Strategic Approaches to Sustainable Rural Development by Harnessing Endogenous Resources to Improve Residents’ Quality of Life

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I believe that the author's revisions are already satisfactory and have addressed all the issues I raised. I suggest accepting the manuscript after minor revisions. I think there is one small issue that needs to be corrected. This issue is that the decimal points in the article should be consistent.

Author Response

I think there is one small issue that needs to be corrected. This issue is that the decimal points in the article should be consistent.

Response: Thank you once again for reviewing our work and for your observations. We have modified and we have improved the all the article and also we have undergone English language editing by MDPI service.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting and original. However there are some parts that need improvement.

1. try to shorten the abstract

2. In the introduction chapter the question/sentence expressed in lines 38 to 41 must be improved it is not clear the meaning. 

3. different methods are used in the articles (PESTEL, SWOT, DEPSIR, SOR,) that are not explained in the text. In my opinion they should be slightly introduced in the first part of the chapter explaining the reasons for their use and the originality that these methods give to rural development analyses, in particular  the different stages and the analysis structure should be improved . 

4. the results should be improved. In particular, it should be highlighted how the combination of different methods represents an original analysis tool that allows to a better understanding the dynamics of rural development and the importance of endogenous resources in determining an improvement of the quality life of residents.

5. conclusion must be improved in line with the previous adjustments 

6. References: there is a multiplicity of literature on rural development that could be useful for the article for example the literature on rural development paradigm or rural web etc.  Such literature is completely ignored by the article. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English should be improved. I recommend a review 

Author Response

1. try to shorten the abstract.

   Response: Thank you once again for reviewing our work and for your observations. We applied the reviewer suggestion.

2. In the introduction chapter the question/sentence expressed in lines 38 to 41 must be improved it is not clear the meaning. 

   Response: We applied the reviewer suggestion. Now the text looks like: We propose that we can use our results to validate the following hypothesis: "the involvement of stakeholders and community members in the development of policies and strategies at the local level dynamizes the process of sustainable rural development?"

3. different methods are used in the articles (PESTEL, SWOT, DEPSIR, SOR,) that are not explained in the text. In my opinion they should be slightly introduced in the first part of the chapter explaining the reasons for their use and the originality that these methods give to rural development analyses, in particular  the different stages and the analysis structure should be improved . 

   Response: We have introduced explanations for each method used in the methodology part. We have also improved the structure of research.

4. the results should be improved. In particular, it should be highlighted how the combination of different methods represents an original analysis tool that allows to a better understanding the dynamics of rural development and the importance of endogenous resources in determining an improvement of the quality life of residents.

Response: We applied the reviewer suggestion.

5. conclusion must be improved in line with the previous adjustments.

Response: We applied the reviewer suggestion.

6. References: there is a multiplicity of literature on rural development that could be useful for the article for example the literature on rural development paradigm or rural web etc.  Such literature is completely ignored by the article. 

Response: We applied the reviewer suggestion and we improved the references.

We have undergone English language editing by MDPI service. The text has been checked for correct use of grammar and common technical terms and edited to a level suitable for reporting research in a scholarly journal. We took into consideration all suggestions and applied them in our paper and then uploaded them on MDPI platform.

 

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I am sending several ideas and comments regarding Your article:

1.      The purpose of the study should be more precisely defined in the abstract. The abstract now covers what has been done and what results have been obtained, without mentioning the purpose of the research.

2.      In the Introduction, the development situation of rural areas in the EU is described with a tendency to highlight only the extreme negative aspects of the development of rural areas in the EU. It is really impossible to make absolutes, because rural areas in the EU are very different, different EU countries face different rural development problems.

3.      The description of the concept of sustainable development is superficial, too little attention is paid to the goals of sustainable rural development and possible measures.

4.      Although Table 3 shows the attitudes of stakeholders and residents towards sustainable rural development in Gusoeni commune, it is difficult to understand the relationship of many questions and answers with sustainable rural development.

5.      The problem tree (in Figure 9) illustrates the difficult-to-explain relationship between "Low educational level", "Low technological level", "Weak ICT skills" and "Low interest in farmers' association".

6.      In general, the weakness of the study is that it is poorly structured, and the results of the study are presented not according to the dimensions of sustainable development, which would make the study more understandable.

7.      Despite the fact that part 3 of the article is called "Results and discussion", discussion is missing. In general, the article pays relatively little attention to the analysis of other related studies, applied methodologies and the results obtained in them.

8.      The conclusions are incomplete, they do not reflect the most important research results, proposed actions for sustainable rural development.

Author Response

1. The purpose of the study should be more precisely defined in the abstract. The abstract now covers what has been done and what results have been obtained, without mentioning the purpose of the research. 

   Response: Thank you once again for reviewing our work and for your observations. In the abstract we specified that: “Achieving sustainable development is the objective of every rural locality in Romania. This is accomplished by determining the state of endogenous resources and identifying potential conservation and sustainable exploitation alternatives by developing relevant strategic options. The present research falls within this area and aims to develop relevant strategic options for the sustainable rural development of Gușoeni Commune, Vâlcea County. In this study, we develop an integrated and dynamic model based on information from a secondary analysis of statistical data and the specialized literature, with the help of the PESTEL (political, economic, social, technological, ecological, legislative), SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats), problem tree, objective tree, and DFPSIR (drivers, pressure, status, impact, response) diagnostic models. We did so to create an appropriate framework for developing and implementing the most relevant and durable strategic options for rural development.”

2. In the Introduction, the development situation of rural areas in the EU is described with a tendency to highlight only the extreme negative aspects of the development of rural areas in the EU. It is really impossible to make absolutes, because rural areas in the EU are very different, different EU countries face different rural development problems. 

   Response: We have corrected the approach to the subject of rural development in the sense that: ” The development of rural settlements also involves different levels, both between the member states of the European Union (EU) and within them [2]. The need for sustainable rural development is motivated by the relatively high populations in these areas and their status as producers of food resources [3]. At the same time, rural settlements represent the identity of each person, places where traditions and customs are preserved and transmitted from generation to generation. This necessitates their sustainable development in connection with territorial specificity [4,5].”

3. The description of the concept of sustainable development is superficial, too little attention is paid to the goals of sustainable rural development and possible measures. 

   Response: We applied the reviewer suggestion. Now the text looks like: “Sustainable development has been on the agenda of many forums since the end of the last century. The UN General Assembly’s adoption in 2015 of the "Agenda 2030" document, with its 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs), was immediately approved by the European Union, which, outlining its own vision, decided to monitor their degree of fulfillment with reports every two years. Thus, an initial, universal framework was created for achieving sustainable development objectives, and an integrated approach to their implementation is emphasized [18].”

4. Although Table 3 shows the attitudes of stakeholders and residents towards sustainable rural development in Gusoeni commune, it is difficult to understand the relationship of many questions and answers with sustainable rural development. 

   Response: We applied the reviewer suggestion. We completed as follows: “The data collected through the two questionnaires identified strategic directions relevant to sustainable development. At the same time, they demonstrated the capacity of public institutions to create and maintain an adequate framework for this purpose. Numerous relationships between respondents' opinions and sustainable development are highlighted in Table 3. Some of these are positive: knowing, understanding, and promoting sources, as well as funding guidelines and the projects accessed/implemented; the professionalism of human resources and the consistency of decisions; etc. Others are negative: Bureaucracy, poor ability to adapt to changes in the environment, low employment capacity at the local level, etc.”

5. The problem tree (in Figure 9) illustrates the difficult-to-explain relationship between "Low educational level", "Low technological level", "Weak ICT skills" and "Low interest in farmers' association". 

   Response: We applied the reviewer suggestion. Now the text looks like: “The problem tree method ensures the continuity of research. It takes problems identified with the SWOT matrix and orders them according to their causal relationships. Our problem tree (Figure 9) highlights a major problem for rural development in Gușoeni Commune—poor knowledge regarding ways to obtain non-reimbursable funds and the aging population. Based on this, we can identify the effects these problems generate (poor educational and technological infrastructure). These problems, in turn, generate new ones: low educational levels; low technological levels; low ICT skills, which lead to low interest in sustainable development among farmers, resulting in low returns on agricultural production.”

6. In general, the weakness of the study is that it is poorly structured, and the results of the study are presented not according to the dimensions of sustainable development, which would make the study more understandable. 

   Response: We have introduced explanations for each method used in the methodology part. We have also improved the structure of research.

7. Despite the fact that part 3 of the article is called "Results and discussion", discussion is missing. In general, the article pays relatively little attention to the analysis of other related studies, applied methodologies and the results obtained in them. 

   Response: We completed as follows: “The results validate the hypothesis that the involvement of stakeholders and community members in developing strategic options at the local level energizes the process of sustainable rural development. This cooperation can develop strategic options considering available endogenous resources and expectations, maximizing acceptance and involvement in implementation. Our results reveal the ways sustainability manifests, aided by the development/creation of research models based on multiple strategic management methods (PESTEL, SWOT matrix, SPR analysis, problem tree, objective tree, DPSIR). We also used several data and information collection and analysis tools (questionnaire, interview, observation, focus group, etc.). Other research on the transition to sustainable rural development has used the rural web framework, centered on the study of territorial indicators (such as the PESTEL model), showing that interactions between indicators/criteria aid in the sustainable development of rural communities [54].”

8. The conclusions are incomplete, they do not reflect the most important research results, proposed actions for sustainable rural development. 

   Response: The conclusions have been revised.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer’s remarks:

1/ Introduction – studies on the role of the CAP in that rural development are missing, while the authors underline the need for CAP policy implementation in abstract.

2/ The hypothesis presented seems to suggest a relationship between the involvement of stakeholders and community members in the development of local policies and strategies and the dynamism of sustainable rural development. However, the phrasing appears incomplete and somewhat unclear. To evaluate its correctness, one would need to consider the clarity. The hypothesis should clearly state what is being measured and how the involvement of stakeholders and community members affects sustainable rural development.

3/ English needs to be improved – some statements and descriptions in tables are unclear

4/ Line 131-132 and 139-140 – formal error in text

5/ In chapter 2 some methodologies employed are fraught with weaknesses that limit the study's credibility and applicability. A more rigorous and transparent approach, along with a clearer connection between data collection methods and research objectives, is necessary to enhance the validity and relevance of future work in this area.

6/ The methodology section does not specify the timeframe for conducting the questionnaire survey.The methodology lacks a timeframe for the implementation of the questionnaire survey

7/ The subsequent reliance on secondary analyses of statistical data and literature introduces an additional layer of concern. The study fails to clearly articulate which specific data sources were utilized and how they were integrated with the primary data.

8/ Chapter 3.3 is difficult to comprehend. The authors should revise this section for clarity and consider replacing certain expressions, such as "shyness of work motivation."

9/ Page 10, figure 7 is hard to read

10/ The statement under the topic „Values and attitudes „ on page 11 „such as the role of cultural and sporting events in the life of the community and their ranking as follows: commune day, village celebration, sports competitions, women's day“ seems to be unfinished - missing impact, what was the intention of the Authors?

11/ Page 11 - „infrastructure capacity to meet local requirements (85% of respondents)“ – missing influence positive/negative.

12/ Line 459: “the existence of limited ones, especially due to the large volume of work“ – what tended the author to underline with this statement?

13/ Part conclusion – the conclusion lacks comparisons to existing research and fails to highlight the novelty of the work conducted. some comparism to existing research is missing, . where is the novelty of research?

14/ Although the authors showed an effort to describe the research findings, the study largely focuses on describing data obtained from interviews. As well as the support and approval/disapproval with the hypothesis stated in line 39-41 is missing.

15/ Although the authors have attempted to present the research findings, the study is mainly centered on data obtained from interviews. Support for or against the hypothesis stated in lines 39-41 is lacking.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Professional proofreading is needed.

Author Response

1/ Introduction – studies on the role of the CAP in that rural development are missing, while the authors underline the need for CAP policy implementation in abstract.  

Response: Thank you for reviewing our work and for your observations. We completed with the following text (lines 69-77): “At the level of the European Union, sustainable rural development is enhanced by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) based on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Currently the 2023-2027 CAP is based on the specific legal framework and the set of detailed specifications in the CAP strategic plans (SP) approved by the European Commission. For the period 2023-2027, the implementation of the CAP in Romania is carried out through the National Strategic Plan (NSP) which contains measures for the development of the sustainable rural economy. The Local Development Strategy (LDS) ensures the implementation of rural development measures according to the CAP through the NSP at the level of UAT Gușoeni, Vâlcea county.”

2/ The hypothesis presented seems to suggest a relationship between the involvement of stakeholders and community members in the development of local policies and strategies and the dynamism of sustainable rural development. However, the phrasing appears incomplete and somewhat unclear. To evaluate its correctness, one would need to consider the clarity. The hypothesis should clearly state what is being measured and how the involvement of stakeholders and community members affects sustainable rural development. 

Response: We completed in the conclusions section with: “The hypothesis starts from the reality that, in general, local development policies and strategies put into practice general aspects of rural development, not connected to the socio-economic reality. In order to solve this situation and bring added value to the process of sustainable rural development, we proceeded with the continuous identification and evaluation of endogenous resources and their potential for sustainable exploitation, as well as to the involvement of stakeholders and community members in the process of rural development by highlighting their needs. Corroboration between the two (resources and needs) led to the development of relevant strategic options assumed by stakeholders and community members through involvement in their development, which dynamizes the process of sustainable rural development.

The novelty of the research consists in the integration of the research methods used, the coordination of the research stages, so that the results of one method become deliverable for the following methods and the involvement of stakeholders and community members in the process of sustainable development.”

3/ English needs to be improved – some statements and descriptions in tables are unclear. and 4/ Line 131-132 and 139-140 – formal error in text.

Response: We modified and added new text (in blue) and, we have undergone English language editing by MDPI service. See lines 146-147, 152-156.

5/ In chapter 2 some methodologies employed are fraught with weaknesses that limit the study's credibility and applicability. A more rigorous and transparent approach, along with a clearer connection between data collection methods and research objectives, is necessary to enhance the validity and relevance of future work in this area.  

Response: We restructured this chapter.

6/ The methodology section does not specify the timeframe for conducting the questionnaire survey.The methodology lacks a timeframe for the implementation of the questionnaire survey.

Response: We mentioned that the field research was carried out in the 3rd and 4th quarter of 2022.

7/ The subsequent reliance on secondary analyses of statistical data and literature introduces an additional layer of concern. The study fails to clearly articulate which specific data sources were utilized and how they were integrated with the primary data.  

Response: The secondary analysis of statistical data and specialized literature is the first stage of the research and was centered on the collection of statistical data on the studied area (physical goods, infrastructure, endogenous resources, economic activities, public services, opportunities, etc.), on the analysis of the specialized literature (studies, policies, strategies, programs, monographs, articles). This information led to obtaining a realistic but not complete picture for the purpose of the research, which is why we continued with the application of the other methods as we presented in the description of the stages of the research.

8/ Chapter 3.3 is difficult to comprehend. The authors should revise this section for clarity and consider replacing certain expressions, such as "shyness of work motivation." 

Response: We have presented some relationships between the respondents' opinions and the development process before Table 3 and we corrected it like this: “Poor work motivation (as it received positive reviews from only 51.11% of respondents);”

9/ Page 10, figure 7 is hard to read . 

Response: We have improved it.

10/ The statement under the topic „Values and attitudes „ on page 11 „such as the role of cultural and sporting events in the life of the community and their ranking as follows: commune day, village celebration, sports competitions, women's day“ seems to be unfinished - missing impact, what was the intention of the Authors?  

Response: We corrected it like this: “Stakeholder views highlight the positive impact on sustainable development of:

• the values of the local community as it results from the agreement of 53.33% of the respondents;
• the favorability of the socio-economic environment for attracting investors (66.67% of respondents);
• encouraging ideas that also come from outside the community (64.44% of respondents);
• residents' understanding of the need for economic and social reforms (66.67% of respondents);
• the positive influence of values, culture, customs and traditions, as stated by 59.17% of the respondents;
• cultural and sports events in community life: commune day, village celebration, sports competitions (football), women's day.”

11/ Page 11 - „infrastructure capacity to meet local requirements (85% of respondents)“ – missing influence positive/negative.  

Response: We corrected it like this: “Stakeholder views highlight the positive influence on sustainable development of:

• the existence of an adequate infrastructure to support local businesses (82.22% of respondents agree with this);
• support measures granted to local businesses by the local authority (77.78% agree with this).”

12/ Line 459: “the existence of limited ones, especially due to the large volume of work“ – what tended the author to underline with this statement? 

Response: We were referring to: the creation and implementation of questionnaires, the difficult accessibility of some information, the availability of specialists for focus groups, the lack of digitization - probably the adoption of the SMART Village concept would solve these shortcomings.

13/ Part conclusion – the conclusion lacks comparisons to existing research and fails to highlight the novelty of the work conducted. some comparism to existing research is missing, . where is the novelty of research?  

Response: The novelty of the research consists in the integration of the research methods used, the coordination of the research stages, so that the results of one method become deliverable for the following methods and the involvement of stakeholders and community members in the process of sustainable development.

14/ Although the authors showed an effort to describe the research findings, the study largely focuses on describing data obtained from interviews. As well as the support and approval/disapproval with the hypothesis stated in line 39-41 is missing. 

Response: We completed by introducing a subchapter entitled discussions and by: “ The results validate the hypothesis that the involvement of stakeholders and community members in developing strategic options at the local level energizes the process of sustainable rural development.”

15/ Although the authors have attempted to present the research findings, the study is mainly centered on data obtained from interviews. Support for or against the hypothesis stated in lines 39-41 is lacking. 

Response: We completed by introducing a subchapter entitled discussions.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I really appreciate the changes made thanks

Author Response

Thank you once again for reviewing our work and for your observations. We acknowledge that your suggestions contributed to improving the quality of our paper and your feedback was appreciated. 

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. There is still no response to the first comment. The purpose of the study should be more precisely defined in the abstract. The abstract now covers what has been done and what results have been obtained, without mentioning the purpose of the research.

2. The response to the second comment is not related to the shortcomings identified in the comment. The text has not been corrected.

3. There was no response to the fourth comment, no changes were made.

4. Figure 9 is not corrected regarding this comment: The problem tree (in Figure 9) illustrates the difficult-to-explain relationship between "Low educational level", "Low technological level", "Weak ICT skills" and "Low interest in farmers "association".

5. Despite the fact that part 3 of the article is called "Results and discussion", discussion is still missing.

Author Response

1. There is still no response to the first comment. The purpose of the study should be more precisely defined in the abstract. The abstract now covers what has been done and what results have been obtained, without mentioning the purpose of the research.

Response: Thank you once again for reviewing our work and for your observations. We applied the reviewer suggestion, and we modified the abstract, adding the following text (in blue): “The purpose of this research is to develop relevant strategic options for the sustainable rural development of Gușoeni Commune, Vâlcea County, by using the case study methodology and involving stakeholders and community members.”

2. The response to the second comment is not related to the shortcomings identified in the comment. The text has not been corrected.

Response: You said that we have described the development situation of rural areas in the EU by highlighting only the negative aspects, which is not correct, and we agree with you. As a result, we proceeded to reformulate the content by highlighting the existence of common characteristics and disparities in rural areas in the EU, including Romania, and that a change towards sustainability is necessary. The rewording is as follows (paragraphs 37 to 49): “Development is a basic pillar in the contemporary world, and its ubiquity can be readily observed in the process of globalization. Providing settlements with new characteristics through globalization can be accomplished at different levels; as a result, these settlements must react to the opportunities and threats that accompany this process [1]. The development of rural settlements also involves different levels, both between the member states of the European Union (EU) and within them [2]. The need for sustainable rural development is motivated by the relatively high populations in these areas and their status as producers of food resources [3]. At the same time, rural settlements represent the identity of each person, places where traditions and customs are preserved and transmitted from generation to generation. This necessitates their sustainable development in connection with territorial specificity [4,5]. This need is also justified by the precarious condition of many rural areas in the EU as a result of development processes that are strictly focused on obtaining economic advantages.”

3. There was no response to the fourth comment, no changes were made.

Response: You said that it is difficult to understand the relationship between further questions and answers with sustainable rural development. In view of this situation, we have understood to present in the introductory part of point 3.3. (paragraph 311) some examples of positive and negative relationships between respondents' views and sustainable rural development. Also, in Table 3 we have inserted clarifications regarding these relationships (in blue), as in the following example: “Stakeholder opinions highlight:

1. positive relations with the sustainable rural development:

• The professionalism of human resources (71.11% of respondents);
• Activities carried out by employees without political influence (84.44% of respondents);
• Consistency of decisions (68.89% of respondents);

2. Negative relations with the sustainable rural development

• Poor work motivation (as it received positive reviews from only 51.11% of respondents);
• A lack of qualified human resources (33.33% of respondents).”

4. Figure 9 is not corrected regarding this comment: The problem tree (in Figure 9) illustrates the difficult-to-explain relationship between "Low educational level", "Low technological level", "Weak ICT skills" and "Low interest in farmers "association".

Response: We corrected it like this (paragraphs 370-374): “We identified as a basic problem the low capacity to achieve partnerships, which generates the following problems: poor educational infrastructure, the predominance of small businesses and subsistence farms. Poor educational infrastructure leads to a poor level of publishing, poor ICT knowledge and poor knowledge of foreign languages. They lead to a low capacity to access and implement projects leading to poor absorption of funding funds.”

5. Despite the fact that part 3 of the article is called "Results and discussion", discussion is still missing.

Response: We left in chapter 3 only Results and we introduced chapter 4: Discussion.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract:

The abstract introduces the study on sustainable rural development in Gușoeni, Romania, highlighting its alignment with EU policies. However, the language is overly complex, with long sentences that reduce readability. The focus on technical models is clear but lacks concise expression of the study’s objectives and explanation of the relationships among various diagnostic models.

Introduction:

You need to clarify a scientific research question and posit your research in the current theoretical debates in the section of Introduction. Vague research question and objective will substantially undermine the novelty and significance of the research.

Currently, the Introduction only contextualizes the study within global and EU sustainability initiatives, emphasizing rural development’s challenges. Also, the section suffers from verbosity, unclear transitions, and occasional overuse of references. For instance, the first para of Introduction has nearly 600 words, and you might want to condense it and divide it into several paras. Additionally, you need to clarify the relationship between EU policies and the local strategies discussed.

Literature Review:

The paper does not have an independent section to provide a sufficiently comprehensive review of the relevant literature, particularly in the areas of sustainable rural development, agricultural diversification, and endogenous resource development. This is largely due to the absence of a clearly defined research question, which subsequently results in a lack of direction for the analytical framework and methodological design. The omission of a robust literature review not only weakens the academic foundation of the paper but also contributes to the overall methodological confusion.

Materials and Methods:

While the methods section describes the tools and models employed, such as PESTEL, SWOT, and DFPSIR, it lacks a cohesive structure and concise explanations, making the section difficult to follow. The absence of a clear research question further complicates the understanding of the rationale behind the methodological choices. As it stands, the content resembles a consultancy report rather than an academic paper, significantly diminishing the theoretical value of the work.

If the methodology is intended as the innovative aspect of the paper, the literature review, which is currently entirely absent, should explore the limitations of existing methods to contextualize the research contribution. Moreover, the methods section unnecessarily repeats descriptions of diagnostic tools. It would be more effective to provide concise explanations for models like DFPSIR, rather than assuming reader familiarity.

Results and Discussion:

The results and discussion section includes detailed findings but uses overly technical language, making the narrative unclear. Key results are obscured by lengthy descriptions of methodologies and stakeholder feedback. Additionally, while the paper mentions the use of semi-structured interviews and quantitative data collection, it does not specify critical details such as sampling criteria, the backgrounds of respondents, data quantification processes, or the methods of analysis.

Policy recommendations and action plans, such as attracting investment or improving infrastructure, lack feasibility analysis and discussions of potential outcomes. Furthermore, these strategies and objectives often appear disconnected from the central research question, failing to form a cohesive and complete argument.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I strongly recommend that the author significantly improve the clarity and structure of their writing. The article suffers from overly long and poorly structured sentences, which make the content unnecessarily dense and difficult to follow. This lack of clarity not only affects readability but also diminishes the overall quality of the arguments presented.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our work and for your observations. We acknowledge that your suggestions contributed to improving the quality of our paper, and your feedback is appreciated. Please see below the answers to your latest remarks! 

Comments 1: Abstract:

The abstract introduces the study on sustainable rural development in Gușoeni, Romania, highlighting its alignment with EU policies. However, the language is overly complex, with long sentences that reduce readability. The focus on technical models is clear but lacks concise expression of the study’s objectives and explanation of the relationships among various diagnostic models.

Response: We have reformulated the sentences, and the relationships between the diagnostic models is as follows: We have chosen the case study methodology because it allows the use of quantitative and qualitative methods to describe and capture the reality of a phenomenon. The PESTEL model and SWOT are recognized for their impact in setting smart goals and capturing socio-economic reality. SOR analysis to identify the relevance of strengths and weaknesses to the identified opportunities and threats and reduce them to those that can be addressed with research resources. The problem tree for identifying the causes that generated them and the objective tree for developing relevant solutions. The DFPSIR model for organizing the process of developing strategic options.

Comments 2: Introduction:

You need to clarify a scientific research question and posit your research in the current theoretical debates in the section of Introduction. Vague research question and objective will substantially undermine the novelty and significance of the research.

Response: This research is based on the strategic diagnosis of the researched area and will aim to respond to its impact on the development of relevant strategic sustainable rural development options.

Currently, the Introduction only contextualizes the study within global and EU sustainability initiatives, emphasizing rural development’s challenges. Also, the section suffers from verbosity, unclear transitions, and occasional overuse of references. For instance, the first para of Introduction has nearly 600 words, and you might want to condense it and divide it into several paras. Additionally, you need to clarify the relationship between EU policies and the local strategies discussed.

Response: We rephrased those paragraphs. The relationship between EU policies and local strategies is based on the identification of territorial specificity to underpin rural development projects that can be supported by the Common Agricultural Policy. This relationship is captured in the introduction in the next paragraph:

“Regarding the Romanian countryside, taking into account the membership of the European Union, achieving sustainable development requires the harmonization of its own policies with the policies and strategies of the European Union and the creation of technical equipment of the rural area that offers the possibility of using endogenous resources, respecting the environment.”

Comments 3: Literature Review:

The paper does not have an independent section to provide a sufficiently comprehensive review of the relevant literature, particularly in the areas of sustainable rural development, agricultural diversification, and endogenous resource development. This is largely due to the absence of a clearly defined research question, which subsequently results in a lack of direction for the analytical framework and methodological design. The omission of a robust literature review not only weakens the academic foundation of the paper but also contributes to the overall methodological confusion.

Response: The present research was guided to meet the assumed goal – the elaboration of relevant strategic options for sustainable rural development and is based on a relevant number of bibliographic sources in the field of the chosen theme. They add up to 16 titles in the "Introduction" section, as follows: titles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the field of sustainable development, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 in the field of resources, 7, 12, 14 in the field of strategic management, 13, 15 in the legislative field and 16 report on the economy of Goșoeni locality.

Comments 4: Materials and Methods:

While the methods section describes the tools and models employed, such as PESTEL, SWOT, and DFPSIR, it lacks a cohesive structure and concise explanations, making the section difficult to follow. The absence of a clear research question further complicates the understanding of the rationale behind the methodological choices. As it stands, the content resembles a consultancy report rather than an academic paper, significantly diminishing the theoretical value of the work.

Response: In the results and discussions section, clarifications are made regarding the procedure followed for each method, and additions have been made.

If the methodology is intended as the innovative aspect of the paper, the literature review, which is currently entirely absent, should explore the limitations of existing methods to contextualize the research contribution. Moreover, the methods section unnecessarily repeats descriptions of diagnostic tools. It would be more effective to provide concise explanations for models like DFPSIR, rather than assuming reader familiarity.

Response: The methodology used in this research is recommended by the literature for research topics in the field of rural development and by strategic analysis groups, such as the Strategor group. The novelty is highlighted by the fact that the mayor of a territorial administrative unit collaborates with a group of specialists to identify the elements of specificity and assess the administrative capacity to sustainably capitalize on them by developing strategic options and creating a management framework that will lead to the sustainable development of the community.

Comments 5: Results and Discussion:

The results and discussion section includes detailed findings but uses overly technical language, making the narrative unclear. Key results are obscured by lengthy descriptions of methodologies and stakeholder feedback. Additionally, while the paper mentions the use of semi-structured interviews and quantitative data collection, it does not specify critical details such as sampling criteria, the backgrounds of respondents, data quantification processes, or the methods of analysis.

Response: The section "research methodology" describes the sampling criteria, the respondents' environment, etc.

Policy recommendations and action plans, such as attracting investment or improving infrastructure, lack feasibility analysis and discussions of potential outcomes. Furthermore, these strategies and objectives often appear disconnected from the central research question, failing to form a cohesive and complete argument.

Response: These are presented in the last section, "TAU Gușoeni's Sustainable Rural Development Strategy".

We marked in the text of the revised article with blue the updated text (what we inserted or what we changed). 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper demonstrates a significant field and community application, warranting considerable attention. However, several observations and drawbacks can be highlighted. The primary issue is that the paper lacks clear novelty, particularly in terms of methodology. Additional observations include the following:

1. Length and Redundancy
• The paper is overly lengthy, particularly Section 3. The content could be condensed, summarized, or presented in alternate formats (e.g., tables or appendices). For instance, the subsection “E. TAU Gușoeni's Sustainable Rural Development Strategy” (page 21) contains repetitive information.
2. Formatting and Language Issues
• Some spelling and language issues need correction. For example:
• The word “pillar” is misspelled on line 234, page 6.
• On line 236, the verb “show” is used repetitively and could be replaced with synonyms.
• At the beginning of Section 2 (page 3), the goals of the study are inconsistently listed, with seven items appearing instead of five. Additionally, the formatting of the methods used is poorly structured.
• The goals of the study and community development objectives appear confused in Section 2 (e.g., “Ensuring integrated sustainable development and improving the quality of life”).
• The subdivision of Section 3 is unclear, e.g., items “I” and “II” are reused.
• Figures, such as Figure 2, lack adequate explanation. For example, the meaning of each edge in the figure is not clearly described. Tables also require better explanation and more references within the text to improve understanding.
• Table 6 is particularly unclear; the meaning of rows and columns (e.g., PT1, PT2) and the numbers within the table must be explicitly defined.
• Goals listed at the end of Section 3 are poorly formatted.
3. Lack of Related Work
• Similar work in the area, particularly those related to the studied community, is not explicitly discussed.
4. Methodology
• The methodology requires greater detail and should better guide the presentation of results. For some methods (e.g., SOR), adequate references and explanations are missing.
5. Background and Key Concepts
• The paper lacks sufficient background on key notions such as sustainability, the role of politics. In particular, the role of the interest of stakeholders in social planning and change is not considered appropriately.
• The concept of sustainability appears limited to the agenda set by dominant forces (e.g., the United Nations), without addressing other perspectives.
• Stakeholder interests, particularly those of traditional farmers, and political issues like resource management and power imbalances, receive insufficient attention (e.g., the interests of traditional farmers in the strategy and goals). Although stakeholder perceptions are considered, their relationship to the strategy is not fully analyzed.
6. Choice of Methods
• The rationale for using specific methods over alternatives is not clearly articulated and should be supported by references to relevant literature.
7. Conclusion
• The conclusion should restate the contributions of the paper, summarize the findings in relation to other works, and discuss the implications.

Suggestions for Future Work
Alternative or complementary methodologies with robust descriptions of socio-political dynamics include:

1. Participatory methodologies.
2. Carlos Matus’s Situational Planning Methodology.
3. The SocLab simulation platform.

These methods may be of interest to the authors for future studies.

Author Response

• The paper demonstrates a significant field and community application, warranting considerable attention. However, several observations and drawbacks can be highlighted. The primary issue is that the paper lacks clear novelty, particularly in terms of methodology. Additional observations include the following:

Response: Thank you for reviewing our work and for your observations. We acknowledge that your suggestions contributed to improving the quality of our paper and your feedback is appreciated. Please see below the answers to your latest remarks!

The methodology used in this research is recommended by the literature for research topics in the field of rural development and by strategic analysis groups, such as the Strategor group. The novelty is highlighted by the fact that the mayor of a territorial administrative unit collaborates with a group of specialists to identify the elements of specificity and assess the administrative capacity to sustainably capitalize on them by developing strategic options and creating a management framework that will lead to the sustainable development of the community.

Comments 1: Length and Redundancy

• The paper is overly lengthy, particularly Section 3. The content could be condensed, summarized, or presented in alternate formats (e.g., tables or appendices). For instance, the subsection “E. TAU Gușoeni's Sustainable Rural Development Strategy” (page 21) contains repetitive information.

Response: We have reduced the article by 20% by reconsidering some aspects.

Comments 2: Formatting and Language Issues

• Some spelling and language issues need correction. For example: The word “pillar” is misspelled on line 234, page 6.

Response:  With all due respect, we used the pillar, not the pylon, given its meaning in the phrase (i.e.: The team spirit is an important pillar in strengthening the company's success. or I am a pillar of this community. not It's a pylon - one of those orange traffic cones.)

On line 236, the verb “show” is used repetitively and could be replaced with synonyms.

Response: We have changed the second verb (in blue).

• At the beginning of Section 2 (page 3), the goals of the study are inconsistently listed, with seven items appearing instead of five. Additionally, the formatting of the methods used is poorly structured.

Response: We have restored the consistency between objectives and items are 5.

• The goals of the study and community development objectives appear confused in Section 2 (e.g., “Ensuring integrated sustainable development and improving the quality of life”).

Response: We have revised objective 4. The objectives of the research are subordinated to the purpose – the elaboration of strategic options for sustainable rural development and aim: to diagnose the researched area in order to capture the elements of specificity; identification of available endogenous resources and their potential for sustainable use; providing educational support in this regard; integration of economic activities; actions to promote and commercialize local products.

• The subdivision of Section 3 is unclear, e.g., items “I” and “II” are reused.

Response: We went back to the text so as to avoid reusing information.

• Figures, such as Figure 2, lack adequate explanation. For example, the meaning of each edge in the figure is not clearly described. Tables also require better explanation and more references within the text to improve understanding.

Response: We have redone the entire 3.3 section. Results regarding the perception of the main actors and inhabitants regarding the sustainable rural development of Gușoeni commune – empirical research.

• Table 6 is particularly unclear; the meaning of rows and columns (e.g., PT1, PT2) and the numbers within the table must be explicitly defined.

Response: We removed Table 6.

• Goals listed at the end of Section 3 are poorly formatted.

Response: We have redone this section.

Comments 3: Lack of Related Work

• Similar work in the area, particularly those related to the studied community, is not explicitly discussed.
• Response: We have identified only one paper in the area that was mentioned in the article: Concioiu, N. Considerations On The Strategic Approach To Sustainable Rural Development. Management and Marketing Journal 2023, 21(1), 162-169.

Comments 4: Methodology

• The methodology requires greater detail and should better guide the presentation of results. For some methods (e.g., SOR), adequate references and explanations are missing.

Response: The methodology is explained in section 3.4.2.

Comments 5: Background and Key Concepts

• The paper lacks sufficient background on key notions such as sustainability, the role of politics. In particular, the role of the interest of stakeholders in social planning and change is not considered appropriately.

Response: The aim of the paper is to develop strategic options for sustainable rural development and we do this through a strategic approach whose actions are mentioned in section 3.4.5.

• The concept of sustainability appears limited to the agenda set by dominant forces (e.g., the United Nations), without addressing other perspectives.

Response: We started from the reality that rural development in Romania takes place mainly through the implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy.

• Stakeholder interests, particularly those of traditional farmers, and political issues like resource management and power imbalances, receive insufficient attention (e.g., the interests of traditional farmers in the strategy and goals). Although stakeholder perceptions are considered, their relationship to the strategy is not fully analyzed.

Response: In future research, we aim to approach by fields of activity.

Comments 6: Choice of Methods

• The rationale for using specific methods over alternatives is not clearly articulated and should be supported by references to relevant literature.

Response: We chose the case study methodology because it allows the use of quantitative and qualitative methods to describe and capture the reality of a phenomenon. The PESTEL model and SWOT are recognized for their impact in setting smart goals and capturing socio-economic reality. SOR analysis to identify the relevance of strengths and weaknesses to the identified opportunities and threats and reduce them to those that can be addressed with research resources. The problem tree for identifying the causes that generated them and the objective tree for developing relevant solutions. The DFPSIR model for organizing the process of developing strategic options.

Comments 7: Conclusion

• The conclusion should restate the contributions of the paper, summarize the findings in relation to other works, and discuss the implications.

Response: We have reformulated the conclusions, taking into consideration your recommendations.

We marked in text, in the new version of the article, with blue the updated text (what we inserted or what we changed). 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The design of this study is scientific, the content is detailed, and the conclusions are valid. The issue of rural sustainability itself is a global poverty alleviation challenge, and endogenous resources are the core elements that stimulate the endogenous driving force of rural sustainability. So, I think this research is very valuable and suggest publishing it after revision. However, improvements are needed in the following areas.

(1) . From line 193 to line 211, the author should supplement the data source and data interval. This can let readers know whether your data is timely.

(2) How did Figures 13 and 14 come about? The author should supplement the process and steps for drawing this diagram, which can help readers better understand the logical relationships inside.

(3) A research outlook section should be added at the end. Tell readers about the shortcomings of this article and point out directions and key areas for future research.

(4) In the conclusion and discussion, there is a lack of advanced econometric models. Suggest the author to supplement the measurement section and conduct quantitative research through rigorous panel data.

Overall, this is a very good study with beautiful pronunciation and attractive questions. Suggest a retrial after modification.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our work and for your observations. We acknowledge that your suggestions contributed to improving the quality of our paper, and your feedback is appreciated. Please see below the answers to your latest remarks! 

Comments 1: From line 193 to line 211, the author should supplement the data source and data interval. This can let readers know whether your data is timely.

Response: The research was conducted in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2022 (was introduced in the text).

Comments 2: How did Figures 13 and 14 come about? The author should supplement the process and steps for drawing this diagram, which can help readers better understand the logical relationships inside.

Response: We have rewritten section 3.4.3. considering your recommendations.

Comments 3: A research outlook section should be added at the end. Tell readers about the shortcomings of this article and point out directions and key areas for future research.

Response: The research carried out reveals both advantages and disadvantages. In the advantages category, we mention the openness of the local leadership to stakeholders and community members to assess the capacity of the administration and identify solutions for the sustainable use of resources. Among the disadvantages, we mention the challenges resulting from identifying solutions to solve the identified problems, which makes the prospects deadlocked. Only the partnership created between the local leadership, stakeholders, specialists, and community members can glimpse new solutions so that the perspectives avoid any barrier and the researched area is inscribed in the "orbit" of rural development.

Comments 4: In the conclusion and discussion, there is a lack of advanced econometric models. Suggest the author to supplement the measurement section and conduct quantitative research through rigorous panel data.

Response: 

We didn’t used econometric models in this reseach. We chose the case study methodology because it allows the use of quantitative and qualitative methods to describe and capture the reality of a phenomenon. The PESTEL model and SWOT are recognized for their impact in setting smart goals and capturing socio-economic reality. SOR analysis to identify the relevance of strengths and weaknesses to the identified opportunities and threats and reduce them to those that can be addressed with research resources. The problem tree for identifying the causes that generated them and the objective tree for developing relevant solutions. The DFPSIR model for organizing the process of developing strategic options. In future research, we aim to approach by fields of activity and use advanced econometric models.

We marked in the text of the revised article with blue the updated text (what we inserted or what we changed). 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The primary issue with this manuscript remains the lack of a clear research question, which is fundamentally tied to the absence of a robust literature review.

The paper is titled Strategic Approaches to Sustainable Rural Development by Harnessing Endogenous Resources to Improve Residents' Quality of Life, yet it fails to engage with any of the foundational or contemporary works by prominent scholars in the field of endogenous development. If the author does not intend to contribute to this theoretical discourse, they must clearly articulate what theoretical gap the study aims to address or how it offers new evidence or perspectives on existing debates or unresolved issues. This is a fundamental requirement for any academic paper and forms the starting point of all rigorous research. 

Without such theoretical grounding, the manuscript risks resembling a research report focused on evaluating regional conditions or policy implementation, rather than a proper academic journal paper with clear scholarly contributions. This significantly undermines its potential value for publication. 

Moreover, the revision has not adequately addressed my previous feedback from the first review report. Instead of refining the introduction as suggested, the authors has expanded it, making it even more lengthy and difficult to read. The specific recommendation to divide the introduction into clearer, more concise paragraphs remains unfulfilled. Additionally, the most critical issue, the lack of clarity regarding the theoretical framing of the research, persists, leaving readers unable to discern the article's academic contribution or its position within the broader theoretical discourse.

To move forward, the author must provide a clearly defined research question grounded in relevant literature, situate the study within an appropriate theoretical framework, and address the structural and stylistic issues that impede readability and coherence. Without these revisions, the paper lacks the rigor and focus necessary for academic publication.

Also, the results are descriptive and do not delve deeply into analysis. Critical insights from the findings are buried under excessive technical detail.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Sentences are often overly long and convoluted, making it difficult for readers to follow the argument. The authors need to break down complex sentences into shorter, clearer ones. Use straightforward language to convey ideas effectively. Many points are repeated unnecessarily, particularly in the introduction and results sections. The authors need to eliminate repetitive content and ensure that each section contributes new information.

Meanwhile, there are recurring grammatical errors, including incorrect verb forms, awkward phrasing, and unclear antecedents.

Author Response

Response:

We have modified and improved the introduction considering your recommendations. The research is subordinated to the need for sustainable development and is centered on the development of policies and strategies through a bottom-up approach with the involvement of stakeholders and community members. We aim to validate the hypothesis that "the involvement of stakeholders and community members in the development of policies and strategies at the local level energizes the process of sustainable rural development?"

We have grouped the introduction into the following paragraphs:

The need for sustainable development

Sustainability

Endogenous resources

Endogenous development

Localization of the research

We have reformulated the sentences and broken down complex sentences into shorter ones.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main drawback of the paper is its novelty. In this respect, the authors said:

"The novelty is highlighted by the fact that the mayor of a territorial administrative unit collaborates with a group of specialists to identify the elements of specificity and assess the administrative capacity to sustainably capitalize on them by developing strategic options and creating a management framework that will lead to the sustainable development of the community."

However, this is neither clearly explained nor justified in the paper.

Author Response

Response:

We have reformulated some aspects of the paper so that the novelty of the research lies in the involvement of stakeholders and community members in the process of sustainable rural development at the local level by assessing the administrative capacity to create the appropriate framework to foster this process. Also, the research through applied methods favored partnerships between local actors and actors with national openness within focus groups carried out in order to network collaborations with other rural settlements.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of this article has been greatly improved after being revised by the author. I agree to be published in land. However, there are two small problems:

First, the author should explain the research object and time.

Second, the author should further highlight the innovation of the article, that is, what is different from others.

Author Response

Response: We have reformulated some aspects of the paper so that the novelty of the research lies in the involvement of stakeholders and community members in the process of sustainable rural development at the local level by assessing the administrative capacity to create the appropriate framework to foster this process. Also, the research through applied methods favored partnerships between local actors and actors with national openness within focus groups carried out in order to network collaborations with other rural settlements.