic resilience and indicators of economic resilience. There are several studies providing such indicators/criteria. For instance, see Table 5 of this article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.023 . Based on this, the authors should explain how their study and their index builds on the existing knowledge.
• Section 2.1 on Data: please add a table that clearly shows each variable and its source of data. This could also be merged with Table 1.
• The reason for the selection of the 12 indicators used in Table 1 is not well justified. A much better justification is needed. This could for instance, be based on a more inclusive literature review (see my previous comment) or using expert surveys, etc. Otherwise, the reliability of the approach will be questionable. This is important because table 1 is the cornerstone of this study.
• It is mentioned that the entropy method is used for weighting but the process is not explained at all.
• A flowchart explaining how different parts of the research method are linked to each other is needed to better understand the logical flow of the methods. It is not clear at all how Table 1 is used in the model introduced later in the methods section and how it has been used to developed the index. Addressing these critical issues related to methods is essential to ensure the paper and its methods can be easily replicated in other contexts.
• Conclusions and discussions should be Discussions and conclusions. Logically, you first make discussions and end the paper with conclusions

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The article analyzes one of the significant socio-economic phenomena of the modern world: urban shrinkage. The Authors undertook to discuss this process in urban resilience in selected cities in Northeast China. I consider the topic and area of analysis appropriate.

Generally, the article's content is correct in terms of substantive content. The empirical research is a value of the article.

Despite these positive recommendations, there are also some issues in the article that need to be improved.

Below I present my most important remarks:

1. Please separate the Introduction from the Research Review. Authors can use paragraphs already written, but in my opinion, both of these parts need to be developed. Especially the issue of resilience in the world needs to be strengthened. I am aware of the differences in this issue in different countries and on different continents. However, the value of scientific articles is precisely to look for these cross-border similarities and differences. This aspect is still poorly developed in the article.
2. The Methods and data chapter is very long. In my opinion that many of the subchapters and descriptions in this part are Results and Research Review. This chapter should be no more than 1-1.5 pages long, proportionally to the overall layout of the article. Many of the findings related to the method contained in this chapter are the Results / Review of research.
3. The legibility (quality) of Figure 1 requires improvement, and above all - Figures 4 and 5.
4. The last point is the integrated Conclusions and Discussion. I recommend that you write the Discussion chapter first. It should be a separate chapter. Then chapter Conclusions in that order. In the Discussion chapter, there should be a broader reference to world research and an indication of the strengths and weaknesses of the results of the Authors' research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this study, the authors examine the role the economic resilience plays in the phenomenon of population shrinkage, or decline. Using 20 cities in northeast China as the case studies, the authors estimate a model that identifies the factors the shape economic output. They find that industrial 25 output, population consumption, urban innovation, and cultural construction exert a partial mediation effect on the process of population shrinkage.

Overall, this manuscript is sound in theory and methodological approach. I recommend that the authors engage some more recent scholarship on the shrinking cities literature to contextualize the issue under study. In particular, the authors should contextualize comparative around the world this policy issue by reviewing and acknowledging other literature. Specifically, in Sustainability journal, please see "Shrinking Suburbs: Analyzing the Decline of American Suburban Spaces" by Sarznski and Vicino.

See also: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/Shrinking_Cities_Sustainability  

Thank you. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have done a great job revising the article. It can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The corrected version of the article is more readable for researchers worldwide, and above all, it emphasizes the essence of research on shrinking cities in China.

I have only two minor comments on the revised version of the article.

The inscriptions in Figure 5 are hardly legible. I propose to enlarge the maps in Figure 5 a bit. I know that the authors have already made such an attempt, but some subtitles are still not readable.

The second remark concerns citations. For example, line 175 is Di Maria and not Maria: Maria (Di Maria and Lazarova 2012). Line 183 Martin [6] - w references 6 is Di Maria and Lazarova.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf