Is Land Fragmentation Undermining Collective Action in Rural Areas? An Empirical Study Based on Irrigation Systems in China’s Frontier Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the information presented is very good, although I still have a question about the possibility of clearly expressing what constitutes moderate fragmentation, in square meters or acres. Consequently, how is the moderate level of land fragmentation determined in a practical manner that allows public and private institutions to implement strategies for its control? While the tables and figures are coherent, they do not express this possibility of determining the level of moderate fragmentation to guide communities towards this goal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Only a final editorial review is needed to adjust a few details.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please refer to the detailed responses in the attached file below.

Comments:

The quality of the information presented is very good, although I still have a question about the possibility of clearly expressing what constitutes moderate fragmentation, in square meters or acres. Consequently, how is the moderate level of land fragmentation determined in a practical manner that allows public and private institutions to implement strategies for its control? While the tables and figures are coherent, they do not express this possibility of determining the level of moderate fragmentation to guide communities towards this goal.

Reply：

Thank you for your valuable feedback. 

Firstly, we understand your concerns regarding how to determine moderate LF (Land Fragmentation) in practical operations. Moderate LF is defined in this paper as a state between high LF and low LF. To provide a clearer standard, we will describe these criteria in detail in the revised manuscript, expressed in square meters. Please refer to lines 484 and 617 for further details.

Secondly, the motivation behind writing this article stems from the observation that many underdeveloped regions adopt strategies for large-scale land management in pursuit of social and economic development. However, these strategies often encounter bottlenecks after reaching a certain stage of development. It seems that, despite initial achievements, the process of large-scale land development faces invisible resistance, making it difficult to implement policies promoting large-scale land management. In response to this situation, many policymakers may perceive the current large-scale strategies as ineffective and consequently formulate new schemes to promote large-scale land management in hopes of achieving even greater levels of scale. However, such endeavors inevitably require increased resource investment, which is challenging to achieve comprehensively in underdeveloped regions.

In response to the persistent policy orientation towards promoting large-scale land management in certain regions, the author's team, through rural social surveys and literature reviews, has accumulated evidence suggesting that moderate LF is an objectively existing phenomenon that may not be entirely overcome. Specifically, moderate LF is a form of economic development preserved by society through continuous evolution. It is a manifestation of the developmental needs of the times and is not merely a result of efforts to maintain LF levels at a moderate level to facilitate the development of public and private institutions. Rather, the fragmentation itself possesses objectivity and necessity.

Furthermore, we believe that LF is a product of long-term interactions between humans and the environment. Due to differences in climate, topography, socio-economic development, and other factors, LF levels vary across different regions. Therefore, determining a specific and uniform standard for moderate LF levels is quite challenging, as it dynamically changes with variations in human-environment interactions. Consequently, the issue of determining the specific level of moderate LF is as complex as the question of whether moderate LF exists, which is the focus of this paper. Hence, we did not prioritize addressing how to determine moderate LF levels according to specific local conditions. Instead, we first focused on examining the existence of moderate-scale phenomena. Subsequent research will delve into exploring how to tailor the determination of moderate-scale LF levels according to local conditions. We have acknowledged this issue in the limitations of our study in Section 7.3 (see lines 868-885) and hope to address it in future research endeavors.

Last but not least, the aim of our article is to present moderate LF as an objectively existing phenomenon, arising from the balanced interactions between humans and their environment under the influence of various external factors. Therefore, achieving moderate LF does not require deliberate efforts or targeted interventions. Simply pursuing normal production and livelihood activities aligned with economic and livelihood goals will naturally stabilize LF at a moderate level, sufficient to meet current developmental needs. Such findings serve as a warning to public sectors still struggling to promote large-scale operations, indicating that impediments to large-scale land management may stem from the objective need for moderate LF in economic and social contexts. In such scenarios, rather than persistently investing resources to reduce LF levels in pursuit of large-scale operations, a shift in strategy by utilize socialized agricultural services for farmland scale management (Zang et al., 2022), which maintain LF levels while enabling large-scale operations, can enhance economic efficiency. We have incorporated these insights into Section 7.2, as detailed in lines 830-843.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The results of the paper are reasonable, the methods are scientific, the conclusions are accurate, and can reflect the basic facts in current agricultural economics. The shortcoming lies in the seventh part, which should be further divided into headings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

That is good.

Author Response

Comment：

The results of the paper are reasonable, the methods are scientific, the conclusions are accurate, and can reflect the basic facts in current agricultural economics. The shortcoming lies in the seventh part, which should be further divided into headings.

Reply：

Thank you for your valuable feedback. Regarding the issues raised in Section Seven, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. Specifically, we have modified "7.0 Conclusion, Implications, and Limitations" to "7.1 Conclusion, 7.2 Implications, 7.3 Limitations" in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments are in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reply：

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

Since Reviewer 3 provided his/her review comments in a PDF file, unfortunately, our team was unable to directly insert our responses into the original PDF file. Therefore, for your convenience, we diligently transferred the review comments exactly as they were into a corresponding Word document, along with our responses and the corresponding modifications to the manuscript. In the document, our modifications are highlighted in red, and certain sections are highlighted in blue.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No suggestions

Author Response

We are very grateful for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. The comments and suggestions from the editor and reviewers have been very helpful and insightful, and we believe they will greatly enhance the quality of our paper.

In the first round of review, we carefully addressed each of your revision suggestions. Given that you did not provide specific modification recommendations after the second round of review, we have undertaken further revisions to the sentences, logic, and expressions throughout the entire manuscript, based on a thorough reading of the text. Please refer to the newly uploaded document for detailed changes. Once again, we appreciate the valuable feedback you have provided for this manuscript!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx