The Policy of Ecological Forest Rangers (EFRs) for the Poor: Goal Positioning and Realistic Choices—Evidence from the Re-Employment Behavior of EFRs in Sichuan, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript (MS): The policy of ecological forest rangers (EFR) for the poor: Goal positioning and realistic choice. Empirically based on the re-employment behavior of Sichuan EFR.
MS submitted to the journal “Land”.
This is a useful research in advancing the knowledge on the impact of re-employment behavior of EFR on poverty. However, the way study was carried out is very difficult to understand mainly due to the way it was presented in the article.
Basic Reporting:
This study used 2017-2019 public announcement data on the selection of ecological forest rangers for the poor in Sichuan Province, China. The purpose was to analyse the influencing factors of the re-employment behavior of EFRs on the level of poverty and to evaluate effectiveness of the policy and the differences between central government goal positioning and local government implementation options.
The manuscript is not adequately clear and a reader may have to read it several time to understand. There are some grammatical errors, and most importantly there are many sentences whose meaning is not clear. For example: lines 279 and 292 – Are they sub headings or sentences? Overall, the manuscript lacks clarity.
Experimental design
The research question to be addressed in the research is not clearly defined. The main contribution of the paper is an application of basic regression models. For the analysis, a Probit regression results were presented in Table 8. The results shown in the table are really confusing the reader.
Experimental design is based on the Binary Selection Probit Model which is given in equation (1) in the text. Parameter estimation values are given in Table 8, which are not clearly defined in line with the equation 1. Beneath the estimated parameters some values are given in parenthesis which are not explained in the text, but it could be either the p value or the standard errors. If we assume that they are p values, the decision taken are not accurate. For example, in “age” variable of model (1), the estimated parameter is 0.004 and the p value is 0.00, which is significant at 1% as 0.00<0.01. However, authors indicate it is significant at 5% level with “**”. There are several such mistakes throughout the table 8.
In model (4) of table 8, it shows the empirical results of adding the county and year dummy variables which is one of the key results of this research. Based on the empirical results listed in model (4), age, health, educational level and pre-job training, which represent the human capital level and have a negative effect on the re-employment of EFRs in poor households. This is true, however, subsequent explanations are wrong. The first three explanatory variables are not significant according to authors, which is wrong again. The “age” parameter is -0.000, however, p value is 0.000. A parameter describes the size of the contribution of that predictor; a zero coefficient indicates that variable has no influence on the response. However, p value of 0.000 indicate that it is significant at 1% level. Results also indicate that accepting pre training for the post is negatively significant. This is also wrong. The parameter value is -0.584 and p value is 0.20, which is not significant. According to authors, these results show that in the re-employment process of EFRs, poor people with high human capital are not prioritized for re-employment, but need to check all results of the model carefully.
The regression results with the addition of the county and year dummy variables have the strongest explanatory power, with the R2 value reaching 0.36. This is not sufficient to judge the accuracy of the estimated model. Factors such as year and region of EFRs in poor households are controlled via dummy variables, and the focus falls on the characteristics of the parameters γ and θ (equation 1) which has to be estimated. However, these were not described in the results section. The chi-squared test statistics with relevant degrees of freedom associated with a p-value should indicate that the overall effect of rank is statistically significant, however, it is missing in the analysis.
Probit empirical regression results of heterogeneity analysis was presented in table 9. All comments made in table 8 are relevant to this analysis as well. The repeating of similar mistakes are found in this section.
Validity of the findings
The reported findings are not fully grounded on the data that were collected, theory and the analysis. This has a profound effect on the validity of the findings. Again, there is a confusion between, estimated coefficients, p-value, standard error and the level of significance.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I really appreciated the paper. He had a solid theoretical framerwork, applied a simple but effective model and focused on a real-life problem in rural China. Therefore, I have no big comments, just a few minor ones.
The work is very long and detailed, perhaps even too long. However, reductions are not possible: the problem is peculiar, so the details are really required. As for the structure, the only part to change is the discussion and the conclusions, since these are only conclusions and not discussions too(in discussions section you usually compare your results with other studies). I suggest joining the two paragraphs for conclusions, without divisions. A proper discussion is missing: despite the length of the document, I suggest adding a short discussion paragraph to reinforce the results of the paper.
Some minor observations:
- Provide a euro or dollar conversion rate for non-Chinese readers
- Please check English: although the general level is correct, there are some typing errors and / or errors (eg Ln 322 or Figure 2)
- Provide in a better way equation (1): I understand it but the quality is not enough for printing
- In 436/438 the explanation of the variables is reversed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
In general, there are too many footnotes and the way how policies are presented in the text is not suitable for a scientific publication; I suggest presenting the policy contents using citations and mentioning the complete policy name just for the policy you are assessing (while adding the citation). I recommend using dollars as monetary unit throughout the text, to allow a quick understanding by international readers. I also suggest using citations in the text and delete footnotes (interested readers may check the reference list).
Please check wording throughout the text; e.g. to implement vs to enforce
Introduction
Is poverty standard the poverty line or threshold? When you refer to poverty lines, please say why they differ for each other (relative, absolute, …). Besides, I think you should structure the background of the study towards rural poverty and maybe the rural-urban divide.
Line 54: the logical link with the text above is not clear to me
The paragraph is not based on scientific studies; so it doesn’t allow to identify the innovativeness and the contribution to knowledge advancement of the study.
Lines 162-169 should be moved to the introduction (with appropriate citations).
Paragraph 3
I think the “theoretical analysis framework” could be renamed after “conceptual model”. Additionally, the relative picture (Figure 1) should be moved a bit up in the text to allow the link with the explanatory text. The quality of Figure 1 could be improved by avoiding “stretching” the boxes.
The sections about case study, methods, data and results shall be restructured to allow a logical and easy-to-follow flow of information. In what follows, I am giving you some suggestions:
- I think information about the case study can be presented in a dedicated paragraph, to be placed before the methods section. This paragraph should include a description of the case study and the rationale behind its selection. Some information about the case study (especially its relevance and rationale behind selection) should be presented in the introduction as well
- Methods: the theoretical and empirical models sand research design should be presented before the data section and should not be merged with results or case study information. This section should help the reader to understand what model you are applying and why and what variables you are using. The method should be introduced in the introduction as well.
- Data: after you presented the research methods, you can show the data that you used, in. a dedicated paragraph or subsection of the research methods (or materials and methods) section.
- Results and discussion: please have a section with this title, where you show and interpret study findings (their implications), compare them with previous research and discuss the limitations of the selected approach
Conclusions
Please avoid subparagraphs here.
After a brief summary of research findings, this section should provide clear recommendations for policy makers and researchers
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper provides an analysis of re-employment rates associated with the poverty reduction goal of the PEFRP, and interestingly finds that re-employment tends to favor higher income individuals - thus adding evidence to support a social-capital theory of employment in PES schemes. The paper also interestingly finds that while the PEFRP program contributes to poverty reduction, it fails to include the poorest sectors of villages and counties, and thereby fails to maximize its impact on achieving the policy goal. These are both important findings, and could hold important policy relevance.
The paper has several theoretical issues that require revisions prior to publication. The introduction and literature review sections dedicate a great deal of discussion to PES schemes and rationales, and lead the reader to believe the paper is setting out to test whether the PEFRP achieves ecological or poverty reduction policy goals. Based on the purpose of the paper and the study design, the literature review (section 2) is tangential to the actual study. I recommend refocusing the literature review section to more thoroughly explore relevant studies that test whether poverty reduction PES schemes actually achieve their stated goals. This may require exploring studies in the development economics literature where this question has been interrogated much more comprehensively than in the PES literature specifically.
Because the literature review section focuses much of the discussion around PES schemes, the Policy background and theoretical analysis section at first read appears tangential. By the time the reader arrives at section 3.2, the paper's actual purpose becomes more apparent. The discussion of rational theory, social capital theory, etc. is useful for setting up the analytical sections of the paper, but this may be more effective if it were presented before the policy description section so that readers could utilize those theoretical constructs to understand the policy design. I recommend restructuring section 3 to have a more logical flow that enables to reader to utilize the theories being applied and tested in the analytical section to interpret the policy design.
These two structural and content revisions, namely focusing more literature review on poverty reduction specifically and restructuring section 3 to provide theoretical frameworks that build off the literature review to enable the reader to more adequately interpret the policy design section, would go a long way to improving the flow and structure of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The paper is interesting and presents a reasonable contribution to the body of knowledge. Nevertheless, it needs to be improved further.
Main remarks:
L19-Sichuan Province. Please locate the country where is situated the Sichuan Province.
Introduction
L74-Previous studies. What studies?
L83-86-The numbering of the sequences should be eliminated.
- Literature review-Other international studies should be mentioned.
Consider eliminating some footnotes such as footnote 6. Some information may be inserted in the text. Several information presented in the footnotes is not central to the paper.
3.1 Policy background-You must synthetize this topic and focus in the central aspects of the papel. Some parts are very descriptive. I recommend reading carefully and rewriting the text.
4.Data sources, descriptive statistics and model design-Again you should read carefully and improve the text, in order to be more fluid and easy to comprehend.
The model design is ok.
Equation 1- It needs to be formatted correctly.
The conclusion and discussion should be reorganized. The discussion should be inserted before the conclusion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 5 Report
The paper was improved according to my recommendations. All of my concerns were addressed. It presents a satisfactory contribution to the body of knowledge.
