Rural Business Environments, Information Channels, and Farmers’ Pesticide Utilization Behavior: A Grounded Theory Analysis in Hainan Province, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the Authors apply Grounded theory analysis to study the behavior of farmers regarding the use of pesticides and thus identify government strategies to foster a wiser use of pesticides among farmers, in an ecological perspective.  the methodological approach seems coherent and rigorous in the different steps of the application. Several coding techniques have been applied and the results show 

From the results of the coding it emerge the main role salesmen play in advcing, informing, communicating about the types of pesticides, It comes out from the analysis the central role of pesticide stores in the information and guide of farmers. This aspect looks a bit dangerous and I think that it should be underlined in the introduction and/or in the conclusion the different way governments deal with this very important aspect.

In the analysis the role of extension services looks limited or better it is absent.

In Europe the information of pesticides and their way of utilization is very much dependent on the decisions adopted at the Central Level and the national governments finance public extension services which release specific Pesticides authorizations to farmers who follow courses on pesticides. The trainers are public  officers who are experts in the field and not salesman.

Therefore I think that in the introduction it should be better explained the normative framework on the use of pesticides and also it could be compared to the normative framework of some other countries because this is the main point that guide the farmers choice on the use of pesticides. And in order to see enhance the governement role on this aspect it looks very important to build a system that prevent the wrong use of pesticides and facilitate the circulation of correct information. In absence of such framework of rules and activities promoted by the government and carried out by public experts the conditions to promote the sustainable use of pesticides looks weak.   ecological sustainability framework should be in which farmers The different approach that it looksIn Europe there is a common framework for the sustainable use of pesticides and farmers must follow specific courses supported by the government and done by the extension services that at the end of the course gives a kind of abilitation to the use of pesticides.

The Agricultural Technology Extension centers are included in the alternative information channels, and are described by some farmers as “folks” (see line 430).

These extension services are seen as alternative channels (line439). This is confirmed in line 448 where it is stated that there is a limited interaction with agricultural extension centers although they have a “substantial knowledge and competence.  If this is allowed by the legal framework the results are those shown by the authors. But in a different legal framework where the extension servies gives the authorization in the use of pesticides to farmers (as in EU) and give training courses to the farmers the situation is completely different, because their behavior is ruled at the governmental level. And given the environmental risk in improper use of pesticides, to have a weak legal framework on the regulation of use of pesticides is very very dangerous. And this aspect to me it is not properly considered in the paper.

The legal or normative framework can be modified in the short run and the effects are immediate because the standards set up by the government then must be followed and the risk of improper behavior can be high IF there is a consistent control system (also financed by the government).

Can the aspect related to communication and information be left mainly to the Salesmen and stores? And if this is so why not mention that it is exactly this weak normative systems that produce the results of the coding procedures?

In lines 538-541 it is stated that “pesticide stores offers an economically efficient information acquisition environment that provides reliable information and yields positive pesticide application outcomes”

I strongly doubt it.  Environmental economics provide theoretical and empirical evidence that in pollution it is very important to see the legal framework, because the situation depends on the distribution of rights (Coase theorem)

 

In conclusion i would like to summarize what i wrote before in a short consideration. In the paper grounded theory analysis tries to derive a theory for the behavioral process of farmers in the use of pesticides. My point is that this behavior is strongly linked to the normative framework which is for sure more constrained in EU countries compared to the case study presented. Therefore the legal framework is one of the main features that guide the behavior of farmers and the proposed article could derive a theory that could be valid in a country or in countries that have similar normative framework.. in countries where the law are more strict the behavior is completely different. This aspect i think, the one of the normative framework, i think it should have been better considered in the paper. Because it is an aspect that very strongly affects the results, which becomes valid in that specific normative context. 

Author Response

Dear Esteemed Editor and Reviewer,

First and foremost, we extend our heartfelt gratitude for your insightful feedback and the constructive comments provided on our manuscript. Your expert guidance has been instrumental in enhancing the quality and rigor of our work. The entire authorship team has engaged in thorough discussions and reflections on each of the comments. In line with the suggestions from the reviewers, we have diligently revised our manuscript to align with the esteemed standards of your journal. In this latest version, we have highlighted all amendments in red for easy identification and clarity. Below, we offer a detailed, point-by-point response to each of the reviewers’ comments.

Revised Responses to Reviewer 1:

Comment 1: 

The Authors apply Grounded theory analysis to study the behavior of farmers regarding the use of pesticides and thus identify government strategies to foster a wiser use of pesticides among farmers, in an ecological perspective. the methodological approach seems coherent and rigorous in the different steps of the application. Several coding techniques have been applied and the results show. 

Comment 1 Response:

Thank you for your insightful feedback on our methodological approach. We are gratified to hear that our use of Grounded Theory and coding techniques in studying farmers’ behavior towards pesticide use has been recognized for its coherence and rigor. This encouragement further validates our research approach.

Comment 2:

From the results of the coding it emerge the main role salesmen play in advancing, informing, communicating about the types of pesticides, It comes out from the analysis the central role of pesticide stores in the information and guide of farmers. This aspect looks a bit dangerous and I think that it should be underlined in the introduction and/or in the conclusion the different way governments deal with this very important aspect.

Comment 2 Response:

We value your observation regarding the significant role of salesmen and pesticide stores in influencing farmers’ decisions. Accordingly, we have enhanced our discussion about this in both the introduction and conclusion (see lines 71-78 and lines 721-735), highlighting the China government’s role in overseeing these interactions.

Comment 3:

In the analysis the role of extension services looks limited or better it is absent.

In Europe the information of pesticides and their way of utilization is very much dependent on the decisions adopted at the Central Level and the national governments finance public extension services which release specific Pesticides authorizations to farmers who follow courses on pesticides. The trainers are public officers who are experts in the field and not salesman.

Therefore I think that in the introduction it should be better explained the normative framework on the use of pesticides and also it could be compared to the normative framework of some other countries because this is the main point that guide the farmers choice on the use of pesticides. And in order to see enhance the governement role on this aspect it looks very important to build a system that prevent the wrong use of pesticides and facilitate the circulation of correct information. In absence of such framework of rules and activities promoted by the government and carried out by public experts the conditions to promote the sustainable use of pesticides looks weak. Ecological sustainability framework should be in which farmers The different approach that it looks. In Europe there is a common framework for the sustainable use of pesticides and farmers must follow specific courses supported by the government and done by the extension services that at the end of the course gives a kind of abilitation to the use of pesticides.

Comment 3 Response:

Your point about the role of extension services is well-taken. We have expanded our discussion in the introduction to reflect the differences in the normative frameworks of pesticide use between countries like China and those in the EU, America, and India (see lines 73-84). The varying scales of operation and the effectiveness of extension services in these regions are now more clearly articulated.

Comment 4:

The Agricultural Technology Extension centers are included in the alternative information channels, and are described by some farmers as “folks” (see line 430).

Comment 4 Response:

Thank you for your meticulous attention to our terminology. We agree that ‘experts’ more accurately describes the Agricultural Technology Extension centers’ staff. This term has been revised accordingly in lines 452-453, 492-495, and 558-560.

Comment 5:

These extension services are seen as alternative channels (line439). This is confirmed in line 448 where it is stated that there is a limited interaction with agricultural extension centers although they have a “substantial knowledge and competence. If this is allowed by the legal framework the results are those shown by the authors. But in a different legal framework where the extension servies gives the authorization in the use of pesticides to farmers (as in EU) and give training courses to the farmers the situation is completely different, because their behavior is ruled at the governmental level. And given the environmental risk in improper use of pesticides, to have a weak legal framework on the regulation of use of pesticides is very very dangerous. And this aspect to me it is not properly considered in the paper.

Comment 5 Response:

We appreciate your emphasis on the legal framework’s role in pesticide use regulation. Our revised manuscript now includes a more comprehensive discussion on the multi-faceted approach to pesticide environmental risk reduction, including the roles of government, retailers, and farmers (see lines 461-484).

Comment 6:

The legal or normative framework can be modified in the short run and the effects are immediate because the standards set up by the government then must be followed and the risk of improper behavior can be high IF there is a consistent control system (also financed by the government).

Comment 6 Response:

Thank you for highlighting the importance of a stringent legal framework. We have now discussed the challenges of enforcing regulations due to the dispersion and small scale of farms, acknowledging the gaps in regulatory oversight (specific modifications in the manuscript are detailed in the relevant section).

Comment 7:

Can the aspect related to communication and information be left mainly to the Salesmen and stores? And if this is so why not mention that it is exactly this weak normative systems that produce the results of the coding procedures?

Comment 7 Response:

We acknowledge your concern about relying heavily on salesmen for information dissemination. The revised manuscript now includes a more nuanced discussion about the limitations and challenges faced by farmers in accessing information from agricultural technology extension centers (see the updated coding Table 3, line 316 and page 11).

Comment 8:

In lines 538-541 it is stated that “pesticide stores offers an economically efficient information acquisition environment that provides reliable information and yields positive pesticide application outcomes”

I strongly doubt it. Environmental economics provide theoretical and empirical evidence that in pollution it is very important to see the legal framework, because the situation depends on the distribution of rights (Coase theorem)

Comment 8 Response:

Your skepticism about the reliability of information from pesticide stores is well-founded. We have revised our manuscript to reflect a more balanced view, acknowledging the government’s primary role in reducing ecological risks and the ancillary role of pesticide stores (see lines 562-581).

Comment 9:

In conclusion I would like to summarize what I wrote before in a short consideration. In the paper grounded theory analysis tries to derive a theory for the behavioral process of farmers in the use of pesticides. My point is that this behavior is strongly linked to the normative framework which is for sure more constrained in EU countries compared to the case study presented. Therefore the legal framework is one of the main features that guide the behavior of farmers and the proposed article could derive a theory that could be valid in a country or in countries that have similar normative framework.. in countries where the law are more strict the behavior is completely different. This aspect i think, the one of the normative framework, i think it should have been better considered in the paper. Because it is an aspect that very strongly affects the results, which becomes valid in that specific normative context.

Comment 9 Response:

We greatly appreciate your comprehensive critique. The revised manuscript now includes a more thorough examination of the normative frameworks and their impact on farmers’ behaviors, particularly contrasting with practices in the EU, America and India (specific amendments are highlighted in red in the manuscript). 

Please let me know if further modifications are needed or if there is another aspect of the academic process I can assist you with! Looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Yumeng Wang

21 Jan., 2024

School of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development,

Renmin University of China,

Beijing, 100872, China

Email: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This interesting paper examines the influence of rural business environments and information channels on farmers’ pesticide utilization behavior in Hainan Province, China, using grounded theory and interviews with 32 cowpea farmers.

The design and method usage is proper. Authors used a qualitative approach, grounded theory, to explore the complex and dynamic aspects of farmers’ decision-making processes regarding pesticide use, which is often neglected by quantitative studies. And the qualitative method is often under-appreciated, unfairly. I applaud authors’ choice in adopting this method.

The paper contributes to the literature on cowpea cultivation, which is a niche but important and vulnerable crop in tropical areas but has received limited attention from researchers. The conclusion seems convincing and reasonable.

Here are some areas authors could consider improving— please take them as suggestions:

1)      Please provide a clear and operational definition of the rural business environment and its dimensions. People may have different understandings of this concept.

2)      The research questions and objectives can be explicitly clarified in the Introduction. The authors should explicitly articulate what they aim to investigate and why it is important— although the contributions are articulated clearly at the end of the Introduction.

3)      Maybe discuss a bit more on the comparison with existing theories and/or empirical studies on  farmers’ pesticide behaviour.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing is quite good. 

Author Response

Dear Esteemed Editor and Reviewers,

First and foremost, we extend our heartfelt gratitude for your insightful feedback and the constructive comments provided on our manuscript. Your expert guidance has been instrumental in enhancing the quality and rigor of our work. The entire authorship team has engaged in thorough discussions and reflections on each of the comments. In line with the suggestions from the reviewers, we have diligently revised our manuscript to align with the esteemed standards of your journal. In this latest version, we have highlighted all amendments in red for easy identification and clarity. Below, we offer a detailed, point-by-point response to each of the reviewers’ comments. 

Revised Responses to Reviewer 2:

Comment 1:

This interesting paper examines the influence of rural business environments and information channels on farmers’ pesticide utilization behavior in Hainan Province, China, using grounded theory and interviews with 32 cowpea farmers.

The design and method usage is proper. Authors used a qualitative approach, grounded theory, to explore the complex and dynamic aspects of farmers’ decision-making processes regarding pesticide use, which is often neglected by quantitative studies. And the qualitative method is often under-appreciated, unfairly. I applaud authors’ choice in adopting this method.

The paper contributes to the literature on cowpea cultivation, which is a niche but important and vulnerable crop in tropical areas but has received limited attention from researchers. The conclusion seems convincing and reasonable.

Comment 1 Response:

Your encouraging remarks on our methodological approach and the subject matter of our study are greatly appreciated. We are delighted that our qualitative exploration into cowpea cultivation and farmers’ decision-making in pesticide use has resonated with its intended significance.

Comment 2:

Please provide a clear and operational definition of the rural business environment and its dimensions. People may have different understandings of this concept.

Comment 2 Response:

We thank you for highlighting the need for clarity on the rural business environment concept. The revised manuscript now includes definitions as per the World Bank and the Chinese government, along with macro-level indicators of the business environment (see lines 56-63).

Comment 3:

The research questions and objectives can be explicitly clarified in the Introduction. The authors should explicitly articulate what they aim to investigate and why it is important— although the contributions are articulated clearly at the end of the Introduction.

Comment 3 Response:

Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have clarified our research questions, objectives, and their significance at the end of the Introduction section to provide a clearer roadmap for our readers (see lines 113-132).

Comment 4:

Maybe discuss a bit more on the comparison with existing theories and/or empirical studies on farmers’ pesticide behaviour.

Comment 4 Response:

Your suggestion to compare our findings with existing theories and empirical studies is well-received. We have included a detailed comparison in the discussion section, offering a broader context and highlighting our study's unique contributions (see lines 721-735).

 

Please let me know if further modifications are needed or if there is another aspect of the academic process I can assist you with! Looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Yumeng Wang

21 Jan., 2024

School of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development,

Renmin University of China,

Beijing, 100872, China

Email: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of "Rural Business Environments, Information Channels and Farmers’ Pesticide Utilization Behavior: A Grounded Theory Analysis in Hainan Province, China" 

 

This paper employed a qualitative research method to analyze how the business environment and information impact the pesticide use behavior in China. The paper is well written and the results are interesting. I only have several minor clarification/editing comments. 

1. Line 85, "significantly" should be dropped;

2. Line 96-98, the sentences are not clear, please rewrite;

3. Line 109, "in this specific domain"? Please consider using other words to be clearer;

4. Line 279, "famers' returns"? please use other words to clarify your meaning;

5. Table B3, please add horizontal borders to separate the different core coding;

6. Line 327, "statistically insignificant" did you conduct any tests to make this statement? Please revise or clarify. 

7. Line 367, "seasoned farmers" please change to other words to make it clearer. 

Author Response

Dear Esteemed Editor and Reviewers,

First and foremost, we extend our heartfelt gratitude for your insightful feedback and the constructive comments provided on our manuscript. Your expert guidance has been instrumental in enhancing the quality and rigor of our work. The entire authorship team has engaged in thorough discussions and reflections on each of the comments. In line with the suggestions from the reviewers, we have diligently revised our manuscript to align with the esteemed standards of your journal. In this latest version, we have highlighted all amendments in red for easy identification and clarity. Below, we offer a detailed, point-by-point response to each of the reviewers’ comments.

Revised Responses to Reviewer 3:

Comment 1:

This paper employed a qualitative research method to analyze how the business environment and information impact the pesticide use behavior in China. The paper is well written and the results are interesting. I only have several minor clarification/editing comments.

Comment 1 Response:

We are grateful for your careful review and insightful comments. Rest assured, we have taken your suggestions seriously and have made the corresponding revisions in the manuscript.

Comment 2:

Line 85, "significantly" should be dropped;

Comment 2 Response:

Thank you for your attention to detail. We have removed“significantly”to enhance clarity and precision in the mentioned section (see line 101-102).

Comment 3:

Line 96-98, the sentences are not clear, please rewrite;

Comment 3 Response:

We appreciate your feedback on the clarity of our writing. The sentences in question have been rewritten for better clarity and coherence (see line 110-112).

Comment 4:

Line 109, “in this specific domain”? Please consider using other words to be clearer;

Comment 4 Response:

Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity. We have revised the sentence to more clearly define the specific field of study (see line 129-132).

Comment 5:

Line 279, “farmers' returns”? please use other words to clarify your meaning;

Comment 5 Response:

Your suggestion for clearer terminology is well-taken. We have rewritten the entire sentence to better convey our meaning (see line 299-302).

Comment 6:

Table B3, please add horizontal borders to separate the different core coding;

Comment 6 Response:

Thank you for your advice on improving the readability of Table 3. We have now added horizontal borders to distinctly separate the different core coding (see line 316 and Table 3). To maintain consistency in the serial numbering of tables, Table B3 has been renumbered as Table 3.

Comment 7:

Line 327, “statistically insignificant” did you conduct any tests to make this statement? Please revise or clarify.

Comment 7 Response:

We appreciate your request for clarification. The statement has been revised to reflect a more accurate description of our findings (see line 348-350).

Comment 8:

Line 367, “seasoned farmers” please change to other words to make it clearer.

Comment 8 Response:

Your suggestion for clearer terminology is well appreciated. The term “seasoned farmers” has been changed to “veteran farmers” for better clarity (see line 390-392).

Please let me know if further modifications are needed or if there is another aspect of the academic process I can assist you with! Looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Yumeng Wang

21 Jan., 2024

School of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development,

Renmin University of China,

Beijing, 100872, China

Email: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The modifications and response of the authors are clear and detailed. The theme is very important, especially for the environmental effects that derive from the pesticide use. The objective of the study has been clarified; some different and contrasting normative framework at the international level have been put in evidence, including China.