Risk of Poverty Returning to the Tibetan Area of Gansu Province in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The analysis of the content of an interesting and methodically correctly prepared article leads to the formulation of a few questions / doubts:
Point 1.
Where is the purpose of the article clearly defined (is it line 75-77)?
What research questions do the authors ask themselves?
What research gap does the article fill, what is it supposed to bring new to the subject matter?
Point 2.1.1.
Line 90 - whose research is it, the authors of the article or other researchers?
Point 2.1.2
Are the selection, content and components of the assessment indexes based on: a / the literature on the subject, or b / it is an original idea? If a - then where are the references, if b - then it is worth emphasizing.
Point 4
There was no real discussion, where are the references to previous research and conclusions from it?
There is no indication of the limitations of the conducted research and analyzes. What are the desired directions for their guidance?
Author Response
Point 1: Where is the purpose of the article clearly defined (is it line 75-77)?
What research questions do the authors ask themselves?
What research gap does the article fill, what is it supposed to bring new to the subject matter?
Response 1: Thanks for the thoughtful comment. First, the purpose of the article is defined on lines from 75 to 77. Second, we ask ourselves the research question of “how to build a risk assessment and early warning mechanism of returning to poverty and what kind of risk assessment and early warning mechanism of returning to poverty should be built in Tibetan characteristic tourism villages in Gansu Province”. Third, the article fills in the research gap of empirical analysis on micro units such as villages or residents in the aspect of returning to poverty. And we think it will bring three new themes: applying other theories to solve the risk of returning to poverty, exploring the commonality and difference of the risk of returning to poverty in tourism villages with characteristics in different ethnic areas, and optimizing the research on the early warning mechanism of returning to poverty.
Point 2.1.1：Line 90 - whose research is it, the authors of the article or other researchers?
Response 2.1.1：Thanks for the thoughtful comment. The research mentioned in line 90 is currently available from other researchers in the field.
Point 2.1.2：Are the selection, content and components of the assessment indexes based on: a / the literature on the subject, or b / it is an original idea? If a - then where are the references, if b - then it is worth emphasizing.
Response 2.1.2: Thanks for the thoughtful comment. The selection, content and components of the assessment indexes are based on a + b, which is the synthesis of previous research results and individual original ideas. Indicators cited: labor force, education level, skill training, ideology, amount of arable land, road distance, housing structure, fixed assets, infrastructure, income level, credit channels, social network, social mutual assistance, policy weakening, natural disasters, health status, right to participate. Individual original indicators: scenic distance (distance of family house from core scenic area), tourism operation (Whether the family runs a collection of music.), source of income (the number of main sources of household income), number of livestock (the number of cattle, horses, sheep and other livestock raised by the family), emergency (the loss caused by the emergency to the farm family), unemployment probability (the likelihood of the family member losing his or her job).
Point 4: There was no real discussion, where are the references to previous research and conclusions from it?
There is no indication of the limitations of the conducted research and analyzes. What are the desired directions for their guidance?
Response 4: Thanks for your constructive suggestion. In order to make the logic of the article clearer and the content more complete, we have supplemented the relevant content in the revised manuscript (lines from 575 to 605) according to your suggestion.
(The revised draft is in the attachment.)
Reviewer 2 Report
In the manuscript, based on the comprehensive analysis framework of the risk of returning to poverty, the evaluation index system of the risk of returning to poverty with seven dimensions is constructed. PCA and K-means clustering algorithm are applied to calculate the evaluation results of the risk of returning to poverty. According to the results, a scientific early-warning mechanism for returning to poverty is established.
In general, the document is well organized and the methodological structure is adequate. The following are some comments and recommendations for the authors.
1. In the Data source section (2.2.2) is necesary to indicate if the sample size is significative and why.
2. In the Evaluation Methods section (2.3, lines from 226 to 291) is not necessary to describe the well known PCA and k-means algorithms in its basis formulation, that can be referenced from external sources. In this sence it is more important describe how this methods can improve the results in this study maybe referencing similar research in the same or other fields.
3. It is important that the lists are marked differently than the equations to avoid confusion in the reading, I recommend using alphabetical elements (a), (b)...(n) for the lists.
4. Figure 5 can be improved in several aspects. Initially there is a lot of space between the text and the boxes, which is not very important from a scientific point of view but can be improved for the aesthetics of the document. On the other hand, the figure shows degrees of risk, each one associated to a color according to the severity, but it is not clear to this reviewer how these colors can contribute to science, besides they can confuse the reader with the colors reported in Figure 2. In this sense, I recommend replacing the colors by the intervals reported in lines 504 to 512.
Author Response
Point 1: In the Data source section (2.2.2) is necessary to indicate if the sample size is significative and why.
Response 1: Thanks for your constructive suggestion. In order to make the logic of the article clearer and the content more complete, we have supplemented the relevant content in the revised manuscript (lines from 218 to 233) according to your suggestion.
Point 2: In the Evaluation Methods section (2.3, lines from 226 to 291) is not necessary to describe the well known PCA and k-means algorithms in its basis formulation, that can be referenced from external sources. In this sence it is more important describe how these methods can improve the results in this study maybe referencing similar research in the same or other fields.
Response 2: Thanks for your constructive suggestion. In the Conclusions and Discussion section (4, lines from 605 to 608), we explain how research methods can improve results. In order to make the logic of the article clearer and the content more complete, based on your suggestions, we add how PCA can improve the results of this study in the revised manuscript (2.3.1, lines from 236 to 240), and how k-means algorithm can improve the results of this study in the revised manuscript (2.3.2, lines from 288 to 291).
Point 3: It is important that the lists are marked differently than the equations to avoid confusion in the reading, I recommend using alphabetical elements (a), (b)...(n) for the lists.
Response 3: Thanks for your constructive suggestion. After discussion, we agree that it is not convenient to change the marks in this article. We will keep your suggestions in mind in the future writing process.
Point 4: Figure 5 can be improved in several aspects. Initially there is a lot of space between the text and the boxes, which is not very important from a scientific point of view but can be improved for the aesthetics of the document. On the other hand, the figure shows degrees of risk, each one associated to a color according to the severity, but it is not clear to this reviewer how these colors can contribute to science, besides they can confuse the reader with the colors reported in Figure 2. In this sense, I recommend replacing the colors by the intervals reported in lines 504 to 512.
Response 4: Thanks for your constructive suggestion. We have made corresponding modifications in Figure 5 (line 496) according to your suggestions.
(The revised draft is in the attachment.)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Suggestions for consideration by the authors:
Line 75-77
The fact that something is important in the opinion of the authors does not unequivocally mean that it becomes the aim of the article. I suggest using a clear phrase that "the point of the article is ...." or, for example, "the designated research task is ..."
Line 90
Since it is about the research conducted by other authors so far (this is what I asked in review I), it is worth quoting these studies.
I have no other comments.
