Farmers’ Adoption of Water Management Practice for Methane Reduction in Rice Paddies: A Spatial Analysis in Shiga, Japan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: sustainability-3493351

Title:   Spatial Analysis of Farmers’ Adoption of Methane Reduction Practices in Rice Paddies in Japan

 

I have reviewed the manuscript titled “Spatial Analysis of Farmers’ Adoption of Methane Reduction Practices in Rice Paddies in Japan” My evaluation is as follows:  

 

General comments

 

Authors have discussed an important issue of methane in rice growing area of Japan to determine the what nfluences AWD adoption behavior and the effectivenes of human networks in promoting AWD. The use of microdata to quantitatively analyze the factors influencing farmers' adoption behavior is innovative. Authors determined that the behavior of surrounding farmers is a factor that influences individual farmers. Further, farmers who acquire and use data, those with large-scale production, and those who mainly sell paddy rice tend to implement AWD, whereas corporate-managed farms do not. The focus of this study is topical, relevant, and timely. It fits to the scope and aims of Sustainability journal as it discusses an important issue in contemporary agriculture and climate change, specifically with a stable food. The study objectives and methodology need to be improved. The flow of the manuscript needs to be improved as well to enhance readability and composition.

 

Specific comments

 

Title

The title is appropriate for the study. 

 

Abstract:

• Authors have given too much background information in the abstract at the expense of methodoly, a point or two on the study implications and a take home message.
• The fact that such study has not been studied in Japan should not be an issue to indicate in the abstract. The justification should be science based as has been done in the introduction.

 

Key words

• Keywords are sufficient.

 

Introduction

• Authors have introduced the study well by providing detailed background information of the study issues. For example, the issue of methane emissions, role of farmers, infracture, and extension services in technology adoption; alternate wetting and drying and particularly its application in South East Asia.
• The case for rice cultivation and consumption in the world and Japan has been developed, particularly in the study region.
• These creates a good background and justification for the study.
• The statement in paragraph 2, “the anaerobic conditions typical of paddy soils facilitate methane production by methanogenic microorganisms” can be referenced by Manono, 2016. The same reference applies to the subsequent sentence in the same paragraph. The same reference can further augment Chan. et al. 1993 and Cai et al., 1994 in paragraph 3. This two references are over 30 years old and Manono, 2016 will bring currency to these citations.
• Another statement that needs to be cited in paragraph 3 is “half of the world population relies as a staple food”….
• The study objectives need to be enhanced to make them specific and measurable.

 

Materials and methods

The materials and methods section needs to be improved. It is worthy to note the following:

• Study site is well described. It is even enhanced with a map. The significance of the study location in relation to the study theme is described in detail.
• The microdata methods used have been described in detail and are well referenced.
• One issue that is not clear is how the questionnaires were disseminated, to who and how the respondents were selected. This is confusing since the authors have described farmer characteristics and data development is described in detail.
• The study variables are well described and supported by references. Table 1 gives a good sypsosis of the same.
• Table 3 provides a summarised description of the study objectives and explanatory variables.
• Some descriptions within the materials and methods section are indicative of reporting results. Authors should revise this and avoid reporting results in the methodology and take them to the results section.

 

Results

• The authors have presented and reported their results in detail.
• Tables are well presented and captioned.

Discussion

• Authors have discussed their findings in relation to other studies.
• The discusion section is well referenced.

Conclusions

• Conclusions should be concise and supported by data. Auhtors should not introduce, report or discuss their finding in the conclusion. Giving reccomendations is beneficial.

References

• The references are appropriate, sufficient, and relevant. However, I have suggested one reference for important statements that needs a citation within the introduction and augment others to bring currency to the study.

 

• Manono, B. O. (2016). Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from the Waimate District (New Zealand) pasture soils as influenced by irrigation, effluent dispersal and earthworms. Cogent Environmental Science, 2(1), 1256564.

 

• During revision, authors may add more references to the discussion to enhance the manuscript.

Author Response

Response to Referee #1:

 

Authors have discussed an important issue of methane in rice growing area of Japan to determine the what influences AWD adoption behavior and the effectiveness of human networks in promoting AWD. The use of microdata to quantitatively analyze the factors influencing farmers' adoption behavior is innovative. Authors determined that the behavior of surrounding farmers is a factor that influences individual farmers. Further, farmers who acquire and use data, those with large-scale production, and those who mainly sell paddy rice tend to implement AWD, whereas corporate-managed farms do not. The focus of this study is topical, relevant, and timely. It fits to the scope and aims of Sustainability journal as it discusses an important issue in contemporary agriculture and climate change, specifically with a stable food. The study objectives and methodology need to be improved. The flow of the manuscript needs to be improved as well to enhance readability and composition.

 

We sincerely thank the referee for the positive evaluation of our manuscript. We appreciate your constructive comments, and we have carefully revised the manuscript according to your suggestions, particularly focusing on enhancing the clarity of study objectives and methodology.

 

Authors have given too much background information in the abstract at the expense of methodoly, a point or two on the study implications and a take home message. The fact that such study has not been studied in Japan should not be an issue to indicate in the abstract. The justification should be science based as has been done in the introduction.

 

Thank you for your valuable comment. We revised the abstract to shift the focus away from redundant contextual justification (e.g., novelty of the study within Japan) and instead emphasized the methodological details and implications of our findings. Specifically, we clarified the use of microdata, spatial autocorrelation analysis, and highlighted the main practical implications of promoting AWD through human networks. (page 1, line 10-14, line 22-31)

 

The statement in paragraph 2, “the anaerobic conditions typical of paddy soils facilitate methane production by methanogenic microorganisms” can be referenced by Manono, 2016. The same reference applies to the subsequent sentence in the same paragraph. The same reference can further augment Chan. et al. 1993 and Cai et al., 1994 in paragraph 3. These two references are over 30 years old and Manono, 2016 will bring currency to these citations.

 

Thank you for pointing this out. Upon reviewing additional literature, we identified more recent and relevant studies directly aligned with our context and added the following updated references:

 

169254. Wang, C., Lai, D. Y., Sardans, J., Wang, W., Zeng, C., & Peñuelas, J. (2017). Factors related with CH4 and N2O emissions from a paddy field: clues for management implications. PloS one, 12(1), e0169254.
169255. Chidthaisong, A., Cha-Un, N., Rossopa, B., Buddaboon, C., Kunuthai, C., Sriphirom, P., ... & Minamikawa, K. (2018). Evaluating the effects of alternate wetting and drying (AWD) on methane and nitrous oxide emissions from a paddy field in Thailand. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 64(1), 31-38.
169256. Setyanto, P., Pramono, A., Adriany, T. A., Susilawati, H. L., Tokida, T., Padre, A. T., & Minamikawa, K. (2018). Alternate wetting and drying reduces methane emission from a rice paddy in Central Java, Indonesia without yield loss. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 64(1), 23-30.

 

These references now fully support the statements mentioned in paragraph 2, ensuring a more robust scientific basis. (page 2, line 15 (reference [7]), line 25-26 (reference [11],[12]))

 

Another statement that needs to be cited in paragraph 3 is “half of the world population relies as a staple food” ….

 

Thank you for pointing this out too. We have now included the appropriate reference to support this statement:

 

12. Alexandratos, N., & Bruinsma, J. (2012). World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 12.

 

(page 2, line 19 (reference [8])

 

The study objectives need to be enhanced to make them specific and measurable.

 

Thank you for your constructive comment. To improve clarity, we have revised and expanded our objectives in the Introduction section as follows:

 

" Considering the significant spatial concentration characteristics of farmers implementing AWD in Shiga Prefecture, there may be strong interactions among farmers. The implementation rate of AWD may be further improved if the interaction between farmers is utilized as a spatial factor. Given the identified spatial clustering of AWD adoption among farmers, this study hypothesizes that social interactions significantly influence AWD adoption. Therefore, this research specifically explores how spatial factors, reflecting interactions among neighboring farmers, can be utilized to effectively increase AWD implementation rates."

 

We believe this addition make the objective clearer. (page 4, line 2-5)

 

One issue that is not clear is how the questionnaires were disseminated, to who and how the respondents were selected. This is confusing since the authors have described farmer characteristics and data development is described in detail.

 

"A part of the data used in this study is from the 2020 Census of Agriculture and Forestry. The World Census of Agriculture is conducted once every five years. In Japan, the census is conducted in the form of a questionnaire. Farmers throughout the country receive the questionnaire. After farmers complete their responses, the questionnaires are collected. We have added the above description in the section 2.3 to make it easier for the reader to better understand the data sources."

 

We have added the above description to explain how the data were collected. (page 8, line 16-19)

 

Some descriptions within the materials and methods section are indicative of reporting results. Authors should revise this and avoid reporting results in the methodology and take them to the results section.

 

We understand your point; however, we included Moran's I and Global G* statistics in the methodology section because, in spatial econometrics, these statistics serve as essential diagnostic indicators determining the necessity of spatial econometric modeling. Specifically, significant Moran’s I and Global G values indicate spatial autocorrelation and justify the subsequent use of spatial econometric models such as SAR. We clarified this reasoning explicitly in the revised methods section. (page 5, line 8-17)

 

Conclusions should be concise and supported by data. Auhtors should not introduce, report or discuss their finding in the conclusion. Giving reccomendations is beneficial.

 

We have deleted references to specific policy recommendations (e.g., “Organizing workshops or networking events where farmers discuss AWD experiences can improve technology uptake without increasing subsidy costs”, “Offering financial support to smaller farms, training younger farmers, and simplifying digital tools could increase data utilization. Greater public investment and public-private-academic collaborations would further bolster this effort,” etc.) from the conclusion. These have already been discussed in Discussion. We have summarized them in a more concise way. (page 16, line 42-46, line 49-52; page 17, line 3-6)

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has significant room for improvement. Although the study idea is interesting, it reads as an incomplete and biased study. There is no data validation, and the analysis is too shallow. The authors should revise their objectives, reduce redundancy in their comments, and explore the root causes of the problem by extracting more information from their dataset.

1. The title suggests a broader scope than what is actually discussed in the manuscript. While it refers to 'Spatial Analysis of Farmers’ Adoption of Methane Reduction Practices in Rice Paddies in Japan,' the paper examines only a single methane reduction practice. Additionally, the study is entirely focused on a single area within one province of Japan, making the title misleading. Therefore, it is recommended that the title be revised for accuracy.
2. The abstract should be revised, as the authors have included many vague ideas that are not relevant to this section. It should focus on summarizing the main problem, the authors’ methodological approach, key findings, and a brief, well-structured conclusion in a more objective manner.
3.  The introduction contains several redundant comments that should be reviewed. The manuscript is heavily biased toward the idea that AWD is the sole solution for mitigating methane emissions in paddy fields. However, the authors fail to discuss key limitations, such as crop calendars, rainfall patterns, soil types, topography, and—most importantly—rice variety selection, which can also influence methane emissions. While treating AWD as a "cropping philosophy," the authors should acknowledge its adoption challenges and review relevant literature on factors such as workforce demand and increased weed pressure. These aspects are integral to crop planning and agricultural engineering when determining the suitability of specific cultivation systems.
4. The authors state: “The AWD adoption rate in Shiga Prefecture is approximately 21.5%, with a notable spatial concentration of adoption around Lake Biwa and the southeastern region of the prefecture.” This implies a spatial pattern in AWD adoption. If such a pattern is already established, what is the rationale for studying farmers’ adoption behavior? A more meaningful approach would be to investigate why others have not adopted AWD while quantifying the benefits for those who have, using a rank-wise assessment. The study’s objective must be clearly defined.
5. In the methodology section, Figures 1 and 2 convey similar information and could be combined or streamlined. Additionally, Table 1 presents part of the results within the methodology, making the manuscript structure unclear. Definitions should be incorporated into the main text rather than placed in the footer.
6. The overall methodology lacks clarity, and the authors do not validate their model—an essential component of research. For example, how many farmers in the clusters belong to the same cooperative? Are cooperatives playing a key role in influencing adoption behavior? These aspects should be analyzed and validated through field verification.
7. The results need to be presented more clearly and intuitively. The variable names in the tables are unclear to readers, and a more effective graphical representation is recommended. Furthermore, the choice of cluster numbers should be justified in the methodology. The dataset could also be further explored by assessing correlations between variables to better understand the factors driving AWD adoption. Consider analyzing infrastructure levels, such as workforce size, machinery availability, technical support, and equipment, to provide more valuable insights into AWD success factors beyond social networking among farmers.
8. Additionally, while the results highlight a spatial lag coefficient of 0.741, the discussion refers to 0.688. This inconsistency should be checked for accuracy.
9. The conclusion should be revised to concisely summarize the study’s key findings. Some discussion-related content should be removed or relocated to the discussion section. For example, statements such as “Organizing workshops or networking events where farmers discuss AWD experiences can improve technology uptake without increasing subsidy costs” are not necessary in the conclusion. New ideas should also be avoided in this section to maintain coherence.

Author Response

Response to Referee #2:

 

The article has significant room for improvement. Although the study idea is interesting, it reads as an incomplete and biased study. There is no data validation, and the analysis is too shallow. The authors should revise their objectives, reduce redundancy in their comments, and explore the root causes of the problem by extracting more information from their dataset.

 

Thank you very much for reviewing our paper. We sincerely appreciate your detailed, valuable, and constructive comments and suggestions. We have tried our best to address your concerns to the best of our ability. Please see below our point-by-point responses to each of your comments.

 

The title suggests a broader scope than what is actually discussed in the manuscript. While it refers to 'Spatial Analysis of Farmers’ Adoption of Methane Reduction Practices in Rice Paddies in Japan,' the paper examines only a single methane reduction practice. Additionally, the study is entirely focused on a single area within one province of Japan, making the title misleading. Therefore, it is recommended that the title be revised for accuracy.

 

We changed the title to “Farmers’ Adoption of Water Management Practice for Methane Reduction in Rice Paddies: A Spatial Analysis in Shiga, Japan” to make the subject and area of the study clearer. (page 1, line 1-5)

 

The abstract should be revised, as the authors have included many vague ideas that are not relevant to this section. It should focus on summarizing the main problem, the authors’ methodological approach, key findings, and a brief, well-structured conclusion in a more objective manner.

 

We agree with your comment. We have removed some of the redundant information (e.g., studies on AWD have focused on the Southeast Asian region, while similar studies have not yet been conducted in Japan) in the revision and added information about the conclusions. Thus, the content of the abstract clearly reflects the main idea of this study. (page 1, line 10-14, line 22-31)

 

The introduction contains several redundant comments that should be reviewed. The manuscript is heavily biased toward the idea that AWD is the sole solution for mitigating methane emissions in paddy fields. However, the authors fail to discuss key limitations, such as crop calendars, rainfall patterns, soil types, topography, and—most importantly—rice variety selection, which can also influence methane emissions. While treating AWD as a "cropping philosophy," the authors should acknowledge its adoption challenges and review relevant literature on factors such as workforce demand and increased weed pressure. These aspects are integral to crop planning and agricultural engineering when determining the suitability of specific cultivation systems.

 

We briefly mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the introduction that several approaches other than AWD are available for methane reduction in paddy fields, but we think the suggestions you gave are also reasonable and relevant. T In order to avoid the reader's misunderstanding that AWD is the only practical method, we added some information in this paragraph to inform the reader that methane emissions from rice cultivation are affected by many factors such as soil environment, precipitation, rice variety, etc., and that there are many commonly used emission reduction practices other than AWD. At the same time, we re-emphasize in conclusions the existence and importance of methods other than AWD, especially since multiple methods are often used together in practice. However, this study only focused on AWD, which is one of the limitations of this study. We look forward to including more abatement methods and influencing factors in our analysis in future studies. (page 2, line 31-36; page 17, line 17-23)

 

The authors state: “The AWD adoption rate in Shiga Prefecture is approximately 21.5%, with a notable spatial concentration of adoption around Lake Biwa and the southeastern region of the prefecture.” This implies a spatial pattern in AWD adoption. If such a pattern is already established, what is the rationale for studying farmers’ adoption behavior? A more meaningful approach would be to investigate why others have not adopted AWD while quantifying the benefits for those who have, using a rank-wise assessment. The study’s objective must be clearly defined.

 

Although Shiga Prefecture currently has an AWD adoption rate of approximately 21.5%, policymakers aim for significantly higher AWD implementation to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. The existing spatial pattern indicates notable regional clustering, suggesting uneven dissemination across the prefecture. Therefore, rather than simply documenting existing clusters, our objective is to investigate how spatial interactions among farmers might facilitate broader adoption beyond currently clustered regions. Specifically, we aim to understand the underlying reasons why certain areas lag behind in adoption and to leverage spatial dynamics to strategically enhance AWD uptake across the region. (page 4, line 2-5)

 

In the methodology section, Figures 1 and 2 convey similar information and could be combined or streamlined. Additionally,

 

We agree and accept your suggestion. We have deleted figure 2, retained figure 1, and adjusted the numbering of figures throughout the text.

 

Table 1 presents part of the results within the methodology, making the manuscript structure unclear. Definitions should be incorporated into the main text rather than placed in the footer.

 

We do report results for Moran's I and Global G* in Method because in spatial econometrics, the values of Moran's I and Global G* are often used as indicators for judging the need to use spatial models. In other words, detecting the observed values of Moran's I and Global G* is one of the prerequisites for deciding on a model. Based on this logical chain, we first report on these two indicators before introducing the model. To facilitate better understanding by the reader, we have moved the description of Moran's I and Global G* from a footnote to the text, and added the clarification that these two are model-determining indicators. (page 5, line 8-17)

 

The overall methodology lacks clarity, and the authors do not validate their model—an essential component of research. For example, how many farmers in the clusters belong to the same cooperative? Are cooperatives playing a key role in influencing adoption behavior? These aspects should be analyzed and validated through field verification.

 

Thank you very much for your comment. We very much agree with the point you made that field validation is very important. However, in this study we were unable to perform the relevant validation. There are two main reasons for this. First, the data we used came from the Japanese National Government and Shiga Prefectural Administration. The survey used to collect these data was not designed by us. Although we strongly agree that information such as the number of farmers in cooperatives and the use of equipment are also worthy of being used in the analysis, unfortunately they are not included in the dataset. Second, this study is a social survey, and we objectively did not have access to the data from the field survey. Therefore, in discussions, we mainly validate and discuss the results of this study by comparing it with previous studies and dissecting the current agricultural trends in Japan. Meanwhile, we are very much looking forward to getting the opportunity of field validation in future studies. (page 17, line 24-25)

 

The results need to be presented more clearly and intuitively. The variable names in the tables are unclear to readers, and a more effective graphical representation is recommended.

 

We have adapted the variable names and categorized them in Table 3 for better understanding.

 

Original	Revised	Description of Variables
AWD_adop	AWD adoption	adoption of AWD
data_get	Data gathering	whether to get data (only)
data_use	Data utilization	whether to get and use data
company	Agricultural corporation	is it an agricultural corporation
log_area	Cultivated area	logarithm of cultivated area
lease_rate	Leased land ratio	ratio of leased land to total cultivated area
rice_profit	Rice profitability	is rice the most profitable to sell
sale_consu	Direct sales	are there direct sales to consumers
agrico_ship	Coop as main sales channel	is the agricultural cooperative the largest shipping destination for sales
consu_ship	Consumers as main sales channel	is the consumer the largest shipping destination for sales
gender	Gender is male	gender of the farmer (or manager)
senior	Age is over 60	is the farmer (or manager) over 60 years of age
agri_work	Worked in agriculture ≥100 days	did the cumulative days worked in agriculture exceed 100
agri_relate	Worked in agriculture-related ≥100 days	did the cumulative days worked in agriculture-related jobs exceed 100
agri_main	Agriculture as main source of income	is self-employed agriculture the main business
successor	Has successor	whether there is a successor

 

Furthermore, the choice of cluster numbers should be justified in the methodology.

 

Thank you for your insightful suggestion. We agree that the rationale behind selecting the number of neighbors (k) needs clearer explanation. In determining the optimal k, we conducted model fitting trials with multiple neighbor thresholds (e.g., k=8, 16, 24, 32, 40) based on spatial characteristics of farmer distribution. Among these trials, k=24 provided the lowest AIC values and best reflected actual farmer density patterns, capturing realistic spatial interactions. We have added this explanation clearly in the methodology section. (page 11, line 16 (footnote 5))

 

The dataset could also be further explored by assessing correlations between variables to better understand the factors driving AWD adoption. Consider analyzing infrastructure levels, such as workforce size, machinery availability, technical support, and equipment, to provide more valuable insights into AWD success factors beyond social networking among farmers.

 

We appreciate your valuable suggestion regarding the validation of our findings through additional field research. As mentioned, the original data provided by government surveys lacked detailed information on cooperative memberships, machinery availability, and technical support. While these factors certainly warrant further analysis, such data were unfortunately unavailable in this study. However, we agree with your point on validation importance and acknowledge explicitly in our revised manuscript that future studies should incorporate primary field surveys to investigate these influential adoption factors comprehensively. We intend to address these limitations by conducting supplemental qualitative or field-based studies in subsequent research efforts. (page 17, line 24-25)

 

Additionally, while the results highlight a spatial lag coefficient of 0.741, the discussion refers to 0.688. This inconsistency should be checked for accuracy.

 

We apologize that we made a writing error here, the coefficient should be 0.741. We have corrected the one in the Discussion section. (page 14, line 24)

 

The conclusion should be revised to concisely summarize the study’s key findings. Some discussion-related content should be removed or relocated to the discussion section. For example, statements such as “Organizing workshops or networking events where farmers discuss AWD experiences can improve technology uptake without increasing subsidy costs” are not necessary in the conclusion. New ideas should also be avoided in this section to maintain coherence.

 

We have deleted references to specific policy recommendations (e.g., “Organizing workshops or networking events where farmers discuss AWD experiences can improve technology uptake without increasing subsidy costs”, “Offering financial support to smaller farms, training younger farmers, and simplifying digital tools could increase data utilization. Greater public investment and public-private-academic collaborations would further bolster this effort,” etc.) from the conclusion. These have already been discussed in Discussion. We have summarized them in a more concise way. (page 16, line 42-46, line 49-52; page 17, line 3-6)

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented a study titled “Spatial Analysis of Farmers’ Adoption of Methane Reduction Practices in Rice Paddies in Japan.” This study aimed to understand the factors influencing AWD adoption behavior and the effectiveness of human networks in promoting it. The results demonstrate that surrounding farmers' behavior, data acquisition, large-scale production, and paddy rice sales are key factors in implementing AWD. This work demonstrates considerable importance as it endorses using spatial statistical methods and empirical findings to enhance the implementation rate of AWD in Shiga Province. So, I recommend this work for publication in the prestigious "Journal of Sustainability" The manuscript could benefit from minor revisions to enhance its overall structure.

Comments

1. Some sentences are quite long. Break them down for better readability. For example, the sentence starting with "Methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas......" could be divided into two. Also, “Methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas with an atmospheric lifetime of approximately 12 years..." could be split into two sentences for clarity.
2. The author should be consistent with terms such as "rice cultivation" instead of varying terms like "growing rice."
3. The introduction is informative but can be made clearer by reorganizing some sentences. Start with the problem statement and then provide background information. This effectively helps readers grasp the broader implications of the research.
4. How do changes in irrigation system infrastructure specifically impact the adoption rate of Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD) practices among farmers, and what role does government support play in this dynamic? Please add details.
5. An important reference is missing in “Although AWD has already been implemented ……. agricultural practices” add the latest reference, such as “Bio-inspired green nanomaterials for tomato plant cultivation: An innovative approach of green nanotechnology in agriculture.”
6. The author should make corrections to sentence structures to ensure grammatical accuracy. For example, changing "the behavior of surrounding farmers, a spatial factor" could be clearer if rephrased. Also, "environmentally friendly cultivation methods" could be referred to as "sustainable practices."
7. The author should use active voice instead of passive voice to make the writing more engaging.
8. The author should add the latest references regarding “Other effective methods include using slow-release biochar fertilizers……rice varieties”, such as “Synergizing black gold and light: A comprehensive analysis of biochar-photocatalysis integration for green remediation.”
9. The author should elaborate on how might the unique agricultural practices and socio-economic conditions in Japan affect the adoption and effectiveness of alternate wetting and drying (AWD) compared to Southeast Asian countries and what specific strategies could be implemented to address these differences
10. What strategies can be implemented to effectively overcome the barriers of high initial costs and limited technical expertise in smaller farms and enhance AWD adoption across diverse agricultural regions in Japan? Add details in the discussion section with the latest references.
11. The author should address minor punctuation (e.g., missing commas) for better flow and readability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We have responded to each of your comments in the attached document.

Response to Referee #3:

The authors presented a study titled “Spatial Analysis of Farmers’ Adoption of Methane Reduction Practices in Rice Paddies in Japan.” This study aimed to understand the factors influencing AWD adoption behavior and the effectiveness of human networks in promoting it. The results demonstrate that surrounding farmers' behavior, data acquisition, large-scale production, and paddy rice sales are key factors in implementing AWD. This work demonstrates considerable importance as it endorses using spatial statistical methods and empirical findings to enhance the implementation rate of AWD in Shiga Province. So, I recommend this work for publication in the prestigious "Journal of Sustainability" The manuscript could benefit from minor revisions to enhance its overall structure.

 

Thank you very much for reviewing our paper. We sincerely appreciate your detailed, valuable, and constructive comments and suggestions. We have tried our best to address your concerns to the best of our ability. Please see below our point-by-point responses to each of your comments.

 

Some sentences are quite long. Break them down for better readability. For example, the sentence starting with "Methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas......" could be divided into two. Also, “Methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas with an atmospheric lifetime of approximately 12 years..." could be split into two sentences for clarity.

 

We have restructured some of the long sentences to make the content clearer and easier to understand. (page 2, line 7-8)

 

The author should be consistent with terms such as "rice cultivation" instead of varying terms like "growing rice."

 

We have standardized the terms used in the manuscript to “rice cultivation”. (page 2, line 16)

 

The introduction is informative but can be made clearer by reorganizing some sentences. Start with the problem statement and then provide background information. This effectively helps readers grasp the broader implications of the research.

 

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We reorganized the introduction by clearly stating the research problem first, followed by relevant background information. Specifically, we first highlighted the significance and environmental implications of methane emissions from rice paddies, then provided a concise overview of AWD and other methane mitigation practices. Additionally, we emphasized multiple influential factors affecting methane emissions (e.g., rice variety, rainfall patterns, and soil conditions), clarifying the broader context and implications of our study. we also added some updated references as a basis.

 

How do changes in irrigation system infrastructure specifically impact the adoption rate of Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD) practices among farmers, and what role does government support play in this dynamic? Please add details.

 

Thank you for highlighting this point. Indeed, underdeveloped irrigation systems pose practical barriers to AWD implementation by hindering effective water drainage, reducing farmers' willingness to adopt the method. To address this, government support plays a crucial role. Targeted government investments in upgrading irrigation infrastructure, coupled with technical training and financial incentives, can significantly enhance farmers' capacity and willingness to adopt AWD. We have elaborated this aspect clearly in the revised discussion section. (page 3, line 1-3, line 4-6)

 

An important reference is missing in “Although AWD has already been implemented ……. agricultural practices” add the latest reference, such as “Bio-inspired green nanomaterials for tomato plant cultivation: An innovative approach of green nanotechnology in agriculture.”

 

We strongly agree with your comment that additional references should be added here. We have taken your suggestion and used it as a basis for a more in-depth search. Fortunately, we found the following two more appropriate references (one of which is already referenced elsewhere in the paper, but which we found could just as well be referenced here) and have added them to the revision. (page 2, line 29 (reference [13], [14])

 

157. Howell, K. R., Shrestha, P., & Dodd, I. C. (2015). Alternate wetting and drying irrigation maintained rice yields despite half the irrigation volume, but is currently unlikely to be adopted by smallholder lowland rice farmers in Nepal. Food and energy security, 4(2), 144-157.
158. Suwanmaneepong, S., Kultawanich, K., Khurnpoon, L., Sabaijai, P. E., Cavite, H. J., Llones, C., ... & Kerdsriserm, C. (2023). Alternate wetting and drying as water-saving technology: An adoption intention in the perspective of good agricultural practices (GAP) suburban rice farmers in Thailand. Water, 15(3), 402.

 

The author should make corrections to sentence structures to ensure grammatical accuracy. For example, changing "the behavior of surrounding farmers, a spatial factor" could be clearer if rephrased.

 

We apologize for making a grammatical error here. We have corrected it in the revision. (page 1, line 18-19)

 

Also, "environmentally friendly cultivation methods" could be referred to as "sustainable practices."

 

We agree with your suggestion and have changed the phrases in the revision. (page 2, line 20-21)

 

The author should use active voice instead of passive voice to make the writing more engaging.

 

Thank you for your comment. We have reorganized some of the statements in the article to make it more engaging.

 

The author should add the latest references regarding “Other effective methods include using slow-release biochar fertilizers……rice varieties”, such as “Synergizing black gold and light: A comprehensive analysis of biochar-photocatalysis integration for green remediation.”

 

We agree with you that more current references should be added. We have referred to the suggestion you gave and have conducted further searches based on it. We have found the following literature, which is more appropriate to the content of our paper. We have added it in the revision. (page 2, line 35 (reference [20]))

 

134. Nan, Q., Xin, L., Qin, Y., Waqas, M., & Wu, W. (2021). Exploring long-term effects of biochar on mitigating methane emissions from paddy soil: a review. Biochar, 3(2), 125-134.

 

The author should elaborate on how might the unique agricultural practices and socio-economic conditions in Japan affect the adoption and effectiveness of alternate wetting and drying (AWD) compared to Southeast Asian countries and what specific strategies could be implemented to address these differences

 

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that Japan's unique agricultural and socio-economic conditions significantly affect AWD adoption. Specifically, Japan's agriculture is characterized by fragmented small-scale farming, aging farmer populations, and high dependence on agricultural cooperatives. These factors pose unique challenges and opportunities for AWD adoption. For example, collective decision-making through cooperatives could accelerate the adoption of AWD if adequately supported. Conversely, aging farmers may be reluctant to adopt new technologies without clear demonstrations and tailored training programs. We have added this detailed discussion, supported by recent references, into the manuscript. (page 3, line 18-23 (reference [25], [26], [27]))

 

2020. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan. Summary of the Basic Plan for Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF): Tokyo, Japan, 2020. Available online: https://www.maff.go.jp/e/policies/law_plan/attach/pdf/index-13.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2025).
2021. Usman, M., Sawaya, A., Igarashi, M., Gayman, J. J., & Dixit, R. (2021). Strained agricultural farming under the stress of youths’ career selection tendencies: a case study from Hokkaido (Japan). Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-8.
2022. Fuhrmann-Aoyagi, M. B., Miura, K., & Watanabe, K. (2024). Sustainability in Japan’s Agriculture: An Analysis of Current Approaches. Sustainability, 16(2), 596.

 

What strategies can be implemented to effectively overcome the barriers of high initial costs and limited technical expertise in smaller farms and enhance AWD adoption across diverse agricultural regions in Japan? Add details in the discussion section with the latest references.

 

Training young farmers and providing financial support to small-scale farmers who are less advantaged can be effective in increasing the incentives for farmers to adopt digital technologies. At the same time, government support for technology development companies can encourage them to develop digital technologies that are easier to use. We have added the above to the revised version and added the following references. (page 16, line 39-44 (reference [64], [65], [66]))

 

14003. Wu, L., Hu, K., Lyulyov, O., Pimonenko, T., & Hamid, I. (2022). The impact of government subsidies on technological innovation in agribusiness: The case for China. Sustainability, 14(21), 14003.
14004. Liu, L., & Liu, K. (2023). Can digital technology promote sustainable agriculture? Empirical evidence from urban China. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 9(2), 2282234.
14005. Sinitsa, Y., Borodina, O., Gvozdeva, O., & Kolbneva, E. (2021). Trends in the development of digital agriculture: a review of international practices. In BIO Web of Conferences (Vol. 37, p. 00172). EDP Sciences.

 

Regarding the application and promotion of AWD in other regions of Japan, as we mentioned in the limitations of the study, it remains to be confirmed whether the results of the study are equally applicable to other regions, as this study was conducted only in Shiga Prefecture (because we only obtained and used data from Shiga Prefecture). We conclude the conclusions by re-emphasizing the geographic limitations of this study and look forward to validating other regional applicability in future studies. (page 17, line 11-14)

 

The author should address minor punctuation (e.g., missing commas) for better flow and readability.

 

Thank you for your comment. We have corrected the punctuation problem in the revised version.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: sustainability-3493351-peer-review-v2

Title:   Spatial Analysis of Farmers’ Adoption of Methane Reduction Practices in Rice Paddies in Japan

I have reviewed the revised manuscript titled “Spatial Analysis of Farmers’ Adoption of Methane Reduction Practices in Rice Paddies in Japan”. The authors have carried out a comprehensive review and I am satisfied with their response to my comments. Worth noting is that:   

1. They have revised the manuscript according to my suggestions, particularly focusing on enhancing the clarity of study objectives and methodology.
2. They have revised the abstract emphasizing the methodological and implications of their findings.
3. They have enhanced the manuscript quality through the addition of more recent references.
4. They have revised the objectives in the Introduction section.
5. The methodology is now clear.
6. Conclusions are concise and supported by data.

Author Response

Response to Referee #1:

 

I have reviewed the revised manuscript titled “Spatial Analysis of Farmers’ Adoption of Methane Reduction Practices in Rice Paddies in Japan”. The authors have carried out a comprehensive review and I am satisfied with their response to my comments. Worth noting is that:   

1. They have revised the manuscript according to my suggestions, particularly focusing on enhancing the clarity of study objectives and methodology.
2. They have revised the abstract emphasizing the methodological and implications of their findings.
3. They have enhanced the manuscript quality through the addition of more recent references.
4. They have revised the objectives in the Introduction section.
5. The methodology is now clear.
6. Conclusions are concise and supported by data.

 

Please allow us to thank you once again for your hard work in reviewing the manuscripts. We also very kindly thank you for recognizing the revisions we made to the manuscript. Your valuable comments contribute to making our manuscripts better academic papers. We very much look forward to the opportunity to meet you again in the future.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made some improvements to their manuscript. However, they still need to pay closer attention to details when writing academic papers. It is recommended that another review be conducted to check the following points:

•    In line 11 “Rice paddies are a major source of methane emissions [3, 5]. Globally, methane emissions from rice paddies account for 6%–11% of anthropogenic methane emissions [6].” The authors must verify their references. How can rice paddies be considered a major source of methane emissions while contributing only 11%? What about enteric fermentation from ruminants and manure production?

•    All footnotes should be incorporated into the main text.

•    Table 3 can be divided into two tables: one containing the description of variables and another containing the corresponding values.

Author Response

Response to Referee #2:

 

The authors have made some improvements to their manuscript. However, they still need to pay closer attention to details when writing academic papers. It is recommended that another review be conducted to check the following points.

 

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript again. We also thank you for recognizing the previous revisions we made to the paper. We have responded to your new comments and suggestions as best as we can. Please see below our point-by-point responses to each of your comments.

 

In line 11 “Rice paddies are a major source of methane emissions [3, 5]. Globally, methane emissions from rice paddies account for 6%–11% of anthropogenic methane emissions [6].” The authors must verify their references. How can rice paddies be considered a major source of methane emissions while contributing only 11%? What about enteric fermentation from ruminants and manure production?

 

Thank you for your comment. Overall livestock (enteric fermentation from ruminants and manure production) contributes the highest amount of methane emissions in agriculture. However, considering the high rate of rice cultivation in Asia, methane emission reduction from rice paddies is very important for the region. We have added the above information to the revised manuscript so as to make the description more accurate to avoid misunderstanding by the readers. (page 2, line 12-13, line 18-22)

 

All footnotes should be incorporated into the main text.

 

We have moved all necessary footnotes to the main text. At the same time, we have removed some of the footnotes because the main points they suggested have already been included in the main text or in the references.

 

Table 3 can be divided into two tables: one containing the description of variables and another containing the corresponding values.

 

We divided the original Table 3 into 2 tables (Tables 3 and 4 in the revision) , thus making each table more concise and clear. (page 9-11)

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please reconsider these below comments:

1. (previous comments 5) An important reference is missing in “Although AWD has already been implemented ……. agricultural practices” add the latest reference, such as “Bio-inspired green nanomaterials for tomato plant cultivation: An innovative approach of green nanotechnology in agriculture.”
2. (previous comments 6) The author should make corrections to sentence structures to ensure grammatical accuracy. For example, changing "the behavior of surrounding farmers, a spatial factor" could be clearer if rephrased. Also, "environmentally friendly cultivation methods" could be referred to as "sustainable practices."
3. (previous comments 7) The author should use active voice instead of passive voice to make the writing more engaging.
4. (previous comments 8) The author should add the latest references regarding “Other effective methods include using slow-release biochar fertilizers……rice varieties”, such as “Synergizing black gold and light: A comprehensive analysis of biochar-photocatalysis integration for green remediation.”

Author Response

Response to Referee #3:

 

Please reconsider these below comments.

 

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript again. We also thank you for recognizing the previous revisions we made to the paper. We have responded to your new comments and suggestions as best as we can. Please see below our point-by-point responses to each of your comments.

 

(previous comments 5) An important reference is missing in “Although AWD has already been implemented ……. agricultural practices” add the latest reference, such as “Bio-inspired green nanomaterials for tomato plant cultivation: An innovative approach of green nanotechnology in agriculture.”

 

Thank you for your valuable comments and for suggesting recent references. We greatly appreciate your effort in recommending these studies. The reference you recommend explores the use of bio-inspired green nanotechnology in tomato cultivation, which we agree is very insightful but seems to be less relevant to the methane emission reductions in rice fields examined in our study. At the same time, this reference does not seem to mention information about the application of the same farming method in different countries.

 

As the journal editors have emphasized the need to critically consider recommended references and have asked us to avoid citing references of low relevance, we are sorry that we are unable to cite your recommendation in this article.

 

In the first round of revisions, we accepted your suggestion to add updated references. We incorporated alternative references that are more directly related to the scope of our study. These references better support our analysis of water management practices (AWD) in rice farming. We appreciate your understanding of this matter, and we are happy to discuss any further suggestions to improve the clarity and rigor of our study.

 

(reference [13], [14])

157. Howell, K. R., Shrestha, P., & Dodd, I. C. (2015). Alternate wetting and drying irrigation maintained rice yields despite half the irrigation volume, but is currently unlikely to be adopted by smallholder lowland rice farmers in Nepal. Food and energy security, 4(2), 144-157.
158. Suwanmaneepong, S., Kultawanich, K., Khurnpoon, L., Sabaijai, P. E., Cavite, H. J., Llones, C., ... & Kerdsriserm, C. (2023). Alternate wetting and drying as water-saving technology: An adoption intention in the perspective of good agricultural practices (GAP) suburban rice farmers in Thailand. Water, 15(3), 402.

 

(previous comments 6) The author should make corrections to sentence structures to ensure grammatical accuracy. For example, changing "the behavior of surrounding farmers, a spatial factor" could be clearer if rephrased. Also, "environmentally friendly cultivation methods" could be referred to as "sustainable practices."

 

We have corrected the above grammatical and terminological problems in the revision.

 

1. “The analysis results indicate that the behavior of surrounding farmers, as a spatial factor, influences the individual farmers.”
2. “Instead, adopting sustainable practices to reduce methane emissions from rice paddies is advisable.”

 

(previous comments 7) The author should use active voice instead of passive voice to make the writing more engaging.

 

We have changed some of the statements (such as these below) in the revision to make the writing more engaging.

 

1. “By contrast, AWD relies on extending or repeating drainage periods already practiced during rice cultivation, which involves minimal additional costs or labor.”
2. “Agricultural extension agents and neighboring farmers play a significant role in encouraging these practices”
3. “In Japan, farmers implement AWD as an extended form of mid-season drainage.”
4. “They drain water from paddies to aerate the soil during the rice cultivation period.”

 

(previous comments 8) The author should add the latest references regarding “Other effective methods include using slow-release biochar fertilizers……rice varieties”, such as “Synergizing black gold and light: A comprehensive analysis of biochar-photocatalysis integration for green remediation.”

 

Thank you for your valuable comments and for suggesting recent references. We greatly appreciate your effort in recommending these studies. First of all, we couldn't agree more that the reference you recommend are very insightful. It discussed the synthesis and application of biochar-based photocatalysts. However, although the article mentions that the application of biochar in agriculture is beneficial in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it does not specifically discuss its effectiveness in methane emission reduction in rice paddies. Therefore, we are sorry that we are unable to cite your recommendation in this article.

 

In the first round of revisions, we accepted your suggestion to add updated references. We incorporated alternative references that are more directly related to the scope of our study. These references better support our analysis of water management practices (AWD) in rice farming. We appreciate your understanding of this matter, and we are happy to discuss any further suggestions to improve the clarity and rigor of our study.

 

(reference [20])

134. Nan, Q., Xin, L., Qin, Y., Waqas, M., & Wu, W. (2021). Exploring long-term effects of biochar on mitigating methane emissions from paddy soil: a review. Biochar, 3(2), 125-134.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

author did not revise manuscript according to my suggestion 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

can be improved 

Author Response

Response to Referee #3

We sincerely appreciate your continued time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We fully acknowledge that our previous revisions may not have sufficiently addressed your thoughtful and important comments. After careful reflection, we have undertaken further revisions to improve the clarity, structure, and content of our manuscript in accordance with your suggestions. Your feedback has been invaluable in enhancing the overall quality of our work.

Below, we provide a point-by-point response, organized around three key issues you raised. We have endeavored to respond thoroughly and constructively, and we hope the revisions now meet your expectations.

 

1. Overuse of passive voice

Thank you for your comment regarding the overuse of passive voice throughout the manuscript. Upon re-reading our work from your perspective, we agree that many sections could benefit from a more active writing style.

In this revision, we have extensively revised our manuscript to replace passive voice with active voice where appropriate, in order to improve clarity and readability. All modifications are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript for your easy reference. We hope this adjustment helps improve the flow and engagement of the text.

 

2. Contextualization and theoretical background

(Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research?)

We sincerely apologize for not sufficiently emphasizing these points in our previous response. Your comment helped us realize that additional efforts were necessary to situate our study more clearly within the broader literature. In response, we have implemented the following major improvements:

- The Introduction section has been reorganized to enhance clarity and logical flow.

- We refined the description of paddy fields from “a major source of methane” to “the second major source of methane emissions in agriculture, after livestock,” to provide a more precise context.

- We added a brief discussion of East Asian agricultural characteristics to justify the relevance and urgency of focusing on methane reduction from rice paddies in this region.

- We included a more comprehensive explanation of multiple mitigation methods beyond AWD, including biochar fertilizers, straw collection and composting, and low-emission rice varieties, supported by updated references.

- We clarified how irrigation systems and government support influence AWD adoption, citing specific studies that provide empirical evidence for these mechanisms.

- We addressed the lack of AWD studies in Japan more rigorously by contextualizing the unique structure of Japanese agriculture and providing supporting references.

- The study objective has been refined to better connect the observed spatial concentration of AWD adoption with the research question, highlighting our goal of investigating the spatial diffusion mechanism and promoting broader adoption.

We believe these revisions have substantially improved the theoretical grounding and relevance of our study.

 

3. Research design, hypotheses, and methods

(Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?)

Thank you for this important point. We recognize that the original manuscript did not clearly articulate the connections between research design and methodological choices. In the revised manuscript, we have made several improvements:

- We integrated the explanations of Moran’s I and Global G* directly into the main text (rather than footnotes) to make their roles clearer.

- We removed Figure 2, which duplicated information already shown in Figure 1.

- We improved the description of the study region, using active voice and highlighting the distinctive agricultural characteristics of Shiga Prefecture.

- We clarified the data sources, noting that the Agriculture and Forestry Census in Japan is a government-led national survey, to avoid misunderstanding.

- The data integration procedures are now described in active voice, offering a more detailed and transparent explanation of how datasets were preprocessed and merged.

Through these modifications, we believe the research design and methodological framework are now more robustly communicated.

 

This concludes our responses. We are deeply grateful for your constructive feedback throughout the review process. Your suggestions have helped us significantly enhance the manuscript’s clarity, academic rigor, and overall presentation. We hope that the revised version addresses your concerns adequately and meets your expectations.

Should you have any further comments or recommendations, we would be grateful to consider them. Once again, thank you very much for your time, thoughtful support, and kind encouragement.