Effects of the Post-Relocation Support Policy on Livelihood Capital of the Reservoir Resettlers and Its Implications—A Study in Wujiang Sub-Stream of Yangtze River of China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Focusing on the 20 years dimension before and after policy formation, this paper tests the variation of resettlers’ livelihood capital and explores the effectiveness of the policy and its blank spots.
Methodologically, This case study on the livelihood capital variation of reservoir resettlers’ under the 161 PReS policy at 3 critical time-points in 3 selected reservoir resettlement regions, the most 162 typical counties in Guizhou province near WJ River Basin. Combining the results from 163 the questionnaire in 2020, accumulated survey results in 2010 and 2000, and local 164 statistical documents, this paper aims to find out the mechanism that this policy helped 165 resettlers improve their livelihood capital in a 15-years span.
The results show that reservoir resettlers would have caused the overall decline of resettlers' livelihood capital, with some conclusions, such as the prominent problem, proposed.
However, there exist some problems in this paper. Especially, the methodology employed in the research is some confusing.
First, some framework should be proposed and discussed. The authors tried to discuss the Effects of the Post-Relocation Support Policy based on livelihood capital. Nevertheless, the strategies of livelihood capital allocation is important besides for amount of capitals. So, I suggest the authors to reference some framework, e.g., Sustainable Livelihoods.
Second, some methods are required to reconsider. For example, the score of capital assets were calculated through averaging some values including -1,0 and 1(Table,1). I do not think it is appropriate. Can they be analyzed with the same weights?
Third, some important information should be clarified. In 2.4, the authors mentioned “600yuan”. What does it mean? Moreover, the procedures in 2.5 should be discussed in details. But in this version, too little information was presented, making it is difficult for readers to understand.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you so much for your time and precious comments.
We have revised the paper according to your suggestions one by one. Please check all the details in the new version of the manuscript. In which, we highlight the revised parts with red color to save your time.
Here are the questions and brief answers as follows, please check the details in the revised manuscript.
- the methodology employed in the research is confusing.
Answer: Reformat chapter 2 with a new sub-chapter 2.3, rewrite 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 to make the methodology statement clearer. Revise figure 1 in 2.2 to highlight the distribution of the three resettlement regions along the WJ river basin.
- Some frameworks should be proposed and discussed. The strategies of livelihood capital allocation is important besides for amount of capitals. So, I suggest the authors to reference some framework, e.g., Sustainable Livelihoods.
Answer: Framework statement was added as new “2.3 A framework for sustainable livelihood of reservoir resettlers”. More details can be checked in “2.3”.
- Some methods are required to reconsider. For example, the score of capital assets was calculated by averaging some values including -1,0 and 1(Table,1). I do not think it is appropriate. Can they be analyzed with the same weights?
Answer: The rating scale method is used instead in the revised version in the new “2.6”. Among which, the answers regarding livelihood become Better records as 1, no change notes as 0.66, Worsen marks 0.33. Then the final result of each asset increases at a different degree compared to the previous “-1,0 and 1” format. Because major respondents are happy with the improvement supported by the PReS policy, the major results remain stable.
- Some important information should be clarified. In “4”, the authors mentioned “600yuan”. What does it mean?
Answer: 600yuan means 600RMB. In new “2.5”, a sentence explaining the value of 600RMB in three critical years was added as follows, “With different exchange ratio in years, 600yuan≈94.32 U.S＄in 2020; ≈88.11 U.S＄ in 2010 and≈72.32 U.S＄ in 2000 before the launch of the policy.”
- The procedures in 2.5 should be discussed in detail. But in this version, too little information was presented, making it is difficult for readers to understand.
Answer: The previous 2.5 currently turns to new 2.6 and is rewritten to make data analysis clearer and understandable in detail.
- Totally 106 pieces of references are presented in the paper, especially in the discussion part regarding resettlement studies. And we tried to discuss results based on published opinions and achievements.
Reviewer 2 Report
Article is written in an appropriate way. It is original and data and analyses are presented appropriately. However, study is missing engagement with sources as well as recent scholarship in the chapter Discussion. Study should be placed within the context of previous studies with similar content. Please contextualise your findings within previous research and theory. Explain unexpected results and evaluate their significance. Also, consider possible alternative explanations and make an argument for your position.
Author Response
Dear respected reviewer,
Thank you so much for your time, your precious comments, and your encouragement.
We have revised the paper according to your suggestions one by one. And follow your guidance to further discuss and explore the issues regarding reservoir resettler’s livelihood and the mechanism behind the PReS policy.
Please check all the details in the new version of the manuscript. In which, we highlight the revised parts with red color for saving your time.
Here are the questions and brief answers as follows, please check the details in the revised manuscript.
- study is missing engagement with sources as well as recent scholarship in the chapter Discussion. The study should be placed within the context of previous studies with similar content.
Answer: We have modified many aspects in the chapter 4 Discussion based on previous studies with similar content. And we rewrite Chapter 5.
- Please contextualize your findings within previous research and theory. Explain unexpected results and evaluate their significance.
Answer: Totally 106 pieces of references are presented in the paper, especially in the discussion part regarding resettlement studies. And we tried to discuss results based on published opinions and achievements.
- Also, consider possible alternative explanations and make an argument for your position.
Answer: Each part of the discussion chapter condenses important academic points with direct and indirect evidence. And tried to provide possible alternative explanations and make arguments for my position in chapter 4.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I think the authors have revised the manuscript, and the current verision can be accepted.
