Drivers of Livelihood Strategies: Evidence from Mexico’s Indigenous Rural Households
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The choice of topic is current and justified, the authors analyze an under-researched topic.
The statistics referred to as "Indigenous People" define this part of the population in Mexico in a narrow sense, because other sources that do this are not only based on spoken language and they give greater statistical value to the "Indigenous People".
Based on the manuscript, it is not entirely clear to me that the authors analyzed only the Subgroup Indigenous People from the rural sample taken from ENHRUM (p. 7. rows 291-293. "total of 1,543 households in 80 rural communities across Mexico, of which 21% self-identified as Indigenous") or everyone living in these rural communities (non-Indigenous People as well). It would be useful to clarify this.
The ENHRUM database is already 15-year-old, so I wonder exactly how the authors assume it can be used in a 2022 manuscript (for example, in the meantime, the COVID pandemic took place, which affected Indigenous People more than average in Mexico, according to some sources). Footnote 7
(p. 6.) omitted a reference to the source of the ENHRUM database.
I wonder how representative are ENHRUM-surveyed villages for areas inhabited by the Indigenous People in rural Mexico? In Figure 1 (p. 8.), some Mexican states fall into the no surveyed category (e.g. Chiapas, Quintana Roo), even though they have a significant Indigenous People population.
Should the authors write more about why a new survey similar to the ENHRUM database has not taken place in Mexico since 2007?
For subsection 4.3, it should be specified when the authors conducted these calculations.
The use of the landline variable in Table 1 (p. 10) in 2022 is questionable in my opinion because it probably does not correlate with development as much in rural Mexico, either (mobile telephony has likely already appeared in these spaces, as well.) The PROCAMPO and OPORTUNIDADES variables in Table 1 (p. 10) are not revealed in the rest of the manuscript what they mean, although I think that they are related to the topic of the research.
Efforts should be made to ensure that the tables are not intersected by different pages in the wrong way of layout in order to the header of the tables to be properly displayed in the same table without intersection (Table 2, pp. 11-12.)
Quantitative analysis (subsection 4.3, Chapter 5) is based on multifaceted statistical methods, but the conclusions drawn from them should be taken more carefully, I assume, and the results need to be interpreted in a more abstract and general way for the sake of global readers. For example, according to the authors, the Subsistence Farming group is most closely associated with agriculture, but this group is the poorest. However, the analysis does not include data on how much land the Subsistence Farming group members own or rent on average. But their revenues may also depend on the latter factors. And under a more optimal land ownership system, the subgroups most dependent on agriculture may not be necessarily the poorest as in other cases in the rural areas of the global South. Land owned or leased by the Indigenous People was formerly of a different system in Mexico, as I know, which later changed. According to the authors, is there a plan for some land reform policy affecting the lives of the Indigenous People in rural Mexico? If not, then I fear that it may be more difficult to improve livelihoods in this sense, at least in the context of agriculture, which I have mentioned.
Other points attached to the more abstract interpretation of statistical results for the sake of global readers are, that although it is very difficult to measure statistically and empirically to examine, poor public security, the operation of various armed groups (e.g. drug trafficking syndicates, Zapatista militant groups), and therefore, e.g. sometimes hostage-taking afflicting tourism as well can be considered some kind of almost Exogenous Variable, I suppose, in the rural areas inhabited by the Indigenous People. Of course, I do not want to criticize Mexico, and I do not want to over-generalize these phenomena. But these phenomena should be referred to, for example, in the introduction to the study, to some extent, because they may also influence some of the variables, and after all, the livelihood possibilities examined by the authors. How much do the authors assume the Federal government of Mexico can be expected to provide public safety to all its citizens and territories, including the Indigenous People, as a justified public good? This could also be to some extent one of the solutions to the development of rural areas inhabited by the Indigenous People.
To sum up, the choice of the topic of the manuscript is current and relevant, and the authors carry out a multifaceted statistical analysis. However, there are some mistakes in content and form in the manuscript that need to be corrected in order to publish the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The idea of the research is interesting, however, the case is too local for the international edition. Besides, the most obvious drawback of the research is the usage of extremely outdated datasets - data collected in 2007 are totally inappropriate for publication in 2022
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper focuses on Mexico´s Indigenous Rural Households, used mixed methods-based cluster analysis and multinomial logit models to identify the main drivers of sustainable livelihood strategies for indigenous families in rural Mexico. Research themes is meaningful and novelty. However, the manuscript still has some flaws and should be considered for future publication.
1.The introduction part is not focused. The current introduction is lengthy and does not grasp the focus of the study, so the language needs to be simplified.
2.The literature review is not sufficient enough. The research review section should focus on the literature on Livelihood Strategies and their driving forces, summarize existing research views, and address the scientific questions of this research.
3.The third and fourth parts are not logical. These two parts repeatedly discuss the methods used in the thesis. The conceptual method of indigenous family livelihood strategy analysis is not clearly divided from the Materials and Methodology of the research, and the concepts related to the research should be briefly explained, such as Livelihood Strategies, Indigenous Households, etc.
4.The fourth part: Materials and Methodology does not have a clear research scope, and the source of the research data needs to be further explained, such as Table 1 Definitions and metrics used to describe the characteristics of Indigenous livelihood strategies, and why these villages are selected also needs to be explained.
5.The fifth part is repeated with the sixth part. The fifth part analyzes the Determinants of Livelihood Strategies of Indigenous Rural Households from both endogenous and exogenous variables. There is no need for three-level headings, and the analysis of the results should be the focus of the article. , the content needs to be enriched and improved. The sixth part is the conclusion of the full paper, which should be a highly refined summary reviewing the entire study and making an outlook.
6.The references are too outdated, and more reference should be made to the research on Drivers of Livelihood Strategies in recent years, and the relevant research points of the past five years should be updated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the detailed answers, the manuscript has improved a lot. However, I assume that the clarification of land ownership variable is still missing from the point of view of global reader. I mean that you mention this variable, and e.g. you mention the three subgropus based on the different significance of agriculture/owned land, but you do not detail some basic information about general land-ownership or land rentalship structure of the analyzed Indigenous areas in rural Mexico either in part of introduction or in summary. I advice you to fill this gap in the article.
Author Response
To follow up on the reviewer's suggestion, we have included arguments to clarify the importance of land for Indigenous households. We have also added farmland details for each of the groups analyzed. We hope that these additions are sufficient to fill the gap in the manuscript in terms of the land variable.
Reviewer 2 Report
Considering the authors' explanations in the responses for the review as well as changes fulfilled in the article, the work is acceptable. Surprisingly that there are no recent data available in the field relevant to the authors' idea and aim. But the new version of the article is publishable.
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewer's comment that our manuscript is ready to be published.
Reviewer 3 Report
Based on the reviewers' comments, the article has been revised, the content of the introduction is simplified, the literature review is enriched, and the scientific questions of the paper are raised. It is recommended to add a paragraph about this part of the chapter under the heading Methodological Approach of the third part and the Results and Discussion of the fourth part to achieve the effect of attracting others.
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewer's comment about making our research more attractive to global readers. Therefore, in the introduction of the new version of the paper we have added a paragraph following the reviewer's suggestion.
