-->PONE-D-24-48851-->-->Determinants of Tea Planters' Purchasing Behavior of Planting Insurance: SEM analysis-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rojniruttikul,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 10 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Xufeng Cui, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: Dear Author,

The researchers stated that this study explores the influence of government support and risk cognition on tea planters' purchasing behavior regarding planting insurance, with a particular emphasis on the mediating roles of perceived value and environmental concern. Data were collected from 550 tea planters in Guizhou Province, China, using a structured questionnaire and convenience sampling method. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) were conducted using AMOS 28.0 to analyze the data. The results indicate that both government support and risk cognition significantly and positively impact the perceived value of planting insurance. To promote the uptake of planting insurance among tea farmers, government agencies should strengthen policy advocacy and provide business guidance. Such efforts would help tea farmers recognize the value and psychological significance of planting insurance, thereby better safeguarding their agricultural interests. This study enhances the understanding of how government support and risk cognition can facilitate the adoption of planting insurance among tea farmers. However, the research paper demonstrates low level of understanding of the relevant literature in the field and did not cite an appropriate range of literature sources. Methodology is good. Analyses and findings are presented in a weak manner as to present new ideas. Also, the research has not proper discussion and conclusion. Though, the paper needs improvements in order to meet the standards of this journal. Also:

• It’s better to update some of the sources such as ITC, 2022; The China Tea Circulation Association, 2023; Zhang & Fan, 2016; Guizhou Tea Association, 2022 into recent sources such as 2024.

• The title 3.4 Qualitative data analysis should be modified as the research did not tackle qualitative data analysis.

• Table 2. Demographic Information (n =550) should contain the totals for each variable. Also, the sum of variables percentages should be 100% not 99.9%.

• The results in Table 6. Hypotheses testing results should be modified into Accepted instead of consistent.

Finally, the references should be ordered alphabetically and unify the writing style based on the journal’s layout.

Reviewer #2: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to express my appreciation to the authors for their efforts in producing this manuscript. I found it engaging and informative, but there are a few aspects that could be improved to enhance its clarity and impact.

First of all, regarding the research methods employed in this article, qualitative and quantitative methods such as questionnaires and structural equation modeling have been utilized, and their application and analysis are relatively reasonable. However, it is advisable to consider supplementing with additional qualitative research, such as individual interviews, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the motives behind tea farmers' purchasing behavior.

Secondly, in the data analysis section of the article, the mediating role of perceived value and environmental concern in tea farmers' decision to purchase planting insurance is emphasized. Yet, further exploration is needed into the relationship between perceived value and environmental concern, as well as how these two factors influence risk perception and policy support.

Furthermore, the article lists several model fit indices (such as χ²/df, RMSEA, CFI, TLI, AGFI, etc.), but does not provide sufficient explanation for the specific meanings of these indices. Detailed explanations of these model fit indices can be added in the results or notes section to assist readers in understanding the fit of the models.

Lastly, in the policy recommendations section, the article mentions some targeted policy suggestions, such as increasing government subsidies and providing business guidance, which are helpful in enhancing tea farmers' awareness and acceptance of planting insurance. In addition to these, further discussion is needed on how to design more targeted policy measures, for instance, by adopting heterogeneity testing methods to better meet the needs of different types of tea farmers (considering factors such as operating scale, planting history, geographical location, etc.).

I hope these comments and suggestions are helpful, and I look forward to seeing the revised version.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Determinants of Tea Planters' Purchasing Behavior of Planting Insurance: SEM analysis

PONE-D-24-48851R1

Dear Dr. Rojniruttikul,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Xufeng Cui, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: Dear Author,

Since the researchers stated that this study explores the influence of government support and risk cognition on tea planters' purchasing behavior regarding planting insurance, with a particular emphasis on the mediating roles of perceived value and environmental concern. Data were collected from 550 tea planters in Guizhou Province, China, using a structured questionnaire and convenience sampling method. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) were conducted using AMOS 28.0 to analyze the data. The results indicate that both government support and risk cognition significantly and positively impact the perceived value of planting insurance. To promote the uptake of planting insurance among tea farmers, government agencies should strengthen policy advocacy and provide business guidance. Such efforts would help tea farmers recognize the value and psychological significance of planting insurance, thereby better safeguarding their agricultural interests. This study enhances the understanding of how government support and risk cognition can facilitate the adoption of planting insurance among tea farmers. However, I noticed the modifications and enhancements made by the researchers which are satisfied.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********