Afforestation Through Sand Control: Farmer Participation Under China’s New Round of Grain-for-Green Compensation Policy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The structure is clear and well-organized, with a solid theoretical framework and a coherent discussion of the results. Overall, the work is well-developed, supported by rigorous analysis, and offers findings of interest for both academic research and environmental policies. With minor improvements, it could become an even more significant contribution to the topic.

Please the file PDF attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

Comment 1: It is appropriate to specify whether all agricultural activities cause desertification problems or only some of them.

Response 1: We are sorry for the misunderstanding, what we actually meant to say is “The deterioration of the ecological environment seriously threatens human survival and limits human development, especially in the context of the global trend of desertification in drylands, where the impact of human activities to land degradation exceeds 70 percent, which affects the livelihoods of more than 1 billion people [3]. The socioeconomic development of these places is severely constrained by ecological conditions, local farmers, whose livelihoods depend on agricultural activities, are increasingly vulnerable by desertification. Combating desertification and promoting sustainable development in these areas are therefore crucial.” (Page 2,line 2-9)

Comment 2: It would be appropriate to describe what this practice consists of.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your proposal. We have briefly stated the content of China's afforestation policy since the 1950s as follows:

For the purpose of local wind and sand control, the Chinese government created a total length of up to 4,000km of protective forests in areas with serious wind and sand, which strongly guaranteed the agricultural production at that time; in the following decades, the protective forest system has gradually transformed into a diversified composite model, and has been gradually extended from the wind and sand producing areas in the north to the north and south of China to create a large number of farmland forest networks. These measures have played a very important role in improving the ecological environment. (Page 2,line 25-32)

Comment 3: In what way have they improved income？

Response 3: Here we have a more specific explanation of how farmers can improve their incomes: &nbspIn these ways, farmers can sell not only fruits and other related agricultural products, but also pasture grasses and Chinese herbs grown under the forest, in addition to the eggs laid by birds raised under the forest, such as earth eggs and duck eggs, which are also popular in the market.(Page 2,line 47-50)

Comment 4: This sentence is not clear.

Response 4: We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for your insightful comments and valuable feedback, and we have revised the original article as follows:

However, another special situation exists in the ecologically fragile arid region of Xinjiang, where our research is concerned, where farmers are caught in a sustainable development dilemma due to ecological and livelihood constraints (e.g., water scarcity and limited job opportunities).(Page 3,line 3-6) 

Comment 5: Could an explanation be found that covers all these factors? For example, the reason why the family unit has an impact.

Response 5: We sincerely thank you for your valuable comment, our expression is indeed not comprehensive enough, according to your suggestions, the revised content is as follows:

In summary, the current study includes economic factors that directly influence farmers’ participation in afforestation, which are attracted to it either through short-term benefits or long-term gains; in addition, farmers land resource endowment and their social conditions (e.g., community support) play the role of indirect influences, which determine the incentive’s feasibility and acceptance; and it is worth mentioning those deeper influences, such as intrinsic values, attitudes, etc., which affect farmers’ perceptions of silviculture and resource allocation in the long term.(Page 6,line 1-8)

Comment 6: The distinction between "resource endowment" "psychological perception," and "external environment" is useful, but it could benefit from a clearer explanatory figure, perhaps with concrete examples for each category.

Response 6: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comment and have added some new conceptual explanations of the three dimensions of “resource endowment” “psychological perception,” and “external environment” to facilitate readers’ understanding, and also specifically explained what is included in all three levels.We also noted that you mentioned “clearer explanatory figure”, and the way each variable is measured is described in Table 1 of Section 4.

The revised content is as follows:

Resource endowment is the sum of the various resources that a country, region or individual possesses for economic development, at the core of which are the factors of production that can be utilized. Referring on relevant studies, we choose to use household total income, land concentration, water-saving irrigation coverage and water scarcity level as the measurement indicators of farmers’ resource endowment [18,48].(Page 7,line 3-10)

Psychological perception is the psychological assessment and judgment of policies or behaviors formed by farmers in the decision-making process based on subjective cognition, emotions, and values, and is an intrinsic driver of farmers’ behavioral choices. Based on our previous research and related studies, we have chosen to use ecological aspiration and perceived benefits as indicators for measuring the farmers’ psychological perception [41,49].(Page 8,line 5-10)

External environment refers to the guidance and influence of external factors such as policy, technology, market and society on the behavior of farmers’ participation in planting economic forests and grasses, the core of which is to reduce the risk of farmers’ decision-making and promote behavioral change through institutional support, resource supply and demonstration effect. Drawing on related research, we choose neighbor imitation and socialized services as measures of farmers’ external environment [50,51].(Page 8,line 48-49)&((Page 9,line 1-4)

Comment 7: The fsQCA method is well justified, but there is a lack of a clear explanation as to why it was preferred over other techniques, such as logistic regression analysis.

Response 7: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comment. We have dedicated a separate section to discuss the fsQCA method and have compared it with logistic regression to better illustrate the advantages of the fsQCA method.

The revised content is as follows:

The fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) method has significant advantages over other methods such as traditional logistic regression in terms of dealing with complex causality, combining qualitative and quantitative analysis, applicability to small and medium sample size studies, and data inclusiveness.

For example, traditional logistic regression will attempt to identify the independent effects of each factor, but the problem is that this method ignores how these factors combine to work together. In contrast, fsQCA focuses on the combination of conditions rather than the net effect of a single variable. And logistic regression requires a large sample size to ensure statistical stability, otherwise it is susceptible to the influence of multicollinearity, leading to unreliable results. In contrast, fsQCA performs robustly in small and medium-sized samples because it does not rely on statistical significance but reveals causality through the logic of conditional combinations. Therefore, our study adopted fsQCA as our research methodology, which, as an analytical method that combines qualitative and quantitative features, is more suitable for this study compared to both traditional quantitative research methods and qualitative analysis methods.(Page 9&10, 4.1. fsQCA methods)
Comment 8: It might be useful to include the absolute number of farmers falling into each pathway for greater clarity.

Response 8: Here I’ve added the data directly into the table 5 and table 6

The revised content is as follows:

Table 5:

	Participation
	①	②	③
Household Total Income	●	●	●
Land Concentration	●		●
Water-Saving Irrigation Coverage	●	●	●
Water Scarcity Level	●	●	●
Ecological Aspiration	●	●	●
Perceived Benefits	●	●	⊗
Neighbor Imitation		●	●
Socialized Services	●	●	⊗
Consistency	0.99	1	0.958
Raw Coverage	0.149	0.101	0.054
Unique Coverage	0.079	0.031	0.054
Number of explainable cases	31	5	17
Overall Solution Consistency	0.984
Overall Solution Coverage	0.233

 

Table 6:

Condition Configurations	Non-participation
	①	②	③	④
Household Total Income	⊗		⊗	⊗
Land Concentration				●
Water-Saving Irrigation Coverage		●	●	●
Water Scarcity Level			⊗	⊗
Ecological Aspiration	⊗	⊗		⊗
Perceived Benefits	⊗	⊗	⊗	⊗
Neighbor Imitation	⊗	⊗	⊗	⊗
Socialized Services	⊗	⊗	⊗
Consistency	0.978	0.964	0.964	0.958
Raw Coverage	0.419	0.455	0.275	0.144
Unique Coverage	0.129	0.164	0.063	0.034
Number of explainable cases	118	127	63	72
Overall Solution Consistency	0.961
Overall Solution Coverage	0.68

(Page 17 is table 5; Page 19 is table 6)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper illustrates the critical role of affosteration and sand stabilization in combating climate crisis challenges and promoting sustainable development. The authors investigate the impacts of China's new round of Grain-for-Green compensation policy implemented in 2014 and explore farmers' behaviour in planting economically valuable forests and grasslands. The authors adopt the theoretical perspective of behavioural economics and employ the qualitative comparative approach to illustrate the intricate causal mechanisms that shape farmers' involvement or lack thereof in economic forest and grassland activities. The paper is informative but requires some revisions before being published in Agriculture.

1. The authors rightly show that desertification is one of the main drivers of abandoning farmland, undermining local livelihoods and exacerbating poverty. It would be helpful if the authors provided data to illustrate these effects in China's northern and southern slopes of the Tianshan Mountains in Xinjiang.
2. The Grain-for-Green Project (GGP) is quite interesting but is a specific policy proposal focused on China's regions. It would be informative if the authors cited relevant proposals and showed their intersections.
3. The authors rightly point out that affosteration and sand stabilization are critical in promoting sustainable development. In this vein, the authors should briefly discuss sustainable development in the paper's introduction. Two papers are informative: https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2022.2038114 and 10.2478/zireb-2018-0005.       
4. The authors should justify their methodological choice better and provide a separate section to discuss their method.
5. The authors should provide a separate section to discuss the paper's policy and theoretical implications.
6. The authors should provide a separate section to discuss the paper's limitations.
7. The paper needs careful proofreading.

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

Comment 1: The authors rightly show that desertification is one of the main drivers of abandoning farmland, undermining local livelihoods and exacerbating poverty, it would be helpful if the authors provided data to illustrate these effects in China's northern and southern slopes of the Tianshan Mountains in Xinjiang.

Response 1: We apologize for the misunderstanding, what we were actually trying to say is that “

the agricultural activities that farmers in the ecologically fragile and arid areas rely on have always been threatened by desertification. Therefore, combating desertification and achieving sustainable development in these areas has become crucial.” And based on your suggestion, we have included sustainable development in the introduction.

The revised content is as follows: 

Achieving sustainable development has been an important and complex issue over the past decades. Although there is no clear theoretical framework for sustainable development at present [1], people have realized that sustainable development cannot be separated from the inter-coordination among the environment, society, and economy. Especially the sustainability of ecology, which is the foundation of overall development capacity [2]. The deterioration of the ecological environment seriously threatens human survival and limits human development, especially in the context of the global trend of desertification in drylands, where the impact of human activities to land degradation exceeds 70 percent, which affects the livelihoods of more than 1 billion people [3]. The socioeconomic development of these places is severely constrained by ecological conditions, local farmers, whose livelihoods depend on agricultural activities, are increasingly vulnerable by desertification. Combating desertification and promoting sustainable development in these areas are therefore crucial.(Page 1,line 1-4) & (Page 2,line 1-9)

Comment 2: The Grain-for-Green Project (GGP) is quite interesting but is a specific policy proposal focused on China’s regions, it would be informative if the authors cited relevant proposals and showed their intersections.

Response 2: We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for your insightful comments and valuable feedback, and we have revised the original article as follows:

In order to combat desertification and realize sustainable development at the same time, many countries have introduced some ecological protection policies, and have also made considerable achievements, such as Israel’s desert agriculture, through the planting of drought-tolerant trees for windbreaks and sand-fixing, and to improve the climatic environment around the farmland, in addition to the planting of salt-tolerant plants and bioremediation technology to manage saline soil, to a certain extent, curbing land degradation and desertification expansion, and part of the region [4,5]. The ecological environment has been significantly improved, laying the foundation for sustainable agricultural development. The Central Asian countries close to Xinjiang have also adopted similar ecological protection policies, improving the ecological environment and promoting the sustainable development of local agriculture through a variety of measures such as planting trees, adjusting the agricultural structure, and promoting sustainable agricultural cultivation models [6,7].( Page 2, line 9-23 )

Comment 3: The authors rightly point out that afforestation and sand stabilization are critical in promoting sustainable development. In this vein, the authors should briefly discuss sustainable development in the paper’s introduction. Two papers are informative: https: //doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2022.2038114 and 10.2478/zireb-2018-00054. The authors should justify their methodological choice better and provide a separate section to discuss their method.

Response 3: We are very grateful for the two papers you provided. We have linked “sustainable development” to the theme of this study and cited these two articles in the introduction.

The revised objective now reads:

Achieving sustainable development has been an important and complex issue over the past decades. Although there is no clear theoretical framework for sustainable development at present [1], people have realized that sustainable development cannot be separated from the inter-coordination among the environment, society, and economy. Especially the sustainability of ecology, which is the foundation of overall development capacity [2]. ( Page 1, line 1-4 )&( Page 2, line 1-2 )

Comment 4: The authors should justify their methodological choice better and provide a separate section to discuss their method.

Response 4: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comment. We have dedicated a separate section to discuss the fsQCA method and have compared it with logistic regression to better illustrate the advantages of the fsQCA method.

The revised content is as follows:

The fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) method has significant advantages over other methods such as traditional logistic regression in terms of dealing with complex causality, combining qualitative and quantitative analysis, applicability to small and medium sample size studies, and data inclusiveness.

For example, traditional logistic regression will attempt to identify the independent effects of each factor, but the problem is that this method ignores how these factors combine to work together. In contrast, fsQCA focuses on the combination of conditions rather than the net effect of a single variable. And logistic regression requires a large sample size to ensure statistical stability, otherwise it is susceptible to the influence of multicollinearity, leading to unreliable results. In contrast, fsQCA performs robustly in small and medium-sized samples because it does not rely on statistical significance but reveals causality through the logic of conditional combinations. Therefore, our study adopted fsQCA as our research methodology, which, as an analytical method that combines qualitative and quantitative features, is more suitable for this study compared to both traditional quantitative research methods and qualitative analysis methods.(Page 9&10, 4.1. fsQCA methods)

Comment 5: The authors should provide a separate section to discuss the paper’s policy and theoretical implications.

Response 5: We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for your insightful comments and valuable feedback, and we have adjusted and revised the original text as follows:  

7. POLICY AND THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS

7.1. Policy Impliactions

In summary, the Grain-for-Green Program (GGP), as a pivotal agroforestry policy in China, one of the most significant, has been instrumental over the past two decades in mitigating wind and sand erosion while enhancing regional ecological environments.

The high regional overlap between GGP and poverty makes it necessary to change the Government’s “subsidy-dependent” policy to a “self-sustaining” policy, in order to promote local sustainable development, achieve ecological improvement and reduce poverty and increase the incomes of farmers. It is only through the promotion of sustainable local development that ecological improvements and the reduction of poverty and increase in income for farmers can be realized.

So based on the above analysis of the antecedent conditions and configurational pathways for farmer’s non-participation and participation behaviors, it provides the following implications for the voluntary and sustained participation of farmers in the cultivation of economically valuable forests and grasslands, as well as similar policies in other arid zones around the globe：

First, enhance farmer’s positive expectations toward planting economically valuable forests and grasslands. Given the significant impact of ecological aspiration and perceived benefits on farmer’s motivation to participate, it is essential to leverage diverse media channels such as radio, television, and social media to promote environmental protection awareness. This will enhance farmer’s comprehension of issues such as desertification and climate change, promoting a heightened awareness of environmental protection. When farmers develop intrinsic motivation at the psychological perception level, coupled with sufficient perceived benefits and ecological aspiration, their enthusiasm for independently and sustainably managing forest and grassland resources will be greatly enhanced.

Second, provide tailored socialized services for economically valuable forests and grasslands in arid regions. Given the significant role of neighbor imitation and socialized services, it is crucial to establish a supportive the external ecological or social surroundings for farmers to participate in planting. This includes fostering the influence of skilled individuals within villages and continually improving socialized services by offering professional technical guidance, training, and market sales support. Additionally, leveraging the role of local water user associations in promoting water-saving facilities is essential. Collective action among farmers can motivate more individuals to adopt water-saving systems, thus promoting the wider implementation of the economic forest and grassland management model.

Finally, promote water-adaptive planting in arid regions. Local governments, in guiding farmers to participate in the management of economically valuable forests and grasslands, should ensure seamless coordination across various policies. While promoting water-saving agricultural practices, particular attention should be paid to optimizing cropping patterns in areas facing significant water scarcity. Farmers should be incentivized to manage economically valuable forests and grasslands, encouraging diversified planting systems that are compatible with local water resource availability.

In planning the long-term implementation of the Grain-for-Green program, it is essential to balance the dual goals of sustained sand control and regional climate improvement with foundational policies like local “land reduction and water saving” initiatives and the national food security strategy. By doing so, the relevant policies can be better integrated and improved.

7.2. Theoretical Impliactions

In summary, our study makes the following contributions. We move beyond the limitations of previous research that relied solely on theories like social exchange theory to validate the influence of individual factors on farmer’s participation behaviors. Such studies failed to explore the configurational effects of resource endowment, psychological states, and external environments on the mechanisms influencing farmer’s participation behaviors.

Drawing on the complex systems perspective and integrating relevant theories of behavioral economics, planned behavior, and social exchange, we constructed a theoretical framework of “resource endowment-psychological perception-external environment.” This framework analyzes the driving mechanisms behind farmer’s non-participation and participation through factors from the dimensions of resources, psychology, and environment, establishing a more comprehensive and holistic analytical model.

Furthermore, constrained by methodological limitations, traditional research has often relied on correlation-based causal inference. This approach is inadequate for unraveling the more intricate causal relationships present in real-world contexts. As a result, such studies have fallen short of uncovering the nuanced differences in the mechanisms that either impede or facilitate farmer’s participation in the cultivation of economically valuable forest and grassland. In contrast, our research, by analyzing the configurational effects among factors within pathways, identifies multiple pathways that can either hinder or promote participation. This highlights the causal complexity underlying farmer’s behaviors and offers insights from a configurational perspective that can be applied to similar cases in other regions. (Page 20 and Page 21, the whole section 7 )

Comment 6: The authors should provide a separate section to discuss the paper’s limitations

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. We have adjusted the original text and added section 8 research limitations and future directions.

The revised content is as follows:

First, understanding how to motivate farmers to participate in afforestation activities remains a valuable area for ongoing research. Future research could focus on gathering additional relevant data and applying dynamic QCA methods to further explore the intricate causal relationships between various influencing factors and farmer’s afforestation behaviors across diverse spatial and temporal contexts. &nbspAdditionally, while the survey data utilized in this study benefit from their structured nature, they fall short in providing an in-depth examination of the observed phenomena. Future research could integrate grounded theory to explore farmer’s situations more comprehensively.

Finally, due to the limitations of the QCA method in accommodating a restricted number of antecedent conditions, this study was constrained to analyzing only the key variables that significantly influence the outcomes. Future research could adopt alternative theories and perspectives to explore other antecedent conditions not covered in this study.(Page 21, section 8 research limitations and future directions)

Comment 7: The paper needs careful proofreading.

Response 7: We sincerely appreciate the valuable advice. We have carefully reviewed and revised the manuscript again.

 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes marked in red in revised paper which will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And we sent the manuscript to experts for language polishing, and the revised manuscript is better than before! We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed my previous comments and improved their manuscript.