Influencing Factors and Transmission Mechanisms of Pro-Environmental Behavior: Evidence from Tea Farmers in Wuyishan National Park
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI received the first round revision of this submission " Influencing factors and transmission mechanisms of pro-environmental behavior: Evidence from tea farmers in Wuyishan National Park "( Land-3670876). It is an interesting research topic. However, there are some issues should be explained or illustrated carefully.
- This study aims to integrate of the Theory of Planned Behavior, the Theory of Externalities, and Place Attachment Theory, constructing a comprehensive analytical framework that considers individual attitudes, social norms, external economic incentives, and emotional connections to the environment. This multi-theory approach enriches the understanding of pro-environmental behavior in the context of agricultural sustainability and provides a more nuanced perspective compared to studies that focus on a single theoretical basis.
- The Introduction could benefit from a more detailed discussion of the specific challenges faced by tea farmers in Wuyishan National Park.
- In the section on Theoretical Foundation, the number of references cited is relatively limited, especially a lack of in-depth analyses of the interactions between studies employing the three theories mentioned above or any two of them. If such studies exist, they should be cited.
- If a location map could be added to the study area, perhaps the readers could have a deeper impression and a better visualization of the place.
- The sample of questionnaires obtained focused on Wuyishan National Park and the surrounding areas, and it is recommended that the scope of applicability of the findings be clearly stated in the discussion section, with a call for future studies to be validated in other areas.
- The tables and figures are generally clear, but some require additional explanation. For example, Table 6, which shows the scores and distribution of the levels of pro-environmental behavior of tea farmers, could have briefly explained how these scores are determined.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
Dear reviewer,
We greatly appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your comments reflect a deep understanding of the topic, and we sincerely appreciate your guidance, which has been instrumental in helping us improve the quality and clarity of our work. We have made significant revisions to the paper based on your suggestions. Details of the specific modifications are as follows.
Comment 1: This study aims to integrate of the Theory of Planned Behavior, the Theory of Externalities, and Place Attachment Theory, constructing a comprehensive analytical framework that considers individual attitudes, social norms, external economic incentives, and emotional connections to the environment. This multi-theory approach enriches the understanding of pro-environmental behavior in the context of agricultural sustainability and provides a more nuanced perspective compared to studies that focus on a single theoretical basis.
Response: We thank you very much for your positive assessment of our theoretical approach. It is very encouraging to know that the integration of TPB, Externalities, and Place Attachment Theory is viewed as a valuable contribution.
Comment 2: The Introduction could benefit from a more detailed discussion of the specific challenges faced by tea farmers in Wuyishan National Park.
Response: Thank you very much for this thoughtful suggestion. In response, we have revised the paragraph (lines 63–69) to elaborate on the practical difficulties faced by farmers, such as restrictions on plantation expansion, limitations on traditional tea-smoking techniques due to environmental bans, increased compliance costs, and uncertainty surrounding ecological compensation mechanisms. We hope these additions enhance the contextual understanding of our study.
Comment 3: In the section on Theoretical Foundation, the number of references cited is relatively limited, especially a lack of in-depth analyses of the interactions between studies employing the three theories mentioned above or any two of them. If such studies exist, they should be cited.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In the revised manuscript, we have substantially enriched the Theoretical Foundation section by incorporating recent literature that explicitly discusses the interaction and integration of the Theory of Planned Behavior, the Theory of Externalities, and Place Attachment Theory. For instance, we added references which explore multi-theoretical perspectives on sustainability behavior and the interplay between cognitive, emotional, and institutional factors. Moreover, we have elaborated more explicitly on how these theories complement each other—for example, how place-based identity and social norms enhance TPB constructs, and how institutional incentives interact with perceived behavioral control and externality awareness. These additions aim to provide a more nuanced and theoretically grounded framework for understanding farmers’ pro-environmental behavior. The relevant revisions can be found in Section 2. We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, which has greatly improved the theoretical depth and interdisciplinary rigor of our analysis.
Comment 4: If a location map could be added to the study area, perhaps the readers could have a deeper impression and a better visualization of the place.
Response: Thank you for this helpful and practical suggestion. In response, we have added Figure 1: Location of Wuyishan National Park to the Materials and Methods section (Section 3.1: Study area and data source). We believe this addition will provide readers with a clearer geographical understanding of the study site and enhance the overall accessibility of the manuscript.
Comment 5: The sample of questionnaires obtained focused on Wuyishan National Park and the surrounding areas, and it is recommended that the scope of applicability of the findings be clearly stated in the discussion section, with a call for future studies to be validated in other areas.
Response: Thank you very much for your insightful suggestion. It is important to clarify the contextual limitations of our findings and encourage future validation studies. In response, we have revised Section 5.3: Limitations and Future Research Directions (lines 709–715) to explicitly discuss the regional and institutional boundaries of the study. Furthermore, we have added a call for future research to test and refine the analytical framework in different socio-ecological and institutional contexts, particularly those involving private land ownership or alternative governance models. We hope this revision sufficiently addresses your comment and strengthens the applicability discussion in the manuscript.
Comment 6: The tables and figures are generally clear, but some require additional explanation. For example, Table 6, which shows the scores and distribution of the levels of pro-environmental behavior of tea farmers, could have briefly explained how these scores are determined.
Response: Thank you for this valuable comment. To improve clarity, we have added a note below Table 6 stating that the scoring criteria for pro-environmental behavior are provided in Appendix A. We hope this addition will help readers better understand how the behavior levels were derived.
Once again, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thoughtful and constructive comments. We believe that the revisions made in response to your feedback have greatly improved the quality of the manuscript. We greatly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our paper.
Wishing you good health and happiness!
Sincerely,
Xiao Han
On behalf of all co-authors
2025.6.9
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe comment is attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
Dear reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your encouraging comments. We are very grateful for your recognition of the topic's relevance and our research efforts. Your suggestions have been extremely helpful in improving the clarity and rigor of our work. Please find our point-by-point responses below:
Comment 1: Introduction: the research objective is missing. The authors provide 3 problems (lines: 77-82), but these are research questions, and research should have a specific objective. Research questions help to achieve the objective. This requires supplementation.
Response: Thank you very much for this important observation. In response, we have revised the manuscript by explicitly adding the research objective in lines 91–93. We hope this clarification addresses your concern and better distinguishes the overall research aim from the specific research questions listed earlier.
Comment 2: Table 3 – economic factors: “Banning the use of Chinese red pine for tea smoking will have a greater impact …” - what does “greater” mean – greater than what? Besides, what is this impact: negative, positive??
Response: We appreciate your careful reading. You are absolutely right that the term “greater” was ambiguous. We have revised the sentence in Table 3 to specify the nature and direction of the impact, clarifying that the ban on Chinese red pine is expected to negatively affect farmers' tea income.
Comment 3: Table 4 - The group characteristics – Age – 1 to 120 years – I don’t understand that. Who does this age concern?
Response: Thank you for noting the confusion. The age variable refers to the age of the household head who participated in the survey. We have now corrected the description in Table 4 to:“Age (in years) of the surveyed tea farmer household head.” We hope this correction ensures clarity and reflects the actual valid range from the field data.
Once again, thank you for your constructive feedback and positive evaluation. We believe the manuscript has been improved thanks to your comments.
Wishing you good health and happiness!
Sincerely,
Xiao Han
On behalf of all co-authors
2025.6.9
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
