Study on the Coupling Coordination Relationships and Driving Factors of “Ecology–Humanities–Technology” in Traditional Villages of the Xinjiang Oasis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
Your research as an actual one, but still some aspects must be improved

• What is the main question addressed by the research?
the main question addressed concerns a research in traditional 3 Villages of Xinjiang Oasis

• Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.
The topic is an original one and covers the analyze the coupling coordination relationships of "Ecology-Humanities-Technology."

• What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
compared with other published material this particular study comes with own research and point of view

• What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology?

• regarding the particular comments I have mention them :

-in my opinion the abstract is a little bit to long, may you could find a possibility to reduce it.

-also point 2 must be Literature review, because I am sure that this research subject was already debated by other researchers to

-conclusion part is to small and it not reflect entirely the study undertaken

-the reference part supports improvement too.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. This paper offers a comprehensive and novel exploration of the interconnections between ecological, cultural, and technological dimensions in the traditional villages of the Xinjiang Oasis region. Using an integrated methodology that combines the Coupling Coordination Degree model, Geographic Detector analysis, and Pearson correlation, you successfully assessed 53 villages to determine imbalance levels and identify internal and external drivers for coordinated development.

Integrating ecology, humanities, and technology as a three-pillar framework for assessing traditional village development is original and well-founded. It especially emphasises technology as a distinct dimension, which is often overlooked in similar studies.

Although I evaluate the paper positively, I suggest you consider the following points: 

• Insufficient engagement with global literature is evident. The literature review is predominantly Chinese-centric. More engagement with international scholarship on rural resilience, cultural landscapes, and technological heritage would broaden the relevance of the findings.
• While the entropy weight method is applied, it is not clear how subjectivity is managed, especially in scoring qualitative data (e.g., interview results, traditional customs). More discussion is needed on expert selection and consistency checks.
• Although the EHT framework is innovative, the conceptual interdependence among ecology, the humanities, and technology is not sufficiently theorized. The paper could benefit from integrating systems theory or socio-ecological frameworks more explicitly.
• I suggest considering comparative perspectives, e.g., briefly comparing findings with those of other arid-region villages globally (e.g., North Africa, Central Asia) to highlight generalizability or regional uniqueness.
• Also, reflect on temporal, spatial, and epistemological limitations more critically to enhance transparency.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research topic holds practical significance as it centers on a systematic analysis of traditional villages against the backdrop of ecological conservation and rural revitalization. It carries theoretical importance and potential for application. However, improvements are needed in areas like theoretical foundations, methodologies, and structural logic. Specific comments are as follows:

1. The distinctions between the paper's “ecology-humanities-technology” system and the five systems of human settlements science (natural, human, social, residential, and support systems), as well as the “society-economy-nature” composite ecosystem, require clarification. Given the existing research on the relationships among the five systems and within the composite ecosystem, what theoretical and methodological innovations has this paper achieved?
2. The scientific basis for constructing the “society-humanities-technology” indicator system needs strengthening, with more solid reasoning for indicator selection to ensure it truly represents the three dimensions of society, humanities, and technology in traditional villages in Xinjiang.
3. It is suggested to add a data processing section (in research methods), specifying software for data processing and mapping, as well as significance levels.
4. The basic details and selection criteria for the sample villages should be explicitly stated.
5. In the results section, the repeated introduction of research methods in subsections should be removed, keeping methodological descriptions to the research methods section.
6. The results section mainly involves data and comparisons between villages from different regions, lacking innovative and highly valuable generalizable findings with guiding significance.
7. The discussion section should elaborate on the scientific basis, limitations, operability, and transferability of the “ecology-humanities-technology” analytical framework.
8. The paper's key outcome, the “ecology-humanities-technology” system analysis framework, is not mentioned in the abstract.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors!

You do a good job!

Congratulations!

Author Response

Thank you for your approval.