Examining the Impacts of Land Resources and Youth Education on Agricultural Livelihood in Battambang Province

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study adopted the sustainable livelihoods framework and employed the Kruskal-Wallis test to analyze physical, natural, human, social, and financial capital, examining the vulnerability of demographic groups. The research conducted a two-level analysis of livelihoods in the two study villages of Battambang Province. The findings will help identify key drivers that can enhance the sustainability of rural livelihoods and contribute to efforts to reduce inequalities. The paper is well-organized and clearly written. I only have several comments.

1. It is recommended to include a brief overview of Battambang Province in the background section of the abstract to enhance the logical flow and provide contextual grounding.
2. The title states “Examining the Impacts of Land Resources and Youth Education on Agricultural Livelihood in Battambang Province”. While the introduction highlights the significance of livelihood studies and the importance of land resources for agriculture, how exactly does youth education influence agricultural livelihoods?
3. Line 66: What does “regarding drivers of land-use change” refer to in the text?
4. Line 127: What is intervention investment? How to conduct intervention investment?
5. Lines 175-177: It is recommended to provide the theoretical rationale for categorizing villages into three main population subgroups. Has the classification of the three population subgroups been validated through statistical tests to confirm inter-group differences?
6. The distinction between old settlers and new settlers is ambiguous with overlapping timelines, and it remains unclear whether the younger generation has land ownership. It is recommended to reorganize the text for clearer articulation.
7. Lines 214-217: Please specify the justification for adopting these particular livelihood asset indicators in the analytical framework.
8. The justification for choosing the Kruskal-Wallis test should be explicitly stated in the discussion, including its appropriateness for the data characteristics.
9. Lines 505-506: Given that this study is based on field information collected at a specific time point, what measures can be taken to mitigate its limitations?
10. Figures and equations should be formatted according to the journal's guidelines. This includes providing complete labels, centering equations, and ensuring consistent numbering throughout.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. According to your comments, we added provincial background information, characterized population subgroups, explained youth education influence on agricultural livelihood, clarified research gaps, explained intervention investment, statistical data analysis method adoption, and added studies period with explanation. We developed new sentences or paragraphs for clarification to address your concerns.

Comment 1:    It is recommended to include a brief overview of Battambang Province in the background section of the abstract to enhance the logical flow and provide contextual grounding.

Response 1:     We added the background information of Battambang province to the abstract.

                        “Battambang Province, northwestern region, was the battleground until political integration in 1996. Since then, the province has been home to immigrants who explored lands for livelihood.”

                        The sentence was added between lines 23 and 25 in the abstract section.

Comment 2:     The title states “Examining the Impacts of Land Resources and Youth Education on Agricultural Livelihood in Battambang Province”. While the introduction highlights the significance of livelihood studies and the importance of land resources for agriculture, how exactly does youth education influence agricultural livelihoods?

Response 2:     We reviewed our dataset to clarify your response as below.

“Young education influences agricultural livelihood, which is often passed down through generations. According to the livelihood score in Table 3, the data indicate that YGs have human capital scores of 0.47–0.55 in OT and DK, with LA scores of 0.47 and 0.53, which are statistically significant. Within the low livelihood score, we observed significant differences for C_h and C_f (Table 5), which varied by education levels, ranging from illiterate to university (Table 7), and their annual income, on average, was $4,906.90, which they earned from agricultural lands of 5.4 ha. Approximately 36% of YG families with education levels ranging from illiterate to secondary school are wage laborers. In practice, OS families acquired land resources to sustain their livelihoods and generate income to support their living and YG’s education, hoping their children will gain better knowledge to secure and improve job opportunities. By contrast, when YG is unable to attain the education system, they remain dependent on limited land resources and face insecure job opportunities for their livelihood.”

This paragraph was added to the discussion section between Lines 573 to 584.

 

Comment 3:      Line 66: What does “regarding drivers of land-use change” refer to in the text?

Response 3:     Drivers of land-use change written in Line 66 referred to the explanation described between Lines 53 and 68. This paragraph explains the research gap, which previous scholars have paid attention to, focusing on land-use change drivers such as government policy and/or development projects, regardless of the livelihood. I clarify the land-use driver in Line 63 as

“In 2021, the drivers of LULCC (Land Use and Land Cover Change) confirmed that trade liberalization policies and rural development projects, such as landmine clearance and road development, accelerated the shift from forestry to agriculture [1]”

The sentences were added to line 69, the introduction section.

 

Comment 4:     Line 127: What is intervention investment? How to conduct an intervention investment?

Response 4:     The paragraph between Lines 124 to 134 aims at describing the potential of measuring livelihood by scholars, but this does not reflect on intervention investment and how to conduct intervention investment. To address this, we revise the sentence to link this paragraph to Section 2.3. The adjusted sentence is written below.

“Both investigations used index scores (0–1) to measure and evaluate rural livelihood assets, which are necessary for intervention investment.”

The sentences were added to line 133, the introduction section.

 

Comment 5:     Lines 175-177: It is recommended to provide the theoretical rationale for categorizing villages into three main population subgroups. Has the classification of the three population subgroups been validated through statistical tests to confirm inter-group differences?

Response 5:     Between lines 175 to 177 (in the new line are between 198 to 200), we restructured the paragraph chronologically in order to avoid misunderstanding. Topic and close statement were added to the section, together with the combined scatter plot.

The topic statement is included: “The population recorded increases through three decades.”

A closing sentence was added to the paragraph as “Clustering population subgroups was based on characteristics, migration periods, background, and land accessibility.”

                        The final calibrated paragraph looks.

The population recorded increases over three decades. Two years after the political integration, in 1998, the Cambodian census recorded the population of DK as 295 villagers (or 60 families) [2], which surged to 1491 villagers in 2008, while OT had 309 villagers in the same year [3]. The field observations recorded a total population of 1480 villagers (741 females) or 355 families in DK and 730 villagers (357 females) in OT across 156 families. The villages were divided into three main population subgroups: Old Settlers (OS), New Settlers (NS), and the Young Generation (YG). Clustering population subgroups was based on characteristics, migration periods, background, and land accessibility.”

Corrected paragraph located between lines 193 and 201.

Comment 6:     The distinction between old settlers and new settlers is ambiguous, with overlapping timelines, and it remains unclear whether the younger generation has land ownership. It is recommended to reorganize the text for clearer articulation.

Response 6:     We restructured the paragraph between lines 212 and 218 to distinguish between OS and NS clearly. The new version is written below.

“The second group, the New Settler (NS) families, comprised mostly ordinary people, with a few former Khmer Rouge and Government Soldiers, who relocated from their hometowns between 1970 and 2018, settling in this region between 1981 and 2016. Between 1970 and 1980, they were soldiers and then looked for livelihood opportunities from 1981. In 1996, they started settling these villages permanently. Most were from the same province as the OS families, with few variations. They migrated to this region to access land resources by purchasing land or seeking employment opportunities.”

Plus, we constructed a new table (Table 2) to help distinguish OS, NS, and YG.

Comment 7:     Lines 214-217: Please specify the justification for adopting these particular livelihood asset indicators in the analytical framework.

Response 7:     Thank you so much for your kind support. We developed a paragraph to specify the justification for adopting a particular livelihood asset below.

“Based on field observations, a series of indicators were designed and selected to examine livelihood assets, including physical, natural, human, financial, and social capital [4–7] These indicators, which were grounded in SLF, were selected to reflect the local reality, dynamics, and land accessibility. SLF could provide a comprehensive tool, people-centered analysis for understanding how the selected population subgroups utilize, access, and transform capitals to sustain their livelihood [8]. At the same time, responses related to yes/no, ranking, ratio, and a few numbers help villagers easily remember and recognize the situation due to the context sensitivity of the post-conflict zone of Cambodia's northwestern province. Thus, these selections align with the SLF principle [6,9] which is adopted by similar studies to measure and monitor rural livelihood [4].”

Justification can be found between lines 262 and 272, and each capital is described below Table 3.

Comment 8:     The justification for choosing the Kruskal-Wallis test should be explicitly stated in the discussion, including its appropriateness for the data characteristics.

Response 8:     Thank you for your advice. This will make our manuscript more readable. To develop two paragraphs, first, we express our idea and use literature to support our data analysis and interpretation.

“We adopted nonparametric data analysis because the collected data are ordinal and do not assume normal distribution involving population subgroups comparison. The ordinal response from the household survey consists of perception; however, we score those responses. In this case, nonparametric methods, the Kruskal-Wallis test could provide a statistically robust method to assess significant differences because the test employs ordinal data with three or more samples using a chi-square test, flexible with respect to the level of measurement of the test variable [10,11].

In general, nonparametric methods have been adopted by various scholars, especially in the fields of livelihood studies. The test is appropriately adopted to compare multiple independent villager groups to assess significant differences in ordinal data regardless of normal distribution [12]. Its result can be interpreted with a significant threshold of p < 0.05 to indicate statistically significant [12,13] because marginal error is not explicitly considered, and paying close attention to mean rank and not discussing the trend or sample effect [14].

The paragraphs were added to lines 601 and 627.

 

Comment 9:     Lines 505-506: Given that this study is based on field information collected at a specific time point, what measures can be taken to mitigate its limitations?

Response 9:     Thank you so much. We have already clarified the study periods as you advised in a paragraph below:

“In this study, field work was conducted in three different stages: 14-23 Jan 2023, 12-25 Feb 2023, and 22-31 May 2023. First and second, we conducted field observation in Samlout, Kamrieng, Phnum Proek, and Sampov Lun and targeted villages or hamlets that were established after the end of the civil war. During this period, we conducted in-depth interviews with the villagers’ chief, commune officers, and agricultural officers to collect background information related to village structure and livelihood activities. The information was used for selecting the study villages and developing the questionnaire. Third, we conducted an interview with local villagers in the selected villages.”

We inserted it between lines 237 and 244 for chronological order.

Comment 10:   Figures and equations should be formatted according to the journal's guidelines. This includes providing complete labels, centering equations, and ensuring consistent numbering throughout.

Response 10:   Thank you so much. We are under revised figures and equations to meet the journal format.

Finally, my colleagues and I, the authors, would like to appreciate your kind advice and suggestions to improve our manuscript. I hope that our responses will meet yours. Citations and restructured paragraphs have been incorporated to maintain clarity, chronological order, and ethical standards. Please let us know when there is a need to calibrate our manuscript. We avail ourselves to make this article suit the journal's scope, especially to improve our understanding of the rural livelihood of the people living in the northwestern regions.

Sincerely yours,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study analyzes the impacts of land resources and youth education on agricultural livelihoods in two villages of Battambang Province, Cambodia, through the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF). The research topic is of practical significance, especially against the backdrop of post-war rural development in Cambodia. However, certain methodological details need clarification, the depth of discussion can be further expanded, and the policy relevance of conclusions should be strengthened.  

 

1. The selection of only two villages, Dei Kraham and Ou Toek Thla, located in the western part of Battambang Province, may fail to fully represent the livelihood patterns of the entire province.  

 

2. The p-value of livelihood assets at the village level is 0.079, which is at the 10% significance level and cannot be concluded as non-significant.  

 

3. The study uses cross-sectional data, making it difficult to capture the dynamic changes in livelihood assets. It is recommended to supplement longitudinal data or historical comparative analysis, or explicitly address the limitations of cross-sectional research in the discussion.  

 

4. Some terminologies need consistent expression. For example, "New Settlers" is abbreviated as "N.S." in the main text, but"NS" and "N.S."are misused in tables; "YG" is mistakenly written as "NGYG" in some sections, requiring full-text proofreading.  

 

5. The research is based on Cambodia's social context and sample data, but it does not reflect global significance. It can be linked to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 1 No Poverty, SDG 4 Quality Education).  

 

6. New Settlers and Young Generation, as sub-population groups, are vulnerable due to low natural and human capital, thereby requiring intervention. However, the conclusion section does not provide specific intervention measures.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We are very pleased to address your suggestions related to statistical analysis results, cross-sectional data, and SDG contribution, considering ethics, transparency, and integrity. Thus, we interpreted our data based on the default function of the Kruskal-Wallis test in the R Program, and sample size selection is also based on contextual factors.  Also, we accept that our study specifically investigates a particular research location; however, it could contribute to the SDGs. Please kindly find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the resubmitted files.

Comment 1:      The selection of only two villages, Dei Kraham and Ou Toek Thla, located in the western part of Battambang Province, may fail to fully represent the livelihood patterns of the entire province.

Response 1:      Thank you so much for your advice. In our article, we do not commit to adopting the case of Dei Kraham and Ou Toek Thla village to represent the entire province. We highlight in paragraph 2, section 2.1. study location and sampling methods that “These characteristics make them representative of similar villages along the Cambodian-Thai Border and the northwest plateaus region.”

 The conjunction “AND” written in our sentence would confuse the reader; thus, we change “AND” to “OF” as below.

 “These characteristics make them representative of similar villages along the Cambodian-Thai Border of the northwest plateaus region.”

Comment 2:      The p-value of livelihood assets at the village level is 0.079, which is at the 10% significance level and cannot be concluded as non-significant.

Response 2:      Good question. This comment would be addressed separately; however, it has a direct or indirect relationship. Our explanation below

• Kruskal-Wallis Test default parameter of confidence level at 0.05 (95% confidence level) led to interpretation based on the model default parameter (conf.level = 0.95 [default parameter in R Program]). If we set up the confidence level to 0.90, we can interpret the p-value of 0.079 as marginally significant.
• 10% percent significance level is perhaps you pinpointing on the margin of error (e²) used in sample size estimation. This could decrease or increase sample size led to change in p-value. When we considered on sampling size formula to estimate sample size; there are many formulas which the calculating results is varied by its parameters. Therefore, what exactly the sample size need for the survey.
• A sample size for this study is enough to address our research questions. We adopted sample size estimation considering transparency, ethics, and integrity. Our sample size is more than 30% of the total population, which can represent the entire population. Our questionnaire was developed for livelihood trajectory, the overall goals; thus, the survey needed more time to interview. The sample size selection does not depend on statistical formalism but also on contextual factors [1]. Sampling size-based percentage could be accepted when the study meets transparency, ethics, and integrity [2].

Comment 3:      The study uses cross-sectional data, making it difficult to capture the dynamic changes in livelihood assets. It is recommended to supplement longitudinal data or historical comparative analysis, or explicitly address the limitations of cross-sectional research in the discussion.

Response 3:      Thank you so much for your advice, it is our concern. This study will lead to new discoveries related to livelihood trajectories. We improve our paragraph (Line 586 – 600) to highlight cross-sectional advantages for livelihood studies. We added the brief context to our current paragraph below.

“This study used cross-sectional data, which could help identify local vulnerabilities and improve the understanding of the livelihoods of local people in Northwestern Cambodia. However, it has a limitation related to its cross-sectional study design to collect in-situ information at a specific point in time rather than providing time-series data, as noted by Kemodel 2018, it requires repeated findings to capture the livelihood dynamic [3]. In practice, cross-sectional data, adopted by scholars globally, allow us to explore status through providing evidence that offers relevant insights to improve understanding of rural conditions [4] Thus, the cross-sectional data used in this study necessitate opening a window for further investigation.

On the positive side, the study allows for a quick examination of rural livelihood conditions, highlighting the important of understanding livelihood dynamic process involved Ellis, (1999) [5] which the approach can inform future study on rural livelihood, similar to the working efforts of Pritchard et al., (2019) who used the data from cross-sectional study to investigate non-farm livelihoods for securing and diversifying food and dietary options for rural Myanmar [6].”

Comment 4:      Some terminologies need consistent expression. For example, "New Settlers" is abbreviated as "N.S." in the main text, but "NS" and "N.S." are misused in tables; "YG" is mistakenly written as "YG" in some sections, requiring full-text proofreading.

Response 4:      Thank you so much. This is our mistake that occurred during manuscript development. These minor mistakes are corrected. Please kindly find the tracking change as evident.

Comment 5:      The research is based on Cambodia's social context and sample data, but it does not reflect global significance. It can be linked to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 1 No Poverty, SDG 4 Quality Education).

Response 5:      Thank you so much for this suggestion. Our research results could link to the SDGs, and the Cambodian SDGs are adopted from the UN as well. We hope that education will eliminate poverty, and this study will draw our attention to it. The data in this study primarily focuses on our study region. When our study results could be compared with others, without exception, we also contribute to global significance. Similar studies, achieved globally, are cited in this article between Lines 559-572.

Comment 6:      New Settlers and Young Generation, as sub-population groups, are vulnerable due to low natural and human capital, thereby requiring intervention. However, the conclusion section does not provide specific intervention measures.

Response 6:      Thank you so much. For sure, we need to find the specific intervention measure to support local people. Specifically, we aim at addressing our research questions, which we describe between 94 and 101 in section 1; however, we never forget intervention measures by suggesting future research on the livelihood trajectory. The study will identify the drivers contributing to enhancing rural livelihood sustainability, with efforts to reduce inequality.

Thank you so much for sharing your time to review our manuscript. Your efforts will yield a better understanding of the local livelihood of the villagers living in the northwestern plateau region of Cambodia. We try our best to address your suggestions and improve our manuscript for transparency, ethics, and integrity.

Sincerely yours,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents research on the relationship between land resources, youth education, and agricultural livelihoods in Cambodia. The aim is to understand how changes in land use and land cover can improve the living conditions of local communities, especially in rural areas where land is a key resource. The research aims to identify the impact of land resources and youth education levels on agriculture, thereby addressing the challenges faced by these communities. The study focuses on two villages, Dei Kraham and Ou Toek Thla, located west of the city of Battambang. The study covered three population subgroups: old settlers (OS), new settlers (NS), and the young generation (YG), allowing for a comparative analysis of their livelihoods in agriculture and access to resources.

The study adopted a quantitative approach, using a sustainable livelihood framework as a guideline. Random stratified sampling was used for the interviews to ensure that all three identified population subgroups were represented. The collected data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis tests to assess differences in livelihood resources, which include physical, natural, human, financial, and social capital. The study found that access to land resources has a significant impact on agricultural productivity and household economic stability. The results of the study also indicate that OS families are relatively secure, while N.S.DK and N.S.OT families are considered particularly vulnerable and require targeted measures. YG.DK and YG.OT families face an uncertain future, highlighting the need to provide them with education to maintain livelihoods for themselves and future generations. The authors suggest that future research should focus on understanding the trajectory of the local population's livelihoods, in particular how they can escape poverty or fall into a poverty trap.

The weaknesses (limitations) of the study include its cross-sectional nature, which allows data to be collected at only one point in time. This approach may not fully reflect the dynamic nature of livelihoods and may overlook important changes over time. Furthermore, reliance on structured questionnaires may introduce bias, as respondents may provide socially desirable answers rather than those that accurately reflect their situation. Finally, the study focuses mainly on quantitative data, which may limit the depth of understanding of the complexity of local livelihoods and the subjective experiences of community members.

The results and conclusions provide new insights into the literature on agricultural livelihoods in Battambang province, highlighting the key role of land resources and education in promoting sustainable development. Therefore, I recommend the article for publication in Sustainability after the following revisions and additions to the original text from the perspective of an international reader: 

1) Ensure that terms such as “livelihood assets” and “land use, land use change, and land cover change (LULCC)” are clearly defined at the beginning of the text. Additionally, ensure that all abbreviations used (such as SLF) are clearly defined. 

2) Provide a brief overview of the socio-economic conditions in Cambodia after the civil war, as this context is crucial for understanding current agricultural practices and the challenges facing rural communities.

3) When discussing statistical results, explain the significance of p-values, especially for readers unfamiliar with statistical analysis. For example, explain what a p-value of 0.079 means about differences in livelihood resources between strata.

4) It would be useful to include comparisons with similar studies in other countries or regions to highlight the relationship between the findings in Battambang province and global trends in livelihoods and agricultural education. This will provide a broader context and relevance for international readers.

5) Expand on how the findings contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to poverty reduction, education, and sustainable agriculture. This link could increase the article’s appeal to readers interested in sustainable development.

6) Add specific policy recommendations based on the research findings, particularly for local and national authorities. These may include suggestions for improving youth access to education and improving land management practices to support sustainable livelihoods.

7) Areas for future research that could build on the findings of this study should also be suggested, such as longitudinal studies to track changes over time or qualitative studies to gain deeper insights into the experiences and challenges of communities.

With these revisions and additions, the article will be more accessible and interesting to an international audience, while remaining consistent with the theme of sustainability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the resubmitted files. Also, we developed a new paragraph describing the Cambodian socioeconomic condition between 1979 and 2000 to clarify our manuscript. 

Comment 1:      Ensure that terms such as “livelihood assets” and “land use, land use change, and land cover change (LULCC)” are clearly defined at the beginning of the text. Additionally, ensure that all abbreviations used (such as SLF) are clearly defined.

Response 1:      Thank you so much. This is our mistake that occurred during manuscript development. These minor mistakes are corrected. Please kindly find the tracking change as evident. Also, every abbreviation used in this article is listed in the abbreviation section.

SLF is clearly defined since the beginning in Line 77

Livelihood assets are defined as LA in short in Line 91

Land use and land cover change is referred to as LULCC in Line 63.

Comment 2:      Provide a brief overview of the socio-economic conditions in Cambodia after the civil war, as this context is crucial for understanding current agricultural practices and the challenges facing rural communities.

Response 2:      Thank you so much for your suggestion. We are happy to add a paragraph supported by two pieces of literature to improve our manuscript as follows.

“After the end of the Khmer Rouge Regime (1975-1979), Cambodia’s socio-economic disruption stemmed from civil war. Approximately 2.8 million mortality-affected adults, reshaping demographic structure. The population subgroup, aged 45-49, reaches a 1.5 sex ratio, indicating gender imbalance. The education system caused the population aged between 14-18 in 1975 had the lowest levels of education in 2000. These scared human capital formation until the mid-1990s [1]. The country's GDP accounted around 349 (in 1996) to 466 billion riels (by 2000), which was heavily dependent on rice production of 87% of cultivated land [2]. Socio-economic records are difficult to find at the provincial level during that time, and livelihood studies are necessary to conduct in a particular location.”

It can be found in section 2.1. between lines 162-170

Comment 3:      When discussing statistical results, explain the significance of p-values, especially for readers unfamiliar with statistical analysis. For example, explain what a p-value of 0.079 means about differences in livelihood resources between strata.

Response 3:      Thank your suggestion. We explain in the note under Table 5.

“p-Value, probability, indicates the likelihood of statistical analysis results to assume the null hypothesis is true, as a significant or non-significant difference.”

Comment 4:      It would be useful to include comparisons with similar studies in other countries or regions to highlight the relationship between the findings in Battambang province and global trends in livelihoods and agricultural education. This will provide a broader context and relevance for international readers.

Response 4:      “We agreed with your idea. We have already mentioned the related studies between Lines 119 and 136 so that the reader can compare previous results with our results when they completely read section 3.”

Comment 5:      Expand on how the findings contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to poverty reduction, education, and sustainable agriculture. This link could increase the article’s appeal to readers interested in sustainable development.

Response 5:      Thank you for your insightful suggestion. The manuscript did not originally mention the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) directly; however, we acknowledge that our findings are strongly aligned with key SDG targets, particularly those related to poverty reduction (SDG 1), education (SDG 4), and zero hunger and sustainable agriculture (SDG 2). The use of the sustainable livelihood framework led to the achievement of inclusive and equitable recommendations for sustainable rural development.

Comment 6:      Add specific policy recommendations based on the research findings, particularly for local and national authorities. These may include suggestions for improving youth access to education and improving land management practices to support sustainable livelihoods.

Response 6:      Thank you for the valuable suggestion. This article analyzes rural livelihood challenges and finds land accessibility and educational inequality, particularly among youth and new settlers. It does not explicitly focus on actionable policy recommendations. We hope to have another opportunity to monitor or evaluate policy implications.

Comment 7:      Areas for future research that could build on the findings of this study should also be suggested, such as longitudinal studies to track changes over time or qualitative studies to gain deeper insights into the experiences and challenges of communities.

Response 7:      Thank you for your comment and suggestion. In our conclusion, we have already suggested further investigation and studies related to “livelihood trajectory” in order to improve our understanding of how local people escape from, or get trapped in, poverty after the long decades of the post-civil war period. The exploration will help identify the drivers that contribute to enhancing rural livelihood sustainability, with efforts to reduce inequality. Please kindly find our suggestion between Lines 657 – 667.

Comment 8:      With these revisions and additions, the article will be more accessible and interesting to an international audience, while remaining consistent with the theme of sustainability.

Response 8:      Thank you so much.

We would like to appreciate your contribution. The suggestions you provided will make our article more attractive to readers and will influence not only the local perspective but also the international one.

Sincerely yours

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The article addresses a relevant and timely topic.

Please note that on page 17, the abbreviations in the "Abbreviations" section are written with periods, while in the main text and tables they appear without periods. In the figures, the abbreviations are again presented with periods. Kindly standardize the usage throughout the manuscript.

In your work, you employ the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test. Therefore, it would be methodologically more appropriate to include the median values for all indicators presented in Table 3 (page 8), even if the median and mean are very close. Displaying only the means is less suitable, as the Kruskal–Wallis test does not rely on mean values.

Furthermore, given the available data, a regression analysis seems to be a natural next step—using 'Incomes as cash' as the dependent variable. Merely identifying differences between groups provides limited insight. While this suggestion is optional and not mandatory, conducting such an analysis would significantly enhance the scientific value of the article.

 

Best regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

The article addresses a relevant and timely topic.

Please note that on page 17, the abbreviations in the "Abbreviations" section are written with periods, while in the main text and tables, they appear without periods. In the figures, the abbreviations are again presented with periods. Kindly standardize the usage throughout the manuscript.

In your work, you employ the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test. Therefore, it would be methodologically more appropriate to include the median values for all indicators presented in Table 3 (page 8), even if the median and mean are very close. Displaying only the means is less suitable, as the Kruskal–Wallis test does not rely on mean values.

Furthermore, given the available data, a regression analysis seems to be a natural next step, using 'Incomes as cash' as the dependent variable. Merely identifying differences between groups provides limited insight. While this suggestion is optional and not mandatory, conducting such an analysis would significantly enhance the scientific value of the article.

Comment 1:      Please note that on page 17, the abbreviations in the "Abbreviations" section are written with periods, while in the main text and tables, they appear without periods. In the figures, the abbreviations are again presented with periods.

Response 1:      Thank you so much. We have already calibrated.

Comment 2:      Kindly standardize the usage throughout the manuscript.

Response 2:      We have already standardized the abbreviation and other criteria throughout the text.

Comment 3:      Therefore, it would be methodologically more appropriate to include the median values for all indicators presented in Table 3 (page 8), even if the median and mean are very close. Displaying only the means is less suitable, as the Kruskal–Wallis test does not rely on mean values.

Response 3:      Median is added to Table 4.

We would like to appreciate your contribution. The suggestions you provided will make our article more attractive to readers and will influence not only the local perspective but also the international one.

Sincerely yours,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with the revisions made by the authors.