Spatiotemporal Analysis of Traditional Villages in Southern Jiangsu Based on GIS and Historical Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposes to investigate the spatiotemporal resilience of traditional villages using GIS technology and multi-source heterogeneous data fusion, aiming to support intelligent decision-making. However, there are several critical issues that significantly limit the academic clarity, coherence, and contribution of the paper. These include inconsistencies between the title, abstract, and content; a lack of methodological transparency; and insufficient analytical depth. My detailed comments are provided below:

Title and Abstract

1. The title and abstract suggest that this study explores the spatiotemporal resilience mechanism of traditional villages using GIS technology integrated with multi-source heterogeneous data fusion and deep learning, and that it develops an intelligent decision-making system capable of scenario simulation for policy guidance. Specifically, the abstract mentions the application of the social-ecological system (SES) resilience theory, analysis based on local chronicles, remote sensing data, and socio-economic statistics, and the identification of resilience adaptation phases and key influencing factors using tools such as the geographic detector. However, the manuscript does not deliver on several of these core claims. The analysis presented is mainly based on standard GIS spatial analysis techniques (e.g., kernel density, nearest neighbor analysis) and does not involve any deep learning models, data fusion methodologies, or intelligent decision-making systems. While the historical and spatial evolution of villages is mapped and described, there is no clear application or conceptual framing of the SES resilience theory, nor is there any mechanistic exploration of resilience in a dynamic or system-based sense. The geographic detector method, although mentioned in the abstract, is not used in the methods or results. Furthermore, the intelligent decision support system and scenario simulations are not developed, presented, or discussed in the manuscript. To improve clarity and academic integrity, the title and abstract need to be revised to reflect the actual content and scope of the study.
   
   

Introduction

2. The sentence “The decline in village vitality stems from the complex interaction of various factors” at the end of the first paragraph is relevant but somewhat vague. Since the previous sentence already identifies specific contributing factors (e.g., urban expansion, land reallocation, demographic shifts), consider revising it to enhance clarity and improve the logical flow.
3. In the second paragraph, it claims that the study fills gaps in the literature, particularly regarding meso- and micro-scale analysis at the municipal level. However, it does not provide a clear summary of the existing literature or explicitly identify what those gaps are. To strengthen the justification of the study’s contribution, the authors should briefly outline the current state of research and clarify the specific gaps their study addresses.
4. The introduction lacks a clear and logical flow. It begins by discussing the general importance of traditional villages in China, then shifts abruptly to the study area's location and the significance of this particular study. It then returns to reiterate the importance of traditional villages before finally addressing local and international research. For improved coherence, the authors should restructure the introduction to follow a more logical sequence—starting with the broader context, then the literature gap, study area, and finally the study's aim and contribution.
5. The introduction contains some redundancy in the presentation of ideas. For instance, both paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 emphasize the importance of Chinese traditional villages, leading to repetition. Additionally, the study area's location (traditional villages in Suzhou City) is introduced multiple times throughout the introduction.
6. The sentence mentioning the government measures is somewhat general. It could benefit from more detail about the specific actions or guidelines provided in the 'Measures for the Selection of Famous Historical and Cultural Towns (Villages) in China' (Ministry of Finance of the People's Republic of China, 2020). Elaborating on what these measures entail would strengthen the reader's understanding of how they contribute to the preservation and development of traditional villages.
7. The literature in the final paragraph of the introduction highlights key international research topics on traditional villages but does not address the gaps within this body of research. It would be helpful to explicitly identify these gaps in the international studies and clarify the unique contribution of this study within the broader international context.
8. The introduction does not clearly convey the novelty or specific objectives of the study. It should explicitly articulate the study’s unique contribution relative to existing research and specify the particular challenges it intends to address. Furthermore, the research questions or objectives should be clearly stated to guide the reader and set well-defined expectations for the study.

 

Materials and Methods

9. Section 2.1. While the historical and cultural background of Suzhou is informative, the description in Section 2.1 diverges from the scientific focus of the study. The narrative currently emphasizes Suzhou’s general history and cultural achievements rather than its relevance to the study of traditional villages. It is recommended to revise this section to concentrate more directly on the spatial, historical, and geographical features that are specifically relevant to traditional village preservation and distribution.
10. The sentence: “After rigorous screening, data de-duplication, and validation, 67 traditional villages in Suzhou City were selected as research samples” is vague and lacks transparency. The authors should clearly define:

 -What specific validation criteria were applied.

 -The process used to screen and de-duplicate the data.

 -The basis for selecting the final 67 villages. -The number and types of historical documents reviewed, and the timeframe these  documents covered.

11. The methodology section should be revised to explain:

-What specific elements or variables were analyzed (e.g., spatial distribution, temporal formation, socio-economic characteristics).

-Why these elements are important for understanding traditional village patterns.

- How each methodological tool (e.g., SDEA, NNI, KDE) contributes to the research objectives.

12. To enhance clarity, it is strongly recommended to include a flowchart that summarizes the data collection, processing, and analytical procedures. This will help readers understand the methodological structure and logical sequence of the study.
13. A map showing the geographical scope of Suzhou and the spatial distribution of the 67 selected traditional villages is essential. This would provide critical spatial context and support the visual interpretation of the findings.

 

Results

14. In Section 3.1.1, there appears to be a logical inconsistency between points (b) and (c). Point (b) states that the number of traditional villages continued to grow steadily after the Song Dynasty, while point (c) indicates that the growth rate declined after the Song Dynasty before peaking again during the Ming Dynasty. This creates confusion between the cumulative number of villages and the rate of their establishment. Please clarify this distinction to ensure logical consistency. Additionally, the text refers to the Majiabang and Liangzhu cultures as the earliest phases of traditional village formation. However, while the Majiabang culture is mentioned in the narrative, it is not represented in Figure 1, which shows the statistical distribution of the formation periods of traditional villages in Suzhou City. For accuracy and consistency, please ensure that all historical periods discussed in the text are also reflected in the figure.
15. There appears to be a discrepancy between the stated scope of the study and the content presented in the results section. In the abstract and introduction, the study is described as focusing on traditional villages since the Song Dynasty. However, in Section 3.1 of the results, the formation of traditional villages is discussed beginning with the Majiabang and Liangzhu cultures, which significantly predate the Song Dynasty. Please clarify whether the study includes villages formed prior to the Song Dynasty. If so, the abstract and introduction should be revised to reflect the full historical range; if not, the results section should be adjusted to align with the stated scope.
16. At the beginning of section 3.3, it is mentioned that this section analyzes three indicators—population density, road network density, and urbanization rate—yet Table 1 and the discussion of this section expand to include GDP per capita and primary industry output. This part need to be revised.
17. Section 3.3.2, titled “Transportation conditions,” introduces GDP per capita and primary industry output—both economic indicators—before later analyzing economic development more fully in 3.3.3. This is confusing. It is recommended to keep transportation indicators (e.g., road density) separate from economic metrics for a more logical structure.
18. The argument in section 3.3.2 "Generally, higher road network density implies ease of transportation, which can attract population concentration and promote regional development. However, it may also reduce an area's resilience to external disturbances. With the exception of Kunshan City, areas with a high number of traditional villages typically exhibit lower road network density. This is particularly evident in Wuzhong District, which has the largest number of traditional villages, suggesting that lower road network density may provide a degree of protection for these traditional communities." Need more explanation. How the low road density helps preserve traditional villages.
19. Table 1 includes Gusu and Industrial Park districts, both of which contain zero traditional villages. Given that the focus of the study is on traditional villages, the rationale for including these districts should be clearly explained. If these districts are presented as contrasting cases to highlight the absence of traditional villages due to urban transformation or other socio-economic pressures, this should be clearly stated in the text.
20. The study examines the distribution of traditional villages, which often date back to ancient times. However, the socio-economic indicators presented in Table 1 (e.g., population density, GDP per capita, urbanization rate) are drawn from the Suzhou Statistical Yearbook 2023, reflecting current conditions. The manuscript needs to clearly justify the use of present-day data to analyze historical phenomena. Clarification also needs to be added to the methodology section.

 

Discussion

21. The discussion section is notably brief and would benefit from further expansion. It should include deeper arguments that critically interpret the study’s findings, relate them to existing literature, and explain the broader implications. This would improve the manuscript's analytical strength and better highlight the contribution of the study.

 

References

22. There are issues with the placement, consistency, and accuracy of some references in the introduction. For example, citing a reference when stating the study's own aim—“Using geographic information systems (GIS) and historical documents, it aims to analyze the mechanisms driving their spatiotemporal evolution...” (Wang et al., 2021)—is inappropriate, as this sentence refers to the current research and does not require external support. Additionally, the references to Zhao Rui et al. (2019) and Zhao & Shen (2019) are used redundantly within the same sentence, and the formatting is inconsistent. Also, the statement “International research on traditional villages...” is followed by a citation of Hu et al. (2023), which actually focuses on local Chinese cases in Dong ethnic areas, making the label “international” misleading. These issues should be corrected for proper academic referencing and clarity.
23. The manuscript exhibits inconsistency in the in-text citation style. For example, “Yajuan et al. (2013)” and “(Xue et al., 2024)”. This inconsistency appears throughout the manuscript and should be corrected to ensure a uniform citation style in line with the journal’s guidelines.
24. Section 2.2. The data sources section refers to official lists of traditional villages (from the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, Ministry of Construction, State Administration of Cultural Heritage, and Jiangsu Province), but no citations are provided. These references should be clearly cited in the text and included in the manuscript’s reference list.
25. The references cited for the methods, specifically (Zuo et al., 2022) and (Kang et al., 2016), are not currently available online or traceable. The authors should verify the accuracy and accessibility of these references and ensure they are properly listed in the reference section.
26. The reference cited in section 3.3.1, specifically (Lu, Zhang & Zhang, 2018), is not currently available online or traceable. The authors should verify the accuracy and accessibility of the references and ensure they are properly listed in the reference section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English in the manuscript is generally clear, though minor revisions are needed. Specifically, attention should be paid to the capitalization of city names, as well as the formatting of figure captions and table titles. Additionally, reviewing the flow of sentences and ensuring the clarity of the text would further improve the manuscript. These adjustments will enhance consistency and overall clarity.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Spatiotemporal Analysis of Traditional Villages in Southern Jiangsu Based on GIS and Historical Data” (Manuscript ID: architecture-3633321). We appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality of our research presentation.

 

We have carefully addressed each of the reviewers' comments and suggestions point by point. Below, we provide a detailed response to the reviewers' comments along with the corresponding revisions made in the manuscript:

 

Author's Notes to Reviewer1

 

Comments 1:

The title and abstract suggest that this study explores the spatiotemporal resilience mechanism of traditional villages using GIS technology integrated with multi-source heterogeneous data fusion and deep learning, and that it develops an intelligent decision-making system capable of scenario simulation for policy guidance. Specifically, the abstract mentions the application of the social-ecological system (SES) resilience theory, analysis based on local chronicles, remote sensing data, and socio-economic statistics, and the identification of resilience adaptation phases and key influencing factors using tools such as the geographic detector. However, the manuscript does not deliver on several of these core claims. The analysis presented is mainly based on standard GIS spatial analysis techniques (e.g., kernel density, nearest neighbor analysis) and does not involve any deep learning models, data fusion methodologies, or intelligent decision-making systems. While the historical and spatial evolution of villages is mapped and described, there is no clear application or conceptual framing of the SES resilience theory, nor is there any mechanistic exploration of resilience in a dynamic or system-based sense. The geographic detector method, although mentioned in the abstract, is not used in the methods or results. Furthermore, the intelligent decision support system and scenario simulations are not developed, presented, or discussed in the manuscript. To improve clarity and academic integrity, the title and abstract need to be revised to reflect the actual content and scope of the study.

Response 1:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have carefully modified both the title and the abstract to accurately reflect the actual research content, which primarily involves spatiotemporal analysis using GIS techniques (including kernel density estimation, nearest neighbor analysis, and standard deviation ellipses), based on historical documents, remote sensing, and socio-economic data. The theoretical framing now emphasizes spatial characteristics without referencing unimplemented frameworks such as SES or advanced AI tools.

We appreciate the reviewer’s emphasis on academic integrity and clarity and have taken steps to revise these sections accordingly.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document. [page 1, Title and Abstract section]

 

Comments 2:

The sentence “The decline in village vitality stems from the complex interaction of various factors” at the end of the first paragraph is relevant but somewhat vague. Since the previous sentence already identifies specific contributing factors (e.g., urban expansion, land reallocation, demographic shifts), consider revising it to enhance clarity and improve the logical flow.

Response 2:

Agree. We have accordingly finalized the presentation of the sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the introduction to enhance its clarity and improve its logical flow.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document. [Page 1, Introduction section, Paragraph 1, Lines 11–14]

 

Comments 3:

In the second paragraph, it claims that the study fills gaps in the literature, particularly regarding meso- and micro-scale analysis at the municipal level. However, it does not provide a clear summary of the existing literature or explicitly identify what those gaps are. To strengthen the justification of the study’s contribution, the authors should briefly outline the current state of research and clarify the specific gaps their study addresses.

Response 3:

Agree. We have added a corresponding completed summary of the gap in the literature in paragraph 5 of the introduction, along with a statement of the current state of research and major contributions in paragraph 7.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document. [Page 2, Introduction section, Paragraph 5&7]

 

Comments 4:

The introduction lacks a clear and logical flow. It begins by discussing the general importance of traditional villages in China, then shifts abruptly to the study area's location and the significance of this particular study. It then returns to reiterate the importance of traditional villages before finally addressing local and international research. For improved coherence, the authors should restructure the introduction to follow a more logical sequence—starting with the broader context, then the literature gap, study area, and finally the study's aim and contribution.

Response 4:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.

In response, we have thoroughly restructured the introduction to improve its logical consistency. The revised introduction now follows a progressive sequence:

1.Begins with the broad importance of traditional villages in the context of cultural heritage and sustainable development in China;

2.Moves into a critical review of the current literature, identifying gaps in meso- and micro-scale spatial analysis, as well as regional imbalances in eastern China;

3.Introduces the study area (Suzhou, Southern Jiangsu) and explains its representativeness and historical depth;

4.Concludes with a clear statement of the study’s objectives and contributions.

These changes enhance the readability and logic of the introduction.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document. [Page1-2, Introduction section, Paragraph 1-7]

 

Comments 5:

The introduction contains some redundancy in the presentation of ideas. For instance, both paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 emphasize the importance of Chinese traditional villages, leading to repetition. Additionally, the study area's location (traditional villages in Suzhou City) is introduced multiple times throughout the introduction.

Response 5:

Agree. We have appropriately deleted and adjusted the first, third and fourth paragraphs of the introduction in accordance with the new logical order to avoid the pronunciation when expressing opinions.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document. [Page1-2, Introduction section, Paragraph 1-3]

 

Comments 6:

The sentence mentioning the government measures is somewhat general. It could benefit from more detail about the specific actions or guidelines provided in the 'Measures for the Selection of Famous Historical and Cultural Towns (Villages) in China' (Ministry of Finance of the People's Republic of China, 2020). Elaborating on what these measures entail would strengthen the reader's understanding of how they contribute to the preservation and development of traditional villages.

Response 6:

Agree. we have elaborated on the specific provisions of the Measures for the Selection of Famous Historical and Cultural Towns (Villages) in China (2020), including selection criteria (historical and cultural value, integrity of traditional pattern) and protection requirements (designation, regular assessment). This provides a clearer understanding of how these policies contribute to the conservation of traditional villages.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document. [Page1-2, Introduction section, Paragraph 2, Lines 4–7]

 

Comments 7:

The literature in the final paragraph of the introduction highlights key international research topics on traditional villages but does not address the gaps within this body of research. It would be helpful to explicitly identify these gaps in the international studies and clarify the unique contribution of this study within the broader international context.

Response 7:

Agree. We have realigned the international research analysis paragraph to the fourth paragraph of the introduction section to enhance the overall logic of the article, as well as to enhance the description of international research gaps.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document. [Page2, Introduction section, Paragraph 4, Lines 6–8]

 

Comments 8:

The introduction does not clearly convey the novelty or specific objectives of the study. It should explicitly articulate the study’s unique contribution relative to existing research and specify the particular challenges it intends to address. Furthermore, the research questions or objectives should be clearly stated to guide the reader and set well-defined expectations for the study.

Response 8:

Agree. We have added an overall statement of the gaps in existing research in paragraph 5 of the introduction to highlight the unique contribution of this study, as well as a statement of the purpose and contribution of the study in paragraph 7 of the introduction.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document. [Page2, Introduction section, Paragraph 5&7]

 

Comments 9:

Section 2.1. While the historical and cultural background of Suzhou is informative, the description in Section 2.1 diverges from the scientific focus of the study. The narrative currently emphasizes Suzhou’s general history and cultural achievements rather than its relevance to the study of traditional villages. It is recommended to revise this section to concentrate more directly on the spatial, historical, and geographical features that are specifically relevant to traditional village preservation and distribution.

Response 9:

Agree. In the revised version, we have removed the overly broad narrative and restructured the section to focus specifically on Suzhou’s spatial, historical, and environmental characteristics that influence the formation, distribution, and preservation of traditional villages.

We now emphasize Suzhou's topographical features, hydrography, long-standing agricultural settlement patterns, and administrative history, all of which contribute to its significance as a representative case for studying traditional villages in eastern China.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document. [Page3, 2.1. Study area, Paragraph 1-3]

 

Comments 10:

The sentence: “After rigorous screening, data de-duplication, and validation, 67 traditional villages in Suzhou City were selected as research samples” is vague and lacks transparency. The authors should clearly define:

 -What specific validation criteria were applied.

 -The process used to screen and de-duplicate the data.

 -The basis for selecting the final 67 villages.

 -The number and types of historical documents reviewed, and the timeframe these documents covered.

Response 10:

Regarding the selection of the 67 traditional villages, we appreciate your concern about transparency. In fact, the original manuscript already explains the data sources (e.g., the list of traditional Chinese villages published by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development and other departments since 2012, the list of Chinese historical and cultural villages published by the Ministry of Construction and the State Administration of Cultural Heritage since 2003, the list of provincial-level traditional villages published by Jiangsu Province since 2020). We have further clarified the screening, de-duplication, and validation criteria in Section 2.2 to make the selection process more explicit.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document. [Page3, 2.2. Data sources, Paragraph 1, Line 7-10]

 

Comments 11:

The methodology section should be revised to explain:

-What specific elements or variables were analyzed (e.g., spatial distribution, temporal formation, socio-economic characteristics).

-Why these elements are important for understanding traditional village patterns.

- How each methodological tool (e.g., SDEA, NNI, KDE) contributes to the research objectives.

Response 11:

Agree. we have revised the methodology section to specify the key variables analyzed (e.g., temporal quantity distribution, spatial distribution patterns, historical evolutionary features) and to explain the rationale for choosing each analytical method (SDEA, KDE, NNI). We also added a description of how these methods contribute to answering the research questions.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document. [Page4, 2.3. Methods, Paragraph 1-3]

 

Comments 12:

To enhance clarity, it is strongly recommended to include a flowchart that summarizes the data collection, processing, and analytical procedures. This will help readers understand the methodological structure and logical sequence of the study.

Response 12:

Agree. Following your helpful suggestion, we have added a new figure (Figure 2) that presents a flowchart summarizing the research framework and corresponding research methods. This flowchart is now referenced in the methodology section.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document. [Page 5, 2.3. Methods, Figure 2]

 

Comments 13:

A map showing the geographical scope of Suzhou and the spatial distribution of the 67 selected traditional villages is essential. This would provide critical spatial context and support the visual interpretation of the findings.

Response 13:

Agree. We have added a map of the study area and the spatial distribution of the 67 traditional villages (Figure 1).

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document. [Page4, 2.2. Data sources, Figure 1]

 

Comments 14:

In Section 3.1.1, there appears to be a logical inconsistency between points (b) and (c). Point (b) states that the number of traditional villages continued to grow steadily after the Song Dynasty, while point (c) indicates that the growth rate declined after the Song Dynasty before peaking again during the Ming Dynasty. This creates confusion between the cumulative number of villages and the rate of their establishment. Please clarify this distinction to ensure logical consistency. Additionally, the text refers to the Majiabang and Liangzhu cultures as the earliest phases of traditional village formation. However, while the Majiabang culture is mentioned in the narrative, it is not represented in Figure 1, which shows the statistical distribution of the formation periods of traditional villages in Suzhou City. For accuracy and consistency, please ensure that all historical periods discussed in the text are also reflected in the figure.

Response 14:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the valuable and detailed feedback. Regarding the first point, we acknowledge that the original text may have caused confusion due to the ambiguous distinction between the cumulative number of villages and the rate of their establishment. To address this, we have revised Section 3.1.1 to clarify that the total number of villages continued to increase after the Song Dynasty, while the growth rate of new village numbers declined before experiencing a peak again in the Ming Dynasty. This distinction has now been explicitly stated to avoid misinterpretation.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document. [Page5-6, 3.1.1 Formation time distribution characteristics of traditional villages, Paragraph 1, Line 6-9]

Regarding the second point, we agree that referencing the Majiabang culture without representation in Figure 3 created inconsistency. The Majiabang and Liangzhu cultures are both early forms of human society, so the article lumped them together in the statistics, which is not reflected in the chart, so we have corrected this error in the chart.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document. [Page6, Figure 3]

 

Comments 15:

There appears to be a discrepancy between the stated scope of the study and the content presented in the results section. In the abstract and introduction, the study is described as focusing on traditional villages since the Song Dynasty. However, in Section 3.1 of the results, the formation of traditional villages is discussed beginning with the Majiabang and Liangzhu cultures, which significantly predate the Song Dynasty. Please clarify whether the study includes villages formed prior to the Song Dynasty. If so, the abstract and introduction should be revised to reflect the full historical range; if not, the results section should be adjusted to align with the stated scope.

Response 15:

Agree. This study includes villages formed before the Song Dynasty, and we have revised the abstract and introduction to reflect the full historical scope.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document.

[Page1, Abstract; Page1, Introduction, Paragraph 1&7;]

 

Comments 16:

At the beginning of section 3.3, it is mentioned that this section analyzes three indicators—population density, road network density, and urbanization rate—yet Table 1 and the discussion of this section expand to include GDP per capita and primary industry output. This part need to be revised.

Response 16:

Agree. The discrepancy between the number of indicators listed at the beginning of Section 3.3 and those used in Table 1 has been addressed. We revised the introductory sentence to include all five indicators (population density, road network density, urbanization rate, GDP per capita, and proportion of primary industry) to ensure consistency.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document.

[Page11, 3.3. Paragraph 1, Line5]

 

Comments 17:

Section 3.3.2, titled “Transportation conditions,” introduces GDP per capita and primary industry output—both economic indicators—before later analyzing economic development more fully in 3.3.3. This is confusing. It is recommended to keep transportation indicators (e.g., road density) separate from economic metrics for a more logical structure.

Response 17:

Agree. We have restructured the content of Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 by removing economic indicators from the “Transportation Conditions” section and placing them under “Economic Development”. This enhances logical coherence.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document.

[Page12, 3.3.3. Economic development level, Paragraph 1]

 

Comments 18:

The argument in section 3.3.2 "Generally, higher road network density implies ease of transportation, which can attract population concentration and promote regional development. However, it may also reduce an area's resilience to external disturbances. With the exception of Kunshan City, areas with a high number of traditional villages typically exhibit lower road network density. This is particularly evident in Wuzhong District, which has the largest number of traditional villages, suggesting that lower road network density may provide a degree of protection for these traditional communities." Need more explanation. How the low road density helps preserve traditional villages.

Response 18:

Agree. We have elaborated on how lower road density might provide a degree of protection for traditional villages, including reduced development pressure and limited land conversion.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document.

[Page12, 3.3.2. Transportation conditions, Paragraph 1, Line 3-7]

 

Comments 19:

Table 1 includes Gusu and Industrial Park districts, both of which contain zero traditional villages. Given that the focus of the study is on traditional villages, the rationale for including these districts should be clearly explained. If these districts are presented as contrasting cases to highlight the absence of traditional villages due to urban transformation or other socio-economic pressures, this should be clearly stated in the text.

Response 19:

Agree. The inclusion of Gusu District and the Industrial Park in Table 1 is now explained as a deliberate contrast to highlight the urbanization-driven disappearance of traditional villages.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document.

[Page11, 3.3. Paragraph 2]

 

Comments 20:

The study examines the distribution of traditional villages, which often date back to ancient times. However, the socio-economic indicators presented in Table 1 (e.g., population density, GDP per capita, urbanization rate) are drawn from the Suzhou Statistical Yearbook 2023, reflecting current conditions. The manuscript needs to clearly justify the use of present-day data to analyze historical phenomena. Clarification also needs to be added to the methodology section.

Response 20:

Agree. We have added a note in the methodology (Section 2.2) explaining that present-day socio-economic data are used to analyze the current spatial survival and vulnerability patterns of historical villages under modern development pressures.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document.

[Page4, Paragraph 1, Line 4-7]

 

Comments 21:

The discussion section is notably brief and would benefit from further expansion. It should include deeper arguments that critically interpret the study’s findings, relate them to existing literature, and explain the broader implications. This would improve the manuscript's analytical strength and better highlight the contribution of the study.

Response 21:

Agree. We have further examined how the spatial pattern of “peripheral agglomeration and central decline” reflects regional socio-economic restructuring and environmental constraints.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document.

[Page12-13, 4.1 Implications for policy making and rural revitalization, Paragraph 1]

 

Comments 22:

There are issues with the placement, consistency, and accuracy of some references in the introduction. For example, citing a reference when stating the study's own aim—“Using geographic information systems (GIS) and historical documents, it aims to analyze the mechanisms driving their spatiotemporal evolution...” (Wang et al., 2021)—is inappropriate, as this sentence refers to the current research and does not require external support. Additionally, the references to Zhao Rui et al. (2019) and Zhao & Shen (2019) are used redundantly within the same sentence, and the formatting is inconsistent. Also, the statement “International research on traditional villages...” is followed by a citation of Hu et al. (2023), which actually focuses on local Chinese cases in Dong ethnic areas, making the label “international” misleading. These issues should be corrected for proper academic referencing and clarity.

Response 22:

Agree. We have corrected the relevant issues throughout the text, as well as deleting and revising the three points mentioned by the expert.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document.

[Page 2, Paragraph 1, Line 3, Line6-9; Page 2, Paragraph 2, Line 2]

 

Comments 23:

The manuscript exhibits inconsistency in the in-text citation style. For example, “Yajuan et al. (2013)” and “(Xue et al., 2024)”. This inconsistency appears throughout the manuscript and should be corrected to ensure a uniform citation style in line with the journal’s guidelines.

Response 23:

Agree. We have corrected the relevant issues throughout the text, as well as deleting and revising the three points mentioned by the expert.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document.

[Page 1, Introduction section, Paragraph 1, Line1-4] [Page 2, Paragraph 1, Line6-9;]

 

Comments 24:

Section 2.2. The data sources section refers to official lists of traditional villages (from the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, Ministry of Construction, State Administration of Cultural Heritage, and Jiangsu Province), but no citations are provided. These references should be clearly cited in the text and included in the manuscript’s reference list.

Response 24:

The lists of traditional villages used in this study were retrieved from the official websites of the state council of the people's republic of China, the Research Center for Traditional Village Protection and Development, and the Jiangsu Provincial Department of Housing and Urban-Rural Development.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document.

[Page 3, 2.2. Data sources, Paragraph 1, Line 3,5,6]

 

Comments 25:

The references cited for the methods, specifically (Zuo et al., 2022) and (Kang et al., 2016), are not currently available online or traceable. The authors should verify the accuracy and accessibility of these references and ensure they are properly listed in the reference section.

Response 25:

Agree.We have verified and modified the English names of the relevant literature. We have ensured that their full bibliographic information is correctly listed in the references section.

[Page 15-16]

 

Comments 26:

The reference cited in section 3.3.1, specifically (Lu, Zhang & Zhang, 2018), is not currently available online or traceable. The authors should verify the accuracy and accessibility of the references and ensure they are properly listed in the reference section.

Response 26:

Agree.We have verified and modified the English names of the relevant literature.

[Page 16]

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study maps traditional villages and examines their spatiotemporal distribution along with other influencing factors. However, the writing style looks like a direct translation of a Chinese technical report, which affects clarity and readability. To meet publication standards, the paper requires substantial revisions, particularly in clearly articulating the research objectives and methodological approach. Currently, both the purpose of the study and the methodologies employed are inadequately explained, limiting the paper's academic rigor and impact.

 

The Introduction section requires significant improvement. The background and the core problem are not clearly articulated, making it difficult to understand the context and motivation of the study. Additionally, the language needs refinement—there are too many jargons that are either undefined or unclear. For example, define what is meant by a "cultural heritage site" within the scope of this paper, and define what is meant by the "spatial-temporal distribution of the villages", etc. Assume the reader has no prior knowledge of the subject to ensure the paper is accessible and informative. At the end of the introduction, it is highly recommended to include a summary of the literature gap, clearly state the research question, and provide an overview of the paper’s structure.

 

Section 2.3 Method section is currently very weak. The authors should provide stronger justifications to support their choice of methods and demonstrate why these approaches are appropriate and convincing for the study. Right now, it is just a list of method names. Additionally, the literature review should be expanded to include relevant studies that have used similar methods for comparable research topics.

 

Section 3.1.1 Village formation time. It would be helpful for the authors to clarify how the formation times of the villages were determined. Are these dates explicitly documented in the data sources? Additionally, are there cases where a village was established at a certain time but later disappeared or ceased to exist? Providing more detailed information on these aspects would strengthen the section and improve the reader’s understanding.

 

Section 3.1.2 Spatial pattern. Similar to the temporal distribution, have there been any cases where the village's geographic location shifted while retaining the same name? This should be addressed in the analysis.

 

Figure 4(a): The meaning and significance of the standard deviation ellipse should be clearly explained in the methodology section. Additionally, the results should discuss what these ellipses reveal about the spatial distribution of villages.

 

Section 3.3. The authors used current socio-economic indicators in their analysis. However, I question whether present-day socio-economic conditions are relevant to the historical formation and transformation of these villages. While I acknowledge that ancient socio-economic data may be inaccessible, the authors should provide justification for how contemporary socio-economic factors influence the villages' development over time.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Spatiotemporal Analysis of Traditional Villages in Southern Jiangsu Based on GIS and Historical Data” (Manuscript ID: architecture-3633321). We appreciate the constructive comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality of our research presentation.

 

We have carefully addressed each of the reviewers' comments and suggestions point by point. Below, we provide a detailed response to the reviewers' comments along with the corresponding revisions made in the manuscript:

 

 

Author's Notes to Reviewer2

 

Comments 1:

The Introduction section requires significant improvement. The background and the core problem are not clearly articulated, making it difficult to understand the context and motivation of the study. Additionally, the language needs refinement—there are too many jargons that are either undefined or unclear. For example, define what is meant by a "cultural heritage site" within the scope of this paper, and define what is meant by the "spatial-temporal distribution of the villages", etc. Assume the reader has no prior knowledge of the subject to ensure the paper is accessible and informative. At the end of the introduction, it is highly recommended to include a summary of the literature gap, clearly state the research question, and provide an overview of the paper’s structure.

Response 1:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have added a summary of gaps in the literature in the fifth paragraph of the introduction, a statement of the research question and an overview of the structure of the paper in paragraph 7; we have also added an explanation of the concept of “spatial and temporal distribution”. The meaning of a cultural heritage site is not central to the study and is not defined in detail.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document. [page 1, Introduction section, Paragraph 5] [page 1, Introduction section, Paragraph 7, Line 3]

 

Comments 2:

Section 2.3 Method section is currently very weak. The authors should provide stronger justifications to support their choice of methods and demonstrate why these approaches are appropriate and convincing for the study. Right now, it is just a list of method names. Additionally, the literature review should be expanded to include relevant studies that have used similar methods for comparable research topics.

Response 2:

Agree. We have revised Section 2.3 to include detailed explanations of each spatial analysis method (KDE, NNI, SDEA), clarifying how each corresponds to a specific research objective. We also added citations to support the methodological choices.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document. [page 4-5, 2.3. Methods]

 

Comments 3:

Section 3.1.1 Village formation time. It would be helpful for the authors to clarify how the formation times of the villages were determined. Are these dates explicitly documented in the data sources? Additionally, are there cases where a village was established at a certain time but later disappeared or ceased to exist? Providing more detailed information on these aspects would strengthen the section and improve the reader’s understanding.

Response 3:

The methodology for determining the time of formation of villages has been detailed in 2.2 Data Sources (Paragraph 2, Line 9-12), along with a description of the methodology for determining the time of establishment of villages that lack clear historical records.

At the same time, the samples selected for the study came from the existing list of traditional villages, and the villages in the list are all existing, so there are no cases of villages that were established at a certain time but have since disappeared or ceased to exist within the scope of the study.

 

Comments 4:

Section 3.1.2 Spatial pattern. Similar to the temporal distribution, have there been any cases where the village's geographic location shifted while retaining the same name? This should be addressed in the analysis.

Response 4:

We acknowledge the potential for villages to retain names while relocating. Due to limitations in historical geospatial continuity data, such cases were excluded from the spatial analysis. This limitation has been stated in the revised text.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document. [page 3-4, 2.2. Data sources, Paragraph 2, Line 3-5]

 

Comments 5:

Figure 4(a): The meaning and significance of the standard deviation ellipse should be clearly explained in the methodology section. Additionally, the results should discuss what these ellipses reveal about the spatial distribution of villages.

Response 5:

Agree. We added a methodological explanation of the SDEA tool in Section 2.3 and included a brief interpretation in the Discussion section to highlight what the ellipses reveal about village clustering trends(“peripheral agglomeration and central decline”).

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document.

[page 4-5, 2.3 Methods, Paragraph 3, Line 3-5]

[page 12, 4.1 Implications for policy making and rural revitalization, Paragraph 1, Line 1-2]

 

Comments 6:

Section 3.3. The authors used current socio-economic indicators in their analysis. However, I question whether present-day socio-economic conditions are relevant to the historical formation and transformation of these villages. While I acknowledge that ancient socio-economic data may be inaccessible, the authors should provide justification for how contemporary socio-economic factors influence the villages' development over time.

Response 6:

Agree. We have added a note in the methodology (Section 2.2) explaining that present-day socio-economic data are used to analyze the current spatial survival and vulnerability patterns of historical villages under modern development pressures.

The specific revisions can be found in the red text of the revised manuscript WORD document.

[Page4, Paragraph 1, Line 4-7]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revision. I now have only a few minor comments that should be considered to further enhance the quality and consistency of the manuscript:

1. The reference included at the end of the introduction: “The research outcomes aim to provide an empirical foundation for the conservation and development of similar villages, injecting new vitality to ensure their sustainability in contemporary society (Liu, 2022)” appears inappropriate. This sentence discusses the significance and contribution of the present study, and therefore does not require an external reference. Please consider removing the citation.
2. Please ensure consistency in citation formatting throughout the manuscript. For instance, in Section 2.2 (Data Sources), web links are directly inserted into the main text. These should follow the referencing style required by the journal (e.g., author and year format). The URLs should be moved to the reference list and cited properly within the text.
3. Avoid beginning figure captions and table titles with verbs such as shows, illustrates, presents, analyzes, depicts, or provides. Instead, use a concise descriptive phrase. For example:
   Figure 1. The geographical scope of Suzhou City and the spatial distribution of the 67 selected traditional villages.
   Table 1. Social and economic data indicators for various regions of Suzhou City.
   Please revise all figure captions and table titles accordingly.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers of Architecture,

Hello! I hope this email finds you well.

First and foremost, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the editors and reviewers of your esteemed journal for their invaluable suggestions. Their insights have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of my manuscript.

I am pleased to inform you that I have completed the revisions of my manuscript titled " Spatiotemporal Analysis of Traditional Villages in Southern Jiangsu Based on GIS and Historical Data " The revisions have been made in accordance with the detailed comments provided by the reviewers. For your convenience, the specific modifications are highlighted in red within the text, and a comprehensive response to each reviewer’s comments is included as a separate document.

I am writing to inquire about the appropriate method for submitting the revised version. Should I upload it through your submission system, or is it acceptable to send it directly via email? For your convenience, I have already sent a copy of the revised manuscript via email. Please let me know if you have received it and if there are any further steps I need to take.

Thank you very much for your guidance and assistance. I look forward to your feedback.

 

Best regards,

 

Zhihong Liu, Qingyu Wang, Jilong Chen

Associate Professor

College of Architecture，Soochow University

2025.6. 6

********************************************************************************************************

Soochow University

No. 199 Renai Road, Suzhou Industrial Park, Dushu Lake Campus Phase II Soochow University of Academy of Architecture

E-mail: lzh88@suda.edu.cn, 261607194@qq.com     Mobile: +86-15950092978

Tel:+86-0512-65880187 (office), +86-15950092978(home)

FAX: 0512-65880196

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my comments. I have no further comments.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

 We sincerely express our gratitude for the invaluable opportunity to revise our manuscript titled “Spatiotemporal Analysis of Traditional Villages in Southern Jiangsu Based on GIS and Historical Data” (Manuscript ID: architecture-3633321). We deeply appreciate the constructive comments and insightful suggestions put forward by the reviewers, which have substantially enhanced the scholarly quality of this work.

 All reviewers' comments have been meticulously addressed in a point-by-point manner. Below we provide comprehensive responses to each feedback item, accompanied by corresponding manuscript revisions:

 ‌Author's Response to Reviewer 2 (Round 2):‌

 Comments 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

The authors have addressed all my comments. I have no further comments.

Response 1:

The English language has been rigorously polished following linguistic guidance from subject-matter experts, with revisions focusing on:

1. Standardization of terminology;
2. Optimization of syntactic structures;
3. Enhancement of academic writing style.
4. Detailed annotations are provided in the main text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf