Barriers to the Development of Agricultural Mechanization in the North and Northeast China Plains: A Farmer Survey
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject of the article is interesting, and it is linked to the objectives of the journal, however, there are some issues that have to be reconsidered.
The Abstract part is quite long, so difficult to read and understand. I suggest making it short and easier to read and follow, as the abstract should be rewritten in a clearer and more thorough manner. It does not provide an overall presentation of the study.
For better visibility on databases, the authors are asked not to repeat among keywords the words/concepts included in the title of the article.
The literature review seems to be quite superficial, short, and not enough developed to relieve the importance of the subject and how it is approached by other scholars.
A map of the region could help the readers to better understand the material.
There is no clear how the sample was set, how the respondents were selected, and why the sample is representative of the entire population.
The results are interesting and they are well discussed, but the conclusions are not enough to sustain the results. The use of the research is, so, insufficiently explained at the conclusion part.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author(s)
This study investigates what factors hamper the development of agricultural mechanization in the North and Northeast China using interview surveys with 1,023 farmers. As a result, what farmers regard as the main barriers changes according to regions and presence or absence of machine. For example, farmers in the Northeast China regard a lack of practice opportunities for machinery as the main barriers while farmers in the North China regard to land fragmentation as the main barriers. Additionally, farmers without machinery regards a lack of practice opportunities for machinery and machine purchase cost as the main barriers while farmers with it regards maintenance costs as the main barriers. Thus, author(s) suggests that government should provide farmers with subsidies for agricultural machinery and the practice opportunities for machinery to promote the development of agricultural mechanization.
This study is interesting and useful because author(s) explain current status of agricultural mechanization in China and reveals why the mechanization is delayed. Moreover, author(s) suggests how to improve the current status. This gives policymakers useful information. However, author(s) should revise this manuscript via the followings:
- In introduction, author(s) should refer more case studies of countries failed or succeeded in agricultural mechanization. In particular, author(s) should mainly refer case studies about Southeast Asia because readers can compare the mechanization in China with in other regions via this revision. This leads to highlight features of China.
- In discussion, author(s) can compare results of this study in China with related matters in Southeast Asia. This leads to reveal whether this results depend on country specific factors or regional common factors.
- In conclusion, author(s) should state limitations and future direction of this study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the proposed Manuscript titled “Barriers to the development of agricultural mechanization in the North and Northeast China Plains: A farm survey”, the Authors have described the situation of Chinese agricultural mechanization in two particular contexts (NCP and NEP), and the limitations of its diffusion in farm different for dimensions, land fragmentation and management.
The study is interesting and take in account different important mechanical, economic and social aspects, but requires improvements. Nevertheless, in this form, the study appears too many generic and is more similar to a report than a scientific paper.
Specific comments (noted in the manuscript)
Introduction
Lines 40: The bibliographic citation [3] is old. Could the Authors consider a more recent publication?
Line 47: The Authors wrote: “To accelerate agricultural mechanization, the Chinese government issued a series of policies to encourage farmers to use machinery, including financial subsidies for machine purchases, subsidies for machine operations, and supporting cooperatives to provide machinery for individual farmers [6].”, but this reference refers to Benin Republic. Please correct.
Materials and Methods
Line 138: Please specify what is meant by “social referent”.
Results and Discussion
Results and Discussion chapters are very long, with many repetitions. I suggest to reduce and synthetize both parts distinguishing what is result and what is discussion.
Another relevant aspect is the follow: in any part of the manuscript, the type of mechanization (tractors size, typologies and size of operating machines and harvesting machines) has not been specified. I think that the mechanization level could be different according to the different situations analyzed, in terms of farm surface and management (i.e. farmers vs. cooperatives). Please explain and discuss this theme.
In Discussion chapter, the use of bibliographic citations is often incoherent. For example, cit. [37] (line 326), does not confirm the results obtained in the study, since refers to Vietnam. Also cit. [48] is incoherent, because refers to Italian context, and so on. Please review and better contextualize all the bibliographic citations to adequately support the concepts explained in the Discussion chapter.
Line 318: the Authors mentioned generic problems about using machines for irrigation. What are these problems?
Line 336: please substitute “U-Turns” with “Turning manoeuvers”.
Line 337: please substitute “acreage” with “surface”.
Line 349: what kind of irrigation machinery? Please specify.
Line 352: 1 kg/m3 of what? Please specify.
Lines 386 and 388: please convert RMB in dollars.
Line 402: what is meant by “mu”?
References
Line 523: this reference is not present in the text of the manuscript. Please remove.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors succeeded in answering all my concerns.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author(s)
This manuscript has been revised according to the reviewers' comments. Therefore, it is recommended that the Editor-in-Chief approves it for publication in the journal. Good luck.
Sincerely.
Reviewer 3 Report
This reviewer appreciates the author’s efforts to improve the manuscript. Results and Discussion chapters are much clearer now, and the manuscript flows better and guides the reader to the need for the study.
