Farmers’ Willingness and Adoption of Water-Saving Agriculture in Arid Areas: Evidence from China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments
The article presents a study focused on the adoption intentions and behaviors of water-saving technologies among farmers in arid regions of China, specifically in Ulanqab City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. The research aims to understand the transformation of farmers' willingness into actual adoption behaviors, a critical step for improving water resource utilization in water-scarce areas. To help the authors improve the quality of the work, I provide a summary of some areas for possible improvement. Some specific comments are shown below.
1. The manuscript would benefit from a more explicit connection between the research questions and the broader implications for sustainable development in arid regions.
2. The sample size of 494 households is commendable, but it is crucial to ensure that this sample is representative of the broader population of farmers in arid areas of China. More information on the sampling methodology would strengthen the study.
3. The use of Probit models is appropriate for the binary outcome variable. However, the authors might consider discussing the rationale for choosing Probit over other models such as Logit, to address potential concerns about model selection.
4. The definitions of the core independent and moderating variables need to be clearer. The manuscript should include a detailed explanation of how these variables were operationalized and measured.
5. While the authors have addressed endogeneity using an IV-Probit model, it would be helpful to provide a more thorough discussion on potential omitted variable biases and how these were mitigated.
6. The authors should consider discussing alternative interpretations and how their findings might differ from other studies in the field.
7. The paper makes use of Prospect Theory and Mental Accounting Theory, but it could be strengthened by a more explicit discussion of how this study advances or challenges existing theoretical frameworks.
8. The methods section should provide more detail on the data collection process, variable measurement, and the statistical techniques used to ensure replicability of the study.
9. The manuscript would benefit from a more extensive literature review that situates the study within the context of current research, highlighting gaps that this study addresses.
10. The authors might consider providing more detailed recommendations or a discussion on how these might be implemented in practice.
11. There are areas where the writing could be more concise. Some sections could be restructured for better flow and readability.
12. Ensure that all references cited in the text are included in the reference list and that they are formatted consistently according to the journal's guidelines.
13. The manuscript would benefit from the inclusion of figures or tables to illustrate key findings, such as the distribution of adoption willingness and behavior among the sample.
14. The conclusion effectively summarizes the findings, but it could be strengthened by including a discussion on the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageneed to be improved
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment for detailed modification instructions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting article. However, I have the following concerns:
1- Are there alternative models or methods that could have been considered to validate the results, than the Probit model?
2- The study is based on data from 494 households in Ulanqab City, Inner Mongolia. How representative is this sample of the broader population in similar arid regions? Could there be regional biases that limit the generalizability of the findings?
3- The study suggests that income perception plays a positive role, while cost perception plays a negative role in influencing adoption behavior. How do these findings align with or differ from existing literature on technology adoption in agricultural settings? Do the data support the interpretations, and have potential confounding factors been adequately addressed?
4- Have the authors considered the potential economic, social, and cultural barriers hindering the adoption of their recommendations?
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment for detailed modification instructions
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The article presents an interesting approach to the issue of investment in water-saving technologies, through the use of survey research. In my opinion, the article has great publishing potential, but in my opinion the authors have neglected certain important issues. In my opinion, the article is written quite chaotically. Only in the results does one learn what was analyzed and how. Earlier, the methodology lacks a clear explanation. The presented study was conducted at a very high level of generalization, which is why the obtained results are predictable. I have included my detailed comments directly in the comments, in the text. At this stage, the article is not yet ready for publication.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment for detailed modification instructions
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSummary
This paper investigates the relationship between farmers’ willingness and behavior in adopting water-saving technologies based on data collected during the rural household survey conducted in Inner Mongolia, China in 2023. Overall I find this manuscript thorough and well-written, and thus recommend its acceptance after minor revisions.
Specific comments:
- Introduction section. Reference is needed for this sentence: “Many local governments in arid regions are actively promoting the construction of rainwater collection facilities in farmland, adhering to the principles of “determining population, land, and city according to water availability.” “
- Introduction section. “This study serves as a valuable complement to existing understandings of the relationship between willingness and behavior from the Theory of Planned Behavior.” It would be worth mentioning the Prospect Theory and Mental Accounting Theory as well.
- Section 2.1. “According to the Theory of Planned Behavior[10]…” Please consider adding the original reference for the Theory of Planned Behavior: Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50, 179–211.
- Section 3.1. “ In each sample township, ecological migrant villages were chosen as sample villages at different levels, …“ Please clarify the meaning of “villages at different levels”.
- Section 3.2. (a) Please add descriptions for alpha in the equations. (b) Equation 1 has an extra plus sign that needs to be removed. (c) Since there are both economic costs and learning costs, a similar equation as equation 3 might need to be added.
- Section 3.3. Please explain more how the adoption behaviour was measured specifically. What kind of water-saving technologies are referred to in the context of the survey?
- Section 4. (a) The subsection number should be 4.1? (b) Column 3 should be column 2 instead?
- Section 4.2. In the third paragraph, it would be helpful to add a few more words summarizing the key takeaways from Tables 4 and 5.
- Section 4.3.1. Please delete the space between “Effect” and “s”.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment for detailed modification instructions
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors well addressed my concern, and the paper can be accepted.
Author Response
Thanks for your careful reading and hard work, we have revised the language of the paper again and changed the title of the paper to (Farmers’ willingness and adoption of water-saving agriculture in arid areas: evidence from China), which we think is more concise and accurate.Thank you sincerely
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you very much for correcting the article. The article has been significantly improved. However, there are still many spelling and punctuation errors that should be corrected. I have included my minor comments in the text. I believe that after the corrections have been made, the article can be published.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks for your careful reading and valuable comments, we have corrected some spelling and language problems according to the marks you made, and the references have also been revised. In addition, we have revised the title of the paper to (Farmers’ willingness and adoption of water-saving agriculture in arid areas: evidence from China), which we think is more concise and concise.
Finally, thank you again for your hard work.
