Holism and Territorial Spatial Planning Reform in China: Evolutionary Challenges and Governance Measures Under Chinese-Style Modernization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript in accordance with the recommendations. The submitted version of the manuscript contains changes that address the limitations and strengths of the study, as well as the data used. I recommend the manuscript for publication in the submitted version.

Author Response

Response: Thank you very much for your positive evaluation of our revised manuscript and for recommending it for publication. We greatly appreciate your time and constructive feedback, which helped us improve the clarity and quality of the paper. In response to the review recommendations, we further refined the manuscript by streamlining Section 2 (Research Design and Methods) to remove minor repetitions, condensing Table 2 (Line 236)for a more concise presentation, restructuring Figure 3 (Line 808) to make the analytical logic and visual hierarchy clearer, and improving the presentation of the conclusions in Section 6 to better synthesize the key findings and their implications. We believe these revisions strengthen the readability and coherence of the manuscript. Thank you again for your helpful review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequatelyaddressed the issues raised in the previous review. 

Author Response

Response: Thank you for your assessment that we have adequately addressed the issues raised in the previous review. We also appreciate your note that the English expression could be further improved. In the revised manuscript, we have conducted an additional round of language polishing, with particular attention to Section 6 (Conclusions) to ensure clearer wording and smoother academic style. In parallel, to enhance clarity and strengthen the alignment between evidence and takeaways, we have refined the presentation of the conclusions to more explicitly reflect the key results, and we have improved the readability of the visual materials by streamlining Table 2 (Line 236) and reorganizing Figure 3 (Line 808) for a clearer structure and logic. We believe these revisions further improve the overall clarity and readability of the manuscript. Thank you again for your constructive feedback.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has been significantly improved and adequately addresses all the comments raised in the initial review. The research design and methodological approach are now presented in a clear and systematic manner, the analytical framework has been updated, and both the international dimension and the potential generalizability of the findings are discussed sufficiently. The only remaining suggestion concerns Section 2 on methodology, which is thorough but could benefit from some streamlining to avoid minor repetitions.

Author Response

Reviewer comment: The only remaining suggestion concerns Section 2 on methodology, which is thorough but could benefit from some streamlining to avoid minor repetitions.

Response: Thank you for this encouraging assessment and for the remaining suggestion. We agree that the previous version of Section 2, while comprehensive, contained minor repetitions across subsections. In the revision, we streamlined Section 2 to improve readability without compromising transparency or replicability. Specifically:

1. Removed duplicated “aim–design” statements across the Section 2 lead paragraph and Section 2.1. In the previous draft, the study aim and the overall design (qualitative institutional–policy text analysis; structured cross-stage comparison via the cognition–relation–testing process; clause/paragraph coding units and stage-matrix synthesis) were described both in the Section 2 opening and reiterated in Section 2.1. We now keep a concise design statement in the Section 2 introduction and avoid restating the same procedural details in Section 2.1, which is refocused on the research questions and the conceptual role of the three-level chain.

2. Streamlined Section 2.2 to keep it strictly about data sources and scope. The earlier text repeated analytical procedures (e.g., “coded and compared across stages using cognition–relation–testing”) within the corpus description. We removed such procedural reiterations and retained only the inclusion logic and the scope definition of the policy-text and academic-literature corpora.

3. Eliminated redundancy between “framework consistency” and the coding/workflow description. In the previous draft, “framework consistency” in credibility controls overlapped with the already-specified analytical lens and coding scheme. We revised this part so that credibility controls emphasize decision-rule consistency and negative-case checks, while the framework application is described once in the analytical framework/coding sections.

Overall, these edits reduce repetition and make the methodology section more concise, while preserving all key elements required for replication (corpus inventory, inclusion criteria, operational indicators in Table 1, coding units and decision rules, and the clause-indexed evidence log in the Appendix).

In addition, we made several presentation-focused revisions to further improve clarity:

1. Table 2: We condensed the table by removing redundant descriptors and merging overlapping entries, while retaining all information necessary for comparison and interpretation. (Line 236)

2. Figure 3: We reorganized the figure structure (layout and labeling) to make the analytical logic more explicit and to improve the visual correspondence between the framework components and the empirical stages. (Line 808)

3. Section 6 (Conclusions): We revised the conclusion section to present the main contributions more clearly, including a more direct synthesis of the key findings and their governance implications.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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

The study is dedicated to the issues of territorial spatial planning management in China. Territorial spatial planning is important for the economic development, ecological security, and prosperity of the local community. The optimization of approaches to spatial planning is a topical issue, since there are no unified patterns of territorial planning management at the moment. The study is topical: approaches, developed for China, could be implemented in other territorial planning systems.  

The study is relevant to the Journal scope: it addresses the issues of land management and the related problems.  

The framework of the main stages of territorial spatial planning in China is well elaborated in the paper. The challenges and disadvantages of territorial reform in China were substantiated.

It would be reasonable to consider the following issues for publication:

1. In the Discussion, the advantages of the study as compared to the existing ones could be indicated, and links to the respective literature sources could be presented.
2. The limitations of the study could be singled out. For example, the analysis of the historical stages of the territorial planning in China is the core of the study: five stages were singled out. I presume, another number of stages could alter the analytical structure of territorial spatial planning, developed by authors. The approach to the division of the territorial spatial planning into the historical stages could have been elaborated in the manuscript. The point is that if the authors had identified the limitations, the proposed methodology would have been more understandable for the scientific community.
3. It would be reasonable to point out, how the research findings can be transferred to other territorial systems, or indicate they are applicable to China only.
4. It would be reasonable to present data sources.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper focuses on highly localised spatial planning issues in China and relies almost entirely on context-specific references. While this provides depth, it significantly limits the paper’s relevance and appeal to a broader international audience. The authors do not clearly explain why this topic matters beyond the local case, what practical or policy consequences may occur if the problem remains unresolved, or why the proposed approach offers clear advantages over existing theories or planning frameworks.

The choice of holism as the main theoretical perspective is not sufficiently justified. The paper would benefit from a clearer comparison with other established approaches, such as systems theory or complex adaptive systems theory, including their similarities, differences, and respective strengths and weaknesses. Without this comparison, the theoretical positioning appears weak and underdeveloped.

A major concern is that the findings appear largely speculative, with limited empirical support and insufficient engagement with the wider literature. The methodology is not clearly explained and the study reads more like a narrative discussion than a systematic and scholarly analysis, which raises concerns about the validity of the findings.

Finally, although several figures are included to present key components of the framework, they are overly complex and not well explained. Clearer structure and more straightforward explanations are needed to help readers understand how these figures support the main argument.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an interesting topic, focusing on the development of a holistic approach to territorial spatial planning reform in China under the framework of Chinese-style modernization. Although the manuscript is well structured, I believe that the following revisions are necessary in order for the paper to be suitable for publication:

• In the Introduction, the central research question should be stated more explicitly and clearly.
• Figure 1 on page 2 is highly useful and informative; however, I would suggest revising its caption to clarify how the figure is used as an analytical tool throughout the remainder of the article.
• The methodological approach is not sufficiently clarified. For this reason, I would recommend adding a dedicated section that explicitly presents and discusses the methodological approach adopted in the study. Such a section would facilitate readers’ understanding and support the application of this approach in future research.
• The analysis is conducted primarily at a theoretical level and does not make use of concrete examples. I would therefore suggest enriching the analysis with illustrative examples that substantiate the arguments presented.
• In Section 4.2, the proposed governance responses remain rather general. It would be helpful to make them more specific so that they can be more readily operationalized as policy tools.
• The manuscript focuses exclusively on the Chinese case and lacks an explicit international perspective. In order to enhance its relevance for an international audience, I would suggest adding a section discussing which elements of the proposed framework are specific to China and which could have broader theoretical or comparative applicability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf