Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall comments:

1.      The paper contains considerable plagiarism which needs to be addressed.

2.      Paper involves some grammatical errors.

3.      Provide reference source for the figure (referred from) in Figure 1.

4.      Provide reference for the figures and tables in the text paragraphs for example; in Section 4, provide reference for Figure 2 in the text paragraph, in section 4.1, subsection 4.1.1 provide reference for Table 2 in the text paragraph and for others also.

5.      In Table 1, Column 3 provide reference number under data source (as quoted in reference at the end)

6.      Provide reference source for Tables (referred from) in Table 4 and Table 5

7.      Conclusions need to be more specific remedial measures in relation to the study and not in general.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

v

1.      Paper involves some grammatical errors.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your points and made the necessary revisions. Please find our detailed responses and the revised manuscript in the attached documents.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Congratulations on the development of the manuscript and the chosen topic. I personally like the study and I justify my statement by the fact that the subject is focused, clear and presents a high complexity.

1. Abstract

It is clearly presented, contains the aim, methodology, main results and the usefulness of the study.

Attention to line no. 11, the word "word" must be replaced with "world".

2. Introduction

The introduction briefly includes the research framework, and at the end, very briefly, the importance of the research ("this study underscores the urgency of formulating scientific protection and development strategies").

For greater clarity and readers' understanding of the subject, right from the beginning of the article, I recommend inserting the purpose of the work and its structure in this part of the Introduction.

3. Literature review

It is a comprehensive bibliographic research; I note the extent of recent and very recent studies.

4. Study area and data sources

It is clearly presented.

5. Methods

The methodology used is well chosen and developed, starting from the purpose of the work.

The menu of indicators is complex (a total of 19 indicators) to form the evaluation index system for the comprehensive level of regional protection and development.

The experts in the field, through the applied questionnaire, offer a vision centred on the subject and help to a high degree of objectivity in formulating the weight of each chosen indicator.

6. Results

The Regional protection patterns of traditional villages in the study area, spatial distribution patterns of coupling and coordination regional protection and development of traditional villages are well highlighted. The formed clusters show the heterogeneity and complexity of the research framework.

The study of the impact of subsystems on the overall degree of coupling coordination positively outlines the practical utility of the research.

7. Discussions. Well documented and argued.

8. The conclusions are pertinent.

9. The list of references doest not agree with the rewuirements in the template. Please be more careful here. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your points and made the necessary revisions. Please find our detailed responses and the revised manuscript in the attached documents.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the manuscript is an important question. The issue of heritage protection vs rural-urban development is a perennial debate. This study is a case study of the Loess Hilly and Gully Region, Northern Shaanxi Province which takes a quantitative approach.

I would like to share some thoughts:

The general idea of the protection and development as the two systems being analysed is put forward.  The paper will benefit if it can clarify better the concept of protection and development. I think there is a section missing about explaining why these indicators (Table 2) were chosen.

For instance, the authors seem to talk about cultural cum environmental degradation in connection protection concept. However, in Table 2 it seems that when one says protection one only means cultural heritage protection. If I understand correctly the study uses the number, size and quality of traditional villages as measure of cultural protection in the town of the region.

What does the "demonstration county for concentrated contiguous protection..." mean?

As this study speaks of coupling and coordination, the literature used seem to be thin about the relation of protection and development in this sense. It was started in the first paragraph of the introduction but did not go further or deep enough. I think thi is important to set the stage why this model was chosen for the paper. For instance, how does coordination between cultural protection and sustainable development look like? maybe adaptive reuse?

How many district, counties, towns are in the dataset? It may be good to explain the jurisdictional hierarchies for those not familiar with China.

Figure 10 seems to be not explained.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

References to Tables (e.g., 6, 7) have some mistakes.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your points and made the necessary revisions. Please find our detailed responses and the revised manuscript in the attached documents.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for considering my comments. I am satisfied with Response 1, 2, 4, & 5

For response 3, I find the wording of the introduction satifactory but it could benefit from some more references from earlier baseline work about the protection-development dichotomy, if possible (e.g. they could just be inserted in lines 38-51). I think this can reinforce the arguments and also mapped the paper in the discourse.

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful comments and constructive suggestions regarding our manuscript. We appreciate your feedback on the introduction, particularly your recommendation to include additional references to earlier baseline work on the protection-development dichotomy.
In response to your suggestion, we have incorporated four additional references in lines 42, 44, and 48 of the revised manuscript， corresponding to documents 3, 4, 5, and 6.
We believe this revision strengthens the introduction and aligns it more closely with the broader academic discussion on this topic.