Effects of Continuous Adoption of Artificial Intelligence Technology on the Behavior of Holders’ Farmland Quality Protection: The Role of Social Norms and Green Cognition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is quite interesting.

Some information must be more clearly exposed.

H1, H2 and H3 are simple linear calculations.

H4 SN Mediation

H5 GC Moderation

Are the Hypothesis 6 redundant? (how the author proposes it in Figure 1?)

 

Suggestions:

Include in Figure 1 the “signals” proposed in the Hypothesis: “positive”….

There are 6 Hypotheses and 4 arrows in Figure 1. I suggest redrawing figure 1 with “signals” and Hypotheses

At the end of the results, please redraw figure 1, including the results (moderating, mediating and direct values) in the figure. (maybe use AMOS Draw or a simple version of it.

 

In Table 1, Column “variable”, expose “i.e.BHFQP”, CAAIT …

Please rewrite Table 2 using in the first line also the variable names, and detaching the results

The table 3 should be renamed explaining HRA, and the 2 groups models as well the choice for models and it parameters (as R2)  

Please rename Table 4 explaining it in the name: “mediating effect of SN on CAAIT-BHFQP  relation”

 

The authors do not explore the controlled variables, so why present them? (please explore it) 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer：

Thank you for your valuable comments. The author expresses admiration for your academic rigor and clear rationality of logic. Therefore, according to your revision opinion, the article has been modified accordingly.

Please download the attachment, changes have been marked in yellow for ease of review.

①Figure 1 has been redrawn. The figure shows six hypotheses and marks the “signals”.

②The variable column in Table 1 has been changed to the abbreviation of each variable.

③Table 2 has been split into two tables and simplified. One is used to show the basic situation of control variables, and the other is used to show the correlation analysis.

④The original table 3 ( now table 4 ) was renamed as Hierarchical regression analysis results.

⑤The original Table 4 ( now Table 5 ) is renamed Mediating effect of SN on CAAIT-BHFQP relation.

⑥In the selection of control variables, the function of control variables is supplemented and explained. In addition, the control variables are discussed.

 

Thank you again for your hard work and professional review.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Effects of Continuous Adoption of Artificial Intelligence Technology on the Behavior of Holders’ Farmland Quality Protection: The Role of Social Norms and Green Cognition”, submitted for possible publication to Sustainability. The research explores it the continuous adoption of artificial intelligence technology, which has effectively improved businesses under the economic perspective, can provide also significant environmental benefits. 

 

In the abstract, the authors are kindly asked to better clarify the research methodology adopted in the research. If possible, I would also add a brief context, which justify the need to investigate “why” environmental benefits though IT are needed in the agricultural sector. 

 

Although the “continuous adoption of artificial intelligence technology” is the main subject of the research, I would not include it as a keyword. I would better use “artificial intelligence” or “intelligence technology”, for instance. The same applied for “behavior of holders’ farmland quality protection”. I would better include “farmland quality protection” and “farmers’ behavior” as separate keywords. 

 

The section “Introduction” is clear and comprehensive. The authors include the context of the research and highlight in a justified manner the purpose of the study. One minor mistake: although acronyms are already explained in the abstract, I suggest the authors including in the “Introduction” both the acronym and the extended word the first time they appear in the main body of the text. 

 

The section “Literature Review and Hypothesis Development” is comprehensive. The authors cite appropriate references and make it clear the logical flow behind the development of the different hypothesis. I would also clarify Figure 1, which seems rather simple and does not include any (specific) reference to each developed hypothesis. 

 

The section “Research Design” required an opening paragraph, soon before “3.1. Samples”, which described the entire stepwise approach, and which can help readers better understand the structure of the research methodology. 

 

What does it mean that the data in the article derive from a survey of 34 researchers? Is it a research based on secondary data? Is it possible to have more details related to the data collection and to the database utilized? Where are the references? Why the questionnaire has been administered by 34 researchers and the paper has been written by solely 4 authors? It is rather unclear and must be in-depth clarified. 

 

How was the questionnaire constructed? How much sections, how much questions, which kind of questions, etc.? And what about the sampling strategy? 

 

The section “3.2. Variable Selection and Data Description” is rather unclear. The authors must adopt a more appropriate structure. First, they are asked to describe the theoretical model selected for their research. Then, it is unclear which kind of social norms have been developed and/or investigated. Also, such a section includes both theoretical information and results. The authors must distinguish between “materials and methods”, which define only theoretical tools and models, and “Results”, which also include the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample. 

 

In general, the section “Materials and methods” allows replicability of the research method to researchers. At current, it is quite impossible to replicate the research, since several information are missing, both on the “data collection” and on the “data analysis” side. Table 1 defined the variable (and the questions) asked to respondents, but I think that such a table requires an additional description in the text.

 

In order to better understand the “Results”, the authors should describe (in theory) the models selected and adopted. Further, I invite the authors to expand the “Practical enlightenment” and entitled it “Practical implications”. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer：

Thank you for your valuable comments. The author expresses admiration for your academic rigor and clear rationality of logic. Therefore, according to your revision opinion, the article has been modified accordingly.

 

To facilitate your review, changes have been marked in the manuscript.

 

 

Questions①：

In the abstract, the authors are kindly asked to better clarify the research methodology adopted in the research.   If possible, I would also add a brief context, which justify the need to investigate “why” environmental benefits though IT are needed in the agricultural sector.

Answer①：

In the abstract, the research methods are further explained, and why the impact of artificial intelligence technology on agricultural environmental benefits is studied.

Questions②：

Although the “continuous adoption of artificial intelligence technology” is the main subject of the research, I would not include it as a keyword. I would better use “artificial intelligence” or “intelligence technology”, for instance. The same applied for “behavior of holders’ farmland quality protection”. I would better include “farmland quality protection” and “farmers’ behavior” as separate keywords.

Answer②：

Keywords have been replaced by artificial intelligence and farmland quality protection.

Questions③：

The section “Introduction” is clear and comprehensive. The authors include the context of the research and highlight in a justified manner the purpose of the study. One minor mistake: although acronyms are already explained in the abstract, I suggest the authors including in the “Introduction” both the acronym and the extended word the first time they appear in the main body of the text.

Answer③：

In the introduction, when the acronym first appears, it has been changed to acronym and the extended word.

Questions④：

The section “Literature Review and Hypothesis Development” is comprehensive. The authors cite appropriate references and make it clear the logical flow behind the development of the different hypothesis. I would also clarify Figure 1, which seems rather simple and does not include any (specific) reference to each developed hypothesis.

Answer④：

Figure 1 has been redrawn. The figure shows six hypotheses and marks the “signals”.

Questions⑤：

The section “Research Design” required an opening paragraph, soon before “3.1. Samples”, which described the entire stepwise approach, and which can help readers better understand the structure of the research methodology.

Answer⑤：

Before 3.1, we added a description of the whole research procedure.

Questions⑥：

What does it mean that the data in the article derive from a survey of 34 researchers? Is it a research based on secondary data? Is it possible to have more details related to the data collection and to the database utilized? Where are the references? Why the questionnaire has been administered by 34 researchers and the paper has been written by solely 4 authors? It is rather unclear and must be in-depth clarified.

Answer⑥：

The data collection in this paper was completed by 34 investigators. The word researcher was used earlier, the word investigator should be used. Relevant descriptions are added to the data collection section.

Questions⑦：

How was the questionnaire constructed? How much sections, how much questions, which kind of questions, etc.? And what about the sampling strategy?

Answer⑦：

The detailed composition of the questionnaire is shown in Table 2. In addition, in the variable selection part, the contents included in the questionnaire, the types of measurement items for each variable, and typical sample items in the questionnaire are also described. Sampling strategies are also described in 3.1.

Questions⑧：

The section “3.2.  Variable Selection and Data Description” is rather unclear.  The authors must adopt a more appropriate structure.  First, they are asked to describe the theoretical model selected for their research.  Then, it is unclear which kind of social norms have been developed and/or investigated.  Also, such a section includes both theoretical information and results.  The authors must distinguish between “materials and methods”, which define only theoretical tools and models, and “Results”, which also include the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.

Answer⑧：

In the part of variable selection, the description of the basic information recovered from the questionnaire survey was deleted, and the text was concentrated to express the reason of variable selection, which variable was selected, and the example items were displayed.

Questions⑨：

In general, the section “Materials and methods” allows replicability of the research method to researchers. At current, it is quite impossible to replicate the research, since several information are missing, both on the “data collection” and on the “data analysis” side. Table 1 defined the variable (and the questions) asked to respondents, but I think that such a table requires an additional description in the text.

Answer⑨：

The structure and content of the third part have been greatly adjusted

3.1 ：Describes the process of questionnaire issuing, sample selection and investigation, and describes the samples in detail through tables and words.

3.2： The four variables and control variables are described in detail, and the reasons for choosing the measurement method of variables, which one to choose, as well as the item examples are described. Finally, the variable definition and item are explained in table 2.

Questions⑩：

In order to better understand the “Results”, the authors should describe (in theory) the models selected and adopted. Further, I invite the authors to expand the “Practical enlightenment” and entitled it “Practical implications”.

Answer⑩：

In the result part, not only the data analysis conclusions are expressed, but also the corresponding theoretical explanations are added.

In Discussion of the empirical results, the results are further explained theoretically. we expand the”Practical enlightenment” and entitled it ”Practical implications”. 

 

 

 

 

Thank you again for your hard work and professional review.

Kind regards.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear appreciated Authors,

The manuscript: “Effects of Continuous Adoption of Artificial Intelligence Technology on the Behavior of Holders’ Farmland Quality Protection: The Role of Social Norms and Green Cognition“ describe the mode of affecting  artificial intelligence technology (CAAIT)  on behavior of holders’ farmland quality protection (BHFQP), to improve holders’ farmland quality protection behavior.  However, the topic of the paper is relevant and of interest to the audience.  Author's paper should be accepted for publication, after minor revisions, because the paper represents a significant contribution for improving farmland quality protection behavior and management.

 Best regards,

NL

Author Response

Thank you for your hard work and professional review.

 

The abstract, the third part (methods), the conclusions, and the practical implications have all been revised and the manuscript has been re-uploaded.

The changes have been marked in yellow.

 

Thank you again for your hard work and professional review.

Kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Effects of Continuous Adoption of Artificial Intelligence Technology on the Behavior of Holders’ Farmland Quality Protection: The Role of Social Norms and Green Cognition”. The authors have revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestions, specifically with reference to the abstract, part of the hypothesis development and methods. At current, the authors have clarified the research methodology, highlighting the stepwise approach, and have also provided additional details related to the respondents’ characteristics and the procedures. Also, the authors have revised (in a clear and comprehensive manner) the subsection related to the variable selection. Such a revision was essential to strengthen the manuscript. Last, results and discussion have been modified. 

 

In its current form, the research has reached a suitable scientific soundness.