Associated Factors of Pesticide Packaging Waste Recycling Behavior Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior in Chinese Fruit Farmers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is too brief without justification and elaboration in terms of the practical gaps, academic gaps, extensive literature review, selection of TPB and hypotheses development. 

Research design is vogue in terms of the population, sampling frame, sampling size and details/justification of using stratifies random sampling. 

The implications are unclear.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Strictly followed your comments, we have revised our manuscript accordingly. Major changes can be found highlighted. Minor revisions are in track changes throughout the manuscript. A point-to-point response letter has been attached below.

 

^# Line numbers mentioned in the response letter should be referred to in the clean version of the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer 1:

1. The paper is too brief without justification and elaboration in terms of the practical gaps, academic gaps, extensive literature review, selection of TPB and hypotheses development.

Response: Thank you for this important comment! We totally agree that in our previous manuscript, the introduction section had not been well-written. Following your suggestion, we have re-written the entire “Introduction” section. Please see in pages 3-5, lines 23-84.

2. Research design is vogue in terms of the population, sampling frame, sampling size and details/justification of using stratifies random sampling.

Response: Thank you for this important comment! Indeed, more details regarding to sampling design should be added. We have revised this. Please see in pages 5-6, lines 86-105.

3. The implications are unclear.

Response: Thank you for this important comment! We have revised the whole “Discussion” section considerably following yours and other reviewers’ comments. In the revised manuscript, we have clearly presented the implications of the current study in the discussion section. Please see in pages 13-14, lines 261-275.

Reviewer 2 Report

This study explored the associated factors of farmers’ pesticide waste packaging recycling behavior based on the theory of planning behavior (TPB) by using SEM.

Article is well written and comprehensively crafted. However,

Should include AMOS generated SEM model in the manuscript.

Needs to minor English and spell-check. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Strictly followed your comments, we have revised our manuscript accordingly. Major changes can be found highlighted. Minor revisions are in track changes throughout the manuscript. A point-to-point response letter has been attached below.

 

^# Line numbers mentioned in the response letter should be referred to in the clean version of the revised manuscript.

 

 

Reviewer 2:

1. Article is well written and comprehensively crafted. However, should include AMOS generated SEM model in the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for this professional suggestion! For esthetic reason, we have re-drawn the original SEM fitting results generated by using the AMOS software into Figure 2, and provided standardized path coefficients accordingly. Please see in page 25, Figure 2.

2. Needs to minor English and spell-check.

Response: Thank you for this important comment! We admit that in our previous manuscript, some grammatical errors or typos existed. After successfully addressed all the comments raised by the editor and the reviewers, we carefully edited the language of our revised manuscript. We believe the quality of writing has been improved significantly.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments: The subject addressed is topical

Suggestion: Extension of chapter 1. Introduction

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Strictly followed your comments, we have revised our manuscript accordingly. Major changes can be found highlighted. Minor revisions are in track changes throughout the manuscript. A point-to-point response letter has been attached below.

 

^# Line numbers mentioned in the response letter should be referred to in the clean version of the revised manuscript.

 

 

Reviewer 3:

1. Suggestion: Extension of chapter 1. Introduction.

Response: Thank you for this important comment! Following yours and the other reviewers’ comments, we have re-written the entire “Introduction” section of our manuscript accordingly. Please see in pages 3-5, lines 23-84.