Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors adequately addressed each of the indicated observations and the manuscript improved substantially, which is why I consider it suitable for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors and Editors,

This study employs a qualitative approach that emphasizes the "process" rather than just outcomes, providing a detailed analysis of grazing land changes in a region of Inner Mongolia. By integrating this analysis with both human factors (such as policies) and natural factors (such as water usage), it demonstrates a certain degree of novelty. The manuscript has shown improvement in this version. However, to ensure the rigor required for scientific publication, I have raised the following questions and suggestions:

1. The specific contribution of this study to the existing scientific literature should be clearly articulated by the authors in the final paragraph of the Introduction.
2. Given the study's focus on analyzing qualitative processes, it is recommended that the authors add an overview of the paper's logical framework, including aspects of data collection and result analysis, potentially supported by a simple logical flow diagram.
3. The final paragraph of the Conclusion should be moved to the Discussion section and reframed to address the study's limitations and uncertainties.
4. L80-82: "Consequently, Han Chinese settlers moved into regions with relatively high precipitation, while Mongolian pastoralists were pushed into more arid zones." This point lacks substantiation or support from valid references. Please provide additional reference materials or adjust the statement accordingly.
5. L836: The title of the appendix table had been obscured.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the introduction, it would be necessary to add the objective of the work and the main highlights.

I propose to supplement the criteria for selecting households included in the survey

The work is too descriptive, I suggest expressing the main findings in the form of a SWOT analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors and Editors,

The authors have provided a point-by-point response, which is commendable. However, I still have reservations regarding the statement on line 80: "Consequently, Han Chinese settlers moved into regions with relatively high precipitation, while Mongolian pastoralists were pushed into more arid zones." I disagree with this phrasing for the following reasons: (1) The logical connection between this sentence and the preceding one is not rigorous. The previous sentence, which states that "immigrants from other regions established new villages," already conveys the core idea of this paragraph. The author's forced addition of a causal relationship appears out of place. (2) This paragraph aims to describe historical policies that led to changes in settlement patterns and the shift of pastoral areas into more arid regions. This issue is unrelated to ethnicity, and the phrasing regarding ethnicity is overly absolute. The author did not carefully evaluate the references. Therefore, I recommend modifying or removing this sentence.

Author Response

Comments:[Issue with the phrasing in line 80.]

Response: Thank you for your comments and detailed feedback. We acknowledge that the statement on line 80 was problematic, and we have revised it in accordance with the reviewer’s suggestion.

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript focuses on the long-term (1960–2020) transition from nomadism to sedentarization in Inner Mongolia’s pastoral areas, taking Bayan Tal Gacha (Area A) as a case study to analyze changes in pastoral strategies and water access. The study is theoretically grounded (integrating equilibrium/non-equilibrium models) and methodologically multi-dimensional (combining household interviews, GIS spatial analysis, and GRACE hydrological data), addressing critical issues of pastoral livelihood adaptation and environmental sustainability under policy-driven sedentarization. It fills a gap in long-term, micro-level tracking of pastoral systems in arid Asian grasslands and provides empirical support for re-evaluating sedentarization policies. However, the manuscript has notable flaws in abstract conciseness, research framework clarity, data detail, figure standardization, narrative logic, and writing quality, requiring major revisions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript has notable flaws in abstract conciseness, research framework clarity, data detail, figure standardization, narrative logic, and writing quality.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I consider the manuscript to have undergone substantial changes compared to the first version, making it suitable for publication.

Regarding the tables, they have lost the quality of the text, so some values cannot be interpreted.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author and Editor:

This manuscript provides field surveys and in-depth observations on the history and impact of pastoral sedentarization, but it has flaws and shortcomings, mainly in terms of sample limitations, insufficient quantitative analysis, and some inaccurate expressions. Further improvements are needed. Specific suggestions are as follows:

1. Line 17: The expression "after land privatization in 1996" is incorrect. China implements public ownership of land, and households have land use rights. This incorrect expression is also present in section 1.2. The author should thoroughly review and correct these statements.
2. The data in the description of the study area do not have source citations. Please check and supplement this.
3. Although the paper mentions survey data from 28 households, most of the content still focuses on the situation of Household A1. This bias may cause the research results to lack broad representativeness, especially for pastoral groups with different economic conditions and lifestyles in the region. While this case provides in-depth data and details, the insufficient sample size limits the generalizability of the findings.
4. Although the paper provides abundant qualitative data, it relies too heavily on descriptive analysis, lacking support from quantitative analysis or modeling. The paper does not use regression analysis, causal models, or other quantitative methods to demonstrate the relationship between sedentarization policies and changes in pastoral life. It is recommended to incorporate more quantitative analysis and modeling in the research, such as using regression analysis to quantify the impact of sedentarization on water resource utilization, or using environmental economics models to analyze the relationship between sedentarization policies and pastoral productivity and quality of life.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction would require a more detailed description of current approaches to solving the given issue and it is necessary to add the objective and main highlights
The methodological procedure should be described in more detail, the basic areas of the sociological survey could be stated. It might be appropriate to include the questionnaire in the appendix. It would also be necessary to justify why the given study area was chosen. Is this some specific, representative territory?
The results of the sociological survey could be presented in the form of graphs
The quality of the tables is insufficient, the quality of their technical presentation needs to be improved, as well as the abbreviations listed in Table 2 should be supplemented
The discussion part does not meet the requirements for a scientific discussion (a comparison of the results achieved by the authors with other authors would be required). The discussion does not contain any references
For better understanding, it would be appropriate to present the positive and negative aspects of the individual evaluated periods in a table
Similarly, in the conclusion, it would be appropriate to include recommendations for the use of the results in practice

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx