Effect of Spatial Characteristics of Farmland Plots on Transfer Patterns in China: A Supply and Demand Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• I would suggest to answer the question posed in the title, in the title itself
• In the abstract, make it clearer if the survey work is based on farmer perceptions, farmer actions, spatial changes, or all 3. Currently, it is unclear. 
• The abstract could also make clearer whether the conclusions differ from those found in other contexts. It appears not, but, good to make this clear i.e., that the findings from the context of China are similar to what has been found elsewhere. 
• Introduction, 2nd para, could make reference to ‘tenure issues’ in addition to other issues impeding transfer e.g. see works on rural homestead tenures and transfer options.
• Also in the introduction, there could be more reference to contexts outside of China. It is understood that the paper is based on China, as the subject context, and that there is some references to works outside of China e.g. 14-15, but, the findings from other contexts would help to internationalise the paper more.
• Moreover, connecting to literature on land consolidation could also be considered. It is remarkable that no mention of land consolidation is made in this paper at all. There are papers on this topic covered in the Land journal and other well known journals on land tenure/use planning - and contrasting and comparing to these works might have value e.g., line 76 says far-flung plots are inconvenient, which is true with it comes to mechanisation, but, others works show that farmers often deliberately seek scattered plot distribution to manage risk (e.g., in SS Africa)
• It is strange that there is two methods sections? Is this correct (It is assumed the 2nd methods is meant to be titled ‘Results’?). Please revise. There is also a sub heading listed as sub section? It would be worth consolidating the methods into a more simple layout. 
• The reviewer cannot check for the validity of all presented statistical results, but, in general, the process appears sound. 
• It is recommended to present the main finding (grouped into 2 paras at the moment) graphically, or in a table. This will assist readers. The suggestion that smaller and more efficient machinery for small scale plots is interesting. Can this be elaborated upon somewhat? What is meant by this? Robotics? Given there are similarities with the findings in this work, in other country contexts, has such an approach been explored elsewhere - OR, is the prevailing norm to force policy changes to consolidate parcels more? 
• There is double-numbering is the references listed. Should be corrected.

Author Response

Dear Editor:

We are thankful for your professional review on our article titled “Do the Spatial Characteristics of Farmland Plots Affect Their Transfer Patterns in China? A Supply and Demand Perspective.” The paper was coauthored by GUO Yang, CUI Mei-ling, and Xu Zhigang. Following your comments, there are several issues that need to be addressed. According to your helpful suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below.

We sincerely thank the editor and all reviewers for their valuable feedback, which we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. The reviewers’ comments are stated below in italicized font and specific concerns have been numbered. Our response is given in normal font and changes/additions to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in text.

Q1：I would suggest to answer the question posed in the title, in the title itself. In the abstract, make it clearer if the survey work is based on farmer perceptions, farmer actions, spatial changes, or all 3. Currently, it is unclear. The abstract could also make clearer whether the conclusions differ from those found in other contexts. It appears not, but, good to make this clear i.e., that the findings from the context of China are similar to what has been found elsewhere.

Response: We believe this is an excellent suggestion. We have rewritten the Methods and Results part in the abstract to make this clearer, including stating that the survey work is based on farmer actions. Furthermore, we added that the findings from the context of China are similar to what has been found elsewhere. These changes are highlighted in a different font color in the revised manuscript. Also, we consider changing the title to a statement rather than a question "Effect of Spatial Characteristics of Farmland Plots on Transfer Patterns in China? A Supply and Demand Perspective".

Q2: Introduction, 2nd para, could make reference to ‘tenure issues’ in addition to other issues impeding transfer e.g. see works on rural homestead tenures and transfer options. Also in the introduction, there could be more reference to contexts outside of China. It is understood that the paper is based on China, as the subject context, and that there is some references to works outside of China e.g. 14-15, but, the findings from other contexts would help to international the paper more. Moreover, connecting to literature on land consolidation could also be considered. It is remarkable that no mention of land consolidation is made in this paper at all. There are papers on this topic covered in the Land journal and other well known journals on land tenure/use planning - and contrasting and comparing to these works might have value e.g., line 76 says far-flung plots are inconvenient, which is true with it comes to mechanisation, but, others works show that farmers often deliberately seek scattered plot distribution to manage risk (e.g., in SS Africa)

Response: We appreciate the valuable comments. We have checked the related literature carefully and added more references on “farmland tenure issues” and “mechanical technology” into the INTRODUCTION section and the rest of the manuscript. As the research topic is about rural farmland, the related literature is about ‘farmland tenure issues’, not rural homestead tenures as the reviewer suggested.

Q3: It is strange that there is two methods sections? Is this correct (It is assumed the 2nd methods is meant to be titled ‘Results’?). Please revise. There is also a sub heading listed as sub section? It would be worth consolidating the methods into a more simple layout. The reviewer cannot check for the validity of all presented statistical results, but, in general, the process appears sound.

Response: We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the Methods section. We have renamed the subheading “Subsection” as “The model” as we describe the model we employed in the study. However, it’s important to note, we tested the effect of the area and location of plot on the transfer pattern in two steps. First, we compared the spatial heterogeneity of different household transfer plots. Second, due to the heterogeneity of effects, we tested the influence of location on plot flow direction with different areas. Therefore, there are two methods sections.

Also, we made some changes in the Methods section. We have renamed the subheading 'Subsection' as ‘The model’ as we describe the model we employed in the study. Moreover, we have removed the repeated heading 'Methods' but included the description of the test the influence of location on plot flow direction with different areas as Section 3.3 with the subheading 'Descriptive statistics.' As the next two subsections, 4.2 and 4.3 present results of the study, we have created another Section 4 and given it the heading 'Results.' The order of the two sections are shown in the manuscript.

Q4: It is recommended to present the main finding (grouped into 2 paras at the moment) graphically, or in a table. This will assist readers. The suggestion that smaller and more efficient machinery for small scale plots is interesting. Can this be elaborated upon somewhat? What is meant by this? Robotics? Given there are similarities with the findings in this work, in other country contexts, has such an approach been explored elsewhere - OR, is the prevailing norm to force policy changes to consolidate parcels more?

Response: We appreciate the valuable comments. We have checked the content carefully and found that the main findings are logically continuous and may not be best presented graphically. The suggestion “smaller and more efficient machinery for small scale plots” is for mechanical design and development, this means that developing small machines makes it possible to employ mechanical production on small plots. Owing to the prevailing norm to force policy changes to consolidate parcels being a long process, we not only suggest the adjustment of land policy, but also recommend the direction of support for agricultural machinery technology, which may alleviate the adverse impact of land fragmentation on production in the short term.

Q5: There is double-numbering is the references listed. Should be corrected.

Response: Thank you for your detailed review. We apologize for our error. Based on your comments, we have made the corrections to modify the double-numbering in the reference list.

In addition, we modified the standardization of the text in terms of vocabulary and language, tables, and the reference formatting style. All changes/addition to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in text.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Guo Yang

School of Management, Jiangsu University

1. 301 Xuefu Road, Zhenjiang, China

[email protected]

(+86)15380777836

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject is relevant and interesting. The structure of the model is clear, easy to construct and well described. The argumentation and methodology in the paper is convincing. However, the author should prepare a major revision. Attached file is the specific suggestions. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are thankful for your professional review on our article titled “Do the Spatial Characteristics of Farmland Plots Affect Their Transfer Patterns in China? A Supply and Demand Perspective.” The paper was coauthored by GUO Yang, CUI Mei-ling, and Xu Zhigang. Following your comments, there are several issues that need to be addressed. According to your helpful suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below.

We sincerely thank the editor and all reviewers for their valuable feedback, which we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. The reviewers’ comments are stated below in italicized font and specific concerns have been numbered. Our response is given in normal font and changes/additions to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in text.

Q1: The Methods and Results part in abstract is too long to understand, please rewrite it.

Response: We believe this is an excellent suggestion. We have rewritten the Methods and Results part in the abstract to make it clearer. We also revised the keywords to five representative words. These changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Q2: Mu is not an international unit, please explain it specifically, such as the relationship between mu and square meters and hectares.

Response: We appreciate the valuable comment. We have included a footnote providing a definition for mu and the conversion accordingly as follows: “Mu is a unit of measurement of farmland area that is the commonly used in China. In unit conversion, 15 mu equals one hectare.”

Q3: Please check the percentage in table 4?

Response: Thank you for your detailed review. We apologize for this mistake. Based on your comments, we have made the corrections by indicating the correct percentages in table 4.

Q4: This reference is wrong. Please check!

Response: We appreciate the valuable comment. Based on your comments, we have checked the reference carefully, including ensuring consistency of the style of writing the references.

In addition, we modified the standardization of the text in terms of vocabulary and language, tables, and the reference formatting style. All changes/addition to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Did a good job!