The Effect of the Use of Digital Technology on the Impact of Labor Outflow on Rural Collective Action: A Social–Ecological Systems Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, in overall terms, presents clear objectives and hypotheses, corroborating the positive effects of digital technologies in collective action, alleviating the detrimental effect of labour outflow. The author/s also made a good bibliographic review with the right references, methodology, survey and population. 

Just minor changes could be suggested:

• The mention of the number of inhabitants and area of the region of Guangxi.
• The inclusion of the source in all the tables and figures.
• The definition of collective action at the beginning of the research.
• The discussion paragraph has a low number of before references. Author/s must include more references according to its finding of "digital technologies and rural labour outflow". 
• Some inclusion of references about the role of coworking spaces in rural areas could help to alleviate this labour outflow and collective action. 

Author Response

Reply to the Comments

 

We really appreciate opportunity to revise and resubmit. The comments and suggestion from editor and the reviewers were very helpful and insightful, which we believe will greatly improve the quality of the paper.

 

According to the valuable suggestions of reviewers, we made major changes to the article and totally rewrote both the theoretical part and the empirical test part. We believe all the comments have been considered sincerely and seriously and the manuscript has been modified accordingly.

 

For the detailed corrections, please see the revised manuscript. Our responses are highlighted in blue while the reviewers’ and editor’s comments are in black.

 

 

 

Reviewer #1:

 

The manuscript, in overall terms, presents clear objectives and hypotheses, corroborating the positive effects of digital technologies in collective action, alleviating the detrimental effect of labour outflow. The author/s also made a good bibliographic review with the right references, methodology, survey and population.

Just minor changes could be suggested:

1. The mention of the number of inhabitants and area of the region of Guangxi.

Reply:

In accordance with your suggestion, we have incorporated the population and area data for the Guangxi region into the manuscript. The detailed modifications are provided in Lines 360-362.

 

2. The inclusion of the source in all the tables and figures.

Reply:

Following your recommendation, we have included the sources for the charts in the text. The specific changes can be found in Line 289, Line 417, and Lines 463-464.

 

3. The definition of collective action at the beginning of the research.

Reply:

In revising this manuscript, we have taken into account your and other reviewers' comments, resulting in a moderate revision of the introduction section. Detailed modifications can be found in Lines 34-134. Furthermore, based on your suggestion, we have added the definition of collective action to the introduction, with the specific changes made in Lines 34-50.

 

4. The discussion paragraph has a low number of before references. Author/s must include more references according to its finding of "digital technologies and rural labour outflow". 

Reply:

Based on your feedback, we have reviewed the existing literature on digital technology and rural labor outflow. In the discussion section, we have expanded our analysis by adding more references. The relevant modifications can be found in Lines 660-706.

 

5. Some inclusion of references about the role of coworking spaces in rural areas could help to alleviate this labour outflow and collective action. 

Reply:

In response to your suggestion, we have included content on collaborative workspaces in the discussion section. Detailed modifications are available in Lines 697-706.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on first-hand survey data, the author focuses on the impact of labor migration on village irrigation collective action, and explores the moderating effect of the use of digital technology on the two. In general, the topic has some significance, and some work has been done. However, some deficiencies remain, specifically the following:

(1) The introduction needs to be moderately rewritten. First, the importance and urgency of the whole research needs to be highlighted. It is suggested that the author should discuss the importance and urgency of the whole study from the dependent variable (the dilemma of village collective action), rather than from the labor migration driven by urbanization. In fact, labor migration is just the background. At the same time, in the introduction, the author does not give some background information about the use of digital technology. That is, the three core concepts in the title are not systematically introduced clearly. Second, the marginal contribution of the whole research is not clear. Through the introduction, I understand what the author wants to do. However, the discussion in the introduction is obviously not convincing and needs to be further optimized and improved. It would be better to further elaborate the marginal contribution of the whole study in the last paragraph of the introduction.

(2) The literature review also needs to be systematically rewritten. First, the concept definition of several core variables involved in the paper may need to be further explained. At the same time, the interaction between the three variables may also need to be properly reviewed. The present review is obviously missing pieces.

(3) The selection of research methods. The core independent variable of the author is the proportion of labor outflow, which is a continuous variable. Why should the iv-oprobit model be used to deal with endogenous factors? Isn't it better to just use 2SLS? At the same time, which group is the author targeting for regulating the use of the variable Internet? The author's dependent variable is irrigation facilities, which should be used in rural areas, and the group whose family has the ability to use the Internet may be the group of migrant workers, but this group has little correlation with agricultural production. How to deal with this problem?

Author Response

Reply to the Comments

 

We really appreciate opportunity to revise and resubmit. The comments and suggestion from editor and the reviewers were very helpful and insightful, which we believe will greatly improve the quality of the paper.

 

According to the valuable suggestions of reviewers, we made major changes to the article and totally rewrote both the theoretical part and the empirical test part. We believe all the comments have been considered sincerely and seriously and the manuscript has been modified accordingly.

 

For the detailed corrections, please see the revised manuscript. Our responses are highlighted in blue while the reviewers’ and editor’s comments are in black.

 

 

 

Reviewer #2:

 

Based on first-hand survey data, the author focuses on the impact of labor migration on village irrigation collective action, and explores the moderating effect of the use of digital technology on the two. In general, the topic has some significance, and some work has been done. However, some deficiencies remain, specifically the following:

 

1. The introduction needs to be moderately rewritten. First, the importance and urgency of the whole research needs to be highlighted. It is suggested that the author should discuss the importance and urgency of the whole study from the dependent variable (the dilemma of village collective action), rather than from the labor migration driven by urbanization. In fact, labor migration is just the background. At the same time, in the introduction, the author does not give some background information about the use of digital technology. That is, the three core concepts in the title are not systematically introduced clearly. Second, the marginal contribution of the whole research is not clear. Through the introduction, I understand what the author wants to do. However, the discussion in the introduction is obviously not convincing and needs to be further optimized and improved. It would be better to further elaborate the marginal contribution of the whole study in the last paragraph of the introduction.

Reply:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. Based on your suggestion, we have revised the introduction to emphasize the importance and urgency of the study, and we have systematically introduced the three core concepts. The detailed modifications can be found in Lines 34-96. Specifically, the introduction outlines the definition and current state of rural collective action, emphasizing the research's significance and urgency (Lines 34-65). We have also enhanced the discussion on the impact of digital technology on rural development, showcasing the transformative effects of digital technology in rural areas of developing countries (Lines 81-96). Additionally, we have reworded the marginal contribution of the study to strengthen its persuasiveness (Lines 122-134). Further details of these changes are provided in Lines 34-134.

 

2.The literature review also needs to be systematically rewritten. First, the concept definition of several core variables involved in the paper may need to be further explained. At the same time, the interaction between the three variables may also need to be properly reviewed. The present review is obviously missing pieces.

Reply:

In response to your suggestion, we have conducted a systematic review of existing research on labor outflow and the relationship between digital technology and rural development. We have added a section on "2.2 Research on Labor Outflow" in the literature review, with detailed content available in Lines 175-202. Furthermore, we have added "2.4 Research on the Relationship Between Digital Technology and Rural Development," with detailed modifications found in Lines 230-249.

 

3.The selection of research methods. The core independent variable of the author is the proportion of labor outflow, which is a continuous variable. Why should the iv-oprobit model be used to deal with endogenous factors? Isn't it better to just use 2SLS?

Reply:

Thank you for your suggestion. According to Wooldridge (2015), the choice of regression method should be based on the dependent variable, rather than the independent variable. Thus, the dependent variable in this study, PCM (a binary variable indicating whether the household has participated in collective maintenance of village irrigation canals in the past five years), is binary (0-1). Therefore, the appropriate models for this study are the probit model and IV-probit model. The abbreviation "OPTROBIT" in the original text was a typographical error, which has now been corrected. Detailed modifications can be found in Lines 541-542.

 

At the same time, which group is the author targeting for regulating the use of the variable Internet? The author's dependent variable is irrigation facilities, which should be used in rural areas, and the group whose family has the ability to use the Internet may be the group of migrant workers, but this group has little correlation with agricultural production. How to deal with this problem?

Reply:

We apologize for the confusion, which may have arisen from translation issues in the original manuscript. We would like to clarify the following: the term "villager" in the original text refers to the respondent, so in the revised manuscript, we have adjusted the terminology in the variable table to reflect that the data pertains to the households of the surveyed farmers, not the general village population. This clarification can be found in Lines 464-465. Regarding your concern about the surveyed farmers not necessarily being users of the irrigation system, we conducted a pre-survey screening to ensure that only farmers who confirmed their use of the irrigation system were included in the subsequent data collection. This ensures that the sample in this study consists of actual users of the irrigation system, although differences exist in their participation in irrigation governance and use of information technology. We have added a detailed explanation of this process in the text, and the specific modifications are available in Lines 409-413.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no other comments, thank you.