Pastoral Differentiations’ Effects on Willingness to Accept Valuation for Grassland Eco-Subsidy—Empirical Study of 410 Herder Households in Grass–Livestock Balance Sub-Policy Zones in Inner Mongolia, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, thank you for the possibility to read your manuscript entitled: "Pastoral Differentiations on WTA Valuation for Grassland Eco-Subsidy. Empirical Study of 410 Herder Households in Grass-Livestock Balance Sub-Policy Zones in Inner Mongolia, China"

 

Although the topic is relevant and fits the scope of the journal, some of the deficiencies were found during the review process:

1) Please add a solid literature review in order to better substantiate the scientific vacuum this paper aims to fulfill.

2) Please provide more description of the selected research approach (WTA). Provide arguments why this method suits the research problem best.

3) More argumentation is required regarding Tobit regression.

 

After solving these issues I think the current study will warrant publication.

Author Response

1) Please add a solid literature review in order to better substantiate the scientific vacuum this paper aims to fulfill.

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, and have revised the introduction part for the literature review, especially to clarify our hypotheses and objective and focus, considering both of your comments and the other reviewers’ comments on the introduction section. Thank you for your comment to help us improve the overall quality of our manuscript.

2) Please provide more description of the selected research approach (WTA). Provide arguments why this method suits the research problem best.

Response 2: We acknowledge the reviewer’s valuable comments and have revised and reorganized our method section. We added a graphic illustration for our research design showing the research questions to answer, which consists of our survey content. We also double-checked the cited references for the methods including references 15, 21, 25-36. Thank you for your valuable feedback, which has allowed us to enhance the clarity and justification of our research approach.

3) More argumentation is required regarding Tobit regression.

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback and have addressed the need for more argumentation regarding the Tobit model. We have reviewed and updated the references related to the Tobit model and provided additional explanation and justification for its use in our study. and also revised the model part. We also checked and reorganized our overall method section. Thank you for your valuable input, which has helped us improve the robustness of our methodology.  

Once again, we would like to express our gratitude for your constructive comments and suggestions. Your insights have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality of our manuscript. We believe the revisions address your concerns and improve the overall presentation of our research. We hope the revised manuscript meets your expectations, and we are confident it will positively contribute to the scientific discourse in our field.

 

After solving these issues I think the current study will warrant publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find the attached PDF for the point-by-point response.

Once again, we would like to express our gratitude for your valuable feedback. Your insights have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality of our manuscript. We believe the revisions address your concerns and improve the overall presentation of our research. We hope the revised manuscript meets your expectations, and we are confident it will positively contribute to the scientific discourse in our field.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to propose to authors to insert the word "Effects" into the title after the word "Differentiations". 

In the Introduction chapter (lines 52 to 53), please indicate that RMB stands for Chinese Yuan currency.

In the line 162 please correct "CMV" to "CVM".

In the Materials and Methods chapter, there could be beneficial to readers if you provide the information about the long-term average of annual precipitation along the inquired area, as well as the data about average (or usual) stocking rate (LU/ha) from the arid north-west to the sub-humid north-east. Also, it might be interesting what are the average annual forage dry matter yields along the inquired area, and what are the most important livestock species being grazed on these pastures of the Inner Mongolia.

In the Results chapter, it would be interesting to present the range of the annual operating grassland area per household, besides the already presented mean of 445.82 ha/household and really great standard deviation (s.d.) of 631.762 in the Table 2. Please indicate below the Table 2 if the abbreviation s.d. really denotes the standard deviation.

In the line 500 please correct the "viables" into "variables".

In the line 508 please correct the "variable" into "variables".

In line 546 please insert "be" after the word "not".

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1: I would like to propose to authors to insert the word "Effects" into the title after the word "Differentiations".

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, and have added “Effects” to the title of the revised manuscript.  

Point 2: In the Introduction chapter (lines 52 to 53), please indicate that RMB stands for Chinese Yuan currency.

Response 2: We acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion, and have changed currency RMB to its international symbol of CNY (Chinese Yuan) in the introduction of the revised manuscript.  Thank you for the catch.

Point 3: In the line 162 please correct "CMV" to "CVM".

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer’s keen observation, and have changed the “CMV” to “CVM” in the revised manuscript. Thank you for pointing it out.

Point 4: In the Materials and Methods chapter, there could be beneficial to readers if you provide the information about the long-term average of annual precipitation along the inquired area, as well as the data about average (or usual) stocking rate (LU/ha) from the arid north-west to the sub-humid north-east. Also, it might be interesting what are the average annual forage dry matter yields along the inquired area, and what are the most important livestock species being grazed on these pastures of the Inner Mongolia.

Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions. Unfortunately, we don’t have data on forage dry matter yields. However, we added the recent 10-year average precipitation we gathered from each banner’s government websites and the stocking rate data from our sampling sites of ten banners in 2019. We believe this additional information will enhance the comprehensiveness of the manuscript. Thank you for your valuable comments.

Point 5: In the Results chapter, it would be interesting to present the range of the annual operating grassland area per household, besides the already presented mean of 445.82 ha/household and really great standard deviation (s.d.) of 631.762 in the Table 2. Please indicate below the Table 2 if the abbreviation s.d. really denotes the standard deviation.

Response 5: We appreciate the reviewer’s keen observation and confirm that "s.d." indeed denotes the standard deviation. We have added the notation to Table 2 in the revised manuscript. Additionally, we acknowledge your suggestion to present the grassland area data in histogram form and will include it in the revised manuscript.

Point 6: In the line 500 please correct the "viables" into "variables".

Point 7: In the line 508 please correct the "variable" into "variables".

Point 8: In line 546 please insert "be" after the word "not".

Response to 6 – 8: We appreciate the reviewer’s keen observations, and have made changes according to the comments. We apologize for any confusion caused by the initial errors/typos. We thank you for your valuable feedback in helping us improve the clarity and accuracy of our manuscript.

Once again, we would like to express our gratitude for your valuable feedback. Your insights have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality of our manuscript. We believe the revisions address your concerns and improve the overall presentation of our research. We hope the revised manuscript meets your expectations, and we are confident it will positively contribute to the scientific discourse in our field.

Reviewer 4 Report

The current manuscript entitled “Pastoral Differentiations on WTA Valuation for Grassland Eco-Subsidy” by Dong et al. deals with the policy from the perspective of pastoral differentiations and their willingness to accept (WTA) the eco-subsidy. Authors collected data from 410 households which is a good sample size. Authors concluded that by using the findings of this study, policymakers can better tailor the program to meet the needs and expectations of diverse herder households. I found this manuscript interesting and suitable for publication in the Sustainability journal after following minor modifications:

1.      Please reduce the length of individual keywords and avoid those which already appeared in the title.

2.      Introduction is well formulated; however, hypothesis and objectives of the research must appear separately at the end of this section.

3.      A map of study area is desirable with focused study points.

4.      The methods section is messy, I suggest creating a flow diagram indicating overall design of the study (step by step).

5.      The methods must be supported by relevant citations.

The manuscript contains several typo and grammar issues which should be rectified in the revision.

Author Response

Point 1:. Please reduce the length of individual keywords and avoid those which already appeared in the title.

Response 1: We acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion, and have shortened the length of each keyword. We added “Willingness to pay (WTP)” since it seems to be paired with WTA.

Point 2:  Introduction is well formulated; however, hypothesis and objectives of the research must appear separately at the end of this section.

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and have revised and reorganized the later part of the introduction to have a paragraph dedicated to the hypothesis and objectives, and they appeared separate from the rest of the introduction and at the end of the section.  

Point 3: A map of study area is desirable with focused study points.

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, and have added the maps showing the sampling sites in the scale of the banner (Inner Mongolia-4 Cities-10 Banners for the 410 herder households) along with their grassland type and the 10-year average precipitation.  We thank you for your valuable feedback in helping us improve the clarity of our manuscript.

Point 4: The methods section is messy, I suggest creating a flow diagram indicating overall design of the study (step by step).

Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, and have added the graphic illustration for our research design showing the research questions to answer, which consists of our survey content. We also checked and reorganized our method section. Thank you for your comment to help us improve our manuscript.

Response 5: The methods must be supported by relevant citations.

Response 5: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, and have double checked our references in the method section. The cited references include 15, 21, 25-36.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript contains several typo and grammar issues which should be rectified in the revision.

Response to the English Language: We appreciate the reviewer’s keen observations and have corrected some of the typos, such as in line 500 "viables" should be "variables", in line 508 "variable" should be changed into "variables", and in line 546 "be" was inserted after the word "not".

We apologize for any confusion caused by the initial errors/typos. We thank you for your valuable feedback in helping us improve the clarity and accuracy of our manuscript.

Once again, we would like to express our gratitude for your valuable feedback. Your insights have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality of our manuscript. We believe the revisions address your concerns and improve the overall presentation of our research. We hope the revised manuscript meets your expectations, and we are confident it will positively contribute to the scientific discourse in our field.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am satisfied with the changes made. Although I would still opt for more thorough substantiation of the choice of research tools.

Author Response

Response: Thank you for your feedback on the revised version of our paper. We are glad to hear that you are satisfied with the changes made. We appreciate your continued interest in our research.

Regarding your comments about the choice of research tools, we understand your desire for a more thorough substantiation. We have carefully considered your suggestion and agree that providing additional information to support our choice of research tools would enhance the robustness of our study. In response to this, we have added more details to our Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) to ensure transparency and minimize potential bias in our research.

At this stage, making further revisions to the paper would significantly extend the timeline for publication, and we believe that the current version, which incorporates comments for major revisions from all the reviewers, has been carefully crafted to address the research objectives and contribute to the existing literature. Rest assured, we have taken into account your feedback for future research and will ensure to include more comprehensive justifications for research tool selection in our future work.

Once again, we appreciate your valuable input and constructive comments throughout the review process. Your feedback has undoubtedly strengthened the quality of our manuscript, and we are grateful for the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our work twice.

Thank you once again for your support and guidance.