Farmer Households’ Livelihood Resilience in Ethnic Tourism Villages: A Case Study of the Wuling Mountain Area, China
, Shuiliang Liu 2, Jinyou Zuo 1, Ningling Yin 1, Jilin Wu 1,3,* and Wenhai Xie 1,3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, please follow these recomendations:
1. Please, reduce the title of the manuscript.
2. Please, reduce the keywords in particular the composed keywords.
3. Abstract: Clear and with indication of the main results.
4. Among the references, there are too old sources. Is it possible to find more recent references? Please, correct.
5. The research questions or research needs are not clear. Please, add RQs or RNs.
6. Data and Methodology: consistent.
7. Lines 221-269: Plaese, motivate the formulas used according references.
8. Please motivate the sample size used.
9. Plaese reduce size of Table 2.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article shows a rigorous and extensive research carried out in the Wuling Mountain Area, about farmer households' livelihood resilience in ten Ethnic Tourism Villages.
The keys to the research, the methodology used and the conclusions obtained are accurately reflected in the original document and deserve to be published in this journal.
The main question that arises from its revision is the difficulty of its reading for a wider audience, not directly related to econometrics and statistical analysis. To resolve this issue, a new table could be included in section 3 that reflects only the most differentiated aspects of each typology, in a more general way for the different dimension layers studied. In the same way, a summary table would also simplify the understanding of section 5 Conclusions and Recommendations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript has been written in excellent English expressions. Therefore it can be understood easily. Furthermore, the presentation of the research gaps, proposed research, methodology, data identification and collection, data processing, analysis, and discussions are very fluent and clear. But, some points can be improved. First, two very long sentences can improve readability by breaking up more sentences in the abstract (lines 12-16 and 16-19). Second, there is a typo mistake; a space character is missing at the beginning of the sentence (line 86). Third, in line 379, the word "formula" should be replaced with "Equation." Fourth, the sentence in lines 449-452 can be improved readability by breaking up more sentences.
There is a very strong statement of the studies presented in lines 94-97, which shows the contribution of this study to the research area. The recommendations at the end of this manuscript also give a very useful hints for other researchers.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
