Climate Change Risk, Digital Financial Inclusion and Multidimensional Relative Poverty Among Farm Households

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Summarization and Overall Evaluattion of the Manuscirpt

This particulary manuscript, which attempts to investiggate the intricate relashionship between climate change-related risk factors and the multi-dimensional nature of relative povertie amongst farm household groups in the Chinese context, while also incorporating the moderrating impact of digital inclusive financce, it is, in general, addressing a subject matter of notable academic significance and practical value, albeit with certain structural and linguistic weaknessess that needs further enhancements. Based on the datasets extracted from the CHFS between 2013 and 2019, the authers constructs a two-way fixed-effect regresssion framework and, what is perhaps noteworthy, undertakes a series of robustness check which lend some credibility to empirical outcomes.

The paper addresses a timely and policy-relevant topic, with a well-structured methodology and reliable data. The empirical results are sound and presented clearly. However, the manuscript would benefit from improvements in the theoretical framing, model specification, indicator construction, literature depth, and language accuracy. 

2. Section-wise Identiffication of Problems (with line references)

(1) Introdution Section (Lines 24–113)

• It is quite noticable that the reference to Alkire-Foster method at Line 40-41, while appropriate, it remains insufficiently explained, and readers unfamiliar might felt difficult to understand how exactly the multidimensional index be aggregated or identified.

• There is, at Line 72, a technical issue, where a citation shows as “Error! Reference source not found.”, which is not only distracting but also diminishing perceived rigor of the paper.

• From Line 98–113, the claims regarding the novelty of the study feels more promotional than academic. Phrase like "further enriched the study" should be adjusted with more neutral tone.

(2) Theoretical Analysys Part (Lines 114–214)

• In Line 121–123, the discussion around disasters like droughts and typhoons damaging agricultural yield is indeed plausible, however it was not substantiated with either real examples or credible datta.

• The discussion in Line 172–176 about e-commerce is written in a informal tone, for example “some farmers in mountain areas” lacks scholarly rigour; it should better be presented with concrete data or case studys.

• Line 197–204 jumps from the topic of disease risk to online insurance without enough logic transittion, which readers may find confussing and fragmented.

(3) Method & Data Section (215–337)

• The model specified in Line 254–260, though technically correct, do not make clear whether year fixed effects is included, which is somewhat puzzling, considering the panel data nature.

• When constructing the multidimension povertie indicator (Line 264–280), the equal weighting method is used without justification on whether correlations among dimensions was considered. This might bring biased measurement.

• Lines 299–312: No test on collinearity is presented. Considering that both CPRI and PDI are aggregate indices at province-level, it is possible that co-movement exist.

(4) Results and Discussion (338–584)

• The coefficients (e.g. 0.02) mentioned in Line 343–344, although statistically significant, lacks an interpretation of what this means in practice, e.g. "how much worse is poverty if CPRI increase one unit".

• Endogeneity test (Lines 368–394) uses lagged CPRI as instrument, but the exogeneity assumption is not explained. If the lag is also affected by past poverty, the instrument might be invalid.

• Construction of household-level IFI index (Lines 424–430) using entropy method is stated, but no details about weights or reliability tests is given, which reduces trust in robustness.

(5) Heterogenity and Policy Sections (Lines 496–661)

• It appears strange that high digital literacy group is more vulnerable (Line 571–574), which should be elaborated further: is it due to exposure effect or some other explanation?

• In policy implication section (Lines 606–661), although quite comprehensive, the tone is almost like a project plan with too much detail (e.g. "tax break percent", "joint research"), which may shift focus away from empirical findings.

3. Language and Expression Issues

• • Multiple minor errors persist, such as the recurring “Error! Reference source not found” and inconsistent phrasing like “breadth of coverage dimension” vs. “coverage breadth.” These should be harmonized.

  • Several expressions are too casual for academic writing (e.g., “obviously,” “it can be seen”). Replace with more formal alternatives like “empirical results suggest.”

  • Some sentences are excessively long or convoluted, especially in the policy section (Lines 607–627). Consider breaking them into clearer, thematic subsections (e.g., funding, R&D, industry-academia collaboration).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thanks a lot for your comments which is significant for improving the quality of our manuscript. Besides, thank you for your positive comments on our manuscript which will encourage us to pursue more interesting and meaningful research later.

The response to your comments in detail are as follows.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the article titled "Climate change risk, digital financial inclusion and multidimensional relative poverty among farm households"

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,
Thanks a lot for your comments which is significant for improving the quality of our manuscript. Besides, thank you for your positive comments on our manuscript which will encourage us to pursue more interesting and meaningful research later.
The response to your comments in detail are as follows.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses the important and timely issue of the impact of climate change on the direction and strength of poverty worldwide, in this case in China. It is clear that there is a correlation between climate factors and poverty, but the authors point out that there are technological and institutional opportunities to mitigate this condition. The subject matter is very important and relevant, the research problem well posed, the relevance of the issue nicely described. Very well prepared theoretical chapter. The authors describe in detail and understandably the method of research, which shows a great understanding and validity of their use. Well described and visualized research results. However, the study needs to be improved in terms of structure.  This paper should have a separate chapter with a discussion of the results!.  In this chapter, authors should confront their research results with authors from other countries/regions of the world. The study lacks an international/wide reference to the topic globally. The literature needs to be more widely used, there are few references to authors from other parts of the world. This subject matter forces the authors to look at this problem on a global scale. This broad view should be included in a separate chapter with a discussion of the results, where the authors refer extensively to international studies, including those from South America, Africa Europe, etc. The structure of the study needs to be corrected!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thanks a lot for your comments which is significant for improving the quality of our

manuscript. Besides, thank you for your positive comments on our manuscript which will

encourage us to pursue more interesting and meaningful research later.

The response to your comments in detail are as follows.

Point 1. The study addresses the important and timely issue of the impact of climate

change on the direction and strength of poverty worldwide, in this case in China. It is

clear that there is a correlation between climate factors and poverty, but the authors

point out that there are technological and institutional opportunities to mitigate this

condition. The subject matter is very important and relevant, the research problem

well posed, the relevance of the issue nicely described. Very well prepared theoretical

chapter. The authors describe in detail and understandably the method of research,

which shows a great understanding and validity of their use. Well described and

visualized research results. However, the study needs to be improved in terms of

structure. This paper should have a separate chapter with a discussion of the

results! In this chapter, authors should confront their research results with authors

from other countries/regions of the world. The study lacks an international/wide

reference to the topic globally. The literature needs to be more widely used, there are

few references to authors from other parts of the world. This subject matter forces the

authors to look at this problem on a global scale. This broad view should be included

in a separate chapter with a discussion of the results, where the authors refer

extensively to international studies, including those from South America, Africa

Europe, etc. The structure of the study needs to be corrected!

Response 1. Thank you for your valuable comments, it's very inspiring for our

research. We compare and discuss our findings with studies from India, Africa, and

other regions, and add relevant international literature. Please see lines 86-116.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary and Contribution
The paper analyzes the relationship between climate change—particularly climate extremes—and poverty, using a two-way fixed effects panel regression model that controls for both province-level and household-level characteristics. The authors examine how climate risk affects multidimensional relative poverty among farm households, with special attention to the moderating role of digital financial inclusion.

The topic addressed is highly relevant and timely, aligned with the sustainability and development concerns of the journal. The methodology employed, based on panel data with fixed effects, is appropriate and well-established in the literature for addressing unobserved heterogeneity across both space and time. The empirical results appear consistent, original, and contribute meaningfully to the growing body of research on the socioeconomic impacts of climate change, particularly in the context of developing countries.

Major Comments

1. Motivation and Positioning in the Literature
   The introduction does not sufficiently motivate the paper or position it within the broader international literature. While the theme is important, the introduction should more clearly articulate the research gap that the paper addresses, as well as its potential contribution. I recommend revising the introduction to:
• Clarify the novelty and relevance of the study in a global context;
• Provide a more systematic review of recent international literature on the links between climate change (particularly climate extremes) and poverty;
• Include references that deal with the concepts of climate resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation among farm households.
2. Theoretical Foundations and Transmission Mechanisms
   Section 2, especially Section 2.1, lacks a clear theoretical framework. The paper would benefit from a more detailed discussion of the potential mechanisms through which climate risk influences multidimensional poverty, and how digital financial inclusion might moderate these effects. The working hypotheses are presented in a somewhat ad hoc manner, without reference to formal models or a clear conceptual framework. I suggest:
• Adding a subsection or paragraph that outlines the expected transmission channels (e.g., income volatility, crop failure, access to credit, insurance, and risk mitigation);
• Citing relevant theoretical or conceptual papers that support the hypothesized relationships.
3. Measurement and Variable Construction
   The paper employs two key indices: a climate physical risk index and a digital financial inclusion index. However, both indices are insufficiently described.
• The authors should provide a more detailed explanation of how each index is constructed, including data sources, weighting schemes (if applicable), normalization procedures, and temporal/spatial resolution;
• A discussion of potential limitations, sources of measurement error, and how these may affect the estimation results is also necessary.
4. Clarity of Empirical Design – Section 4.2.4
   Section 4.2.4 discusses an empirical robustness check involving the exclusion of certain cities, but it is unclear what exact procedure was used to define the subset of excluded cities, and how this selection may affect the analysis.
• The authors should clarify the exclusion criteria and its justification;
• It would be helpful to report whether and how the results change depending on different definitions of the exclusion set.
5. Formatting and Reference Issues
   There are noticeable formatting issues in the reference list and in-text citations, likely due to conversion from Word to PDF. These should be carefully reviewed and corrected to ensure proper attribution of cited literature and consistency throughout the manuscript.

Recommendation
The paper addresses a highly relevant issue and has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the literature. However, before it can be considered for publication, the issues raised above—particularly regarding theoretical framing, variable definition, and motivation—must be addressed. I recommend major revisions.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

Thanks a lot for your comments which is significant for improving the quality of our manuscript. Besides, thank you for your positive comments on our manuscript which will encourage us to pursue more interesting and meaningful research later.

The response to your comments in detail are as follows.

 

Point 1. 

Motivation and Positioning in the Literature
The introduction does not sufficiently motivate the paper or position it within the broader international literature. While the theme is important, the introduction should more clearly articulate the research gap that the paper addresses, as well as its potential contribution. I recommend revising the introduction to:

Clarify the novelty and relevance of the study in a global context;

Provide a more systematic review of recent international literature on the links between climate change (particularly climate extremes) and poverty;

Include references that deal with the concepts of climate resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation among farm households.

Response 1. Thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the introduction and added to the international literature on vulnerability, as well as the relationship between climate change (especially extremes) and poverty. Please see lines 58-66 and lines 86-116.

Point 2. Theoretical Framework

Theoretical Foundations and Transmission Mechanisms
Section 2, especially Section 2.1, lacks a clear theoretical framework. The paper would benefit from a more detailed discussion of the potential mechanisms through which climate risk influences multidimensional poverty, and how digital financial inclusion might moderate these effects. The working hypotheses are presented in a somewhat ad hoc manner, without reference to formal models or a clear conceptual framework. I suggest:

Adding a subsection or paragraph that outlines the expected transmission channels (e.g., income volatility, crop failure, access to credit, insurance, and risk mitigation);

Response 2. Thank you for your valuable input. We have added the theoretical framework as well as the related theories in the paper. Please see subsection 2.1, lines 224-225 and lines 294-295.

Point 3. 

Measurement and Variable Construction
The paper employs two key indices: a climate physical risk index and a digital financial inclusion index. However, both indices are insufficiently described.

The authors should provide a more detailed explanation of how each index is constructed, including data sources, weighting schemes (if applicable), normalization procedures, and temporal/spatial resolution;

A discussion of potential limitations, sources of measurement error, and how these may affect the estimation results is also necessary.

Response 3. Thank you for your valuable input. We have described both variables in more detail. We further illustrate the construction of these two variables and list their sub-dimensional indicators, with a view to providing the reader with a deeper understanding of these two variables. Please see lines 392-399 and lines 405-417.

Point 4.

Clarity of Empirical Design – Section 4.2.4
Section 4.2.4 discusses an empirical robustness check involving the exclusion of certain cities, but it is unclear what exact procedure was used to define the subset of excluded cities, and how this selection may affect the analysis.

The authors should clarify the exclusion criteria and its justification;

It would be helpful to report whether and how the results change depending on different definitions of the exclusion set.

Response 4. Thank you for your valuable input. The choice of excluding some cities in this paper is mainly due to the fact that China's key provinces have access to more economic and financial resources under the influence of policy favoritism. Beijing, Tianjin and Chongqing, as China's municipalities directly under the central government, have higher financial autonomy and resource allocation capabilities, while the economic structure and development patterns of autonomous regions are more influenced by ethnic policies, which may lead to data bias. By analyzing mainly the situation in general provinces (non-special policy support areas), this paper aims to more accurately assess the impacts of climate change on the average rural household, and to avoid the policy advantages from masking the real problems.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the authors have revised the manuscript based on my feedback. However, before formal publication, the paper should include additional references, as the current number of references is far from sufficient. Additionally, I noticed that the manuscript has a high similarity rate, which should be reduced.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable and insightful comments, which have greatly improved the quality of our manuscript. First, regarding the issue of limited references, we have thoroughly reviewed the relevant literature and significantly expanded the reference list to better support our argument. Second, regarding the similarity rate issue, we fully understand the journal's strict requirements for originality. The contents of the article are all originally written by us, but there may be cases where some of the expressions or literature review sections are similar to existing studies. We have carefully revised the manuscript to ensure proper paraphrasing and citation. We sincerely thank the reviewers for their time and expertise in helping us improve this manuscript. Please refer to the main text for specific revisions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Attached you can find my comments. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate these valuable and insightful comments, which have greatly improved the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of the concerns and provided detailed responses in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have modified the manuscript in response to my comments, and so I believe the paper can be accepted in its present form.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and constructive feedback during the review process. We sincerely appreciate your recognition of our revisions and are pleased to hear that you find the manuscript acceptable in its current form. Your comments have significantly improved the quality of our work.

We look forward to contributing to the journal and hope our research will be valuable to the community.