Does Livelihood Determine Attitude? The Impact of Farmers’ Livelihood Capital on the Performance of Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution Management: An Empirical Investigation in Yilong Lake Basin, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research object is relevant but there are few minor concerns:

The term “Attitude” has not been properly explained in the article. Maybe the others can think of some other term or provide an proper explanation about what “Attitude” means in the context of the paper.

Explain the calculations of the weights in Table 1 and Table 3.

Please check equation (3). It doesn’t tally with the results presented in Table 7.

English quality is good. The authors can try to make the language slightly simple to comprehend. A quick review would help. 

The title can be simplified. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper and I enjoyed reading it. However, there are essential weaknesses that need to be addressed.

 

1) The introductory/opening section should communicate a little clearer the literature gaps, as well as the study's aims & objectives in order to facilitate the flow of the study.

 

2) Overall there are good arguments and well researched points made in this paper, but I feel that author needs to take to a further level.  

 

I strongly recommend that you include the following references focused on the target journal and on the paper’s topics:

 

Aliabadi, V., Ataei, P., & Gholamrezai, S. (2022). Identification of the relationships among the indicators of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems in agricultural startups. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(4), 100245. https://10.1016/j.jik.2022.100245

 

Andati, P., Majiwa, E., Ngigi, M., Mbeche, R., & Ateka, J. (2022). Determinants of Adoption of Climate Smart Agricultural Technologies among Potato Farmers in Kenya: Does entrepreneurial orientation play a role?. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 100017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stae.2022.100017

 

Liu, W., Zhou, W., & Lu, L. (2022). An innovative digitization evaluation scheme for Spatio-temporal coordination relationship between multiple knowledge driven rural economic development and agricultural ecological environment—Coupling coordination model analysis based on Guangxi. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(3), 100208. https://https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100208

 

3) The research is well-developed.

 

4) At the end, the author should include clear statements as to where research should now go.

 

5) Carefully check the references, so as to make sure they are all complete and follow the Guidelines to Authors.

 

6) Finally, when you submit the corrected version, please do check thoroughly, in order to avoid grammar, syntax or structure/presentation flaws.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper.

 

Use a copyeditor for it

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The manuscript " Does Livelihood Determine Attitude? Different Attitudes of Farmers with Different Livelihood Types to Pollution Control: a Case Study of Yilong Lake Basin, Yunnan Province, China" is interesting, because of the management of non-point source pollution in agriculture is emerging as a topic of considerable importance to research activity in local ecological environment.

Title

The title should be modified according to the article content, it is unclear, because the manuscript is sufficiently informative in assessment of the agricultural non-point source pollution control performance among different types of households, but it must be revised in light of the implications on the farmer’s perception, and items response theory.

Introduction

In the introduction, it is recommended to add some theoretical approach content, such as the theory of planned behavior, livelihood capital, farmers perception, the theory of expected utility, etc.The objective was not clearly defined in the abstract, and in the introduction, there is a list of activities that seems to be the objectives.  

Research Methods

In the Research Methods, the authors must review:

Lines 167-184, there is repeated text in the paragraph.

Lines 185-196, the paragraphs must be revised.

Lines 198-199, the authors stated: “Each interview…. was designed to cover a range of topics”, the authors are suggested to use a theoretical approach to support the topics included in the interview, and in the questionnaire, such as farmers perception for “their opinions and suggestions on the topic” (lines 204-205).

 Line 205: “To evaluate the effectiveness of governance”, the authors must justify their theoretical approach.

 The households were categorized into three types: pure farming households, part-time farming households, and non-farming households (lines 181-182). It would not be more convenient to analyze with multivariate techniques and then in each group see its relationship with pollution control performance.

 Results

Some results are duplicated in tables and text.

Move paragraph 331-334, which corresponds to Research Methods

Move paragraph 397-400, which corresponds to Research Methods

Because of the examining farmers' subjective evaluations, Would not it be more convenient to analyze with items theory response?

 

Discussion

The discussion is not clearly presented. Authors should rewriting the discussion sections of the manuscript.

 

Conclusions

The conclusion does not summarize the findings; issues such as “management of non-point source pollution in agriculture requires coordination among several stakeholders (lines 579-580), long-term sustainability (line 582), and examining farmers' subjective evaluations (lines 584-585) were not studied.

 

Specific comments below.

Lines 138-139: The cultivation of economically valuable crops …. What type of crops

Line 139: Such as highprofit vegetables..are these crops? What type of vegetables?

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The evaluated study tackles an important issue and it is worthwhile for it to be published. I think a few key comments should be addressed before publication.

First, the methodology used is complex (and described in detail) and multi-step - I suggest preparing a "graphical framework" , to make the research process easier to understand.

The second problem is the lack of references to other authors' studies in different regions of the world. The paper must interest the international reader, even if the survey is regional. Has the problem of "farmers' attitudes" been studied somewhere? If so (and I think it has been), it should be written about it - refer to the world literature.

Related to the above issue is another problem, i.e. the lack of discussion of the results - we indeed have a "Discussion" section (here we have only a repetition of the main results), but the results obtained are not confronted with the results of other researchers; references to similar studies are missing. In my opinion, this should be supplemented.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

-

-

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors are encouraged to review the corrections made in the article (There are two conclusions)

The title of the article has repeated words

“To evaluate the effectiveness of governance”, the authors must justify their theoretical approach.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

My comments have been taken into account - I have no further comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx