Transport Accessibility and Poverty Alleviation in Guizhou Province of China: Spatiotemporal Pattern and Impact Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Policy recommendations should be also stated, or general direction should be noted on which sides policy recommendations will be obtained thorugh the findings of the paper in the abstract. Also, sustainability side should be emphasized in the abstract.
2. Literature review is noo few. It should be extended. Focus on papers not only on China but also on other countries with spatial models. I also suggest a table form presentation of literature review with methods/findings.
3. How did spatial-temporal pattern change between regions cities zones by different types should be given in abstract. 4.1. discusses the change. More emphasis can be given to this with sustainability sides in addition to economic sides.
4. Given that the paper is submitted to sustainability, it does not discuss and link the empirical research and the paper to sustainability. Sustainability should be emphasized.
5. Policy implications should also be given in the conclusion.
6. Future directions should be given.
7. The paper is quite long. Certain parts such as the discussion can be made more compact there is space for it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Taking Guizhou as a case, this study evaluates the impact of transport accessibility on poverty alleviation. In general, this study focuses on a typical topic with both theoretical discussion and policy implications. The manuscript is well structured and I enjoy reading it. Below are some minor points for the authors' consideration.
1. I suggest the authors report the results of the fixed effects model only, which has been verified appropriately in your analysis.
2. You may combine the statistics of both transport accessibility (Table 3) and the poverty index (Table 4).
3. Discussions on the variable of "the annual growth rate of per capita GDP" measuring social development are needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This version of paper is a highly changed and very good version after all corrections made kindly by the authors. My decision is accept as is.