Do Differences in Modes of Production Affect the Ability of Ecological Restoration Projects to Improve Local Livelihoods?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Comments on Manuscript: "Do differences in modes of production affect the ability of ecological restoration projects to improve local livelihoods?"

General Comments: The manuscript addresses a critical issue in the field of ecological restoration by examining the impact of different modes of production on the effectiveness of ecological restoration projects in improving local livelihoods. The research focuses on a comprehensive case study of the Three-North Shelter Forest Program (TNSFP) in China, using advanced methodologies, including machine learning-based local projection (LP) methods. The study's findings have significant implications for policy design and implementation, particularly in the context of rural development and ecological restoration. However, there are several areas where the manuscript could be strengthened to improve clarity, rigor, and the overall contribution to the field.

Major Points:

1. Clarity of Research Objectives:
• Comment: The manuscript presents a complex interaction between ecological restoration projects and local livelihoods, particularly in the context of different modes of production (agriculture and pastoralism). However, the research objectives could be more clearly articulated at the outset. The introduction provides a broad overview but lacks a precise statement of the specific research questions and hypotheses.
• Suggestion: Clearly state the research objectives and hypotheses at the end of the introduction. This will guide the reader through the study and provide a clear framework for understanding the subsequent analysis and results.
2. Theoretical Framework:
• Comment: The concept of "shock adaptation" introduced in the manuscript is intriguing and central to the study. However, the theoretical framework underpinning this concept could be further developed. The current explanation provides a general overview but does not delve deeply into the mechanisms or theoretical foundations of shock adaptation.
• Suggestion: Expand the discussion on the theoretical basis of the "shock adaptation" mechanism. Provide a more detailed exploration of how this concept has been developed or applied in previous studies, and explain how it is operationalized in the current research.
3. Methodology:
• Comment: The use of machine learning-based local projection (LP) methods is a significant strength of the study, providing a sophisticated approach to analyzing the data. However, the explanation of the methodology, particularly the LP method and the integration of machine learning, could be more detailed. Readers unfamiliar with these methods may find it difficult to fully grasp the approach and its implications.
• Suggestion: Provide a more detailed explanation of the LP method and the role of machine learning in the analysis. Consider including a flowchart or diagram that outlines the methodological steps, from data collection to the final analysis, to help readers better understand the process.
4. Results Interpretation:
• Comment: The results are well-presented, particularly the distinction between agricultural and pastoral areas in terms of livelihood improvements. However, the interpretation of these results could be expanded. The manuscript currently focuses on presenting the findings but offers limited discussion on their broader implications or potential limitations.
• Suggestion: Expand the discussion on the implications of the findings. For example, consider discussing the potential policy implications of the differences observed between agricultural and pastoral areas. Additionally, address any limitations in the data or methodology that might affect the interpretation of the results.
5. Discussion of Heterogeneity:
• Comment: The manuscript discusses the heterogeneity between agricultural and pastoral areas, which is a key aspect of the study. However, the discussion could be more nuanced, particularly in terms of the specific factors contributing to this heterogeneity. While the manuscript mentions differences in modes of production, it does not delve deeply into the socio-economic, cultural, and environmental factors that might influence how these modes of production respond to ecological restoration projects.

·         Suggestion: Provide a more in-depth analysis of the factors contributing to the observed heterogeneity between agricultural and pastoral areas. Consider discussing how socio-economic conditions, cultural practices, environmental variability, and policy frameworks might differently affect these two types of production systems. This discussion would add depth to the analysis and help explain why certain areas respond differently to the same restoration interventions.

6. Policy Recommendations:
• Comment: The manuscript concludes with some general policy recommendations based on the findings. However, these recommendations are somewhat broad and could benefit from being more targeted and actionable, especially considering the specific needs of agricultural and pastoral areas.
• Suggestion: Refine the policy recommendations to be more specific and actionable. For instance, outline concrete steps that policymakers could take to address the challenges identified in the study, such as tailored support for pastoral communities during ecological restoration projects, or specific types of training and resources needed to help communities adapt to new modes of production.
7. Literature Review:
• Comment: The literature review provides a solid foundation for the study but could be expanded to include more recent studies and a broader range of perspectives. The review primarily focuses on the economic impacts of ecological restoration, with less attention to the social and cultural dimensions.
• Suggestion: Update the literature review to include more recent studies, particularly those that explore the social and cultural impacts of ecological restoration. Incorporating a wider range of perspectives would provide a more comprehensive context for the study and highlight its contribution to ongoing debates in the field.
8. Language and Style:
• Comment: The manuscript is generally well-written, but there are areas where the language could be more concise, and technical terms better explained. Some sections are densely packed with information, which can make it difficult for readers to follow the argument.
• Suggestion: Review the manuscript for clarity and conciseness. Simplify complex sentences where possible, and ensure that all technical terms are clearly defined when they are first introduced. This will make the manuscript more accessible to a broader audience, including those who may not be specialists in the field.
• •  Line 314-315:
• Current Text: "interference of confounding and unobservable variables by adding control terms and fixed effects"
• Correction: "interference from confounding and unobservable variables by adding control terms and fixed effects."
• •  Line 319-320:
• Current Text: "the serial correlation in the regression residuals can be adjusted to make it more suitable for time series analysis."
• Correction: "the serial correlation in the regression residuals can be adjusted, making it more suitable for time series analysis."
• •  Line 322-324:
• Current Text: "methods, which are capable of addressing the assumptions about the linear form of the function and dealing with high-dimensional data."
• Correction: "methods, capable of addressing assumptions about the linearity of the function and handling high-dimensional data."
• •  Line 330:
• Current Text: "𝑓(·) denotes the function fitted using the machine learning method, and 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒐 denotes the information set of control variables in the regression."
• Correction: "𝑓(·) denotes the function fitted using a machine learning method, and 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒐 denotes the set of control variables used in the regression."
• •  Line 365-366:
• Current Text: "The fuzzy membership matrixes of the indexes in the criterion layer the case study is:"
• Correction: "The fuzzy membership matrices of the indexes in the criterion layer for the case study are:"
• •  Line 374-375:
• Current Text: "is the grade of membership of the i evaluation index in the j evaluation level (i = 1, 2, …, n; j = 1, 2, …, k)."
• Correction: "is the membership grade of the i-th evaluation index in the j-th evaluation level (i = 1, 2, …, n; j = 1, 2, …, k)."
• •  Line 383-384:
• Current Text: "A limestone quarry in Jurong City, Jiangsu Province is taken as the case study to demonstrate the calculation process and detailed evaluation method of the evaluation of the carbon sequestration capacity."
• Correction: "A limestone quarry in Jurong City, Jiangsu Province is used as the case study to demonstrate the calculation process and detailed evaluation method for assessing carbon sequestration capacity."
• •  Line 391-392:
• Current Text: "On the basis of the field investigation and data compilation, the specific measures for ecological restoration have been identified."
• Correction: "Based on field investigations and data compilation, specific measures for ecological restoration were identified."
• •  Line 315:
• Current Text: "Moreover, due to the possibility of changing the standard error formula for derivation based on simple linear regression, the serial correlation in the regression residuals can be adjusted to make it more suitable for time series analysis."
• Correction: "Additionally, since the standard error formula can be adapted for simple linear regression derivation, serial correlation in the regression residuals can be adjusted, making it more appropriate for time series analysis."
• •  Line 394-395:
• Current Text: "drainage and interception system, irrigation systems, etc."
• Correction: "drainage and interception systems, irrigation systems, etc."
• •  Line 314:
• Current Text: "to reveal the dynamic effects of policy shocks on residents' incomes, making it compatible with the research question in this study."
• Correction: "to reveal the dynamic effects of policy shocks on residents' incomes, which aligns with the research question in this study."

Minor Points:

1. Figures and Tables:
• Comment: The figures and tables are useful in illustrating the study’s findings, but some could benefit from additional labeling or explanatory notes to make them more self-explanatory.
• Suggestion: Consider adding more detailed captions or explanatory notes to the figures and tables. This will help readers understand the key points without needing to refer back to the main text.
2. Abstract:
• Comment: The abstract provides a good overview of the study, but it could be more specific in outlining the key findings and their implications.
• Suggestion: Revise the abstract to include more specific details about the findings and their implications for policy and practice. This will give readers a clearer idea of what to expect from the manuscript.
3. References:
• Comment: The references are comprehensive, but ensure that they are up-to-date and include the most relevant and recent studies in the field.
• Suggestion: Review the references to ensure they include the most current and relevant studies, particularly those published in the last five years.

 

Recommendation: The manuscript provides valuable insights into the relationship between ecological restoration projects and local livelihoods, particularly in the context of different production modes. However, I recommend major revisions to address the issues outlined above. Specifically, clarifying the research objectives, expanding the theoretical framework, providing more detailed methodology, and deepening the discussion on heterogeneity and policy implications will significantly enhance the manuscript’s contribution to the field.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• Comment: The manuscript is generally well-written, but there are areas where the language could be more concise, and technical terms better explained. Some sections are densely packed with information, which can make it difficult for readers to follow the argument.
• Suggestion: Review the manuscript for clarity and conciseness. Simplify complex sentences where possible, and ensure that all technical terms are clearly defined when they are first introduced. This will make the manuscript more accessible to a broader audience, including those who may not be specialists in the field.
• •  Line 314-315:
• Current Text: "interference of confounding and unobservable variables by adding control terms and fixed effects"
• Correction: "interference from confounding and unobservable variables by adding control terms and fixed effects."
• •  Line 319-320:
• Current Text: "the serial correlation in the regression residuals can be adjusted to make it more suitable for time series analysis."
• Correction: "the serial correlation in the regression residuals can be adjusted, making it more suitable for time series analysis."
• •  Line 322-324:
• Current Text: "methods, which are capable of addressing the assumptions about the linear form of the function and dealing with high-dimensional data."
• Correction: "methods, capable of addressing assumptions about the linearity of the function and handling high-dimensional data."
• •  Line 330:
• Current Text: "𝑓(·) denotes the function fitted using the machine learning method, and 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒐 denotes the information set of control variables in the regression."
• Correction: "𝑓(·) denotes the function fitted using a machine learning method, and 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒐 denotes the set of control variables used in the regression."
• •  Line 365-366:
• Current Text: "The fuzzy membership matrixes of the indexes in the criterion layer the case study is:"
• Correction: "The fuzzy membership matrices of the indexes in the criterion layer for the case study are:"
• •  Line 374-375:
• Current Text: "is the grade of membership of the i evaluation index in the j evaluation level (i = 1, 2, …, n; j = 1, 2, …, k)."
• Correction: "is the membership grade of the i-th evaluation index in the j-th evaluation level (i = 1, 2, …, n; j = 1, 2, …, k)."
• •  Line 383-384:
• Current Text: "A limestone quarry in Jurong City, Jiangsu Province is taken as the case study to demonstrate the calculation process and detailed evaluation method of the evaluation of the carbon sequestration capacity."
• Correction: "A limestone quarry in Jurong City, Jiangsu Province is used as the case study to demonstrate the calculation process and detailed evaluation method for assessing carbon sequestration capacity."
• •  Line 391-392:
• Current Text: "On the basis of the field investigation and data compilation, the specific measures for ecological restoration have been identified."
• Correction: "Based on field investigations and data compilation, specific measures for ecological restoration were identified."
• •  Line 315:
• Current Text: "Moreover, due to the possibility of changing the standard error formula for derivation based on simple linear regression, the serial correlation in the regression residuals can be adjusted to make it more suitable for time series analysis."
• Correction: "Additionally, since the standard error formula can be adapted for simple linear regression derivation, serial correlation in the regression residuals can be adjusted, making it more appropriate for time series analysis."
• •  Line 394-395:
• Current Text: "drainage and interception system, irrigation systems, etc."
• Correction: "drainage and interception systems, irrigation systems, etc."
• •  Line 314:
• Current Text: "to reveal the dynamic effects of policy shocks on residents' incomes, making it compatible with the research question in this study."
• Correction: "to reveal the dynamic effects of policy shocks on residents' incomes, which aligns with the research question in this study."

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article delves into the impact of diverse production modes on the ability of ecological restoration projects to enhance the livelihoods of local residents, presenting a topic of both practical and academic significance. The paper boasts a clear structure and an abundance of data to support its claims. However, there are avenues for improvement in terms of linguistic clarity, literature citation, theoretical depth, and data analysis. Below, I offer detailed feedback on each section.

Abstract

Verbose Expression: The sentences in the abstract are lengthy, packing a high density of information, exemplified by the statement spanning lines 11-12.

Lack of Specific Data Support: The abstract fails to explicitly mention the dataset or sample size, undermining the credibility of the conclusions.

Imprecise Keyword Selection: Keywords such as "ecological restoration" and "livelihoods" are overly broad and could be more specific.

Loose Logical Structure: While comprehensive, the information in the abstract could be structured more tightly to avoid repetition.

Typographical Issues: The keywords are not separated by semicolons, deviating from standard formatting practices.

Revision Suggestions:

Break down long sentences into shorter, more concise ones, enhancing readability. For instance, rephrase the aforementioned statement to emphasize the variability across production modes.

Clearly state the dataset size and source, reinforcing the validity of the findings, e.g., by specifying the number of counties studied from the Three-North Shelter Forest Program.

Refine the keyword list with more targeted terms like "ecological restoration projects in China" and "rural livelihood improvements."

Tighten the logical flow by eliminating redundant information and ensuring a cohesive narrative.

Standardize keyword formatting by separating them with semicolons.

 

Introduction

Irregular Citation Practice: Some citations lack specific reference details, merely denoted by "[1]."

Redundancy: Information, particularly regarding the TNSFP's background and objectives, is reiterated throughout the section.

Abrupt Logical Transition: The shift from discussing the importance of ecological restoration to reviewing related literature lacks a smooth bridge.

Absence of Comparative Analysis: No comparative assessment is provided when introducing ecological restoration initiatives globally.

Wordiness: Some sentences are lengthy and could be streamlined for better comprehension.

Revision Suggestions:

Standardize citation practices by including full reference details upon first citation, enhancing transparency and facilitating verification.

Eliminate redundancy by consolidating or pruning repetitive content, maintaining a focused and succinct narrative.

Smoothen the logical progression by inserting a transition sentence that bridges the discussion of ecological restoration's significance with the literature review.

Incorporate a comparative dimension when discussing international efforts, highlighting the uniqueness and challenges of the TNSFP.

Refine lengthy sentences into shorter, more impactful ones, enhancing overall readability.

 

Theoretical Mechanisms and Research Hypotheses

Shallow Theoretical Elucidation: The explanation of the "shockadaptation" process lacks depth and nuance.

Insufficient Hypothetical Grounding: Hypotheses 2 and 3 are not robustly supported by literature or theory.

Case Study Absence: No empirical cases are analyzed to buttress the theoretical mechanisms.

Ambiguous Language: Certain expressions are vague or imprecise, hindering clear communication.

Cluttered Hypothesis Statements: The hypotheses could be more concise and direct.

Revision Suggestions:

Delve deeper into the "shockadaptation" process, elucidating its ecological and socioeconomic facets and their interplay.

Strengthen the theoretical foundation of the hypotheses by thoroughly reviewing relevant literature and theory.

Supplement the theoretical framework with illustrative case studies, demonstrating the mechanisms at play.

Clarify ambiguous phrasing to ensure precision and clarity in conveying ideas.

Streamline the hypotheses into pithy statements that directly convey the core research questions, e.g., by focusing on the temporal evolution of livelihood improvements.

 

Materials and Methods

Vague Methodological Detail: The description of the machine learning approach is sketchy, omitting crucial implementation steps.

Obscure Data Provenance: Sources and preprocessing methods for some data are not clearly articulated.

Unexplained Control Variable Selection: The rationale behind selecting specific control variables remains unspecified.

Omitted Model Validation: The process and outcomes of model validation are not discussed.

Irregular Chart Referencing: Mentions of figures, like Figure 1, are not consistently referenced or explained within the text.

Revision Suggestions:

Elaborate on the machine learning methodology, including algorithm choice, parameter settings, and the training procedure, enhancing reproducibility.

Clarify data origins, acquisition methods, and preprocessing steps, fostering transparency and trustworthiness.

Justify the selection of control variables, elucidating their influence on the dependent variable and the need for their inclusion.

Include a section on model validation, detailing the process and outcomes, attesting to the methodology's rigor.

Ensure consistent referencing and explanation of all figures within the text, facilitating reader comprehension.

 

Results

Sparse Result Description: The analysis of regression outcomes and charts is cursory.

Insufficient Comparative Analysis: The results under different production modes are not thoroughly compared.

Superficial Interpretation: The underlying causes and mechanisms behind the results are not fully explored.

Lack of Chart Annotations: Some charts lack essential labels and explanations.

Unaddressed Limitations: Potential limitations of the study, such as sample biases, are not discussed.

Revision Suggestions:

Expand the results section, thoroughly examining regression coefficients, significance levels, and other pertinent details.

Introduce a comparative analysis, highlighting variations and explanations across production modes.

Probe deeper into the results, linking them to theoretical frameworks and practical contexts to enrich interpretations.

Improve chart clarity by adding necessary annotations and explanatory captions.

Acknowledge and discuss potential limitations, contributing to a balanced and nuanced assessment of the study's findings.

 

Conclusions and Recommendations

Generalized Conclusion: The conclusion is broadly stated, lacking specificity and targeted insights.

Vague Policy Recommendations: The policy suggestions are general and lack concrete action steps.

Unstated Research Contributions: The paper's main contributions and innovations are not explicitly outlined.

Redundant Expression: Some phrasing is repetitive, detracting from the text's conciseness.

Omitted Future Directions: Potential avenues for future research are not explored.

Revision Suggestions:

Refine the conclusion, making it more specific and focused, e.g., by pinpointing the quicker adaptation of agricultural areas to ecological restoration.

Craft concrete policy recommendations, outlining practical steps and implementation considerations.

Explicitly summarize the study's key contributions and innovations, such as introducing the "shockadaptation" concept and quantifying heterogeneity across production modes.

Eliminate redundant phrasing, tightening the language and enhancing readability.

Envision future research trajectories, suggesting potential topics or unresolved questions that merit further exploration.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript analyzed the effect of ecological restoration (in some regions of Northern China) via the machine learning-based local projection (LP) method taking into account the concept of “shock adaptation”. The results are well presented but some suggestions are proposed to improve the quality of the paper:

 

·      Lines 157-169: The authors write that “existing literature discusses the ways in which ecological restoration projects affect people's livelihoods and the related evaluation methods, providing useful policy lessons for public administrators. However, most of the studies have focused on the three main ways in which ecological restoration projects affect people's livelihoods” etc. No bibliographic reference related to the referenced “literature” or “studies” is included. A “literature review” must be included in this session.

 

·      Lines 170-173: The authors write that “based on the existing research, this study aims to provide contributions in three aspects. First, it proposes a "shock adaptation" mechanism to describe how ecological restoration projects impact local livelihoods” etc., and “using the machine learning-based local projection (LP) method” etc. Again, there is no literature reference that mentions and introduces what is meant by shock adaptation and machine learning-based local projection (LP) method. A brief literature review on these terms is needed.

 

·      Lines 185-187: The authors write that “based on the existing literature, this study uses the term “shock adaptation” to summarize this process and explains it in both ecological and socioeconomic terms.” It is not clear what the existing literature is but if a literature review is inserted in the previous paragraph this sentence can be deleted or modified.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Ecological restoration projects should be analyzed not only in terms of economic consequences for a community, but also in terms of ecology. This approach should be explained at the beginning, why the study only analyzes the living problems of the residents and not the ecological condition.

2. According to the interpretation of ecological restoration, it helps to restore a degraded, damaged or destroyed ecosystem. Although the study not discuss this, it would be nice to know where and what damage occurred in the ecosystem and what procedures were used for restoration.

3. The goal is not entirely clear, perhaps to demonstrate that ecological restoration projects can improve the livelihood of local residents, or rather to serve as a scientific reference for green development?

4. The approach is that if the per capita income of the residents increases, then the ecological restoration project is successful. However, this is only one approach, I believe that the investment in the restoration of the ecosystem should be strongly taken into account in the increase of profitability.

5. Hypothesis 2, that agricultural areas can provide more livelihoods than pastoral areas during restoration projects, is a very unexpected result. Here, it should be calculated based on the net benefit of crops, but also the costs of restoration and investment. That is why I recommend testing the calculation on a small sample area.

6. This also raises the question of whether the limited number of input data in the used essentially global scale provides a suitable basis for the integrated analysis? What effect do these factors have on the livelihood of the population, which is an element of the system (from a natural and social point of view). That is, uncertainty values ​​should be entered for the calculation.

7. The NDVI can indeed be considered a kind of integrative result, but the restoration of the ecosystem lacks a social aspect.

8. The global scale makes it difficult to involve community values ​​in the system, is there an idea for that?

9. Is there a national ecosystem restoration plan or regulation?

10. The use of artificial intelligence would make it possible to predict future conditions, I recommend its use for this purpose.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

In this study of the socio-economic consequences of the major ecological restoration project across northern China known as the Three-North Shelter Forest Program, data from 596 counties was used. It examined areas used for agriculture and for pastoralism and assessed the impact of the project on people’s disposable income. It found that the ecological restoration project initially had a negative impact on incomes of farmers but this quickly rose to be positive. However, for pastoralists, the opposite occurred, incomes diminished and continued to decline. The paper puts forward recommendations to address the consequences of the restoration project.

Assessment

This is an impressive study, carefully prepared and implemented, covering a vast area of nearly 600 counties of China. It clearly explains the derivation of the machine learning algorithms and the sources of data it utilises. The three hypotheses it proposes provides a focus for the study which was able to demonstrate their fulfillment.

The discussion and conclusions derive from the study’s findings and are consistent with them. The study’s strengths derives from its methodological soundness, and its capability of analysing data from a very large area of China and deriving meaningful results. No specific weaknesses were identified. In terms of policy outcomes, the paper puts forward three recommendations covering the lessons it derived from the study. Given access to the data, the study should be reproducible. The paper identifies the sources of its data being official publications of the Government and an international data source. The paper does not identify any limitations in the study.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Although it states that no external funding was used, one of the authors is listed as “funding acquisition” so this requires explanation.

It is pleasing that a map of the study area is shown in Figure 1. All the other Figures and Tables are clear and of sufficient size. With the exception of the Costanza and Daily references of 1997 of ecosystem services, all the remaining references are post 2000. No issues were found with the English of the paper.

Specific Comments

None.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

不

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

（1）The article makes extensive use of references from 5-10 years ago. I believe it is imperative to significantly supplement these with references from the last three years, otherwise, it will affect the value judgment of the article.

（2）Although I am not a native speaker, there are numerous expression errors in the text, and the entire document needs to be polished.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken into account my suggestions in the revised version. I do not have additional comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Check possible typos.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx