Influence of Self-Identity and Social Identity on Farmers’ Willingness for Cultivated Land Quality Protection
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper requires the following modifications to enhance its quality:
- The abstract needs more enhancement to improve its attractiveness.
- The selection of keywords is inadequate; authors could choose for more suitable keywords.
- In the introduction, authors should explicitly articulate the primary purpose of their study, highlighting its novelty and the significance of exploring the relationship between the chosen variables.
- The results need a more thorough explanation and should be supported by comparing them to existing publications.
- The discussion lacks strength and should be enhanced by the authors.
- Clarify the conclusion, since it lacks clarity and precision.
- The paper requires language correction by seeking assistance from a competent editor specializing in the relevant area.
I found some minor grammatical errors, and can be corrected during the revision.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The paper requires the following modifications to enhance its quality:
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We will carefully address each of the points you raised to improve the quality of our paper. We appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our manuscript.
Point 1: The abstract needs more enhancement to improve its attractiveness.
Response: Thank you very much for your feedback on the abstract. We sincerely appreciate your suggestions and have made several improvements to enhance its appeal. Specifically, we revised some expressions to better highlight the significance of our study on farmers’ willingness to protect cultivated land quality (WCQP). Additionally, we have clarified the distinction between “baseline regression results” and “moderation effect analysis results“ in the abstract to improve its structure and readability. We have further refined the abstract by modifying the following text: “This study utilizes micro-survey data from 439 households in Shaanxi Province, China, to address the gap by considering the structural relationship between self-identity and social identity. This study further divides self-identity into cognitive identity, emotional identity, and behavioral identity. A theoretical analysis framework for farmers’ WCQP is constructed and the impacts of cognitive identity, emotional identity, behavioral identity, and social identity on farmers’ WCQP are analyzed using the structural equation model (SEM).” to “Based on a micro-survey of 439 farm households in Shaanxi Province, China, this study constructs a theoretical analysis framework for farmer WCQP that integrates the structural relationships of self-identity and social identity. Self-identity is further subdivided into cognitive identity, emotional identity, and behavioral identity. Using structural equation modeling (SEM), the study analyzes the impact of cognitive identity, emotional identity, behavioral identity, and social identity on farmer WCQP” (see lines 12-17 in the original text).
We also expanded the discussion of the study's significance, outlining its theoretical and practical implications, by revising “Results offer insights and evidence from a sociopsychological perspective for the formulation of cultivated land quality protection policies that are more aligned with reality” to “Our research not only simultaneously considers both self-identity and social identity of farmers but also delves into their structural relationship. This provides theoretical support and practical guidance for developing more targeted land quality conservation policies from a social-psychological perspective” (see lines 25-27 in the original text). We believe these changes not only make the abstract more engaging but also more clearly showcase the contributions of the study. Thank you again for your valuable guidance, and we hope these revisions meet your expectations.
Point 2: The selection of keywords is inadequate; authors could choose for more suitable keywords.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions regarding the choice of keywords. We deeply appreciate your advice and have made adjustments to enhance the specificity and accuracy of the keywords. We have combined the original keywords “cultivated land quality protection” and “farmers” into “farmers’ willingness of cultivated land quality protection”, which better reflects the core content of our study. Additionally, we have added the keyword “structural relationships” to highlight the importance of the structural relationship between self-identity and social identity in our research. Given that the sample location is in China, we have also included “China” as a keyword. These modifications aim to select terms that better reflect the significant content of the article and ensure they more accurately represent our manuscript. We understand the critical role of keywords in literature retrieval and believe that the revised keywords are more appropriate. Thank you again for your professional input.
Point 3: In the introduction, authors should explicitly articulate the primary purpose of their study, highlighting its novelty and the significance of exploring the relationship between the chosen variables.
Response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have acknowledged the shortcomings in the introduction and revised it accordingly based on your advice.
Specifically: (1) We have clearly stated the research objectives in the introduction: “The aim of this study is to develop a theoretical analysis framework for farmer WCQP based on micro-survey data from farmers in Shaanxi Province, China. This framework will consider the structural relationship between self-identity and social identity. Additionally, the study will decompose self-identity into three dimensions: cognitive identity, emotional identity, and behavioral identity. It will explore the effects of both self-identity and social identity on farmer WCQP and investigate the moderating effect of social identity on the relationship between self-identity and farmer WCQP” (modified from lines 80 to 86 in the original text).
(2) We have emphasized the novelty of the article more strongly by revising the marginal contribution section: “This study contributes in three significant ways: First, unlike existing research that analyzes farmer WCQP from a single perspective of either self-identity or social identity, by incorporating self-identity and social identity into the theoretical framework for farmers’ WCQP, we advance the existing theoretical research from a social psychological perspective and provide a foundation for comprehending the underlying rationale behind farmers’ WCQP. Second, by considering both self-identity and social identity and their hierarchical structural relationships, we investigate how social identity shapes the impact of self-identity on farmers’ WCQP. This offers new insights for government entities to design cohesive policies that promote farmers’ WCQP. Last, in the current global context where smallholder farmers remain prevalent, this study focuses on Chinese smallholder farmers. Our research findings can serve as practical references for countries or regions with similar characteristics, aiming to enhance farmers’ WCQP” (modified from lines 86 to 96 in the original text).
(3) We have further expanded the discussion on the relationship between identity, social identity, and farmer WCQP: “This leads to the fact that farmer WCQP is influenced both by self-identity and by social identity” (line 77 in the original text) and “This means that the impact of self-identity on farmer WCQP is moderated by social identity. However, existing research typically analyzes farmer WCQP from a single perspective of either self-identity or social identity, neglecting the synergistic effects of both identities and the underlying structural relationship between them” (lines 78 to 79 in the original text).
Point 4: The results need a more thorough explanation and should be supported by comparing them to existing publications. The discussion lacks strength and should be enhanced by the authors.
Response: We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and have made related changes in the manuscript. These includes the following:
(1) In the results section, we have strengthened the interpretation of the results. We further describe the impact and extent of cognitive identity, emotional identity, behavioral identity, and social identity on farmers’ WCQP (see line 387 in the original text). We have clarified the significant differences in the moderating effects of social identity on cognitive, emotional, and behavioral identities affecting farmers’ WCQP (see lines 388 and 391 to 394 in the original text). Additionally, we have enhanced the comparison of our findings with existing literature, and to maintain consistency in the manuscript's style, we moved the comparison analysis to the discussion section.
(2) In the discussion section, we have further compared our results with existing literature. We added the following contents at line 536: “Our research findings are consistent with those of Vande Velde et al. [65]. Vande Velde et al. investigated the impact of emotional identity on pro-environmental behaviors among Belgian dairy farmers. Their study found that negative emotional identity towards soil pollution weakened farmers’ willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviors, while positive emotional identity significantly enhanced their intention to practice such behaviors. This conclusion aligns with our findings, further corroborating the significant role of emotional identity in influencing individuals' environmental intentions and behavioral choices”. At line 541, we added: “From the perspective of behavioral identity, our findings are similar to those of Savari et al. [27], but differ from the results reported by Carfora et al. [67]. Carfora et al.'s study on farmers in southern Italy found that behavioral identity did not significantly enhance farmers’ pro-environmental intentions. In their research, behavioral identity was primarily examined at the family level, focusing on how individuals' social identity affects the WCQP of other family members. In contrast, our study investigates behavioral identity at the individual level, exploring how an individual's own behavioral identity impacts their WCQP. This focus on the individual rather than the family level could be a key reason for the discrepancy in results between our study and Carfora et al.'s findings.” We also revised lines 549 and 550 from “Social identity also significantly promotes WCQP, aligning with the findings of Zhu et al. and Burk et al. [9,33].”to: "Social identity also significantly promotes WCQP, aligning with the findings from Burk et al. [33] and Kiral et al. [34]. Burke et al.'s study on farmers in eastern Idaho, USA, found that social identity can improve farmers’ attitudes and behaviors towards environmental protection. Kiral et al. reported that social identity promotes individual pro-environmental behavior by boosting collective environmental actions.” Additionally, we made minor adjustments that do not change the meaning but improve the fluency of the text (see lines 536, 541, 542, 552, and 561).
Thank you again for your valuable suggestions. We hope these revisions will strengthen our research results.
Point 5: Clarify the conclusion, since it lacks clarity and precision.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the detailed examination and valuable feedback on our manuscript. Based on your comments, we have made the following revisions to improve the clarity and accuracy of the conclusion section:
(1) We have clarified the research results by specifying that “Cognitive identity, emotional identity, behavioral identity, and social identity all enhance farmers’ WCQP” and “Regarding moderating effects, social identity enhances the positive impact of cognitive identity on WCQP. However, its effect on the relationship between emotional identity and WCQP varies depending on the level of emotional identity.” (see lines 593 to 594 and 607 to 610 in the original text).
(2) We have revised the policy recommendations to make them more actionable. The original text, “For example, the government could promote agricultural culture, helping farmers recognize their crucial role in agricultural production and environmental protection, thereby enhancing their cognitive identity. Engage in 'Bottom-Up' Policy Feedback by involving farmers in policy feedback processes, enabling them to discover and fulfill their value as farmers, which would strengthen their emotional identity; organizing farmland quality conservation activities and enhance monitoring related to farmland quality to encourage farmers to act on their self-perception, thereby improving their behavioral identity; and by establishing agricultural cooperatives to provide an organizational foundation for unity and cooperation among farmers, boosting their sense of belonging and responsibility towards their community, and consequently enhancing their social identity" has been revised to: "For cognitive identity, the government could organize workshops and educational training to promote agricultural culture, helping farmers recognize their critical role in agricultural production and environmental protection, guiding them to discover and accept their identity, thereby enhancing their cognitive identity. For emotional identity, the government can establish rural mental health counseling centers and progressively improve the rural mental health service system to help farmers develop positive emotions, enabling them to discover and fulfill their value as farmers, which would strengthen their emotional identity. For behavioral identity, the government can use economic incentives to organize farmers in land quality protection activities, enabling farmers to act on their self-perception, thereby improving their behavioral identity. For social identity, the government can establish agricultural cooperatives to provide an organizational foundation for unity and cooperation among farmers, boosting their sense of belonging and responsibility towards their community, and consequently enhancing their social identity, which in turn enhances farmers’ WCQP.” (see lines 597 to 607 in the original text).
Point 6: The paper requires language correction by seeking assistance from a competent editor specializing in the relevant area.
Response: Thank you for your suggestions. To improve the quality of the English expression in our manuscript (certificate of English editing is shown in PDF file), we have engaged a native English-speaking scholar to refine the manuscript and make revisions to the grammar and expression. We believed these changes have significantly enhanced the overall level of English in the article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents a novel approach to link farmer self-identity and social identity with willingness to adopt land conservation practices--more organic fertilizer and fewer pesticide applications. Farmers generally see themselves as good stewards of the land. This is part of their self-identity as well as a social identity, justifying what they do for a living. They understand that their actions can enhance land conservation. Farmers also tend to be independent-minded.
I appreciate the authors' seven hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1(H1). Farmers' cognitive identity promotes their WCQP
Hypothesis 2(H2). Farmers' emotional identity enhances their WCQP.
Hypothesis 3(H3). Farmers' behavioral identity promotes their WCQP.
Hypothesis 4(H4). Farmers' social identity enhances their WCQP. – status and role within the farmer group
Hypothesis 5(H5). Social identity strengthens the promotional effect of cognitive identity on WCQP.
Hypothesis 6(H6). Social identity enhances the promotional effect of emotional identity on WCQP.
Hypothesis 7(H7). Social identity reinforces the promotional effect of behavioral identity on WCQP.
The more than 400 surveys and SEM model provide interesting results:
"Cognitive identity, emotional identity, behavioral identity, and social identity all have a significant positive impact on farmers' WCQP, confirming that these identities promote WCQP and preliminarily validating Hypotheses H1 to H4. Regarding the moderating effect of social identity, it significantly enhances the positive impact of cognitive identity on WCQP, suggesting that social identity further strengthens the effect of cognitive identity on WCQP, thereby preliminarily validating Hypothesis H5. However, social identity significantly inhibits the positive impact of emotional identity on WCQP, contrary to expectations. Additionally, no significant moderating effect of social identity is observed in the relationship between behavioral identity and WCQP, meaning Hypotheses H6 and H7 are not validated."
Finally, I agree with the authors' policy recommendation: "establishing agricultural cooperatives to provide an organizational foundations forunity and cooperation among farmers, boosting their sense of belonging and responsibility towards their community, and consequently enhancing their social identity.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English recommended.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: This paper presents a novel approach to link farmer self-identity and social identity with willingness to adopt land conservation practices--more organic fertilizer and fewer pesticide applications. Farmers generally see themselves as good stewards of the land. This is part of their self-identity as well as a social identity, justifying what they do for a living. They understand that their actions can enhance land conservation. Farmers also tend to be independent-minded.
I appreciate the authors’ seven hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1(H1). Farmers’ cognitive identity promotes their WCQP
Hypothesis 2(H2). Farmers’ emotional identity enhances their WCQP.
Hypothesis 3(H3). Farmers’ behavioral identity promotes their WCQP.
Hypothesis 4(H4). Farmers’ social identity enhances their WCQP. – status and role within the farmer group
Hypothesis 5(H5). Social identity strengthens the promotional effect of cognitive identity on WCQP.
Hypothesis 6(H6). Social identity enhances the promotional effect of emotional identity on WCQP.
Hypothesis 7(H7). Social identity reinforces the promotional effect of behavioral identity on WCQP.
Response: Thank you for reviewing our paper and providing valuable feedback. We are very pleased with the high evaluation of our research. We especially appreciate your recognition of the perspective that “farmers as good stewards of the land” and the related research hypotheses. This perspective is indeed central to our study and plays a crucial role in understanding farmers’ self and social identity in land conservation practices. Your endorsement not only strengthens our confidence in the research results but also motivates us to continue exploring these key issues in our future work. Thank you once again for your support and recognition of our work.
Point 2: The more than 400 surveys and SEM model provide interesting results:
"Cognitive identity, emotional identity, behavioral identity, and social identity all have a significant positive impact on farmers’ WCQP, confirming that these identities promote WCQP and preliminarily validating Hypotheses H1 to H4. Regarding the moderating effect of social identity, it significantly enhances the positive impact of cognitive identity on WCQP, suggesting that social identity further strengthens the effect of cognitive identity on WCQP, thereby preliminarily validating Hypothesis H5. However, social identity significantly inhibits the positive impact of emotional identity on WCQP, contrary to expectations. Additionally, no significant moderating effect of social identity is observed in the relationship between behavioral identity and WCQP, meaning Hypotheses H6 and H7 are not validated."
Response: Thank you for affirming our research methods and results. Your feedback is crucial for our understanding of the research findings and their complexity. We will carefully consider your comments in our further analysis to enhance the quality and depth of the paper.
Point 3: Finally, I agree with the authors' policy recommendation: "establishing agricultural cooperatives to provide an organizational foundations for unity and cooperation among farmers, boosting their sense of belonging and responsibility towards their community, and consequently enhancing their social identity.
Response: Thank you for recognizing our policy recommendations. We are very pleased that you agree with our suggestion to establish agricultural cooperatives. We believe that creating such cooperatives to provide an organizational foundation and promote unity and cooperation among farmers will not only enhance their sense of belonging and responsibility towards the community but also strengthen their social identity. This, in turn, has a positive impact on advancing land conservation practices. We will continue to explore and refine these recommendations during the revision process to ensure their practical feasibility. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback and support.
Point 4: Comments on the Quality of English Language: Minor editing of English recommended.
Response: Thank you for your suggestions. To improve the quality of the English expression in our manuscript (certificate of English editing is shown in PDF file), we have engaged a native English-speaking scholar to refine the manuscript and make revisions to the grammar and expression. We believed these changes have significantly enhanced the overall level of English in the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
