Risk Analysis of Reservoir Resettlers with Different Livelihood Strategies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
I my opinion, the manuscript is excellent. However, I have several minor comments, addressing of which will improve the quality of the manuscript:
1. Objectives of the study are mentioned in Abstract and the Conclusion section. They should be specifies in the Introduction section.
2. What is meant by "engineering resettlers?" The author need to be explain this term.
3. Figure 2: R5 should be replaced "E" by "N."
4. What are three elements of risk? Clearly specified (page 5 under sub-section 3.1).
5. Distinction between "foreign" and "domestic" scholars sound odd to me.
6. Risk Analysis Framework comprises three major parts. I feel that Risk Assessment is emphasized in this manuscript other than two remaining parts. Why?
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review my manuscript ID - water-1985384, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to you for your review comments, which have helped me a lot. Here is my response to your comments.
Point 1: Objectives of the study are mentioned in Abstract and the Conclusion section. They should be specifies in the Introduction section.
Response 1: The original manuscript did not include a detailed description of the objectives of this study in the introduction, I have modified this issue. See highlighted part (bottom of the page 2) for details.
Point 2: What is meant by "engineering resettlers?" The author need to be explain this term.
Response 2: "Engineering resettlers" refers to "involuntary displacement of population caused by the construction of the project", I have added a note in the manuscript, See highlighted part (page 1 under 1. Introduction) for details.
Point 3: Figure 2: R5 should be replaced "E" by "N."
Response 3: I have corrected the errors in the figure, as shown in the figure below.
Point 4: What are three elements of risk? Clearly specified (page 5 under sub-section 3.1).
Response 4: I am sorry for your confusion, I did not make it clear in the original manuscript, and I have revised the questions you raised. See highlighted part (page 5 under sub-section 3.1) for details.
Point 5: Distinction between "foreign" and "domestic" scholars sound odd to me.
Response 5: I'm sorry to make you feel odd, the term "domestic scholars" refers to Chinese scholars, and the term "foreign scholars" refers to scholars outside of China, and I've added an explanation in the manuscript. See highlighted part (page 3) for details.
Point 6: Risk Analysis Framework comprises three major parts. I feel that Risk Assessment is emphasized in this manuscript other than two remaining parts. Why?
Response 6: Indeed, as you said, risk assessment occupies a large proportion in the manuscript, because in this study, risk management and risk communication are more reflected in the discussion and conclusions that follow, and are more inclined to policy recommendations, and I'm going to elaborate on this in a separate manuscript, so there is no large space for explanation.
Sincere thanks once again！
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
It was a nice pleasure to read this paper i reccommend publication
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review my manuscript ID - water-1985384, I feel very honored to receive your approval, I wish you good health and happiness for your family in the future.
Sincere thanks once again！
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
After having reviewed your manuscript, I don't think that it is appropriate for the journal Water and recommend that it be transferred to another journal, hopefully in the mdpi family. Although reservoir construction is what creates the need for human resettlement, the manuscript does not consider water. Instead, it focuses on risks associated with people who have to be resettled. This is an important subject, but it is not well suited to a journal such as Water and will not find a wide readership if published in this journal.
Reviewer 2 Report
- The abstract can be condensed and refocused.
- The selection of risk types shall be motivated - 3.1 and following.
- Why was this specific case study selected? Please, provide information on this choice.
- The literature review is meagre and needs to be extended in terms of words and analysed papers.
- On top of that, this work relies too heavily on local publications. Recent studies published in peer-reviewed international journals on indexes, resilience and sustainability shall be integrated, sometimes replacing the previous ones - see topical papers from Drago, Gatto, Aldieri and colleagues.
- The authors have to specify more clearly how they gathered their index. Particularly, they must declare all the methodology steps undertaken for getting those outputs and possibly a diagram.
- Was any robustness check employed? If so, the authors have to specify it. If not, this needs to be added to the analyses.
- Discussions need better understanding and comment of the sorting result.
- Conclusions are dry and lack limitations and future research paragraph.
- Fulfil the paper's data at the bottom of the submission.
