Study on the Livelihood Capital Level, Structural Characteristics, and Coupling Coordination Degree of Chinese Beef Cattle Farmers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic addressed is interesting, but the paper is far from being in the standards expected for a manuscript to be published in a international Journal.

The literature review with 13 references is weak and must be significantly improved.

The methodology applied is in my opinion descriptive and not adjusted. I suggest something related with factor analysis for the indices and after something more robust including regressions, machine learning and spatial autocorrelation.

Author Response

Submitted to attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well presented, the objectives are clear, and the research question is well addressed.

The measurement of livelihood capital needs uses an evaluation index system and a weighted multi-indicators decision making method. I found the analysis of livelihood capital strengths and weaknesses by different farming method interesting, while in my opinion the coupling degree analysis needs an improvement.

The discussion is a weak point: too concise, and there are no precise references to the studies being recalled; literature references and a comparison of the study's achievements against others are nnecessary. The Conclusions consider all aspects including policy reccomendations, however, the paragraph is quite lengthy. Better to have a broad discussion that also contains some elements that are now in the Conclusions.

Line 70: Please avoid repetition (“were obtained from the data obtained”)

Lines 159- 165. Why didn’t you use the z-score to standardize the indicators? Which is based on the difference between (each observed data from the average value) on / the standard deviation

Line 345 and following: Instead of “Farming mode” I would suggest considering “farming method”

Lines 399 and following: Please give more references regarding the coupling coordination degree analysis

Author Response

Submitted to attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is interesting as it measures the livelihood capital level, livelihood capital structure, and livelihood capital coupling coordination of beef cattle farmers in the research areas in China (Shandong, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, and Sichuan), and conducting specific analyses from the perspective of comparing different regions and different farming models. However, in my opinion, the paper presents significant weaknesses. It is necessary for the manuscript to be re-writing and structured better in many points and improve and reformulate on basic sections.

1. Introduction section is very poor. Needs reformulation as it is focused almost exclusively on China, and many paragraphs are not documented by citations. There are omissions of crucial views of the studied topic. There are not presented clearly the purpose, research questions, or research hypotheses and missing also a brief structure of the paper.

2. I suggest adding a theoretical framework section with an international orientation.

3. Section 2 (Materials and Methods) needs reformulation as it is not clear the data sources and the used methodologies. The authors did not follow an organized way to present the methods used (a flow chart that will be presenting these methodologies in series would be useful).

4. A map is useful to be added.

5. The authors must answer the following questions:

- By which criteria selected the research areas (Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, Sichuan Province, Shandong Province, and Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region)?

- Are these areas representatives (and the sample size also) of the whole of China?

- What is mean the phrase 'Based on the development of the beef cattle industry and beef cattle breeding...'? Where is the secondary data (population, employment, farm and beef cattle breeding, etc.) regarding these research areas to prove the important role of these areas?

- Who was the research population of the research areas?

- What is mean: 'The research form is a combination of online and offline research....'? How the research had been conducted exactly?

- There should be a proper description of the survey and questionnaire. How the sample size (394 beef cattle farmers) was determined and how random this was. 

6. In another point of the paper (subsection 2.3), the authors are presenting the Delphi approach or method that has been followed (except the entropy method) for the determination of indicator weights for livelihood capital. The authors present briefly theoretically the Delphi method, but they do not mention, how they have been applicated of this method in the specific research. The number of experts, the structure, the content, the rounds of questionnaires.... etc. Authors must clearly explain, How the Delphi method was done? Should clearly describe how many were participants experts, the procedure, etc.

7. In subsection 2.2. (Livelihood capital measurement index system construction) add citations in crucial phrases or argue on them (for example, in lines 92, 93). The psychological capital is not documented clearly, as missing citations and serious arguments also. In lines 136-137 authors mention that: 'Referring to relevant studies, the attitude to face risks and attitude to industrial prospects were selected as indicators of psychological capital'. Which relevant studies?

8. Generally, in my opinion, the content of biometric capital indicators is not documented enough. I am quite sure that exists important specific measurement indicators for the six types of livelihood capital that have not been taken into account.

9. The Discussion section is presented more as research limitations than as a Discussion.  Authors should discuss in-depth and be standing critically on findings. In my opinion, even if the authors believe that there are no exist similar studies, it is necessary the findings to compare with similar studies internationally oriented.

10. The conclusion section adds nothing (except the subsection of policy recommendations). Please avoid repetitions as in the Conclusions section the authors have the chance to present generalized conclusions which are simply based on the results.

11. There are no research limitations and future research.

12. References should be enriched because are not missing only important references related to the topic of the research but a large number of relevant references (on topic or on used methodologies).

13. There are too many repetitions that add nothing to various points of the manuscript.

Author Response

Submitted to attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper changed from 13 to 18 references. For a scientific paper in my opinion is not enough.

The methodology remains too much descriptive.

In any case would be important that the authors highlight in the submission the changes made.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I checked very carefully the revised manuscript and your responses to my comments. I recognize that the paper improved in the revised version, however, that has happened partly, in my opinion. The manuscript remains weak in a few points and needs to be more understandable for the readers.

You answered my comments but, in most cases, you avoided changing the manuscript or adding new data.

The references remain poor and need enrichment.

The points 2, 3, and 4 of my comments (from your file of responses to reviewer no3), in my opinion, have been answered partly and my suggestions like the addition of a flow chart of used methodologies were ignored.

I suggest you, to be covering my comments (in the text and not only in your responses) from the first round of my review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf