Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments：

This paper constructed the Tobit MLE Spatial Cross Sections Regression models to empirically study a sample of 174 farmers and to analyzed the impact of the new farmers group on the diffusion of sustainable agricultural practices as well as farmers’ influence on various sorts of sustainable agricultural practices, which is highly innovative and of research significance. However, there are some problems, which must be solved before it is considered for publication.

Specific comments：

1. The rationale behind using the Tobit model is not explained in the paper, which should be supplemented.

2. The paper sets three different spatial weight matrices but lacks comparison of their advantages and disadvantages, which needs further discussion.

3. There may exist some subjectivity in the evaluation index system of sustainable agricultural practices. The scoring by different experts could be biased. The reliability of the scores needs elaboration.

4. The sample size is only 174 households. Whether it can represent the overall situation in the study area and meet the requirements of model estimation needs explanation.

5. The definition and scope of the concept "new farmers" are not clear enough in the paper. 6. The paper compares new farmers with traditional ones but does not control other differences (e.g. education level) between the two groups, which may lead to omitted variable bias.

7. The theoretical basis for selecting independent variables in the spatial econometric models is not solid enough. Whether to consider variables like attitude and risk perception could be discussed.

8. The analysis of the reasons behind heterogeneous spatial effects of different types of sustainable agricultural practices is not deep enough. Explanations from the policy and institutional perspectives could be helpful.

9. The research has some regional limitations. Expanding the sample scope may help verify the robustness of the findings.

10. The research is based on cross-sectional data, which cannot examine the spatiotemporal dynamics of sustainable agricultural practices adoption. Panel data could be considered in further studies.

11. The policy implications of the research findings for sustainable agricultural development need further expansion. More targeted policy suggestions could be proposed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This REVIEW article interested in SAP that prepared in 6 sections.

In this manuscript, theoretical constructs of an analytical framework for exploring the spatial effects of adopting SAPs were stated.  The empirical research framework includes the model construction and descriptions of variables and data sources introduced and then the empirical results and discussions reported.  Finally, conclusions, policy implications, and research agendas are well summarized.

 

Author Response

Many thanks for your constructive, helpful, and guiding comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

With the rapid development of social economy, new types of farmers have emerged constantly, constantly reshaping the pattern of rural social and economic development. In this context, based on first-hand survey data, the authors used spatial measurement systems to analyze the impact of new farmers on sustainable agricultural practices. In general, the research topic is meaningful, in line with the current development trend of China, the research design is reasonable, the research method is solid, and the research results are basically in line with common sense, which can provide decision-making reference for the designation of relevant policies. In order to better improve the quality of the paper, several suggestions for reference:

      (1) Compared with the existing research, where the marginal contribution of this research should be further clarified, the current marginal contribution is scattered in the introduction.

       (2) The definition of core variables, especially the definition of new farmers, suggests the author to use more ink, why pay attention to returned talents and returning talents, rural itself can produce a new type of management with the characteristics of the author's so-called new farmers?

       (3) The research should have a discussion section, which systematically explains the marginal contribution of this study, the similarities and differences between this study and similar studies, the reasons for the differences, and the direction of further research in the future.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article would be improved by being more precise, from the very beginning, with definitions of "new" farmers, "traditional" farmers, etc.  It should be made clear that these are the definitions in use in China, but maybe not universally elsewhere.  

67:68 This sentence needs to include several references to back up the claim. 

74: Start new paragraph "Nanjing..."

75:typo

116:127 This is an interesting paragraph that sets up the rationale for the model.  It could likely be expanded upon to consider such things as whether the behavior/attitude of existing farmers influence the actual location decisions of emergent farmers.

I was a bit frustrated reading the theoretical model section, looking for sources of data.  Then, I finally came to the data section.  So, I guess that is fine.

274:"labors" should be "laborers"

In the data section you reference a survey, but do not provide information on where the survey instrument can be found.  Do you plan to make it available to readers?  

You do not report on the basic statistics from the survey responses.  I suggest that these be included as this lends credibility to the validity of the survey and is a more honest way to report findings.

The article is rather lengthy for this publication.  But, I think it is well-written.  The topic is of great importance, so the article will likely be referenced by many following publication.  

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The use of English language is appropriate.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general, the article is of scientific interest; the author understands some of the subjectivity of the study. The presentation may be difficult for the reader. try to improve the tables and map for better clarity

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx