Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article highlights the impact of hiring managers in agricultural cooperatives in Sichuan China and the impact of this factor on land conservation behavior. Data from a questionnaire on a sample of 436 agricultural cooperatives collected in 2021 are processed by applying the Poisson model and a mediation effects model to present the relationships between variables. The model demonstrates that hiring managers leads to a change in direction within agricultural cooperatives manifested in land conservation behavior and an increase in the level of application of information technologies.

The subject addressed by the article is a topical one in the context in which agricultural cooperatives provide a competitive working environment and protect farmers. The questionnaire is applied to a large sample of agricultural cooperatives leading to some important results. The econometric models used are specific to such types of research.

Although the article is interesting, there are a number of elements that need to be improved.

1. Introduction and Literature Review

The use of long sentences, especially in this section, makes the text quite difficult to navigate. See lines 72-98, 119-144, and 144-169. It is recommended that these sentences be rephrased to provide more clarity.

2. Definitions and Analytical Framework

Does the presence of elements in both English and Chinese in Figures 1 and 2 represent an element for information dissemination or is it an editing error?

3. Data and Methods

A justification for using the Poisson model and its adaptability for the type of research and the purpose of the paper is not presented.



4. Estimated Results and Related Tests

Although there are a number of relevant articles cited, the novel elements of this study compared to existing literature are not presented in a clear manner.

5. Mechanism Analysis

I have no comments.

6. Research Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

The limitations of the study are not mentioned.

A questionnaire of 347 agricultural cooperatives is mentioned although the methodology includes 436 questionnaires, from which it is highlighted that 422 cooperatives have adopted at least one type of technology for protecting the quality of agricultural land. Please clarify.

Suggestions: Although the bibliography contains adequate references, a series of more recent studies could be added to support those reported or the place of the study in the specialized literature.

The article is generally well written, but improving the clarity of the introduction, clarifying the methodology and highlighting the need for this study through the specialized literature would significantly improve the quality of the article.

Author Response

Comments 1: Introduction and Literature Review The use of long sentences, especially in this section, makes the text quite difficult to navigate. See lines 72-98, 119-144, and 144-169. It is recommended that these sentences be rephrased to provide more clarity.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I've changed long passages into shorter ones, making them easier to read.The exact location is at L79-L106,L123-L172.

Comments 2: Definitions and Analytical Framework Does the presence of elements in both English and Chinese in Figures 1 and 2 represent an element for information dissemination or is it an editing error?

Response 2: Agree. I've made changes to both images.

Comments 3：Data and Methods A justification for using the Poisson model and its adaptability for the type of research and the purpose of the paper is not presented.

Response 3:Agree.Y is a count variable, so it is necessary to use the Poisson model or the negative binomial model, which was found to be more effective after the zero-inflated test.I explain this in the text.

Comments 4：Estimated Results and Related Tests Although there are a number of relevant articles cited, the novel elements of this study compared to existing literature are not presented in a clear manner.

Response 4:Thank you very much for your advice.The innovation and significance of this paper is explained in the Abstract and Introduction sections, which are located at L24-L31 and L123-L125.

Comments 5：Research Conclusions and Policy Recommendations The limitations of the study are not mentioned. A questionnaire of 347 agricultural cooperatives is mentioned although the methodology includes 436 questionnaires, from which it is highlighted that 422 cooperatives have adopted at least one type of technology for protecting the quality of agricultural land. Please clarify. Suggestions: Although the bibliography contains adequate references, a series of more recent studies could be added to support those reported or the place of the study in the specialized literature. The article is generally well written, but improving the clarity of the introduction, clarifying the methodology and highlighting the need for this study through the specialized literature would significantly improve the quality of the article.

Response 5:Agree.I have added a discussion section to the text and incorporated the limitations of this article.In addition, I have made the sample size of this paper uniform to avoid inconsistent errors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

The manuscript evaluates the impact of hiring agricultural managers on farmland quality protection behavior within farmer cooperatives in Sichuan, China. Employing a robust methodological framework that includes a Poisson regression model and a mediating effect model, the study offers compelling empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that agricultural managers significantly enhance farmland quality protection behaviors.

Strengths

1.      Relevance and Timeliness: The study addresses a significant and timely issue relevant to sustainable agricultural practices in a major agricultural province of China.

2.      Methodological Rigor: The use of statistical models like Poisson regression to analyze the survey data adds robustness to the findings. The detailed presentation of the model setup and the variables is commendable.

3.      Comprehensive Data Collection: The data derived from a large sample of 436 planting cooperatives enhances the reliability of the study's conclusions.

Introduction

The main aim of the research is to explore the effect of human capital that is, the role of managers in effective decision-making, farmer's cooperation and maintenance of farmland quality protection. In recent times of high and fast demands of agricultural goods in the market, excessive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides has increased resulting in lowering the quality of agricultural fields. Statistical records from China reveal that 70.53% of farmlands are of low quality and this showcases the lack of supervision and leadership in the agricultural industry. To mitigate the issue, the recruitment of managers and supervisors is of great significance to maintain the quality of farmlands along with the help of farmers.   

Methodology of Research

The research was conducted in Sichuan, China in the month of July-August 2021 and the study opted for a primary quantitative data collection method. In Sichuan, 436 planting cooperatives were chosen for the research and a survey was conducted through the one-to-one session of interviews a total of 450 participants (Directors of Cooperative companies) participated in the survey from 10 selected regions of Sichuan. After sorting, 436 valid questionnaires were selected for the survey. The data analysis was done with the inclusion of the Poisson Model and the Medicating Effect Test.

Research Result and Discussion

The result of the study reveals that hiring agricultural managers helps in improving farmland quality maintenance and quality protection behaviour. The result also mentioned that the recruitment of managers in plating cooperative farms in China helps enhance the application of technology and innovation in working procedures leading to improved agricultural industry business. The result of the research also mentioned that hiring managers in the agricultural cooperative industry sector promotes cross-period farmland quality protection behaviour.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Thus, the research concluded that hiring managers have a positive effect on the improvement of farmland quality maintenance behaviour and also helps in the maintenance of robustness in the industry. The research paper recommended the implementation of improved policies and the development of a standardised employment system in order to maintain better governance and also keep managers updated. In addition, the necessity of providing required support from stakeholders is also significant for better quality maintenance behaviour among farmers.  

Comments

The research provided a clear and detailed study of the significance of the recruitment of managers in farmland and planting cooperatives in China. The study was conducted in Sichuan, a part of China and the results were drawn based on primary data collection. However, the inclusion of secondary data and statistics regarding the presence of low farmland-quality maintenance behaviour could have helped in better understanding the challenges and advantages of manager recruitment. The article's some of the diagrams are written in Chinese language which makes it difficult for a wider audience. The study was conducted in a selected region of China, and the results could not be said to be applicable to agricultural industries all over the world since no variables of demographic or geographic factors were considered. Although the research paper is written in a simple form to make it easily understandable, however missing in-text citations could lead to lowered quality of the article.   

Areas for Improvement

1. Literature Review: While comprehensive, the literature review could be enhanced by discussing more about the theoretical frameworks that underpin the hypotheses, especially relating to the role of agricultural managers in similar socio-economic settings outside China.
2. Variable Clarification: The manuscript could benefit from a clearer explanation of how the variables were measured and how these measurements contribute to the overall reliability of the findings.
3. Discussion on Limitations: The manuscript could provide a more detailed discussion of its limitations, particularly concerning the generalizability of its findings outside the Sichuan context.

Recommendations for Minor Revisions

1. Enhance the Literature Review: Include additional recent studies to provide a broader theoretical and empirical context. Discussing global examples could enrich the findings' applicability and depth.
2. Clarify Methodological Details: Provide more details on variable measurement and selection rationale to enhance the manuscript's transparency and replicability.
3. Expand on Limitations and Implications: Broaden the discussion of limitations to include potential biases and the impact of regional economic policies. Additionally, a more detailed exploration of the policy implications could enhance the manuscript's practical relevance.
4. References Update: Ensure that all references are up to date and relevant, adding newer studies where possible to reinforce the manuscript’s contextual framework.

Decision: Minor Revision

The manuscript provides valuable insights into the role of agricultural managers in enhancing farmland quality protection behaviors. However, to fully meet the journal's standards, the authors should address the specified areas through minor revisions. These changes will strengthen the manuscript's theoretical grounding, methodological clarity, and practical implications, thereby enhancing its contribution to the literature on agricultural management and sustainable practices.

 

 

Author Response

Comments 1: Literature Review: While comprehensive, the literature review could be enhanced by discussing more about the theoretical frameworks that underpin the hypotheses, especially relating to the role of agricultural managers in similar socio-economic settings outside China.

Response 1: Agree.I've added some literature.However, there is less existing literature on agricultural managers joining cooperatives and in relation to green development. Is there any relevant literature to recommend?Thank you very much.

Comments 2: Variable Clarification: The manuscript could benefit from a clearer explanation of how the variables were measured and how these measurements contribute to the overall reliability of the findings.

Response 2: Agree.I made additional clarifications in L367-L37.

Comments 3:Discussion on Limitations: The manuscript could provide a more detailed discussion of its limitations, particularly concerning the generalizability of its findings outside the Sichuan context.

Response 3:Agree.I have added a discussion section to the text and included the limitations of this paper to explain them.

Comments 4:Enhance the Literature Review: Include additional recent studies to provide a broader theoretical and empirical context. Discussing global examples could enrich the findings' applicability and depth.

Response 4:Agree.I've added two documents, but there is still less literature related to co-operative agricultural managers. Thank you very much.Can you recommend some articles?Thank you very much.

Comments 5:Clarify Methodological Details: Provide more details on variable measurement and selection rationale to enhance the manuscript's transparency and replicability.

Response 5:Thank you very much for your advice.Thank you very much for this suggestion, and I've made further modifications.In particular, the measurement of the mediating variables is further described.How the remaining variables are measured is also illustrated in Table 1.

Comments 6:Expand on Limitations and Implications: Broaden the discussion of limitations to include potential biases and the impact of regional economic policies. Additionally, a more detailed exploration of the policy implications could enhance the manuscript's practical relevance.

Response 6:I have already stated the limitations of this paper in the discussion section.

Comments 7:References Update: Ensure that all references are up to date and relevant, adding newer studies where possible to reinforce the manuscript’s contextual framework.

Response 7:Agree, Thank you very much for your advice.I have ensured that the relevant literature is up to date.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A manuscript „How Hiring Agricultural Managers Affect Farmland Quality Protection Behavior in Farmers Cooperatives - Evidence Based on the Survey of Cooperatives in Sichuan, China“ focuses on the nexus of human capital in cooperatives and land quality protection on farms. This manuscript employs Poisson and mediating effect models to investigate data collected from 436 questionaries. The academic research introduces evidence from one country (China). Results provide an interesting contribution to the academic discourse and could be used as arguments of the public discussion.

However, Instructions for Authors (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions) argue that research manuscript sections should include Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions (optional). Thus, Discussion section must be added or combined with Results section. Two figures provide explanations in Chinese. This strange multilingual approach raises suspicions about the translation and publishing of the same results. This manuscript provides multiple cases of unethical citations and the link between the text and references is not clear. Although the general recommendation is major revision, the situation with citations could be a serious reason for the rejection.

The following remarks could help to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Abstract

L9-12. This sentence should be revised as it misleads readers. Kindly provide a clear focus or focuses of your research. It is not clear how the improvement of application technology level (L19-22) (in cooperative?) addresses human capital elements or a decision-making process of land quality protection behavior… Results do not address elements of human capital that supposed to be included in this research (see L19). The last sentence sounds like a general recommendation that could be given without this academic research. The description of results relies on the specific terms, and the understanding of results could be a challenge for scientists working outside the topic of the paper.

Introduction and Literature Review

Introduction places the study in a broad context and highlights why this research is important, provides some publications that cover this research niche. The significance of the academic contribution is explained; however, three hypotheses were moved to another section (this remark could be ignored). The aim is not highlighted and combined with information about methods (must be revised). Authors also fail to provide a clear message about the aim of this research as Abstract and Introduction introduce different aspects of the research object.

Authors must delete “and Literature review” because this section does not provide a literature review. Authors rely on 8 references to describe the current state of the research field, half of them are older than 10 years. Thus, Introduction fails to provide the most recent key publications in the investigated research area.

L31-33. This sentence is not clear (“storing grain in the land”?).

L35. Twenty …Documents? Twenty annual updates of…

L40-42. Authors should provide a reference that confirms the reliability of the introduced data.

L48. Authors should double-check a reference and all references in the manuscript.

L111-116. This sentence should be revised, the aim of this research must be clear. The current version of the manuscript provides different aims in Abstract and Introduction.

Definitions and Analytical Framework

This section explains definitions, provides hypotheses, and shows the research framework.

L125. What is the difference between new professional farmers and new farmers? Do Authors need so many different terms to explain characteristics of agricultural managers? L126 allows a reader to assume that Authors describe agricultural managers as a team. The composition of this team and team members’ contribution to farmland quality protection behavior in the context of this research is not clear. In fact, the description of the definition does not help to understand a research object. This gap must be covered…

L175-176. Do Authors link types of technologies with the categories? Should it be (b and f) instead of (2 and 6)?

L190. “..” requires a reference.

L197.  Authors are encouraged to double-check a reference.

L206. Authors are encouraged to double-check this sentence.

L208/L240/L264. Plural means that H₀ and H₁ are provided…

L214. The description of standardized management is inadequate to understand the phenomena. Fig. 1 includes three aspects of the standardized management that were not covered in this research. The link between two aspects of IT application and research variables is not clear too. The framework diagram must be revised and show the idea of this research, including main variables. According to Instructions for Authors, figure should contain only English text.  

L220. “..” requires a reference.

L241-242. The formulation of the hypothesis must be rephrased (“is yet to be verified”). Results of the research must confirm or reject this hypothesis…

Data and Methods

This manuscript does not provide a sufficient description to replicate the study. Authors do not provide a holistic approach that allows readers to see the complexity of the research framework and understand the link between applied methods/tests (readers discover details while they read Results) and main results. Although the research relies on well-established methods, the manuscript fails to provide detail brief explanations of their application or omits the mentioning of important steps of the study (for example, calculation of effects, etc.) and do not cite the relevant references. In this section, all citations violate academic ethics and direct to wrong or non-existent references. Furthermore, if this study uses formulas provided in (III) Model Construction, the manuscript must be rejected. That section provides wrong formula and fails to explain all components of the formulas. The aforementioned problems must be solved by Authors.

Data availability remark should be added (for example, available upon request or online, not available).

Another important aspect is related to the description of variables and understanding of their coding during this research. The description is insufficient, and the use of different terms complicates the understanding of the research process and results. Page 8 describes variables; however, their measures (and coding) are not explained. Table 1 dedicates the 3^rd column to assist the reader, but many variables remain without description. Authors are asked to revise this table. This is particularly important for the dependent variable, control and mediating variables. Applied coding procedures should be clear.

The introduction of “director characteristics” requires the revision and clarification. In abstract, it is explained that this manuscript analyzes elements of social capital of agricultural managers. Do Authors include “director” in a team of “agricultural managers” or separate a position with management function? Different groups mean that Authors do not analyze elements of social capital of agricultural managers and the abstract must be revised.

L278. Authors should add the number of cooperatives in 2020 to demonstrate the reliability of this research.

L274/L275. What do Authors mean by “the development of …agricultural managers”.

L292-300. “…” requires a reference...

Fig. 2. According to Instructions for Authors, figures should contain only English text.

L307. 28[29]?

L314. models (58)?

Estimated Results and Related Tests

All citations and references violate academic ethics.

Table 3. What is the difference between the column “Farmland Quality Protection Behavior in Cooperatives” and the column “Farmland Quality Protection Behavior in Cooperatives”? The same problem in Table 5…

L434. The heterogeneity analysis I is omitted.

L460-461 mentions non-existent Column (5). Authors are encouraged to double-check this sentence and provided data.

L476. 347 or 346?

Discussion

According to Instructions for Authors, this section is compulsory and must be added.

Research Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

This section should be evidence-based and use the results of the research to provide specific recommendations. Authors provide general recommendations, and the importance of their research is not obvious. Authors could ignore this comment, because Instructions for Authors do not provide specific requirements.

References

The link between the manuscript and the list of references is not clear. Some citations in this manuscript do not provide links to references, most of the references in the text direct to wrong or non-existent references. The current situation can be classified as multiple violations of academic ethics. The reference list must be edited (see Instructions for Authors).

Author Response

Comments 1: Abstract L9-12. This sentence should be revised as it misleads readers. Kindly provide a clear focus or focuses of your research. It is not clear how the improvement of application technology level (L19-22) (in cooperative?) addresses human capital elements or a decision-making process of land quality protection behavior… Results do not address elements of human capital that supposed to be included in this research (see L19). The last sentence sounds like a general recommendation that could be given without this academic research. The description of results relies on the specific terms, and the understanding of results could be a challenge for scientists working outside the topic of the paper.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestions, I've changed the summary section accordingly.

Comments 2: Introduction and Literature Review 1.Authors also fail to provide a clear message about the aim of this research as Abstract and Introduction introduce different aspects of the research object. 2.Thus, Introduction fails to provide the most recent key publications in the investigated research area. 3.L31-33. This sentence is not clear (“storing grain in the land”?). 4.L35. Twenty …Documents? Twenty annual updates of… 5.L40-42. Authors should provide a reference that confirms the reliability of the introduced data. 6.L48. Authors should double-check a reference and all references in the manuscript. 7.L111-116. This sentence should be revised, the aim of this research must be clear. The current version of the manuscript provides different aims in Abstract and Introduction.

Response 2: Agree. I have made the following changes: 1. The purpose of the study is described at L27-L31 and L120-L125; 2. I've added and updated some literature.However, there is less existing literature on agricultural managers joining cooperatives and in relation to green development. Is there any relevant literature to recommend?Thank you very much. 3. Thank you for your question. “storing grain in the land” is a development direction set by the Chinese government in accordance with the current national conditions, and is a proper noun. It refers to alleviating the problems of high food storage costs and losses, increasing resilience to global market fluctuations and sudden crises, avoiding over-cultivation and predatory cultivation, promoting agricultural and ecological balance, and reducing dependence on imports, so that the initiative for food security can be taken in the country's own resource base. 4. The Chinese government releases the Central Document No. 1 at the beginning of each year, and twenty Central Documents No. 1 have been released from 2004 to 2024. 5. Thank you very much for your suggestion, I have labelled the source of the data. 6. Thanks, I've checked and verified it. 7. Thank you very much for your suggestion, and with the literature combing in mind, I have added a note in the L116-L120 section.

Comments 3:Definitions and Analytical Framework 1.L125. What is the difference between new professional farmers and new farmers? Do Authors need so many different terms to explain characteristics of agricultural managers? L126 allows a reader to assume that Authors describe agricultural managers as a team. The composition of this team and team members’ contribution to farmland quality protection behavior in the context of this research is not clear. In fact, the description of the definition does not help to understand a research object. This gap must be covered… 2.L175-176. Do Authors link types of technologies with the categories? Should it be (b and f) instead of (2 and 6)? 3.L190. “..” requires a reference. 4.L197.  Authors are encouraged to double-check a reference. 5.L206. Authors are encouraged to double-check this sentence. L208/L240/L264. Plural means that H0 and H1 are provided… 6.L214. The description of standardized management is inadequate to understand the phenomena. Fig. 1 includes three aspects of the standardized management that were not covered in this research. The link between two aspects of IT application and research variables is not clear too. The framework diagram must be revised and show the idea of this research, including main variables. According to Instructions for Authors, figure should contain only English text.   7.L220. “..” requires a reference. 8.L241-242. The formulation of the hypothesis must be rephrased (“is yet to be verified”). Results of the research must confirm or reject this hypothesis…

Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestions,I have made the following amendments: 1. L128-L139,A number of skills, such as the green development philosophy of farm managers, can promote the adoption of farmland quality protection practices by cooperatives. 2. Thank you very much for the heads up, I have made the changes in L178. 3. I've cited the reference. 4. Thank you very much for the reminder I have made further optimisations and changes. 5. Agree.L204-L205.L120.L239.L262 6. Agree. I've made changes to both images. 7. I've cited the literature. 8. I have made the appropriate changes in L246-L248.

Comments 4:Data and Methods 1.This manuscript does not provide a sufficient description to replicate the study. Authors do not provide a holistic approach that allows readers to see the complexity of the research framework and understand the link between applied methods/tests (readers discover details while they read Results) and main results. Although the research relies on well-established methods, the manuscript fails to provide detail brief explanations of their application or omits the mentioning of important steps of the study (for example, calculation of effects, etc.) and do not cite the relevant references. In this section, all citations violate academic ethics and direct to wrong or non-existent references. Furthermore, if this study uses formulas provided in (III) Model Construction, the manuscript must be rejected. That section provides wrong formula and fails to explain all components of the formulas. The aforementioned problems must be solved by Authors. 2.Data availability remark should be added (for example, available upon request or online, not available). Another important aspect is related to the description of variables and understanding of their coding during this research. The description is insufficient, and the use of different terms complicates the understanding of the research process and results. Page 8 describes variables; however, their measures (and coding) are not explained. Table 1 dedicates the 3rd column to assist the reader, but many variables remain without description. Authors are asked to revise this table. This is particularly important for the dependent variable, control and mediating variables. Applied coding procedures should be clear. 3.The introduction of “director characteristics” requires the revision and clarification. In abstract, it is explained that this manuscript analyzes elements of social capital of agricultural managers. Do Authors include “director” in a team of “agricultural managers” or separate a position with management function? Different groups mean that Authors do not analyze elements of social capital of agricultural managers and the abstract must be revised. 4.L278. Authors should add the number of cooperatives in 2020 to demonstrate the reliability of this research. 5.L274/L275. What do Authors mean by “the development of …agricultural managers”. 6.L292-300. “…” requires a reference... Fig. 2. According to Instructions for Authors, figures should contain only English text. 8.L307. 28[29]? L314. models (58)?

Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestions,I have made the following amendments: 1. Thank you very much for your suggestion, I have further explained why I chose the Poisson model in L367-L371, and also modified the formulae again. 2. Thank you very much for your suggestions. An explanation of how the variables were measured is provided in Table 1, in addition to further explanation of how the mediator variables were measured and how they were measured(L348-L353). 3. Agree, the paper further modifies the abstract, in addition to the fact that this paper is considering agricultural managers as an element of human capital. 4. Thank you very much for your suggestions and questions. Due to objective constraints, there are only 436 valid samples in this issue. We will continue to expand the sample size of co-operatives in subsequent studies. 5. The sentence means that the development of agricultural managers and co-operatives in Sichuan Province is typical, and it is better to select a sample in this area. 6. Data from “Action Program for Agricultural and Rural Pollution Control (2021-2025)” 7. Agree, I have made changes to figure 2 . 8. The sentence means that 58 model cooperatives chose to employ agricultural managers.

Comments 5:Estimated Results and Related Tests 1.All citations and references violate academic ethics. 2.Table 3. What is the difference between the column “Farmland Quality Protection Behavior in Cooperatives” and the column “Farmland Quality Protection Behavior in Cooperatives”? The same problem in Table 5… 3.L434. The heterogeneity analysis I is omitted. 4.L460-461 mentions non-existent Column (5). Authors are encouraged to double-check this sentence and provided data. 5L476. 347 or 346?

Response 5:  I very much agree with the valuable comments you have made and I have made the following changes: 1. I've made changes to the reference citation formatting throughout the text. 2. Table 3 shows the robustness tests that were done to investigate whether there is still a significant effect on the co-operative's cropland quality protection behaviour by changing the econometric model and the core explanatory variables. Table 5 discusses whether the employment of agricultural managers in cooperatives affects cooperative cropland quality protection behaviour through the two paths of standardised management and information technology application, respectively. 3. Thank you very much for your suggestion. Co-operative counsellor system is a system in the Chinese context, and a heterogeneity analysis of it can better serve policy formulation. If necessary, it can be deleted. 4. Thank you very much for the heads up, I've made the correction at L481. 5. I've fixed the error and standardised the sample size to 436.

Comments 6:Discussion According to Instructions for Authors, this section is compulsory and must be added.

Response 6: Agree.I have added a discussion section to the text and included the limitations of this paper to explain them.

Comments 7:Research Conclusions and Policy Recommendations This section should be evidence-based and use the results of the research to provide specific recommendations. Authors provide general recommendations, and the importance of their research is not obvious. Authors could ignore this comment, because Instructions for Authors do not provide specific requirements.

Response 7: Thank you very much for your suggestions, I'm already making further changes and marking them in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

More attention should be paid to editing references to meet journal requirements. Certain authors are written in capital letters, not following the journal's style.

The additions and changes made by the author have improved the article.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your thorough revisions and thoughtful responses to the review comments. I appreciate the effort you have put into enhancing the manuscript by addressing the suggested improvements.

After reviewing the revised version, I find that all necessary corrections have been made, including enhancements to the literature review, clarification of variable measurements, expansion on limitations, and updates to references. The manuscript now meets the required standards in terms of theoretical grounding, methodological clarity, and practical implications.

Based on these improvements, I now recommend that this article is suitable for publication.

Best regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the update of the manuscript and the laborious hours on the Discussion section. This section demonstrates your expertise and accumulated knowledge, however, the interpretation of the results in perspective of previous studies could be a valuable contribution (see Instructions for Authors). Authors could use references from Introduction to fill this gap in the Discussion or introduce additional references to highlight the value of their research and show a broader academic research context. Authors are not encouraged to create a long section. Nevertheless, the Discussion does not reference any studies, and such presentation of the section is atypical.

Introduction

Thank you for the revision of the Introduction and adding 2 papers. The problem with relevant references is related to the narrow focus of your literature review. The research on the link of the social capital and land protection behaviour is covered in many studies. This aspect is often challenged in the papers that investigate the implementation of the rural development tools (EU CAP). Most of those studies cover this aspect as a fragment of the research. However, Authors ignore even the local research that has a clear focus on the similar topic (for example, Wei Duan and and Guangqiang Luo (2024)). Authors are not encouraged to cite this paper, and other papers are not proposed in order to avoid ethical issues related to citations. The current version of Introduction could remain.  

Please remove “and Literature Review” from the subtitle. The Instructions for Authors require to include the review of the current state of the research field and mention key publications in “Introduction” not in “Introduction and Literature Review” (see Instruction for Authors).

Fig. 1 must be edited. The rotation of the text can solve the problem.

L278 (last review). The question was about the number of cooperatives in the investigated area.

L274/275 (last review). Do you mean the development of skills?

L434 (last review). It was not a proposal to delete. It was a remark about the absence of the relevant reference to describe the procedure in the text (still missing).

L203/L233/L259. Thank you for the agreement, however, the situation did not change. Authors provide only one hypothesis after plural. Alternative hypotheses are not mentioned…

Data and Methods.

The issue of the brief description and appropriate citations for well-established methods remains.

References

Authors are encouraged to print a list of references and double-check the presence of all citations in the manuscript. The random check of the text shows that the problems of unethical citations remain and references in the text are not related with the provided reference list. Kindly give references to original sources of the mentioned research or make the cases of secondary citation from the reference clear (see Robustness Test section).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf