Does Outsourcing Service Reduce the Excessive Use of Chemical Fertilizers in Rural China? The Moderating Effects of Farm Size and Plot Size

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors studied the the effectiveness of FOS on reducing the OCF, the results are interesting, but there are several issues that need to be addressed before publication.

1. The writing needs to be polished. The authors should ask a native speaker for help with revision. Besides, there are many grammar problems, improper words and sentences.

2. The figure format is  non-standard, for example, the title of Fig.3a and Fig.3b should be merged.

3. The conclusion section should be revised to be concise and cover the main conclusions of the study.

4. There are too many references that need to be streamlined.

The writing needs to be polished. The authors should ask a native speaker for help with revision. Besides, there are many grammar problems, improper words and sentences.

Author Response

1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation		Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?		Can be improved	I give my corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below.
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?		Can be improved
Is the research design appropriate?		Can be improved
Are the methods adequately described?		Can be improved
Are the results clearly presented?		Can be improved
Are the conclusions supported by the results?		Can be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The authors studied the the effectiveness of FOS on reducing the OCF, the results are interesting, but there are several issues that need to be addressed before publication.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised this article as what you suggested.

Comments 2: The writing needs to be polished. The authors should ask a native speaker for help with revision. Besides, there are many grammar problems, improper words and sentences.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have invited a native speaker to help us polish this article and try to correct these grammar problems, improper words and sentences.

Comments 3: The figure format is  non-standard, for example, the title of Fig.3a and Fig.3b should be merged.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, Fig.3a and Fig.3b have been merged as Figure 3 which is named as the probability density before and after matching. Please see the Figure 3 in page 13.

Comments 4: The conclusion section should be revised to be concise and cover the main conclusions of the study.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, the conclusion has been streamlined. Please see the contents highlighted in page 16, paragraph 3, line 1-3, that are “chemical fertilizers are excessively used in China's agricultural production. Moreover, FOS reduces OCF only on large farms and plots but has no effect on reducing OCF on small farms and plots.”.

Comments 5: There are too many references that need to be streamlined.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have removed 40 references that are less relevant to this article.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The writing needs to be polished. The authors should ask a native speaker for help with revision. Besides, there are many grammar problems, improper words and sentences.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have invited a native speaker to help us polish this article and try to correct these grammar problems, improper words and sentences.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The English language is good 

Author Response

1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation		Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?		Can be improved	I give my corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below.
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?		Can be improved
Is the research design appropriate?		Can be improved
Are the methods adequately described?		Can be improved
Are the results clearly presented?		Can be improved
Are the conclusions supported by the results?		Can be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Title and Abstract: The title effectively summarizes the research topic, and the abstract provides a concise overview of the paper's main points. However, there is a minor typo in the abstract where "reducing" should be corrected to "reducing."

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised it as what you suggested. Please see the word “reducing” highlighted in line 5 of abstract.

Comments 2: Introduction: The introduction provides a good background on the issue of overuse of chemical fertilizers in China, the role of outsourcing services, and the significance of the problem. It effectively sets the stage for the research question. However, it could benefit from a more explicit statement of the research objective or hypothesis.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added the explicit statement of the research objective and hypothesis in this section. Please see the contents highlighted in page 3, paragraph 2, line 3-4, that is “Our hypothesis is that farm size and plot size can moderate the efficacy of FOS in reducing OCF.”, and the contents highlighted in page 3, paragraph 2, line 9-11, that is “The research objective of this article is to determine whether the effectiveness of FOS in reducing OCF increases as farm size and plot size increase.”.

Comments 3: Data and Methodology: The article briefly mentions the use of the Cobb-Douglas production function, OLS estimation, propensity score matching (PSM), and two-stage least square estimation (IV-2sls) as methods for analysis. To enhance the paper's rigor, consider providing more details about these methods and their application in your study.

 

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added the details about the methods we used in this article. Please see the contents highlighted in page 5, paragraph 3, line 3-4 (“OLS is widely used to explain causality between variables due to its simple and efficient computation.”), page 5, paragraph 5, line 3-5 (“Propensity score matching (PSM) is used to eliminate the selection bias due to the variable’s nonrandom nature “” by constructing a counterfactual analysis framework”), page 6, paragraph 2, line 4-6 (“The least squares estimation of two stages (IV-2sls) is always used to solve the problem of endogeneity, while the most critical step is to determine the right instrumental variable (IV).”), and page 6, paragraph 3, line 1-3 (“The Cobb-Douglas production function is widely used to describe the relationship between inputs and outputs. In this article, we also created a Cobb-Douglas production function to calculate the yield elasticity of chemical fertilizer and derive the “EUF.””).

 

Comments 4: Literature Review: The article incorporates relevant literature to build the research context and justify the study's significance. However, it would be valuable to include more recent studies and expand on the differing conclusions in the literature regarding the effectiveness of outsourcing services in reducing OCF.

 

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the references. Please see Reference 21, 22, 23, 25. We also expanded the literature review on the differing conclusions. Please see page 3, paragraph 1, line2-11 (“A large number of studies suggest that FOS helps reduce the OCF. However, some studies concluded that FOS exacerbates the OCF [21]. First, farmers may exert pressure on service organizations to use more chemical fertilizers in order to avoid potential production losses [22]. Second, service organizations may have opportunistic behavior when providing outsourcing services [23]. Service organizations may conspire with fertilizer dealers to increase their sales of chemical fertilizers in return for extra revenue, resulting in OCF [24]. On the other hand, service organizations may reduce service quality in order to save costs since the process of providing outsourcing services is difficult to monitor [12]. There are also some studies that found no significant correlation between FOS and OCF [25].”).

 

Comments 5: Research Hypothesis: The article introduces the hypothesis that the effectiveness of FOS on reducing OCF is moderated by farm size and plot size, which is a novel and interesting approach. However, it would be helpful to clearly state this hypothesis within the text for clarity.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the hypothesis to make it clearer. Please see the contents highlighted in page 4, paragraph 3, line2-3 (“In particular, FOS cannot reduce the OCF on small farms but can reduce the OCF on large farms.”), and page 5, paragraph 2, line 2-3 (“Specifically, FOS cannot reduce OCF on small plots but can reduce OCF on large plots.”).

Comments 6: Data Sources: The article mentions the use of survey data from six major grain-producing counties in Anhui Province, China. It would be beneficial to provide more information on the data collection process, sampling methods, and potential limitations of the dataset.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added the data collection process and sampling methods. Please see the contents highlighted in page 7, paragraph 2, line 2-9 (“Both multistage clustered random sampling and stratified random sampling methods were used to generate household samples. First, 6 major grain-producing counties were chosen as the study's locations. Second, one township with a high per capita income and one with a low per capita income are selected in each sample county. Third, one village with a high per capita income and one with a low per capita income are selected in each sample township. Fourth, in each village, 10 samples are taken from farmers whose farms are not less than 3.33 ha, and the other 10 samples are taken from farmers whose farms are less than 3.33 ha.”). We have also added potential limitations of the dataset. Please see the contents highlighted in page 8, paragraph 1, line 10-11 (“Limited data coverage and sample size may be the potential limitations of the dataset.”).

Comments 7: Results and Discussion: The article briefly mentions that FOS reduces OCF on large-sized farms and plots but loses effectiveness on small-sized ones. To enhance the discussion, consider providing more insights into why this difference occurs. Are there specific factors or mechanisms that explain these varying effects?

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added more discussion. Please see the contents highlighted in page 15, paragraph 1, line 7-13 (“In addition to restricting opportunistic behavior, large farms and plots provide conducive conditions for the application of FOS, which is particularly conducive to enhancing the effectiveness of mechanized operations, thereby promoting the reduction of OCF. Moreover, since large-scale farmers are often the opinion leaders in the village, they can easily spread the good reputation of service organizations, which encourages them to improve the quality of service on large farms and plots [50].”).

Comments 8: Policy Implications: The article discusses policy implications, suggesting the need for extending FOS and organizing effective land transfer. It would be beneficial to elaborate on how these policies can be implemented and their potential challenges.

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised policy Implications. Please see the contents highlighted in page 16, paragraph 4, line 5-16 (“It is necessary to extend the outsourcing service market to both demand and supply. The government should disseminate knowledge of scientific fertilization to farmers in order to reduce their concerns regarding FOS, thereby increasing their demand for outsourcing services. Some preferential policies, such as subsidies, should be given to attract more service organizations to provide outsourcing services. The local government should also provide outsourcing services if the service organization is not sufficient to meet the demand of FOS. Alternatively, land transfer should be encouraged, and both farm and plot sizes should be increased. The local government should mobilize village committees to integrate the scattered plots of land waiting to be leased into contiguous plots of land. Formal land transfer contracts should be encouraged to reduce the uncertainty of land transactions. Lastly, information platforms should be established in villages to reduce the information asymmetry of land transactions.”).

Comments 9: Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes the main findings but could benefit from a restatement of the research hypothesis and its implications. Additionally, it might be helpful to discuss the broader implications of the research beyond China's context.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have restated the hypothesis in the section of conclusions. Please see the contents highlighted in page 16, paragraph 3, line 2-3 (“Moreover, FOS reduces OCF only on large farms and plots but has no effect on reducing OCF on small farms and plots.”). We have also added the description of the scope of application of this article. Please see the contents highlighted in page 16, paragraph 5, line 1-4 (“other developing countries besides China also face the problem of land fragmentation, which is not conducive to reducing OCF through division of labor such as FOS. The conclusions of this paper have implications for these countries.”).

Comments 10: Citations and References: Ensure that all citations are correctly formatted, and check for consistency in the citation style.

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have checked all the citations in this article.

Comments 11: Language and Grammar: The overall language and grammar are good, but some sentences are quite long and could be broken down for clarity.

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have invited a native speaker to help us polish this article.

Comments 12: Overall, the paper addresses an important agricultural and environmental issue in China and offers an intriguing hypothesis regarding the moderating effects of farm and plot size on FOS effectiveness. Further clarification of research methods and a more in-depth discussion of the results would enhance the paper's impact.

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised this paper as what you suggested including further clarification of research methods (Response 3) and a more in-depth discussion of the results (Response 7).

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English language is good 

Response 1: Thank you for your recognition.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

General Review:

-          Interesting article that tries to find relationships and solutions between the abuse of fertilizer use in China and the size of farms and plots.

Introduction:

-          Please remove the space between "subsidies to" and "farmers".

-          Please remove the space between "35" and "A large".

-          Try to shorten the story of the evolution of fertilizer use in China. Especially about all the points that describe the problems of small and large owners. The introduction is excessively extensive and detailed when it comes to correctly dosing the doses of fertilizers.

-          I believe that the information provided in the manuscript from "the next section..." onwards is not necessary.

Data and Methods:

-          3.3. Please include some information from the survey conducted. What are you asking them?

Results:

-          4.1. Clarify what the 50% and 28% of adopted outsourcing services correspond to.

Discussion:

-          5.2. It is still necessary to address the problem on smallholder farms in your work. Therefore, it seems interesting to continue the discussion with data about what is proposed as a real solution. That is, extend the discussion of the last sentences of that section and propose real solutions.

-          The manuscript proposes addressing the problem in a way that the solution is useful not only for China. However, all the references and discussion (with very few exceptions) treat the topic in a local and not global way.

Author Response

1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation		Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?		Can be improved	I give my corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below.
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?		Can be improved
Is the research design appropriate?		Can be improved
Are the methods adequately described?		must be improved
Are the results clearly presented?		Can be improved
Are the conclusions supported by the results?		Yes

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Interesting article that tries to find relationships and solutions between the abuse of fertilizer use in China and the size of farms and plots.

Response 1: Thank you for your appreciation of this article.

Comments 2: Please remove the space between "subsidies to" and "farmers".

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have removed the space. Please see the contents highlighted in page 1, paragraph 1, line 6 (“subsidies to farmers”).

Comments 3: Please remove the space between "35" and "A large".

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have removed the space. Please see the contents highlighted in page 3, paragraph 1, line 2 (“[20]. A large”).

Comments 4: Try to shorten the story of the evolution of fertilizer use in China. Especially about all the points that describe the problems of small and large owners. The introduction is excessively extensive and detailed when it comes to correctly dosing the doses of fertilizers.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have simplified this part. Please see the contents highlighted in page 2, paragraph 3 (“It has been argued that smallholder farmers struggle to reduce the OCF since neither the machinery nor guidance on scientific fertilization are available, forcing them to increase the use of chemical fertilizers in order to avoid potential risks [11]. In addition, since small-scale procurement puts smallholders at a disadvantage in price negotiations, the techniques aimed at reducing the OCF, such as organic fertilizers and formula fertilization by soil testing, are too expensive for smallholders to be widely adopted [12]. Therefore, some scholars believe that the reduction of OCF can be accomplished by increasing farm size through land transfer [13]. However, empirical studies have discovered that large-scale farmers also use excessive chemical fertilizers [14]. Therefore, it is argued that neither smallholders nor large-scale farmers can attain the goal of reducing the OCF if they control the entire agricultural production process [12].”).

Comments 5: I believe that the information provided in the manuscript from "the next section..." onwards is not necessary.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have removed these contents. Please see page 3, paragraph 2.

Comments 6: 3.3. Please include some information from the survey conducted. What are you asking them?

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added the information. Due to space constraints, we are unable to attach the entire questionnaire. Please see the contents highlighted in page 8, paragraph 1, line 7-10 (“We primarily asked about the input and output of agricultural production and whether they used FOS for each production link. In addition, we asked the farmers about their personal and family conditions, such as their age, education years, risk preference, number of family members, family income, and so on.”).

Comments 7: 4.1. Clarify what the 50% and 28% of adopted outsourcing services correspond to.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the statement. Please see the contents highlighted in page 8, paragraph 2, line 6-8 (“50% of the sampled households used outsourcing services for at least one production link, but only 28% of them used outsourcing services for fertilization.”).

Comments 8: 5.2. It is still necessary to address the problem on smallholder farms in your work. Therefore, it seems interesting to continue the discussion with data about what is proposed as a real solution. That is, extend the discussion of the last sentences of that section and propose real solutions.

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added the contents about solutions. Please see the contents highlighted in page 15, paragraph 2, line 18 to the last of this paragraph (“Village cadres need to be patient to publicize the benefits of uniformly purchasing outsourcing services from smallholders. On the other hand, the village committee should introduce and endorse as many well-qualified service organizations as possible to increase farmers' trust in the uniform purchase of outsourcing services.”).

Comments 9: The manuscript proposes addressing the problem in a way that the solution is useful not only for China. However, all the references and discussion (with very few exceptions) treat the topic in a local and not global way.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added the contents in the last section to clarify the scope of application of this article. Please see the contents highlighted in page 16, paragraph 5, line 1-4 (“other developing countries besides China also face the problem of land fragmentation, which is not conducive to reducing OCF through division of labor such as FOS. The conclusions of this paper have implications for these countries.”).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Please update the references and data as suggested. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the re-submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation		Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?		Yes	I give my corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below.
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?		Yes
Is the research design appropriate?		Not applicable
Are the methods adequately described?		Yes
Are the results clearly presented?		Yes
Are the conclusions supported by the results?		Yes

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: This should be emphasized with lates reference

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the reference. Please see the contents highlighted in page 1, paragraph 1, line 8-9 (“Correspondingly, the input of chemical fertilizers increased from 49,277 million kg in 2006 to 52,507 million kg in 2020 [5]”).

Comments 2: All fertilizers do not acidify the soil

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the statement. Please see the contents highlighted in page 1, paragraph 1, line 12 (“may lead”).

Comments 3: This reference should also be updated.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the reference. Please see the contents highlighted in page 1, paragraph 1, line 13 (“In 2019, the proportion of high-quality land in the total farmland is only 31.24% [7]”).

Comments 4: Insert in equation form through word.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have reedited this equation through word. Please see Equation (1).

Comments 5: Insert in equisetin form through word.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have reedited this equation through word. Please see Equation (2).

Comments 6: Insert in equisetin form through word.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have reedited this equation through word. Please see Equation (3) and (4).

Comments 7: Insert in equisetin form through word.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have reedited this equation through word. Please see Equation (5).

Comments 8: Give the description in foot note

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added the foot note. Please see the foot note of Table 1 (“Note: Var means standard variance. Min means the Minimum value. Max means the Maximum value.”).

Comments 9: Give the description in foot note

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added the foot note. Please see the foot note of Table 7 (“ATT means the average treatment effect on the treated.”).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

After review of the response by the authors, I consider the article ready for publication.