Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please revise the title. A suggestion could be:
Diversification and Spatial Differentiation of Villages' Functional Types in the New Period of China. Results from Hierarchical Urban-Rural Spatial Relations and Townships Size. However, the authors are free to provide another correct variant.
The Abstract is generally well written, concise and includes the key aspects of the study.
The Introduction is quite extended but there are issues related to the wording and phrases that should be considered. There are some examples below.
Lines 28-29. Not only in China. Please reconsider this assertion. Urban-rural relationships are dictating local and regional development in many places in the world.
Lines 30-31 "Villages are where farmers live" is not entirely true, please revise. This assertion is immediately counteracted by the idea of multifunctionality described in the next phrase.
Line 54 Try not to start the sentence with "but". Use "however" or some other word that it suits.
Lines 63, 68, 73...try to avoid the repeatability; "researches" found in nearby phrases.
Line 77 "number" instead of "numbers"
Lines 73-78 too long phrase; confusing and unclear. Please rewrite it.
Also, the Introduction should contain more references to the state of the art on this topic. There is significant literature on urban-rural relationships and their connection with villages types that could be considered.
Materials and Methods. Please rewrite the Study area sub-section and leave it as a separate section. Some suggestions for correction:
Line 15, page 3 do not use comma between the subject and the verb!
Line 16, page 3 The terrain...is high...and low. Please rephrase it. It is not a proper scientific way to formulate.
Line 19, page 3 "three vertical and one horizontal" ?!?
2.2 What "study objects" represent? Try to make a separate sub-section dedicated to data or merge Data and Methods together with 2.3
Line 56, page 5. I think the "Identification of villages multifunctional types" is clear enough for the title.
Line 57, page 5. "selection of Administrative Villages" can be removed
The Results are too extended and detailed. Maybe the authors could make them more concise and easier to be followed by the reader.
Line 31, page 7. Title 3.1 looks like an assertion, not a title. A suggestion could be: Territorial sub-functions mapped by land use types.
Discussions and Conclusions should be a little extended with respect to the discussions part in terms of addressing the current findings in relation to what has been already written in the literature so far.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Foreword

Thank the anonymous reviewer for your helpful and constructive comments which have given us new cognition of our paper. Also, we admit that in this paper there are some deficiency which were pointed out by the earnest and professional reviewer. Thus, we tried our best to add necessary evidences and revise corresponding contents in these sections mentioned to ensure that our paper lives up to its potential.

The following are the details of our revision of this paper in line with the review reports.

 

Point 1: Please revise the title. A suggestion could be: Diversification and Spatial Differentiation of Villages' Functional Types in the New Period of China. Results from Hierarchical Urban-Rural Spatial Relations and Townships Size. However, the authors are free to provide another correct variant.

Response 1: Thank you for your comments and we completely agree with them. We have decided to retitle the paper as” Diversification and Spatial Differentiation of Villages' Functional Types in the New Period of China. Results from Hierarchical Urban-Rural Spatial Relations and Townships Size”.

 

Point 2: The Abstract is generally well written, concise and includes the key aspects of the study.

The Introduction is quite extended but there are issues related to the wording and phrases that should be considered. There are some examples below.

(1) Lines 28-29. Not only in China. Please reconsider this assertion. Urban-rural relationships are dictating local and regional development in many places in the world.

(2) Lines 30-31 "Villages are where farmers live" is not entirely true, please revise. This assertion is immediately counteracted by the idea of multifunctionality described in the next phrase.

(3) Line 54 Try not to start the sentence with "but". Use "however" or some other word that it suits.

(4) Lines 63, 68, 73...try to avoid the repeatability; "researches" found in nearby phrases.

(5) Line 77 "number" instead of "numbers"

(6) Lines 73-78 too long phrase; confusing and unclear. Please rewrite it.

Response 2: Thank you for your approval of this section. Under the guidance of your specific comments, we have made a more detailed elaboration of the background section of the introduction, systematically sorted out the background of the proposed rural territorial multifunction, and made a comprehensive revision of the details you pointed out. Specifically, the revisions are as follows:

(1) We have removed“in China”in line 28, page 1.

(2) We have rephrased the definition of rural areas in terms of Cloke（1984）in lines 34-38, Page 1 as follows：Cloke（1984）believes that rural areas exist on the basis of agricultural and forestry production, contains lots of small and lower-ranking settlements, and engenders a way of life. Rural environment can be subdivided conceptually into functional elements of rural land use and economic development, rural settlements, rural society, communities and so on.

(3) We have replaced "but" with "however" in line 78, page 2.

(4) We have replaced "research", which in line91 and line 94, page 2, with "study".

(5) We have replaced " numbers " with " number " in line 102, page 3.

(6) We have rewritten the sentences in lines 98-105, page 2 as follow: Although above-mentioned progresses have proven the distinctive role played by cities in the differentiation of village multifunctions, they still have not explored in depth the specific mechanisms of urban action on the formation of village functions. As village data is hard to access, the method of identifying rural territorial sub-functions is still limited to the evaluation method, in which the researchers’ experience affects the numbering of villages’ sub-functional types and the construction of the evaluation index systems. Thus different researchers draw varying conclusions.

 

Point 3: The Introduction should contain more references to the state of the art on this topic. There is significant literature on urban-rural relationships and their connection with villages types that could be considered.

Response 3: Following your suggestion, we have added some new literature on urban-rural relationships and village types, as detailed on page 2. And we find that researches that focus on village classification only classify villages in a simple way in terms of 83 function [59-61], while studies that focus on urban-rural relations lack attention to the multifunctional types of rural territories [62-65].

 

Point 4: Materials and Methods. Please rewrite the Study area sub-section and leave it as a separate section. Some suggestions for correction:

(1) Line 15, page 3 do not use comma between the subject and the verb!

(2) Line 16, page 3 The terrain...is high...and low. Please rephrase it. It is not a proper scientific way to formulate.

(3) Line 19, page 3 "three vertical and one horizontal" ?!?

(4)2.2 What "study objects" represent? Try to make a separate sub-section dedicated to data or merge Data and Methods together with 2.3

(5) Line 56, page 5. I think the "Identification of villages multifunctional types" is clear enough for the title.

(6) Line 57, page 5. "selection of Administrative Villages" can be removed

Response 4: We have restructured “2. Materials and Methods” by increasing readability and accessibility. We have upgraded “2.1 Study area” to “2. Study area” in page 3. Specifically, the changes are as follows:

(1) We have removed the comma which was between the subject and the verb in Line 142, page 3, the new sentence in lines 142-143, page 3 as follow: Tai'an city of Shandong province in eastern China is a proper area for the study of multifunctional village types.

(2) We have rephrased the sentence in lines 143-145, page 3 as follows: The topography of Tai’an city decreases from northeast to southwest, and is endowed with complete landform types including mountains, hills, plains and lakes (Figure 1).

(3) We have changed this presentation in Lines 145-146, page 3, such as "three vertical and one horizontal", into“With a road network density of 55km/100 km² and four highways, including G3, G22, G35 and S30, the roads are well developed within the city.”

(4)“Study object” and ” study area” are quite confusing, and the “study object” is also explained in the “Introduction”. Following your suggestion, we combine “study object” and “data source” into section 3.1 in line 160, page 4 to make the structure and presentation of this section clearer.”

(5) Following your suggestion, We have simplified the title as "Identification of villages multifunctional types" in line 179, page 5.

(6) Following your suggestion, we have removed "selection of Administrative Villages" in line 180, page 5.

 

Point 5: The Results are too extended and detailed. Maybe the authors could make them more concise and easier to be followed by the reader.

Response 5: Following your suggestion, we have streamlined the results and given more focus on sections 4.2 and 4.3 in page 10-13.

 

Point 6: Line 31, page 7. Title 3.1 looks like an assertion, not a title. A suggestion could be: Territorial sub-functions mapped by land use types.

Response 6: Following your suggestion, we use the new title as “Rural territorial sub-functions mapped by land use types” in line 253, page 7. We have also streamlined the headings 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.

 

Point 7: Discussions and Conclusions should be a little extended with respect to the discussions part in terms of addressing the current findings in relation to what has been already written in the literature so far.

Response 7: Following your suggestion, we have rewritten the conclusion and discussion section and divided it into two parts, as detailed in page15-17.

 

In addition, during the revision process, We have proofread the entire paper again. Then some inaccurate expressions are have also been revised through using “Track Changes”. If there is still something wrong, please give us your valuable opinions, and we will do our best to make improvement.

Thank you again for your helpful and valuable comments on this manuscript.

 

Yours,

The authors

Beijing, China

April 01, 2022

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In an initial review  this paper suggest  some  deficiences, mainly associates with   the inadecuate review of the literature. The paper need a section of literature   review with some key authors: Hoggart 2001 JRS work on reestructuring, the more recent work of Woods in global rural, the recent work of Marsden on global rural development. Please use, also, the classical   contributions of  Cloke in quantitative sources in the definition of the rural.

Use the new literature, also, in rewrite the introduction and the conclusion.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Foreword

Thank the anonymous reviewer for your helpful and constructive comments which have given us new cognition of our paper. Also, we admit that in this paper there are some deficiency which were pointed out by the earnest and professional reviewer. Thus, we tried our best to add necessary evidences and revise corresponding contents in these sections mentioned to ensure that our paper lives up to its potential.

The following are the details of our revision of this paper in line with the review reports.

Point 1: In an initial review this paper suggest some deficiences, mainly associates with the inadecuate review of the literature. The paper need a section of literature review with some key authors: Hoggart 2001 JRS work on restructuring, the more recent work of Woods in global rural, the recent work of Marsden on global rural development. Please use, also, the classical contributions of Cloke in quantitative sources in the definition of the rural.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Prior to writing this paper, research advances in rural multifunctionality were systematically analyzed. However, unfortunately, those were not included in the writing of this paper. It made the introductory section rather abrupt without transition and went directly to the research topic.

Several of the scholars you mentioned are relatively well-known in the field. Hoggart argues that rural multifunctional transformation is a big change rather than a restructuring. In wood's book "Rural", he systematically reviewed several stages of agricultural and rural development as “resource capitalism-productivism-post-productivism-multifunctionalism”. While Marsden started to focus on the transformation of rural development from the perspective of agricultural multi-functionality, Cloke proposed a more classical concept of the rural areas based on a systematic review of scholars' debates.

Therefore, on the basis of the contributions made by above mentioned scholars to the study of rural multifunctionality, we have added a research progress section about rural multifunctionality in the introduction and drawn on their thoughts through our research, making the paper more meaningful. Details on line 31, page 1 to line 63, page 2.

Point 2: Use the new literature, also, in rewrite the introduction and the conclusion.

Response 2: Following your suggestion, we have added some new literature on urban-rural relationships and village types, as detailed on page 4, and found that researches that focus on village classification only classify villages in a simple way in terms of 83 function [59-61], while studies that focus on urban-rural relations lack attention to the multifunctional types of rural territories [62-65].

We found that the discussion in the paper was indeed inadequate，so we have rewritten the conclusion and discussion section and divided it into two parts, as detailed on page15-17.

In addition, during the revision process, we have proofread the entire paper again. Then some inaccurate expressions have also been revised using “Track Changes”. If there is still something wrong, please give us your valuable opinions, and we will do our best to make improvement.

Thank you again for your helpful and valuable comments on this manuscript.

 

Yours,

The authors

Beijing, China

April 01, 2022

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In this form the article is significantly improved. However, some corrections related to the use of some terms must be considered. For example: use of relief instead of topographic relief (lines 143, 229, 510, Table 1). Also, the use of topographic structure (line 159) is incorrect. Authors can simply use topography or relief.
Line 427 - higher altitudes instead of greater topographic relief
Line 434 - highest altitudes instead of highest topographic relief

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Foreword

Thank the anonymous reviewer for your helpful and constructive comments which have given us new cognition of our paper. After careful proofreading, we found that the terms you suggested were indeed used improperly, and we have proofread and corrected the entire text exactly as you suggested.

Point 1: use of relief instead of topographic relief (lines 143, 229, 510, Table 1). Also, the use of topographic structure (line 159) is incorrect. Authors can simply use topography or relief.
Line 427 - higher altitudes instead of greater topographic relief
Line 434 - highest altitudes instead of highest topographic relief

Response 1: Thank you for your comments and we completely agree with them. We have used relief instead of topographic relief in lines 154 (Page4), 240 (Page6), 521(Page15), Table 1(Page7), Table 5(Page12). And have used topography instead of topographic structure in line170, page4.

We have also used higher altitudes instead of greater topographic relief in line 438, page13 and line445, page13.

Thank you again for your helpful and valuable comments on this manuscript.

Yours,

The authors

Beijing, China

April 01, 2022

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper need some minor changes please chek the Hoggart reference in the text. TWO authors. Besides need a great reflexion about the role of chinese case study in the international literature. Main ly european. Please remake the conclusion secton.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Foreword

Thank the anonymous reviewer for your helpful and constructive comments which have given us new cognition of our paper. After careful analysis, we fully agree with your suggestions and have made the following cross-references modifications.

Point 1: This paper need some minor changes please chek the Hoggart reference in the text. TWO authors.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. After careful checking, we found that we did omit the second author of the reference due to carelessness in literature citation, which did not show enough respect for the second author. Thus we have added the name of the second author, and once again, we thank you very much for your carefulness.

Point 2: Besides need a great reflexion about the role of chinese case study in the international literature. Mainly european. Please remake the conclusion secton.

Response 2: Comparing existing studies in China with the international literature, especially the European literature, we found the difference between the two. Chinese research is on a much larger scale and focus more on research of laws. While the scale of the European research object is smaller, the research areas are available in large and small sizes. European researches do not only explore laws on macro-scale but also focus on the endogenous mechanisms. In this context, this thesis is closer to the European research paradigm, and there are also some differences and innovations. Based on above comparison, supplementary discussions have been added to the introduction and conclusion sections.

The additions are as follows:

Lin 94, Page1 - Lin 104, Page 2: In comparison, foreign studies are smaller in scale and go deeper, which is conducive to exploring the endogenous mechanisms of rural multifunctions. However, researches in China often focus more on larger scale research objects and external laws, making the researches more suitable for directly guiding local development. However, scholars have realized that the development of rural areas in China significantly differs from that in western countries, and the foreign explanations of the endogenous mechanism of rural functions can’t be fully applied to China, and require in-depth study in terms of the development characteristics of the basic units and ways of working against the national conditions and development stage of China. Only by doing so, can we make a better judgment on the trend of the evolution of external laws and can our researches be really conducive to guiding China in making rural revitalization strategy.

Line 601-618, Page 17: This study, focusing more on small-scale units, is significantly different from existing studies in China and is closer to international studies, especially to European studies. However, compared to European studies, this paper has several differences and advances. First, the intensity measurement of sub-function uses the comparative index of location entropy, which is more favorable to measure the externality of sub-function compared with the indexes of evaluation index system, land size and population density [37, 39, 53]. Second, on the basis of type division, this paper discusses the spatial distribution pattern of each type from the perspective of geography, especially through the circle structure composed of different levels of central cities and towns. Compared with discussion only on the characteristics of type division or singular circle structure centered only one central city [77, 78], this paper helps to revisit the compositeness and complexity of urban-rural relations. To put village studies in the bigger picture of urban-rural relations makes the understanding of village multifunctions more systematic. Third, this thesis makes deeper study on urban-rural relations. It quantitatively measures the impact of urban-rural relationship on village functional types and verifies that the causes of rural territorial multifunctional types are more closely related to the rural participation in urban-rural labor division. In this connection, this thesis also provides an empirical supplement to rural restructuring mechanism [20-21].

Thank you again for your helpful and valuable comments on this manuscript.

Yours,

The authors

Beijing, China

April 01, 2022

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf