Sustainable Livelihoods in Rural Areas under the Shock of Climate Change: Evidence from China Labor-Force Dynamic Survey
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor,
The paper tackles the topic that is Sustainable livelihoods in Rural Areas under the Shock of Climate Change: Evidence from China Labor-Force Dynamic Survey. However, the authors must address a few minor concerns before the manuscript may be considered for publication. The following are my observations on these topics.
- In the abstract, authors should keep the material flowing. It's also a good idea to highlight the most noteworthy findings and novelties. There is no issue statement or research gap.
- Before submitting their amended version, the authors should correct grammatical problems.
- The flow of the introduction is missing, authors must be arranging the introduction section.
- The introduction portion should be strengthened.
- In the result section, all the sections were revised carefully with proper justification.
- Rewrite the conclusion sections and clearly describe the section.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Editor and Reviewers：
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Your comments have made us gain a lot (ID: sustainability-1699328). You think " The paper tackles the topic that is Sustainable livelihoods in Rural Areas under the Shock of Climate Change: Evidence from China Labor-Force Dynamic Survey. However, the authors must address a few minor concerns before the manuscript may be considered for publication. The following are my observations on these topics." under your goodwill and professional guidance, we have carefully made point-to-point modifications, and the quality of the paper has been greatly improved. Next, please allow us to introduce our modifications to you one by one (the red font is your suggestion and the blue font is our modification), as follows:
Point 1: In the abstract, authors should keep the material flowing. It's also a good idea to highlight the most noteworthy findings and novelties. There is no issue statement or research gap.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. we added the research background, research significance, differences and innovations from other literature In the summary part，and amply presented countermeasures and suggestions in the last part of the abstract(Page1, in red).
Point 2: Before submitting their amended version, the authors should correct grammatical problems.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing out the grammatical problems in the article. After revising the content of the paper, we checked and corrected the grammatical errors and resubmitted it to the professional translation agency -MDPI to polish the language. (ID: english-44226)
Point 3: The flow of the introduction is missing, authors must be arranging the introduction section.
Response 3: Thank you for reminding us of the missing part of the introduction. We have added an introduction to the specific chapters of the entire article (Page4, in red).
Point 4: The introduction portion should be strengthened.
Response 4: Thank you for reminding us that the introduction should be strengthened. In the introduction, we added the background introduction of the impact of climate change on the sustainability of farmers' livelihoods, the shortcomings of the existing literature, the innovation of this paper, and more concretely presented the margins of the paper contributions (Page3, in red). We have increased the analysis of the relationship between extreme climate disasters and climate change (Page2, in red), and increase the Figure of the correlation between the global average temperature and climate, water temperature and meteorological disasters (Page2, Figure1)
Point 5: In the result section, all the sections were revised carefully with proper justification.
Response 5: Thank you for reminding. We have provided reasonable explanations for the empirical results, which can theoretically support our empirical results and make the results more reasonable (Page11, 12, 14, in red).
Point 6: Rewrite the conclusion sections and clearly describe the section.
Response 6: Under your suggestion, we found that there are certain deficiencies in the conclusion, so we have made significant changes. We have rewritten the conclusion of the article, matching the policy recommendations with our empirical results, and put forward five valuable policy suggestion (Page15-16, in red).
Point 7: Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?
Response 7: Thank you for your valuable comments on our research design, we have more clearly presented our research design, questions, hypotheses and methods. The reason why NDVI index is selected to replace climate change and test the robustness is explained, and Figure 2 (Page 7) is added to more clearly show the correlation between standardized annual temperature, standardized annual precipitation and NDVI index (Page 8, in red). In addition, considering that most of the abnormal precipitation is caused by the abnormal temperature, we separate the information of the abnormal temperature from the precipitation to make the research design more perfect, comprehensive and accurate (Page 8, in red). Due to the change of research design, the corresponding empirical data have been adjusted accordingly
Under your careful guidance, we have carefully revised the article from the abstract, introduction, design, results, conclusions, language and other aspects. Thank you again for your professionalism, patience and kindness. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us and look forward to your reply. Best wishes!
Sincerely,
Bo Liu
Hunan Agricultural University
May 10, 2022
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript does not sound like a scientific research. It looks like more a result from a survey.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Editor and Reviewers：
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Your comments make us think a lot and are also deeply inspired (Paper No.: sustainability-1699328). Under your guidance, we carefully discussed your question about "the manuscript does not sound like a scientific research. It looks like more a result from a survey", and conducted in-depth research and extensive modification according to your valuable suggestion. Next, please allow us to introduce our thoughts and modifications to you.
First of all, after careful research and reflection, we think that the reason why you put forward this paper is not like scientific research is based on the following points:
- The article does not clearly explain its own innovation.
- Inference, especially the interpretation of the results, is not sufficient.
- The research design of the article is not clear enough.
- The conclusion of the article is relatively simple.
Secondly, after recognizing our own shortcomings, we have carefully made the following modifications. If there is anything inappropriate, please give us guidance:
- Abstract: we added the research background, research significance, differences and innovations from other literature. In the summary part, and amply presented countermeasures and suggestions in the last part of the abstract (Page1, in red).
- Introduction: we added the background introduction of the impact of climate change on the sustainability of farmers' livelihoods, the shortcomings of the existing literature, the innovation of this paper, and more concretely presented the margins of the paper contributions(Page3, in red). We have increased the analysis of the relationship between extreme climate disasters and climate change (Page2, in red), and increase the Figure of the correlation between the global average temperature and climate, water temperature and meteorological disasters (Page2, Figure1)
- Research design: we have more clearly presented our research design, questions, hypotheses and methods. The reason why NDVI index is selected to replace climate change and test the robustness is explained, and Figure 2 (Page 7) is added to more clearly show the correlation between standardized annual temperature, standardized annual precipitation and NDVI index (Page 8, in red). In addition, considering that most of the abnormal precipitation is caused by the abnormal temperature, we separate the information of the abnormal temperature from the precipitation to make the research design more perfect, comprehensive and accurate. The specific method is as follows, for agriculture, temperature and precipitation were the main indicators affecting agricultural production, but the abnormal precipitation was also a result of climate warming to a great extent. If the temperature anomaly index and precipitation index were simultaneously used as explanatory variables, it would not only affect the significance test of variables but also make it difficult to distinguish the individual impacts of each explanatory variable on the explained variable. In view of this, this paper used a method reported by O'Donnell et al, to separate the temperature anomaly information from the precipitation anomaly, that is, the estimated value of the random disturbance term in the fixed effect model was used as the control variable, rather than directly taking the precipitation anomaly index as the () control variable (Page 8, in red). Due to the change of research design, the corresponding empirical data have been adjusted accordingly
- Empirical results: We have provided reasonable explanations for the empirical results, which can theoretically support our empirical results and make the results more reasonable (Page11, 12, 14, in red).
- Suggestion: we found that there are certain deficiencies in the conclusion, so we have made significant changes. We have rewritten the conclusion of the article, matching the policy recommendations with our empirical results, and put forward five valuable policy suggestion (Page15-16, in red).
- Grammatical: After revising the content of the paper, we checked and corrected the grammatical errors and resubmitted it to the professional translation agency -MDPI to polish the language (ID: english-442226)
Finally, please allow us to explain our actual situation to you. This stage is the critical period for the first author to graduate. The university requires the doctor to publish articles in authoritative journals, and your journal is a very influential journal in the industry, so we have always encouraged her to invest in your journal. Under the guidance of the two doctoral tutors, we have done a lot of work in the early stage according to the high requirements of your journal for papers, and we have also polished and arranged the language in your journal in the later stage. Although there are many deficiencies in this study, we have carefully made substantial modifications and hope to get your approval. If there are still inappropriate places, please continue to give guidance.
Under your careful guidance, we have carefully revised the article from the abstract, introduction, design, results, conclusions, language and other aspects, And the quality of the paper has been greatly improved. I hope we can get your affirmation. Thank you again for your professionalism, patience and kindness. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us and look forward to your reply. Best wishes!
Sincerely,
Bo Liu
Hunan Agricultural University
May 10, 2022
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is an interesting case study for assessing the impact of climate change on the sustainable livelihoods of farmers based on an empirical model. However, some questions have not been well addressed. Thus, my suggestion is minor revision at this stage.
1. Method: Why do you select the NDVI? Could you give more explanation in this section.
2. Results: I found that precipitation seem the higher impact than temperature (Page 8 & Table 3). Please check the section of results, and conclusion
3. Disscussion: I suggest that authors should give some reasonable policies according the obtained results.
4. Some grammatical errors and irregular English writing can easily be found in the full text. Authors should seek a native speaker to improve them.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Editor and Reviewers:
Thank you very much for your valuable advice (Paper No.: sustainability-1699328). You think "This paper is an interesting case study for assessing the impact of climate change on the sustainable livelihoods of farmers based on an empirical model. However, some questions have not been well addressed. Thus, my suggestion is minor revision at this stage" Thank you for your affirmation of our paper. With your professional reminder and kind encouragement, we feel we have gained a lot, and carefully made point-to-point modifications, which further improved the quality of the paper. Next, please allow us to introduce our modifications to you one by one (the red font is your suggestion and the blue font is our modification), as follows:
Point 1: Method: Why do you select the NDVI? Could you give more explanation in this section.
Response 1: Thank you for helping us find out that the NDVI index is not fully introduced. We have added an introduction to the role of NDVI index, its relationship with climate change, and the advantages of NDVI index, explained in more detail the reasons why we chose NDVI index as a substitute for climate change index for robustness test (Page 7, in red),, and added Figure 2 (Page 8), which more clearly presents the standardized average annual temperature Correlation between standardized annual precipitation and NDVI index (Page 8, in red).
Point 2: Results: I found that precipitation seem the higher impact than temperature (Page 8 & Table 3). Please check the section of results, and conclusion.
Response 2: Thank you for your careful review of our paper and found this important problem. We have greatly revised the two indicators of precipitation and temperature. Considering the abnormal precipitation, most of the reasons are caused by the abnormal temperature, so we separate the information of the abnormal temperature from the precipitation, making the research design more perfect, comprehensive and accurate. The specific method is as follows, for agriculture, temperature and precipitation were the main indicators affecting agricultural production, but the abnormal precipitation was also a result of climate warming to a great extent. If the temperature anomaly index and precipitation index were simultaneously used as explanatory variables, it would not only affect the significance test of variables but also make it difficult to distinguish the individual impacts of each explanatory variable on the explained variable. In view of this, this paper used a method reported by O'Donnell et al, to separate the temperature anomaly information from the precipitation anomaly, that is, the estimated value of the random disturbance term in the fixed effect model was used as the control variable, rather than directly taking the precipitation anomaly index as the ( ) control variable (Page 8, in red). Due to the change of research design, the corresponding empirical data have been adjusted accordingly.
Point 3: Discussion: I suggest that authors should give some reasonable policies according the obtained results.
Response 3: under your suggestion, we found that there are some deficiencies in the conclusion part, so we made significant changes. We rewrote the conclusion part of the paper, corresponding the policy suggestions to our empirical results, and put forward five valuable policy suggestions (Page 15-16, in red).
Point 4: Some grammatical errors and irregular English writing can easily be found in the full text. Authors should seek a native speaker to improve them.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing out the grammatical problems in the article. After revising the content of the paper, we checked and corrected the grammatical errors and resubmitted it to the professional translation agency -MDPI to polish the language (ID: english-442226)
In addition, with your help, we carefully examined the paper and made a series of modifications to the abstract, introduction, empirical results and research design (Page 1, 2,3,4，11, 12, 14, in red). Thank you again for your professionalism, patience and kindness. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us and look forward to your reply. Best wishes!
Sincerely,
Bo Liu
Hunan Agricultural University
May 10, 2022
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Despite the fact the research was implemented through an analysis of the results from survey, I found the issue treated not new and quite obvious.
It is obvious that rising temperature and other consequences deriving from climate change will have negative effects on population, resources availability and farmers. Some models have linked climate change potential to the negative effects on them since many years (see ReCiPe model as example, https://www.rivm.nl/en/life-cycle-assessment-lca/recipe).
In addition, recommendation you included in the last sections are too general and not supported by literature. Therefore, implement (at least) this last part by including quantitative data and references. It must sound robust and scientific piece of work to be considered suitable for this journal. Quality of the final output is essential to guarantee research in the accademia still obtaines the prestige it deserves!
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our article. Your suggestions can make us realize our shortcomings and make us feel very fruitful. After receiving your guidance, we have read a lot of literature and made profound thinking. Next, please allow us to explain our thinking and modifications:
Point 1: Despite the fact the research was implemented through an analysis of the results from survey, I found the issue treated not new and quite obvious. It is obvious that rising temperature and other consequences deriving from climate change will have negative effects on population, resources availability and farmers. Some models have linked climate change potential to the negative effects on them since many years (see ReCiPe model as example, https://www.rivm.nl/en/life-cycle-assessment-lca/recipe).
Response 1: Thank you for your guidance. Climate change and farmers’ livelihood sustainability are hot issues, and the research foundation is indeed very rich. Our research is based on the research of previous scholars. On the premise of the valuable clues you provided, we find that many scholars have conducted in-depth research. By searching the “web of science core collection” with the keyword “livelihood sustainability”, “climate change”, a total of 33 articles were found (see Figure 1.2 below). After carefully reading these 33 articles, it is found that there are abundant foreign studies. A total of 26 articles are studies on climate change and farmers’ livelihoods in India, Africa, Vietnam, Kenya and other foreign countries. Of these 26 articles, 17 are qualitative analysis and 9 are quantitative analysis; There are 2 articles discuss the impact of climate change on global farmers’ livelihoods from the perspective of sociology; There are 2 articles on the analysis of climate intelligent agriculture abroad. However, there are few relevant studies in China, only 3 articles discuss climate change and farmers’ livelihood in China. These 3 articles do not have an overall research, but are based on a certain region. In these 3 articles, one is a quantitative study based on China’s Inner Mongolia, Qinghai, Yunnan and Guangxi provinces, one is a quantitative analysis based on Southwest China, and one is a qualitative analysis based on Tibet (see Table 1 below).
By combing the previous research literature, we found that our contribution lies in: (1) quantitative analysis and discussion of climate impact on Farmers’ livelihood sustainability; (2) This paper not only analyzes the impact of China’s climate shock on Farmers’ livelihood sustainability as a whole, but also analyzes the heterogeneity from different geographical locations and different economic regions to identify the key areas of domestic prevention and control; (3) In the measurement of climate change, many scholars use the two indicators of temperature and precipitation, but in fact, the abnormal precipitation includes the abnormal temperature information. Therefore, this paper separates the abnormal temperature information from the precipitation, which makes the results more explanatory.
Under your professional guidance, we added the ReCiPe model to the paper (page 2, in red) and added 7 references in the article, which can help us better present the previous scholars’ research to the readers and highlight our marginal contribution.
Point 2: In addition, recommendation you included in the last sections are too general and not supported by literature. Therefore, implement (at least) this last part by including quantitative data and references. It must sound robust and scientific piece of work to be considered suitable for this journal. Quality of the final output is essential to guarantee research in the accademia still obtaines the prestige it deserves!
Response 2: Thank you very much for pointing out the shortcomings of the suggestions. We have carefully revised all the suggestions and added literature support, specific measures and examples to make the suggestions more specific, targeted and operational (page13-14, in red).
Sincerely thank you for your professional and rigorous guidance. Only in this way can we recognize the shortcomings of the paper, improve the quality of the paper, and present readers with more scientific and reliable high-quality research. Your journal is a journal we have been longing for. We are really eager to publish this paper in your journal. If there are deficiencies, we hope you can continue to guide us. We would like to express my deep respect for all the work you have done for our paper.
Sincerely,
Bo Liu
Hunan Agricultural University
May 21, 2022
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Check and add the right reference for the ReCiPe method.
As already stated, conclusion are too general. Recommendations should give quantitative answers, not just qualitative suggestion. Farmers and policy makers should be guided by your work. An example is reported below. Please use it as a reference to improve all the suggestions you reported within the text.
In the period "For example, farmers should select stress resistant varieties with good quality, high temperature resistance, drought and flood resistance and disease [...]" --> make some examples and give suggestion, based on literature
"[...] and insect resistance in key areas, so as to make full use of natural resources and improve the ability to resist adverse environmental impacts." --> make some examples and give suggestion, based on literature
"At the same time, monitore the change trend of crop diseases, insects, grass pests and livestock and poultry diseases in key areas, [...]" --> explain how, based on literature
"[...] and effectively control them by means of comprehensive treatment, high-efficiency and low toxicity pesticides, as well as resistant varieties, cultivation techniques and biological control." --> explain how, based on literature
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our article. Your suggestions are very professional and specific, with great guiding significance, so that we can make targeted modifications. Under your careful guidance, we have made profound thinking, consulted a large number of documents and made major modifications. Next, please allow us to explain our thinking and modifications:
Point 1: Check and add the right reference for the ReCiPe method.
Answer 1: Thank you for your guidance. We have modified the method of quoting the ReCiPe model and better cited it as a reference (page 2, 20, in red).
Point 2: As already stated, conclusion are too general. Recommendations should give quantitative answers, not just qualitative suggestion. Farmers and policy makers should be guided by your work. An example is reported below. Please use it as a reference to improve all the suggestions you reported within the text. In the period "For example, farmers should select stress resistant varieties with good quality, high temperature resistance, drought and flood resistance and disease [...]" --> make some examples and give suggestion, based on literature"[...] and insect resistance in key areas, so as to make full use of natural resources and improve the ability to resist adverse environmental impacts." --> make some examples and give suggestion, based on literature. "At the same time, monitore the change trend of crop diseases, insects, grass pests and livestock and poultry diseases in key areas, [...]" --> explain how, based on literature"[...] and effectively control them by means of comprehensive treatment, high-efficiency and low toxicity pesticides, as well as resistant varieties, cultivation techniques and biological control." --> explain how, based on literature
Answer 2: Thank you very much for pointing out the shortcomings of the suggestions and giving us detailed instructions on how to make changes by giving examples. We deeply respect your kindness and dedication. We have carefully revised all the suggestions, greatly expanded the content, added quantitative analysis, combined with our conclusions, and further explored specific measures and examples, so as to provide more ideas for farmers and policy makers（page 13-20,in red）.
In addition, I would like to introduce the arrangement of our thesis to you again.
- We present our research design, problems, assumptions and methods more clearly. The reason why NDVI index is selected to replace climate change and test robustness (Page7) is explained. Through figure 2, the correlation between standardized annual temperature, standardized annual precipitation and NDVI index is more clearly presented (Page8, in red). In addition, considering that most of the abnormal precipitation is caused by the abnormal temperature, we separate the abnormal temperature information from the precipitation. In addition, considering that most of the abnormal precipitation is caused by the abnormal temperature, we separate the information of the abnormal temperature from the precipitation to make the research design more perfect, comprehensive and accurate. The specific method is as follows, for agriculture, temperature and precipitation were the main indicators affecting agricultural production, but the abnormal precipitation was also a result of climate warming to a great extent. If the temperature anomaly index and precipitation index were simultaneously used as explanatory variables, it would not only affect the significance test of variables but also make it difficult to distinguish the individual impacts of each explanatory variable on the explained variable. In view of this, this paper used a method reported by O'Donnell et al, to separate the temperature anomaly information from the precipitation anomaly, that is, the estimated value of the random disturbance term in the fixed effect model was used as the control variable, rather than directly taking the precipitation anomaly index as the ( ) control variable (Page 8, in red).
- We have made a reasonable explanation for the empirical results, which can support our empirical results in theory and make the results more reasonable. On the basis of the empirical results, it has conducted in-depth demonstration and policy analysis, making the demonstration and discussion more convincing (page11, 12, 13, 14).
- The empirical results are not only clearly presented after each econometric analysis, but also clearly presented before the analysis of policy recommendations (page13).
- The article is fully cited and annotated, with a total of 60 references, and the results can provide good support for policy recommendations (page 20).
We sincerely thank you for your professional and rigorous guidance. Under your careful, objective and professional guidance, the quality of the paper has been further improved. Your journal is the journal we have been longing for. We are really eager to publish this paper in your journal. If there are any deficiencies, we hope you will continue to guide us and express deep respect for all the work you have done for our article.
Sincerely,
Bo Liu
Hunan Agricultural University
May 27, 2022
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.
