Analysis of Residents’ Livelihoods in Transformed Shantytowns: A Case Study of a Resource-Based City in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you to the author and journal for this opportunity for me to review. This study focuses on the livelihood of rural households in poor areas of resource-based cities, which is of great significance. However, although the author is ambitious, there is nothing in the article that the author should show the logical thinking and research framework, including the use of regression methods. I propose a major revision of the article, specifically as follows:
1. The abstract of the paper needs further revision. A good abstract should include research entry point and significance, research methods, research objectives and interpretation of research results.
2. The introduction is missing two things. First, the possible potential contribution of the paper; Second, the key problems to be solved in this paper.
3. The literature review should focus on the livelihood capital, strategies, characteristics and attributes of shantytown farmers. At present, it only gives a brief introduction to the traditional and well-known sustainable livelihood analysis framework. Please focus on the difference between farmers' livelihoods in shantytown and those in other research contexts.
4. The introduction of data collection and sources is not detailed enough, please enrich it.
5. Since cultural capital is a key addition in this paper, which is different from other studies, please analyze more characteristics, levels and measurement indicators of cultural capital, and explain clearly why cultural capital is so important in measuring the livelihood of farmers in shanty areas.
6. What is the CV in Table 3? Is that short for coefficient of variation? Not stated clearly.
7. What is the difference between Model 1 and Model 2 in Table 4 and Table 5? Why does Model 2 in Table 4 have 3 sets of regression coefficients and standard deviation?
8. The regression method is too simple, and it is suggested that the author conduct some robustness tests or endogenous thinking.
9. The current discussion part of the article is all self-talk without any comparison with the existing research, which is not a discussion.
10. The conclusion is missing.
11. The limitations of the article need to be increased.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I can offer a few comments:
1. the structure of the introduction can be improved by applying design: background, motivation, purpose of the study;
2. the theoretical framework of the study can be strengthened by including the genesis of the main theories of poverty:
Ashraf, Quamrul; Galor, Oded (2011). "Dynamics and Stagnation in the Malthusian Epoch". American Economic Review. 101 (5): 2003–2041.
Sen A.K. Poverty: an ordinal approach to measurement// Econometrics. 1976. – March. – Vol. 81. – PP. 285-307.
3. "The livelihood capital of the rehabilitated residents of shantytowns includes human, natural, physical, financial, social, and cultural capital." - this phrase is poorly substantiated by the results of earlier theoretical and empirical studies.
4. the entropy method for determining the weights of independent variables is not explained, the specification of the logit model is written incorrectly, without an exponent.
5. it is not indicated how the dependent variable is measured: 1 - there is livelihood capital , 0 - there is no livelihood capital?
6. How is the results kontrol? Is the model probit?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe abstract should be specified, the results of the research and scientific findings should be clearly highlighted.
For example, the authors in the abstract claim that „The study found that social capital, cultural capital, human capital and financial capital occupy important positions in the livelihood capital structure of residents. Financial capital, and cultural capital both have significant positive effects on livelihood strategies in coal mine-related industries, while the negative effect of human capital is significant. The positive contributions of gender and age to the livelihood strategies of coal mine-related industries are significant“.
Such general statements contribute little to scientific results. Scientific findings should be specified more accurately and specifically.
The introduction of the article is very long, more practical than scientific in nature, it is difficult to find the task of the research and briefly explained research methodology, the subjects of this study. In the introduction, part of the text of a practical nature should be omitted, the purpose of the study, the object and subjects should be defined, the research period should be reflected, and the research methodology should be briefly explained.
The authors of the article begin the introduction with the situation in China, the question is why? After all, this is a scientific article, and the case under consideration is one of the types of locality and society, so the authors should start with scientific results, regularities that have already been revealed about the transformations, object of research and urban shantytowns, transformation project, the chosen type of locality (shantytowns, resource-dependent areas, slums) and society (slum dwellers).
Two questions are raised in this study: [i] How is the livelihood situation of the residents living in the shantytowns at the foot of the mines after the transformation? [ii] How do changes in livelihood capital affect the livelihood strategies of residents following transformation? Therefore, the text of the article should be divided into 2 parts, the answers to the questions are clearly presented.
The research results are presented in a complex manner. Many different statistical indicators, but little analysis, scientific assumptions, causal and consequential factors are discussed. The Discussion part should be revised, authors should abandon paragraphs that are referential in nature, for example lines 551-571. The study was conducted in the context of endogenous development in resource-dependent areas. It would be useful, added value - more precise conclusions, more clearly defined regularities of the development model of resource-dependent areas. In the discussion, authors should compare their research results with the research results of other authors, pay more attention to scientific findings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks to all the authors for their efforts and responses, I am very satisfied with your careful revision. I wish a happy Chinese New Year, happy every day.
