The Relationship Between Climate Change and the Poverty Conditions of the Chota Valley’s Afro-Ecuadorian Population and Their Mitigation Actions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript examines the relationship between climate change and poverty among the Afro-Ecuadorian population of the Chota Valley, Ecuador. The authors utilize a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative analysis via the Proxy Means Testing (PMT) index with qualitative insights from focus group discussions. The study finds that poorer households (lower PMT scores) are more actively engaged in adaptive actions to climate change, while wealthier households show less interest. Adaptation strategies include substituting traditional crops with mangoes, which has allowed some families to survive or temporarily improve their living conditions. The authors conclude that climate change exacerbates poverty and food insecurity, and that adaptation is shaped by local knowledge, education, and community organization. The whole structure of MS sounds good to me and the results are interesting. I am hereby writing some comments so that the study can be polished before final publication.

1. The manuscript does not provide sufficient detail on the sampling design, sample size, or representativeness of the population studied. The use of the PMT index is appropriate for settings with limited income data, but the construction and validation of this index for the specific Chota Valley context is not described. There is no discussion of how confounding variables—such as household size, remittances, or access to infrastructure—were controlled for in the analysis. The lack of a clear methodological appendix or supplementary tables undermines the credibility and reproducibility of the quantitative findings.
2. While the mixed-methods approach is commendable, the integration between quantitative and qualitative strands is weak. The focus group methodology is not described in detail: How were participants selected? How many groups were conducted? What was the analytical framework for coding and interpreting qualitative data? Without this information, the qualitative findings risk being anecdotal rather than systematic. Moreover, the study does not triangulate or reconcile discrepancies between the two approaches.

Author Response

 Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article titled " Identification of the relationship of climate change with the conditions of poverty of the Afro-Ecuadorian population of Chota Valley, and its mitigation actions" explores the wide-ranging impacts of climate change on the environment, particularly on the food security and sovereignty of vulnerable ethnic groups. The research mainly focuses on the Chota Valley region of Ecuador, quantitatively analyzing the relationship between climate change and poverty in the area through PMT index, and qualitatively evaluating the adaptation of local residents to climate change through focus group discussions. It has certain academic and practical significance, but it still needs some improvement.

 

1. Although the use of PMT index as a measurement tool and qualitative analysis combined with focus groups were mentioned, the specific operational details of these methods were not described in sufficient detail. It is suggested that the author further clarify the methods of data collection, the criteria for selecting sample sizes, and how to ensure the validity and representativeness of the data.

 

2. Although the MS presents empirical results well, it can further explore how climate change specifically affects households with different income levels at the theoretical level. For example, more concepts about economic vulnerability and resilience can be introduced to explain why certain households are better able to adapt to climate change than others.

 

3. This research has shown public support for climate change adaptation measures, however, there are relatively few specific strategies or policy recommendations on how to translate these intentions into practical actions. I suggest the author add some discussion on how to promote community participation and support local governments in developing effective adaptation plans.

 

4. Climate change is a rapidly developing field and a current research hotspot. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that the latest research findings are cited. Please cite the latest references, especially those focusing on the impact of climate change in Latin America.

 

5. Some paragraphs appear lengthy and complex, which may affect readers' understanding. Please modify!

Author Response

 

"Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript investigates the relationship between climate change and poverty among the Afro-Ecuadorian population of the Chota Valley, Ecuador. It employs both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore how climate change impacts livelihoods, adaptation strategies, and resilience in this vulnerable community.
Comments and Suggestions:
1. The introduction is lengthy and somewhat repetitive. Consider condensing background information on global climate change and focusing more on the local context and knowledge gaps.
2. While several relevant references are included, some are outdated. Please ensure the inclusion of recent literature.
3. Clearly articulate the novel contribution of this study to the literature on climate change, poverty, and Afro-descendant populations in Latin America.
4. Discuss the rationale for the PMT index and focus groups selection and how they complement each other.
5. Clarify the sampling strategy for quantitative and qualitative components (sample size, selection criteria, representativeness).
6. The methods section lacks sufficient detail for replication. Please provide a step-by-step description of how the PMT index was calculated and applied.  
7. Please provide the structure and content of the focus group discussions, including the number of groups, participant demographics, and how data were analyzed.
8. Discuss potential limitations or biases in your methods (e.g., self-reporting, selection bias).
9. Results should be presented more structured, separating quantitative and qualitative findings.
10. Ensure all tables and figures are clearly labeled, referenced in the text, and include sufficient explanation.
11. If quantitative data are presented, include appropriate statistical analyses (significance testing, confidence intervals) to support your claims.
12. The qualitative results could include illustrative participant quotes to enrich the narrative.
13. Consider offering more concrete recommendations for policymakers, local authorities, or NGOs.

Author Response

 

 Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper received a good response and revision. Congratulations! Only a small amount of language editing is needed then. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am extremely satisfied with your thoughtful responses to my comments and with the revisions you have made to the manuscript. Your work is both rigorous and engaging, and I believe it makes a valuable contribution to the field.

I wish you all the best for the publication of your very interesting study.

Author Response

 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf