Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, this is a work that could be exploited in a more attractive way. Here are some comments:

 

94-101. explain better, graph.

In the introduction, cite more evidence for the topics discussed, include illustrations:

- Get a clearer picture of the state of ecological balance, problems, progress, plans, and regulations in China. You talk about "subsidy", "reward" or "allowance", but these are very general terms. Why are these confused with ecological compensation?

- What has the Chinese academy specifically defined?

- The situation of farmers, the contracts that govern them, the condition that land ownership or management, etc. must be included.

131. include a picture with the geographical location of the study area, and if possible, mark the elements of your research on the map.

190.Why 1279 Surveys. Detail the procedures used to select the sample and any information that supports the validity. Also include the information in the results

236. detail "mu"

In the conclusions section, although they lack clear conclusions, conclusions and discussions of the research results, the relevance of the calculations made is not seen. In addition, it is necessary to deepen in the discussion of the methods and methodologies used with similar studies that strengthen the support (# of references).

 

The manuscript definitely needs to be supported by more bibliographic evidence and references from global official institutions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

It is quite an interesting article, that deals with rural labour employment in conditions of the restrictions imposed by environmental protection measures and ecosystem services provision. The article is deeply rooted in the Chinese system of ecological compensation which is why the insertion of the article’s topic in the main international literature flow is imperious. To strengthen the international focus of the article, a brief overview of land ownership in China would help in understanding the relationship between land and the rural labour force in the study area.

The discussion section is, basically, missing. This should be a stand-alone section in which the research findings will be compared and discussed against other published results.

There are numerous issues with the writing style and grammar. Extensive English proofreading is mandatory to improve the readability of the text.

 

Taking into consideration the above-mentioned comments, I would recommend the article for publication after major revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors of the paper "Analysis of the Influences of Ecological Compensation Projects on Transfer Employment of Rural Labor from the Perspective of Capability" present a relevant topic, namely the fact that "as an environmental policy that can bring direct economic benefits to farmers, ecological compensation can achieve the objectives double environmental protection and rural poverty reduction", relevant aspect in the context of the current challenges existing at the local level respectively on Beijing's Yanqing District to analyze the impact of different types of ecological compensation projects on the transfer of employment from the rural environment from the perspective of the capacity for self-development and especially in the context of the Green Agreements, which makes the work have a multiplying effect at the level of the transition process towards a green economy at a local and implicitly global level.

Bibliographic sources, citations, key concepts used in the study are properly mentioned and presented by the authors of the research. More precisely, such as for example "...two basic concepts of "function" and "capacity" are mainly involved in this theory [16]", respectively the fact that "most research on the theory of the capacity approach targets disadvantaged groups... poor people from relatively backward rural areas [18].” which emphasizes the orientation of the work towards the application area at the level of the rural economic environment.

The research methodology is based on a combination of classic instruments (the questionnaire structured on the basis of influencing factors at the level of the target group identified in Yanqing district, located in the northwest of Beijing as an application area), as well as the empirical model. At the same time, the applied orientation of the methodology supports the results of the work from a methodological point of view.

The results of the research are presented by the authors of the research based on the data identified and analyzed, namely "that post-based ecological compensation projects offer low-quality posts and weaken the initiative of the participants to further expand employment channels". However, we suggest the authors of the research to highlight the main scientific results as a personal contribution to the specialized scientific literature, given the fact that the results are adequately presented but very much oriented towards the applied side of the case study.

The conclusions are presented by the authors of the research, respectively the authors emphasize for example "land projects reduce agricultural production and reduce the agricultural production activities of the participants, without significantly increasing their possibility to transfer jobs". At the same time, we suggest the authors of the paper to present the limitations of the study, as well as the future research they wish to continue. However, as we mentioned in the results chapter, we believe that personal scientific results that contribute to the specialized scientific literature should be highlighted.

We congratulate the research team, we suggest revising the paper according to the above, and after the revision we propose the paper for acceptance.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Congratulations on the interesting article!

I propose to publish it in its current form.

In the future, I recommend that the survey data be supplemented with data from other sources - official statistics, analyzes of government and other bodies. This will increase the significance of the conclusions drawn.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,
there is an interest in improving the manuscript, but there are essential elements that still need to be considered, such as the following:

The discussion section contains objectives and methodology, it doesn't really have a full discussion. At least, the tools and methods used in the study should be addressed and compared to similar papers. Be a little more critical of your own manuscript. For example, I think there are more technological tools and methods to conduct your research. I can only say this because I have been able to serve as a reviewer on similar research done in China and published in the same Land journal.
I must point out that there is a lack of conclusions that relate to the results of the research. For example, it is unclear whether the surveys are representative or not, nor the level of accuracy Can the results be extrapolated to the region?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for addressing my comments! Although you mentioned that the text was verified by a native English speaker, I still find errors: even with my limited knowledge of English as a non-native language, I can see that ‘labor’ is an uncountable noun, which means the phrases such as “1279 rural labor” (lines 15, 98), “the number of labor force” (line 166), “1279 rural labor force” (line 423) etc. are grammatically wrong.

 

Please, make a thorough grammar and writing style check of the entire text before publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx