Do Not Be Anticlimactic: Farmers’ Behavior in the Sustainable Application of Green Agricultural Technology—A Perceived Value and Government Support Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article entitled "Don't be anticlimactic: Farmers’Behaviors of sustainable application of green agricultural technology—from the perspective of Perceived Value and Government Support" discussed that the production mode of "high input, high yield, and high waste" in the agricultural system poses a serious threat to the environment and the quality of agricultural products. Accelerating the adoption of green agricultural technology (GAT)by farmers is an emergency measure. But according to the micro survey data, many farmers give up GAT within a year after adopting. Implementation of this measure has been anticlimactic. Based on a survey of 1,138 kiwi growers in Shaanxi prov-ince of China, this paper builds a theoretical model and conducts empirical exercises to gain insight into the effects of perceived value, government support and their interaction on kiwi growers sustainable application of GAT. We find that perceived value and government support have a significant impact on the sustainable application of GAT. Government support plays a moderating role in the influence of perceived value on the sustainable application of GAT. Further, in order to overcome the potential endogeneity problem caused by the two-way causal relationship between subjective variables, this paper selects "whether farmers own smartphones" as the instrumental variable, and adopts the 2SLS model to conduct endogeneity analysis and robustness test. This paper discusses the relevant theories and policy implications of environmental management.
The title and content of the article is good to read. however, there are few suggestions for further improvements:
Please recheck and revise the use of the English language
Quality of figures could be improved, especially the font size in the figures could be enhanced for better reading
More recent references/citations could be added and replace the older ones
The discussion section could be enhanced further by sharing the findings of this study in light/reference of the relevant prior art available
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper explores the determinants of green technology adoption by a sample of kiwi farmers in China, following a profit model approach. Though the research subject has been extensively studied in the international literature, the paper provides a different perspective on Chinese farming; it is well structured, well written and employs a sound methodology that is easy to follow. A few points, though, need further consideration.
1. The model in figure 1 should be clearly identified; thus, insert a sentence or two describing what is in the figure.
2. The final section should be renamed “Discussion”, which will present the study's main results and comparison with previous literature. Also, it mentions the possible policy implementation and recommendations that stem from your results.
3. Write only one paragraph (Conclusion) giving the study's main results (with data), its significance, and its novelty versus actual knowledge.
4. The Discussion section should tie up the study's results, providing comparisons with extant literature. This is different in its present form, and since the study refers to a specific country-region context, it should include such comparisons for results applicability and generalisation.
5. A thorough language editing is required since many words in the text need to be correctly written.
6. The list of references on the back has to be rechecked as some of them have the names written in reverse (e.g. references 13, 15 and 43).
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The reviewed research paper applies probit and OLS statistical techniques on a sample of 1138 kiwi growers in order to determine relationships between monetary and non-monetary benefits and risks (as perceived value) along with several control variables on the sustainable application of green agricultural technologies (GAT), as well as the relationships between government support in the form of technical extension service and ecological subsidy on sustainable application of GAT. Additionally, the 2SLS technique for smartphone ownership as instrumental variable. As stated above, the research avenue is interesting in the fields of agricultural and environmental management, although some improvements regarding the paper are proposed for consideration:
C1: Within the abstract, there is stated (line 23) that the paper discusses relevant theories. Based on the present content, the reader can find a short presentation of some theoretical aspects, but no detailed discussion of them, or their analysis from a complementary perspective. This phrase from the abstract should be rewritten or the theoretical part (concerning the mentioned theories) extended.
C2: The current form of the paper must be extended and detailed on several relevant components – theoretical background; methodology; conclusions/findings, limitations, future research directions; and even the reference list.
C3: It would be important to extend the introduction and literature review of the paper, including further scientific papers, arguments, contradictory results, thus emphasizing the place and the originality of the paper. Some newer references should be included, while just a single paper from 2022 and one from 2021 are cited within the current form of the research paper.
C4: Several references should be included within the introductory part, because (for example in lines 41, 51, 111) the terms “scholars”, “some studies”, and “domestic and foreign scholars” are mentioned generally, without including any reference to them. Furthermore, within the introductory part the concept of starting the application and the continuous usage of GAT should be delimited, and afterwards the research questions should be consequently refined. This will help to explain the role of the mentioned theories first into the adoption of the behaviour and afterwards in maintaining continuously the behaviour in time. For example, the TPB model can be used to explain exclusively the transition from the intention to staring/adoption a given type of behaviour, however not to explain how to continue or maintain the behaviour in time. Considering the above idea, the determinants might be different for the decision of stating and the decision to continue a given activity/behaviour.
C5: Regarding the theoretical part, section 2.1., the three categories should be reorganized as follows: 1 - 3 - 2, because the third category is individual related as the first one. Also, these determinants should be further detailed with reference to other current studies.
C6: The theoretical model of the study is slightly different than the tested model. In this sense, the Perceived value is not measured/described within the variables section, not being considered as an individual construct, rather based on its four components. I would propose to adapt/modify the current form of the model.
C7: Concerning the methodological part (section 3), it is not clear if it was a survey or an interview, based on which data was registered (see lines 249 and 271-272). If it is a questionnaire, it might be included within the annex.
Regarding the third part of the paper (Data and variables), it would be necessary a more detailed presentation of the variables, because they are not referenced and as the Authors mentioned, some of them were considered “unscientific”. Also, a single question to measure several aspects of a construct (like the numerous non-monetary or monetary benefits and risks) is not scientifically sound, therefor Authors should reconsider the measurement issues.
As well, elements regarding the statistical techniques and methods should be described, argued, and referenced. An extension would be useful regarding the reasons why the authors used Probit, OLS, 2SLS instead of any other methods/techniques.
Within the “3.4. Model specification” part, it would be easier for the reader if the Authors would include a description of the 6 models they created, and the variables included.
C8: Within Table 1, values of standard deviations (SD) are not discussed, although the values are quite high. Nor the means are presented.
C9: Based on the numerous statistical techniques and tests applied, section 6 regarding conclusions and findings should be extended. Also, the study is lacking relations to extant studies. Considering the current state and characteristics of the research, it would be necessary to include within the last part of the paper, if obtained findings present similarities or contradictions to previous results.
Complementary, the Author should include some managerial implications for the kiwi farmers. Also, because they are lacking, at least some limitations of the research and how would the Author address them in the future, as potential research directions, should be mentioned.
C10. Some typos and moderate language related changes required:
§ Line 75: „addiotin”;
§ Line 112: „adoptinf”;
§ Lines 128-130, 227: „government environmental regulations and education programs are expected to affect the green choices farmers will make to a great extent”, “optimizing the allocation efficiency of element input and”;
§ Line 139: „attitude, Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC), and Subjective Norm (SN)”, shortening for personal attitude should be included as well;
§ Lines 167, 169, 173-174, 175, 219: space after comma or point is needed for “benefits,environmental improvement,village”, “technology.Firstly”, „term.Sec-ondly,if”, „environment,enhanced”, respectively too much space is added „farmers，to”.
§ Line 209: „(Jia and Lu, 2018)” reference was not formated as requested by the journal.
C11: The Authors should review references 46-49, lines 642, 644, 646, 648, while there is a duplication on the number of references.
I hope the above observations will contribute to the improvement of your paper.
Best regards and good luck with your paper!
