Analysis of Influencing Factors on Cognition and Behavioral Responses Regarding Green Development of Farming Households in Tibetan Areas—Taking Hezuo City as an Example

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript deals with a relevant issue; the green transformation in agricultural systems.

The manuscript deals with the green production cognition of Tibetan farmers and pastoral communities. The authors apply and analyse questionnaire data collected from small farmers groups within Hezuo city in Tibet and identify key factors influencing their green production cognition and behavior.

The reseach issue and objetctives are clearly stated. In this revised version the authors applied the comments and suggestion presented in the review repport of the original version.

The authors explore the literature on “green agricultural production behavior” to propose the analytical framework (Figure 1). In this revised version the authors applied the comments and suggestion presented in the review repport of the original version.

The material and method are pertinent and coherent with the research objectives. The authors applied a questionary and got a micro-survey data of 59 farmers in 16 villages in Hezuo City, The study explored the Double Hurdle modelt to analyze key factors influencing farmers' green production behavior. In this revised version the authors applied the comments and suggestion presented in the review repport of the original version.

The results are rich and soundly presented and discussed. Descriptive statistics and econometric model were used to characterize and analyse the data. In this revised version the authors applied the comments and suggestion presented in the review repport of the original version.

The conclusions are pertinent and supported by the results. The athors presented the main public policies and managerial implications that can be envisage from the research results. In this revised version the authors applied the comments and suggestion presented in the review repport of the original version.

 

Author Response

Thanks to your affirmation, in the revised version, we have improved the detail part again.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates the factors influencing green production behavior among farmers in Tibetan areas, with a particular focus on how cognitive norms and environmental regulations impact farmers' willingness and actions regarding sustainable agricultural practices. The manuscript offers a comprehensive approach to understanding the complexities of green production adoption. However, several critical issues need to be addressed. Therefore, major revisions are necessary before this manuscript can be considered for publication in Sustainability.

 

1. In the abstract, "The '14th Five-Year Plan'" may cause ambiguity. Please clarify that this refers to China's 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025).
2. The description of the research background in the abstract is insufficient, and the results are also lacking in quantitative information.
3. Line 102-103: "When farmers face green transition, they are mainly influenced by individual characteristics, green production knowledge, policy incentives, and other factors." Please add references to this sentence to enhance its persuasiveness.
4. In section 4.1, please add a location map of the study area to help readers understand.
5. There are formatting errors in the equations in the article. Please correct them.
6. Please include a description of the methods and principles for random sampling and stratified sampling.
7. Note: ***, ** and * indicate that the test passes at the 1 percent, 5 percent, and 10 percent levels of significance, respectively. This explanation should appear first in Table 6.
8. The manuscript lacks a discussion section. The authors should compare the results with those of similar studies.
9. The Conclusions section is too lengthy. The authors should highlight the contributions and main findings of their study.

Author Response

Comments 1: In the abstract, "The '14th Five-Year Plan'" may cause ambiguity. Please clarify that this refers to China's 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025).

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have rewritten the abstract, replacing ambiguous statements with fuller and more precise ones, and condensing the results.

Comments 2: The description of the research background in the abstract is insufficient, and the results are also lacking in quantitative information.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have rewritten the abstract, replacing ambiguous statements with fuller and more precise ones, and condensing the results.

 

Comments 3：Line 102-103: "When farmers face green transition, they are mainly influenced by individual characteristics, green production knowledge, policy incentives, and other factors." Please add references to this sentence to enhance its persuasiveness.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added references in that paragraph and cited extensive literature in the next paragraph detailing this research.

Comments :4：In section 4.1, please add a location map of the study area to help readers understand.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added zoning maps from Hezuo City provided to help readers understand.

Comments 5：There are formatting errors in the equations in the article. Please correct them.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We have made corrections to the formula formatting.

Comments 6：Please include a description of the methods and principles for random sampling and stratified sampling.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. In the section on research design, we add the methods and principles of random and stratified sampling.

Comments 7：Note: ***, ** and * indicate that the test passes at the 1 percent, 5 percent, and 10 percent levels of significance, respectively. This explanation should appear first in Table 6.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We have listened to your comments and have annotated them under Table 6.

Comments 8 and 9：The manuscript lacks a discussion section. The authors should compare the results with those of similar studies.

Response 8 and 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We have restructured the article so that Chapter 6 is now a discussion and conclusion. In the discussion section, the innovations and shortcomings of this study relative to similar studies are presented. The conclusion section was condensed to present three main findings.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.Clearly state hypotheses, refine theoretical frameworks, and highlight unique Tibetan factors.

2.Expand the discussion to address why economic incentives are less impactful in Tibetan contexts compared to ecological/social norms.

3.Clarify methodology: Detail how cultural variables (e.g., religion) were measured and justify the small sample size.

4.To address ethical compliance issues, the mention of ethical approval or informed consent from participants has been omitted. Given the sensitivity of the Tibetan community, this issue must be resolved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are grammar errors and clumsy wording in the manuscript. Suggest thorough proofreading by native English speakers.

Author Response

Comments 1: Clearly state hypotheses, refine theoretical frameworks, and highlight unique Tibetan factors.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added three hypotheses in Chapter 3 to refine the theoretical framework and highlight the unique religious elements of Tibet.

Comments 2: Expand the discussion to address why economic incentives are less impactful in Tibetan contexts compared to ecological/social norms.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. In our discussion in Chapter 6, we explored the impact of Tibetan religious thought on believers. Quietness of mind and abundance lead them to feel that financial incentives have less of an impact.

Comments 3：Clarify methodology: Detail how cultural variables (e.g., religion) were measured and justify the small sample size.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. In section 4.3, we detail how cultural variables (e.g., religion) are measured in farm households through questionnaires and interviews, and explain the reasons for the small sample size.

Comments :4：To address ethical compliance issues, the mention of ethical approval or informed consent from participants has been omitted. Given the sensitivity of the Tibetan community, this issue must be resolved.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have obtained verbal informed consent from participants. The reason for obtaining verbal consent rather than written consent was that [some of the farmers could not write]. We have added the ethical statement after the main text .

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript titled "Analysis of Influencing Factors on the Cognition and Behavioural Correspondence of Green Development of Farming Households in Tibetan Areas--Taking HeZuo City as an Example" by Maoyuan Zhao and Yongchun Yang presents an in-depth study on the factors influencing farmers' green production behavior in Tibetan areas, using data from Hezuo City. But the manuscript is still far from being published.

1. The manuscript does have issues in terms of language smoothness and readability. The expressions that resemble government documents and the stilted translation can negatively impact the overall quality and accessibility of the paper.  For example, line 19-22, "The green development strategy can help to align farmers' cognitive and behavioral responses to green production. It is recommended that the government use environmental regulation as the primary means of driving the current green transformation in Tibetan areas." may be more appropriate.
2. The background introduction of the abstract is full of the tone of Chinese domestic liberal arts papers. The journal is an SCI or SSCI for international readers, So the 14th Five-Year Plan must be explained the country.
3. line 11, "this study" may more appropriate than "the article".
4. It's hard to imagine the entire introduction without any references.
5. line 27-38, There is no time or space. Not all readers are Chinese and will have a good understanding of your research area and historical context. In fact, green agriculture has a long history.
6. There are some inappropriate Spaces in the text. （line 49, 58,67）
7. line 41-44, Please provide references.
8. line 51-52, Please provide references. When it comes to religion and unique cultural areas, subjective differences should not be defined, so please insert appropriate references.
9. line 59, The first letter of a sentence should be capitalized.

10. In 4.1 Regional overview, There is a certain degree of repetition here with the previous content.

11. Is the questionnaire content uploaded as an attachment? The manuscript should indicate that it can be seen in the attachment. It is suggested to translate the questionnaire.
12. Typographical confusion in line 330.
13. Table 5 makes no sense.
14. Typographical confusion in line 438.
15. I propose to change point six to discussion and conclusions. The first point of discussion should be the shortcomings of this paper, followed by the conclusion, and then write the prospects.
16. The manuscript is also currently somewhat confused in its overall logical framework. It is not recommended to separate the current research into section. 

Author Response

Comments 1:The manuscript does have issues in terms of language smoothness and readability. The expressions that resemble government documents and the stilted translation can negatively impact the overall quality and accessibility of the paper.  For example, line 19-22, "The green development strategy can help to align farmers' cognitive and behavioral responses to green production. It is recommended that the government use environmental regulation as the primary means of driving the current green transformation in Tibetan areas." may be more appropriate.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the language of the manuscript. The language was made more fluent.

Comments 2: The background introduction of the abstract is full of the tone of Chinese domestic liberal arts papers. The journal is an SCI or SSCI for international readers, So the 14th Five-Year Plan must be explained the country.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have rewritten the abstract, replacing ambiguous statements with fuller and more precise ones, and condensing the results.

Comments 3,6,9,10,12,14：line 11, "this study" may more appropriate than "the article".There are some inappropriate Spaces in the text（line 49, 58,67）. line 59, The first letter of a sentence should be capitalized.Typographical confusion in line 330.Table 5 makes no sense.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have fully corrected the details of the manuscript.

Comments :4,5,7,8：It's hard to imagine the entire introduction without any references.line 27-38, There is no time or space. Not all readers are Chinese and will have a good understanding of your research area and historical context. In fact, green agriculture has a long history.line 41-44, Please provide references.line 51-52, Please provide references. When it comes to religion and unique cultural areas, subjective differences should not be defined, so please insert appropriate references.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have provided references in the introduction to enhance persuasiveness.

Comments 11：Is the questionnaire content uploaded as an attachment? The manuscript should indicate that it can be seen in the attachment. It is suggested to translate the questionnaire.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We have translated and uploaded the questionnaire to the attachment.

Comments 6：Table 5 makes no sense.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. Table 5 is used to test the validity of the model, and we provide additional explanations in the text.

Comments 15：I propose to change point six to discussion and conclusions. The first point of discussion should be the shortcomings of this paper, followed by the conclusion, and then write the prospects.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We have taken your advice and changed Chapter 6 to Discussion and Conclusion. And it discusses the shortcomings, conclusions and outlook in that order.

Comments 16：The manuscript is also currently somewhat confused in its overall logical framework. It is not recommended to separate the current research into section. 

Response 16: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the logical framework of the manuscript. The current study was placed in Chapter 5 for general presentation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am pleased that the quality of the manuscript has improved significantly and is now very close to publication. However, the figure of the study area must be presented in English, not Chinese, as this is an international journal.

Author Response

Comments 1:I am pleased that the quality of the manuscript has improved significantly and is now very close to publication. However, the figure of the study area must be presented in English, not Chinese, as this is an international journal.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We mapped the study area zones and the locations of the sample sites. It is hoped that it will meet the criteria for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Expand Sample Size: Collaborate with local institutions to collect additional data.

2. Update References: Incorporate recent international studies on green agriculture and behavioral economics.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1.Language quality: Grammatical errors and awkward phrasing exist.

2.Revise the English section with greater professionalism.

Author Response

Comments 1: Expand Sample Size: Collaborate with local institutions to collect additional data.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Two sample surveys were conducted in the study area to collect the maximum possible number of samples available. We will endeavor to work with local organizations to collect more quantitative and diverse data in subsequent studies.

Comments 2：Update References: Incorporate recent international studies on green agriculture and behavioral economics.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have updated the bibliography to include more relevant studies on green agriculture and behavioral economics.

Comments 3： Grammatical errors and awkward phrasing exist. Revise the English section with greater professionalism.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have once again proofread the manuscript for grammatical errors and misuse of words, and replaced proper nouns. Your high standards are what motivate us to improve our manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript shows great improvement. After solving some minor problems, it reached the level of basic publication.

1. The map (Fig 2) does not conform to the scientific research map specification.
2. Table 5 has only one row and no header, and the content already appears on line 418. If the authors insist on table 5, I suggest that what KMO stands for in different interval segments could be included in the table.
3. Table 7 does not require parentheses （std' err）.
4. line 645, Discussion.

Author Response

Comments 1:The map (Fig 2) does not conform to the scientific research map specification.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We mapped the study area zones and the locations of the sample sites. It is hoped that it will meet the criteria for publication.

Comments 2:Table 5 has only one row and no header, and the content already appears on line 418. If the authors insist on table 5, I suggest that what KMO stands for in different interval segments could be included in the table.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have taken the expert's advice and deleted Table 5, and the results of the model's plausibility tests are described in the paragraph.

Comments 3 and 4:Table 7 does not require parentheses （std' err）.line 645, Discussion.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We proofread the manuscript again for details and spelling errors, and removed the parentheses in Table 7 to improve readability.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1:Abstract is very long for such a short paper. It is almost as long as the introduction, which doesn’t look good. Abstract is supposed be a very brief summary of the paper and findings.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have condensed the abstract to make it generalizable.

Comments 2:The introduction is sound in terms of establishing relevance and context, but it could benefit from clearer articulation of the research focus and a more direct lead-in to the study's main findings and arguments. Similarly, section 2 has issues. Strengthening the connections between the literature review, research gaps, and the study's objectives would enhance the effectiveness of this section.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we set out the focus of the study more clearly in the introduction, leading more directly to the main findings and arguments of the study (lines 61-84).

Second, in Section 2, Literature Review, we add to the existing literature on green production, green production perceptions, and factors influencing behavioral responses. It is emphasized that the uniqueness of farmers in Tibetan areas can effectively complement some of the gaps in the current research.(section 2)

Comments 3:Descriptive statistics part is weak. The authors must announce more than simply the mean.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we supplemented the descriptive statistics with sample standard deviations for readers to better understand the sample profile.(The table 2.)

Comments 4:Tables should specifically mention the names of the variables (abbreviation are ok) rather than X1, X2, etc. In the current form the readability of the output tables is not good.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have replaced all X1, X2, etc. in the table with variable names for better readability.(The table 4 and 5.)

Comments 5:I have some concerns regarding potential endogeneity in this model

1. a) Absorption of carbon dioxide: Environmentally conscious farmers might perceive greater ecological benefits, leading to reverse causality.
2. b) Improvement of microclimate: Farmers practicing green methods may already perceive microclimatic improvements, introducing endogeneity.
3. c) Ecological compensation incentives: Endogeneity risk if more incentives are provided in areas with higher green production engagement.

Response 5:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.However, the article examines the backward level of agricultural development in regional municipalities, and their green transformation is in its infancy. The perception of CO2 absorption, the application of green production, and the participation in green production cannot yet influence the endogeneity of the model.We will consider the endogeneity of the model in my next research, and thank you again for your comments!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The article is generally good. However, several areas of improvement need to be done to elevate the quality of the paper:

- It would be good to see the survey. Either add it in the annex or just provide it in the supplementary materials.

- It is necessary to explain the methodology in more detail, and the most important is to underline why this specific methodology for this type of survey data.

- Is 46 responses enough and why? What is the approximate number of the whole population? Is the sample to granular and small or not and why?

- The discussion of the results needs to be strengthened with other relevant literature. Who got similar conclusions, and who the opposing ones?

- In the conclusion, what are the limitations of this study?  What cand and should be done in future research on this topic?

All these issues need to be addressed in order to elevate the quality of the paper.

 

All the best,

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences are quite long and difficult to follow. 

Author Response

Comments 1: It would be good to see the survey. Either add it in the annex or just provide it in the supplementary materials.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have placed the questionnaire for this research in a supplemental document.

Comments 2: - It is necessary to explain the methodology in more detail, and the most important is to underline why this specific methodology for this type of survey data.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.We add a description of the research methodology content and reasons for this in Section 4.2.

Comments 3: - Is 46 responses enough and why? What is the approximate number of the whole population? Is the sample to granular and small or not and why?

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.The sample size was only 46 due to the small population base in the study area and the fact that most of the rural villages have elderly people and children left behind and language communication is not easy. However, during the research process, we adopted a combination of stratified and random sampling to ensure a random sample.(Paragraph 2 of section 4.2,)

Comments 4: - The discussion of the results needs to be strengthened with other relevant literature. Who got similar conclusions, and who the opposing ones?

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.We add additional literature in Section 2 to enhance the discussion of the results and clarify the differences and scholarly contributions of this paper to existing studies.(Section 2)

Comments 5: - In the conclusion, what are the limitations of this study?  What cand and should be done in future research on this topic?

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.We have added Section VII to illustrate the limitations of this paper, with sample size and depth of research being issues that should be addressed subsequently.(Section 7)

Comments 6: All these issues need to be addressed in order to elevate the quality of the paper. 

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.We have added Section 7 for illustrating the subsequent progress of this study, and in the future, the research object can be shifted from agriculture to the green production cognition and behavioral response of the pastoral and service industries. At the same time, we will explore the cognition and practice of green transformation among Tibetan people under the influence of Tibetan Buddhism, so as to explore a balanced path of ecological environmental protection and economic efficiency enhancement.(Section 7)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript deals with a relevant issue: the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. 

The authors characterize and analyse the influencing factors on the cognition and behavioural correspondence of green development of farming households in Tibetan Areas (China).

The research issue, objectives and method are clear and coherently stated.

The results and discussion and conclusions are rich and soundly presented.

Nevertheless, some points are worth revisiting:

1 - Some times the authors use the term "Cooperative City", some times use the term "Cooperative Farms". It seems pertinent to homogenize the terms and characterize them in the section of Introduction. 

2 - In the introduction of Section 3 (Theoretical analysis framework for cognitive and behavioural responses of farmers in Tibetan areas) , the content presented from line 131 to line 133 is: "This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental  conclusions that can be drawn." This statement is no aligned with Section 3 content. It must be rewritten.

3 - In Section 3.2 "Cognitive-intentional-behavioural" decision-making frameworks" it seems pertinent to explore/add/cite/reference some authors/papers to suppor the choice of the "Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)" as the study´s analytical framework.

4 - In Section 4.2 "Variable selection and descriptive statistics"  it seems pertinent to explore/add/cite/reference some authors/papers to suppor the choice of Table 2´s variable definitions and descriptive statistics.

5 - In line 441 it is stated that "results are shown in Table 6." It seems to be "results are shown in Table 5." Is not it?

6 - In the Conclusions, Section 6, it seems pertinent to present the study´s limitations.

7 - The manuscript must pass through an extensive proofreading and editing (many repetive phrases...).

 

Author Response

Comments 1: Some times the authors use the term "Cooperative City", some times use the term "Cooperative Farms". It seems pertinent to homogenize the terms and characterize them in the section of Introduction. 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. For better reading, we have standardized the study area throughout the text - HeZuo City. (The full text)

Comments 2: In the introduction of Section 3 (Theoretical analysis framework for cognitive and behavioural responses of farmers in Tibetan areas) , the content presented from line 131 to line 133 is: "This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental  conclusions that can be drawn." This statement is no aligned with Section 3 content. It must be rewritten.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have deleted the introduction to section III to avoid inconsistencies.(Section 3)

Comments 3: In Section 3.2 "Cognitive-intentional-behavioural" decision-making frameworks" it seems pertinent to explore/add/cite/reference some authors/papers to suppor the choice of the "Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)" as the study´s analytical framework.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have added a number of papers related to the Theory of Farmer Behavior and the Theory of Planned Behavior in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 to support the choice of “Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)” as the analytical framework for this study.(Section 3.1 and 3.2)

Comments 4: In Section 4.2 "Variable selection and descriptive statistics"  it seems pertinent to explore/add/cite/reference some authors/papers to suppor the choice of Table 2´s variable definitions and descriptive statistics.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.We have added and cited relevant papers on the corresponding influences on farmers' green production perceptions, intentions and behaviors in Section 2 to support the choice of variable definitions and descriptive statistics in Table 2. (Section 2)

Comments 5: In line 441 it is stated that "results are shown in Table 6." It seems to be "results are shown in Table 5." Is not it?

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.We modified such a low-level error.(Line 565）

Comments 6: In the Conclusions, Section 6, it seems pertinent to present the study´s limitations.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.We have added Section 7 to illustrate the limitations of the article and future perspectives.(Section 7)

Comments 7: The manuscript must pass through an extensive proofreading and editing (many repetive phrases...).

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.We proofread the entire text, correcting grammatical errors and repetitive phrases.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

     This paper lacks innovation, and the reliability of the sample data and research results is questionable. Please be sure to identify the incremental contributions of this paper in comparison to an existing paper（Doi：10.3969/j.issn.1005-3492.2023.05.007；认知规范、环境规制与小农户绿色发展实践路径——以农田防护林营林生产为例 - 中国知网 (cnki.net)）. The similarities in research content and conclusions between the two may lead to insufficient contributions from this paper. Furthermore, has the author carefully read through the entire paper? There are some instances of repeated statements and duplicated paragraphs throughout the paper. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language quality of the paper is average.

Author Response

This paper lacks innovation, and the reliability of the sample data and research results is questionable. Please be sure to identify the incremental contributions of this paper in comparison to an existing paper（Doi：10.3969/j.issn.1005-3492.2023.05.007；认知规范、环境规制与小农户绿色发展实践路径——以农田防护林营林生产为例 - 中国知网 (cnki.net)）. The similarities in research content and conclusions between the two may lead to insufficient contributions from this paper. Furthermore, has the author carefully read through the entire paper? There are some instances of repeated statements and duplicated paragraphs throughout the paper. 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The theoretical framework in this paper does refer to the Chinese article, so we added in the manuscript that the theoretical framework is cited from other authors' articles. In terms of research methodology, we refer to the indicator system of the Chinese article. However, due to the needs of the study and the specificity of the study area, we have different indicators from those of the Chinese article. In terms of the content of the study, since the object of the study is the behavior and cognition of green production in rural Tibetan areas, the research materials are all from the field research, which reflects the actual situation in the area. The innovativeness lies in the fact that as an underdeveloped and strongly religious region in China, the cognitive and behavioral responses of farmers to green production under their religious beliefs and traditional living habits in the Tibetan region are somewhat different from the overly pursued economic benefits in other regions. Exploring their experience of how to balance ecological environmental protection and economic benefits in the face of green transformation can effectively promote sustainable transformation of agriculture. In the empirical study, the sample data were reprocessed. In this revision, the repetitive expressions in the whole paper are proofread. It is hoped that it can pass the peer review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major Issue: The authors' response on endogeneity concerns is not sufficient. They haven't addressed the specific potential endogeneity issues raised. Reverse causality, where perceived CO2 absorption or microclimate improvements might influence green production decisions, and the possibility that ecological incentives are targeted more in areas with higher green production engagement, are valid concerns. These issues can exist regardless of the early stage of green transformation. Simply stating that the timeline is not long enough does not address these potential sources of endogeneity, nor have they attempted to test for them.

 

Minor Issue: When I was mentioning adding more details about the data, I had more than adding only standard deviations to the descriptive statistics table. I am a little bit surprised why the authors do not want to provide a detailed descriptive statistics table.

Author Response

Comments 1: The authors' response on endogeneity concerns is not sufficient. They haven't addressed the specific potential endogeneity issues raised. Reverse causality, where perceived CO2 absorption or microclimate improvements might influence green production decisions, and the possibility that ecological incentives are targeted more in areas with higher green production engagement, are valid concerns. These issues can exist regardless of the early stage of green transformation. Simply stating that the timeline is not long enough does not address these potential sources of endogeneity, nor have they attempted to test for them.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.We tested the reliability and validity of the whole scale and the subdimensional scales in order to address the issue of endogeneity. Cronbach's coefficient test, CITC coefficient test and KMO test were used. The test results all show that the scale has high reliability and validity. Therefore, the model has credibility. (Table 4, 5, 6)

Comments 2: When I was mentioning adding more details about the data, I had more than adding only standard deviations to the descriptive statistics table. I am a little bit surprised why the authors do not want to provide a detailed descriptive statistics table.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.We disclose additional data, including descriptive statistics of individual control variables and frequency shares of observed variables. (Tables 2. and 3.)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors applied the suggestions and recommendations.

Author Response

Comments 1: I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper. 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We read through and revised the whole paper again. Repetitive expressions and punctuation errors in the paper were corrected. The presentation was harmonized. And improved the quality of English expression. (Red highlights)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed most of the comments properly, and the quality has correspondingly improved. However, there are still some suggestions:

1. Sample Data：

（1）The current number of valid sample data is only 46, which represents a relatively small sample size. It is recommended to supplement the sample data.

（2）In the section titled "4.2 Research Design," the paper states, " the questionnaire survey collected a total of 51 copies of the questionnaire, excluding invalid questionnaires and abnormal values, we get 46 valid questionnaires." However, in "Table 1. Sample Distribution and Regional Statistics," the sample data is indicated as 49. Is there any contradiction in the sample data？

2. Please read through and revise the paper once again.There are some instances of repetitive phrasing and punctuation errors in the paper, such as on page 2 (lines 50-55), page 4 (lines 189-192), and page 7 (lines 343-345).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language quality is better.

Author Response

The authors have addressed most of the comments properly, and the quality has correspondingly improved. However, there are still some suggestions:

Comments 1: Sample Data：

（1）The current number of valid sample data is only 46, which represents a relatively small sample size. It is recommended to supplement the sample data.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Due to the small population base in the study area, with an average of only 5-6 households in the villages, and the fact that most of the rural villages only have elderly people and children left behind, and the language communication is not easy, we did one month's field research but the sample size was only 46. We will continue to supplement the sample size in the subsequent research. However, in the research process, we adopted a combination of stratified sampling and random sampling to ensure the randomness and comprehensiveness of the sample.

（2）In the section titled "4.2 Research Design," the paper states, " the questionnaire survey collected a total of 51 copies of the questionnaire, excluding invalid questionnaires and abnormal values, we get 46 valid questionnaires." However, in "Table 1. Sample Distribution and Regional Statistics," the sample data is indicated as 49. Is there any contradiction in the sample data？

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Due to our mistake, there was a contradiction in manuscript writing, which we have corrected in Table 1. The total valid sample size for the study was 46. We apologize for any reading difficulties you may have had.(Table 1.)

Comments 2: Please read through and revise the paper once again.There are some instances of repetitive phrasing and punctuation errors in the paper, such as on page 2 (lines 50-55), page 4 (lines 189-192), and page 7 (lines 343-345).

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.We read through and revised the whole paper again. Repetitive expressions and punctuation errors in the paper were corrected. The presentation was harmonized. (Red highlights)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have not responded my original comments that I made in the last version. All the issues that I mentioned remains the same.