Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article applies grounded theory coding techniques to analyze the interview data from 18 rice farmers, extracting and synthesizing the pathways through which digital technology use facilitates the adoption of green agricultural technologies by farmers, based on their practical cases.

The article addresses a relevant topic; however, there are many points that require substantial improvements before the article can be considered for publication:

- The abstract should be restructured, starting with the contextualization of the topic, presenting the objective, methodological aspects, and then presenting the results, implications, and main conclusions.

- The introduction is well-organized and cohesive. However, the justification and motivations behind the research development need to be clearer and more thoroughly explained.

- The literature review provides extensive background on the GAT; however, it is also necessary to situate the DTU, bringing concepts and discussions around this topic.

- The research methodology is well-written, structured, and justified, contributing to the understanding of the research.

- I suggest creating a conceptual figure to present the hypotheses, showing the relationship between their axes.

- Throughout the discussion of the results, the authors provide a comparison with the literature of only two articles (75 and 76). I suggest expanding this discussion, including several other references so that it is possible to compare, corroborate, or contrast previous research by other authors. - The authors included an analysis of the political implications in the conclusion; however, it would also be of great relevance to present practical implications of research on this topic.

Author Response

Comments 1: The abstract should be restructured, starting with the contextualization of the topic, presenting the objective, methodological aspects, and then presenting the results, implications, and main conclusions.

Response 1: Thank you very much for this valuable comment. We fully agree with your suggestion and have revised the abstract accordingly. Please refer to lines 14–21 in the revised manuscript.

Comments 2: The introduction is well-organized and cohesive. However, the justification and motivations behind the research development need to be clearer and more thoroughly explained.

Response 2: Thank you very much for this valuable comment. We fully agree with your suggestion and have further elaborated on the rationale and motivation of this study in the Introduction. Please refer to lines 98–106 in the revised manuscript.

Comments 3: The literature review provides extensive background on the GAT; however, it is also necessary to situate the DTU, bringing concepts and discussions around this topic.

Response 3: Thank you very much for this valuable comment. We fully agree with your suggestion and have further clarified the relevant concepts and discussions of DTU in the Literature Review. Please refer to lines 157–168 in the revised manuscript.

Comments 4: I suggest creating a conceptual figure to present the hypotheses, showing the relationship between their axes.

Response 4: Thank you very much for this valuable comment. We fully agree with your suggestion and have added a figure of the theoretical model in the manuscript. Please refer to lines 368–369 in the revised version.

Comments 5: Throughout the discussion of the results, the authors provide a comparison with the literature of only two articles (75 and 76). I suggest expanding this discussion, including several other references so that it is possible to compare, corroborate, or contrast previous research by other authors. - The authors included an analysis of the political implications in the conclusion; however, it would also be of great relevance to present practical implications of research on this topic.

Response 5: Thank you very much for this valuable comment. We fully agree with your suggestion and have included a comparison with other studies in the analysis of the research results. Please refer to lines 472–531 in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a timely and relevant investigation into the role of digital technologies in the process of facilitating the adoption of green agricultural technologies among farmers in China. The authors employ a mixed-methods design that combines qualitative insights from in-depth interviews with quantitative evidence from a quite large survey sample. The adoption of a “condition–process–outcome” framework provides a coherent and nteresting structure that ca integrate the complex interactions between infrastructural conditions, farmers’ resources and needs, perceptual and environmental mediators and also outcomes (economic, social, and ecological).

The study makes a quite interesting contribution to the literature on agricultural sustainability and digital transformation in rural contexts. In particular, the finding that the implementation of digital tools not only enhance farmers’ perceptions of technology but also strengthens the agricultural soft environment at the regional level is quite interesting. 
The identification of heterogeneity across farmer groups and types of green technologies is also of value and support the need for tailored interventions rather than one-size-fits-all solutions.

On the other hand, ome aspects would benefit from clarification and development. 
1) The discussion of heterogeneity is interesting, but the authors should better invetigate (also using available surveys) such variability,both in terms of underlying reasons but also in terms of practical effects of such differences. 
2) Also the selected responders are all rice producers: is there any difference between farmers which are mostly rice producers and other farmers which are producing rice only as a secondary crop? or can the authors expect substantial difference in the case of farmers working on different crops? please discuss in the paper
3) The authors should add a paragraph on "digitization footprint", discussing also the impact the digitization can have (e.g. in terms of effort for handling big amounts of data or in terms of internet accessibility or technology coverage)
4) The proposed policy recommendations are valuable but in my experience not so new 
   - farmer education and training (specify better: on technologies? on environemntal issues? on economical issues?)
   - increasing fiscal investment (what is the actual situation in the area? is it reasonable to further increase?)
   - digital platforms to disseminate information (some platforms already exist: what is not working in existing platforms?)
   - digitally disadvantaged rural groups (see comment above: disadvantages might arise not only due to age or education, but also due to limited access in some rural areas to digital services, internet connection, maintainance support,...)
 
5) Why actions taken up to here (e.g. by the government) have not been sufficiently effective to promote digitalization? why farmers are often so resilient to innovation? The manuscript already address somehow this issues, but I would appreciate a deeper discussion or insight on this. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We fully accept all of your comments and sincerely thank you for your valuable suggestions, which have been highly beneficial in improving the quality of our manuscript. We have made comprehensive revisions in response to your feedback:

Comments 1: The discussion of heterogeneity is interesting, but the authors should better invetigate (also using available surveys) such variability, both in terms of underlying reasons but also in terms of practical effects of such differences.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We fully agree with your suggestion and have further strengthened the analysis of differences among various technologies in the heterogeneity analysis. Please refer to lines 515–531 in the revised manuscript.

Comments 2: Also the selected responders are all rice producers: is there any difference between farmers which are mostly rice producers and other farmers which are producing rice only as a secondary crop? or can the authors expect substantial difference in the case of farmers working on different crops? please discuss in the paper.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We fully agree with your suggestion and have further discussed the potential differences among farmers of various crops in the final paragraph of the manuscript. Please refer to lines 594–603 in the revised version.

Comments 3: The authors should add a paragraph on "digitization footprint", discussing also the impact the digitization can have (e.g. in terms of effort for handling big amounts of data or in terms of internet accessibility or technology coverage).

Response 3: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We fully agree with your suggestion and have elaborated on the concept of the "digitization footprint" in the Conclusions and Recommendations section. Please refer to lines 570–608 in the revised manuscript.

Comments 4: The proposed policy recommendations are valuable but in my experience not so new 
   - farmer education and training (specify better: on technologies? on environemntal issues? on economical issues?)

- increasing fiscal investment (what is the actual situation in the area? is it reasonable to further increase?)

- digital platforms to disseminate information (some platforms already exist: what is not working in existing platforms?)

- digitally disadvantaged rural groups (see comment above: disadvantages might arise not only due to age or education, but also due to limited access in some rural areas to digital services, internet connection, maintainance support,...)

Response 4: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We fully agree with your suggestion and have made targeted revisions to the Recommendations section. Please refer to lines 570–590 in the revised manuscript.

Comments 5: Why actions taken up to here (e.g. by the government) have not been sufficiently effective to promote digitalization? why farmers are often so resilient to innovation? The manuscript already address somehow this issues, but I would appreciate a deeper discussion or insight on this.

Response 5: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We fully agree with your suggestion and have provided a more in-depth discussion on the relevant issues. Please refer to lines 570–573 in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been in general improved. However comment 3 has not been truly or effectively addressed: please revise

 

Figure 3: please increase font size within white boxes or use capital letters to make them more readable. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We fully accept all of your comments and sincerely thank you for your valuable suggestions, which have been highly beneficial in improving the quality of our manuscript. We have made comprehensive revisions in response to your feedback:

Comments 1: “The manuscript has been in general improved. However comment 3 has not been truly or effectively addressed: please revise.”

Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We have revisited the revision related to Comment 3 and have provided a more comprehensive elaboration on the relevant content of “digitization footprint” in the Introduction section (see Lines 74–95 in the revised manuscript).

Comments 2: “Figure 3: please increase font size within white boxes or use capital letters to make them more readable.”

Response 2: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We have revised Figure 3 to improve its readability. The detailed modification can be found at Line 382 in the revised manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx