Will Social Network Relationship Significantly Enhance Farmers’ Participation in the Supply of Small Water-Saving Irrigation and Water Conservancy Facilities in China?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are claims in this paper that need further substantiating. The danger in the way the writing the scientific paper is not does not critically engage with literature; consequently, it follows a common ‘dominant’ narrative. for example paragraph 1.  please check the hole manuscript, and fix this issue

In the introduction section, it is better the authors could include some discussions the research contribution,

please explain the sample in detail

Please include the marginal effect from the regression analysis to make the interpretation straight forward

The value of this study is unclear, pleas provide the value of study findings, and provide the academic debate as well in to discuss the finding

Please provide research limitation and future research direction

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1Comments

Point1: There are claims in this paper that need further substantiating. The danger in the way the writing the scientific paper is not does not critically engage with literature; consequently, it follows a common ‘dominant’ narrative. for example paragraph 1.  please check the hole manuscript, and fix this issue

Response1: In response to your question about the dominant narrative in the first paragraph. I modified the first paragraph and added some literature and data to support it.

Point2: In the introduction section, it is better the authors could include some discussions the research contribution

Response2: In the introduction part, I added some discussion on existing research results, and indicated the research purpose and value.

Point3: please explain the sample in detail

Response3:  I have added a description of the samples in lines 240-243, expressing the reasons for choosing these three provinces.

Point4: Please include the marginal effect from the regression analysis to make the interpretation straight forward

Response4:  As for the marginal effect of regression analysis, this is our negligence when conducting research. However, due to the research capability, we decided to explain this deficiency in the research outlook (Part VI of the paper).

Point5: The value of this study is unclear, pleas provide the value of study findings, and provide the academic debate as well in to discuss the finding.Please provide research limitation and future research direction

Response5:  Research limitations and future research directions have been written in 6.Research Prospect. Please have a check.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is about The Impact of Social Network on Farmers' Participation in Small Water-saving Irrigation and 342 Water Conservancy Supply. The methodology for selecting indexes and evaluation of their relation is important. Calibration and validation of the logical framework or model and evaluation the results are important. Also novelty and importance of work must discuss. I hope the following comments help authors to improve their paper:

At Page 1 and Page 2 which are related to introduction section, the literature review of paper and introduction section must improve. In this part you must discussed about importance of the work based on previous studies such as: Agent-based modeling of participants' behaviors in an inter-sector groundwater market, A bankruptcy method for pollution load reallocation in river system‏, Assessing the learning capacity of water users–Adoption a social learning framework, Optimal development of agricultural sectors in the basin based on economic efficiency and social equality, Flood assessment in the context of sustainable development using the DPSIR framework, Systems analysis to promote frames and mental models for sustainable water management, Holistic Approach to Sustainable Groundwater Management in Semi-arid Region‏.

These paper are related to the water resources management but they are related to agent based modeling and game theory, which are similar to your work. Please review and add above studies to improve your literature review.

As mentioned above, using logical frame work to evaluate the relation between social index and water resources planning and management is very important. The validation of the model results is important. Do you validate your result?

The methodology for selecting indexes and quantifying them and evaluation in a logical frame work is important. Statistical analysis for validation must describe.

Important note about social indexes and their relation with water resources management are discussed in conclusion. It is important that main contribution and results of the paper presented and discuss in the abstract.

There are many indexes which quantifying them are hard and important. For example how do you quantify indexes such as: willingness of farmers to participate in water harvesting or water management? Or how do you quantify Environmental awareness or how do you consider social learning of farmers and their knowledge sharing about water management.

More figures and chart is necessary for generating the results and discussing about relation between indexes and farmer reactions to water resources management and best water consumption.

Conclusion section is too short. In conclusion section, you should discuss about importance of your work and the works must do to improve the water quality. At conclusion you must reply to the question which is title of the paper:  Will social network relationship enhance farmers' participation in the supply of small water saving irrigation and water conservancy facilities?

For example suggestions provided at Line 488 to 502 are general. Please add more specific results. Also compare indicator and indexes.

Author Response

Point1: At Page 1 and Page 2 which are related to introduction section, the literature review of paper and introduction section must improve.

Response1: I have revised the introduction. Please check. But our subject matter is not strongly related to water resources. This article focuses on studying the channels and paths that affect farmers' water-saving behavior.

As for "social learning", it is not discussed in this article, so we decide to delete "social learning" from the text, and summarize this point as the prospect of future research and the deficiency of this article ,you can check it in paragraph 6. Research Prospect.

Point 2: Conclusion section is too short. In conclusion section, you should discuss about importance of your work and the works must do to improve the water quality. At conclusion you must reply to the question which is title of the paper:  Will social network relationship enhance farmers' participation in the supply of small water saving irrigation and water conservancy facilities?

Response2: I have expanded the conclusion paragraph and added policy suggestions for farmers' participation in the supply of small water-saving irrigation and water conservancy facilities.

I added the answer to the title of the paper in 6.Conclusion and abstract. Please have a check.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The title is too broad, it does not indicate that China was studied.

2. The abstract is not very specific, there is no purpose, no time range, no indication of the analysis methods used.

3. The manuscript requires significant refinement in the theoretical layer and ordering of the conducted considerations. The introduction lacks justification for taking up this topic in the context of filling the research gap compared to research undertaken by other authors, not only to indicate its importance in China. It is not known what the leading research problem is for the authors - water resources, food security or the concept of social network. In individual parts of the work, i.e. the title, introduction, etc., it seems that the importance of these issues is different, parts are inconsistent.

4. The authors very smoothly move from the concept of social networks to social capital and its dimensions (lines 115-118), using this concept in the empirical part. Thus, the concept of social capital has been unjustifiably treated very shallowly, taking into account the rich achievements of literature in the field of defining social capital. What do the authors mean by ‘the basic situation of social capital of farmers’ (line 192)? The considerations undertaken in section 2.2.2 should be included in the initial theoretical part of the work.

5. The purpose of the study needs improvement, in its current form it is vague, focuses on the technical side of the work - why does it refer to the future?

6. Very little information was given about the selection of the sample - why were these provinces selected, why were the questionnaires distributed in cities when farmers were surveyed? How was the research conducted when it was done?

7. No indication of the limitations of the conducted research in terms of data collection and analysis.

8. The manuscript requires significant refinement in terms of editing.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3Comments

Point1: The title is too broad, it does not indicate that China was studied.

Response 1 : I have revised the title to add "in China", and since we found that there is not much discussion of social relationship embedding in this article, we have decided to delete the word "embeddedness".

Point2: The abstract is not very specific, there is no purpose, no time range, no indication of the analysis methods used.

Response 2 : In response to your comments, I have revised the abstract to include a description of the purpose and time frame of the study. Please check.

Point3: The manuscript requires significant refinement in the theoretical layer and ordering of the conducted considerations. The introduction lacks justification for taking up this topic in the context of filling the research gap compared to research undertaken by other authors, not only to indicate its importance in China. It is not known what the leading research problem is for the authors - water resources, food security or the concept of social network. In individual parts of the work, i.e. the title, introduction, etc., it seems that the importance of these issues is different, parts are inconsistent.

Response 3 : I changed the first paragraph of the introduction. We hope to explore how to change individual behaviors by studying the channels and paths that affect farmers' water-saving behaviors, so as to achieve the purpose of saving agricultural water. Therefore, water resources and food security are the background of this article. The construction of social network system, the selection of relevant indicators, and the analysis of farmers' water-saving behavior is the focus of this study.

Point4: The authors very smoothly move from the concept of social networks to social capital and its dimensions (lines 115-118), using this concept in the empirical part. Thus, the concept of social capital has been unjustifiably treated very shallowly, taking into account the rich achievements of literature in the field of defining social capital. What do the authors mean by ‘the basic situation of social capital of farmers’ (line 192)? The considerations undertaken in section 2.2.2 should be included in the initial theoretical part of the work.

Response 4 : "Social networks" focus on interactions and connections between people. It's a channel. And "social capital" is the resources brought to people by their position in the social structure. At present, most scholars study farmers' social network system from the perspective of social capital. But we want to start from the perspective of social capital structure, and pay more attention to the study of the channels and paths of the influence of social network relations on individual behaviors of farmers. (See the last paragraph of the introduction.)

"the basic situation of social capital of farmers" refers to various dimensions of social network relationships of farmers (see 220-224 for details).

Point5: The purpose of the study needs improvement, in its current form it is vague, focuses on the technical side of the work - why does it refer to the future?

Response 5 : I have added the research purpose in the introduction and abstract.

Point6 : Very little information was given about the selection of the sample - why were these provinces selected, why were the questionnaires distributed in cities when farmers were surveyed? How was the research conducted when it was done?

Response 6 :I have added the reasons for selecting these samples in 2.2.1, please check. With regard to the questionnaires, these questionnaires were distributed to rural households in cities in the three provinces.

Point 7 : No indication of the limitations of the conducted research in terms of data collection and analysis.

Response 7 : I wrote the limitations of research in  6.research prospect. Please check.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

the authors have addressed my issue

Author Response

Thank you !

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper well revised

Author Response

Thank you !

Reviewer 3 Report

The article has improved somewhat, but the quality of some corrections is unsatisfactory. Further, after reading the text, I have some questions/doubts about the research, the same ones that I indicated in the previous review, hoping that the Authors will think about them and consider why they were indicated after reading the text. It is a pity that the Authors did not introduce at least minor changes in the text, so that both the descriptions in the text of the article and the research process were understandable to the final international reader.

One can get the impression that the responses to comments were treated in a selective way. My specific comments are as follows:

1. The abstract needs to be further reorganized, e.g. the purpose should come before the research results.

2. The introduction has improved to some extent, but ultimately it is not a logical introduction to the research issues under consideration. In addition, some statements require better embedding in the literature or simply explanation, e.g. (1) ‘In addition, most scholars study rural household social network system from the perspective of social capital’ (lines 182-183 – what/whose studies are the Authors referring to?). (2) ‘So from the perspective of social capital structure, this article focuses more on the channels and paths of the influence of social network relations on individual behaviors of farmers’ (lines 184-185 – why did the Authors decide so?).

3. Despite the explanation in the theoretical part (however very short) of the relationship between social networks and social capital, in the empirical part the Authors use the concept of social capital, which, taking into account the achievements of the literature, seems to be unjustified (which was already reported in the first review).

4. Despite the Authors' assurances, I still cannot find the purpose of the work in the introduction; if you maintain that the purpose is as indicated in the abstract (lines 31-34), another question arises as to whether the purpose matches the conclusions.

5. It is still not known how the survey was conducted. It was indicated that: ‘the three provinces are representative’ (lines 242-243) - How do you know that?; insufficient explanation of how the questionnaires were distributed?

6. Superficial explanation of the second limitation of the study (lines 593-594).

7. The manuscript is still definitely not edited.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3Comments

Point1: The abstract needs to be further reorganized, e.g. the purpose should come before the research results.

Response1: As for the revision of abstracts, I have adjusted the order of research purpose and research results, and modified the research purpose according to your fourth suggestion. For details, please see lines 18-22 (no marks revision mode) /21-24 (show all marks in revision mode).

Point2: The introduction has improved to some extent, but ultimately it is not a logical introduction to the research issues under consideration. In addition, some statements require better embedding in the literature or simply explanation, e.g. (1) ‘In addition, most scholars study rural household social network system from the perspective of social capital’ (lines 182-183 – what/whose studies are the Authors referring to?). (2) ‘So from the perspective of social capital structure, this article focuses more on the channels and paths of the influence of social network relations on individual behaviors of farmers’ (lines 184-185 – why did the Authors decide so?).

Response2: I have revised the introduction.(1) I gave examples to illustrate the statement " In addition, most scholars study rural household social network system from the perspective of social capital " and attached the references. For details, please see lines 152-160 (no marks in revision mode) / 161-164 (show all marks in revision mode).

(2) " So from the perspective of social capital structure, this article focuses more on the channels and paths of the influence of social network relations on individual behaviors of farmers ". As for the reason of this sentence, our explanation is that as mentioned in the article, most scholars study rural household social network system from the perspective of social capital, and we want to analyze the channels through which these dimensions influence farmers' behavior from the perspective of social relationship network. We mainly study the channel problem, while others study the influence of given resources on behavior. Our research is more original from the structural level. For changes to this section, please see lines 161-164 (no marks in revision mode)/Lines 197-200 (show all marks in revision mode).

Point3: Despite the explanation in the theoretical part (however very short) of the relationship between social networks and social capital, in the empirical part the Authors use the concept of social capital, which, taking into account the achievements of the literature, seems to be unjustified (which was already reported in the first review).

Response3: In order to avoid confusion and deviation from the focus of the research, I have removed some statements about social capital in 2.2.2, because we are emphasizing social relationship networks, it’s for the same reason as in response to (2) in your second point.

Point4: Despite the Authors' assurances, I still cannot find the purpose of the work in the introduction; if you maintain that the purpose is as indicated in the abstract (lines 31-34), another question arises as to whether the purpose matches the conclusions.

Response4: Regarding the purpose of the work in the introduction, it is located on lines 168-172(no marks in revision mode) / 213-216 (show all marks in revision mode)

Point5: It is still not known how the survey was conducted. It was indicated that: ‘the three provinces are representative’ (lines 242-243) - How do you know that?; insufficient explanation of how the questionnaires were distributed?

Response5: (1) About the " the three provinces are representative " : We believe that these three regions are representative after analyzing from three aspects: geographical location, ecological environment and planting structure. I have added an explanation of planting structure of the three provinces in the article. For details, please see lines 217-220 (no marks revision mode) /264-267 (show all marks in revision mode).

(2) Explanation of questionnaire distribution: I explained in detail how the questionnaire was distributed. And the specific table is in Appendix 1, which is before References. For details, please see lines 239-246 (no marks revision mode) /286-291 (show all marks in revision mode).(‘ In the process of issuing questionnaires,…’)

Point6: Superficial explanation of the second limitation of the study (lines 593-594).

Response6: For the second limitation, the previous statement was too simple. I added some sentences. For details, please see lines 551-554 (no marks revision mode) /623-626 (show all marks in revision mode)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx