Measuring the Impact of Relative Deprivation on Tea Farmers’ Pesticide Application Behavior: The Case of Shaanxi, Sichuan, Zhejiang, and Anhui Province, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Measuring the impact of relative deprivation on tea farmers’ pesticide application behavior

This paper: The topic is timely and essential, particularly for the tea farmers of climate-vulnerable developing countries. The article is well written. I found it interesting and expect this research will contribute to the existing literature. The arguments are clear to understand, but the manuscript needs some basic corrections. However, I recommend a minor revision of the manuscript before acceptance.

1-The study's conceptual framework is interesting but doesn't explain all components. It's utterly unacceptable that the author draws a conceptual framework where no explanations of the components are given in the light of the existing literatures. Moreover, the use of the arrows, signs, and colors in the conceptual model is extremely chaotic and looks subjective.
2- The current Research Design sub-section does not explain the design of this research. Instead, the current Section 3.1. contains Data source. Therefore, the authors should make a Research Design sub-section to explain the step-by-step (stages) of this research. It is critical to convince readers that this research was conducted systematically and included necessary research activities. For each stage, please explain its objective(s), technique/approach(es) being used, and outcome(s) expected from the stage.

 

Author Response

Author’s Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Measuring the impact of relative deprivation on tea farmers’ pesticide application behavior

This paper: The topic is timely and essential, particularly for the tea farmers of climate-vulnerable developing countries. The article is well written. I found it interesting and expect this research will contribute to the existing literature. The arguments are clear to understand, but the manuscript needs some basic corrections. However, I recommend a minor revision of the manuscript before acceptance.

Author’s responses: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have gone through all your comments and suggestions and found all are legitimate; therefore, we agreed to adjust all of them. We really appreciate the way you guided us, and it will act like lifelong learning for emerging researchers like us. You not only raised the issue but also showed us the pathway, which will help us maintain the utmost quality and presentations of the study. We cordially request you to please check the adjustments and approve our hard work.

1-The study’s conceptual framework is interesting but doesn’t explain all components. It’s utterly unacceptable that the author draws a conceptual framework where no explanations of the components are given in the light of the existing literatures. Moreover, the use of the arrows, signs, and colors in the conceptual model is extremely chaotic and looks subjective.

Author’s Responses: Thank you for your keen observation and profound suggestion. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have discussed all the major components of the theoretical framework aligned with the existing literature and adjusted the framework with more precise and clearer presentations.

2- The current Research Design sub-section does not explain the design of this research. Instead, the current Section 3.1. contains Data source. Therefore, the authors should make a Research Design sub-section to explain the step-by-step (stages) of this research. It is critical to convince readers that this research was conducted systematically and included necessary research activities. For each stage, please explain its objective(s), technique/approach(es) being used, and outcome(s) expected from the stage.

Author’s Responses: Thank you for your kind help and profound guidelines. We have introduced a new subsection and portrayed every stage of our study. We hope the adjustment we made will satisfy your expectations.

 

 

3.1 Research Design

First, the study identified the problem statement and laid its theoretical framework based on the existing literature and the current situation of the tea farming mechanism. We outlined the possible relationship among the key variables in the theoretical framework and introduced intermediary variables. In the second stage, combined with the theoretical analysis, we selected appropriate models. In the third stage, the appropriate econometric model was used to verify that relative deprivation significantly impacted the amount of pesticide applied by farmers and the regulatory effect of external intervention and behavioural capacity. In the third stage, a structured questionnaire survey mechanism was chosen within a survey sample as an empirical setup according to our previous knowledge and existing literature. In the questionnaire, along with the key variables, we used several control variables that may influence the framer’s decision-making. In the fourth stage, this study used Stata14.0 (StataCorp, www.stata.com) software to build the Ordered Probit and regulatory effect models to perform the analysis. In addition, we performed a regression analysis with robust heteroscedasticity standard errors to control the heteroscedasticity problem. This is expected to clearly show the model results and realistic logic and verify the theoretical analysis and proposed hypotheses. After that, we compiled and compared our findings with the existing literature within a similar setup. At the final stage, we summarized findings, outlined conclusions and presented several practical policy recommendations.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper describes a theoretical analysis framework of relative deprivation and tea farmer`s pesticides application intensity.

 

The study was conducted correctly and well written. However, I consider that the theoretical framework is too simple to explain a multidimensional and complex problem.

 

Which pesticides are used in tea production? all of them are toxic for human health and environment? biological control or integrated pest management is not used in tea production? there is no information in the introduction section. On another hand, tea production is under a national surveillance of pesticide use/residue levels in China? or supermarkets control their use/residues in farms? what about pesticide residues in tea are relevant in China? please, include more information.

 

There are statements that cannot be supported by the results obtained from this paper as "On the other hand, a preventive punishment mechanism should be established for tea farmers illegal use of pesticides" Linea 32 or "Tea farmers with high awareness of pollution effects will reduce the intensity of pesticide applied" Line 402.

 

In the article, all models should be explained in details because variables such as "Degree of government regulation " or "business scale" are few described. All the variables used in this study are not clearly defined and should be more specific in the section methodology, results and discussion. Ex: Government regulations are related to the enforcement of pesticide use? or surveillance of residues in tea?

 

The discussion analysis is insufficient.

 

The article has some merits, but at the same time, the provided future research directions and conclusions appear to be trivial.

 

More details are provided in the following:

 

·      Line 249 check the statement

 

·      Line 320, what is rate per mu?

 

·    The variable meaning and descriptive statistics should be described more in detail in the section methodology

Author Response

Author’s Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• This paper describes a theoretical analysis framework of relative deprivation and tea farmer`s pesticides application intensity.
• The study was conducted correctly and well written. However, I consider that the theoretical framework is too simple to explain a multidimensional and complex problem.

Author’s Responses: Thank you very much for your keen observation and profound guidelines. We appreciate how you provided guidelines to maintain our research’s profound quality. In the following part, we show the adjustments we have made as per your outstanding suggestions. We have adjusted all the issues and highlighted those by the use of the “Track Change option”. The way you provided the recommendations will be a lifetime of learning for an emerging researcher like us.

 

• Which pesticides are used in tea production? all of them are toxic for human health and environment? biological control or integrated pest management is not used in tea production? there is no information in the introduction section. On another hand, tea production is under a national surveillance of pesticide use/residue levels in China? or supermarkets control their use/residues in farms? what about pesticide residues in tea are relevant in China? please, include more information.

Author’s Responses: Thank you very much for your outstanding help and support. As per your guidelines, we have adjusted the whole introduction section. Within the revision, we have added concise information regarding the common pesticide used in the sector, indicating which are more dangerous to public health. Moreover, we have added sufficient details regarding who controls and monitors pesticide residues. In addition, we added some details application of IPM within the sector for probable solutions for reducing pesticide usage, while we clearly mentioned why we do not consider IPM-related information within our core analysis.

Line no: 74-77, 81-99, 108-113, 131-153, 161-172,

• There are statements that cannot be supported by the results obtained from this paper as “On the other hand, a preventive punishment mechanism should be established for tea farmers illegal use of pesticides” Linea 32 or “Tea farmers with high awareness of pollution effects will reduce the intensity of pesticide applied” Line 402.

Author’s Responses: Thank you very much for your keen observation and clear suggestions. We have deleted those statements without hampering the flow of the intended meaning.

 

 

• In the article, all models should be explained in details because variables such as “Degree of government regulation” or “business scale” are few described. All the variables used in this study are not clearly defined and should be more specific in the section methodology, results and discussion. Ex: Government regulations are related to the enforcement of pesticide use? or surveillance of residues in tea?

Author’s Responses: Thank you for your outstanding review. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have adjusted the issue and added some concise information regarding “government regulation”, “community regulation”, and “business scale”. In addition, as business scale seems confusing, we replace it with “ farming scale and define it when it first appears for clearer representations.

• The discussion analysis is insufficient.

Author’s Responses: Thank you for your valuable input. We really appreciate the way you presented your opinion. We have extended the discussion section according to our findings and profound guidelines by the other reviewers. We believe the adjustment will satisfy your expectations.

Line No: 630-642, 646-656, 659-667, 674-679, 682-692, 716-737

4. Discussion

The widespread use of chemical pesticides in typical farming across the globe is a significant issue for apprehension, and this is true not just from the viewpoint of conserving nature. Farmers are the consumers of agrochemicals and pesticides, and their usage behaviour and intensity can significantly impact ecological degradation. Pesticides enter the soil, water and atmosphere through volatilization and infiltration, causing agricultural non-point source pollution to be distributed in the vast production areas in the form of “flower arrangement”, seriously threatening the ecological environment, food safety and human health of the production areas. Pesticides may harm organisms they are not intended to eliminate, eventually weakening the farm’s pest resistance.Moreover, several external factors may also create the situation even worse. According to the study of Ma et al. [125], climate change, global warming and uneven seasonal changes can potentially change the distribution of pests globally and their resistance to the pesticide. The impacts of rising temperatures on the patterns of insect populations have led to forecasts of production losses of 10–25% per degree of average temperature increase in wheat, rice, and maize [126]. Thus, pesticide application of intensity may differ each year [127]. The success of effective pesticide management may primarily rely on how far we can reduce our reliance on chemicals in the near future by switching the objective from minimizing preharvest damage to obtaining adequate or ideal outputs with minimal synthetic chemicals. The advanced science of pest management and farmers’ favourable pesticide application behaviour can be crucial to attaining these core challenges [128,129].

Based on the Ordered Probit Model and regression analysis, the study found that the relative sense of deprivation has a significant positive effect on the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers. It also highlights that the stronger the sense of relative deprivation, the more tea farmers tend to increase the intensity of pesticides applied. However, in the current market, tea farmers cannot improve their situation through fair competition, and “race to the bottom” has become the norm. In the end, tea farmers may blindly pursue to improve their disadvantaged position, abuse pesticides like others, and maintain their application rates at high levels. Male households hold more control and power to the reduction of pesticide use. This could be possible as male heads of households are more adventurous and try new things, and thus can use less pesticide than female heads. We also found that household heads with high educational levels are more likely to work concurrently and tend to replace labour by applying more pesticides, so tea farmers with high educational levels increase the intensity of pesticides applied. Concerning external interventions, the degree of government control could not only directly encourage the tea farmers to reduce the pesticide application intensity but also play a negative role between the relative deprivation and the pesticide application intensity. The government can embed advanced technology into the original technology system of tea farmers, improve the technical ability of tea farmers, and urge tea farmers to reduce the intensity of pesticides.

Theoretically, external intervention can not only directly constrain the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers but also reduce the relative deprivation of tea farmers through overall control of the jurisdiction, thereby affecting the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers. However, due to the current decline in community governance and the adverse effects of social capital, it is difficult for the community to implement non-discriminatory control over tea farmers equally. The results are parallel with the study of Lou et al. [42] and Karki et al. [130]. Although the degree of community control can directly promote tea farmers to reduce the amount of pesticide application, its regulatory effect is not significant. Likewise, Zhu et al. [131] found different findings in a study of Chinese farmers. However, regarding behavioural ability, production scale can directly encourage tea farmers to reduce their pesticide application, but its regulatory effect is insignificant. Gao et al. [132] advocated similar assumptions in a study of Chinese farmers from 31 provinces.

The cognition of the pesticide yield effect significantly encourages tea farmers to increase the intensity of pesticides. Tea farmers have a robust motivation to minimize losses. Under this motivation, they tend to increase the intensity of pesticides to reduce yield losses. Therefore, the perception of the yield effect makes tea farmers increase the intensity of pesticide usage. Finally, we found that the participation of cooperatives has no significant impact on tea farmers’ pesticide application intensity which is dissimilar to the findings of Liu and Wu [38] and Li et al. [133]. Theoretically, the participation of large-scale or cooperatives, on the one hand, can enhance the technical ability of tea farmers and promote the reduction of pesticide application amount [32]. However, in practice, the reason for the insignificant adjustment effect of farming scale and cooperative participation is that tea farmers cannot eliminate disorderly competition in the tea market [113]. Although tea farmers have expanded their farming scale or joined cooperatives, their market bargaining power has not been significantly improved. If production standards are not lowered, there will still be losses or even bankruptcy, so the adjustment effect is insignificant. It indicates that although the degree of control can directly prompt tea farmers to reduce the intensity of pesticides applied, it cannot regulate the relationship between relative deprivation and the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers.

Based on the above discussions, the following policy implications are drawn. (i) The green and organic agricultural product certification system should be improved in the geographical indication of tea areas. The transparency of product quality information should also be enhanced. The market price and reputation mechanism should be used to weaken the sense of relative deprivation caused by the market dynamics and encourage tea farmers to reduce pesticide application. (ii) Governmental regulating authorities should be more responsible for facilitating better access to required information and improved pest control technology for farmers. On the one hand, the conventional means of government intervention, such as point-of-sale testing and traceability of pesticide residues, should be consolidated, strengthened and improved. Besides, a deterrent punishment system should be established for tea farmers’ illegal use of pesticides. (iii) The lack of vitality of community organizations is a fundamental reason for their lack of influence on the intensity of pesticides applied by tea farmers. Therefore, the training of community staff and cadres should be strengthened to improve their management awareness and sense of responsibility. Moreover, a community-level incentive system for pesticide management performance should be formulated, and communities should be encouraged to take measures such as persuasion and supervision to encourage tea farmers to reduce the dosage. (iv) Appropriate subsidies or rewards should be availed for land transfer to support tea farmers to expand their farming scale and realize the large-scale allocation of factors. At the same time, increase policy subsidies for large-scale operation standards to prevent tea farmers from lowering production standards due to funds, labour, and technological advancement and promote their development. (v) Give full play to the radiating and leading role of green production of cooperatives. Improve the internal governance mechanism of cooperatives. (vi) It is apparent that farmers’ knowledge and relative deprivation are interconnected and significantly lead them to adopt the pesticide model effectively. The existing literature (such as Mochizuki [134], Gnanapragasam [135] and Ye et al. [136]) suggested implementing efficient use of pesticides combined with various methods, popularly known as integrated pest management (IPM). IPM is not only a technique that conserves resources; it has a broader range of applications [137]. These, coupled with reduced crop losses and savings in the cost of pesticides, make IPM particularly important for tropical smallholders [138]. Therefore, IPM may be considered a kind of pest control technique that boosts social, human, and natural capital interconnections and eventually reduces pests’ intensity.

Likewise, we must admit that this research has certain constraints. The prime challenges of the study were the limited survey area and lack of reliable panel data. Moreover, China has a vast tea area, and the research is based on four representative provinces. The research area can be further expanded based on the analysis framework of relative deprivation and tea farmers’ pesticide application intensity. The cross-sectional data used in this paper cannot profoundly investigate the evolution process of relative deprivation and its dynamic impact on tea farmers’ application intensity. The study does not collect information regarding some externalities, such as perception regarding health hazards caused by pesticides, climate change and seasonal variabilities, which can impact the application intensity. Although the environmental effect includes some health effects, the impact and mechanism of these externalities on tea farmers’ application amount should be included for the robust outcome.

 

The article has some merits, but at the same time, the provided future research directions and conclusions appear to be trivial.

Author’s Responses: Thank you for your keen interest in our study. As per your concerns, we have added some more practical research direction by which future studies can produce more robust outcomes. We believe that as per the adjustments we made, you will be kind enough to approve our hard work.

Line No: 760-788

The empirically tested framework of the study could be crucial for future research as it could be tested with other primary cash crops. Future studies should further expand the research framework, obtain panel data, and draw a general conclusion based on more significant survey areas. Also, the connotation, farming types, and measurement methods of relative deprivation should be extended. Additionally, potential researchers should explore more regulatory variables under the various agricultural sub-sectors. However, we examined the mediator impact of external intervention and behavioural capacity on relative deprivation and farmers’ pesticide application behaviour, and we did not precisely measure their dangerous component. Therefore, further research is required to determine the adverse effects of the pesticide. Moreover, different pesticide reduction tactics such as biological control, IPM and selective control should be explored critically in the sense of farmers’ relative deprivations. It would be very interesting if the framework presented in the study could be analysed with more complex and structural modelling tactics like structural equation modelling (SEM) and interpretive structural modelling. In addition, the variables tested in the study could be outlined as more robust outcomes with the slack base model (SBM), such as super-SBM.

More details are provided in the following:

• Line 249 check the statement

Author’s Responses: Thank you for pointing out the issue. We have carefully explore the statements and admit that statement was not clear. Therefore, we have adjusted it and divided it into a few sentences with more precise meanings and interpretations.

Speciacifalclly, in tea production in China, cooperative participation may effectively transmit market signals and assist farmers in obtaining timely information [102,103]. Thus, the information symmetry of both parties and the market bargaining power of tea farmers can be enhanced [104], and farmers’ knowledge regarding current market standards and practices can be strengthened. In this regard, it can be hypothesised that cooperative participation can regulate the effect of relative deprivation on tea farmers’ pesticide application intensity, and therefore farmers’ pesticide application intensity can be reduced.

• Line 320, what is rate per mu?

Author’s Responses: Thank you very much for pointing out the issue. In the revised manuscript, we have added the description and meaning of the “Per MU.” Mu is unit of area that is commonly used in South Asia.

(1 Mu corresponding to 1/15 ha¹, about ⅔ × 1000 (or 666.7) m².),

 

• The variable meaning and descriptive statistics should be described more in detail in the section methodology

Author’s Responses: Thank you for your precious input in making our study more quality and presentable to the broad readership of “Horticulturea”. We really appreciate your time and efforts.

 

Among the sample households, male household head account for 95.14%, heads of households aged 45 and above account for 88.68%, and 90.33% have education below high school. In terms of family population, the family size is mainly large families with more than three people, accounting for 60.05% of the total sample. Regarding operation scale, farmers with a planting area of 5 mu or less account for more than 60%. Seemingly, 83.08% of households planted tea for more than ten years, and only 12.34% of farmers participated in cooperatives.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors!
Thank you very much for an interesting study, which I definitely think can be published after some improvements:

1. Introduction - Minor revision 1: I think inclusion of relevant international literature on IPM could also be relevant as this has been one of the major strategies to lower pesticide use in agriculture. Minor revision 2: I think it would improve the paper to mention the negative health effects of pesticides, which are the prime concern in relation to pesticide use. 

2. Theoretical analysis and hypothesis formulation: no comments

3. Materials and Methods - Major revision 1: You use the amount of pesticides applied by the farmers by comparing what farmers tell they have been using last year compared with the actual year to see whether the use has increased, is unchanged or has decreased. And this can work although it is a cross-sectional study with the weaknesses this gives. But as the climate from year to year has a strong influence on the pest pressure and thus the amount of pesticides applied. I miss some information on this - were the pest pressure different from year to year and/or between the areas you examined? If you can't say anything on this then you could discuss the importance of the climate during a growth season in the Discussion part. Major revision 2: You have variables on government regulation and community control - for the reader to understand what you did measure it should be explained which regulations and control measures you included to form these two variables. Minor revision 1: You have a variable called knowledge of the environmental pesticide effects and that is good. But I miss a variable on pesticides health effects as this is also of importance for pesticide use! If you did not ask about this then discuss it and mention it as a weakness of the study.

4. Results: Minor revision 1: the titles of the tables must be changed to express the content of the tables e.g. Table 2: Factors of importance for the pesticide application rate by tea farmers, or Table 3: Factors of influence on the relative deprivation and thereby pesticide use by tea farmers. Minor revision 2: I would recommend to stick to only the 5% significance level. Minor revision 3: There are several parts were you interpret and try to explain the results and uses references. These parts rightly belongs to the Discussion part and should be moved to there - e.g. line 363-366; 371-372; 374-377; 390-392; 393-395; 425-430; 434-436; 450-457. 

4. Discussion: Minor revision 1: Improve this part by moving the discussion parts you have in your Result part to here. Minor revision 2: In your Conclusion you have a part with limitations of the study, I suggest you move this to your conclusion and call it Strengths and Limitations. Minor revision 3: If possible try to include IPM and its role as well as the effect of banning of the very toxic pesticides in WHO class 1 and 2. 

5. Conclusion: Minor revision 1: move 536-542 to Discussion.

Best regards!

Author Response

Author’s Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors!

Thank you very much for an interesting study, which I definitely think can be published after some improvements:

Author’s responses: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have reviewed all your comments and suggestions and found all are legitimate; therefore, we agreed to adjust them. We appreciate how you guided us; it will be lifelong learning for emerging researchers like us. The way you raised the issue and showed us the pathway that will help us maintain the utmost quality and study presentations. We cordially request that you please check the adjustments and approve our hard work.

1. Introduction –

Author’s Responses: Thank you very much for your keen observation and helping us maintain our high-quality presentation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have added the suggested information.

Minor revision 1: I think inclusion of relevant international literature on IPM could also be relevant as this has been one of the major strategies to lower pesticide use in agriculture.

Line no: 74-77, 81-99, 108-113, 131-153, 161-172,

 

Most farmers, especially in developing countries, significantly rely on pesticide application to attain the massive intensification currently the industry is going through. Specifically, China holds one of the top positions for applying chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Due to the effectiveness of pesticides such as polychlorinated biphenyls, organophosphorus, and synthesized permethrin, their usage has increased in tea gardens [15]. Thus, the widespread use of chemical substances causes agricultural non-point source pollution to be distributed in the vast production areas, seriously threatening the ecological environment, safer food and public health [30,31].

 

There are a variety of human health problems that may be caused by pesticides, including effects on the cardiovascular, testicular, neurological, hormonal and immune functions. Several studies (such as Mesnage and Benbrook [16], Daugbjerg [17] and Tabe-Ojong et al. [18]) highlighted that uncontrolled Pesticide usage in food and drinks could cause not only severe threats to public health but also be dangerous for farmers as they primely apply by themselves without taking proper protective measures or minimal protection. Apart from this severe health issue, its unfavourable aptitude to cause a significant environmental health risk factor is drawn much more attention. In a pesticide policy and practice study, Hofmann et al. [22] identified that the adverse pesticide effects hinder the effectiveness of sustainable development goals set by the United Nations (UN). Interestingly, pesticide residues could be a significant threat in drinks because pesticides display a higher transfer rate in drink infusion with increasing water temperature and infusion duration, specifically in hot drinks like tea and coffee [19]. In a study in Guizhou province, China, Liu et al. [20] identified that the potential risk of heavy metal and chemical contamination could cause severe health risks for adults via consuming mature tea infusions. According to the World Health Organization, there are three million occurrences of intoxication worldwide each year, with around 2,200,000 deaths attributed to synthetic pesticides [21].

Minor revision 2: I think it would improve the paper to mention the negative health effects of pesticides, which are the prime concern in relation to pesticide use.

 

 

Increasing crop protection effectiveness and using new techniques will increase agricultural yields and enhance ecological sustainability by minimizing the usage of harmful insecticides. Reducing the use of pesticides is also essential as an increasing number of pests are developing resistance to chemical pest control. However, agricultural products are not homogeneous, and the quality of information is seriously asymmetrical [34].

 

Therefore, (i) how to minimize the application of chemical pesticides and (ii) what factors affect the pesticide application behaviour of tea farmers have held high research significance and have grown much more attention to general people, development organizations, academia and government from all over the world. Several studies (such as Zheng et al.[35], Lou et al. [36] and Wu et al. [37]) emphasized the improvement of pesticide application effect and efficiency from the application objects, pesticide formulations and preparations, application methods and instruments to reduce the pesticide application amount and negative externalities. Tea plants are vulnerable to many pests, including parasites, worms, stem infestations, stem moths, leaf rodents, and all mites [23]. If such infections and invasive species are not successfully handled, they can trigger production disruption of between 10 and 20 per cent [24].

 

Tea plants are vulnerable to many pests, including parasites, worms, stem infestations, stem moths, leaf rodents, and all mites [23]. If such infections and invasive species are not successfully handled, they can trigger production disruption of between 10 and 20 per cent [24]. In this regard, integrated pest management (IPM) can be a better option for maintaining a sound balance of pesticide usage [38], as it is an ecosystem approach to crop production and protection that combines different management strategies of biological, cultural and chemical practices to control insects and pests [39,40]. Various researchers have advocated IPM in various setups. For example, Guastella et al. [41] evaluated how various control methods (biological, cultural, chemical and pest resistance) can effectively minimize the attack of various pests in tea, cocoa and coffee cultivation. Mamun and Ahmed [42] assesses the impact of IPM on tea cultivation in Bangladesh and found it substantially reduces the total usage of chemical interactions. Handique and Roy [43] identified that the frequent and reliable monitoring and early detection of pest populations are one of the most critical components of IPM, substantially improving the severity of consequent pest attacks.

 

2. Theoretical analysis and hypothesis formulation: no comments
3. Materials and Methods –

Major revision 1: You use the amount of pesticides applied by the farmers by comparing what farmers tell they have been using last year compared with the actual year to see whether the use has increased, is unchanged or has decreased. And this can work although it is a cross-sectional study with the weaknesses this gives. But as the climate from year to year has a strong influence on the pest pressure and thus the amount of pesticides applied. I miss some information on this - were the pest pressure different from year to year and/or between the areas you examined? If you can’t say anything on this then you could discuss the importance of the climate during a growth season in the Discussion part.

 

Author’s Responses: Thank you very much for your keen observation and kind suggestions. The investigators first asked the tea farmers about the type of application, application frequency, application amount per mu and other issues, and then determined whether the tea farmers’ application amount was reduced, unchanged or increased compared with the previous year. The study does not observe the effects of climate change In this regard, seasonal differences or climate change. However, we mentioned the issue as a study limitation and discussed the importance of climatic or seasonal change for applying fertilizer intensity.

 

Moreover, several external factors may also create the situation even worse. According to the study of Ma et al. [114], climate change, global warming and uneven seasonal changes can potentially change the distribution of pests globally and their resistance to the pesticide. The impacts of rising temperatures on the patterns of insect populations have led to forecasts of production losses of 10–25% per degree of average temperature increase in wheat, rice, and maize [115]. Thus, pesticide application of intensity may differ each year [116]. The success of effective pesticide management may primarily rely on how far we can reduce our reliance on chemicals in the near future by switching the objective from minimizing preharvest damage to obtaining adequate or ideal outputs with minimal synthetic chemicals. The advanced science of pest management and farmers’ favourable pesticide application behaviour can be crucial to attaining these core challenges [117,118].

 

Major revision 2: You have variables on government regulation and community control - for the reader to understand what you did measure it should be explained which regulations and control measures you included to form these two variables.

 

The core connotation of government control degree and community control degree refers to the government or community taking direct action to control farmers’ pesticide application, such as restricting the use of specific pesticides or prohibiting certain pesticides.

Minor revision 1: You have a variable called knowledge of the environmental pesticide effects and that is good. But I miss a variable on pesticides health effects as this is also of importance for pesticide use! If you did not ask about this then discuss it and mention it as a weakness of the study.

 

The study does not collect information regarding some externalities, such as perception regarding health hazards caused by pesticides, climate change and seasonal variabilities, which can impact the application intensity. Although the environmental effect includes some health effects, the impact and mechanism of these externalities on tea farmers’ application amount should be included for the robust outcome.

 

4. Results:

Minor revision 1: the titles of the tables must be changed to express the content of the tables e.g. Table 2: Factors of importance for the pesticide application rate by tea farmers, or Table 3: Factors of influence on the relative deprivation and thereby pesticide use by tea farmers.

Author’s Responses: Thank you for your keen observation and profound guidelines for making our work more robust. In the revised version, we have adjusted the name of the tables according to your advice.

 

Minor revision 2: I would recommend to stick to only the 5% significance level.

Author’s Responses: Thank you for your kind suggestion. We have closely checked some of the recent literature. Most of them pointed to these three significance levels and mentioned them in the outcomes. Therefore, we have to keep these three significance levels. We believe it will not hamper the quality of our outcomes.

 

Minor revision 3: There are several parts were you interpret and try to explain the results and uses references. These parts rightly belongs to the Discussion part and should be moved to there - e.g. line 363-366; 371-372;  374-377;  390-392;  393-395;  425-430;  434-436; 450-457.

Author’s Responses: Thank you for your keen observation and outstanding advice. We have adjusted all the highlighted issues in the revised version of the manuscript accordingly.

4. Discussion:

Minor revision 1: Improve this part by moving the discussion parts you have in your Result part to here.

Revision 2: In your Conclusion you have a part with limitations of the study, I suggest you move this to your conclusion and call it Strengths and Limitations.

Author’s Responses: Thank you for your advice. We have followed your advice and adjusted as you guided us.

Minor revision 3: If possible try to include IPM and its role as well as the effect of banning of the very toxic pesticides in WHO class 1 and 2.

Author’s Responses: Thank you for your outstanding review. In the revised version of the manuscript we have added some details discussion why IPM can be implemeneted along with the concept of farmers relative deprivission. Please approve our hard work.

It is apparent that farmers’ knowledge and relative deprivation are interconnected and significantly lead them to adopt the pesticide model effectively. The existing literature (such as Mochizuki [122], Gnanapragasam [123] and Ye et al. [124]) suggested implementing efficient use of pesticides combined with various methods, popularly known as integrated pest management (IPM). IPM is not only a technique that conserves resources; it has a broader range of applications [125]. These, coupled with reduced crop losses and savings in the cost of pesticides, make IPM particularly important for tropical smallholders [126]. Therefore, IPM may be considered a kind of pest control technique that boosts social, human, and natural capital interconnections and eventually reduces pests’ intensity.

5. Conclusion: Minor revision 1: move 536-542 to Discussion.

Author’s Responses: Thank you for your advice. We have followed your advice and adjusted as you guided.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

The improved manuscript is suitable for publication

Best Regards