The Path to Sustainable Agricultural Development: How Does Financial Support Affect the Green Production Behavior Intention of Millet Growers?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Tank you for the corrections.

However, there are some suggestions, as some minor errors remained.

The word "xiaomi" appears in some places in the text, eg. in line 34.  This should be corrected to English.

The word (abbreviation) "mu" appearing in line 50 should also be changed to ha (hectare = 10000 m² ) and the unit of area measurement should be checked in the rest of the text. 

Also in line 50 grains are mentioned, but what kind of grains are grown? The areas of cultivation should also be mentioned. 

Figure 2 has remained unclear.

Suggestion: minor revision

End of report.

Author Response

Comment 1: The term "Xiaomi" appears in some places in the text, for example: in line 34. This should be changed to English.

Response: We have replaced all instances of the Chinese term "Xiaomi" with the English equivalent "millet" throughout the manuscript, including line 34.

Comment 2: The abbreviation "mu" appearing in line 50 should also be changed to ha (hectare = 10000 m²) and the area units should be checked in the rest of the main text.

Response: We have replaced all the units with square meters or square kilometers in the main text to ensure consistency and accuracy.

Comment 3: In this line, it also mentions 50 crops, but what specific crops are grown? The planting area should also be mentioned.

Response: We have revised the relevant section to specify that the main crop grown is millet, and we have added detailed information about the planting area, including the geographical distribution and scale of millet cultivation in the study region.At the same time, we have expanded the types of grains. Since this article mainly focuses on millet, we did not provide overly detailed descriptions of other grains.

Comment 4: Figure 2 is still unclear.

Response: We have made modifications to the legend in Figure 2 to ensure all details are legible and the information is presented effectively.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a study on role of financial support on farmers’ behavior related to green production. The study is focused on millet growers’ behavior.

Abstract: This section is very informative and contains all the necessary elements required to describe the design and results of a study.

Introduction: In this section the authors presented the study’s background and its objectives. The authors in great detail presented the study’s contribution to the state-of-knowledge. “Xiaomi” is not a term used in the English scientific literature.

Literature review and theoretical research hypothesis: I suggest adding a brief introduction to this section as it is divided in multiple and diverse sub-sections and explain the rationale for the structure of this section and its parts.

H1 – this hypothesis is not clear. Each person has always a certain behavior attitude. Therefore, I suggest more precise formulation of this hypothesis.

All the other hypotheses are correctly formulated and relevant for the study.

Figure 1. I suggest putting the whole names instead of the abbreviations to make the figure more comprehensive.

Results: In this section the authors present the data sources and questionnaire. Such elements should be part of a section “Materials and methods”. The result section is not a correct place to put these elements. This section must be renamed.

Empirical result analysis: This section presents the study’s results. They are compelling and clearly presented.

Discussion on empirical results: This section presents an in-depth analysis of the study results. The results are compelling and clearly presented. The authors also compared their results with the studies on similar topics.

Conclusions: In my opinion there is no point in dividing this section into sub-sections. This section clearly summarizes the study findings, demonstrates their significance as well as shows the study’s limitations and future study needs.

Author Response

Comment 1:  "Xiaomi" is not a term used in English scientific literature.

Response: As noted in our response to Reviewer 1, we have replaced all instances of "Xiaomi" with "millet" in the manuscript to ensure consistency with standard English scientific terminology.

Comment 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Research Hypothesis: I suggest adding a brief introduction to this section, as it is divided into multiple and diverse subsections, and explain the rationale for the structure of this section and its parts.

Response: We have added a brief introductory paragraph at the beginning of the Literature Review and Theoretical Research Hypothesis section（Lines 199-207) This introduction outlines the structure of the section, explains the rationale for the organization of subsections, and provides a clear roadmap for readers to follow.

Comment 3: H1——This hypothesis is not clear. Everyone has their own behavioral attitudes. Therefore, I suggest a more precise statement of this hypothesis.

Response: We have revised Hypothesis H1 to be more precise and context-specific. We have clearly defined the attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control in the context of millet cultivation, and have explicitly stated the expected direction of influence on farmers' green production behavior intention.

Comment 4: Figure 1. I suggest using full names instead of abbreviations to make the figures more comprehensive.

Response: We have revised Figure 1 to use full names instead of abbreviations, ensuring that all elements are clearly labeled and the information is more accessible to readers.

Comment 5: Results: The authors present the data sources and questionnaires in this section. These elements should be part of the "Materials and Methods" section. The Results section is not the correct place for these elements. This section must be renamed.

Response: We have restructured the manuscript to move the description of data sources and questionnaires to the Materials and Methods section, as suggested. The Results section has been appropriately renamed and now focuses solely on presenting the findings of the study.

 

Comment 6: Conclusion: I believe that dividing this section into subsections is not meaningful. This section clearly summarizes the research results, demonstrates their importance, and presents the limitations of the study and future research needs.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback on the structure of the Conclusion section. After careful reconsideration, we would like to respectfully retain the subheadings within this section, as we believe they significantly enhance the clarity and accessibility of the content for our readers.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) The article is extremely complicated in its content, as if the authors were convinced that the more complicated and intricate the message, the higher the quality of the analysis. However, the opposite is true.

2) The title is inappropriate for the content. The path to sustainable agricultural development: How does financial support affect the green production behavior intention of millet growers? The first part should be removed.

3) The abstract does not explain the main research problem to the reader.

4) The text does not clearly define the research problem and the purpose of the study.

5) If I understand correctly, the study subjects were farmers who grow millet but do not use "green" technology or ecological principles. How was their willingness to undertake "green" millet production as a result of subsidies and other incentives assessed?

6) The authors point out that "Existing studies mostly simply verify the direct correlation between financial support and farmers' willingness to produce green, and do not conduct in-depth exploration of the indirect transmission mechanism between the two." What did the authors specifically investigate to uncover this "indirect transmission mechanism"? I am not satisfied with the answer: attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control. Please specify: what attitudes are you referring to? What subjective norms? What perceived behavioral control? Please describe these factors specifically in the context of millet cultivation.

7) The technical description of the survey aspects is too extensive and detailed, and it is not explained precisely how attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control were captured and measured in the studies.

8) There are too many hypotheses and they are ambiguously formulated. For example, H7 reads: The intention of millet farmers to practice green behavior is directly and indirectly influenced by financial support. But what is the direction of this influence? Furthermore, this hypothesis essentially "consumes" all previous hypotheses.

9) In my opinion, the results of this research are contained in the text between lines 595-612. But why do the authors repeat this several times (e.g., lines 640-662).

Author Response

Comment 1: The article is extremely complicated in its content, as if the authors were convinced that the more complicated and intricate the message, the higher the quality of the analysis. However, the opposite is true.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful observation regarding the complexity of our manuscript. After careful reconsideration, we would like to respectfully retain the nuanced and detailed analytical framework, as we believe it is essential for accurately capturing the multifaceted nature of our research question. We have, however, made targeted revisions to improve clarity and readability, while preserving the depth of analysis.

Comment 2: The title is inappropriate for the content. The path to sustainable agricultural development: How does financial support affect the green production behavior intention of millet growers? The first part should be removed.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback on our manuscript title. After careful reconsideration, we would like to respectfully retain the original, two-part title structure, as we believe it provides critical context and enhances the impact of our work.

Comment 3: The abstract does not explain the main research problem to the reader.

Response: We have revised the abstract to clearly and explicitly state the main research problem, the objectives of the study, the key methods used, the main findings, and the significance of the research.

Comment 4: The text does not clearly define the research problem and the purpose of the study.

Response: In the introduction section, we elaborated on the research questions（Lines 123-124) and clearly stated the purpose of the study（Lines 125-128) . This helps readers immediately understand the background and significance of our work.

Comment 5: If I understand correctly, the study subjects were farmers who grow millet but do not use "green" technology or ecological principles. How was their willingness to undertake "green" millet production as a result of subsidies and other incentives assessed?

Response: We have provided a detailed description of how we assessed farmers' willingness to adopt green millet production practices in response to subsidies and other incentives（Lines 280-291). This includes the specific survey questions and measurement scales used in our analysis.

Comment 6: The authors point out that "Existing studies mostly simply verify the direct correlation between financial support and farmers' willingness to produce green, and do not conduct in-depth exploration of the indirect transmission mechanism between the two." What did the authors specifically investigate to uncover this "indirect transmission mechanism"? I am not satisfied with the answer: attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control. Please specify: what attitudes are you referring to? What subjective norms? What perceived behavioral control? Please describe these factors specifically in the context of millet cultivation.

Response: We have added the description of the indirect transmission mechanism（Lines 250-258) . We have clearly defined attitudes（Lines 171-174) , subjective norms （Lines 186-190) , and perceived behavioral control （Lines 202-206)  in the specific context of millet cultivation.  

Comment 7: The technical description of the survey aspects is too extensive and detailed, and it is not explained precisely how attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control were captured and measured in the studies.

Response: We simplified the technical description section of the investigation to make it clearer and more objective.

Comment 8: There are too many hypotheses and they are ambiguously formulated. For example, H7 reads: The intention of millet farmers to practice green behavior is directly and indirectly influenced by financial support. But what is the direction of this influence? Furthermore, this hypothesis essentially "consumes" all previous hypotheses.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments on the research hypotheses. We would like to clarify that these seven hypotheses are not unrelated to each other; instead, they have a logical hierarchical relationship and are indispensable. Their formulation is entirely based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) - the core theoretical framework of this study - and has been specifically expanded by introducing the external variable "financial support". We have also supplemented the statement of hypothesis 7（Lines 250-258).

Comment 9: In my opinion, the results of this research are contained in the text between lines 595-612. But why do the authors repeat this several times (e.g., lines 640-662)

Response: We sincerely appreciate your careful review of the content of the manuscript and apologize for any misunderstandings caused by the unclear positioning of the relevant paragraphs. What we would like to clarify is that the content at the aforementioned positions is not a repetitive elaboration of all the research results, but rather a hierarchical summary of different research focuses - the previous paragraphs (Lines 595 to 612) are a targeted summary and in-depth interpretation of the empirical results related to hypotheses H4, H5, and H6 on financial support, while the following paragraphs (Lines 640 to 662) summarize and outline the results related to the indirect effect of financial support (H7). These two parts differ in their logical positioning and research content.

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

General opinion:

The manuscript deals with a noteworthy topic, sustainable agriculture. The structure meets the expectations. The general methodology is an appropriate tool for the purpose of the study and testing of hypotheses. The Authors perform the calculations correctly, and the conclusions drawn are well-founded.

Some critical comments and suggestions for improvement can be made:

The Authors should explain in detail why they chose millet farmers as the subject of their study.

They should mention in wich areas of China millet is still cultivated and what types of farms are typical, e.g., small farmers, cooperatives, ect. They should also brifely mention the country's main crops. What are they and how large is the area under cultivation?

The emphasis is on the role of producers of the size and type of farming covered by the study (micro-farmers) in Chinese agriculture, as this forms the basis for the generalizability of the conclusions drawn.

Other comments:

In lines 40-41: "(such as returning platycodon grandiflorum to the field and making animal fertilizer from platycodon grandiflorum)"- should the English name of the plant be written, so as the correct latin name: 'florus' at the end. Furthermore it is not clear whether the Authors are referring to animal manure or feed?

In line 99, there is an abbreviation SEM, but it is only explained in line 215.

In line 105, "Economics" is used instead of ecomomics.

The references in lines 239-240 cannot be clearly traced in the bibliography.

Line 246 cotains the phrase "see appendix", but there is no appendix in the manuscript.

I recommend having the entire manuscript reviwed by a native proofreader.

For instance lines 254-255 contain the phrases"... millet gold producing area ... capital of millet... ". This is unusual wording in a scientific article.

Lines 260-262 and 600-601 do not belong to the text.

Lines 262-263, fig.2, "Legend, Value" cannot be interpreted. Perhaps it refers to altitude above sea level?

In line 277, ...survey is ... should be written in the past tense, and passive tense consistently throughout the text.

The aggreviation RMB should be explained in Table 1. The unit of measurement for Annual income (10 000 yuan) is unclear. The table shows, for example. "10 000 yuan and below". Does this mean 10 000 or 10 000 x 10 000?

The meaning of MU should also be explained in this table.

I also suggest expanding the introduction with additional references, primarily in relation to green articulture and recycling resources.

Overall recommendation: major revision

End of report.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is in line with the Journal’s scope. However, the manuscript seems to contribute only to the local knowledge.

Introduction

Line 33-49: I don’t understand this first paragraph. How it introduce the broad topic and establish its importance and relevance? Why do you mention platycodon grendiflorum? The first reference is low quality journal; you should build your manuscript on high-quality articles from top journals and top authors in the field.

Line 50: There are abundant fruit? The text needs major corrections of English

Line 50-84: Very poor English, hard to understand. The section sounds more like a position paper, not as a scientific paper. Authors are making references to scholars without put any reference in the text.

There is actually no aim spelt clearly in the Introduction section.

I don’t agree with the description of originality. There are multiple papers using Structural equation modelling when analysing farmers' practices and the role of financial support.

The introduction section is bad and needs to be rewritten. Use the traditional structure of the Introduction section.

Authors are creating a set of hypotheses. That is the correct approach when using structural equation modelling.

However, the English is very poor again; some sentences don’t make sense.

Is the sample representative?

What is MU? (Table 1). Use the international standard system of units

Description of the sample is presented in the results section, and the discussion section presents the results of modelling. This is not the correct structure of a scientific paper.

In general, the study provides very local knowledge. The authors did not find a way to link their research to the global knowledge. The manuscript has many formal problems, mostly a confusing structure and poor English.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

poor english

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors! Your research addresses an important practical issue: stimulating the use of environmentally friendly technologies in agriculture. The article focuses on the psychological impact on farmers.
Unfortunately, the article's positive impact vanishes when examined in detail. The authors (most likely psychology experts) are not experts in government support or agricultural production in general. This is clearly evident from the terminology used in the text. This could have influenced the results of the study. What are "microfarmers"? Where are the clear criteria for inclusion in this group? How could they be met given the stated level of anonymity? What is "financial support"? What is "green production"? Organic production or production in compliance with certain environmental standards? Even minor deviations in these terms will lead to a wide range of results.
References: On the one hand, the number of sources is sufficient for a detailed description of the research on this issue. On the other hand, about half of the sources are quite old (1943, 1944, 1977, 1983, 1984, etc.). Is no one studying this problem? Is it of no interest?
Therefore, it is recommended to send the study back for a complete rewrite.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript addresses a topical research issue and generally meets the standards expected of a scientific publication. The study is conducted at a solid methodological level, and the results are of academic interest. Nevertheless, the manuscript contains several minor editorial and structural issues that should be addressed prior to publication:

1) The authors should ensure consistency in the spelling of the statistical software name SPSS (see lines 335 and 354).

2) In Table 4. Convergence validity evaluation of the scale, the authors are advised to specify the sources that define the applied good fit standards, providing appropriate bibliographic references.

3) Sections 4.1. Reliability and validity test, 4.2. Fitness test, and 4.3. Hypothesis test results, as well as Tables 5, 6, and 7, should be moved to the RESULTS section. The DISCUSSION section should focus on interpreting and discussing the findings from the perspective of the research domain, rather than reiterating statistical procedures and test results.

 

These comments are of a minor nature and do not diminish the overall scientific merit of the manuscript.

 

Best Regards,

Reviewer