Review Reports - Does Participation in Aquaculture Cooperatives Increase Farmers′ Profit and Output?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study is focused on evaluating the relationship between partecipation in cooperativs and profit by part of fish farms in China. Two regression models were run in order to estimate it (the variables were regressed on profit and output per unit area, respectively). Methodology is suitable and well applied, however I suggest some minor revisions as to improve the qualit of the paper:

1. I would expect a time gap between decision to partecipate in cooperatives and economic effects. Please, specify why you not consider this gap and illustrate the limits of the study related to this shortcoming.

2. Discussion on policy implications derived from the study should be enlarged

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Ref. No.: fishes-1772746

Title: Does participation in aquaculture cooperatives increase farmers’ profit and output?

Thank you very much for your comments about our manuscript. Those comments are valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding to our researches. We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments.

List of Actions

LOA1: I would expect a time gap between decision to partecipate in cooperatives and economic effects. Please, specify why you not consider this gap and illustrate the limits of the study related to this shortcoming.

LOA2: Discussion on policy implications derived from the study should be enlarged

Responses to the comments

I would expect a time gap between decision to partecipate in cooperatives and

economic effects. Please, specify why you not consider this gap and illustrate the limits of the study related to this shortcoming.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. In this study, the effect of farmers’ participation time on the economic effects is not distinguished. As the reviewers pointed out, there is a time gap between cooperative participation and economic effects. This time gap is not considered in this study, which may make the benefits of cooperative participation underestimated. We clarify this shortcoming in the discussion section and look forward to the solution. The revised content is as follows:

“……This time gap is not considered in this study. While the existence of this time gap does not alter the results of significant economic gains from cooperative participation, it may underestimate the economic gains. In future research, we will add an option for the duration of cooperative participation in the questionnaire design to more accurately estimate the economic impact of cooperative participation.” (Page 9 line 306)

Discussion on policy implications derived from the study should be enlarged

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We added policy implications to Section Conclusion, and changed Section Conclusion to Section Conclusions and Policy Implications. The added content is as follows:

“The policy implications of our results are as follows. Firstly, in the current context of rural revitalization, the Chinese government should take various policy measures to encourage farmers to participate in professional farming cooperatives, so as to help farmers increase their income. This is especially important for China’s large aquaculture provinces such as Zhejiang and Shandong. Secondly, cooperatives should increase support for older farmers, and at the same time, establish a mutual aid mechanism between experienced older farmers and well-educated young farmers, so as to give full play to their respective advantages and maximize the economic benefits. Thirdly, the government should establish a normalized assistance mechanism for cooperatives, and provide support in aquaculture information, technical training, and market information, such as regularly sharing the latest aquaculture technology and market information with cooperatives, and conducting regular technical training.” (Page 10 line 328)

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Danfeng Cai

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript deals with a very interesting topic. However, the discussion completely lacks a precise theoretical framework. What theoretical postulates lead to the assumption that participation in the cooperative produces positive effects on profits and productivity? Something is hinted at in section 4.1 but it should be elaborated upon. The treatment of the control variables is also very superficial. Some variables are not even mentioned; others are mentioned but not explained.

Which units are used for Table 1?

A thorough review of the work is suggested

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Ref. No.: fishes-1772746

Title: Does participation in aquaculture cooperatives increase farmers’ profit and output?

List of Actions

LOA1: What theoretical postulates lead to the assumption that participation in the cooperative produces positive effects on profits and productivity? Something is hinted at in section 4.1 but it should be elaborated upon.

LOA2: Which units are used for Table 1?

LOA3: thorough review of the work is suggested.

Responses to the comments

What theoretical postulates lead to the assumption that participation in the cooperative produces positive effects on profits and productivity? Something is hinted at in section 4.1 but it should be elaborated upon.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In fact, the theoretical analysis of economic benefits brought by cooperative participation has been relatively sufficient. As the theoretical demonstration is not the innovation point of this paper, only the section Discussion discusses the theoretical mechanism behind the impact of cooperative participation on economic benefits. At present, a large number of studies on the impact of cooperative participation on farmers’ economic benefits often only mention relevant theories in literature review without detailed analysis. However, the reviewers’ opinions are still good. In the future, we will try to challenge the existing literature from the theoretical point of view and explore a new theory of the impact of cooperative participation on farmers’ economic benefits.

Which units are used for Table 1? A thorough review of the work is suggested

Response: Thank you for pointing out the error. We have added units to all the variables in Table 1 that involve units.

A thorough review of the work is suggested

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have reviewed the full text in detail and corrected the errors through revision mode.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Danfeng Cai

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author(s)

The study focuses its analysis on China's marine aquaculture industry, which is predominantly privately managed. The empirical analysis reveals the extent to which cooperatives help to avoid the various risks to which these operators are exposed and how much they contribute to increased productivity. The analysis shows that membership in cooperatives increases net profits by about 15.15% on average and increases output per unit by about 11.47%. The information services, technical guidance and marketing guidelines gained from membership of cooperatives are the main reasons for this. The study has a very well-written introduction, which provides a good background to the study, the problems of existing research and the significance of the study. The study is well deserving of publication in this journal, but some corrections should be made before it is published.

Major revision

In 2.2 Data sources, the period of the questionnaire survey should be stated.

On page 3, it is explained that the two analysed provinces are leading regions for aquaculture in China. Here, the explanation would be even clearer if the volume and share of farmed fish shipments were mentioned.

On page 3, line 107, it is stated that three mechanism variables were selected for the empirical analysis. However, the reasons why these three variables were selected are not explained. The reasons for selecting these variables should be discussed in light of previous research.

On page 5, line 143, it is stated that the two analysed regions have significant differences with regard to geographical location and economic development. Some explanation should be given as to the degree of geographical location and economic development that may influence the results of the analysis.

In the conclusions, policy implications based on the results of the analysis could be discussed.

Minor revision

On page 3, line 93, a period is struck twice.

In some places in the manuscript, such as "in cooperatives" on page 3, line 104, two spaces are taken up, which should be corrected.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Ref. No.: fishes-1772746

Title: Does participation in aquaculture cooperatives increase farmers’ profit and output?

List of Actions

LOA1: In 2.2 Data sources, the period of the questionnaire survey should be stated..

LOA2: On page 3, it is explained that the two analysed provinces are leading regions for aquaculture in China. Here, the explanation would be even clearer if the volume and share of farmed fish shipments were mentioned.

LOA3: On page 3, line 107, it is stated that three mechanism variables were selected for the empirical analysis. However, the reasons why these three variables were selected are not explained. The reasons for selecting these variables should be discussed in light of previous research.

LOA4: On page 5, line 143, it is stated that the two analysed regions have significant differences with regard to geographical location and economic development. Some explanation should be given as to the degree of geographical location and economic development that may influence the results of the analysis.

LOA5: In the conclusions, policy implications based on the results of the analysis could be discussed.

LOA6: On page 3, line 93, a period is struck twice.

LOA7: In some places in the manuscript, such as "in cooperatives" on page 3, line 104, two spaces are taken up, which should be corrected.

Responses to the comments

In 2.2 Data sources, the period of the questionnaire survey should be stated.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In 2.2 data source, we have added the period of questionnaire survey. The added content is as follows:

“…The survey was conducted from January to June 2021…” (Page 2 line 87)

On page 3, it is explained that the two analysed provinces are leading regions for aquaculture in China. Here, the explanation would be even clearer if the volume and share of farmed fish shipments were mentioned.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added units to all the variables in Table 1 that involve units. The added content is as follows:

“…In 2019, aquaculture output in Zhejiang and Shandong accounted for about 16.72 percent of the total national output, and aquaculture output accounted for about 15.86 percent of the total output. Although the output and output value of aquaculture in the two provinces is not high in China, the number of individual aquaculture farmers in the two provinces is in the forefront of the country…” (Page 3 line 90)

On page 3, line 107, it is stated that three mechanism variables were selected for the empirical analysis. However, the reasons why these three variables were selected are not explained. The reasons for selecting these variables should be discussed in light of previous research.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In fact, in section 4.1 of this paper, the influence mechanism of existing cooperative participation on farmers’ economic income is explained to some extent, and three theoretical explanations are proposed by citing literatures.

On page 5, line 143, it is stated that the two analysed regions have significant differences with regard to geographical location and economic development. Some explanation should be given as to the degree of geographical location and economic development that may influence the results of the analysis.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We give an example of how geography might affect the results. The added content is as follows:

“…For example, Xiangshan belongs to the East China Sea, while Rongcheng belongs to the Yellow Sea. Water pollution in the East China Sea is more severe than that in the Yellow Sea, which may reduce aquaculture production and product quality in the East China Sea, thus affecting economic returns.…” (Page 5 line 147)

In the conclusions, policy implications based on the results of the analysis could be discussed.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In the conclusion section, we have added a discussion of policy implications. The added content is as follows:

On page 3, line 93, a period is struck twice.

Response: Thank you for pointing the error. We have corrected this error.

In some places in the manuscript, such as "in cooperatives" on page 3, line 104, two spaces are taken up, which should be corrected.

Response: Thank you for pointing the error. We have corrected this error.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Danfeng Cai

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I remain convinced that a more robust theoretical framework would benefit the work. However, I suggest clarifying what is written in the authors' response: ... "As the theoretical demonstration is not the innovation point of this paper".

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Ref. No.: fishes-1772746

Title: Does participation in aquaculture cooperatives increase farmers’ profit and output?

List of Actions

LOA1: I remain convinced that a more robust theoretical framework would benefit the work. However, I suggest clarifying what is written in the authors’ response: ... "As the theoretical demonstration is not the innovation point of this paper"..

Responses to the comments

I remain convinced that a more robust theoretical framework would benefit the work. However, I suggest clarifying what is written in the authors' response: ... "As the theoretical demonstration is not the innovation point of this paper".

Response: Thank you very much for your reply. We believe that theoretical framework is indeed very important in some empirical research, especially for those empirical papers where independent variables are not directly related to the dependent variables. There have been abundant empirical studies on the impact of cooperative participation on farmers’ income, and there are many relevant theoretical explanations. The difference of this paper mainly lies in verifying whether the impact of cooperative participation on farmers’ income can also be established in the aquaculture industry. We believe that there is no need to construct a theoretical framework for a topic that has been supported by many empirical research. Instead, we should focus on whether this new topic can be established in aquaculture industry.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Danfeng Cai