The Construction of Resilience in Aging-Friendly Cities Driven by Land Adaptive Management: An Empirical Analysis of 269 Chinese Cities Based on the Theory of Social Ecosystems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main concern is with the uncertainty of the model.

Best regards

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is no uncertainty framework

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• In the abstract, I suggest the authors briefly introduce the background and significance of the study.

• The study period is inconsistent throughout the manuscript; for example, it appears as "2007–2022" in the abstract but "2005–2022" in the introduction. Please unify the study periods across the text.

• The literature review section needs better organization. In section 2.1, rather than simply listing studies, it would be more effective to summarize previous research on sustainable urban development from perspectives such as the models, indicators, geographic locations, and research scales used. In section 2.2, please analyze the methods, indicators, and key findings from existing research on how comprehensive land management promotes sustainable urban development, and then clearly identify the limitations or research gaps in current studies.

• In section 3.1, I suggest adding a conceptual diagram illustrating the theoretical framework of comprehensive land management (CLM) for sustainable urban development.

• Some key concepts are inconsistently presented in the manuscript; for instance, "urban sustainable development" is used on line 293, while it changes to "urban resilience" on line 300. Please ensure consistency of terminology throughout the manuscript.

• Please briefly explain the rationale behind selecting the indicators for Urban Sustainable Development (USD) and Comprehensive Land Management (CLM) or indicate their sources explicitly in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.

• There are Chinese characters appearing in Table 6; please revise them into English.

• The methodological details described in section 5.3 should be relocated to section 4. Additionally, section 7 can be merged into subsection 6.1 for coherence.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• The manuscript needs language polishing for improved readability and clarity.

Author Response

See annex for details

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the abstract, the purpose of the paper should be stated, while the results should be slightly abbreviated/contextualised. The introduction (paragraph 4, lines 82-97) should clearly indicate the author's aim. Furthermore, in the reviewer's opinion, the last paragraph describing the structure of the article is unnecessary. Subchapter 3.1 is more of an "Introduction", the term "The theoretical framework" in Chapter 3 is also questionable, as one does not actually appear here. In the reviewer's opinion, Table 1 should not mix words and numbers, e.g. for currencies and percentages (there is an inconsistency in column 3). The word form should be used and with a symbol added. Chapter 7, 'Limitations', contains content that is primarily methodological, and the reader should be made aware of this before reading the empirical results. The formatting of the text should also be improved, as there are numerous editing errors (for instance, in the bibliography and tables). Why did the author use a capital letter for the word 'Comprehensive' in the title of subsection 2.2? In the reviewer's opinion, the structure of the methods chapter is fragmented, which impedes the reader’s understanding.

A conspicuous omission from this article is a discussion that would play the crucial role of systematising the author’s findings in relation to the achievements, results and methods of other researchers in the field, thus highlighting similarities and differences. In addition, some of the content from the “Recommendations” subsection could also be woven into the discussion narrative. This subsection does not contain actual recommendations, i.e. detailed guidelines or a roadmap, but rather contains general statements about future actions. However, these should not be labelled ‘Recommendations’.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article addresses an interesting and innovative issue of the resilience of socio-ecological systems from the perspective of environmental sociology. The concept of adaptive land management is introduced and integrated with the issue of multifaceted resilience of age-friendly cities. Empirical research on the impact of adaptive land management on the resilience of age-friendly cities and spatial diversity was conducted using panel data from 269 prefecture-level cities in China between 2010 and 2022. The weighted entropy method and panel regression models were used.  The revisions made to the original text of the article have significantly improved its quality and readability for an international audience. Given the original contribution of this research to the issue of urban resilience, I recommend this article in its current (revised) form for publication in Sustainability.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your hard work in reviewing the manuscript and for your recognition of our work.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The paper’s formatting and standards need to be improved. For example, issues such as the capitalization of letters in line 42, the spelling of authors' names in line 47, and the citation style in line 58 and 93 within the text should be addressed.

2. The number of cities studied in this paper needs to be clearly determined, as three different city counts are mentioned in the text.

3. What is the population threshold used to distinguish between small/medium-sized cities and large cities? The number of cities in each category should also be clearly stated in the text.

4. I suggest separating the discussion and conclusion section from the section 6.. Sections 4.5, 6.1, and 6.3 should be combined into a unified discussion section, with the addition of a discussion on policy recommendations for urban development. The current Section 6.2 should serve as the conclusion.

Author Response

comment1:The paper’s formatting and standards need to be improved. For example, issues such as the capitalization of letters in line 42, the spelling of authors' names in line 47, and the citation style in line 58 and 93 within the text should be addressed.

Response1:Thank you for your suggestion. We have already modified the overall format of the article. If there are any further questions, we will use professional editing services.

comment2:The number of cities studied in this paper needs to be clearly determined, as three different city counts are mentioned in the text.

Response2:Thank you for your suggestion. We have verified the full-text data and it has all been changed to 269.

comment3:What is the population threshold used to distinguish between small/medium-sized cities and large cities? The number of cities in each category should also be clearly stated in the text.

Response3:Your opinions are very useful for improving the quality of the article. We added an explanation of the classification criteria for large, medium and small cities in the part of heterogeneity analysis.

comment4: I suggest separating the discussion and conclusion section from the section 6.. Sections 4.5, 6.1, and 6.3 should be combined into a unified discussion section, with the addition of a discussion on policy recommendations for urban development. The current Section 6.2 should serve as the conclusion.

Response4:Your opinions are very useful for improving the quality of the article. We combined 4.5, 6.1 and 6.3 into one chapter and separated the conclusion from the discussion..

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The last part of the article needs correction. The discussion should be a separate chapter, and the conclusions a separate one. In its current form, this part is chaotic.

Author Response

comments1:The last part of the article needs correction. The discussion should be a separate chapter, and the conclusions a separate one. In its current form, this part is chaotic.

Response1:Thank you for your suggestion. We have separated the conclusion of the article from the discussion.