Livelihood Resilience Perception: Gender Equalisation of Resettlers from Rural Reservoirs—Empirical Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Taking perceived livelihood resilience as a cutoff point, it is a interesting study to discuss the implications of relocation and resettlement of reservoir migrants by resident gender. The conclusion of the study suggests that interventions and targeted measures should be adopted to improve the capacity building of resettlers' livelihood resilience for settlement areas and reservoir areas. The conclusions have important decision-making value for government. However, there are still some works need to be done:

 

1、The whole manuscript adopts the framework of Chinese-style papers. Especially in the first part "Introduction" and the second part "Literature Review and Research Hypothesis", there is duplication of the literatures' review.

 

2、In the introduction, the gap of study could not be found and pointed out from the research background and previous related literatures.

 

3、The abstract is too descriptive, whether the conclusions drawn are supported by data. You have to put in the abstracts some concrete results such as variables with or without p values. and the description of human subjectivity, the paradigm can be drawn from the recently published article by Shui et al, 2022 for further reference as follows.

 Shui, W.; Zhang, Y.; et al. Does Tibetan Household Livelihood Capital Enhance Tourism Participation Sustainability? Evidence from China’s Jiaju Tibetan Village. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9183. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159183

 

4、The manuscript conclusion is the repetition of the research results, and the conclusion could not extract better findings and highlight from the analysis and discussion of the research results.

 

5、What is the theoretical contribution of the article and what is the innovation point？

 

6、It is necessary to check carefully whether the full text is presented in a standardized way. Such as “ac-tors”; “resettle-ment”, etc.

 

7、English language and style of the whole text needs to be carefully checked and the expressions require specification. Please double check the whole paper’s grammatical errors.

 

8、The statement that “The perceived livelihood resilience of male resettlers was 1.31 times higher than that of female resettlers (e0.272)” , the number 1.31 is not showing in table 3, please check.

 

9、In statement “For each one-rank increase in labour force share, the perceived livelihood resilience of resettlers increases by 22.9% (e0.206)” , please check e0.206？

 

10、In discussion, what’s the meaning of “This is consistent with the findings of [65]”, please explain.

 

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable comments, please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Title:

1.       This study is about the livelihood resilience of resettlers, where gender is focused, in that regard title expresses it well.

Abstract:

2.       Concisely written. Brings the necessary details required for the audience. It would be nice if we could get a little bit more idea about “Interventions and targeted measures” at the end.

Introduction:

3.       L-40,41: “Currently, the perspective of resilience mainly focuses on human livelihoods”- Here “Currently”, “mainly” looks very strong claim, rather words like -one of many/ important – could be added.

4.       L-43 to 49: Looks more theoretical/ bookish definitions, could be moved to the Lit review section. What is resilience/ livelihood etc in real-world/rural china can be addressed here.

5.       L-85 to 87: “Move…..China”-Need reference for such claim.

6.       L-104, 109…: There are a significant amount of words with unnecessary “dash” found including “ac-tors”, “resettle-ment” and more, revise them.

7.       L-129 to 134: Such “The remaining part….”- such conclusion and brief of a section is required for a report, however unnecessary for a scientific journal article.

8.       The Introduction chapter is well written, however, as you have added a separate “Literature Review” section, I would suggest you avoid definition-like parts here, make it more concise, and provide more emphasis on the gender and vulnerability scenario of rural China that establishes the necessity of such study. If possible, make the study gap more in-depth here.

Literature Review and Research Hypothesis:

9.       “Livelihood” and “Livelihood Resilience” has different say from different authors. As it is mentioned as a “review”, all significant variations should be addressed, it should be discussed which ones are relevant for this study and why, also, which ones are contradictory should be explained with reason.

10.   Need more clarification on “perceived livelihood resilience”.

11.   L-147, 148: “Building resilience to ensure….actions”- need reference.

12.   L-150-155: “Perception of Livelihood Resilience was largely ignored before”- why is it required now? Need explanation.

13.   Need more depth review on-What are the aspects, scale, and context where genderwise differences are developed regarding livelihood resilience/vulnerability.

14.   Perception of all ages, occupations (livelihood), religions, and cultures women should not be the same. Explain further regarding such concern.  Is there any range considered in this study?

15.   Sequence-wise should “Description of the PReS Policy” be placed earlier?

16.   The PReS section seems poorly described. Try to concise it in such a manner- what is it, why it was necessary, key features, impacts, and connection with the keywords of this study.

17.    L-232: Remove the gradient background of Figure-1. Make it more communicable.

18.   L-319, 323: Research methods should be addressed in the methodology section.

19.   Avoid repetition of sentences. Need more profound establishment of the hypothesis and a concise brief.

Data and Methods:

20.   L-345: avoid writing lines such as -our research team, make it in a more passive manner.

21.   Need visual improvement of Figure-3. If those colors are necessary, provide legends.

22.   Provide more demographic and relevant data regarding gender and livelihood in your selected case area.  

23.   Why this area is selected for study?

24.   Provide references for used methods.

25.   How both quantitative and qualitative methods supplement each other- need to explain

26.   Is there specific data collection methods applied concerning gender sensitivity?

27.   Qualitative data collection and analysis methods need more elaboration

28.   For the methodology: it would be better if you could add a graphical demonstration and sample open-ended questionnaire including referencing some established methodological examples to conduct this study.

29.   Need visual improvement of all the figures used in this article.

Result:

30.   Result section mostly explains quantitative data. Qualitative aspects require necessary narrative and interpretations. Otherwise, it should be removed.

31.   Result looks original

Discussion and Conclusion :

32.   Required more critical discussion and inclusive conclusion.

Reference:

 

33.   Relevant articles are well cited regarding the study.

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable comments, please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made point-to-point revisions and clear explanations. Based on this, I agree and suggest that the editorial board accept this manuscript for publication.