Risk Perception of Rural Land Supply Reform in China: From the Perspective of Stakeholders

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggesr the authors highlight the novelty of this research and the interest for the several stakeholders.

Author Response

Point 1: I suggest the authors highlight the novelty of this research and the interest for the several stakeholders.

Response 1: We have supplemented the novelty of this research, seen lines 107 to 115. We have also added the interest for the several stakeholders’ in section 3, seen 174-192.

Thanks again for your advice and help. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper improved significantly from the previous version.

Abstract:

• remove the sentence "The risk is closely related to the orientation of interest and decision making of stakeholders"

Methods

Many methodological aspects have been described in the results. Please move all the methods descriptions in the methodological section (5.2).

References

All references do not follow author guidelines, authors names are duplicated, the names of the journals are reported in inconsistent ways.

Suggested papers are reported in the wrong way:

• [35] the correct citation is: Giampietri, E., Yu, X., & Trestini, S. (2020). The role of trust and perceived barriers on farmer’s intention to adopt risk management tools. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 9(1), 1-24. doi:10.13128/bae-8416.
• Please check to have read the published version of the paper instead of a pre-print version.

Author Response

Point 1: Abstract: remove the sentence "The risk is closely related to the orientation of interest and decision making of stakeholders"

Response 1: We have remove the sentence in Abstract.

Point 2: Methods: Many methodological aspects have been described in the results. Please move all the methods descriptions in the methodological section (5.2).

Response 2: We have carefully considered your suggestion and found that there may be a lot of redundancy in section 5.2. Therefore, we refined with less redundancy, adjusted some of the necessary sentences to section 6 and remove the Figure 2, seen line 318-363. We have retained the basis and purpose for selecting these methods, and we think that proper introduction of the research approach can make readers more clearly understand the purpose of our use of these methods.

In addition, the original title of 5.2 is Research Method, but its content involves the design of questionnaires and the calculation of scores. Therefore, we changed the title of 5.2 to Research Approach and Questionnaire Design. We may have some ambiguity in the original description, but now we have improved how to design the questionnaire according to the risk matrix, seen line 364-377.

Point 3: References: All references do not follow author guidelines, authors names are duplicated, the names of the journals are reported in inconsistent ways.

Suggested papers are reported in the wrong way:

[35] the correct citation is: Giampietri, E., Yu, X., & Trestini, S. (2020). The role of trust and perceived barriers on farmer’s intention to adopt risk management tools. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 9(1), 1-24. doi:10.13128/bae-8416.

Please check to have read the published version of the paper instead of a pre-print version.

Response 3: Thank you for your careful review of our references. When we checked, we found a lot of errors in the references, which are caused by our careless inspection. Now we have corrected them all.

In addition, as for the DOI number of Reference 35, we checked it and found that it had two different DOI numbers, we used pre-printed DOI numbers and now we have corrected them.

Thank you again for pointing out these problems for us.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

About the submission with the title "Risk Perception of Rural Land Supply Reform in China: From the Perspective of Stakeholders", I have the following comments:

The literature review should be improved, because there are several literature about agricultural policy not considered.

Better explanations about the methodologies considered are needed, namely in the subsection 5.2. For example, why it was chosen the "The ordinal value of risk probability..." and not other approaches. These options need scientific justifications. More benchmarking with other methodologies available are, also, needed.

In section 6 it was expected a table with the characteristics of the sample, namely about its profile.

It could be important to present in section 6 the several statistics related with the factor analysis carried out.

I found difficulties why the authors consider for the "6.2. Determination of Risk Level" the subsections (6.2.1. Analysis of Risk Probability and Severity; 6.2.2. Determination of Risk Level). Why these subsections with the respective approaches are important for the research carried out? The same for the subsections inside 6.3.

Conclusions and discussion section shoud be clear and objective about the practical implications, policy recommendations and suggestions for future research.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper discusses the stakeholders' risk perception about rural Land Supply Reform in China. The topic is of interest, but need further improvement.

General comments:

The literature cited on the issues of risk perception is rather limited.
It is suggested to analyze the following papers for an adequate bibliographic and methodological review on the measurement of risk preferences and its applications:
- Iyer, P., Bozzola, M., Hirsch, S., Meraner, M., & Finger, R. (2020). Measuring farmer risk preferences in Europe: a systematic review. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71 (1), 3-26.
- Giampietri, E., Yu, X., & Trestini, S. (2020). The role of trust and perceived barriers on farmer's intention to adopt risk management tools. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 9 (1), 1-24.
- Sutter, M., Kocher, M.G., Glätzle-Rüetzler, D. and Trautmann, S.T. (2013). Impatience and Uncertainty: Experimental Decisions Predict Adolescents' Field Behavior. American Economic Review 103 (1): 510-31.

I suggest changing the paragraph titles by avoiding the questions.

Abstract:
Please try to improve the focus of the abstract and better specify the steps of the methodology.
1. identification of stakeholders
2. in-depth-interview for risk definition
3. stakeholder questionnaire

Paragraph 4
There is no background literature for the definition and synthesis of each identified risk. It is suggested to also refer to the bibliography indicated.
For the identification of potential risks, specify for the in-depth interviews how many stakeholders were interviewed (how many by type / when the interviews were made).
Specify the research literature to which it refers (line 148).

Paragraph 5
Explain in more detail the structure of the questionnaire administered. I would put the questionnaire in the appendix.
The whole empirical method lacks citations. A methodology is applied (risk matrix method and Borda ordinal value method) for which no bibliographic reference is specified.
The scale of the probability of risk factors (very low, low average, high, and very high) is not specified to match the values ​​from 1 to 5. (very high = 5 or 1?) (Line 290). The same goes for the severity scale (row 298).
On ordinary probability scales, one would expect very low to be 1 every high to be 5 (line 292). If there is a specific reason it has not been explained.
Formulas 1 and 3 are poorly explained.

Results
Given the descriptive nature of paragraph 6.2, it would be good for Figures 2 and 3 to differentiate the answers given by the various categories of stakeholders in terms of risk probability (Figure 2) and risk severity (Figure 3).
There are no references to the origin of the formulas applied (from 6 to 15). Such equations should be introduced and explained in methodology.
Borda ordinal value without bibliographic references is introduced in the results. It should be explained in methodology.
There is no literature supporting the statement implying an effect on risk perception policies (Line 454).

Conclusions and discussion
The results are repeated unnecessarily (lines 465 to 487). A brief introductory hat would be enough with the steps of the questionnaire summarized.
With regard to risk control, some indications could be obtained from the references suggested above (Giampietri, E., Yu, X., & Trestini, S., 2020).
The results should be discussed in comparison with the reference literature.
Clear conclusions are missing: take-off messages. It is advisable to add a final paragraph with sentences containing only the summary conclusions.