Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The rationality of the questionnaire survey in this article has greatly troubled me:

(1) When exactly did the authors conduct the survey?

(2) Have all 112 villages been visited?

(3) As the authors mentioned in the article, considering the villagers' literacy level and reading habits, then why is it still necessary to adopt a combination of online and offline methods to collect questionnaires? If 112 villages were visited, why weren't all of them collected offline?

(4) There were a total of 352 questionnaires, but the number of valid questionnaires was less than 60%. What caused this?

(5) What is the spatial distribution of valid questionnaires? Currently, on average, there are less than two valid questionnaires per village. How can the overall characteristics of the entire region be reflected?

(6) Since the authors mentioned that the villages are severely hollowed out and a large number of young people go out to work (Lines 231-234), then why does the questionnaire result show that the proportion of respondents from 19 to 45 years old accounts for 57.34%?

(7) Table 6 shows that 45.5% of the respondents' occupation is "others", rather than "their occupations were primarily farmers, accounting for 20.85%" as the authors mentioned in Lines 230-231. What specific connotations do other occupations include?

2. The abstract does not need to be divided into paragraphs. Furthermore, there were 211 valid questionnaires in this article. It is inappropriate for the authors to mention in the abstract that "used to analyze 352 questionnaires on the satisfaction of the human environment".

3. Lines 121-128, it is necessary to briefly introduce why the Northeastern Hubei Province region is selected as the research area and what are the special features of this region?

4. In some places in the manuscript, Chinese characters appear, such as the legend in Figure 1, Table 8 and references.

5. Line133 should indicate "China" instead of "the country".

6. Section 2.1, (1) The explanation of the importance of the study area is insufficient and needs further supplementation. (2) It is necessary to specify the total number of villages in the study area, and the number of villages surveyed, at the same time the authors should explain how the surveyed villages were selected. By referring to Figure 2, it can be found that many villages in the central and southeastern parts of the study area have not been investigated. Please provide additional explanations for the reasons.

7. Line140-143, suggests supplementing the specific data collected.

8. Section 2.2.1, pay attention to checking "Indifferent needs (I), reverse needs (I), demand (I)" in lines 153-155. The authors used the abbreviation “I” to represent multiple indicators. Make sure that every abbreviation in Table 1 is explained.

9. In Section 2.2.2, it is suggested that "Better" and "Worse" be listed separately as formula forms.

10. Section 3.1, about the indicator framework, (1) It is suggested to supplement the literature citations related to the construction of the indicator system to enhance the credibility and rationality. (2) It seems that there is some overlap in the connotations of indicators C2 and A2. (3) The indicator D5 needs further explanation. Is light-transmitting tile used for walls or roofs? Is it because the local residents' lighting electricity supply cannot be guaranteed?

11. Why can Lines 333-335 indicate that the government has ignored the needs of the villagers? For instance, the improvement of toilets in China is a nationwide rural improvement measure. Any policy or improvement requires time and cannot be completed immediately whenever there is a need.

12. About the reasons for the hollowing villages, the authors mentioned in Lines346-348 that "Many villagers have moved out of their villages due to poor living conditions and the inability to do unauthorized repairs, leaving villages vacant and uninhabited", I think this is not the core reason for the emergence of hollow villages. Better employment and higher incomes in big cities may have a greater impact.

13. The statements in the text are contradictory. In the conclusion, the authors pointed out that "Data analysis shows that villagers have the highest demand for conserving traditional buildings "which is the top improvement need" (Lines 393-394) But in section 4.3.2, the authors indicated "Over the years, the government has focused more on protecting traditional villages than improving the apparent problems of traditional villages, which conflicts with the real needs of villagers”.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Report 1

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and insightful questions regarding our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to your queries:

 

1. The rationality of the questionnaire survey in this article has greatly troubled me:

We appreciate your concerns and provide the following clarifications:

Q1. When exactly did the authors conduct the survey?

A:The survey was conducted from August to October 2022.

 

Q2.Have all 112 villages been visited?

A:Yes, all 112 villages were visited in person during the fieldwork.

 

Q3.As the authors mentioned in the article, considering the villagers' literacy level and reading habits, then why is it still necessary to adopt a combination of online and offline methods to collect questionnaires? If 112 villages were visited, why weren't all of them collected offline?

A:While offline methods were prioritized, severe population decline in some villages made face-to-face data collection impractical. Thus, a hybrid approach (online + offline) was adopted to ensure broader demographic representation and questionnaire validity.

 

Q4. There were a total of 352 questionnaires, but the number of valid questionnaires was less than 60%. What caused this?

A: Approximately 40% of responses were excluded due to inconsistent or contradictory answers within individual questionnaires, which compromised data reliability.

 

Q5. What is the spatial distribution of valid questionnaires? Currently, on average, there are less than two valid questionnaires per village. How can the overall characteristics of the entire region be reflected?

A: Though the average valid questionnaires per village appears low (1~2 samples), our stratified sampling strategy prioritized quality and regional coverage over quantity. Valid responses spanned all 112 villages, capturing representative spatial patterns and overall regional characteristics.

 

Q6. Since the authors mentioned that the villages are severely hollowed out and a large number of young people go out to work (Lines 231-234), then why does the questionnaire result show that the proportion of respondents from 19 to 45 years old accounts for 57.34%?

A: The 57.34% representation of the 19~45 age group reflects participation through online channels, which enabled engagement with younger migrants who maintain ties to their home villages but reside elsewhere.

 

Q7. Table 6 shows that 45.5% of the respondents' occupation is "others", rather than "their occupations were primarily farmers, accounting for 20.85%" as the authors mentioned in Lines 230-231. What specific connotations do other occupations include?

A: The "other occupations" category (45.5%) primarily includes respondents who preferred not to disclose their profession. Among those who provided clear occupational data, farmers constituted the largest group (20.85%), supporting our conclusion that farming remains a primary livelihood in the region.

 

2. The abstract does not need to be divided into paragraphs. Furthermore, there were 211 valid questionnaires in this article. It is inappropriate for the authors to mention in the abstract that "used to analyze 352 questionnaires on the satisfaction of the human environment".

A:Thank you for highlighting this issue. We have revised the abstract as follows: Removed paragraph divisions for conciseness. Corrected "352 questionnaires" to "211 valid questionnaires" (Line 23) to accurately reflect the final sample size. We appreciate your meticulous review, which enhanced the precision of our methodology description.

 

Q1. Lines 121-128, it is necessary to briefly introduce why the Northeastern Hubei Province region is selected as the research area and what are the special features of this region?

Q2. Section 2.1

The explanation of the importance of the study area is insufficient and needs further supplementation.

A: Thank you very much for your comments, review experts. Important events and characteristics in the history of the research area have been added to this paper. Please refer to the revised sections in the paper for details.

 

4. In some places in the manuscript, Chinese characters appear, such as the legend in Figure 1, Table 8 and references.

A:We sincerely apologize for this oversight. The following corrective actions have been implemented: Figure 2 legend: All Chinese characters replaced with English labels. Table 8 content: Chinese text converted to English equivalents. References section: Chinese text converted to English equivalents. We deeply appreciate your vigilance in identifying these formatting issues.

 

5. Line133 should indicate "China" instead of "the country".

A: Thank you for this precise correction. We have revised Line 133 as instructed. We truly appreciate your exceptional attention to detail.

 

Q2. It is necessary to specify the total number of villages in the study area, and the number of villages surveyed, at the same time the authors should explain how the surveyed villages were selected. By referring to Figure 2, it can be found that many villages in the central and southeastern parts of the study area have not been investigated. Please provide additional explanations for the reasons.

A: Thank you for seeking clarification. We provide the following details: This survey was conducted in conjunction with the sixth round of traditional village applications. All villages on the list were recommended by county housing and urban-rural development bureaus as having significant historical and cultural value. Most are located in mountainous and hilly areas, with very few in the central and eastern plains.

 

7. Line140-143, suggests supplementing the specific data collected.

A: We appreciate this constructive suggestion. The supplementary data collected mainly consists of the collection of cultural image information from villages.

 

8. Section 2.2.1, pay attention to checking "Indifferent needs (I), reverse needs (I), demand (I)" in lines 153-155. The authors used the abbreviation “I” to represent multiple indicators. Make sure that every abbreviation in Table 1 is explained.

A: We sincerely appreciate your vigilance in identifying terminology inconsistencies. The following comprehensive revisions have been implemented.

 

9. In Section 2.2.2, it is suggested that "Better" and "Worse" be listed separately as formula forms.

A: Thank you for this valuable technical suggestion. We have implemented the revisions in Section 2.2.2 (Lines 199-203).

 

10. Section 3.1, about the indicator framework,

Q1. It is suggested to supplement the literature citations related to the construction of the indicator system to enhance the credibility and rationality.

A: We appreciate this foundational suggestion. Two seminal references have been added to Section 3.1.

 

Q2. It seems that there is some overlap in the connotations of indicators C2 and A2.

A: We respectfully maintain the original classification based on functional differentiation:

Indicator	Core Connotation	Physical Manifestations	User Behavior
C2 (Leisure squares)	Cultural landscape nodes	Characteristic plazas, heritage groves	Social gatherings, ritual activities
A2 (Fitness facilities)	Physical wellness infrastructure	Exercise equipment, sports courts	Athletic training, rehabilitation

 

Q3. The indicator D5 needs further explanation. Is light-transmitting tile used for walls or roofs? Is it because the local residents' lighting electricity supply cannot be guaranteed?

A: Traditional buildings use translucent tiles, which are mainly used on roofs to provide additional lighting. This is not because there is no electricity.

 

11. Why can Lines 333-335 indicate that the government has ignored the needs of the villagers? For instance, the improvement of toilets in China is a nationwide rural improvement measure. Any policy or improvement requires time and cannot be completed immediately whenever there is a need.

A:We appreciate the reviewer's valid perspective on policy implementation timelines, and wish to clarify that our observation regarding villager needs being overlooked (Lines 333-335) specifically refers to an imbalance in current preservation priorities -- not a negation of governmental efforts. While fully acknowledging the critical achievements of nationwide initiatives like toilet improvements, our field studies reveal that standardized "top-down" preservation policies tend to prioritize architectural aesthetics and public space visibility over immediate livability concerns voiced by villagers (e.g., roof leaks, wall integrity, and daily service access). This unintentional gap between macro-level conservation goals and micro-level habitation needs has led to self-initiated modifications that compromise heritage integrity. Our core recommendation is thus to integrate participatory "co-creation" mechanisms into existing policy frameworks to better align resource allocation with localized needs, ensuring both heritage continuity and community well-being.

 

12. About the reasons for the hollowing villages, the authors mentioned in Lines346-348 that "Many villagers have moved out of their villages due to poor living conditions and the inability to do unauthorized repairs, leaving villages vacant and uninhabited", I think this is not the core reason for the emergence of hollow villages. Better employment and higher incomes in big cities may have a greater impact.

A: We sincerely appreciate the expert reviewers' suggestions. We fully agree that urban employment opportunities and income disparities are the fundamental drivers of rural depopulation. Residents of traditional villages face certain constraints when it comes to the renovation of their dwellings (traditional buildings) and the improvement of their living environment. These constraints have played a significant role in the overall preservation of traditional villages and have achieved remarkable results. However, such constraints also tend to overlook the genuine needs of villagers. We hope to use the assessment model we have developed to identify villagers' genuine needs for improving their living environment. This will provide important reference for the government's future efforts in the protection and renewal of traditional villages.

 

13. The statements in the text are contradictory. In the conclusion, the authors pointed out that "Data analysis shows that villagers have the highest demand for conserving traditional buildings "which is the top improvement need" (Lines 393-394) But in section 4.3.2, the authors indicated "Over the years, the government has focused more on protecting traditional villages than improving the apparent problems of traditional villages, which conflicts with the real needs of villagers”.

A:The apparent contradiction stems from divergent interpretations of "conservation demand." Our data confirms villagers prioritize functional conservation (e.g., leak-proof roofs, stable walls) over aesthetic conservation (e.g., "original-form restoration"). While both sections acknowledge high demand for building improvements, Section 4.3.2 critiques how current policies disproportionately focus on aesthetic integrity (e.g., strict "restore-as-old" rules), often at the expense of addressing functional defects villagers deem urgent. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article used an interview method called Kano model, to assess the villagers’ needs for the development of traditional village habitat. The topic is of significance and the study is correctly designed.  However, there are some problems to be further improved.

The details of the manuscript revisions are outlined below:

1.Introduction

The literature review is not sufficient neither from the perspective of evaluation model. What is the advantage of Kano model compared with other methods? Line 46, the authors mentioned “Sustainable village development is essential to conserve and improve resources”, why? What is the relationship between villages and resources?

Line 112, the sentence “this approach has been” is redundant.

2. Materials and Methods

Line 133, the authors mentioned “The study area is the three counties of the eastern part of the country”. Hubei province is in the central region of the country.

In figure 2, the legend of the picture on the right is not compliant. The name of the counties should be labeled on the figure.

3. Research methods

Line 153—Line 154, the M I O R codes are not consistent with table 1.

4. Kano questionnaire and statistical analysis

Line 203 the authors mentioned “The first-level indicators were then selected to represent the meaning 203 of the first-level indicators.”  I guess this should be level 2 indicators being selected.

In Table 2, Daycare center for the elderly should be classified into public services.

5. Conclusion

 To enhance the completeness of the manuscript, it would be beneficial to include limitation in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Review Report 2

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough review and valuable suggestions. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your comments. Please find our point-by-point responses below:

 

1.Introduction

Q1. The literature review is not sufficient neither from the perspective of evaluation model. What is the advantage of Kano model compared with other methods?

A: Literature review enhancement: We have expanded the literature review on evaluation models (Lines 48-59), clarifying that the Kano model excels in capturing nuanced user needs compared to satisfaction-based methods.

 

Q2. Line 46, the authors mentioned “Sustainable village development is essential to conserve and improve resources”, why? What is the relationship between villages and resources?

1. Resource-village relationship: Sustainable village development conserves resources because villages intrinsically depend on local ecosystems for survival, while traditional practices enable communities to regenerate resources like water, soil, and biodiversity through stewardship-securing long-term supply.

 

Q3.  Line 112, the sentence “this approach has been” is redundant.

A: Redundant phrase: Removed "this approach has been" (Line 112).

 

1. Materials and Methods

Q1. Line 133, the authors mentioned “The study area is the three counties of the eastern part of the country”. Hubei province is in the central region of the country. In figure 2, the legend of the picture on the right is not compliant. The name of the counties should be labeled on the figure.

A: Geographical clarification: Corrected "eastern" to "central " (Line 133). Figure 2 revision: County names are now labeled on the map legend.

 

3.Research methods

Q1. Line 153—Line 154, the M I O R codes are not consistent with table 1. Kano questionnaire and statistical analysis

A: MIOR codes consistency: Aligned coding with Table 1 . Kano questionnaire

 

Q2. Line 203 the authors mentioned “The first-level indicators were then selected to represent the meaning 203 of the first-level indicators.”  I guess this should be level 2 indicators being selected.

A: Indicator level correction :"First-level indicators" changed to "second-level indicators" (Line 203).

 

Q3. In Table 2, Daycare center for the elderly should be classified into public services.

A: Classification of elderly facilities: We respectfully maintain the original classification because: Daycare centers in these villages predominantly function as semi-open communal spaces (e.g., courtyards with basic shelters) where elders self-organize activities. This fundamentally differs from institutional public services.

 

4. Conclusion

To enhance the completeness of the manuscript, it would be beneficial to include limitation in the conclusion section.

A: We are very grateful for the reviewers' suggestions. We have added limitations. Please refer to the conclusion section of the article for details.

However, our study also has some limitations. First, there are limitations in the scope of the study. Due to the difficulties and restrictions in distributing and collecting questionnaires, we only conducted surveys, distributed, and collected questionnaires in 112 traditional villages across three counties and cities. The study results cannot represent the true needs of residents in traditional villages across all of China. Additionally, since the remaining villagers are older and have limited cognitive abilities, some villagers may not fully understand the meaning of the questionnaire during on-site interviews. A significant portion of the collected questionnaires did not meet the standards. Future research should optimize the methods of questionnaire distribution and interviews, and expand the scope of the study and interviews.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations to the authors for the study in a relevant research field. The article is interesting and might attract a broad scientific audience. However, from the reviewer's point of view, improvements are necessary to add to the quality of the article before publishing.

The following improvements are suggested:

1. The abstract is too long, and the core statement is blurred in the provided text. It is recommended to strictly follow the research article recommendations provided by the publisher and rewrite the abstract according to the proposed structure and length, i.e.: "A single paragraph of about 200 words maximum.<...>."
2. In the Introduction, a clearer statement of the purpose of the work and its significance is demanded. Now it is relatively broad, and also diminishing in the overall description of a broad context. At the same time, it is strongly recommended to explicitly formulate the main aim of the work and highlight the principal conclusions.
3. Regarding "Figure 1. The method framework", it is placed in the manuscript without giving a reference to it in the text. It should be added to the text, and also, an explanatory section should be provided to explain how the framework will be employed to accommodate this research.
4. The Materials and Methods section should be more concentrated and focused on what is most important to this study. In its current state, it is described with too many details, elucidating ALL the implemented small steps to do this study.  It would be enough to describe the necessary information, which would allow others to replicate and build on the published results. 
5. The Results are presented and discussed with plenty of visual information, i.e., ALL tables, charts, etc. It is suggested to choose the most important findings to show and those that might be discussed, just providing the analytical text. E.g., in section 4.1, from the reviewer's point of view, it is enough to describe the summary results from the Kano model analysis, skipping Table 7, and Figure 5, providing a more detailed explanation for Tables 8 and 9, and Figure 5, which are the most significant outcomes from the analysis. It is also advised to review Chapter 4.2, which is divided into three very small paragraphs. It would be advised to get into a deeper presentation of results by giving a more holistic picture of what was found, instead of discussing separate parts of it.
6. The Conclusions are greatly supported by results, but there is a lack of a more systemic and focused approach considering the implemented research; it is too loose. More focus should be given to concluding what was found, how it adds to the field of study, and what future trajectories it might suggest.

Yours respectfully, 

The reviewer

Author Response

Review Report 3

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough review and valuable suggestions. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your comments. Please find our point-by-point responses below:

 

 

Q1. The abstract is too long, and the core statement is blurred in the provided text. It is recommended to strictly follow the research article recommendations provided by the publisher and rewrite the abstract according to the proposed structure and length, i.e.: "A single paragraph of about 200 words maximum. <...>."

A: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your time and insightful comments regarding the abstract. We agree that clarity and conciseness are paramount. In direct response to your point (1): We have carefully revised the abstract according to the journal's recommendations: Significantly Shortened: The abstract has been rigorously condensed to approximately 180 words, well within the specified 200-word maximum limit for a single paragraph. We believe the revised abstract now provides a much clearer, more concise, and impactful overview of the study, directly addressing the identified problem and highlighting its key contribution regarding villager needs and policy implications.

 

Q2. In the Introduction, a clearer statement of the purpose of the work and its significance is demanded. Now it is relatively broad, and also diminishing in the overall description of a broad context. At the same time, it is strongly recommended to explicitly formulate the main aim of the work and highlight the principal conclusions.

A: Thank you for your insightful feedback on the Introduction section. We greatly appreciate your suggestion to strengthen the clarity of the study's purpose and significance, and to highlight the principal conclusions upfront. In direct response to your point (2): We have thoroughly revised the Introduction to address your concerns: Sharper Statement of Purpose；Enhanced Significance and Gap Clarification；Streamlined Broad Context and Highlighted Principal Conclusions. Thank you again for your constructive comments, which have significantly improved the clarity and impact of our manuscript's introduction.

 

Q3. Regarding "Figure 1. The method framework", it is placed in the manuscript without giving a reference to it in the text. It should be added to the text, and also, an explanatory section should be provided to explain how the framework will be employed to accommodate this research.

A: Thank you for your thoughtful review of our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has significantly improved the clarity and rigor of our work. Regarding your comment on "Figure 1. The method framework":We have duly addressed this concern as follows: Added textual reference to Figure 1 and provided an explanatory section.Thank you again for your meticulous review. Your insights are invaluable to our study.

 

Q4. The Materials and Methods section should be more concentrated and focused on what is most important to this study. In its current state, it is described with too many details, elucidating ALL the implemented small steps to do this study.  It would be enough to describe the necessary information, which would allow others to replicate and build on the published results.

A: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have revised the Materials and Methods section to focus on essential methodologies, removing redundant procedural details. The condensed description now prioritizes:

(1) Core research design,

(2) Key data collection/analysis steps, and

(3) Replicable protocols.

This ensures clarity while maintaining scientific rigor.

 

Q5. The Results are presented and discussed with plenty of visual information, i.e., ALL tables, charts, etc. It is suggested to choose the most important findings to show and those that might be discussed, just providing the analytical text. E.g., in section 4.1, from the reviewer's point of view, it is enough to describe the summary results from the Kano model analysis, skipping Table 7, and Figure 5, providing a more detailed explanation for Tables 8 and 9, and Figure 5, which are the most significant outcomes from the analysis. It is also advised to review Chapter 4.2, which is divided into three very small paragraphs. It would be advised to get into a deeper presentation of results by giving a more holistic picture of what was found, instead of discussing separate parts of it.

A: Thank you for your insightful suggestion. We have revised the Results section to enhance focus and coherence: Streamlined visual content: Removed redundant tables/figures (e.g., Table 7); Consolidated analysis: Integrated the fragmented paragraphs in Section 4.2 into a unified narrative, emphasizing holistic trends over isolated observations. These adjustments improve clarity while preserving scientific rigor.

 

Q6. The Conclusions are greatly supported by results, but there is a lack of a more systemic and focused approach considering the implemented research; it is too loose. More focus should be given to concluding what was found, how it adds to the field of study, and what future trajectories it might sugges

A: Thank you very much for your suggestions on the album review. The conclusion section has been revised. Please refer to the revised section for details.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of the study is to highlight the importance of combining top-down and bottom-up planning styles.
The topic is current and up-to-date, and its practical applicability is also outstanding.  
In establishing the theoretical basis for the topic, the authors provide international examples what are appropriate, but the list could be expanded.
The methods used are good, and their presentation is detailed and thorough. The research process is easy to follow. The application of the Kano model is a novel, innovative experiment, which, based on the experience of the described study, can also be used to rank development needs. 
The presentation of the study is well documented and easy to follow. 

However, two questions arose while reading the study: 

Question 1: How representative are the internal proportions of respondents of the social structure of the villages studied? 
Question 2: How representative are the characteristics of the villages included in the sample of other villages in the province studied or other rural areas in China? Are there any special characteristics of the area studied?  –  This should be pointed out in a few sentences when presenting the sample area.

The results of the study are well summarized. The authors point out that adapting to needs may lead to success in development, which requires the establishment of appropriate communication channels.
 
The structure of the study is appropriate, although in my opinion it needs minor revision. I recommend shortening the title of Chapter 4 to simply "Results." Chapter 4.3 could be  formed into a separate fifth chapter (Discussion ).  
Apart from these minor corrections, I consider the work to be a study containing results that can be applied in practice.

Author Response

Review Report 4

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough review and valuable suggestions. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your comments. Please find our point-by-point responses below:

 

Question 1: How representative are the internal proportions of respondents of the social structure of the villages studied?

A:Data collection was very difficult. We visited every village and conducted questionnaire interviews. Since the survey was conducted during the summer vacation, it covered different groups, including farmers, teachers, college students, etc.

 

Question 2:  How representative are the characteristics of the villages included in the sample of other villages in the province studied or other rural areas in China? Are there any special characteristics of the area studied?  –  This should be pointed out in a few sentences when presenting the sample area.

A: We are very grateful for the reviewers' suggestions. We have explained the characteristics and significance of the scope of the study. Please refer to the revised section on the scope of the study (lines 142-153).

 

Question 3: I recommend shortening the title of Chapter 4 to simply "Results." Chapter 4.3 could be  formed into a separate fifth chapter (Discussion ). 

A:Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the structure of Chapter 4. We agree that streamlining the chapter title and separating the discussion section will enhance the clarity and logical flow of the manuscript.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded to my comments in detail and I have no further questions.