Dear Dr. XU,

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 Jan 17 2026 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.

• 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,

Umberto Baresi, 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

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This work is supported by the Yunnan Province Philosophy and Social Science Planning (No. ZX2024ZD10).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This work is supported by the Yunnan Province Philosophy and Social Science Planning (No. ZX2024ZD10).”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work is supported by the Yunnan Province Philosophy and Social Science Planning (No. ZX2024ZD10).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [#] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

I would like to thank you for submitting your work for publication in PLOS ONE.

After this first round of reviews, I am pleased to convey that your work has been deemed as suitable for publication. The anonymous reviewers indicated that for your work to meet its full potential, it requires major restructuring in theoretical framing, literature review, conceptual model design, and methodological transparency.

Specifically, "the conceptual foundations and operationalization require substantial revision".

Please consider also the attached document, in which additional comments from Reviewer #2 are provided.

Please consider all attached feedback before submitting the edited version of your work.

As a requirement for resubmission, please attach the edited version of the manuscript with Changes Tracked in a different color, and a table in which each comment in listed in rows, for which I would ask you to indicate how and where in the document the edits took place.

Thank you.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The topic of ecological co-management in agricultural regions is important, and integrating TPB with social network embeddedness has potential value. However, several substantial issues need to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered further. Below I present key concerns, each followed immediately by a recommendation to improve clarity, theoretical rigor, and methodological soundness.

1. Introduction and Problem Definition

The introduction outlines global ecological issues but does not clearly explain the specific ecological challenges in the Lujiangba coffee region or why ecological co-management is necessary. This limits the contextual relevance of the study.

Recommendation: Strengthen the introduction by describing concrete local ecological problems (e.g., soil erosion, chemical overuse, biodiversity decline) and clarifying why this region is an appropriate case.

2. Literature Review and Research Gap

The literature review summarizes TPB and SNET but does not develop a coherent argument leading to a clear research gap. The integration of the two theories is not justified, and existing studies combining networks with behavioral intention are not adequately discussed.

Recommendation: Reorganize the review to (a) describe previous studies on TPB in environmental participation, (b) show how relational embeddedness influences cooperation, and (c) highlight the gap this study addresses.

3. Hypotheses Development and Conceptual Model

Many hypotheses are stated without adequate theoretical justification, and the conceptual model is difficult to interpret. Additionally, constructs such as PO (Perception of Outcome) appear to be used as substitutes for established TPB components, which may lead to conceptual confusion.

Recommendation: Move the hypotheses section directly after the literature review, provide theory-based reasoning for each hypothesis, and revise the conceptual diagram for clarity. If PO is intended to function as a determinant of intention, the authors should explicitly justify this adaptation of TPB using previous studies and clearly explain how PO relates to attitude or intention in this context.

4. Methodology and Sampling

The manuscript does not clearly describe the sampling method, recruitment procedure, or how the participants represent “multiple subjects.” Based on the demographic distribution, the sample appears to consist mostly of residents rather than diverse stakeholder groups. This undermines the claim of multi-subject co-management.

Recommendation: Provide explicit details about the sampling strategy and justify how the selected respondents represent the required actors (e.g., farmers, local officials, business owners). Clarify ethical approval and informed consent procedures, which are required for PLOS ONE. If the study targets only a subset of stakeholders, define the study population accordingly.

5. Measurement Scales and Variable Operationalization

Some items do not align with validated TPB or SNET measurement scales. A few items appear leading or double-barreled, and the distinction between constructs such as ENW, SNW, and behavioral antecedents is sometimes unclear.

Recommendation: Revise the measurement scales to align with validated instruments or justify deviations. Modify vague or leading items.

6. Results Interpretation

Although the statistical procedures are appropriate, the interpretation of mediated effects and relationships lacks theoretical depth. The distinction between direct and indirect pathways is described but not meaningfully explained.

Recommendation: Expand the explanation of why ENW might influence subjective norms more strongly and why SNW may relate more closely to perceived behavioral control. Connect these interpretations to previous environmental psychology and network studies to strengthen the theoretical contribution.

7. Discussion, Policy Implications, and Limitations

The discussion mainly repeats the results rather than offering deeper theoretical or practical insights. Policy recommendations are broad and not clearly derived from the findings. Additionally, limitations regarding sample size, generalizability, and measurement issues are not acknowledged.

Recommendation: Strengthen the discussion by explicitly linking findings to TPB and SNET, provide evidence-based policy recommendations relevant to ecological co-management in agricultural communities, and include a dedicated limitations section.

8. Abstract

The abstract is too general and does not clearly communicate the context, theoretical approach, methodology, or major findings.

Recommendation: Improve the abstract by briefly stating (a) the ecological problem in the region, (b) the theoretical model (TPB + SNET) and its rationale, (c) sample size and analysis method, and (d) the key direct/indirect effects. A clear statement of contribution should be added to the final sentence.

9. Language and Presentation

The manuscript requires substantial editing for grammar, clarity, and readability. Several sentences are unclear or repetitive. Figures and demographic tables should be simplified or moved to an appendix.

Recommendation: A thorough English language revision is recommended before resubmission.

Reviewer #2: The review is uploaded as an attachment, for improved legibility.

In summary:

- statistical significance analysis does not account for multiple hypothesis testing and associated alpha inflation

(I am hesitant about Question 2 above, but this is not a fatal flaw);

- some conclusions or statements could be reformulated to avoid implying definitive empirical inference about causality,

or to clearly separate empirical results from theoretical interpretation or discussion,

or to avoid statements about comparisons that were not validated statistically;

- additional technical details are necessary to allow better understanding and reproduction of the results.

All these issues can be corrected and I do not see other obstacles to publication; the study is conducted thoroughly and well-written up.

**********

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: Yes: Muhammad Waleed Ayub Ghouri

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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE review 2025-11-27.pdf

The behavioral driving mechanism of ecological co-management among multiple subjects from the perspective of social network embedding: evidence from coffee-producing areas in China

PONE-D-25-25310R1

Dear Dr. XU,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Umberto Baresi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

I believe that you have done an excellent work in addressing the reviewers' comments.

As a result, the manuscript has improved in content and in clarity.

I am glad to recommend this paper for publication.

Kind regards

Reviewers' comments: