Vulnerability of Farmer Households to Climate Change in Rocky Desertification Areas—A Case Study of Guizhou Province

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors must ensure that the sources of the formulae used in calculations are mentioned or acknowledged. they are strongly encouraged to seek assistance on language editing. The manuscript is very difficult to follow because it was written in very poor English. 

The manuscript requires extensive editing before it is published. It is extremely difficult to read the manuscript, since it is not easy to make sense of the content thereof.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Farmers' adaptive behavior choice to climate change impacts has been a hot topic in politics and academia. Based on first-hand survey data, the authors analyzed the adaptive behavior of several types of farmers to climate change and its influencing factors. In general, the selection of the topic has some significance, but the whole research is a little rough, the specific opinions are as follows:

       (1) The introduction needs a modest rewrite. First, the importance and urgency of this study is not enough. Second, compared with the existing research, the marginal contribution of this research is not very clear, so it is suggested to further condensing and concluding. The marginal contribution can be the research perspective, the research content, or the research method. Third, the particularity of the author's research area also needs to be further clarified. In addition, it is suggested to make a brief introduction to the definition of the core concepts involved in this research in the introduction, so that readers can better understand.

       (2) The lack of theoretical analysis framework and rigorous research hypothesis is the biggest shortcoming of the whole research. In fact, the author adopts a classical theoretical analysis framework, but does not give a systematic introduction to this framework, which makes people think that the author's entire research is method/technology driven and lacks scientific rationality.

       (3) The analysis of the results is a bit messy. It is suggested that the author systematically introduce the logic of part of the research results in one paragraph before presenting the results in detail. At the same time, the whole analysis section suggests to condense the topic sentence at the beginning of the paragraph, and then expand the specific discussion.

       (4) The discussion section is not deep enough. It is suggested to further discuss the measures of farmers to cope with climate change in the light of the policies of the Chinese central government. In addition, the shortcomings of the research and the direction of further research in the future can be further introduced.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no other comments, thank you.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the kind comments. Thank you for your time and patience. I am looking forward to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,
Authors