Rural Land Consolidation and Social Consciousness Change: A Case Study of a Land Consolidation Program in Rural Chongqing, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript has provided an interesting study on rural land consolidation and social consciousness change through a case study of land consolidation program in rural Chongqing of China. However, there are some suggestions for authors to improve the quality of this manuscript.
1) In the section of introduction, authors describe the research gap as “The absence of studies exploring the effects of land consolidation on rural democratization and the rule of law”. However, I think authors fail to formulate the direct relationship between land consolidation and rural democratization and rule of law. Therefore, I think the research gap and motivation are not fully discussed. Further, research questions should also be clearly identified in this part.
2) I think it is unsuitable to describe the framework from the view of economic development, democratic politics and the rule of law which is a general framework. Authors should further modify and establish a clearly framework. Further, authors should present the research method and illustrate how the method adopted.
3) How the outline of interview presented in table 1 reflect the concept of land consolidation, rural democratization and rule of law. I think authors should supplement more evidence and data to support the findings.
4) Limitations should be discussed at the ending of conclusion.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe object of this article is of high interest, considering the increasing attention paid to food production and rural development. The qualitative approach is also a novelty in this field in chianise studies, I have appreciated it very much.
Land consolidation is a crutial aspect, I suggest to explain better and with more references what it is, how is managed and who are the subjects involved.
Line 59-75: the paragraph is crutial for understading late discussion; in the present form is quite confused, I strongly suggest to reorganize it.
Line 75: I suggest to cut the paragtaph; a new topic is introduced here.
Line 97: anticipation of conclusions in introduction should be avoided.
Line 121-205: analytivcal framework is the wrong name for this part, I guess. It must be reorganised, concepts are confused and the discourse is very hard to be followed. I suggest to shift it into the introduction to introduce the concept of land consolidation and its practices. It is very usefull, but it is not an analytical framework.
A PROPER ANALITYCAL FRAMEWORK IS COMPLETELY MISSING: I suggest to consider studies related to community empowerment and democratization through economic emancipation, agrarian commons, community based agriculture and agrarian question. This study could have a high value for international debate, both academic and political, if embedded in the discourse of private property VS commons. I strongly suggest to add a theoretical framework related to these theme and deline, in the conclusion, the possibility for currently China experience of transition from a pre-modern agrarian sistem to a capitalistic and agro-industrial model to be paradigmatic in understanding conflicts and process not fully known in western past. This, can foster the discussion of post-capitalistic rural transition.
Line 147: figure 1 is totally out of place: it introduces several specific issues of the chianise case without explain them; must be contextualised and embedded in the text explaining what are we speaking about.
Line 206 and following: you are mixing methodology and results together, this is confusing the reader. Please consider to separate them.
Lines 271-273: explain the reason of your decisions.
In the methodology, add details about the data collection! Number of people interviewd, diversified by typology, when data have been collected, when the observations took place and so on. These are fundamental information to evaluate the credibility of this study!
Line 284: create a new chapter named results
Line 540: move this paragraph to conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article deals with the topic of complex land improvements, which are a prerequisite for rural development in many countries of the world. Unlike other similarly focused articles, however, it deals with the social changes accompanying land consolidation. I find this to be a very interesting aspect of the article that sets it apart from many others.
The research design uses qualitative research methods, namely semi-structured interviews and semi-participatory observation. These methods can be subjectively influenced, but the authors correctly use them, and I consider the results to be credible. The presentation of the results is mainly in the form of text. Still, due to the short scope of the article, I do not consider it necessary that the main messages should be presented in abbreviated form somewhere else in tabular form.
The article is at a good professional level; it uses a reasonable number of quality scientific sources, the methodology is correctly designed, and the results are clearly presented and adequately defended in the discussion. I noticed certain errors after formatting the page, where, for example, the formatting of headings 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 does not correspond to the required pattern. I would also consider indentation for Figures and Tables, where if the entire width of the page is used, it would be appropriate to stretch the objects to the maximum width for better readability. Certain errors are then found in the bibliography, especially the formatting of citations, various typos, and other errors.
Apart from these minor errors, however, the article is well done, so that I can recommend it for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript under review presents a commendable effort to explore the complex interplay between rural revitalization, land consolidation, and democratic politics in China. However, in my point of view, it falls short of adhering to the rigorous standards expected for publication in a scholarly journal of high repute.
Title: The title is concise and clearly indicates the topic, location, and nature of the study. However, it does not specify that this is a case study. I would suggest revising it to "Rural Land Consolidation and Social Consciousness Change: A Case Study of a Land Consolidation Program in Rural Chongqing, China".
Abstract: The abstract follows the recommended structured format and is an appropriate length. It provides a good summary of the background, methods, key results, and conclusions. However, the background could be expanded slightly to better frame the purpose and importance of the study.
Keywords: The keywords are relevant and likely to be searched by readers interested in this topic. Additional keywords related to land use, rural development, and social change could be considered.
Introduction: The introduction of the manuscript provides a broad context by discussing the theme of rural revitalization and the hollowing out of China's countryside. It emphasizes the need for reform in the land system for rural revitalization. The introduction also outlines the relevance of rural revitalization and land consolidation. Research gaps from existing literature are identified, and research propositions are put forward. However, the introduction could benefit from a more explicit statement of the hypotheses being tested. While it does mention the current state of the research field, it falls short in citing key publications. Moreover, the introduction could be more comprehensible to scientists working outside the topic of the paper.
Methods: The description of the case study area, data collection methods, and sources is reasonably detailed. Providing a map of the exact location would be helpful. More information is needed on the interview procedures and analysis approach used. The semi-structured interview outline should be included, even if summarized. How were transcripts analyzed? How many participants were interviewed? Any limitations? So:
• Provide more details about the interview procedures: number of participants, how they were recruited and selected, length of interviews, location, etc.
• Include the semi-structured interview guide used, even if summarized.
• Explicitly describe the approach and process for analyzing interview transcripts. Was any qualitative analysis software used? What type of coding was conducted?
• Explain how researcher bias was handled and qualitative data quality assured.
• Justify the choice of qualitative methods for answering the research questions.
• Discuss limitations of the case study, such as lack of generalization and reliance on subjective accounts.
Results: This section provides a thorough narrative of the land consolidation process and outcomes in Jin'an Village across different phases. The use of excerpts from interviews enhances this qualitative case study. However, subheadings could help organize the long text for readability.
Discussion: The discussion section provides an analytical paradigm for comprehending the correlation between land consolidation and democratic politics and legal consciousness. It also discusses the limitations of the study and suggests directions for future research. However, the discussion could be enhanced by comparing the results with previous studies and working hypotheses more explicitly.
Conclusions: The conclusions effectively summarize the main findings and policy implications. The recommendations based on the study are thoughtful but remain quite high-level. Given the complexity of the discussion, a more detailed conclusion summarizing the key findings and their implications to academic and policy would be beneficial: More specific and actionable recommendations could be provided.
References: Some references are cited in Chinese. It would be beneficial to add the English translation of the titles to aid international readers.
Overall, addressing the suggestions above would further improve the quality of the paper and potential for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to thank the authors for their great efforts in revising the paper. It can be seen from the revised draft that the quality of the paper has been greatly improved, and the main concerns I raised have been fully responded to and revised. According to the current content, I still have a few small issues that need further revision by the authors.
1) Due to the updated research framework, it is recommended that the abstract be revised to reflect the application of community empowerment theory.
2) It is suggested to update the Fig. 1 to reflect the application of the community empowerment theory.
3) Future research can be more streamlined.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe integrations provided are substantial and the author has improved significantly the quality of the work.
I still suggest to consider in lines 67-70 the issue of social injustice: who is benefit of this consolidation? Who is reducing opportunity of selfproduction of food? Power relations should be considered more in deep avoinding a too optimistic view of land consolidation.
Second aspect not fully satisfying is the engagement between the theoretical framework, now very rich, and the discussion. One expects to see the same references in the first part and in the latter.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for thoroughly revising the manuscript in response to the reviewers' feedback. The changes have enhanced the quality and clarity of the paper.
In particular, you have improved the introduction, detailed the methodology, organized the results, related the discussion to prior literature, and provided actionable policy recommendations. I appreciate you taking the time to refine the manuscript in accordance with the suggestions.
A few minor language edits and proofreading for typos would further polish the paper. But overall it is now in suitable form for publication, offering a useful contribution on land consolidation and rural social change.
Kind Regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
