Impact Effects of Cooperative Participation on the Adoption Behavior of Green Production Technologies by Cotton Farmers and the Driving Mechanisms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General opinion: The topic of the paper deals with an important issue: the need to adopt green production technologies, while farmers means and awareness are low. The possibilities of improving this situation are relevant research issues, and focusing on the importance of cooperatives in this process is also a relevant topic. The methodology is basically correct, though there are a few issues that should be better explained (hopefully, the authors can give reasonable explanations, and  this does not affect the results). There are a few structural problems of the manuscript, and also some improvements are needed in the References, and some language usage problems – mainly of style and clarity – were found. I recommend the paper for major revision. Details are provided in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor problems of sentence structure and style have been noticed. See details in attached file.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effects of Cooperative Participation on the Adoption Behavior of Agricultural Green Production Technologies by Cotton Farmers and the Driving Mechanisms—Based on the Perspectives of Inner Cognition and External Regulation” (ID: agriculture-2819015). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval, the detailed corrections are listed below:

1.SUGGESTIONS 1 FROM REVIEWER 1: DETAILS: Title is too long, please try to give a shorter, clearer title – you do not have to include so much detail in it.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 1：The title is too long is indeed one of our major shortcomings in this article, through careful revision, we finally confirmed and shortened the title to” Impact Effects of Cooperative Participation on the Adoption Behavior of Green Production Technologies by Cotton Farmers and the Driving Mechanisms“, we hope that the revised title will be recognized by you, and we also thank you for your valuable comments, which have further improved our article.

2.SUGGESTIONS 2 FROM REVIEWER 1: Abstract: Line 17: Give the full name of PSM, not just the acronym

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：We are very sorry that this was a mistake on our part and caused you extra trouble reading it, and we appreciate you pointing out the problem with the full PSM name, we have made a change in the summary section which we hope will be to your satisfaction.

3.SUGGESTIONS 3 FROM REVIEWER 1: Introduction: It explains the rationale of the research topic well, but there are a few points to improve, especially, more precise wording of the intended meaning.

—Lines 50‐51:”… the effect of external factors restricting farmers' adoption of green technology is often unsatisfactory, „. this is a contradictory sentence. The authors probably meant that „.the effect of external factors restricting farmers' adoption of green technology is often the unsatisfactory level of adoption.” or something similar, i.e. not the effect is unsatisfactory, but the adoption level. Besides, the sentence ends with a comma, not a point.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：The lack of clarity was a major mistake in our article, and we have revised it in its original position to read "and policies to promote the adoption of AGPT by farmers are not as effective as they should be, it is possible to enhance the adoption of AGPT by farmers through the development of "education, training, and information" through cooperatives. possible to enhance the adoption of AGPT by farmers through the development of "education, training, and information" through cooperatives ", and the ending point and case have been corrected, I hope the revised article will satisfy you and thank you for your comments.

—Line 64‐65:” Theoretically, the condition for farmers to adopt a technology is that the marginal private cost equals the marginal private benefit”. The equality here means that costs are below, or at most, equal the benefits, not only the equality is suitable.

—Lines 65‐68: „However, due to the positive externalities of green technologies, the marginal social benefits of adopting green technologies are higher than their marginal private benefits [12]. As a result, farmers have no natural incentive to adopt green technologies.” This is again not quite precise: even if social marginal benefits are higher than private ones, if the private benefits are above private marginal costs this should still be an incentive for adoption. Please explain your meaning better.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：As you suggest, an important condition for farmers to adopt AGPT is that the marginal private benefit is greater than or equal to the cost. This was a translation error on our part, which led to a great misunderstanding on your part. And, as you say, even if social marginal benefits are higher than private ones, if the private benefits are above private marginal costs this should still be an incentive for adoption. This is because, under "rational economic man", small farmers are more inclined to pursue private gains, and social benefits do not provide farmers with a natural incentive to adopt. This is because under "rational economic man", small farmers are more inclined to pursue private gains, and social benefits do not provide farmers with a natural incentive to adopt green technologies.Thank you very much for your question, and also for the better understanding of future readers, we have made the changes here, and hope that our explanation in this way will be satisfactory to you.

—The explanation of the roles of cooperatives in the smallholders’ willingness to adopt green technologies is well explained. (lines 70‐85), and compared to the low efficiency of government‐led initiatives.

—As the Introduction contains the review of relevant literature, it would be useful to give references to empirical results regarding farmers’ attitudes towards green technologies – regarding either cotton, or other crops, in China, or other countries of the region, or elsewhere in the world.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：The issue you raise is indeed a flaw in our article, and we cite a study by Huang et al. that explains that found through empirical research that after farmers participated in the technical training of rice, their understanding and practical ability of green production technology was significantly improved, and the use of chemical fertilizers was continuously reduced. Thank you very much for your valuable comments, and we hope that the revised content will satisfy you.

—When you explain the novelty of the paper, or the research gap addressed, you mention the gap in previous literature (Lines 123‐125), but then you should give references to these previous literature items. Similarly in lines 133‐140, again you mention „most studies”, and „some scholars”, without references. Please add relevant references here. The same problem is with the sentence starting in line 140: „There is a consensus…” – at least a few references are needed to support this „consensus”. Same about „Previous research…”(line 140) – add the proper references.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：The problem you pointed out is quite critical, and we have cited the relevant references in the original text at Lines 123-125, lines 133-140, etc. We thank you for your questions and hope that the revision will be to your satisfaction.

—Line 146: When discussing the role of cooperatives, you should give references about the benefits of cooperation. As later in the Methodology section, the paragraph starting from line 200 lists the main benefits of cooperation membership from the cotton farmers’ viewpoint, with some references. This paragraph should be moved into the Introduction section, and more references should be adde to it.

Similarly, the paragraphs under Methodology 2.1.2 (lines 234‐286) should be placed in the Intro/literature review section, and the same is true for the paragraphs under 2.1.3 (lines 298‐327).

The contents of these paragraphs are part of the literature review (with additional references), and not of the Methodology. Please also check that you avoid unnecessary repetitions when making this modification.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：Thank you very much for pointing out this critical issue. Based on your suggestion, we have moved the paragraph starting from line 200 to the introduction section. Thank you for your valuable comments and we hope that our changes will satisfy you.

—Lines 150‐154: You try to explain the importance of cotton in China’s economy – please provide some data with references: % share in national agricultural value added, or in export, or in total GDP, its importance regarding employment, and maybe its share in the country’s total chemical fertilizers and pesticides, too.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：Your question is very critical, pointing out that we did not give the importance of cotton in China's economy, which is a mistake in our work, and we would like to apologize for that. We have added the cotton area in recent years as well as cotton production entails an enormous environmental burden to the article, and hope that our revised content will be able to get your satisfaction.

—Lines 150‐154: This section should list the precise research questions or hypotheses, then later the methodology can address how to assess these research questions, and conclusion can refer back to results in relation to them. Although the Methodology section contains the research hypotheses, it would still be useful to include them as a concise list at the end of the Introduction. The methodology section then explain how to handle each hypotheses in terms of data and analysis tools.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：Thank you very much for your suggestion, we have listed the research hypotheses in a concise manner at the end of the "Introduction", and we hope that our modifications in this section will be to your satisfaction.

4.SUGGESTIONS 4 FROM REVIEWER 1: Materials and Methods: This section is divided to 4 sub‐sections: 2.1 Theoretical Framework and Research Hypotheses; 2.2 Research Methodology; 2.3 Data Sources; 2.4 Variable Selection and Statistical Descriptive Analysis. I suggest some structural modifications, see details below:

—Fig 1. clearly explains the logical reasoning process of the research, but please add relevant references to this line of thought, and especially to Fig 1. Is it the authors’ own construction, or is it adapted from some other source – obviously from reference [5]? As probably there exist farmers, who do not participate in cooperations, but still adopt AGPT, maybe the wording of Figure 1 should be somehow modified as to „enhanced cognition”, „enhanced adoption” or similar for the coop participants.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：Thank you very much for pointing out this key issue, and based on your suggestion, we explain Figure 1 more clearly. However, since Figure 1 was drawn based on the theoretical analysis and research hypotheses in 2.1, and we did not refer to any other literature, and literature [5] is what we need to cite in the theoretical analysis part, in view of the reviewer's question on this part, so we delete it to avoid unnecessary trouble. Regarding the reviewer's question "As probably there exist farmers, who do not participate in cooperatives, but still adopt AGPT", our explanation is that we focus on the analysis of those who participate in cooperatives and those who do not participate in cooperatives. Our explanation is that we focus on the analysis of farmers who participate in cooperatives, while farmers who do not participate in cooperatives are only used as a reference, for example, to analyze that after participating in cooperatives, the magnitude of the adoption of AGPT by farmers can be increased by 27.16%, so in order to better explain this issue and make it clearer to readers later on, we added some modifications according to the reviewer's suggestion. Thank you for your valuable comments and we hope that our modifications will satisfy you.

—Lines 181‐185: The sentence „Green production in agriculture refers to the adoption of AGPTs……ecological and social benefits.” should not be in the methodology section, it should be typically in the Introduction‐Literature review section. Therefore please remove it from here.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：The issue you raised was also identified by us and explained similarly at literature [3] and [4] in the introduction/literature review section, so we will Lines 181-185: The sentence "Green production in agriculture refers to the adoption of AGPTs......ecological and social benefits." for deletion, we hope that our approach will be satisfactory to you and thank you for your valuable comments.

—Line 192: When explaining the notations to equation (3), start with the meaning of f(R), which – as the equation shows, measures the probability of the expected benefits minus costs being larger thatn the net benefits of traditional production (as p should refer to probability, I assume).

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：The issue you raised is indeed our mistake, and in the revised version we have made the following changes: first we have explained f(R) in equation (1), the principle of whether cotton farmers adopt AGPT or not. Then we reinterpreted the conditions that promote f (R) for the reader's understanding. Finally, we added p, which denotes the extent to which factors such as the cotton farmer's internal perceptions and external environment. thank you for pointing out the problems and we hope that our modifications will meet your satisfaction.

—The paragraph starting from line 200 listing the main benefits of cooperation should be moved into the Introduction section, and more references should be adde to it – as it was already mentioned previously. Here, in the Methodology section, only a very brief list of the benefits of cooperation should be kept, without further explanation, and then state the relevant hypothesis.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：The issue you pointed out is very relevant and we think it is right, so we left the 200 lines or less about the benefits of cooperatives to just three main sentences. And in the second paragraph of the introduction/literature review we have a description of the benefits of cooperatives that can promote the adoption of AGPT by farmers, so we did not add additional content in the introduction/literature review section. Thank you very much for your suggestion and we hope that our revision will satisfy you.

—The same is true for the paragraphs under 2.1.2 (lines 234‐286)‐ Again, this description should be included in the Introduction, as part of the Literature review, and here under the Methodology, only the main points kept, together with H2, and the sub‐hypotheses.

—The same is true for the paragraphs under 2.1.3 (lines 298‐327)‐ The description should be included in the Introduction, as part of the Literature review, and here under the Methodology, only the main points kept, together with H3, and the sub‐hypotheses.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：In response to your proposal, we have moved the paragraph beginning on line 200 that lists the main benefits of collaborative settings should be moved to the "Introduction" section with a very short list of the benefits of collaborative settings and additional documentation has been added to the introduction section. We hope that our changes will meet with your satisfaction.

—As the three points above would indicate a considerable shortening of sub‐section 2.1, the separate numberings of 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 become unnecessary.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：Your suggestion is necessary, we have deleted the original 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 and adjusted them to First, Second and Third, thank you for your comments, we hope that you will be satisfied with our revised content.

—Line 339: „It involves pairing control and control groups that are similar in terms of observable covariates.” – This sentence is ambiguous: you are supposed to compare the treatment group to the control group (i.e. untreated group). In statistical terminology the control group is usually the group that is not under the influence of the factor to be analysed, and the treatment refers to the influence of the analysed factor. Thus, you1d better write: „It involves pairing treatment‐group and control groups that are similar in terms of observable covariates, then the pairing method provides an unbiased estimate of the treatment effect[45] – such as cooperative membership.”

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：Special thanks to you for pointing out the problem, may be because of our translation mistakes, resulting in errors, has been in accordance with your comments to do the revision, I hope that the revised content can be satisfied with you.

—Line 353 and the following paragraph: you did not explain your notations. What is Pr (same as P, i.e. probability?), and what is E?. Even if you use typical mathematical concepts here, e.g. expected value, you should still mention their names.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：The problem you pointed out was a great mistake on our part, and another reviewer pointed out that we did not provide a formula for the logit model, so we have made a better improvement here by including the logit formula as well as revising the propensity score matching (PSM) model and explaining the related symbols. We would like to thank you for pointing out the problems and hope that our revisions will satisfy you.

—Lines 387 and 388, equations (7) and (8): in these equations you refer to the mean and the standard deviation (and then coefficient of variation) of the variables. Mean and standard deviation are not meaningful for categorical variables (later your Table 1 shows that most of your variables are categorical). So please declare here, that you are going to use these formulas for continuous variables – or if not, the adapt the formulas for categorical variables instead, i.e. use not the mean and the standard deviation, but look up the relevant measures for categorical data in advanced statistical texts (e.g index of diversityor dispersion or unalikability instead of standard deviation, etc.). Of course, this refers only to categorica variables, and if you are using these concepts to continuous variables, you can use the original formulas.If so, please add at least an explanatory sentence to these formulas, saying that you will use then for continuous variables.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：It is an error in our work that we did not specify whether AGPT is a categorical or continuous variable in this section. In part 3.1 of the original manuscript, we explained that "one green technology was selected for examination in the cotton farmers' production of land preparation, seeding, fertilization, irrigation, pest control and waste disposal, and (technology adoption area/total sown area of cotton) × 100% was used as the indicator of the degree of adoption of each green production technology". Therefore, the surface from the adoption of AGPT is a continuous variable, and then use the coefficient of variation method to objectively assign weights to get the level of cotton farmers' adoption of AGPT. Therefore, we have explained the explanation in rows 387 and 388, equations (7) and (8), indicating that AGPT is a continuous variable. Thank you very much for highlighting the problem and we hope that our modifications, etc. are satisfactory to you.

—Lines 394‐411: The data sources are explained clearly, but a map (Figure 2) would be welcome to show the geographical locations of the study areas.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：Thank you very much for raising the issue of data sources, we have produced the geographic location of the study area and hope that the modifications will be to your satisfaction.

—Line 394 and 411: I suggest that 2.3 and 2.4 be combined into one sub‐section: 2.3 Data sources and variable selection. Then the descriptive statistics of the variables should be moved to the Results section. Then Table 1 should keep only the first 3 columns (Variable type, Variable name, Variable Definition and Assignment) in this sub‐section – and a short variable name may be added, too. The last 3 columns (averages and st deviations) should go to a separate table at the beginning of Results.

With these descriptive statistical tables please note, that for categorical variables (all, except the first one) there is no sense in providing average values, and standard deviations. Instead, you should give the relative frequencies of each category (% of occurrence of value „1”, of „2”, etc…). Please modify your descriptive statistics accordingly.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：

Your question is a good and constructive comment and we have merged 2.3 and 2.4 into one subsection: 2.3 Data sources and variable selection and moved the descriptive statistics of the variables to the results section. Following your suggestion, we have kept only the first 3 columns (variable type, variable name, variable definition and assignment) in Table 1 in this subsection and added the corresponding short variable names. The last 3 columns (Mean and Extreme Difference) are in a separate table at the beginning of Results.

For the other issue you suggested: it is pointless to provide the mean and standard deviation because in this section we are trying to perform an independent samples t-test on the treatment and control group data, and independent samples t-tests require the mean and standard deviation for their computation, so that test for the variability and validity of the dependent, independent, and mediating variables, as well as the instrumental variables.

Therefore, we believe that the mean and standard deviation cannot be deleted, and we hope that our treatment will be recognized by you, and thank you again for your valuable suggestions.

5.SUGGESTIONS 5 FROM REVIEWER 1: 3. Results and Analysis

—As it was indicated previously, the descriptive statistics of your variables should be moved here, to the beginning of the Results section.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：According to your suggestion, we have moved the descriptive statistics of the variables to the beginning of the "Results" section, thank you for your suggestion, and we hope that you will be satisfied with our modification.

—Line 463, Title of Table 2: Please indicate either in the title, or in the table heading how you measure the values in the table. For example: Deep Tillage technology‐ how is it measured? The text above suggests that the measurement is adoption area divided by total cotton area. Please specify it precisely (it is crucial to know that the variables are continuous, if CV and Indicator weights are computed.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：Based on your suggestion, we have added a new column to the table header to explain how we measure the values in the table, e.g., (adoption area of deep tillage technology/cotton planting area) × 100%. It means that by adding the cotton farmer's cotton planting area of 10 acres and the area of deep tillage technology adoption of 5 acres, then the cotton farmer's adoption of AGPT is 50%, and if the cotton farmer's area of cotton planting as well as the area of adoption of AGPT technology changes, then the adoption of AGPT may be 31%, or it may be 67%. Therefore, the data measured by the coefficient of variation method is a continuous variable. Meanwhile, thank you very much for your suggestions and we hope that our revisions and explanations will satisfy you.

—Lines 465‐468. Please refer back to the data of Table 2 to support your statements. Is there any statistically significant difference between the cooperative‐participating group and the non‐participating one?

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：Dear reviewer, Table 2 is only the coefficient of variation method to measure the degree of adoption of AGPT by each cotton farmer, and then we categorized the cotton farmers who participated in the cooperative and those who did not participate in the cooperative, and the coefficient of variation method as well as our categorization did not involve the requirement of statistical significance. Therefore, in our analysis in Table 2, we considered the extent to which cotton farmers participating in cooperatives adopted all six green production technologies than those who did not, so there was a significant, but not statistically significant, difference between cotton farmers participating in cooperatives and those not participating in cooperatives. Therefore, in the analysis in Table 2, we have included a paragraph to better explain the differences in the extent of AGPT adoption between the groups participating in the cooperative and those not participating in the cooperative. Finally, thank you very much for pointing out the problems that have led to the further improvement of our article, and we hope that our revised content will meet your satisfaction.

—Paragraph 3.2.2 Common Support Domains and Equilibrium Tests. Please give a reference to this section’s theoretical background.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：Thank you very much for pointing out the issues that have given us the opportunity to refine our substandard work. We have added the common support domain and the theoretical background of the balancing test to the appropriate places where you have pointed out the problems, and we hope that the changes will be to your satisfaction.

—Table 5 (Line 519‐521): you did not indicate any significance levels (no asterisks in the table), though the text above says that ATT values are significant at 1% level. Please correct the table. The same refers to Table 6, too (line 545‐546).

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：We apologize for the writing errors that caused us unnecessary trouble in the translation process. We have added an asterisk indicating the level of significance where you pointed out the problem. We are very grateful to you for pointing out the problem so that we can improve our article, and we hope that the revised content will satisfy you.

—The titles of Tables 7 and 8 are not precise enough. Are the values the coefficients of the various variables? Please also clarify the meaning of „Cooperatices iv” in the first column of Table 7.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：

We sincerely apologize for the inaccurate headings in Tables 7 and 8, but we have revised the table to include the symbol for Coefficient, which was missing from the table due to our inconsiderate consideration.

For the other question you asked (the meaning of Cooperatices iv), we have explained it in the corresponding place, because in order to solve the problem of endogeneity of the data, we first performed a regression of the "dependent, mediator, and independent variables" without using instrumental variables (in the controlled state), and then used instrumental variables to regress the "dependent, mediator, and independent variables", while the meaning of Cooperatices iv makes the use of instrumental variables for "dependent, mediator, and independent variables" Regression was performed to indicate the validity of instrumental variables as well as to address endogeneity issues.

Thank you very much for pointing out the problem, our article has been improved, and we hope that our revised content will be satisfactory to you.

6.SUGGESTIONS 6 FROM REVIEWER 1: 4. Discussions:

—This section is basically sound, but the 4.2 Policy Recommendations, and 4.3 Limitations should be placed into 5. Conclusions. Then the number and subtitle of section 4.1 is unnecessary and should be deleted.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：We followed your suggestion that 4.2 Policy Recommendations and 4.3 Limitations should be placed in 5. Conclusion. Then, the numbering and subheading of section 4.1 were deleted. Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions, it is our article that has been improved, and we hope that the revisions will be to your satisfaction.

7.SUGGESTIONS 7 FROM REVIEWER 1: 5. Conclusions:

—As was mentioned above, the Policy recommendations and the Limitations subsections should be moved to the end of this section. Please take care to avoid unnecessary repetitions in this section, after Policy recommendations and Limitations moved here.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：According to your suggestion, the subsections "Policy Recommendations" and "Limitations" should be moved to the end of the "Conclusion" section (sections 5.2 and 5.3). Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions, our article has been improved and we hope that you will be satisfied with these changes.

8.SUGGESTIONS 8 FROM REVIEWER 1: References:

—The references section should be expanded a little, according to the suggestions mentioned regarding the

Introduction section, and partly the Methodology.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：According to your suggestions, we have improved the introduction and methodology sections, as well as reorganized for the references, thank you for your valuable comments, and we hope that the revised content will be to your satisfaction.

9.SUGGESTIONS 8 FROM REVIEWER 1: MINOR PROBLEMS:

—line 51:The following sentence starts with the word „And..”, which is not a good way to start a sentence.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：Thank you very much for pointing out this critical issue, according to your suggestions, we this serious problem to improve, I hope the revised content can be satisfied with you.

—Line 63: „… scholars have mentioned the most aspects: first, cooperatives can directly…”. Wouldn’t it be better to say that „…scholars have mentioned the most important aspect: cooperatives can directly…”?

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：Thank you very much for pointing out this key issue. According to your suggestion, we have modified this issue to "...scholars have mentioned the most important aspect: cooperatives can directly ...", and we hope that the revised content will meet your satisfaction.

—Line 63: „… scholars have mentioned the most aspects: first, cooperatives can directly…”. Wouldn’t it be better to say that „…scholars have mentioned the most important aspect: cooperatives can directly…”?

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：Thank you very much for pointing out this critical issue, according to your suggestions, we this serious problem to improve, I hope the revised content can be satisfied with you.

—Lines 197‐199: This sentence is ambiguous please improve: “Therefore, the key to the problem is to compare the cotton farmers to join the cooperative before and after the two scenarios, the size of the expected benefits and costs of cotton farmers.”

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：Thank you very much for pointing out this critical issue, and based on your suggestions, we have refined this serious issue, specifically revising it to read " Whereas cooperatives through the play of its green production premium incentives, information transfer and guidance, as well as the organization of the mandatory constraints of the function, so as to enhance the expected income of information transfer and guidance, as well as the organization of the mandatory constraints of the function, so as to enhance the expected income of cotton farmers and reduce the cost of adopting AGPT, inspire farmers to actively or passively adopt green production technology", I hope the revised I hope the revised content will meet your satisfaction.

—line 337: Add the acronym to the title of 2.2.1, as: „2.2.1. Propensity Score Matching (PSM)”

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：Thank you very much for pointing out this key problem, according to your suggestion, we have improved this serious problem, specifically modified as " 2.2.1. Propensity Score Matching (PSM)", I hope that the modified content can be satisfied by you.

—Lines 509, 510: you use her the term “near neighbor matching”, while in table 4 the proper term is ”nearest neighbor matching”. Please correct it.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：Thank you very much for pointing out this key problem, according to your suggestion, we this serious problem to improve the specific modification of " nearest neighbor matching ", I hope that the revised content can get your satisfaction.

—Line 549‐556: The sentence in these lines is too long, please split it to smaller sentences for the sake of clarity.

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：Thank you very much for pointing out this critical issue, according to your suggestions, we this serious problem to improve, I hope the revised content can be satisfied with you.

—Line 917: the doi given for [48] is the same as for [47]. Please correct it!

We respond to the comments from  the reviewer 1：Thank you very much for pointing out this critical issue, according to your suggestions, we this serious problem to improve, I hope the revised content can be satisfied with you.

Thank you again.

Kind regards,

Dr. LI

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

From the title, there is a need for the authors to modify the title. It's too long, kindly reduce it. 

In the abstract, give the full meaning of the acronym "PSM" at first mention. Important findings in this study are missing in the abstract.

From the introduction in line 148-149, you expected to cite other previous empirical studies on AGPTs that have worked on other crops apart from cotton such as rice, wheat, soybeans etc.

Do you have any justification for choosing cotton? Present other studies on cooperative participation vis-a-vis AGPTs.

Add the recent (2022) global production level of cotton and that of the study area (China). What's the the rank of China in global cotton production in recent time. Kindly visit reliable organisation like FAO statistical database FAOSTAT.

On data source, your data collection procedure was quite confusing and lacks clarity. What sampling method did you use for this study? How did you arrive at 550 respondents for this study? Did you sample only cotton farmers that participated in cooperatives alone or both? Please, kindly give details.

You did not give any detail about how you intend to carry out your hypothesis testing. 

No details on PSM in your methodology. You did not present any model specification for the logit regression and you presented its results. You cannot show regression results you have not specified in your method section.

Your discussion section is rather short for this kind of study.

From Table 3, your variable 4 (whether or not part-time) was the only variable that was significant @ 1%, others were 10% why?

Thank you.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fine

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effects of Cooperative Participation on the Adoption Behavior of Agricultural Green Production Technologies by Cotton Farmers and the Driving Mechanisms—Based on the Perspectives of Inner Cognition and External Regulation” (ID: agriculture-2819015). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval, the detailed corrections are listed below:

1.SUGGESTIONS 1 FROM REVIEWER 2: From the title, there is a need for the authors to modify the title. It's too long, kindly reduce it.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 2：The title is too long is indeed one of our major shortcomings in this article, through careful revision, we finally confirmed and shortened the title to” Impact Effects of Cooperative Participation on the Adoption Behavior of Green Production Technologies by Cotton Farmers and the Driving Mechanisms“, we hope that the revised title will be recognized by you, and we also thank you for your valuable comments, which have further improved our article.

2.SUGGESTIONS 2 FROM REVIEWER 2: In the abstract, give the full meaning of the acronym "PSM" at first mention. Important findings in this study are missing in the abstract.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 2：We are very sorry that this was a mistake on our part and caused you extra trouble reading it, and we appreciate you pointing out the problem with the full PSM name, we have made a change in the summary section which we hope will be to your satisfaction.

3.SUGGESTIONS 3 FROM REVIEWER 2: From the introduction in line 148-149, you expected to cite other previous empirical studies on AGPTs that have worked on other crops apart from cotton such as rice, wheat, soybeans etc.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 2：The issue you raise is indeed a flaw in our article, and we cite a study by Huang et al. that explains that found through empirical research that after farmers participated in the technical training of rice, their understanding and practical ability of green production technology was significantly improved, and the use of chemical fertilizers was continuously reduced. Thank you very much for your valuable comments, and we hope that the revised content will satisfy you.

4.SUGGESTIONS 4 FROM REVIEWER 2: Do you have any justification for choosing cotton? Present other studies on cooperative participation vis-a-vis AGPTs.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 2：Many thanks to the reviewers for pointing out the problems, and it so happens that we did not make our reasons for choosing cotton clear in these either. Therefore, we have made changes in the original position and cited the relevant literature, pointing out that cotton has a higher intensity of consumption of agrochemicals and water resources, ranking third among the unsustainable water-consuming crops, and that there are serious problems such as over-fertilization of cotton production, which are the reasons for choosing cotton for our study. We thank the reviewers for their questions and hope that our revisions will satisfy you.

5.SUGGESTIONS 5 FROM REVIEWER 2: Add the recent (2022) global production level of cotton and that of the study area (China). What's the the rank of China in global cotton production in recent time. Kindly visit reliable organisation like FAO statistical database FAOSTAT.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 2：Many thanks to the reviewer for pointing out the problem, and it so happens that we did not make clear the reasons for choosing cotton in these either. Therefore, we have revised the original position and cited the relevant literature, stating that " Global cotton production in 2023/24 is projected at 112.9 million bales, and production in China -the leading cotton producer-is forecast at 27.0 million bales, China is expected to account for 24 percent of global production this season, and cotton production ranks first in the world." We thank the reviewers for their questions and hope that our revisions will satisfy you.

6.SUGGESTIONS 6 FROM REVIEWER 2: On data source, your data collection procedure was quite confusing and lacks clarity. What sampling method did you use for this study? How did you arrive at 550 respondents for this study? Did you sample only cotton farmers that participated in cooperatives alone or both? Please, kindly give details.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 2：The issues you raised are quite critical, and we have added "random sampling method" to the corresponding article to explain the sampling method we used, and we have also explained that we do not differentiate between cotton farmers who are members of cooperatives and those who are not. Thank you for your questions and we hope that you will be satisfied with the revised content.

7.SUGGESTIONS 7 FROM REVIEWER 2: You did not give any detail about how you intend to carry out your hypothesis testing.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 2：Thank you very much for asking this question, it is a further refinement of our article. We have included how we conducted the test hypothesis and how we analyzed the hypothesis test passed at the appropriate place in the article. We hope that our revisions are satisfactory to you.

8.SUGGESTIONS 8 FROM REVIEWER 2: No details on PSM in your methodology. You did not present any model specification for the logit regression and you presented its results. You cannot show regression results you have not specified in your method section.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 2：The problem you pointed out was a great mistake on our part, and another reviewer pointed out that we did not provide a formula for the logit model, so we have made a better improvement here by including the logit formula as well as revising the propensity score matching (PSM) model and explaining the related symbols. We would like to thank you for pointing out the problems and hope that our revisions will satisfy you.

9.SUGGESTIONS 9 FROM REVIEWER 2: Your discussion section is rather short for this kind of study.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 2：The problem you pointed out is quite critical, and we have cited the relevant literature in the corresponding article and improved the paragraphs and statements "Many literatures show that cooperatives can promote the adoption of AGPT by farmers, e.g. Luo et al. demonstrated that cooperatives can enhance farmers' willingness to green production, but these are only unilateral promotional roles, and the possible intermediary pathways still remain to be explored. to be explored, and academics have paid more attention to the area of farmers' risk perception (Ren et al., 2022; Ren, 2023), while relatively few empirical studies have been conducted on the influence of intrinsic green perceptions and external environmental regulations on farmers' AGPT adoption behavior (Qiao et al., 2020). ". Thank you for your question and I hope the revision will satisfy you.

10.SUGGESTIONS 10 FROM REVIEWER 2: From Table 3, your variable 4 (whether or not part-time) was the only variable that was significant @ 1%, others were 10% why?

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 2：For the problem you pointed out, it may be because of the sample. Because of the large extension of agricultural socialization services in the research area, which has released a large amount of labor, resulting in cotton farmers or non-participants involved in cooperatives to engage in non-agricultural work, which in turn inspires all people to rely on cooperatives to adopt green production techniques that cotton farmers can not afford to do on their own, variable 4 (whether or not to work part-time) is the only variable that is significant at the 1% level of significance. The reason for the other variables being significant at 10% level could be that part-time work causes problems irrespective of age and family, which is a common phenomenon, and it indirectly shows that cooperatives promote cotton farmers much more than individual farmers and production characteristics. Thank you for pointing out the problem and we hope that our explanation will satisfy you.

Thank you again.

Kind regards,

Dr. LI

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my comments properly. Mostly, they accepted my suggestions, and whenever they chose a solution different from my recommendation, they explained their viewpoint properly. I consider the paper well improved and suitable for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

Thank you for the reviewer's feedback, we very much recognize the reviewer's professionalism, patience and responsibility, and we will continue to work hard to write more and better articles in the future. Thank you again for your careful review.

Thank you again.

Kind regards,

Dr. LI

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Fine

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thank you for submitting a revised version of this manuscript. In line 423, kindly revive the word "thesis" and replace it with "this study......" Please, check other parts of the manuscript and do the same. 

Move section 5.3 to before conclusion section. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effects of Cooperative Participation on the Adoption Behavior of Agricultural Green Production Technologies by Cotton Farmers and the Driving Mechanisms” (ID: agriculture-2819015). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval, the detailed corrections are listed below:

1.SUGGESTIONS 1 FROM REVIEWER 2: Thank you for submitting a revised version of this manuscript. In line 423, kindly revive the word "thesis" and replace it with "this study......" Please, check other parts of the manuscript and do the same.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 2：Many thanks to the reviewers for their questions, we have replaced the word "thesis" with "this study ......" throughout the text.  We hope that you will be satisfied with the changes we have made.

2.SUGGESTIONS 2 FROM REVIEWER 2: Move section 5.3 to before conclusion section.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 2：Thank you very much for the issues raised by the reviewer, we have moved the original part "5.3" to 4.2, and we hope that our changes will satisfy you.

Thank you again.

Kind regards,

Dr. LI