The Impact of Collective Forestland Tenure Reform on the Forest Economic Efficiency of Farmers in Zhejiang Province
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research paper The Impact of Collective Forestry Reform on Forest Economic Efficiency of Farmers in Zhejiang Province is relevant both for the analyzed topic and especially due to the results obtained by the authors from the point of view of the impact of the collective forest reform on the economic efficiency of farmers in forest areas.
The bibliographic concepts and sources used in the paper are correctly used and mentioned, which shows that the authors have good knowledge and experience in the field.
The research methodology is based on convexity assumptions known as Data Envelopment Analysis, but mostly based on a stratified survey conducted in Zhejiang province in July and August 2014 217, based on which the authors took the data for this study. In addition, a set of cross-sectional data for 2014 is used to estimate the technical and scale efficiency of Zhejiang province's collective forestry farmers. At the same time, authors also use data regression to justify the results of the study.
The results are adequately presented by the authors, both the technical efficiency and the efficiency of the farm households that were calculated using the results-based approach based on data coverage (DEA), together with a household efficiency model includes survey data of farm households. However, based on analyzes, studies and usage research techniques, DEA results show that there is substantial economic inefficiency for farmers, which offers a great prospect of improving economic efficiency. By the findings of the empirical regression of data, the authors also show that collective forest reform is quite beneficial for farmer households, especially those with distinct commercial forest types. Furthermore, the authors point out that long-term reform has a very influential impact on the efficiency of farmers managing wood and bamboo forests, as well as reform policies for forestry, forest cutting, forestry and technical training.
The conclusions are pertinently presented on the basis of the results of the research, the authors specifying some of the resulting directions, namely the fact that the majority of young farmers in the forest areas move from the farm, which would mean taking governmental decisions regarding the development of the forestry labor market in order to avoid the deficit labor force and increased operating costs. There is more emphasis on the financing of this sector, at present the forest mortgage is a solution presented in the authors' conclusions. However, given the information presented in the paper, we believe that the authors should also propose other funding instruments to support this sector.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The research methodology is based on convexity assumptions known as Data Envelopment Analysis, but mostly based on a stratified survey conducted in Zhejiang province in July and August 2014, based on which the authors took the data for this study.
Response 1: We used stratified survey to gain the data of inputs and outputs of forest production for this study and utilized DEA to calculate the economic efficiency of farmers in Zhejiang Province. And because the population of this study was quite large and its distribution was particularly broad, it took us two months to conducted survey, that is July and August 2014.
Point 2: The results are adequately presented by the authors, both the technical efficiency and the efficiency of the farm households that were calculated using the results-based approach based on data coverage (DEA), together with a household efficiency model includes survey data of farm households. However, based on analyzes, studies and usage research techniques, DEA results show that there is substantial economic inefficiency for farmers, which offers a great prospect of improving economic efficiency.
Response 2: We used the outputs-based DEA to calculate the efficiency, because the outputs of forest will not be influenced by forest managements significantly under the current technology level. So, the aim to improve the economic efficiency could be realized by reducing cost which is also the main problem wanted to be solved by the forest reform. From this point of view, the less cost the farmer use, the higher efficiency the farmer get. But the results show that there were many farmers input more than the least cost to forest production which means the inefficiency existed.
Point 3: There is more emphasis on the financing of this sector, at present the forest mortgage is a solution presented in the authors' conclusions. However, given the information presented in the paper, we believe that the authors should also propose other funding instruments to support this sector.
Response 3: In modified manuscript, we proposed other funding instruments. Please see line 499-502.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The theme of the paper is interesting since it addresses aspects that have not been considered by previous research. It is nevertheless necessary to incorporate the precisions indicated below.
Study area:
It is necessary to include a figure where the study area was located. This will make it easier for the reader to locate in China.
It is also necessary to make a brief characterization of the study area to contextualize from the point of view of the relevance of forest areas in the study area, as well as its relevance from the economic and social point of view. It would be advisable to include a brief reference to forest area, contribution of forestry, GDP of the study area (Zhejiang province), percentage of agrarian assets, percentages of forest exploitation assets, etc.
Methodology:
It is necessary to indicate the representativeness of the survey carried out on the total number of forest farm in the study area. Without this data, the representativeness of the sample used is unknown. And, therefore, it cannot be determined if the study is representative or has a biased character.
It is also necessary to explain what is meant by "the well-informed experts" (line 232) and indicate the number of experts consulted.
English language:
The personal verbal forms (we calcalute, we refer, etc. ...) and the possessive pronouns and adjectives must be eliminated from the text. they must be replaced by impersonal verbal forms. Its use is not suitable for a scientific paper.
It should be also Include the equivalent of one yuan to the US dollar, as the currency used as a standard for international trade. This will make it easier for the reader to understand the economic relevance of this process.
Structure:
The results and the discussion appear integrated in the same Section. Taking into account the guidelines for author, it is advisable that both sections be differentiated and be presented in two different Section. On the one hand, the results and on the other the discussion.
References:
References written by authors from Western countries should be reviewed since it is badly referenced. The author's name appears as if it were his last name. In line 277, reference is made to "by Maria and Rigoberto (31). Maria and Rigoberto are the names of the two authors and not their last names. This error is also repeated in references 8 (line 500), 19 (line 522), 27 (line 539), 31 (line 546).
Author Response
Point 1: It is necessary to include a figure where the study area was located. This will make it easier for the reader to locate in China.
Response: We have added a figure to show the location of the research in page 4.
Point 2: It is also necessary to make a brief characterization of the study area to contextualize from the point of view of the relevance of forest areas in the study area, as well as its relevance from the economic and social point of view. It would be advisable to include a brief reference to forest area, contribution of forestry, GDP of the study area (Zhejiang province), percentage of agrarian assets, percentages of forest exploitation assets, etc.
Response: In modified manuscript, we have made a brief characterization of Zhejiang province which showed that Zhejiang is an appropriate case to examine the effects of the new round of forest tenure reform. But we failed to get data of percentage of agrarian assets, percentages of forest exploitation assets, but we added the total output value of forestry, the net income of rural residence per capita and the contribution rate of forestry to farmer’s income.
Point 3: It is necessary to indicate the representativeness of the survey carried out on the total number of forest farm in the study area. Without this data, the representativeness of the sample used is unknown. And, therefore, it cannot be determined if the study is representative or has a biased character.
Response: The population of our survey is particularly large, and the distribution is particularly broad, so we selected samples based on the principle of comprehensiveness and representativeness. we selected the sample prefectures according to the forestry incomes account for more than 50% of their total household incomes first. And then, based on the status of forest production we selected sample town from high production region, medium production region and low production region separately. In order to avoid biased character, we distinguished commercial forest types.
Point 4: It is also necessary to explain what is meant by "the well-informed experts" (line 232) and indicate the number of experts consulted.
Response: In each sample town, we indeed got recommendations from one or two well-informed experts who work in local forest sections and familiar with local forest production. We showed our appreciation in the acknowledgments part of manuscript which list the names of experts.
Point 5: The personal verbal forms (we calcalute, we refer, etc. ...) and the possessive pronouns and adjectives must be eliminated from the text. they must be replaced by impersonal verbal forms. Its use is not suitable for a scientific paper.
Response: We have eliminated and replaced the possessive pronouns and adjectives in the modified manuscript.
Point 6: It should be also Include the equivalent of one yuan to the US dollar, as the currency used as a standard for international trade. This will make it easier for the reader to understand the economic relevance of this process.
Response: We have changed every yuan to US dollar in the modified manuscript.
Point 7: The results and the discussion appear integrated in the same Section. Taking into account the guidelines for author, it is advisable that both sections be differentiated and be presented in two different Section. On the one hand, the results and on the other the discussion.
Response: We have divided the results and the discussion part in the original manuscript into two parts, the results and the discussion. Please see the modified manuscript.
Point 8: References written by authors from Western countries should be reviewed since it is badly referenced. The author's name appears as if it were his last name. In line 277, reference is made to "by Maria and Rigoberto (31). Maria and Rigoberto are the names of the two authors and not their last names. This error is also repeated in references 8 (line 500), 19 (line 522), 27 (line 539), 31 (line 546).
Response: We have modified all the wrong names of authors in references and checked from the beginning to the end. Please see the references part in the modified manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the manuscript, authors' assessed the impact of collective forestland tenure reform on farmers’ economic efficiency in the collective forest areas. They calculated both technical efficiency and scale efficiency of farmer households, using the output-oriented bootstrapped Data Envelopment Analysis approach, along with a household efficiency model that incorporates the survey data from 243 farmer households.
The topic of the paper is interesting as well as the academic contribution of the work, but the authors should improve the work according to the following indications.
1. In the introduction:
(1.1) authors’ should discuss international situation, regulations, and approaches;
(1.2) authors’ should try to motivate their research to be of high interest for a even broader group of addressees;
(1.3) some sentences should be validated with references (lines 29-45);
(1.4) authors’ should explain how the article has been structured by presenting the different sections.
2. Authors should deepen the literature review and explain how their work fills the gap within it.
3. Authors’ should discuss how the results can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies.
4. Limitations and future research directions should be mentioned.
5. Tables and figure should report the sources.
6.
Moderate English changes required.
Author Response
Point 1: Authors should discuss international situation, regulations, and approaches;
Response: We have added some discussion on international situation, regulations and approaches in the modified paper from line 29 to line 39.
Point 2: Authors should try to motivate their research to be of high interest for an even broader group of addressees;
Response: In the modified paper, we mentioned some developing countries which have implemented forestland tenure reform through decentralization and devolution, redistributing the forestland away from state forest management and ownership to local farmer households. China’s experience of 40 years will provide implications for international communities in the process of forestland tenure devolution.
Point 3: Some sentences should be validated with references (lines 29-45);
Response: We supplied the references in modified paper lines 43-47 which in original paper are in line 29-45.
Point 4: Authors should explain how the article has been structured by presenting the different sections.
Response: In the modified paper, we have presented the paper’s structure in lines 123-130.
Point 5: Authors should deepen the literature review and explain how their work fills the gap within it.
Response: From line 64 to line 100 in the modified paper, we tried to deepen the literature review and explain how our work fills the gap.
Point 6: Authors should discuss how the results can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies.
Response: We divided the results and discussion part in the original manuscript into two parts, the results and the discussion. In the discussion part, we discussed our results with the previous studies. Please see the modified manuscript, part 6.
Point 7: Limitations and future research directions should be mentioned.
Response: The limitation of this paper and the future research direction have been mentioned at the end of the manuscript, see line 579-583.
Point 8: Tables and figure should report the sources.
Response: The data in all the tables and figure were calculated by sample data of survey.
Point 9: Moderate English changes required.
Response: We used a professional English editing service before we handed in this modified paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The comment indicated have been carried out. The paper can be published
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors' improved the manuscript according my previous review report.
Therefore, I suggest the acceptance of the paper in present form.
