A Path Model of the Intention to Adopt Variable Rate Irrigation in Northeast Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is fairly well written and the research appears to be carried out correctly, but because of problems with the the formatting of the pdf I received I can't be completely sure.   

In Table 1 I only see hypotheses up to H19, but hypotheses above H19 (H20, H21 etc.) are mentioned in the text.

At the end of Section 3.2 a Figure 2 is referenced but I do not see a  Figure 2 in the paper.

In section 2.3 my pdf contains the following: 

the n items of moderator variable with the k items of latent variable.3. Sample description <line break>

     In total, 138 participants completed the survey. The net response rate was around 25%,....

Is this the beginning of a different section?

The margins of the pdf don't align (e.g. between the end of Table 1 and the following text), so I suspect there was a problem with importing the Word files into pdfs?

Given what I understand about the paper in its current form I have the following comments and suggestions.

I'm surprised that the survey questions pay relatively little attention to the return on investment. In the Appendix I see investment mentioned in PEC_02 but whether VRI adoption make sense from a profit standpoint doesn't appear to be considered in Table 1. Maybe this is one of the hypotheses I can't see in Table 1? 

A suggestion: In considering the factors influencing PEU and PUF in Table 1 I thought that an accompanying flow chart graphically showing these relationships - similar to Fig. 1 but showing more detail - would help in illustrating these relationships. Or , Fig. 1 could be replaced by such a figure.

On page 4 the word 'even' isn't needed in the following sentence:

"and it is considered one of the most productive areas in Europe even regarding food production."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find attached our comments.

We thank both the Reviewers for their support, we believe that the quality of our work is noticeably increased.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

OUTLINE AND GENERAL APPRECIATION

This paper evaluates the acceptance of a precision irrigation technology (specifically Variable Rate Irrigation) by its potential users. To do this, it uses a model (TAM-3) that includes different variables or constructs that are fed from a survey carried out with 138 irrigators. The results of the model show that social pressure and neighbour influence, mostly affects the intention to adopt this technology

The work presents an important asymmetry. The introduction and methods are excellent. They are well documented and developed (one can even think of deriving part of the methodology to supplementary material, although it reads well). However, the results and discussion are surprisingly poor and further development is missed. Another option is to merge Results and Discussion into a single section

In my opinion, it is also necessary to move part of the results to the methods section (which accentuates this asymmetry even more), and to bring part of the conclusions to the discussion. See details below.

 

GRAMMAR AND LANGUAGE

The writing is very good and fluid. I have only found one sentence that I think could be written better or more clearly, in page 3:

‘The latest version of TAM was labelled TAM-3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). TAM-3 shows a list of determinants for the Perceived ease of use also.’

I would rephrase with something like this:

‘The latest version, TAM-3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), also includes a list of determinants for the Perceived ease of use.’

 

There are a few minor editing errors, but nothing that could detract from the correct wording of the manuscript:

On page 8 there seems to be a missing subsection, 2.4, which would be 'Sample description'. Currently it says '3. Simple description' and is included in the previous paragraph.

Section 4 is 'Discussion', the final ‘s’ is left over.

On page 13 'Overall' is used twice in a row to start the paragraph. I would change one of them.

 

INTRODUCTION

Among the 'several threats' I would add the deterioration of groundwater bodies, on which much of the current irrigation is based (around 45%) and which has been pointed out by different authors^1–3.

 

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This section is very good. As I said before, even some of the results (section 3.1) belong to this section.

 

RESULTS

Besides detailing the results in an analytical way, a more practical interpretation of the results achieved is missing. For example, what does this mean in plain language 'Regarding Perceived Ease of Use, a strong positive correlation was found with Perceived Enjoyment'? By speaking only in terms of variables (which is necessary) the results are difficult to understand. They could be complemented with clarifications or examples.

The use of such repeated acrostics does not help the flow of the text. If the full name of the variable is used then the acrostic is not necessary.

The section ends abruptly by citing Figure 2, which is not in the text.

 

DISCUSSION

No doubt this section needs to be strengthened. The first paragraph seems to me to be part of the conclusions, while in this section there are things from the discussion: from the end of page 13, from 'In particular', to the end of the section.

I suggest including something about Jevons' paradox, we cannot expect that just because we are more efficient we will do better. That is, it has been shown that more efficiency ends up attracting more irrigators^4–6. Thus, although from the plot point of view irrigation is more efficient, from the territorial point of view more water is needed because there are more units, all very efficient. It is necessary to include other measures such as controlling the expansion of the irrigation area.

Although the authors cite similar studies, I would like to suggest another one. These are studies that evaluate the acceptance of water desalination for irrigation ⁷.

 

CONCLUSIONS.

The first paragraph of the discussion seems more like the conclusion. However, the last part fits the discussion better.

 

References used in this review

1. Famiglietti, J. S. The global groundwater crisis. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 945–948 (2014).
2. Elshall, A. S. et al. Groundwater sustainability: A review of the interactions between science and policy. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 093004 (2020).
3. Llamas, M. R. & Martínez-Santos, P. Intensive Groundwater Use: Silent Revolution and Potential Source of Social Conflicts. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 131, 337–341 (2005).
4. Sears, L. et al. Jevons’ Paradox and efficient irrigation technology. Sustain. 10, 1–12 (2018).
5. Martínez-Valderrama, J., Guirado, E. & Maestre, F. T. Desertifying deserts. Nat. Sustain. (2020). doi:10.1038/s41893-020-0561-2
6. Sanderson, M. R. & Hughes, V. Race to the Bottom (of the Well): Groundwater in an Agricultural Production Treadmill. Soc. Probl. 66, 392–410 (2019).
7. Aznar-Sánchez, J. A., Belmonte-Ureña, L. J. & Valera, D. L. Perceptions and acceptance of desalinated seawater for irrigation: A case study in the Níjar district (southeast Spain). Water (Switzerland) 9, 408 (2017).

 

Author Response

Please find attached our comments.

We thank both the Reviewers for their support, we believe that the quality of our work is noticeably increased.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed my comments. I only recommend some minor editing of English syntax.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is ready por publication