Quantifying the Ecological Effectiveness of Poverty Alleviation Relocation in Karst Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study explores the poverty alleviation relocation drive the ecological environment quality evolution in karst ecologically fragile areas. This is potentially a good article and fits well with the aims and scopes of the Remote Sensing. Some minor improvements could be considered before possible publication:

I found a lot of typos, please revise carefully.

Title: Could be simplified.

Abstract: Lacks the emphasis on innovation and novelty of the study, and quantitative measurements are missing, it is suggested to extend or revise the abstract with an emphasis on the main focus of the research.

The background of the problem is reasonable, however, the methodological description is missing, for instance, what is RSEI?

Introduction

The introduction should be revised. In my opinion, the writing should be improved. Also, it should conclude with a clear structure and main objectives of this study. I would suggest merging the Related Literature to make the flow of the introduction reasonable. Authors should come up with a unique angle for conducting such research.

Line 36: “The” should be “the”

Materials and Methods

Figure 1 could be improved. Some test is not readable, all the data frames should be of the same size.
Reference for the GEE could be added. Which products of the corresponding satellite were used? The data description is missing.

Results

Figure 4, there is a sudden increase in RSEI from Landsat after 2012, which could be due to the change in the sensor, for which sensor harmonization is mandatory. Authors should re-look if there is something technically missing.

All the figure captions should be revised and illustrated well, the caption should be standalone.

If Figure 6 b is from the Landsat time series, then the break in the trend might not be actual. See the above comment.

Discussion:

It would be good to add relevance and perspective to the current study for wider area coverage.

Conclusion

 

Too long, and should be concise. What are the major outcomes and ways forward from this study? Please revise.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The selected research areas are typical, accounting for nearly one-fifth of China's total PRA. PAR essentially realizes the rational distribution of resource and population through artificial management measures, so it is also important to deepen the understanding of natural resource endowment. Considering the clarity of the manuscript's points about PAR and its influences, I recommend that the manuscript be accepted after minor revision.

 

The modification suggestions are as follows:

 

1.       Line 2, Drive should be drives. Language modification problems like this in the manuscript require careful revision by an expert.

2.       Line 123-139, Please clearly explaining the necessity of Figure 1a in the manuscript and the internal relation between Figure 1a and Figure 1b and 1c.

3.       Figure 3 should be modified using differentiated shapes instead of just squares.

4.       Line 521-524, the citation 15 should emphasize the importance of understanding natural resource endowments? Please clarifying clearly.

5.       PAR is related to population migration, and relevant studies should be cited, like” A large but transient carbon sink from urbanization and rural depopulation in China. Nature Sustainability, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00843-y.”

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors discuss the effectiveness of poverty alleviation relocation(PAR) from the perspective of ecological restoration, using google earth engine as a platform and multiple models as a means to analyze the changes of ecological indicators before and after PAR, strip out other influencing factors to quantify the ecological role of PAR, which is innovative to some extent. However, there are still some problems that need to be improved by the authors.

1. The introduction is too long, and some of the content does not need to be discussed in detail. It is necessary to combine the importance of each part of the content to determine the length of the discussion, in order to protect the overall fluency of the introduction.

2. The introduction spends a lot of time to introduce PAR, but it is not clear what is the difference between PAR and ecological resettlement projects, and what is the difference between the ecological restoration effectiveness of PAR and other resettlement projects.

3.The existing research discussion in the introduction explains that the existing research mainly reflects the ecological effect of migrant relocation through the comparison of ecological indicators before and after resettlement. According to the framework of the full-text combing, the conclusion of the article shows that the spatial distribution forms different effects because of the different resource endowments, and suggested to increase the macroscopic insufficiency of the existing research again to reflect the spatial research effectiveness of the article.

4. The study area describes the population and stone desertification in the study area, and also shows the regional population and ecological situation in the form of maps, but the introduction process only describes the general overview, not the detailed spatial distribution, which needs to be supplemented and improved.

5. If there are obvious anomalies in the analysis of the overall trend of RSEI in Results, such as a significant decrease in RSEI in 2011, the authors should properly explain the reasons, whether the outliers are directly ignored or not reflected in the overall trend, and there should be a clear explanation. Of course, the appearance of outliers also indicates the authenticity of the data to a certain extent, so I hope the authors will add a clear explanation.

6.Why should RSEI values be divided into grades? Although majority of RSEI overall are reflected in the form of grades, the authors still lack the reasons, and the spatio-temporal distribution of RSEI in the form of grades appears to have some abruptness.

7. The LISA model analyzes the degree of association between PAR and RSEI, and the authors discuss the conclusions of the analysis, but the conclusions are not closely enough associated with the theme of the article. It is suggested that the authors analyze the association between the two patters from the eastern region and the western region according to the spatial distribution characteristics of the study area, so as to reflect the supporting role of the chapter on the theme.

8. The analysis of typical areas, the two typical areas in the east and the west, can support the author's argument from the local. However, it lacks inductive summary, i.e. the supporting role of typical area analysis to the article needs further refinement.

9. Discussion section, the innovation points of the article need to be discussed in depth. Comparing with the existing research results, what are the innovations of this paper in distinguishing PAR from other influencing factors, and what effect it has on ecological restoration, need to be listed and discussed directly to clarify the scientific value of the article.

10.The reference discussion is not standardized enough, some of the reference discussion has doi, and some of the authors' names are in lowercase letters. It is suggested to reorganize according to the requirements of journal references to keep the standardization of references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx