Balancing Poverty Alleviation and Ecosystem Vulnerability Reduction: Implication from China’s Targeted Interventions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors construct an indicator system and use it to assess the ecological vulnerability of poor areas in China. This is a very interesting article and it is very well organized. However, I still recommend that authors revise their manuscripts.

1. The word "more" in the title, I think is inappropriate. In this article, the study area is limited to poverty area. The authors did not compare different regions. I suggest deleting the word.

2. The use of SDG1 and SDG15 in this article is inappropriate. In this article, ecological vulnerability is not the whole story of SDG15. Moreover, after the introduction section, the authors only mentioned SDGS in 4.2. I suggest deleting such an expression.

3. I suggest adding a technical framework.

4. In Figure 2, 6 regions are unclear. I suggest that 6 regions be placed in Figure 1. By the way, Figure 2 is numbered incorrectly.

5. I suggest renaming 4.1 to 3.4. This is undoubtedly one of the main parts of the article.

6. In the discussion section, I suggest that the authors add discussion on mechanisms to replace the existing 4.1. I notice in Table 2 that the indicators designed by the authors are rarely relevant to anti-poverty policies. I suggest that the authors discuss the mechanisms by which poverty affects ecological vulnerability.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Re:

Manuscript ID: Sustainability-3455023

Title: Balancing Poverty Alleviation and Ecosystem Health: Lessons from China’s Targeted Interventions

Thank you for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Balancing Poverty Alleviation and Ecosystem Health: Lessons from China’s Targeted Interventions” (ID: Sustainability-3455023). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as providing important guidance for our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope will meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follows.

 

In this paper, the authors construct an indicator system and use it to assess the ecological vulnerability of poor areas in China. This is a very interesting article and it is very well organized. However, still recommend that authors revise their manuscripts.

Comments 1: The word "more" in the title, I think is inappropriate. In this article, the study area is limited to poverty area. The authors did not compare different regions. I suggest deleting the word.

Response 1: We agree with your suggestion. The focus of our paper is to establish an indicator system for assessing ecosystem vulnerability in impoverished regions of China, while also discussing the mechanisms in the context of policy interventions. After careful consideration and incorporating the feedback from the reviewers, editors, and the theme of the special issue, we have revised the title to "Balancing Poverty Alleviation and Ecosystem Vulnerability: Lessons from China’s Targeted Interventions" to better highlight the core focus of our research. This change aims to more accurately reflect the study’s emphasis on the interplay between poverty alleviation and ecosystem vulnerability, as well as the insights drawn from China’s targeted policy measures. Thank you for your valuable input (Title- Page 1，line 2).

 

Comments 2: The use of SDG1 and SDG15 in this article is inappropriate. In this article, ecological vulnerability is not the whole story of SDG15. Moreover, after the introduction section, the authors only mentioned SDGS in 4.2.l suggest deleting such an expression.

Response: We fully agree with your suggestion. Indeed, our previous work lacked a detailed consideration of SDG 15, and our content did not fully cover the aspects related to this goal. After carefully reconsidering the focus of the manuscript, we have revised the relevant sections in the introduction and discussion based on your recommendation. Specifically, we have modified the expression to "achieving ecosystem sustainable development and enhancing human well-being in developing countries" to better align with the scope and objectives of scientific value (1.Introduction- Page 1&2, line 11-13, 39-48, 110-131, 530-533).

 

Comments 3: I suggest adding a technical framework.

Response: We agree with your suggestion and we have added a technical flowchart (Fig.2). The figure is as follows:

(2.3. Quantifying ecosystem vulnerability-Page 6, line 183-200)

 

Figure 2. Overall technical workflow of this study

 

Comments 4: In Figure 2, 6 regions are unclear. l suggest that 6 regions be placed in Figure 1. By the way, Figure 2 is numbered incorrectly.

Response: We would like to thank you for pointing out our mistakes and correcting the order of all the images, and we have added six ecoregions to Figure 1 to make the division of the six zones clearer. The figure is as follows:

(2.1. Study area- Page 4, line 155-159)

 

Comments 5: I suggest renaming 4.1 to 3.4. This is undoubtedly one of the main parts of the article.

Response:We concur with your suggestion, as after thorough deliberation, we have concluded that the content originally in Section 4.1 represents an accurate finding and is appropriately positioned within Section 3.4. Additionally, we have included a mechanism diagram in the discussion section to elucidate how targeted poverty alleviation policies and ecological conservation policies can achieve a mutually beneficial outcome, enhance the human-nature interaction paradigm, and break the detrimental cycle of poverty and ecosystem vulnerability. The diagram is provided below (Fig.8):

(3.4 Possible cause for ecosystem vulnerability changes & 4.1 Policy implications- Page 15-17, line 464-555)

 

Comments 6: In the discussion section, I suggest that the authors add discussion on mechanisms to replace the existing 4.1. I notice in Table 2 that the indicators designed by the authors are rarely relevant to anti-poverty policies. I suggest that the authors discuss the mechanisms by which poverty affects ecological vulnerability.

Response:We agree with your suggestion. Through our analysis and discussion, we believe that the targeted poverty alleviation and ecological protection policies have achieved a win-win situation. In 2020, China has achieved the poverty alleviation of 98.99 million people and reduced the vulnerability of ecosystems in poverty-stricken areas. However, due to the length constraints of an article, we could only outline the relationship between policies and outcomes at a conceptual level and were unable to delve deeper into the specific impacts of policies on the indicators we evaluated. Nevertheless, following your valuable advice, we will pay special attention to this aspect in our subsequent work in order to enrich our research conclusions. Once again, thank you for your suggestions!

(4.1 Policy implications- Page 17, line 529-555)

 

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. With these revisions, we are confident that we will enhance the quality and scholarly value of the manuscript while ensuring that it meets the requirements of the journal. We sincerely hope that this revised draft addresses all of the comments and suggestions you have made.

 

Thank you again to the reviewers for reviewing our manuscript in your busy schedules.

 

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

 

Your sincerely.

 

Zhenbang Ma

• mail: zbma@lzu.edu.cn

 

14th February 2025

College of earth and environmental sciences, Lanzhou University

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors aim to determine whether ecological fragility in China's poor regions has improved, to investigate whether changing policies such as targeted poverty alleviation and ecological conservation have had a significant impact on ecosystem fragility between two periods in six ecological regions, and to reveal possible reasons for changes in ecological vulnerability over the past two decades.

However, I think that it would help the readers to understand the study more easily if the authors gave the justification of this study in a separate paragraph in a more concise manner.

I find that the data structure and methodology are adequately explained. The results obtained were interpreted appropriately. The work has an original structure. It reveals the results of policies developed for poverty reduction and environmental protection in China.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Re:

Manuscript ID: Sustainability-3455023

Title: Balancing Poverty Alleviation and Ecosystem Health: Lessons from China’s Targeted Interventions

Thank you for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Balancing Poverty Alleviation and Ecosystem Health: Lessons from China’s Targeted Interventions” (ID: Sustainability-3455023). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as providing important guidance for our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope will meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follows.

Comments: The authors aim to determine whether ecological fragility in China's poor regions has improved to investigate whether changing policies such as targeted poverty alleviation and ecological conservation have had a significant impact on ecosystem fragility between two periods in six ecological regions, and to reveal possible reasons for changes in ecological vulnerability over the past two decades.

However, I think that it would help the readers to understand the study more easily if the authors gave the justification of this study in a separate paragraph in a more concise manner. I find that the data structure and methodology are adequately explained. The results obtained were interpreted appropriately. The work has an original structure. it reveals the results of policies developed for poverty reduction and environmental protection in China.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer for your comments and are delighted to receive your positive feedback. Regarding your suggestion to "give the justification of this study in a separate paragraph", we fully agree with this recommendation. In response, we have added a dedicated paragraph in the introduction to elaborate on the scientific rationale of our study. This addition aims to highlight the origins and contributions of our research, providing readers with a clearer understanding of its significance and context. We believe this revision enhances the overall clarity and impact of our work. Thank you again for your valuable input. (1. Introduction- Page 3, line 110-131)

 

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. With these revisions, we are confident that we will enhance the quality and scholarly value of the manuscript while ensuring that it meets the requirements of the journal. We sincerely hope that this revised draft addresses all of the comments and suggestions you have made.

 

Thank you again to the reviewers for reviewing our manuscript in your busy schedules.

 

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

 

Your sincerely.

 

Zhenbang Ma

• mail: zbma@lzu.edu.cn

 

14th February 2025

College of earth and environmental sciences, Lanzhou University

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

report attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

report attached

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Re:

Manuscript ID: Sustainability-3455023

Title: Balancing Poverty Alleviation and Ecosystem Health: Lessons from China’s Targeted Interventions

Thank you for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Balancing Poverty Alleviation and Ecosystem Health: Lessons from China’s Targeted Interventions” (ID: Sustainability-3455023). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as providing important guidance for our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope will meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follows.

 

A study or discussion focusing on how China has implemented specific strategies (targeted interventions) to address poverty while simultaneously considering and maintaining the health of ecosystems.

Comments 1: The title is somewhat broad, and it may lack specificity regarding the nature of the targeted interventions in China. Interventions focusing on biodiversity, water quality, soil health, or another specific aspect of ecosystems?

Response: We agree with your suggestion. After careful consideration and thorough discussion, we have decided to replace "Ecosystem Health" with "Ecosystem Vulnerability" in the title. The revised title is now:"Balancing Poverty Alleviation and Ecosystem Vulnerability: Lessons from China’s Targeted Interventions." The concept of ecosystem vulnerability is well-defined in the literature as "the sensitivity and self-recovery of ecosystems to external perturbations," and it is widely used to assess the sustainability and quality of the ecological environment. Numerous studies have clearly established this definition [1,2], which aligns closely with our research focus on evaluating ecosystem protection in impoverished regions. This adjustment better reflects the core theme of our study and ensures greater conceptual precision. Thank you for your valuable input. (Title& 1. Introduction, Page 1& 3, line 2, 93-96 )

 

Comments 2: "Lessons" implies that findings or implications extend beyond China, but the title does not indicate whether these lessons are universally applicable or region-specific.

Response: Thank you for your question. We have addressed this in the introduction of our paper. Given that poverty and ecosystem degradation are global issues, our research does indeed provide insights and recommendations that could be valuable to developing countries facing similar challenges. However, at this stage, we are unable to specifically target our findings to any particular country outside of China. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the abstract to better align with the title and to emphasize the broader implications of China's policy implementations, which may serve as a reference for other nations. We appreciate your constructive feedback and hope these adjustments enhance the clarity and relevance of our work. (Abstract & 1. Introduction, Page 1& 3, line 32-33, 60-65, 110-116)

 

Comments 3: The methodology lacks detail for reproducibility. For example: How were the "ecosystem vulnerabilities" assessed using these datasets?

Response: Thanks for the reminder, we have added a technical flowchart (Figure 2) to the methodology and illustrated the directivity between the data and the indicators to clarify the use of the methodology and make the results of our paper data reproducible. (2.3. Quantifying ecosystem vulnerability-Page 5&6, line 182-200)

 

Comments 4: Were the datasets integrated, and if so, what techniques or software were employed?

Response: Thank you for your question, we have added the technical flowchart to the methodology, and the diagram carefully reflects the technology and software we use, such as map projection in ArcGIS, and the use of Fragstats and InVEST models.

(2.3. Quantifying ecosystem vulnerability-Page 5&6, line 182-200)

 

Comments 5: While data sources and years (2005,2013, and 2020) are mentioned, the rationale for selecting these specific years is missing.

Response: We appreciate your suggestion and have provided clarification on this issue in our methodology: 2013 is the year when China's targeted poverty alleviation policy was announced and implemented, and China had lifted 98.99 million people out of poverty by 2020. Consequently, we have designated the period from 2013 to 2020 as the post-policy implementation years and the period from 2005 to 2013 as the comparative period, thereby establishing a chronological comparison. Furthermore, 2012 is the year when the concept of ecological civilization was introduced, after which the reform of the ecological civilization system became one of the significant aspects and guiding principles of comprehensive deepening of reforms [3]. In 2005, China proposed the path of sustainable development, which marked a new stage in the coordinated development of China's social economy and ecological progress. This transformation was reflected in the "Eleventh Five-Year Plan," emphasizing a shift from the previous model of solely pursuing economic growth to a strategy of sustainable development. The selection of the years 2005, 2013, and 2020 is of great significance, and through this setup, our research is better able to highlight the practical value of China's policy experience. (2.3. Quantifying ecosystem vulnerability-Page 6, line 189-203)

 

Comments 6: The explanation of the entropy weighting method is generic and does not explain how it was specifically applied in this study. Three years of panel data, resulting in 15 million rows" is vague. It does not clarify what the panel data represent (e.g., regions, sectors, or time-series variables).

Response: Thank you for your inquiry. We have taken your suggestions into account and have supplemented the section on the Entropy Weight Method with the relevant formulas, detailing the specific calculation process. Additionally, we have included a conceptual representation in the technical flowchart (Figure 2) to clarify the application of the entropy weighting method in this study. (2.3.2. Determination of weights-Page 8&9, line 283-305)

 

Comments 7: Provide a short explanation of each index (e.g, what the Habitat Condition Index measures, its importance, and how it contributes to assessing ecosystem vulnerability).

Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we’ve added it in 2.3.1 and it’s as follows: Habitat conditions serve as the foundation for the smooth functioning of regional ecosystems, and are regarded as the eco-geographical environment manifested by a series of topographical, vegetative, and soil conditions [4]. Moreover, as significant characteristics of ecosystems, this study primarily illustrates the structure and function of ecosystems at the landscape scale, including a range of landscape pattern indicators and ecosystem services [5,6]. Overall, a region's superior habitat conditions, complex ecosystem structure, and robust ecosystem functions will lead to high ecosystem stability and a high capacity to resist external disturbances, ultimately reducing the vulnerability of the ecosystem [7].

(2.3.1. Utilizing the framework of Habitat-Structure-Function -Page 6, line 209-217)

 

Comments 8: The description of the datasets is general and does not explain how they were used to determine ecosystem vulnerability.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made revisions to the methods section by adding a technical flowchart, which clarifies the data content used and the specific calculation procedures (Figure 2). With the inclusion of this chart and the explanations provided in the manuscript, we are confident that readers will gain a clear understanding of our data usage.

(2.3. Quantifying ecosystem vulnerability-Page 6, line 187)

 

References

1. Guo, Z.; Xie, Y.; Guo, H.; Zhang, X.; Wang, H.; Bie, Q.; et al. Do the ecosystems of Gansu Province in Western China?s crucial ecological security barrier remain vulnerable? Evidence from remote sensing based on geospatial analysis. J Clean Prod 2023, 402, 137818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136740.
2. Luo, M.; Jia, X.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, P.; Zhao, M. Ecological vulnerability assessment and its driving force based on ecological zoning in the Loess Plateau, China. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 159, 11658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.111658.
3. Hou, P.; Gao, J.; Chen, Y.; Zhai, J.; Xiao, R.; Zhang, W.; et al. Development process and characteristics of China's ecological protection policy. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2021, 41, 1656-1667. https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb202002260345.
4. Yohannes, H.; Soromessa, T.; Argaw, M.; Dewan, A. Spatio-temporal changes in habitat quality and linkage with landscape characteristics in the Beressa watershed, Blue Nile basin of Ethiopian highlands. J. Environ. Manage. 2021, 281, 111885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111885.
5. Mitchell, M.G.E.; Devisscher, T. Strong relationships between urbanization, landscape structure, and ecosystem service multifunctionality in urban forest fragments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 228, 104548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104548.
6. Bai, Y.; Wong, C.P.; Jiang, B.; Hughes, A.C.; Wang, M.; Wang, Q. Developing China's Ecological Redline Policy using ecosystem services assessments for land use planning. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 3034. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05306-1.
7. Micheli, F.; Mumby, P.J.; Brumbaugh, D.R.; Broad, K.; Dahlgren, C.P.; Harborne, A.R.; et al. High vulnerability of ecosystem function and services to diversity loss in Caribbean coral reefs. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 171, 186-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.029.

 

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. With these revisions, we are confident that we will enhance the quality and scholarly value of the manuscript while ensuring that it meets the requirements of the journal. We sincerely hope that this revised draft addresses all of the comments and suggestions you have made.

 

Thank you again to the reviewers for reviewing our manuscript in your busy schedules.

 

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

 

Your sincerely.

 

Zhenbang Ma

• mail: zbma@lzu.edu.cn

 

14th February 2025

College of earth and environmental sciences, Lanzhou University

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper makes interesting advances regarding the interplay between poverty alleviation targeted measures and ecosystem vulnerability, with a keen focus on China. I acknowledge the amount of work invested into this paper, so overall, I believe that the paper would contribute to the literature.

 

I would recommend to the author(s) to reconsider and improve the following:

- In the introduction, the author(s) should clearly state how the research performed detaches from other studies since the inferences of specific measures of poverty alleviation on ecosystem health have been approached in the literature, but this research views it from a different angle: why is it different from previous research, justify it, please. Also, please clearly state/underline the advances and innovations brought by this paper/research in the scientific field, along with the authors’ own extensive contribution. The introduction should end with a general paragraph on the structure of the paper to orient the reader about the research conducted within the paper. 

- The literature review is rather weak; please provide alternative recent studies to support your ideas and the research questions advanced, as well as the entire research endeavour.

- I would suggest further outlines of the importance of the results obtained. Please explain the results in more detail and relate them to other empirical findings and theoretical grounds.

Overall, I consider that the paper would contribute to the literature, but some more attention and discussion is needed.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Re:

Manuscript ID: Sustainability-3455023

Title: Balancing Poverty Alleviation and Ecosystem Health: Lessons from China’s Targeted Interventions

Thank you for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Balancing Poverty Alleviation and Ecosystem Health: Lessons from China’s Targeted Interventions” (ID: Sustainability-3455023). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as providing important guidance for our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope will meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments are as follows.

 

The paper makes interesting advances regarding the interplay between poverty alleviation targeted measures and ecosystem vulnerability, with a keen focus on China. l acknowledge the amount of work invested into this paper, so overall, l believe that the paper would contribute to the literature. I would recommend to the author(s) to reconsider and improve the following.

Comments 1: In the introduction, the author(s) should clearly state how the research performed detaches from other studies since the inferences of specific measures of poverty alleviation on ecosystem health have been approached in the literature, but this research views it from a different angle: why is it different from previous research, justify it, please. Also, please clearly state/underline the advances and innovations brought by this paper/research in the scientific field, along with the authors’ own extensive contribution. The introduction should end with a general paragraph on the structure of the paper to orient the reader about the research conducted within the paper.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have included a dedicated paragraph in the introduction to elaborate on the scientific rationale of our study. This addition is intended to underscore the origins and contributions of our research, offering readers a more transparent understanding of its significance and context. Additionally, we have outlined the structure of the paper at the end to guide the reader through the research presented within. We are confident that this revision has enhanced the overall clarity and impact of our work. We appreciate your valuable input once again. (1. Introduction- Page 3, line 110-131)

 

Comments 2: The literature review is rather weak: please provide alternative recent studies to support your ideas and the research questions advanced, as well as the entire research endeavour.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In accordance with your advice, we have carefully and meticulously reviewed the literature and supplemented the introduction and methods sections with recent research literature to support our ideas and the resolution of our research questions. (1. Introduction & 2. Materials and Methods- Page 3&6, line 110-131, 183-203)

 

Comments 3: I would suggest further outlines of the importance of the results obtained. Please explain the results in more detail and relate them to other empirical findings and theoretical grounds. Overall, I consider that the paper would contribute to the literature, but some more attention and discussion is needed.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have further elaborated on the research findings and connected them with other empirical findings and theoretical foundations. Additionally, we have revised the content of the discussion section. We have included a mechanism diagram to clarify how targeted poverty alleviation policies and ecological conservation policies can lead to a win-win situation, enhance the paradigm of human-nature interaction, and break the vicious cycle of poverty and ecosystem vulnerability. The diagram is shown below (Fig.8): (4.1 Policy implications- Page 17, line 532-558)

 

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. With these revisions, we are confident that we will enhance the quality and scholarly value of the manuscript while ensuring that it meets the requirements of the journal. We sincerely hope that this revised draft addresses all of the comments and suggestions you have made.

 

Thank you again to the reviewers for reviewing our manuscript in your busy schedules.

 

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

 

Your sincerely.

 

Zhenbang Ma

• mail: zbma@lzu.edu.cn

 

14th February 2025

College of earth and environmental sciences, Lanzhou University

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract remains poorly written, and the overall paper lacks professionalism. I am not satisfied with the revisions, as they still require significant improvement. The suggested revisions have not been effectively implemented. For example, the methodology is vague, and the criteria behind the selection of the year are unclear.  Please see lines 295-296.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The abstract remains poorly written, and the overall paper lacks professionalism. I am not satisfied with the revisions, as they still require significant improvement. The suggested revisions have not been effectively implemented. For example, the methodology is vague, and the criteria behind the selection of the year are unclear.  Please see lines 295-296.

Author Response

Revisions and Response to Reviewer’s Comments

Firstly, we would like to express our gratitude once again to the reviewers for your suggestions, which have further refined our revised manuscript. Based on the reviewers' comments, we have taken a more comprehensive approach to address the issues raised in the first and second rounds of revisions, and have made careful modifications to the manuscript. The Reviewers' original comments are shown in italics and our responses are given in normal fonts.

 

Comments 1:The abstract remains poorly written.

Response: We highly value your suggestions. Therefore, we have re-examined our manuscript and have focused on revising the abstract. The content of the revised Abstract is as follows:

“The integrated governance of poverty alleviation and ecological protection presents both a critical requirement and persistent challenge for sustainable development. China’s implementation of the Targeted Poverty Alleviation Strategy (2013-2020) alongside its Ecological Civilization Institutional Framework has set dual policy objectives:meeting the poverty eradication targets and significant improvements in ecosystem. While China’s experience offers valuable insights for sustainability transitions, existing research predominantly focuses on either localized case studies or individual program, leaving a critical gap in understanding medium-scale vulnerable ecosystems within poverty transition regions under integrated policy interventions. This study evaluates the spatiotemporal evolution of ecosystem vulnerability across 832 national poverty-stricken counties (2005-2020) using a coupled “habitat-structure-function” assessment framework. Geographical detector analysis was used to reveal the influential factors. We identify three key findings: (1) A significant reductions in the ecosystem vulnerability index (EVI) with accelerated improvement post-2013, primarily driven by enhanced ecosystem function in critical zones like the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau Ecoregion, Yangtze River and Sichuan-Yunnan Key Ecoregion, and Yellow River Key Ecoregion; (2) Economic growth (with GDP emerging as the second most influential factor since 2013) became the dominant differentiator between developmental phases; (3) The synergistic mechanism combining governmental financial support with rigorous conservation policies (e.g., ecological compensation targeted towards poor areas) drove the environment-economy “win-win” outcome. These findings validate China’s model of coordinated governance, providing transferable pathways for developing nations pursuing SDGs. The methodology advances vulnerability assessment through multi-scale spatial analysis and policy-process coupling techniques.”

 

Comments 2：The overall paper lacks professionalism.

Response: We attach great importance to your comments and have made thorough revisions to enhance the professionalism of our article in the following aspects:

• Topic: We have re-evaluated the title. We understand your previous concern that the use of "Lessons" in the title might lead readers to assume that the research conclusions are universally applicable, when in fact the paper only discusses the situation in China and lacks sufficient evidence to support its generalizability. We acknowledge the validity of your concerns; however, our intention with "Lessons" was to emphasize the potential referential value of the Chinese case, not to assert universal applicability. Nevertheless, the use of "Lessons" could indeed be misleading, so we have considered changing it to "Implication" in the title to clarify the scope of our research's impact. Additionally, after careful consideration, to maintain consistency in the parts of speech for "poverty alleviation" and "Ecosystem Vulnerability" in the title, we have added the word "Reduction" after "Ecosystem Vulnerability." The revised title is therefore " Balancing Poverty Alleviation and Ecosystem Vulnerability Reduction: Implication from China’s Targeted Interventions". At the same time, we have revised the Abstract (line 11-35),Keywords (line 37-38), Introduction (line 41-143), and Discussion section 4.1 (line 550-633) to emphasize that our research conclusions support the significant role played by Chinese policies in balancing poverty reduction and the reduction of ecosystem vulnerability during the period of 2013-2020.
• Methods and Data Processing: We have reorganized Section 2: Material and Methodsand added detailed content regarding data processing to correspond with our technical flowchart (Fig.2), clarifying our dataset, software, and methods. Additionally, we have provided some detailed explanations within the manuscript, such as the use of data in the entropy weight method. We selected the sample data by establishing a 10km-sized fishnet for sampling within the study area. We arranged the cross-sectional data for each indicator annually, with approximately 46×10⁵ samples for each indicator per year. Due to irregular boundaries, the total number of samples over three years is roughly 15×10⁶, forming one column.

This is the carbon storage data for 2005 in 10-kilometer grid cells, totaling 4,618,644 sample points：

 

Comments 3: I am not satisfied with the revisions, as they still require significant improvement. The suggested revisions have not been effectively implemented. Response: Apologies for the previous version of the revision, where due to our inadequate consideration, we did not provide a more detailed response to each of the issues you raised, which may have prevented you from effectively obtaining the relevant information from our paper. This time, we have made careful revisions based on the issues you raised in your last review. Thank you for your valuable suggestions.

 

Comments 3.1: For example, the methodology is vague. Please see lines 295-296.

Response: Thank you to the reviewers for your concern regarding our research data and methods. In order to make our methods clearer, we have made overall adjustments to the methods and data sources in the article to elucidate the application of our methods and data. We have added pointers for each data point in the dataset table (Table 1.) and removed the precipitation and temperature data that were not used in our ecosystem vulnerability assessment, correcting our mistake. Additionally, we have expanded the content on Data Processing, providing a detailed explanation of how we processed the data and the software used, in alignment with our technical flowchart. Furthermore, we have reordered the content of the "habitat-structure-function" assessment framework and added some details, with data standardization processed first, followed by indicator calculations, to make our methodological expression more clear. The content of the Data Processing is as follows:

This study aimed to generate ecosystem vulnerability maps for the NPSC (2005–2020), analyze changes in the ecosystem vulnerability index (EVI), and explore the driving roles of natural environmental factors and human activities. The years 2005, 2013, and 2020 were selected based on data availability. To compute the habitat quality index, topography, soil, and vegetation data were utilized. Elevation data (30m resolution) were processed using ArcGIS’s slope analysis tool for Slope data. The upper soil layer (0–30 cm) was selected due to its higher organic carbon content, reflecting vegetation litter concentration. Vegetation coverage was represented by the May–September average to align with China’s growing season and the study’s temporal focus.

In terms of ecosystem structure, land use data (30m resolution) were converted to metric units and segmented into 4km grids for landscape pattern analysis, balancing structural detail and spatial variation. Using ArcPy, the study area land use data was divided into 6,016,059 pieces (annually). Fragstats processed patch indices, and ArcGIS’s raster calculator derived landscape heterogeneity and connectivity. Land use types (bare land, cropland, forest, grassland, impervious surfaces, shrubland, water bodies, glaciers) had >90% interpretation accuracy, ensuring data reliability.

Four ecosystem function—water yield, food production, carbon storage, and soil retention—were assessed. For food production, cropland data were extracted from reclassified land use data, and county-level NDVI sums were calculated using zonal statistics. Grid-level food productivity was derived by integrating county-level grain yield data using ArcGIS. Carbon storage was estimated using literature-based carbon density pools for six ecological zones (Table S1) and the InVEST model. All processed data were aggregated into secondary indicator values for each metric at a 1km resolution, ensuring consistency and comparability across the study period. This comprehensive data processing approach ensures robust analysis of ecosystem vulnerability and its driving factors, providing a solid foundation for spatial and temporal comparisons. The annual results mainly includes the following steps (Fig.2):

Figure 2. Overall technical workflow of this study

 

 

Comments 3.2: And the criteria behind the selection of the year are unclear

Response: In response to the reviewers' questions about the years we selected (2005, 2013, and 2020), we have added content in the Introduction and Methods section to highlight the relevance of the selected time points to the research objective of "poverty-ecology" collaborative governance. We chose these three years based on the following considerations:

• The background of the collaborative evolution of poverty governance and ecological policies: 2005 marked the transition in China's poverty alleviation efforts from "regional targeting" to "whole-village advancement" (as outlined in the "Outline for the Development of Poverty Alleviation in Rural China (2001-2010)"), and the "Eleventh Five-Year Plan" (starting in 2006) first introduced the concept of "main functional areas." The contradiction between ecological protection and the development of poverty-stricken areas began to receive attention. Choosing 2005 as the starting point aims to capture the baseline state of the emerging "poverty-ecology" contradiction. 2013 was the year when the "targeted poverty alleviation" strategy was officially proposed following the Eighteenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China (in 2013), and the "Opinions on Accelerating the Construction of Ecological Civilization" (in 2015) integrated "ecological compensation" into the poverty alleviation framework. 2013 signified the policy turning point from "parallel" to "collaborative" approaches in poverty governance and ecological protection. Studying this node can reveal the formation process of the policy linkage mechanism. 2020 was the final year of China's poverty eradication campaign (by the end of 2020), which coincided with the comprehensive delineation of "ecological protection red lines." Choosing 2020 allows for a simultaneous assessment of the collaborative effects of poverty governance and ecological restoration, particularly the sustainable development state of ecologically vulnerable areas after poverty eradication.
• Typical stages of poverty-ecology interaction: The period from 2005 to 2013 saw the resource-dependent extensive development model in poverty-stricken areas exacerbate pressure on the ecosystem. From 2013 to 2020, "green poverty alleviation" policies such as ecological compensation and relocation were implemented on a large scale, marking a period of restructuring in the human-land relationship. Post-2020, the need for a connection between consolidating poverty alleviation achievements and long-term ecological protection mechanisms became apparent.
• Methodology: Data for the poverty-stricken counties' lists, ecological compensation fund investments, land use/cover changes, etc., for the above-mentioned years are complete, which allows for better comparability of our results.

Thank you for your time and effort in revising our manuscript. We sincerely hope that these revisions address the reviewer’s concerns and meet the journal’s standards. Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has helped us improve our work.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

find attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

find attached

Author Response

Revisions and Response to Reviewer’s Comments

Thank you for your hard work once again; we are grateful. Your suggestions have been of great help in improving our manuscript. Your original comments are shown in italics and our responses are given in normal fonts.

 

Comments 1: What shall I have assumed after reading lines 19-21 says this .This line describes a research study that assesses how ecosystem vulnerability has changed over time (from 2005 to 2020) in 832 nationally designated poverty-stricken countries ? “This study evaluates the spatiotemporal evolution of ecosystem vulnerability across 832 national poverty-stricken counties (2005-2020) using a coupled “habitat-structure-function” assessment framework “.

 

Response : Thank you for your attentive reading. We would like to clarify that the original text (Line 19-21) correctly states “832 national poverty-stricken counties”, referring to county-level administrative divisions designated under China’s national poverty alleviation program, not sovereign states (“countries”).

Our study is contextualized within China's dual policy trajectory spanning from 2005 (marking the coordinated implementation of systematic ecological conservation policies and poverty alleviation strategies) to 2020 (culminating in the nation's comprehensive poverty eradication success).

We postulate that: 1)The sustained ecological protection efforts have achieved measurable reductions in ecosystem vulnerability by 2020; 2)The intensified anthropogenic interventions through targeted poverty alleviation mechanisms during 2013–2020 would manifest distinct spatiotemporal patterns compared to the preceding 2005–2013 period. The 2005–2020 timeframe was strategically selected to encompass two critical phases: 1) Pre-policy baseline establishment (2005–2013), 2) targeted poverty alleviation implementation phase (2013–2020).

By focusing on all 832 nationally designated poverty-stricken counties - representing 76.52% of critical ecological function zones as defined in the National Ecological Security Strategy - this design ensures systematic capture of policy-driven vulnerability evolutionary patterns across: a) Spatial gradients (eastern vs. western ecological zones); b) Temporal thresholds (pre- vs. post-TPA intervention periods); c) Management intensities (government-led conservation, ecological compensation programs). This temporal span and sample selection enable robust detection of regime shifts in vulnerability dynamics coinciding with key policy milestones.

 

 

Comments 2: Lines 22-23 , poor usage of tense in the abstract “We identify three 22 key findings: (1) A significant reductions in the ecosystem vulnerability “

Comments 3: A well-written abstract should maintain a seamless flow, avoiding headings and ensuring that key points naturally merge within the paragraph. Instead of explicitly stating “We identify three key findings,” The abstract contains poor tense usage in the following line: 'We identify three key findings (Lines 22-23). 

Comments4: The abstract lacks clarity in its methodology, making it difficult to understand how the study was conducted. Additionally, the overall structure and writing quality do not align with the journal's standards. It requires a more precise and coherent presentation of the research approach, key findings, and implications. A refined version should integrate methodological details seamlessly while maintaining a logical flow and academic rigor.

 

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We attach great importance to the expression in the abstract of our article, as it is the central idea of our research. Therefore, we have re-examined our manuscript and have focused on revising the abstract. The content of the revised Abstract is as follows:

The coordination between poverty alleviation and ecological protection is both a crucial requirement and a long-standing challenge for sustainable development. China’s implementation of the Targeted Poverty Alleviation Strategy has completed the task of eliminating extreme poverty. However, the evaluation of the corresponding ecosystem changes in the entire poverty-alleviated areas is still insufficient. This study investigated the spatiotemporal change of ecosystem vulnerability across China’s 832 national poverty-stricken counties from 2005 to 2020, using a “habitat-structure-function” assessment framework to construct an ecosystem vulnerability evaluation index. Then, the impacts of both natural and socioeconomic factors on ecosystem vulnerability changes were examined using Geodetector analysis. Finally, the implications from China’s practices to balance poverty alleviation and ecological protection were explored. The results show that the ecosystem vulnerability decreased from 2005 to 2020, with an even greater decrease observed after 2013, which was twice the amount of the decrease seen before 2013. The post-2013 changes were mainly brought about by the enhancement of the ecosystem function in critical zones such as the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau Ecoregion, Yangtze River and Sichuan-Yunnan Key Ecoregion, and Yellow River Key Ecoregion. From 2013 to 2020, compared with other factors, the influence of gross domestic product (GDP) increased relatively, and it has played a positive role in reducing the ecosystem vulnerability in the above-mentioned three regions. The results suggest that China’s poverty-alleviated areas have found a “win-win” solution for poverty alleviation and ecological protection, that is, building a synergistic mechanism that combines government financial support with strict protection policies (e.g., more ecological compensation, eco-jobs and ecological public welfare positions for poor areas or the poor). These findings help to understand the outcomes of China's targeted poverty alleviation policy and the related reasons, and can provide useful references for balancing poverty alleviation and ecological protection in similar regions.

 

Comments 5: Lines 147-148 state “between 2016 and 2020 using the current criterion of RMB 2,300”.

Comments 6: Line 158 states that “Dataset from 2005, 2013 and 2020” .

Comments 7: Line 176, says “ This study aimed to generate ecosystem vulnerability maps for the NPSC (2005–2020), “ It is unclear which specific year is considered as the primary focus of the study?

Response: Thank you to the reviewer for your question. The 832 national poverty-stricken counties we selected were established when the targeted poverty alleviation policy was initiated in 2013 and gradually completed their poverty alleviation (achieved the poverty reduction targets) during the period of 2016-2020. Our research focuses on the phase from the beginning of the policy to the end of its implementation, which is from 2013 to 2020. For comparison purposes, we have included a complete time span of 2005-2020.

 

Comments 8: 192-193 “Four ecosystem function—water yield, food production, carbon storage, and soil retention—were assessed” what is the criteria behind.

 

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's inquiry. Our research encompasses 832 national-level poverty-stricken counties, which account for 76.52% of the land designated as national key ecological function zones. In 2015, the state categorized these regions into nine distinct types, including areas dedicated to water conservation, soil conservation, windbreak and sand fixation, flood regulation and storage, as well as zones for the provision of agricultural products, among others. Aligning with the unique characteristics of these regions and the accessibility of data, our study concentrates on ecosystem functions that are integral to human development and the preservation of nature, such as water yield, grain productivity, carbon storage, and soil conservation. Appropriate explanations have been included in the manuscript to address these points. (Line 200-208 )

 

Comments 9: Fig -2 is poorly drawn rather all the figures are of poor quality.

 

Response: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We have revised Figure 2 to make the image more streamlined and to highlight the key content more prominently.(Line 223)

 

Comments 10: Line 236 says “indicators cover 236 three years (2005, 2013, 2020).” So the study is for three years only or from 2005-2020?

 

Response: Thank you for the reviewer's question. Our study focuses only on three time points (2005, 2013, and 2020), but the time period covered is from 2005 to 2020.

 

Comments 11: After reading lines 533–535, I understand that two periods have been highlighted in terms of vulnerability, with the worst period being from 2013 to 2020. However, there is no clarification regarding this in the abstract or anywhere else in the paper.

Comments 12: “Against this backdrop, we observed a decreasing trend in the ecosystem vulnerability of China's 832 national poverty-stricken counties from 2005 to 2020, with a more pronounced decline during the period from 2013 to 2020”.

 

Response: Thank you for the reviewer's concern about the focus of our research. We have made revisions to the content of the abstract. (Line 20-23)

 

Comments 13: Further methodology is still not up to the mark.

 

Response: Thank you to the reviewer for your concern about our research methods. We have made revisions and additions to both the methods and the figures. (Line 215-218 )

 

Comments 14: Please prepare a dedicated table of acronyms, as numerous acronyms have been used throughout the document.

 

Response: Thank you to the reviewer for your suggestions regarding our work. We have added an abbreviation section at the end of the manuscript. (Line 771)

 

 

Comments 15: Overall, the paper has numerous writing flaws, making it difficult for researchers to understand. The methodology is poorly structured, and clarity regarding the datasets has not been provided.

 

Response: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We have made further revisions to the abstract, methods, and figures of the article. With the utmost sincerity, we appreciate your efforts to help us improve our work.