Temporal and Spatial Evolution Characteristics and Obstacle Factor Analysis of Rural Modernization Development Level in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
The article study a very interesting subject, some aspects must be improved although:
-the abstract part must be reduced a little bit…as it is now is to large
-in the introduction part it would be appropriate to state the importance of your study in the context of the other existent ones
-point 3 data processing and analysis in my opinion is suitable to be renamed: Results…because your article has no results. You also must improve this part of the results!!!!
-the reference list is to small as it is now!!! …you must enlarge it
Author Response
We sincerely thank the editor and the reviewers for their valuable feedback. We have improved the quality of the manuscript accordingly. The reviewers' comments are listed in italics, and specific issues are numbered. Our responses are given in normal font. The modifications/supplements made to the manuscript are shown in blue font, and the corresponding references have been reorganized in the text.
Suggestion 1: the abstract part must be reduced a little bit…as it is now is to large.
Response：We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to reduce the length of the abstract. In response, we have carefully revised and condensed the abstract by eliminating redundant information and streamlining the language. The revised abstract now focuses on the essential objectives, methodologies, and key findings of the study, while significantly reducing its length. We believe that these modifications have enhanced the clarity and conciseness of the abstract, making it more accessible and in line with the journal’s guidelines. Specifically, these changes have been implemented in lines 11–30 of the revised manuscript.
Suggestion 2: in the introduction part it would be appropriate to state the importance of your study in the context of the other existent ones.
Response: Thank you for your insightful suggestion. In response to your comment, we have revised the introduction to explicitly highlight the significance of our study within the broader context of existing research. Specifically, we emphasize that advancing rural modernization is not only a critical task in China’s overall modernization strategy but also a key approach to addressing regional disparities. We have clarified how our research contributes to the ongoing discourse by providing an empirical assessment of rural modernization levels and identifying key barriers to progress. Furthermore, we underscore the study’s policy relevance for resource allocation and targeted rural revitalization strategies, as well as its broader implications for comparative studies on rural modernization in developing countries. These revisions aim to strengthen the theoretical and practical significance of our work while positioning it more clearly within the existing body of literature. Specifically, these changes have been implemented in lines 46–53 and 104-127 of the revised manuscript.
Suggestion 3: point 3 data processing and analysis in my opinion is suitable to be renamed: Results…because your article has no results. You also must improve this part of the results!!!!
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that the section originally titled "Data Processing and Analysis" would be more appropriately labeled as "Results and discussion" given that our manuscript did not previously include a dedicated results section. In response, we have taken the following actions:（1） Renaming the Section: We have renamed the section to "Results and discussion" to better reflect its content and to align with the structure expected by the journal.（2）Enhancing the Content: We have substantially revised and expanded this section to present a clearer and more detailed account of our findings. This includes additional analyses and a refined presentation of how our data processing methods yield the observed results. Detailed information can be found in lines 288 of the manuscript.
Suggestion 4:-the reference list is to small as it is now!!! …you must enlarge it.
Response: In response, we have substantially enlarged our literature base, increasing the number of references from 35 to 59. We incorporated a wide range of additional studies to strengthen the theoretical framework and empirical foundations of our research. These new references not only provide further support for our methodology and contextualize our findings within the broader discourse on rural modernization but also enhance the construction of our evaluation indicator system. Specifically, in developing this system, we extensively drew upon a wealth of relevant studies and integrated their theoretical and empirical insights into the design process.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents a well-structured study aimed at assessing the development level of rural modernization, so I commend the authors for their research. To suggest potential improvements, I would like to offer a few brief observations:
- Avoid using keywords that are already included in the manuscript's title. It is recommended to incorporate keywords such as Entropy Value Method, Barrier Degree Model, Moran index, among others.
- Lines 26-27. Briefly explain why some regions are classified as having high levels of rural modernization while others are categorized as having low levels of development.
- Lines 109-110. The wording is unclear regarding whether there are five dimensions or six.
- Table 1 (line 147) indicate in the methodology section how weight was calculated and what potential biases may exist.
- Research mehtods. Briefly explain the reasons for using spatial methods in this research.
- Section 2.2.1 Entropy Value Method. It is advisable to explain the theoretical foundations of the entropy method.
- Figure 2 Classification Development Level of Rural Modernization in China from 2013 to 2022. (line 254). According to the graph, 2016 was a significant year, as most indicators showed an increase; however, the Rural Governance System and Governance Capacity indicators experienced a notable decline. Please discuss whether any events in the study area may have contributed to this trend observed in the graph.
- Figure 4 Spatial distribution of rural modernization development level in 2013,2016,2019 and 2022. Line 314. Explain why certain areas of study transitioned from low to high levels of rural modernization, while other areas did not experience similar advancements during the study period.
- Governance is a factor that shows decreasing values in the methods studied. It is recommended to include an explanation in both the discussion and the conclusions regarding why these results occurred. This is important because lower governance is associated with higher infrastructure levels.
- Figure 3 “Distribution of rural modernization structure in China 's provinces”. It is recommended to enhance the presentation of the graphics, as the current format makes the interpretation of the results confusing.
- Please verify the numbering of the Tables; it appears that Table 3 is incorrectly labeled as Table 2.
- It is advisable to provide a more comprehensive explanation of the Moran index and its applications.
It is advisable to use more direct writing, especially in the research design and conclusions sections.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the editor and the reviewers for their valuable feedback. We have improved the quality of the manuscript accordingly. The reviewers' comments are listed in italics, and specific issues are numbered. Our responses are given in normal font. The modifications/supplements made to the manuscript are shown in blue font, and the corresponding references have been reorganized in the text.
Suggestion 1: Avoid using keywords that are already included in the manuscript's title. It is recommended to incorporate keywords such as Entropy Value Method, Barrier Degree Model, Moran index, among others.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response, we have carefully revised the manuscript to avoid redundancy by eliminating keywords already present in the title. Instead of listing them separately, we have streamlined their presentation by integrating them into a more concise and cohesive discussion. Specifically, when these concepts are first introduced, we provide their full definitions, and in subsequent mentions, we use their abbreviated forms, such as Global Moran’s I (GMI), Local Moran’s I (LMI), Entropy Value Method (EVM), Obstacle Degree Model (ODM), Moran Index (Moran’s I), and Local Indicators of Spatial Association (LISA). Additionally, we have refined the structure to ensure that these methodologies are introduced in a logical and coherent manner, enhancing readability and clarity while aligning with the reviewer’s recommendation.
Suggestion 2: Lines 26-27. Briefly explain why some regions are classified as having high levels of rural modernization while others are categorized as having low levels of development.
Response: Thank you for your insightful suggestion. In response, we have revised lines 26-27 of the abstract to briefly explain the regional disparities in rural modernization. Specifically, we now highlight that the rapid development observed in the eastern coastal and southwest regions is driven by well-established infrastructure and the agglomeration of innovative elements, whereas the slower development in the northwest and northeast regions is influenced by geographical conditions and industrial structure. Additionally, a more detailed analysis of these spatial heterogeneity characteristics is provided in Section 3.2.1 (line 409), where we further elaborate on the underlying factors contributing to these regional differences.
Suggestion 3: Lines 109-110. The wording is unclear regarding whether there are five dimensions or six.
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have carefully revised lines 109-110 to clarify that the evaluation framework consists of five dimensions. The previous ambiguity was due to punctuation misuse, which has now been corrected to ensure precise and unambiguous wording. This revision enhances the readability and accuracy of our description.
Suggestion 4: Table 1 (line 147) indicate in the methodology section how weight was calculated and what potential biases may exist.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response to your comment, we have made adjustments to the methodology section to provide clearer explanations regarding the calculation of weights and potential sources of bias. We acknowledge that, in some cases, missing or incomplete data for certain provinces in specific years may have affected the continuity of trend analysis, potentially influencing the accuracy of the findings in some regions. To address this issue, we have employed alternative indicators, estimation methods, or data from relevant statistical yearbooks to fill in the gaps, ensuring the data closely reflects the actual conditions. Additionally, we have utilized the extreme value method to normalize the raw data, ensuring consistency across different dimensions, units, and magnitudes. The formulas for normalizing both positive and negative indicators have been explicitly provided to enhance transparency.
Suggestion 5: Research mehtods. Briefly explain the reasons for using spatial methods in this research.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In response to your comment, we have added a brief explanation in the methodology section regarding the reasons for using spatial methods in this research. Spatial methods, such as spatial autocorrelation analysis, are essential tools for understanding the spatial distribution and clustering patterns of rural modernization across regions. These methods help to identify spatial dependencies and variations that may not be evident through traditional statistical techniques. Given that rural modernization exhibits distinct spatial patterns due to factors like regional resource endowments and socio-economic development needs, the use of spatial methods enables us to capture the spatial heterogeneity and agglomeration features of rural development. By employing spatial techniques, we can more accurately assess and reveal the underlying spatial dynamics of rural modernization, which are crucial for informing policy and resource allocation decisions. Detailed information can be found in lines 243-260 of the manuscript.
Suggestion 6: Section 2.2.1 Entropy Value Method. It is advisable to explain the theoretical foundations of the entropy method.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In response to your comment, we have added an explanation of the theoretical foundations of the entropy method in Section 2.2.1. The entropy value method is an objective weighting technique based on information entropy theory. The core principle of this method lies in quantifying the uncertainty of data distribution for each evaluation indicator, enabling the scientific determination of weights. By measuring the information content of the indicators, the method effectively avoids biases that might arise from subjective weighting, thereby enhancing the objectivity and accuracy of the evaluation. To precisely measure the scores of rural modernization indicators, we first applied range normalization to eliminate dimensional differences between the indicators. Then, based on information entropy, we calculated the objective weights for each evaluation indicator. Finally, a multiple linear weighting model was used to compute the composite scores for rural modernization and its subsystems. A higher index value indicates a higher level of rural modernization development, while a lower value reflects a lower level of development. Detailed information can be found in lines 218-231 of the manuscript.
Suggestion 7: Figure 2 Classification Development Level of Rural Modernization in China from 2013 to 2022. (line 254). According to the graph, 2016 was a significant year, as most indicators showed an increase; however, the Rural Governance System and Governance Capacity indicators experienced a notable decline. Please discuss whether any events in the study area may have contributed to this trend observed in the graph.
Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. In response, we have revised the section to better explain the observed trend in the graph. The development of rural governance systems and governance capacity showed an initial period of growth, followed by a significant decline. From 2013 to 2016, the index experienced substantial growth, which was primarily driven by the positive effects of land transfer reforms. These reforms, including land rights certification and the establishment of service platforms, helped improve grassroots governance efficiency. However, between 2017 and 2022, the index showed a marked decrease, which may be linked to the difficulties of the governance system in adapting to the rapid changes in rural social structures caused by the accelerated flow of factors between urban and rural areas. The friction between government-led governance and market-driven infrastructure investments appears to have reduced governance effectiveness. Nonetheless, by 2022, the expansion of digitalization and the strengthening of governance communities led to improvements in the precision of rural governance, with the index showing signs of recovery. Detailed information can be found in lines 314-327 of the manuscript.
Suggestion 8: Figure 4 Spatial distribution of rural modernization development level in 2013,2016,2019 and 2022. Line 314. Explain why certain areas of study transitioned from low to high levels of rural modernization, while other areas did not experience similar advancements during the study period.
Response: Thank you for your insightful suggestion. In response, we have provided a detailed explanation of the spatial dynamics of rural modernization levels. From 2013 to 2019, the rural modernization process in China demonstrated a "diffusion" pattern, primarily expanding from the eastern coastal regions to the central and western areas. This diffusion was facilitated by robust infrastructure, strong industrial foundations, and a concentration of innovative factors in the east, which enabled the spread of modernization elements through transportation networks and information technology. However, from 2019 onwards, the process entered a "transition" phase, with high-level rural modernization shifting towards the southwest. This shift was driven by breakthroughs in institutional innovation, the exploration of urban-rural integration policies, and collaborative reforms in collective economies and industrial integration. These factors created a more favorable environment for the flow of modernization elements, narrowing the modernization gap between the southwest and earlier-developed regions. On the other hand, the northwest and northeast regions lagged behind, facing challenges such as harsh natural conditions, transportation bottlenecks, and market fragmentation, which increased the cost of factor flow and hindered the region's development. Additionally, the northeast's reliance on resource-based industries and significant population loss further slowed its transformation. These factors contributed to the formation of development gaps, with the regions falling further behind in the overall modernization process. Detailed information can be found in lines 423-453 of the manuscript.
Suggestion 9: Governance is a factor that shows decreasing values in the methods studied. It is recommended to include an explanation in both the discussion and the conclusions regarding why these results occurred. This is important because lower governance is associated with higher infrastructure levels.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response, we have added an explanation in both the discussion and conclusion sections to address the observed decline in governance indicators. The reduction in governance levels is likely due to the lag between infrastructure development and the capacity for governance. As infrastructure advances quickly, it often outpaces the ability of governance systems to adapt, leading to challenges in sustainability and effectiveness. This mismatch may hinder the long-term success of rural modernization.
To improve governance, we propose the following strategies: First, strengthen the rural governance framework by developing standardized governance indicators, implementing dynamic "village-based planning" management models, and enhancing transparency through clear performance assessments of local governments. Second, establish a collaborative county governance system to address challenges posed by rapid urban-rural factor flows. This includes creating cross-departmental enforcement mechanisms and leveraging blockchain for efficient land transfer management. Third, accelerate the digital transformation of governance by integrating spatial location technologies systems to enable real-time monitoring of infrastructure, collective assets, and the environment. These measures will enhance governance precision, increase efficiency, and support sustainable rural development.
Detailed information can be found in lines 643-663 of the manuscript.
Suggestion 10: Figure 3“Distribution of rural modernization structure in China 's provinces”. It is recommended to enhance the presentation of the graphics, as the current format makes the interpretation of the results confusing.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response, we have revised the presentation of Figure 3 to improve clarity. Originally, we used 10 years of data with varying line thicknesses, which made the interpretation difficult. To address this, we have now selected data from four years and differentiated them using different colored areas. This change aims to enhance the visual presentation and make the results easier to interpret. Detailed information can be found in lines 403 of the manuscript.
Suggestion 11: Please verify the numbering of the Tables; it appears that Table 3 is incorrectly labeled as Table 2.
Response: Thank you for your clarification. We have revised the manuscript to correct the description of Table 2, which was mistakenly referred to as Table 3 in the text. The correct reference to Table 2 has now been applied throughout the manuscript. Detailed information can be found in lines 458,474 of the manuscript.
Suggestion 12: It is advisable to provide a more comprehensive explanation of the Moran index and its applications.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable suggestion. In response to the comment, we have provided a more comprehensive explanation of the Moran index and its applications in the revised manuscript. Specifically, we have elaborated on the concept of the Moran index as a measure of spatial autocorrelation, which helps assess the degree to which the values of a variable are similar or dissimilar in neighboring spatial units. Additionally, we have expanded on its application in analyzing spatial patterns in our study, detailing how the Moran index is used to evaluate the spatial clustering or dispersion of rural modernization levels in China over time. We calculated the global Moran's I index for the years 2013, 2016, 2019, and 2022 to reveal the spatial clustering characteristics of rural modernization. The results indicated a significant positive spatial correlation, meaning high-level regions tended to exhibit clustering characteristics. We further analyzed the local Moran's I index and conducted LISA analysis, categorizing the spatial patterns into four types: "High-High," "Low-Low," "High-Low," and "Low-High." This analysis helped us to understand the specific spatial relationships between different provinces and the development of rural modernization in different regions. Detailed information can be found in lines 456-519 of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter reading the paper, I have a few observations and questions.
1. The paper does not clearly state the purpose of the paper. Who does this analysis benefit?
2. The authors say in the paper that the study was conducted in 30 provinces of China. How many provinces does China have? Are the results obtained representative? What is the degree of accuracy of the information in the conditions in which it is desired to extend the results to other provinces?
3. In order to increase the degree of rural modernization, indicators related to infrastructure and services, ecological environment, governance, culture and health, income and consumption were taken into account. What are the concrete measures implemented to implement these indicators. Give examples for each indicator mentioned above.
4. The modernization process in China was classified by the authors into 4 types. Each one is said to "have significant advantages", but have "notable deficiencies in other dimensions", without sufficient argumentation, without explaining what the advantages and disadvantages of the regions that have been grouped into these types consist of and why. It is very ambiguous.
5. Explain what the twenty-character guide means.
6. The graphs, in my opinion, should be redone in color. Without zoom, they are not very clearly distinguishable.
7. Please complete the bibliographic references with bibliographic titles of authors from countries other than China (63% of the authors are Chinese) because the article is international. Make a comparison regarding the rural development criteria analyzed by other countries with those used by you. What ideas, measures could be implemented in China from those used by other countries? What do you think would be the degree of success of the Chinese provinces if they took over these ideas/measures from the countries with which the comparison was made?
Author Response
We sincerely thank the editor and the reviewers for their valuable feedback. We have improved the quality of the manuscript accordingly. The reviewers' comments are listed in italics, and specific issues are numbered. Our responses are given in normal font. The modifications/supplements made to the manuscript are shown in blue font, and the corresponding references have been reorganized in the text.
Suggestion 1: The paper does not clearly state the purpose of the paper. Who does this analysis benefit?
Response: Thank you for your insightful suggestion. In response, we have revised the introduction to clearly articulate the purpose of our study and its beneficiaries. Our study addresses several research gaps in the literature on rural modernization—most existing studies tend to examine both agricultural and rural modernization together, leaving a dedicated, in-depth quantitative analysis of rural modernization relatively underexplored. By evaluating the level of rural modernization in China from 2013 to 2022 using an entropy-based weighting method, spatial autocorrelation analysis, and an obstacle degree model, our research not only establishes a comprehensive evaluation framework but also provides empirical evidence to guide policymakers and local governments in optimizing resource allocation and developing targeted revitalization strategies. Additionally, this analysis enriches comparative studies on rural modernization in developing countries, offering valuable insights for addressing regional development disparities and enhancing sustainable rural progress. Detailed information can be found in lines 104-127 of the manuscript.
Suggestion 2: The authors say in the paper that the study was conducted in 30 provinces of China. How many provinces does China have? Are the results obtained representative? What is the degree of accuracy of the information in the conditions in which it is desired to extend the results to other provinces?
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In our revised manuscript, we clarify that although China comprises 34 provincial-level administrative regions (including 23 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, 4 municipalities, and 2 Special Administrative Regions), our study covers 30 provinces for the period 2013–2022. Regions such as Tibet, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan were excluded due to issues with incomplete or discontinuous data, which could compromise the consistency and reliability of our analysis. To ensure the scientific rigor of our results, we selected provinces with comprehensive and continuous datasets. All data were obtained from authoritative sources, including the China Statistical Yearbook, China Rural Statistical Yearbook, China Urban-Rural Statistical Yearbook, China Population and Employment Statistical Yearbook, China Environmental Statistical Yearbook, and China Social Statistical Yearbook, as well as provincial statistical yearbooks. Although our analysis does not encompass all 34 regions, the high quality and representativeness of the selected 30 provinces ensure that our findings robustly reflect the spatial and temporal trends of rural modernization in China, and they can be reliably extended to comparable regions. Detailed information can be found in lines 129-145 of the manuscript.
Suggestion 3: In order to increase the degree of rural modernization, indicators related to infrastructure and services, ecological environment, governance, culture and health, income and consumption were taken into account. What are the concrete measures implemented to implement these indicators. Give examples for each indicator mentioned above.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response, we have enriched our indicator system by providing clear definitions and specific calculation methods for each indicator, ensuring that they are both concrete and actionable. Detailed information can be found in lines 178-210 and Table 1 of the manuscript.
Suggestion 4: The modernization process in China was classified by the authors into 4 types. Each one is said to "have significant advantages", but have "notable deficiencies in other dimensions", without sufficient argumentation, without explaining what the advantages and disadvantages of the regions that have been grouped into these types consist of and why. It is very ambiguous.
Response: In the revision, we have enhanced the clarity and depth of our argumentation regarding the classification of rural modernization types. First, we refined the definitions and classification criteria, providing detailed explanations of the advantages and limitations of each type, supported by relevant data and illustrative examples from various provinces. Second, we reinforced the logical framework by clearly distinguishing between the longitudinal dimension (temporal evolution) and the horizontal dimension (development types), thereby ensuring greater precision and evidence-based reasoning in our classification. Third, we integrated quantitative proportions and specific provincial categorizations to increase transparency and credibility. Finally, we included policy recommendations to offer practical guidance, ensuring that the study not only elucidates regional differences but also provides actionable insights for promoting balanced rural modernization. These revisions collectively strengthen the rigor and explanatory power of our classification system. Detailed information can be found in lines 345-407 of the manuscript.
Suggestion 5: Explain what the twenty-character guide means.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The original text lacked a detailed explanation of the "twenty-character guide" and its significance in rural modernization. To address this, we have now incorporated a more thorough discussion, elaborating on how industrial prosperity, ecological livability, rural civility, effective governance, and improved livelihoods serve as key pillars of China’s rural revitalization strategy. This revision ensures a clearer connection between these guiding principles and their practical implications, highlighting how they drive rural economic development, environmental sustainability, cultural progress, governance efficiency, and overall quality of life improvements. Detailed information can be found in lines 165-171 of the manuscript.
Suggestion 6: The graphs, in my opinion, should be redone in color. Without zoom, they are not very clearly distinguishable
Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion regarding the clarity of the graphs. In response, we have thoroughly revised and redesigned all figures in color to significantly enhance their readability and distinguishability. The updated graphs now ensure that different elements are visually distinct even without magnification, thereby improving data interpretation. This modification not only elevates the overall presentation quality but also enhances the reader's ability to comprehend the data effectively. For detailed information, please refer to lines 342, 344, 409, and 554 of the manuscript.
Suggestion 7: Please complete the bibliographic references with bibliographic titles of authors from countries other than China (63% of the authors are Chinese) because the article is international. Make a comparison regarding the rural development criteria analyzed by other countries with those used by you. What ideas, measures could be implemented in China from those used by other countries? What do you think would be the degree of success of the Chinese provinces if they took over these ideas/measures from the countries with which the comparison was made?
Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' insightful and constructive suggestions regarding the incorporation of more international references and the conduct of comparative analyses. In response, we have expanded the literature review section and integrated corresponding discussions in the conclusion and recommendations, drawing on studies from a wider range of countries to highlight the distinctions and connections between international and domestic rural development research. Concerning comparative analysis, we conducted an in-depth comparison of rural development standards in other countries with those adopted in this study, focusing on critical dimensions such as infrastructure construction, governance systems, ecological sustainability, and income distribution. Furthermore, we extracted actionable measures from the successful experiences of other countries that could be adapted for implementation in China, including community-driven development models and environmentally friendly agricultural practices, while discussing their potential applicability across various provinces in China. Finally, considering the varying development levels and resource conditions among provinces, the likelihood of gradual and successful implementation is relatively high if achieved through collaborative efforts between local governments and enterprises. Nevertheless, it remains essential to consider the adaptability of institutional frameworks and regional disparities in technology promotion. For detailed information, please refer to Sections 1. Introduction and 4. Conclusion and Suggestions of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthe authors have impelmented the requirements
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI agree with the changes/additions made by the authors. It is ok for publication.
