Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title & Abstract:

• The title does reflect the scope: spatial connectivity, development potential, traditional villages, and case study location.
• However, the word “Research on” is unnecessary and weakens the impact. Title should be precise and focused.
• It seems your abstract starts directly with “Traditional villages… have garnered global attention” >> without specifically identify the specific gap.
• No clear of the methodology in the abstract 

Intro:

• Too many repetition for the term "protection and utilization" - not very good for a reputable journal
• very long paragraph/only 1 paragraph for introduction. I think it can be divided into few shorter paragraphs
• line 56: you need to offer some insights why the lack of research covering the collective aspects?
• line 59-63 - says who? provide references / avoid making speculative statement

Method:

• section 2.1 - no citation. statements are not clear need to re-write this paragraph.
• line 87, 81.1% - no sources where this data come from, what year?
• line 89 - confusing statement "There are 3,922 natural villages with more than 50 households in this region" - what do you mean by 50 HH? is it 1 village had at least 50HH? or not 50? you also used natural village - is it same with traditional village? because later on your refer the study area with the term traditional village.
• your first photos - line 109 without any comments or explanations - need some explanations
• Figure 2 - not readable / poor quality table for journal publication
• section 2.2 - no proper introduction of this 2.2. you go straight to explaining Kernel Density Analysis Method without prior justifications of the method selection (or its applications by other studies elsewhere in China or outside China)
• no mention about these methods in the abstract

Analysis & Results:

• line 229-231 - where these values (0-500); (500-1653) come from? why no mention about this categorization in the methodology section?
• issue with poor quality of map (this applied to all maps/figures) - poor quality does not help your readers
• line 260-261 - How did these five categories suddenly appear? Why were they not highlighted in the literature review section?
• section 3.1.2 - The arguments in this section appears weak, as it lacks clear connections to the literature review or earlier conceptual discussions.
• Fig 4 - again, poor quality figure and not suitable for journal publication
• line 279-282 - >80%, how do you calculate and come out with this figure 80%? or 35%?; figure 5 does not include terrain features information; lack of information on the GIS analysis; explanation seems quite brief and the results were not critically discussed.
• Fig 7 - The discussion needs to delve deeper into why these connections, results, or patterns emerge. In particular, it should explain the historical influences between these settlements that have shaped their current interconnections
• Given that the subject matter concerns traditional villages, the lack of historical
  context weakens the discussion. The manuscript should examine how past events have shaped the present situation.
• why same table 8 & 9? (copy-paste error?) should not happen
• line 400 - you did not specify how these strategies were gathered and/or validated?
• looks like an oversimplified strategies: e.g. ordinary villages may be undervalued, even though cultural heritage might not  align neatly with economic “potential". or; for opportunistic villages, the call to attract external investments may  disempower local communities and create risks of external exploitation or gentrification. The strategy lacks attention to institutional capacity, governance frameworks, and  community participation, which are critical for implementation.
• i think the overall strategies emphasis more on the top-down, infrastructure & economical driven while neglecting other crucial aspects / indicators including social, cultural and historical dimensions

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• The English language requires proofreading (please refer to my comments in the original article/PDF document)

 

Author Response

Title & Abstract

Comments 1: The title does reflect the scope: spatial connectivity, development potential, traditional villages, and case study location. However, the word “Research on” is unnecessary and weakens the impact. Title should be precise and focused.

 Response 1: Spatial Connectivity and Development Potential of Traditional Villages in Cluster Areas: A Case Study of Qiandongnan Miao and Dong Autonomous Prefecture.

Comments 2: It seems your abstract starts directly with “Traditional villages… have garnered global attention” , without specifically identify the specific gap.

 Response 2: The specific gaps have been addressed in the Introduction. Due to the character limit in the Abstract, we focused on providing an explanatory overview there.

Comments 3: No clear of the methodology in the abstract 

 Response 3: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised and added the content accordingly.

INTRO

Comments 4: Too many repetition for the term "protection and utilization" - not very good for a reputable journal

 Response 4: Conservation and utilization represent both the primary objective of cultural heritage research and a fundamental government mandate. Consequently, the term "conservation and utilization" frequently appears in the text. However, we have refined its phrasing in certain instances to enhance rhetorical effectiveness and improve the overall flow of the discourse.

Comments 5: Very long paragraph/only 1 paragraph for introduction. I think it can be divided into few shorter paragraphs

 Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. Regarding the concern that "the introduction consisted of only one overly long paragraph," we have now divided the original single paragraph into several shorter ones and reorganized them according to the logical flow.

The introduction now follows a clear structure: it begins with the international and national research background, followed by the research demands concerning the subject, identifies the gaps in existing studies, and explains the rationale for selecting our study sample along with the research significance. This restructuring has significantly enhanced the hierarchy and logical clarity, making it easier for readers to grasp the foundation and innovative value of our study. 

Comments 6: You need to offer some insights why the lack of research covering the collective aspects? (line 56)

 Response 6: The concept of cluster-based conservation and development of traditional villages was proposed in 2020, initiated by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China through the organization of the "Traditional Villages Centralized and Contiguous Conservation and Utilization Demonstration Project". As mentioned earlier, due to its recent inception and the inherent inertia of individual village development, current literature reviews reveal a scarcity of research findings on the cluster-based development of traditional villages.

Comments 7: Line 59-63 - Says who? provide references / avoid making speculative statement.

 Response 7: As noted by scholars conducting research on clustering, and as the authors have also identified this issue, a summary has been provided based on the studies by relevant researchers, and the appropriate citations have been added.

METHOD

Comments 8: Section 2.1 no citation. statements are not clear need to re-write this paragraph.(section 2.1 )

 Response 8: This section is primarily derived from publicly available materials published by the Qiandongnan Prefecture government and published papers accessible online. Appropriate citations have been added, and the content has been rewritten for optimization.

Comments 9: No sources where this data come from, what year?(line 87, 81.1% )

 Response 9: The data was sourced from publicly available information published by the local government of Qiandongnan Prefecture in 2024. It has been supplemented and revised accordingly.

Comments 10: Confusing statement "There are 3,922 natural villages with more than 50 households in this region" - what do you mean by 50 HH? is it 1 village had at least 50HH? or not 50? you also used natural village - is it same with traditional village? because later on your refer the study area with the term traditional village. (line 89)

 Response 10: “Fifty households” refers to fifty families. A village comprising fifty households is considered a significant settlement of considerable size. In China, villages are categorized based on their distinct characteristics for administrative purposes. Those with a majority ethnic minority population are designated as Ethnic Minority Villages. Naturally formed human settlements in non-urban areas are termed Natural Villages. Those recognized for their rich historical and cultural value, distinctive features, and well-preserved state are classified as Traditional Villages. A natural village can be a settlement point within a traditional village. Furthermore, due to cultural diversity, traditional villages encompass various types, among which ethnic minority villages are one category. The original text has been revised accordingly.

Comments 11: Your first photos - line 109 without any comments or explanations - need some explanations.

 Response 11: We have revised and supplemented the content accordingly. Please see the manuscript for details.

Comments 12: Figure 2 - not readable / poor quality table for journal publication

 Response 12: The images were compressed and have been technically processed and updated.

Comments 13: Section 2.2 - no proper introduction of this 2.2. you go straight to explaining Kernel Density Analysis Method without prior justifications of the method selection (or its applications by other studies elsewhere in China or outside China)

 Response 13: The overall research approach has been elaborated upon after Section 2.2, where the research logic has been streamlined and the research methodology and content have been reorganized. Please refer to the main text for details.

Comments 14: No mention about these methods in the abstract.

 Response 14: The manuscript has been revised and supplemented accordingly.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Comments 15: Line 229-231 - where these values (0-500); (500-1653) come from? why no mention about this categorization in the methodology section?

 Response 15: The numerical values are derived from the kernel density analysis results and correspond to the numbers in the legend. The image became unclear after compression and has been technically processed.

Comments 16:  Issue with poor quality of map (this applied to all maps/figures) - poor quality does not help your readers

 Response 16: The images became unclear after compression and have been technically processed and replaced.

Comments 17: Line 260-261 - How did these five categories suddenly appear? Why were they not highlighted in the literature review section?

 Response 17: Based on a field investigation into the current development status of 415 traditional villages in Qiandongnan Prefecture, this study has identified five primary development types. These findings, resulting from my on-the-ground visits to all 415 villages, constitute a key research outcome of this work. A brief explanation has been provided at the beginning of the article section to introduce these types, aiming to facilitate a deeper analysis of the spatial distribution characteristics of village development types within the broader spatiotemporal distribution patterns of traditional villages. While the literature review mentions existing research on traditional village development models, this section applies and extends existing classification methodologies in depth. The manuscript has been revised accordingly, with appropriate citations added to reference prior studies and the text supplemented to reflect this analysis. 

Comments 18: Section 3.1.2 - The arguments in this section appears weak, as it lacks clear connections to the literature review or earlier conceptual discussions.

 Response 18: The research findings were derived from an analysis of the current situation combined with the author's synthesis. This section primarily summarizes the identified issues, serving to pave the way for subsequent development planning.

Comments 19: Fig 4 - again, poor quality figure and not suitable for journal publication

 Response 19: Replacement and technical processing have been completed.

Comments 20: Line 279-282 - >80%, how do you calculate and come out with this figure 80%? or 35%?; figure 5 does not include terrain features information; lack of information on the GIS analysis; explanation seems quite brief and the results were not critically discussed.

 Response 20: The data was derived from GIS calculations and statistical analysis. The results and their graphical representations have been revised and updated. Missing data expressions have been supplemented on the figures.

Comments 21: Fig 7 - The discussion needs to delve deeper into why these connections, results, or patterns emerge. In particular, it should explain the historical influences between these settlements that have shaped their current interconnections

 Response 21: Revised as suggested. We have now delved deeper into the topic by integrating its spatial distribution patterns, developmental types, and network relationships. The reasons behind these phenomena were analyzed, and their current interconnections were explained within the historical context and current policy trends. Recommendations for future conservation and development strategies were provided. Please refer to the manuscript for specific modifications.

Comments 22: Given that the subject matter concerns traditional villages, the lack of historical context weakens the discussion. The manuscript should examine how past events have shaped the present situation.

 Response 22: The manuscript has been revised. Discussions on the influence of social and historical contexts have been incorporated into the analysis of both the structural characteristics and development typologies of traditional villages in Chapter 3.

Comments 23: Why same table 8 & 9? (copy-paste error?) should not happen.

 Response 23: We have revised the manuscript accordingly.

Comments 24: Line 400 - you did not specify how these strategies were gathered and/or validated?

 Response 24: We acknowledge that the original manuscript lacked clarity in the methodological description. In the revised version, we have supplemented the description to clarify that the proposed strategy is based on a comprehensive analysis of three key aspects: (1) the results from the aforementioned spatial network analysis; (2) the classification of village types derived from factors such as traditional village functions, cultural resources, and ecological conditions, where different types entail different needs; and (3) practical experiences and feedback obtained through semi-structured interviews conducted during field investigations with village officials, planners, and local administrators. Furthermore, as professionals in urban and rural planning, with a particular focus on regional spatial functional structure planning—a core emphasis of our discipline—we have enhanced the strategy's rationale and practicality by cross-referencing it with local development planning documents and field observations

Comments 25: Looks like an oversimplified strategies: e.g. ordinary villages may be undervalued, even though cultural heritage might not  align neatly with economic “potential". or; for opportunistic villages, the call to attract external investments may  disempower local communities and create risks of external exploitation or gentrification. The strategy lacks attention to institutional capacity, governance frameworks, and  community participation, which are critical for implementation.

 Response 25: We concur with your perspective. As rural managers who have long been engaged in village service, our team members deeply appreciate the gap between ideal principles and on-the-ground realities. Qiandongnan Prefecture is located in Guizhou and is considered a less developed region within China. Precisely because of its lower economic development, its cultural resources are well-preserved, yet villagers face significant poverty. For the local government, development is both a governmental imperative and the primary means to encourage villagers to stay. However, the number of traditional villages is large and continues to grow steadily, while development resources are finite. Village development necessarily must occur in batches, awaiting opportune timing. Those with outstanding foundational conditions and advantages develop first; those with potential but requiring substantial investment develop later. The villages that develop first then help drive the development of others, forming a virtuous cycle. Consequently, in our practical development strategy, facing limited investment and a vast number of villages, the optimal approach involves a graded assessment of development potential based on protection priorities. We prioritize developing the easier cases first. For other villages, although historically rooted poverty has left many appearing pristine, aesthetically pleasing, and livable, for the residents, life often lacks modern conveniences and sufficient infrastructure. The advantages of the natural ecological environment are often insufficient to compensate for the inconveniences in living conditions. Therefore, for villages with currently limited development potential, our primary focus is initially on improving essential infrastructure to make people willing to remain.

Comments 26: I think the overall strategies emphasis more on the top-down, infrastructure & economical driven while neglecting other crucial aspects / indicators including social, cultural and historical dimensions

 Response 26: We fully concur with your criticism. In the original version, we overemphasized the optimization of infrastructure and network structure, neglecting aspects such as institutional building, social capital, and cultural continuity. In this revision, we have adjusted and supplemented the strategy system by adding the following elements: Strengthening the villager participation mechanism to guide the active involvement of village residents in the planning and implementation process; Enhancing grassroots governance capabilities and institutional support systems, particularly establishing sustainable management mechanisms in resource-weak villages; Emphasizing the continuity of ethnic minority cultures and the adaptability of lifestyles, positioning cultural heritage as a crucial support for the sustained revitalization of villages.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

GENERAL IMPRESSIONS: Having read this manuscript, I find that this paper constructs a land use evaluation system that explores spatiotemporal patterns of land use functions in the context of traditional villages in China. This is very relevant for the preservation of UNESCO heritage areas. Below are my comments on the manuscript.

TITLE: The title “Research on the Spatial Connectivity and Development Potential of Traditional Villages in Cluster Areas: A Case Study of the Qiandongnan Miao and Dong Autonomous Prefecture” is verbose and can be confusing to understand. We must accept that the title must not describe every characteristic of the case study, but is used to provide an overall understanding of the subject of the paper. In that regard, perhaps, the authors should consider shortening the title to make it more concise, succinct and message-focused. For instance, the title “Spatial Connectivity and Development of Traditional Villages in the Qiandongnan Miao and Dong Autonomous Prefecture of China” would be more suited.

ABSTRACT: This part appears to be incomplete in its presentation. The manuscript stated that “Traditional villages, as significant cultural heritage, have garnered global scholarly attention” and that the “It explores the spatial connectivity and development potential of these villages” and then immediately delved into the findings of the study. What happened to the methodology applied in reaching those findings? This is an essential but missing piece that readers would love to grasp lightly from the abstract. I suggest describing lightly the how-to aspect of conducting the research or study. This requires introducing at least 2-3 sentences on the methodological aspect of the study before stating the findings.

Section 1: This part is also, for the most part, well presented. However, it lacks a rigorous introduction that embraces the global context of Spatial Connectivity and rural Development. This is expected because the manuscript is hinged around UNESCO World Heritage contexts, which are international. Instead, the authors have too much focus on the Chinese orientation on the subject. Why not introduce a global orientation too?

SECTION 2: The methodology comes with a detailed research framework presented in visual and textual forms. It has a well-structured model presented for its analysis. However, the captioning of that section is a little problematic. What do the authors mean by “Research Subject and Methods?” I guess it is like saying case study and methods. If that is the case, then I advise presenting this more logically because a case study is itself a research method. This makes the caption tautologous and confusing. I suggest captioning that section simply as “Methodology” then under it have subsections on “Case study areas,” “methods”, and ....

 

SECTION 3: These sections are well presented – visually and textually. But again, it is inappropriately captioned. It is captioned as “Results and Analysis” instead of “Results or findings.”  The analysis has been described in Section 2, so it should not be referred to directly in Section 3. Moreso, you do not present results and analysis. Instead, you analyse and present results. But you can show results and discuss. However, a “Results and Discussion” title would not work since section 4 is entirely dedicated to the discussion. So, I suggest recaptioning this section to reflect “Results or findings.”

 

SECTIONS 4 & 5: The discussion and conclusion are lean (especially the conclusion). So, I suggest combining them to become a final section on “Discussion and Conclusion” or Conclusion and Discussion”. In reframing these into one section, the policy implications (at China and global levels) must also be stated, as well as the potential limitations for the research.

 

REFERENCE: Even though the authors recognise that “Traditional villages, as significant cultural heritage, have garnered global scholarly attention” (as stated in the abstract), the manuscript did not reflect a global standing or representation in its reference list. 99% of the entire citation and reference are drawn from Chinese literature or Chinese scholars. Why not be more global and draw ideas from scholars around the world? That will help broaden the readership of the manuscript and give the ideas therein a more diversified footing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is understandable. However it can be improved during the next round of review by making the long sentences less verbose. This is necessary to further improve readability and rate of comprehension.

Author Response

TITLE

Comments 1: The title “Research on the Spatial Connectivity and Development Potential of Traditional Villages in Cluster Areas: A Case Study of the Qiandongnan Miao and Dong Autonomous Prefecture” is verbose and can be confusing to understand. We must accept that the title must not describe every characteristic of the case study, but is used to provide an overall understanding of the subject of the paper. In that regard, perhaps, the authors should consider shortening the title to make it more concise, succinct and message-focused. For instance, the title “Spatial Connectivity and Development of Traditional Villages in the Qiandongnan Miao and Dong Autonomous Prefecture of China” would be more suited.

 Response 1: The title has been revised to meet the requirements for a concise and refined academic paper title. However, since the most distinctive characteristic of traditional villages in Qiandongnan Miao and Dong Autonomous Prefecture is their clustered distribution, and the region has been designated as a Demonstration Area for the Concentrated and Contiguous Protection and Development of Traditional Villages, the keyword "Cluster Areas" has been retained in the title.

ABSTRACT

Comments 2: This part appears to be incomplete in its presentation. The manuscript stated that “Traditional villages, as significant cultural heritage, have garnered global scholarly attention” and that the “It explores the spatial connectivity and development potential of these villages” and then immediately delved into the findings of the study. What happened to the methodology applied in reaching those findings? This is an essential but missing piece that readers would love to grasp lightly from the abstract. I suggest describing lightly the how-to aspect of conducting the research or study. This requires introducing at least 2-3 sentences on the methodological aspect of the study before stating the findings.

 Response 2: The suggested revisions have been addressed in the revised manuscript. Please refer to the main text for details.

Comments 3: Section 1: This part is also, for the most part, well presented. However, it lacks a rigorous introduction that embraces the global context of Spatial Connectivity and rural Development. This is expected because the manuscript is hinged around UNESCO World Heritage contexts, which are international. Instead, the authors have too much focus on the Chinese orientation on the subject. Why not introduce a global orientation too?

 Response 3: This study synthesized relevant research on traditional villages both within China and internationally. It revealed that current studies, whether in China or abroad, predominantly focus on individual case studies. These analyses typically emphasize aspects such as the degree of cultural preservation and continuity, landscape features, intrinsic value, influencing factors, and development models. A review of existing domestic and international literature identified a relative scarcity of research from a group or cluster perspective. While there are international studies on historical and cultural heritage that employ a group approach—with some research samples even exceeding 100 historical sites—the primary objects of such studies are often urban historical relics like fortresses and churches, with historical village clusters being rarely examined. We acknowledge that our initial focus within a global perspective was indeed insufficient. Consequently, we have supplemented our analysis with a review of international research on 'connectivity,' finding that it primarily addresses the flow of both material and non-material elements within spaces, such as spatial connectivity, accessibility, and public interaction. This focus is crucial for the sustainable development of the studied subjects. Simultaneously, to enhance readability, the structure of the introduction has been reorganized along the framework of "domestic and international research background → the research needs of the subject → shortcomings of existing studies → the rationale for selecting our study sample and the research significance." This restructuring has strengthened the sense of hierarchy and logical clarity, making it easier for readers to grasp the foundation and innovative value of our research.

Comments 4: Section 2: The methodology comes with a detailed research framework presented in visual and textual forms. It has a well-structured model presented for its analysis. However, the captioning of that section is a little problematic. What do the authors mean by “Research Subject and Methods?” I guess it is like saying case study and methods. If that is the case, then I advise presenting this more logically because a case study is itself a research method. This makes the caption tautologous and confusing. I suggest captioning that section simply as “Methodology” then under it have subsections on “Case study areas,” “methods”, and ....

 Response 4: The manuscript has been revised. The application process of the research methodology and the overall research logic have been elaborated in detail following a graphical and textual model, and a detailed research framework has been formulated. Regarding the inaccuracy in the expression of the chapter title, it has been modified. This chapter introduces the research object, explaining why the traditional villages in Qiandongnan Prefecture were selected as the study case and demonstrating their typicality. Specific modifications can be found in the main text.

Comments 5: Section 3: These sections are well presented – visually and textually. But again, it is inappropriately captioned. It is captioned as “Results and Analysis” instead of “Results or findings.”  The analysis has been described in Section 2, so it should not be referred to directly in Section 3. Moreso, you do not present results and analysis. Instead, you analyse and present results. But you can show results and discuss. However, a “Results and Discussion” title would not work since section 4 is entirely dedicated to the discussion. So, I suggest recaptioning this section to reflect “Results or findings.”

 Response 5: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion. We agree and have revised the manuscript accordingly. 

Comments 6: Sections 4 & 5: The discussion and conclusion are lean (especially the conclusion). So, I suggest combining them to become a final section on “Discussion and Conclusion” or Conclusion and Discussion”. In reframing these into one section, the policy implications (at China and global levels) must also be stated, as well as the potential limitations for the research.

 Response 6: We agree with your suggestion and have revised both sections accordingly. Specifically, we have supplemented the Conclusion section by adding reflections on the study, summarizing its limitations, and proposing future research directions. Due to the increased content after revision, we have maintained the two-chapter structure. Please refer to the main text for detailed modifications. 

REFERENCE

Comments 7: Even though the authors recognise that “Traditional villages, as significant cultural heritage, have garnered global scholarly attention” (as stated in the abstract), the manuscript did not reflect a global standing or representation in its reference list. 99% of the entire citation and reference are drawn from Chinese literature or Chinese scholars. Why not be more global and draw ideas from scholars around the world? That will help broaden the readership of the manuscript and give the ideas therein a more diversified footing.

 Response 7: We acknowledge this valid point. Indeed, our initial literature review primarily featured work by Chinese scholars, which reflects the current state of the field as the study of Traditional Chinese Villages has primarily garnered significant research attention within China. Following the reviewer's suggestion, we have now systematically reviewed and incorporated several international research findings related to 'cultural heritage spatial connectivity' and 'public participation' into the literature review. Please refer to the revised manuscript for detailed modifications.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your outstanding contribution. The manuscript demonstrates very clear language expression, logical thinking, and rigorous argumentation, which reflect your solid academic literacy and research attitude. I greatly appreciate this effort. Below are several suggestions for improvement, which I hope will be helpful for the publication of this manuscript.

1. Introduction:

(1) In Lines 53–54, the authors state: “At present, academic research on traditional village development has mainly focused on individual cases”. In Lines 56–63, they write: “Although there are group studies on historical and cultural heritage in the world, and there are historical and cultural sites with a research sample of more than 100, the research objects are mainly historical sites in towns such as fortresses and churches [21–25], and there are few historical villages. A small number of studies on the traditional village clusters in China mainly concentrated on distribution characteristics, cluster unit division, and protection strategies, lacking analysis of interior spatial connectivity, influencing factors and development potential measurement.”

I think that judgments about the focus or shortcomings of research in a given field should not be based on only a few references. I suggest that the authors conduct a keyword search in mainstream English literature databases (such as WOS), and provide details of the search date, criteria, and results in the appendix, so that readers can verify and evaluate the authors’ claims.

(2) I recommend the authors expand the statements in Lines 63–78 to provide a deeper explanation of the specific theoretical value and practical significance of this study.

(3) I recommend that the authors add “Figure 1 Research Framework” at the end of the Introduction section to visually present the research design, methodology, and content, along with corresponding explanatory text.

2. Research Subject and Methods:

(1) I recommend that the authors revise the title of this subsection to “Materials and Methods” according to the writing template of Land.

(2) I recommend that the authors add references to one of the research methods adopted in this manuscript, namely “the Nearest Neighbor Index“.

(3) I recommend that the authors provide a precise description in the appendix of the data types described in Lines 206–215.

(4) I recommend that the authors specify in the appendix the acquisition time of the data mentioned in Lines 206–215, “(4) The commuting time data is sourced from the commuting time data scraping on Baidu Maps”, accurate to the day.

3. Results and Analysis:

(1) According to the Land journal’s formatting requirements, the title of this subsection should be revised to “Results”.

(2) I recommend the authors revise “Table 4. The number and proportion of tangent points in traditional villages in Qiandongnan” into “Figure 8. The characteristics of tangent points in traditional villages in Qiandongnan”, and describe it in the main text. This is because the table conveys relatively limited information, all of which is already reflected in the figure.

4. Discussion:

For the convenience of readers, I suggest dividing the discussion into two key points, presented in the form of (1) and (2), with two subsection titles added.

5. Conclusions:

(1) I recommend that the authors add a statement on the limitations of this study at the end of this section, for example, discussing aspects such as data sources and research methods, and proposing possible solutions for the future.

(2) The discussion in this part is somewhat insufficient. From a reader’s perspective, I hope the authors can further elaborate on possible directions and issues for future research, or discuss the practical application pathways of the conclusions drawn in this manuscript.

6. Other Suggestion:

The citation format of Reference 26 is incorrect and should be revised.

Author Response

INTRODUCTION

Comments 1: In Lines 53–54, the authors state: “At present, academic research on traditional village development has mainly focused on individual cases”. In Lines 56–63, they write: “Although there are group studies on historical and cultural heritage in the world, and there are historical and cultural sites with a research sample of more than 100, the research objects are mainly historical sites in towns such as fortresses and churches [21–25], and there are few historical villages. A small number of studies on the traditional village clusters in China mainly concentrated on distribution characteristics, cluster unit division, and protection strategies, lacking analysis of interior spatial connectivity, influencing factors and development potential measurement.”

I think that judgments about the focus or shortcomings of research in a given field should not be based on only a few references. I suggest that the authors conduct a keyword search in mainstream English literature databases (such as WOS), and provide details of the search date, criteria, and results in the appendix, so that readers can verify and evaluate the authors’ claims.

I recommend the authors expand the statements in Lines 63–78 to provide a deeper explanation of the specific theoretical value and practical significance of this study.

 Response 1: The manuscript has been thoroughly revised. The logical flow of the paragraphs has been restructured and augmented, enhancing the theoretical value, practical implications, and international comparability of the study. Specific changes can be found throughout the revised text.

Comments 2: I recommend that the authors add “Figure 1 Research Framework” at the end of the Introduction section to visually present the research design, methodology, and content, along with corresponding explanatory text.

 Response 2: We have incorporated a research framework at the conclusion of Chapter 1 and the beginning of Chapter 2, providing a clear outline of the research objectives, methodology, subject, and content.

RESEARCH SUBJECT AND METHODS

Comments 3: I recommend that the authors revise the title of this subsection to “Materials and Methods” according to the writing template of Land.

 Response 3: The manuscript has been revised. Although this study does not involve experimental materials, it requires a detailed explanation of the research subject. Therefore, this section has been renamed "Research Object and Methods". 

Comments 4: I recommend that the authors add references to one of the research methods adopted in this manuscript, namely “the Nearest Neighbor Index“.

 Response 4: We have revised the manuscript accordingly. 

Comments 5: I recommend that the authors provide a precise description in the appendix of the data types described in Lines 206–215.

 Response 5: The data was compiled from multiple sources and organized into the final table as the raw dataset. Due to confidentiality requirements from the local government entities involved, the complete raw database cannot be publicly disclosed. However, screenshots of selected portions of the data have been provided in the Appendix for reference.

Comments 6: I recommend that the authors specify in the appendix the acquisition time of the data mentioned in Lines 206–215, “ The commuting time data is sourced from the commuting time data scraping on Baidu Maps”, accurate to the day.

 Response 6: We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the suggestions.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Comments 7: According to the Land journal’s formatting requirements, the title of this subsection should be revised to “Results”.

 Response 7: We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the suggestions.

Comments 8: I recommend the authors revise “Table 4. The number and proportion of tangent points in traditional villages in Qiandongnan” into “Figure 8. The characteristics of tangent points in traditional villages in Qiandongnan”, and describe it in the main text. This is because the table conveys relatively limited information, all of which is already reflected in the figure.

 Response 8: We have revised the manuscript accordingly.

DISCUSSION

Comments 9: For the convenience of readers, I suggest dividing the discussion into two key points, presented in the form of (1) and (2), with two subsection titles added.

 Response 9: We have revised the manuscript accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

Comments 10: I recommend that the authors add a statement on the limitations of this study at the end of this section, for example, discussing aspects such as data sources and research methods, and proposing possible solutions for the future. The discussion in this part is somewhat insufficient. From a reader’s perspective, I hope the authors can further elaborate on possible directions and issues for future research, or discuss the practical application pathways of the conclusions drawn in this manuscript.

 Response 10: We acknowledge this issue in our study. We have deepened the discussion by integrating existing research findings, supplemented with reflections on the study, summarized its limitations, and proposed future research directions. However, considering the logical flow of the chapters and the overall number of sections, we have incorporated the discussions on limitations and prospects into the Conclusion section. Please refer to the main text for detailed modifications.

OTHER SUGGESTION

Comments 11: The citation format of Reference 26 is incorrect and should be revised.

 Response 11: We have revised the manuscript accordingly.​

 

 

Appendix A: Literature Search Details

Database: Web of Science Core Collection

Search Date: 10 September 2025

Time Span: 2000–2025

Document Type: Article, Review

 

Summary of Results

In the Web of Science database, large-scale studies on traditional villages are very limited. Most

English-language publications focus on case studies, distribution features, and conservation

strategies, with research objects mainly being historical urban relics or cultural landscapes.

Quantitative analyses addressing internal spatial connectivity, influencing factors, and

development potential of traditional villages remain extremely scarce. This further underlines the

novelty and necessity of the present study

 

Appendix B. Data Sources and Sample Screenshots

The data in this paper are mainly derived from multiple sources and have been compiled into the final tables as the original dataset. Due to confidentiality requirements of local government data, the complete database cannot be publicly disclosed. Instead, partial screenshots of the processed data tables are provided in this appendix to demonstrate the structure and content of the dataset.

Figure B1. Comprehensive Evaluation Data (excerpt)

 

Figure B2. Development Potential Data (excerpt)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I can see that you have made considerable corrections and improvements based on the previous comments, which have addressed several of my initial inquiries.  However, I recommend improving the overall quality of the figures before the article proceeds to final production.

Author Response

Comment 1: I can see that you have made considerable corrections and improvements based on the previous comments, which have addressed several of my initial inquiries.  However, I recommend improving the overall quality of the figures before the article proceeds to final production.

Response 1: Thank you for the positive feedback and suggestion. We have thoroughly improved the resolution, contrast, and consistency of all figures to meet publication standards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the author for their efforts in revising the manuscript. I have read this revised version of the manuscript, I consider my previous comments to have been addressed almost fully. There is only one aspect, I want to note or call the attention o the authors and editors to. Refer to my no. 4 comment and authors response below (then read my point going forward).

Comments 4 (reviewer's): Section 2: The methodology comes with a detailed research framework presented in visual and textual forms. It has a well-structured model presented for its analysis. However, the captioning of that section is a little problematic. What do the authors mean by “Research Subject and Methods?” I guess it is like saying case study and methods. If that is the case, then I advise presenting this more logically because a case study is itself a research method. This makes the caption tautologous and confusing. I suggest captioning that section simply as “Methodology” then under it have subsections on “Case study areas,” “methods”, and ....

Response 4 (authors'): The manuscript has been revised. The application process of the research methodology and the overall research logic have been elaborated in detail following a graphical and textual model, and a detailed research framework has been formulated. Regarding the inaccuracy in the expression of the chapter title, it has been modified. This chapter introduces the research object, explaining why the traditional villages in Qiandongnan Prefecture were selected as the study case and demonstrating their typicality. Specific modifications can be found in the main text.

Comparing the authors' response to my comments (above), and then subjecting it to the observed changes made to the document, there is definitely a mismatch. The caption for the main methodological section in the revised manuscript was changed to "Research Object and Methods" (refer to section 2.0) and the sub-section now re-titled "Research Object and Brief Introduction" (refer to section 2.1). So the authors did not follow my recommendation to that "This makes the caption tautologous and confusing" and requires "captioning that section simply as 'Methodology' then under it have subsections on 'Case study areas and methods.'” Why call a case study an object? The object of a research is not the research universe, it is rather the specific phenomenon or variable that a researcher aims to study and analyse within a research universe (I do not think I need a citation for this as it is common sense). Unless the authors have a fixation with using the term "object" or "subject," I advise them to use a term that the scientific community will quickly relate to and not get confused reading this section of the manuscript, which by the way I consider well-written. This is an advise and I would not have gone this far if the authors had provided a justification for not adopting the recommendation.

Apart from this minor observation, which bothers on presentation rather than result, I believe this manuscript is generally ready for publication.

Author Response

Comment 1:

I would like to thank the author for their efforts in revising the manuscript. I have read this revised version of the manuscript, I consider my previous comments to have been addressed almost fully. There is only one aspect, I want to note or call the attention o the authors and editors to. Refer to my no. 4 comment and authors response below (then read my point going forward).

Comments 4 (reviewer's): Section 2: The methodology comes with a detailed research framework presented in visual and textual forms. It has a well-structured model presented for its analysis. However, the captioning of that section is a little problematic. What do the authors mean by “Research Subject and Methods?” I guess it is like saying case study and methods. If that is the case, then I advise presenting this more logically because a case study is itself a research method. This makes the caption tautologous and confusing. I suggest captioning that section simply as “Methodology” then under it have subsections on “Case study areas,” “methods”, and ....

Response 4 (authors'): The manuscript has been revised. The application process of the research methodology and the overall research logic have been elaborated in detail following a graphical and textual model, and a detailed research framework has been formulated. Regarding the inaccuracy in the expression of the chapter title, it has been modified. This chapter introduces the research object, explaining why the traditional villages in Qiandongnan Prefecture were selected as the study case and demonstrating their typicality. Specific modifications can be found in the main text.

Comparing the authors' response to my comments (above), and then subjecting it to the observed changes made to the document, there is definitely a mismatch. The caption for the main methodological section in the revised manuscript was changed to "Research Object and Methods" (refer to section 2.0) and the sub-section now re-titled "Research Object and Brief Introduction" (refer to section 2.1). So the authors did not follow my recommendation to that "This makes the caption tautologous and confusing" and requires "captioning that section simply as 'Methodology' then under it have subsections on 'Case study areas and methods.'” Why call a case study an object? The object of a research is not the research universe, it is rather the specific phenomenon or variable that a researcher aims to study and analyse within a research universe (I do not think I need a citation for this as it is common sense). Unless the authors have a fixation with using the term "object" or "subject," I advise them to use a term that the scientific community will quickly relate to and not get confused reading this section of the manuscript, which by the way I consider well-written. This is an advise and I would not have gone this far if the authors had provided a justification for not adopting the recommendation.

Apart from this minor observation, which bothers on presentation rather than result, I believe this manuscript is generally ready for publication.

 

Response 1:

Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We sincerely appreciate your recognition of our revisions and your constructive suggestion regarding the terminology used in the methodology section.

In response to your comment, we have revised the section title from “Research Object and Methods” to “Methodology” as recommended. Additionally, the subsection previously titled “Research Object and Brief Introduction” has been renamed to “Case Study Area” to better align with standard academic terminology and enhance clarity.

We agree that using familiar and precise terminology helps avoid confusion and improves the readability of the manuscript. Your guidance has been very helpful in refining this section.

We have incorporated these changes into the manuscript and believe that the revised structure now more clearly and logically presents the methodological framework. Thank you once again for your insightful comments, which have greatly improved the quality of our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf