Impact of Natural Hazards on Agricultural Production Decision Making of Peasant Households: On the Basis of the Micro Survey Data of Hunan Province

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been discussed an important and interesting issue. The manuscript having potential to come up with a good quality paper with minor revision. Following are the review comments,

1.      However, the abstract need to be revised with more clarity about the methodology and outcomes. The authors mentioned “disaster-resilient crop” which need changes to specific hazard resistant crops e.g., “drought resistant crop” or “flood tolerant crop” etc.

2.      English language also need to relook for better readability.

3.      Author used the term “Natural Disaster” quite frequently through the manuscript, however using “Natural hazards” would be much rational considering the context, all hazards will not transform into disaster.

4.      Food security and climate context need more explanation, following journal papers can be consulted,

DOI: 10.1007/s10668-020-00819-6

DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-323-85195-4.00005-6

5.      Some of the Hypothesis need revision

Hypothesis 1(H1). Natural disasters have no significant impact on peasants’ willingness to produce agriculture.

 

“produce agriculture” may be changed to specific product(s) of agriculture.

Hypothesis 3(H3). Natural peasants have a significant negative impact on the green production decision-making of peasant households.

What is the meaning of Natural peasants.

6.      Conclusion section could add chronological list of relevant policies to support impact of natural disasters on peasant households.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

On the basis of the micro survey data of Hunan Province in 2022, by using Probit, Logit, and PSM models, this paper empirically discusses the impacts of natural disasters on agricultural production decision-making of peasant households as well as their heterogeneity. Overall, this manuscript is interesting and meaningful. However, there are still some problems to be addressed.

 

1.Hypothesis 1 is not reasonable according to the common sense, theoretically and practically, natural disasters have profound impact on peasant households’ production decision making, otherwise, we needn’t worry about the damage of natural disaster on production. I think you make your current hypothesis just to cater to your empirical results later.

2. About Hypothesis 2(H2) “Natural disasters are correlated with peasants’ choice of planting disaster-resistant crops”, the word correlated can not reflect casual relationship. In my opinion, natural disasters are not external shocks, and will not be affected by crop decision. Therefore, peasants’ crop type choice is the decision making to adapt the natural disasters.

3. Overall, the literature review and the theoretical analysis are not well organized. When I read the literatures, they are not well reviewed and used to support your opinion. Also, you have quoted many policy statements but no reference. For example, “the No. 1 document of the Central Committee in 2022 once again emphasized that we should strengthen the comprehensive control of agricultural non-point source pollution and further encourage a reduction in agricultural inputs to further promote the green development of agriculture and rural areas.” I think they are better put in the introduction part.

4.Why did you choose Hunan Province as study case, how about the occurrence of natural disasters here? You should talk about this basic information in your manuscript.

5.The Propensity Score Matching (PSM) cannot solve endogenous problems caused by unobserved variables, such as peasants’ agricultural ability. It is difficult to find suitable instruments to solve this problem, however, the drawbacks and the potential endogenous problems should be mentioned.

6. For the probit or logit model, it is better to report the marginal effects.

7. You have put forward so many policy implications, however, some of the are common sense, and no need to be mentioned. Just put forward policies related to your empirical work.

8. Chinese literatures are now well cited in the listed reference.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have solved my concerns.