Sustainable Regional Development: A Challenge Between Socio-Economic Development and Sustainable Environmental Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript conducts a conceptual model to evaluate sustainable development through the balanced interaction of various indicators. The findings provide the foundation for developing a new paradigm of sustainable development. However, this manuscript still exists some problem needed to modify.

1. The contributions of this manuscript were not highlighted in the introduction part. It is suggested to first summarize the deficiencies existing in the current literature, and then propose how this manuscript put forward.

 

2. It is suggested that in the abstract, introduction and conclusion sections, it be mentioned what reference significance the research of this manuscript has for other countries and regions around the world.

 

3. It is suggested that in the introduction section and the literature section, the process of theoretical development can be presented through pictures or tables.

 

4. This manuscript analyzes the Aktobe region. The study area is relatively large. Could the granularity be further subdivided to analyze the socio-economic and environmental sustainable development situations of different cities? It would be more meaningful if different cities could be analyzed and compared.

 

5. It is suggested that a comprehensive index could be used in the manuscript to evaluate the sustainable development situation of each region.

 

6. It is suggested that in the Discussion section, the similarities and differences between the research results of this manuscript and those of previous studies be analyzed.

 

7. It is suggested to pay attention to the format of the figures in the article. For example, there are underlines under "investment per capita" and "sustainable socio-economic development" in Figure 2. It is suggested to ensure the beauty of the pictures.

 

8. It is recommended to proofread the format of the references.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful comments have been very helpful in guiding our revisions and improving the overall quality of the paper. Below, we provide our detailed responses to the points raised, with references to them in the text. 

Comments 1: The contributions of this manuscript were not highlighted in the introduction part. It is suggested to first summarize the deficiencies existing in the current literature, and then propose how this manuscript put forward.

Responce 1: In the revised version of the article, we expanded the introduction, highlighting key gaps in the literature [p. 2, lines 61-69], in particular:

• the limited nature of research at the regional level in Central Asian countries;
• the weak integration of socio-economic and environmental indicators in sustainability assessments;
• the lack of a comprehensive approach to interpreting spatial differences.

We then formulated the scientific novelty and contribution of our work to the development of the theoretical and methodological basis for sustainable regional development [p. 2, lines 70-72].

 

Comments 2: It is suggested that in the abstract, introduction and conclusion sections, it be mentioned what reference significance the research of this manuscript has for other countries and regions around the world.

Response 2: We agree on the need to emphasize the study’s international significance. We have added explanations about the applicability of our sustainable development assessment model to other regions with similar climatic, water and social challenges in the “Abstract” [p.1, lines 24-27], “Introduction” [p. 4, lines 154-157; p. 4, lines 173-176] and “Conclusions and Outlook” [p. 13, lines 533-538] sections.

 

Comments 3: It is suggested that in the introduction section and the literature section, the process of theoretical development can be presented through pictures or tables.

Responce 3: Thank you for your suggestion. The framework reflecting the logical structure of the theoretical approach to sustainable regional development has been added to the “Introduction” [Figure 1, p. 4, lines 158-172].  

The framework illustrates the evolution from the general theory of sustainable development to an integrated approach, highlighting the key components of sustainable development (economic, environmental and social sustainability). It also identifies key gaps in the literature and shows how our study on assessing sustainable socio-economic development and sustainable environmental management use addresses them using the Aktobe region as an example.

 

Comments 4: This manuscript analyzes the Aktobe region. The study area is relatively large. Could the granularity be further subdivided to analyze the socio-economic and environmentally sustainable development situations of different cities? It would be more meaningful if different cities could be analyzed and compared.

Responce 4: Thank you for your constructive comment. While we acknowledge the importance of spatial detail in sustainable development research, our study focused on the regional level for three key reasons. First, strategic and policy planning for sustainable development in Kazakhstan primarily occurs at the provincial level. Second, many statistical and environmental data used in our model are only available regionally, ensuring assessment comparability and representativeness. And third, our study aims to develop a conceptual framework applicable to the entire region. Nevertheless, we recognize the value of inter-city analysis and consider it a promising direction for further research.

 

Comments 5: It is suggested that a comprehensive index could be used in the manuscript to evaluate the sustainable development situation of each region.

Responce 5: Thank you for your recommendation. While we considered using a comprehensive index for sustainable development assessment, we deliberately chose a multidimensional approach without aggregating indicators. This approach maintains analytical transparency, preserves the specific characteristics of socio-economic and environmental parameters, and prevents data loss from summarization. Additionally, analyzing each indicator separately provides a more detailed picture of the current situation, benefiting various stakeholder groups. We believe this method best serves our research objectives.

 

Comments 6: It is suggested that in the Discussion section, the similarities and differences between the research results of this manuscript and those of previous studies be analyzed.

Responce 6: A comparative section was added to the Discussion section [pp. 11-12, lines 447-462], in which we compared our results with similar studies in Kazakhstan, Central Asia, and countries with similar natural resource conditions. This allowed us to show both the universality of some conclusions and the specifics applicable to the Aktobe region.

 

Comments 7: It is suggested to pay attention to the format of the figures in the article. For example, there are underlines under "investment per capita" and "sustainable socio-economic development" in Figure 2. It is suggested to ensure the beauty of the pictures.

Responce 7: The comment has been accepted, and the figures have been formatted in a consistent style. The underlining in the caption for Figure 2 (became Figure 3) has been removed [p. 9, lines 376-377].

 

Comments 8: It is recommended to proofread the format of the references.

Responce 8: Thank you for your comment. The format of all references has been brought into line with MDPI standards and the requirements of the journal Sustainability [p. 14-17, lines 565-712].

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comment

The paper presents a conceptual model for assessing sustainable development, based on the balance of heterogeneous indicators. The model analyzes the outcomes of human activity in interaction with the environment, considering two main dimensions: sustainable socio-economic development and sustainable environmental management.

The presented methodology is interesting and can apply to any country in the world, which is good for the community.

I recommend publishing the paper after the authors address the few questions below.

1. Introduction

The introduction provides a review and timeline of sustainable development and its challenges. Additionally, the authors show the hypothesis and central questions of the research, which is good for following the text and analysis.

2. Materials and Methods

First, the authors present the study area, highlighting the country's relevance, its connections, the western region, industry levels, and the goal of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The authors brought two equations to link the two Theorems associated to the population. Regarding the methodology and equations. Did the authors develop the equations and indicators, or did you use another paper? Can you add this information? Where did these equations and theories come from? I liked it, but you need to explain how did you get to these equations and values.

Results and discussion

The results are precise and succinct, presenting their case and comparing it with Australia, which was chosen as a benchmark. Based on the results, the authors demonstrated that the environment needs more attention. Can you add similar works to compare to yours? Does this happen with other countries? Is the environment always the weak side? Or are the socio-economic factors more important? I think this comparison will enrich your work.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

We are grateful for the thoughtful and constructive feedback provided. The positive evaluation of the proposed methodology and its global applicability is much appreciated. The comments and suggestions have been carefully considered, and detailed responses are provided below with references to them in the text.

 

Comments 1: The authors brought two equations to link the two Theorems associated to the population. Regarding the methodology and equations. Did the authors develop the equations and indicators, or did you use another paper? Can you add this information? Where did these equations and theories come from? I liked it, but you need to explain how did you get to these equations and values.

Response 1: Thank you for your positive assessment of our approach and work. The equations in the Methodology section were developed based on our ongoing research on sustainable green development in Western Kazakhstan. While space limitations prevent us from fully explaining the rationale behind each equation, we utilized established metrics where appropriate (water stress coefficient, atmospheric air pollution coefficient, GDP multiplier, human development index). We also developed new equations (landscape stress coefficient, biodiversity distribution, ecological sensitivity) by adapting existing indicators to our methodology. Our approach to aggregate indicators was guided by probabilistic forecasting and macroeconomic analysis principles.

The paper also includes clarifications in the “Materials and Methods” section to make it clear that the equations are a modified author's construct based on the results of scientific research carried out as part of the project [p. 7, lines 261-264; p. 9, lines 383-386].

 

Comments 2:  Based on the results, the authors demonstrated that the environment needs more attention. Can you add similar works to compare to yours? Does this happen with other countries? Is the environment always the weak side? Or are the socio-economic factors more important? I think this comparison will enrich your work.

Response 2:  We appreciate your valuable suggestion. Our comprehensive research project is ongoing, with future publications planned that will analyze additional Western Kazakhstan regions, compare their development with other countries' regional economies, and provide conclusions on regional strategies for balanced development.

We've added a comparative analysis with studies from other regions to the "Introduction" [p. 2, lines 61-72] and "Discussion" [pp. 11-12, lines 447-462] sections, highlighting the common structural bias toward either socio-economic indicators or environmental sustainability components.

In our work, we have specifically emphasized the importance of balanced socio-economic development and sustainable natural resource use. Thus, our work fits into the scientific context and emphasises the importance of a balanced approach to sustainable development.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate your positive assessment of our manuscript's relevance and contribution to sustainable development research, particularly in the West Kazakhstan context. Your recognition of our theoretical foundation and empirical application is especially valuable. The suggestions made have been carefully considered, and the necessary changes have been made in accordance with them. Detailed responses with references to them are provided below.

Major comments

Comments 1: The writing is generally clear, although minor improvements in language precision and grammar would enhance readability (e.g., refining long and complex sentences).

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve linguistic accuracy, grammar, and style, with particular attention to simplifying long and complex sentences for better readability.

 

Comments 2: The authors present insightful interpretations of their findings. Nevertheless, the policy recommendations, while valuable, remain somewhat generic. The authors could strengthen this section by providing more specific, actionable guidance for local stakeholders.

Responce 2: We have enhanced the policy recommendations section with specific, practical proposals for regional water management authorities, local municipalities, and environmental agencies in the "Conclusions and Outlook" section [pp. 12-13, lines 505-526].

Minor comments

Comments 3: The justification for using Australia as a benchmark is logical but could be expanded to address potential contextual disparities.

Response 3: We agree with this comment. The rationale for choosing Australia as a benchmark has been expanded in section “3. Results 3.1. Sustainable socio-economic development: data-based insights” [p. 10, lines 389-400].

 

Comments 4: The choice of coefficient thresholds and how they were derived needs more detail, possibly supported by sensitivity analysis or data variance.

Response 4: Thank you for your constructive comment. In section "2. Materials and Methods 2.2. Estimation strategy of sustainability" [p. 7, lines 261-264], we've added an explanation of our use of probabilistic forecasting and macroeconomic analysis to determine the basic equations. We set coefficient threshold values from 0 to 1, with assessment criteria based on how economic processes impact the final result. This approach was necessary due to insufficient statistics for traditional statistical analysis methods.

 

Comments 5: The assumptions behind Theorems 1 and 2, while conceptually plausible, would benefit from empirical backing or references

Responce 5: 

We agree with your comment. However, we perceive these theorems as limitations of the model within which it should work correctly. Since these limitations were established by us for our model, they do not require empirical justification.

 

We are grateful for your thorough analysis, which has significantly improved our work. We have implemented all recommendations by:

• enhancing methodological transparency through expanded descriptions of coefficient calculations and assumptions [p. 7, lines 261-264];
• improving linguistic clarity throughout the text;
• supplementing the recommendations section with specific implementation-focused proposals [pp. 12-13, lines 505-526].