Econometric Analyses of Adoption and Household-Level Impacts of Improved Rice Varieties in the Uplands of Yunnan, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors 

Thanks for your interesting research. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your vaulable comments on our paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper entitled “Econometric analyses of adoption and household-level impacts of improved rice varieties in the uplands of Yunnan, China” analyzes the influence of different determinants on adoption of improved rice varieties in the upland of Yunnan, China and the impacts on local household income. Writing needs an improvement, with some grammar mistakes and repetitive sentences identified. Discussion is the weakest part of the paper which lacks a real discussion on some results. However, those issues could be solved timely. The topic fits the scope of sustainability. I would recommend the acceptance after a minor revision. Some suggestions are as below:

 

Abstract:

Abstract is too general and needs to be quantified.

 

1) Line 13: how many determinants were analyzed? Please be specific.

 

2) Lines 14-19: results and the conclusion are too general. For example, differences in income between adopters and non-adopters need to be quantified (% or how much); what type of investment and what kind of rice technology would be recommended?

 

Introduction:

3) Line 24: “Technological change” is a broad term, please describe it by providing few examples with references.

 

4) Lines 43-45: please revise this sentence. “This increasing intensification pressure on…” is not right.

 

5) Line 48: “While the above…” is a grammar mistake. The above what? Please revise it.

 

6) Line 63: I would recommend describing (briefly) what the “rice technology” is and giving some examples.

 

Methodology:

7) Lines 115-116: repetitive words compared to ones in lines 83-85.

 

8) Line 129: please describe this sampling technique in detail or have a citation for it.

 

Results and discussion:

9) Line 235: this part (4.1.) lacks a real discussion. It reports the results, but some explanations are vague. For example, in line 239: why many farmers grow the improved rice varieties only in partial upland area? In lines 246-250: how the variation in those factors determine the adoption? Please revise them and provide an in-depth discussion. Please also revise the rest of this section accordingly.

 

10) I suggest adding/describing/discussing the geographic feature and the local climate in different regions where the survey was conducted, since the adoption of different rice varieties might be influenced by those factors.

 

11) Lines 318-320: could it be compared with previous studies for any differences (agree or disagree with the current conclusion made in this paper) and provide a discussion?

 

Tables and figures:

12) Table 2: please explain the “IV” as a footer of the table.

 

Minor comment on writing:

13) please double check the writing (i.e. grammar mistakes; redundant sentences) for improving the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The study of “Econometric analyses of adoption and household level impacts of improved rice varieties in the uplands of Yunnan, China” was dedicated to addressing the determinants of variety adoption, as well as the impact of adoption on rice and household incomes. The study seems well designed. However, I question the method used in this study, as well as the result analysis. Specifically, for the adoption model, all the driving variables are supposed to be self-correlative. But the study used a multivariate regression for the exploration that might betray the hypothesis that all the variables should be independent. For current status, the result analysis is presented mostly through the qualitative description, lacking the quantitative analysis among the driving variable. Here I recommend using the Structural equation modeling (SEM) model for data analysis. In addition, the presentation of results should not only use the table form. Something else like a spatial map should also be involved. In summary, this study should take a substantial revision before publication.

Other comments: 

Line 29-31: It is not necessary to list so many references.

Line 115-117: This part is not meaningful and suggested to remove.

Line 148: What the βs refers to?

Line 362-363: Funding information has already presented in Acknowledgements. So here it is redundant.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf