The Impact of Government Subsidies on the Environmental Performance of Agricultural Enterprises

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I was appointed as one of the reviewers to assess the quality of your manuscript. After reading your manuscript, I want to provide first a note of appreciation and a note for minor concerns. First, the overall quality of the paper is fine. The introduction section is somehow well-structured. You used relevant references to support every argument throughout the manuscript. The methodology meets perfectly my expectations as well as the report of the findings, which suits the discussion and the policy recommendations. However, I have several recommendations. First, the objectives of the paper need to be clearly articulate in the introduction section. In the last paragraph of section 2 of the manuscript, you highlight several gaps in the literature. It would be better to shift this paragraph to the introduction section. The paper misses an important section: the context. Please inform the readers about green agriculture in China, government intervention in support of this sector in line with the sustainable development goals. Ensure that the manuscript is free of grammatical errors. I found several issues of punctuation in it. The quality of the communication would improve by connecting the paragraphs with the appropriate words and ensure good flow of transition throughout the paper.I hope you find these comments constructive.

 

Regards,

Author Response

Reviewer 1#

I was appointed as one of the reviewers to assess the quality of your manuscript. After reading your manuscript, I want to provide first a note of appreciation and a note for minor concerns. First, the overall quality of the paper is fine. The introduction section is somehow well-structured. You used relevant references to support every argument throughout the manuscript. The methodology meets perfectly my expectations as well as the report of the findings, which suits the discussion and the policy recommendations. However, I have several recommendations.

(1) The objectives of the paper need to be clearly articulate in the introduction section.

A1: Thank you very much for your question. Based on your suggestion, we clearly stated the research purpose in the introduction section. For the revised part, see the section of 1. Introduction in the revised manuscript. (See P.1-3, marked in RED).

(2) In the last paragraph of section 2 of the manuscript, you highlight several gaps in the literature. It would be better to shift this paragraph to the introduction section.

A2: Thank you very much for your question. We have carefully considered your proposal. We add the blank parts of the literature research to the introduction. For the revised part, see the section of 1. Introduction in the revised manuscript. (See P.2-3, marked in RED).

(3) The paper misses an important section: the context. Please inform the readers about green agriculture in China, government intervention in support of this sector in line with the sustainable development goals.

A3: Thank you very much for your valuable opinions. As you said, the original manuscript lacks a clear description of the background of green agriculture in China. Therefore, based on your suggestions, we have added the actions of the Chinese government on the green transformation of agriculture, as well as some data on the current state of agricultural ecology in China, to better reflect the background of this study. For the revised part, see the section of 1. Introduction in the revised manuscript. (See P.2, marked in RED).

(4) Ensure that the manuscript is free of grammatical errors. I found several issues of punctuation in it. The quality of the communication would improve by connecting the paragraphs with the appropriate words and ensure good flow of transition throughout the paper. I hope you find these comments constructive.

A3: Thank you very much for your question. According to your request, we have polished the language of the entire text to ensure that it complies with academic norms.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript presents an interesting study focused on the development of the agricultural sector in the context of state financial support. The problem of environmentally friendly agricultural products requires a solution, because cleaner production increases the costs of agricultural producers. There are a number of recommendations that could make the manuscript more attractive to readers.

1. In the introduction, to motivate the research problem, it is possible to supplement statistical material on the costs of ecology in Chinese agriculture in dynamics, and more clearly formulate the purpose of the study.
2. In part 3.1, it is advisable to review the studies of the environmental Kuznets curve and thereby strengthen the substantiation of hypothesis 1.
3. Equation 2 for testing hypotheses 2 and 3 is questionable.  Equation 2 measures the relationship between government subsidies and internal control and media. How to see the mediating role on environmental performance is not entirely clear.
4. The English language in section 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 requires improvement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear 

Author Response

Reviewer 2#

The manuscript presents an interesting study focused on the development of the agricultural sector in the context of state financial support. The problem of environmentally friendly agricultural products requires a solution, because cleaner production increases the costs of agricultural producers. There are a number of recommendations that could make the manuscript more attractive to readers.

 

(1) In the introduction, to motivate the research problem, it is possible to supplement statistical material on the costs of ecology in Chinese agriculture in dynamics, and more clearly formulate the purpose of the study.

A1: Thank you very much for your question. Based on your suggestions, we have not only supplemented the investment in China's agricultural ecological governance in the introduction part of the article, but also provided relevant statistical data on the problems faced by China's agricultural ecology. For the revised part, see the section of 1. Introduction in the revised manuscript. (See P.2, marked in RED).

(2) In part 3.1, it is advisable to review the studies of the environmental Kuznets curve and thereby strengthen the substantiation of hypothesis 1.

A2: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have carefully studied the viewpoints on the environmental Kuznets curve and believe that it is very relevant to our research content. Therefore, in this section, we have supplemented the environmental Kuznets curve to strengthen the confirmation of Hypothesis 1. For the revised part, see the section of 2. Theoretical analysis and research hypotheses in the revised manuscript. (See P.4, marked in RED).

(3) Equation 2 for testing hypotheses 2 and 3 is questionable.  Equation 2 measures the relationship between government subsidies and internal control and media. How to see the mediating role on environmental performance is not entirely clear.

A3: Thank you for the question you raised. We have carefully considered your suggestions. In the original draft, only the relationship between government subsidies and mediating variables (external media attention and internal control) was examined. For the relationship between mediating variables and the environmental performance of agricultural enterprises, we only conducted theoretical analysis and did not adopt specific empirical tests. Therefore, based on your suggestion, we adopted a three-step method to test the mediating mechanism, reset the model, and added mediating variables on the basis of the benchmark regression model. The empirical results still verify our hypothesis. For the revised part, see the section of 3.3. Model Setting in the revised manuscript. (See P.8-9, marked in RED).

(4) The English language in section 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 requires improvement.

A4: Thank you for your suggestion. We not only polished the language of this part, but also reviewed the entire text and made language revisions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper analyzes the impact of government subsidies on the environmental performance of agricultural enterprises in China. It finds an inverted U-shaped relationship and some mediating mechanisms in the relationship.  The subject and the methodology used in the paper are highly interesting and appropriate for publication in Sustainability.

 However, I have some suggestions or comments I would like to be considered by the authors before recommending the paper for its publication.

 

1. The introduction devotes a lot of space to contextualizing sustainable development, climate change, and the international framework (such as the SDGs), which is useful but delays access to the central theme of the paper: the effect of government subsidies on the environmental performance of agricultural companies.

I think the introduction could be improved to bring it more in line with what is expected of a scientific paper: Summarize the overall issue in 2-3 sentences; clearly state the specific problem and hypothesis; justify the relevance of the study and its novel contribution. All these points are in the introduction, but I think this section should be summarized much more and stick to those relevant points.

 

2. The literature review is also too general at the beginning: the text devotes considerable space to defining broad concepts such as externalities or subsidies in general, without immediately focusing on the agricultural context, which is the focus of the paper. I believe that this section could be merged with the next section on theory in order to narrow and refine the focus of the article much more.

3. To test Hypothesis 1, they use some type of panel model or fixed effects or mixed effects, but they do not actually indicate which method they use. In panel data models, it is crucial to comply with the fixed effects endogeneity hypothesis, and for this, fixed effects tests and the Hausman endogeneity test are essential.

4. Furthermore, they do not justify why they use a single lag period in the GS. Why not two or three years? Is it possible to change the entire production system of an agricultural operation in a single year to improve EP?

5. If the instrumental variables model is correct (as it appears to be), then the regressions in Table 2 are inconsistent, because the justification for the endogeneity of GS is not due to fixed effects but to variable effects.

6. I think it would be interesting to do a propensity score matching as a robust test, but you should provide more details.

7. H2 states EMA plays a mediating role in the impact of government subsidies on the environmental performance of agricultural enterprises. It is a mediating or moderating effect, and H3 that the level of internal control plays a mediating role in the impact of government subsidies on the environmental performance of agricultural enterprises.

To estimate these hypotheses, a path analysis should be performed to estimate not only the effect of subsidies on EMA and IC, but also the direct effect of subsidies on EP and the indirect effects of subsidies on EP through EMA and IC. To do this, a system of at least three simultaneous equations had to be estimated: one to explain EP with subsidies, EMA and IC as regressors, and two others where EMA and IC would be the explained variables.

You mention that you use instrumental variables, but what instruments do you use, and what are the endogenous variables in regression model 1? Subsidies? Why should subsidies be correlated with the error term in (1)? If that were the case, the results in Table 1 would not be correct. I would appreciate your help in understanding what type of model you are estimating in sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, because if it is equation (2), I do not see how you estimate the effect of EMA or IC on EP. Why have you not included these variables in regression (1)? This would give you a system of three equations with which to estimate the mediating effects on EP. Because if you only estimate (2) in isolation, you only estimate part of the mediating effect, the effect of GS on EMA and on IC, but not the effect of the latter on the target variable.

 

Furthermore, if they are using an instrumental variable method, they should indicate the instrument weakness tests, Hausman endogeneity tests, and overidentification tests, which are typical of instrumental variable models. The problem is that they do not explain or indicate which variables are endogenous or which instruments are used.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are several sentences with unnatural or awkward grammatical constructions that should be revised. For example:

• Abstract: “Under the dual constraints of ecological embeddedness of agricultural production and weak market, it is of great significance to study…” I think “Ecological embeddedness” sounds forced, and “weak market” is grammatically incorrect without an article.
• Line 56 “In this paper, the paper analyzes the problems existing”
• Line 108.. “Later, Pigou and Coas”, it is “Coase”
• Please review the rest of the paper for typos and grammatical errors.

Author Response

Reviewer 3#

The paper analyzes the impact of government subsidies on the environmental performance of agricultural enterprises in China. It finds an inverted U-shaped relationship and some mediating mechanisms in the relationship.  The subject and the methodology used in the paper are highly interesting and appropriate for publication in Sustainability.

 However, I have some suggestions or comments I would like to be considered by the authors before recommending the paper for its publication.

(1) The introduction devotes a lot of space to contextualizing sustainable development, climate change, and the international framework (such as the SDGs), which is useful but delays access to the central theme of the paper: the effect of government subsidies on the environmental performance of agricultural companies.

I think the introduction could be improved to bring it more in line with what is expected of a scientific paper: Summarize the overall issue in 2-3 sentences; clearly state the specific problem and hypothesis; justify the relevance of the study and its novel contribution. All these points are in the introduction, but I think this section should be summarized much more and stick to those relevant points.

A1: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We fully agree with your point of view. Indeed, the introduction currently delves too deeply into contexts such as sustainable development, climate change, and international frameworks. Although these contents are helpful in building the broad context of the research, they may delay the presentation of the core issues of the paper. To better conform to the structure and expectations of scientific papers, we have revised the introduction, simplified the background section, and focused on elaborating the core issues and hypotheses of the paper. Clearly point out the specific issue of the impact of government subsidies on the environmental performance of agricultural enterprises, and further emphasize the innovation and practical contribution of this research. For the revised part, see the section of 1. Introduction in the revised manuscript. (See P.1-3, marked in RED).

(2) The literature review is also too general at the beginning: the text devotes considerable space to defining broad concepts such as externalities or subsidies in general, without immediately focusing on the agricultural context, which is the focus of the paper. I believe that this section could be merged with the next section on theory in order to narrow and refine the focus of the article much more.

A2: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We have merged the content of this section with the next one and defined two titles, namely, “Research on the environmental performance of enterprises” and “Research on the Economic Consequences of Government Subsidies”. For the revised part, see the section of 2. Theoretical analysis and research hypotheses in the revised manuscript. (See P.4, marked in RED).

(3) To test Hypothesis 1, they use some type of panel model or fixed effects or mixed effects, but they do not actually indicate which method they use. In panel data models, it is crucial to comply with the fixed effects endogeneity hypothesis, and for this, fixed effects tests and the Hausman endogeneity test are essential.

A3: Thank you for your question. Before conducting the regression, we performed a Hausmann test, and the result rejected the null hypothesis. Therefore, the fixed effects model is adopted in this paper. However, this test content was not supplemented in the text. Based on your suggestion, we have supplemented these contents in the revised draft. For the revised part, see the section of 4. Empirical results in the revised manuscript. (See P.9, marked in RED).

(4) Furthermore, they do not justify why they use a single lag period in the GS. Why not two or three years? Is it possible to change the entire production system of an agricultural operation in a single year to improve EP?

A4: Thank you very much for the insightful questions you raised in this section. First, from the perspective of policy implementation and accounting disclosure, it is common for Chinese listed companies to recognize government subsidies in their annual reports with a delay, typically after the actual disbursement. Meanwhile, environmental performance indicators usually reflect the initial impact of subsidies from the previous year during the comprehensive year-end assessment. As a result, the first-phase lag effectively captures the immediate transmission path of subsidies on environmental performance. Second, from the practical standpoint of agricultural enterprises, although agriculture inherently involves some periodicity and delays, the current focus of green governance is primarily on the introduction of end-of-pipe treatment equipment and the improvement of compliance operations. These measures tend to yield initial results within the year the subsidies are granted or the following year. Therefore, on an observable annual scale, the adoption of a one-phase lag in government subsidies is already sufficiently representative. 

(5) If the instrumental variables model is correct (as it appears to be), then the regressions in Table 2 are inconsistent, because the justification for the endogeneity of GS is not due to fixed effects but to variable effects.

A5: Thank you very much for the question you raised. We fully recognize it. In this part, we adopted the two-stage least squares method for estimation. Due to our negligence, we did not elaborate on which model was specifically used for the test. Therefore, we have incorporated the specific estimation methods adopted in the revised draft. Meanwhile, we checked the regression results. As some symbols were omitted during the data export process, which affected your judgment, we corrected the results of each table. For the revised part, see the section of 4.2.1. Instrumental variables in the revised manuscript. (See P.10, marked in RED).

(6) I think it would be interesting to do a propensity score matching as a robust test, but you should provide more details.

A6: Thank you very much for your valuable opinions. As you said, our description in this part is not detailed enough. Therefore, in the revised draft, we have supplemented the detailed operation process for conducting PSM testing. For the revised part, see the section of 4.2.2. Propensity score matching (PSM) test in the revised manuscript. (See P.10-11, marked in RED).

(7) H2 states EMA plays a mediating role in the impact of government subsidies on the environmental performance of agricultural enterprises. It is a mediating or moderating effect, and H3 that the level of internal control plays a mediating role in the impact of government subsidies on the environmental performance of agricultural enterprises.

To estimate these hypotheses, a path analysis should be performed to estimate not only the effect of subsidies on EMA and IC, but also the direct effect of subsidies on EP and the indirect effects of subsidies on EP through EMA and IC. To do this, a system of at least three simultaneous equations had to be estimated: one to explain EP with subsidies, EMA and IC as regressors, and two others where EMA and IC would be the explained variables.

You mention that you use instrumental variables, but what instruments do you use, and what are the endogenous variables in regression model 1? Subsidies? Why should subsidies be correlated with the error term in (1)? If that were the case, the results in Table 1 would not be correct. I would appreciate your help in understanding what type of model you are estimating in sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, because if it is equation (2), I do not see how you estimate the effect of EMA or IC on EP. Why have you not included these variables in regression (1)? This would give you a system of three equations with which to estimate the mediating effects on EP. Because if you only estimate (2) in isolation, you only estimate part of the mediating effect, the effect of GS on EMA and on IC, but not the effect of the latter on the target variable.

 Furthermore, if they are using an instrumental variable method, they should indicate the instrument weakness tests, Hausman endogeneity tests, and overidentification tests, which are typical of instrumental variable models. The problem is that they do not explain or indicate which variables are endogenous or which instruments are used.

A7: Thank you very much for your question. In the original draft, only the relationship between government subsidies and mediating variables (external media attention and internal control) was examined. For the relationship between mediating variables and the environmental performance of agricultural enterprises, we only conducted theoretical analysis and did not adopt specific empirical tests. Therefore, based on your suggestion, we adopted a three-step method to test the mediating mechanism, reset the model, and added mediating variables on the basis of the benchmark regression model. The empirical results still verify our hypothesis. For the revised part, see the section of 3.3. Model Setting in the revised manuscript. (See P.8-9, marked in RED).

(8) Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are several sentences with unnatural or awkward grammatical constructions that should be revised. For example:

• Abstract: “Under the dual constraints of ecological embeddedness of agricultural production and weak market, it is of great significance to study…” I think “Ecological embeddedness” sounds forced, and “weak market” is grammatically incorrect without an article.
• Line 56 “In this paper, the paper analyzes the problems existing”
• Line 108.. “Later, Pigou and Coas”, it is “Coase”
• Please review the rest of the paper for typos and grammatical errors.

A8: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We have carefully reviewed the entire text and polished the language throughout.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed all my questions and suggestions. I congratulate them on their work and recommend their paper for publication.

I only have a couple of minor comments, should the authors wish to consider them.

1. Although the Hausman test is cited to justify the use of the fixed effects model, I have not actually been able to see the results of this test in Table 2 (perhaps it could be added as an additional row).
2. I think it could be made even clearer and more explicit that it is the GS variable itself that could present a problem of endogeneity (because surely the most efficient firms are also the ones that would receive the most grants) And I think it should also be made explicit in section 4.2.1 that although the fixed effects estimator does control for this endogeneity by eliminating all heterogeneous fixed effects from one firm to another, another alternative is precisely to use instrumental variables. That is why two-stage least squares is a robustness test and not a substitute for the fixed effects estimator.
3. In Table 3, should the LM statistic and the Wlad test be under column 2 or under both columns (2) and (3)?
4. When estimating system 1-3, for there to be a mediating effect of EMA and IC, both variables should appear as explanatory variables in (1) because this is the way to ensure that there is not only a direct effect of GS and GS2 on EP, but also another indirect effect of GS and GS on EP through EMA and through EP. For this reason, equation (1) should be rewritten to include both EMA and IC. In Table 4, equation (1) should be identical (as it appears to be) to column (3) of Table 2. Therefore, I believe it is a repetition. It is not necessary to include it. In fact, what is done now is to disaggregate that effect between a direct effect and an indirect effect through EMA and IC. Thus, although it makes sense to include column (2) [equation (2)] and column (4) [equation (3)], these two regressions should now be estimated together with a new equation (1) that includes both EMA and IP as additional explanatory variables, and not separately (not column (3) and column (5)). It seems that instead of estimating a system of three equations, you have estimated two systems of two equations.This is nos incorrect. But you must include the estimation of the complete 3 ecuations. Furthermore, when using a system such as this path analysis, it is normal for the direct effect coefficients to be reduced. This is because the total effects (the sum of the direct and indirect effects) must also be reported. Let me explain

          EP= a*GS + b*GS2 + c*EMA + d*IC + e*X+ ui
          EMA= h*GS + i*GS2 + j*X + vi
          IC= k*GS + l*GS2 +m*x + wi

Then Effects of GS (not considering GS2) on EP

• dEP/dGS= a + c*h+d*k
  being
• a: direct effects
• c*h: indirect effect mediated by EMA
• d*k: indirect effect mediated by IC

There are many statistical software programs that allow you to estimate these systems (SEM, PLSEM, or Hayes's Process macro for R, SPSS, or SAS) and obtain (and make inferences about) total effects, direct effects, and indirect effects.

 

I would like to conclude by reiterating my congratulations to the authors for their work and the review carried out.

 

Author Response

Dear editor,

 

We would like to thank the reviewers again for their detailed revision suggestions on our manuscript (ID: Sustainance-3778073). We sincerely thank the reviewers for their profound insights and constructive suggestions. The relevant feedback not only enhances the theoretical depth of the article but also strengthens the rigor of the empirical analysis. In the revised draft, we have made perfect or supplementary explanations for your questions one by one. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the manuscript. And here we did not list the changes but marked in RED in revised manuscript. We believe that under your guidance, the revised content is more perfect and detailed.

 

Reviewer 3#

 

The authors have adequately addressed all my questions and suggestions. I congratulate them on their work and recommend their paper for publication.

I only have a couple of minor comments, should the authors wish to consider them.

(1) Although the Hausman test is cited to justify the use of the fixed effects model, I have not actually been able to see the results of this test in Table 2 (perhaps it could be added as an additional row).

A1: Thank you very much for your suggestions. As you said, we only stated in the text that we conducted the Hausmann test to determine the model selection and did not present the relevant chi-square statistics results. Based on your suggestion, we have newly added the data of the Hausmann test in Table 2:

c² = 28.38，p = 0.001

According to the results of the Hausman test, it is appropriate for this study to choose the fixed-effect model. For the revised part, please refer to Table 2 in the revised manuscript. (See P.10, marked in RED).

(2) I think it could be made even clearer and more explicit that it is the GS variable itself that could present a problem of endogeneity (because surely the most efficient firms are also the ones that would receive the most grants) And I think it should also be made explicit in section 4.2.1 that although the fixed effects estimator does control for this endogeneity by eliminating all heterogeneous fixed effects from one firm to another, another alternative is precisely to use instrumental variables. That is why two-stage least squares is a robustness test and not a substitute for the fixed effects estimator.

A2: We are very grateful for your valuable suggestions. As you said, it is rather abrupt to directly describe the use of instrumental variable methods to consider endogeneity. Based on your suggestions, we have added the detailed modification instructions you provided in this section. Firstly, enterprises with high environmental performance may receive higher government subsidies, which may lead to a reverse cause-and-effect effect. Secondly, although the fixed-effect model used in this study did eliminate some fixed heterogeneity issues, it still could not completely solve the endogeneity problem. Therefore, this study selects the two-stage least squares method as the robustness test. For the revised part, see the section of 4.2.1. Instrumental variables in the revised manuscript. (See P.10, marked in RED).

(3) In Table 3, should the LM statistic and the Wlad test be under column 2 or under both columns (2) and (3)?

A3: Thank you very much for your question. We agree with your suggestion. It is appropriate to place these two test results between the first stage and the second stage, and they should be placed between columns (1) and (3). In fact, in our article, the LM statistic and the Wlad test are placed in columns (1) to (3) of Table 3. However, since column (2) is in the middle, the table is displayed in column (2).

(4) When estimating system 1-3, for there to be a mediating effect of EMA and IC, both variables should appear as explanatory variables in (1) because this is the way to ensure that there is not only a direct effect of GS and GS2 on EP, but also another indirect effect of GS and GS on EP through EMA and through EP. For this reason, equation (1) should be rewritten to include both EMA and IC. In Table 4, equation (1) should be identical (as it appears to be) to column (3) of Table 2. Therefore, I believe it is a repetition. It is not necessary to include it. In fact, what is done now is to disaggregate that effect between a direct effect and an indirect effect through EMA and IC. Thus, although it makes sense to include column (2) [equation (2)] and column (4) [equation (3)], these two regressions should now be estimated together with a new equation (1) that includes both EMA and IP as additional explanatory variables, and not separately (not column (3) and column (5)). It seems that instead of estimating a system of three equations, you have estimated two systems of two equations.This is nos incorrect. But you must include the estimation of the complete 3 ecuations. Furthermore, when using a system such as this path analysis, it is normal for the direct effect coefficients to be reduced. This is because the total effects (the sum of the direct and indirect effects) must also be reported. Let me explain

          EP= a*GS + b*GS2 + c*EMA + d*IC + e*X+ ui
          EMA= h*GS + i*GS2 + j*X + vi
          IC= k*GS + l*GS2 +m*x + wi

Then Effects of GS (not considering GS2) on EP

• dEP/dGS= a + c*h+d*k
  being
• a: direct effects
• c*h: indirect effect mediated by EMA
• d*k: indirect effect mediated by IC

There are many statistical software programs that allow you to estimate these systems (SEM, PLSEM, or Hayes's Process macro for R, SPSS, or SAS) and obtain (and make inferences about) total effects, direct effects, and indirect effects.

 A4: Thank you very much for your detailed opinions. We have carefully considered your suggestions. The following modifications are made: Firstly, the results in column (3) of Table 2 and column (1) of Table 4 in the text you mentioned are repetitive. We initially did this for comparison. According to your suggestion, we will delete the data in column (1) of Table 4. Secondly, you mentioned the model construction and testing method of the mediation test, and we fully agree. In Model (3), we replaced the original mediation variable M with EMA and IC, that is, we added two mediation variables on the basis of model (1). The model is as follows:

(3)

Finally, based on the test method you provided, we conducted a regression on the newly constructed model. The results still verified the hypotheses of this study, with an indirect effect value of 0.254. Thank you again for your detailed revision suggestions, which have enhanced the rigor of the article. For the revised part, see the section of 3.3. Model Setting and 4.3. Test of influence mechanism in the revised manuscript. (See P.8-9,12 marked in RED).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf