Social Desirability Bias and the Prevalence of Self-Reported Conservation Behaviour Among Farmers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General remarks

The manuscript abstract provides a clear articulation of the study's objective, which is to investigate the influence of social desirability bias on self-reported conservation behaviour through the utilisation of a survey instrument administered to a sample of New Zealand farmers. 

The literature chapter (Introduction) places greater emphasis on the survey methodology. It would be beneficial to supplement this with results from previous surveys on the fundamental question of farmers' conservation behaviour. In light of the aforementioned concerns, it is evident that the manuscript lacks the requisite scientific soundness.

The majority of the cited references are from before 2020, but the manuscript also includes recent publications, within the last five years, that are relevant to the topic. No self-citation was identified. The results are not readily reproducible, and the authors acknowledge that their findings are not generalisable due to the limited number of items. The tables are presented in a clear and accessible manner, and the conclusions align with the evidence and arguments presented, although they are constrained by significant limitations. The ethics and data availability statements are satisfactory.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language used in the article is accessible and adheres to scientific conventions, but a thorough English language review would undoubtedly be beneficial.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript Social desirability bias and the prevalence of self-reported conservation behaviour among farmers.

Comments about the manuscript:

- The paper does not present a review of the literature - what are the key aspects impacting conservation behaviour? What is conservation behaviour? What informed the design of the questionnaire? How did other authors investigate this topic? What is sustainability in agriculture? 

-  Crosswise questioning technique (CWT) is not defined - what are the pros and cons? How specifically was it implemented in this study and what informed decisions re the crosswise question definition.

- Why were negative and positive conservation related behaviours combined? Refer Table 1. One can formulate a positive formulation of a negative behaviour that would keep the parameters consistent.

- The referencing in the paper is sparse - there are long sections / paragraphs without citations. This relates to the comment that the paper contains no state of the art or literature review that is presented or integrated into the findings.

- It is not clear whether the questionnaire was piloted / tested before it was administered.

- The comment "We expected the opposite result on the basis that these behaviours would be presumed by farmers to be socially desirable by the 190 wider community.". As there is no literature review, why was this "expected"? What informed this? What did others find? Is it a general finding across other studies?

- What software was used to analyse the data and visualise the findings?

-  The labels on the graph is difficult to read - it is using a very small font.

- "We had hypothesised that respondents" - why? Where is this hypothesis? How is this hypothesis substantiated?

- " farm-related environmental behaviours (at least those that we considered)" - how do you know you had a comprehensive list and that "the ones you considered" were actually the key aspects that would predict / guide conservation behaviour among farmers?

- There is not reflection in the implications of the findings. The findings are just listed, but not contextualised in a broader setting, compared to other findings,  evaluated against grounded hypothesis, etc. This make it difficult to understand and interpret the findings re its usefulness for researching conservation behaviour among farmers and what's its contribution to the topic is.

- "which means that self-reporting of conservation behaviour by farmers in surveys can be relied on when formulating, and evaluating, policies intended to promote sustainability" - it is not clear how this can be deduced based on the limitations of the study that cannot be generalised?

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The introduction should provide a summary of the main framework of the content.
2. At the end of the introduction, the novelty of the research should be covered and emphasized from multiple perspectives.
3. There is an incomplete presentation of the method being used. The literature that was consulted for its use in this study appears to lack sufficient scientific support.

4. Table 2 should be included in the Appendix.

5. It is necessary to reinforce the conclusion. The relevance of the findings need to be explained.
6. The part referring to the findings ought to be extended in light of potential future applications. It is essential to outline the limitations and offer recommendations for next steps where a larger contribution could be made.
7. More references that are relevant to the research question need to be added.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The purpose of the manuscript was clearly stated and the reviewer had no questions about it. However, I believe that the additions and revisions I have suggested have improved the paper. The authors have made their own analysis much more grounded in the literature. They have also cited the more recent literature appropriately. The result is a much more logically structured and well discussed paper, with suggestions and limitations.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for revising the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors incorporated the required suggestions.