Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

An Analysis of Water Use Efficiency of Staple Grain Productions in China: Based on the Crop Water Footprints at Provincial Level

Sustainability 2022, 14(11), 6682; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116682

by Aizhi Yu^1,*

, Entai Cai¹, Min Yang¹ and Zhishan Li²

Reviewer 1:

Amar Razzaq

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Reviewer 4:

Mariano González García

Reviewer 5:

Pierluigi Toma

Sustainability 2022, 14(11), 6682; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116682

Submission received: 31 March 2022 / Revised: 14 May 2022 / Accepted: 23 May 2022 / Published: 30 May 2022

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Crop Management and Water Footprint)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I'd like to thank the authors and the Editor for giving me the opportunity to review this intriguing manuscript. The authors use the water footprint approach to estimate the water use efficiency of staple grain production in China at the provincial level. The data ranges from 2015 to 2019, with some results compared to the year 2000. The paper is generally relevant to the journal's scope, and the results may be useful in the future. The main concern, however, is the article's clarity. There is a lot of text information that may be difficult for readers to understand. My detailed comments are as follows:

The introduction is lengthy and frequently shifts from one topic to another. To keep the flow going, the authors must structure the introduction section. Furthermore, the Introductions section should be divided into two sections (Introduction, Literature Review).

Several existing approaches to improving water use efficiency should be reviewed in the literature review section. The authors overlooked an important approach to improving water use efficiency, namely the economic approach. The use of agricultural water markets is one such approach that has been investigated. Please take a look at the following studies:

Razzaq, A., Qing, P., Naseer, M. A. u. R., Abid, M., Anwar, M., & Javed, I. (2019). Can the informal groundwater markets improve water use efficiency and equity? Evidence from a semi-arid region of Pakistan. Science of the Total Environment, 666, 849-857. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.266

Manjunatha, A., Speelman, S., Chandrakanth, G., & Huylenbroeck, V. (2011). Can Groundwater Markets Promote Efficiency in Agricultural Production. Paper presented at the 13th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons (IASC), January.

Another approach that has been proposed is to use high efficiency irrigation systems, about which there is a wealth of literature. Consider the following studies;

Razzaq, A., Rehman, A., Qureshi, A. H., Javed, I., Saqib, R., & Iqbal, M. N. (2018). An Economic Analysis of High Efficiency Irrigation Systems in Punjab, Pakistan. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 34(4), 818-826.

Naseer, M. A. u. R., Ashfaq, M., Razzaq, A., & Ali, Q. (2020). Comparison of water use efficiency, profitability and consumer preferences of different rice varieties in Punjab, Pakistan. Paddy and Water Environment, 18(1), 273-282.

Please review these studies as well as other related studies in order to present a comprehensive literature review on agricultural water use efficiency.

Furthermore, the authors should explain why the WFP approach is expected to yield new results or why it is preferable.

Some of the results have been moved to the discussion section. Please keep the two sections separate and organize your findings into headings. Currently, the results are perplexing, and the description is overly long at times. It is also suggested that a table be included that shows which provinces were considered for the Western, Central, and Eastern regions. Much of the information in the text at the beginning of the results section needs to be presented in the form of a table.

On the Y-axis of all figures, the measurement units are missing.

Please provide appropriate recommendations in the form of bullet points following the conclusions section on how to reduce WFP and increase WUE.

Please discuss your research's limitations.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Thank you for your kind suggestions of “An Analysis of Water Use Efficiency of Staple Grain Productions in China: Based on the Crop Water Footprints at Provincial level”. We found your comments helpful and revised the manuscript. Here below is our description on revision according to your comments:

Point 1: The introduction is lengthy and frequently shifts from one topic to another. To keep the flow going, the authors must structure the introduction section. Furthermore, the Introductions section should be divided into two sections (Introduction, Literature Review).

Response 1: We structured the Introduction section and Methodology section to make the manuscript easier to follow. The former Introduction were divided into two sections (Introduction and Literature Review). The first section introduced the scope of the problem in China and two China's agricultural policies, and presented the issues we tried to address. The second section reviewed existing studies about approaches to improve water use efficiency in China and the world, and estimations of China’s agricultural policies efficiencies.

Point 2: Several existing approaches to improving water use efficiency should be reviewed in the literature review section. The authors overlooked an important approach to improving water use efficiency, namely the economic approach. The use of agricultural water markets is one such approach that has been investigated. Please take a look at the following studies:

Another approach that has been proposed is to use high efficiency irrigation systems, about which there is a wealth of literature. Consider the following studies;

Please review these studies as well as other related studies in order to present a comprehensive literature review on agricultural water use efficiency.

Response 2: The use of agricultural water markets is an important approach to improve water use efficiency. We read four studies you mentioned carefully and two of them (‘’An economic analysis of high efficiency irrigation systems in Punjab, Pakistan.’’ and ‘’Can the informal groundwater markets improve water use efficiency and equity? Evidence from a semi-arid region of Pakistan.’’) were added to the text and Reference section to supplement our approaches review.

Point 3: Furthermore, the authors should explain why the WFP approach is expected to yield new results or why it is preferable.

Response 3: We found the advantages of water footprints theory was not clear in our manuscript due to your comments, so we added the advantages of the theory and why water footprints yield new result in estimating efficiencies of China’s agricultural policies. The theory of water footprints combined the real and virtual water usage in daily life, which represent both natural water use efficiency and irrigation water use efficiency. Previous studies focused on how to improve China's agricultural water use efficiency and evaluation of policies effects, but they didn’t relate the water footprints theory to North-to-South Grain Transportation and the crop production areas. From the perspective of water footprint, this paper estimated the water use efficiency of two policies and proposes ways to improve the policies.

Point 4: Some of the results have been moved to the discussion section. Please keep the two sections separate and organize your findings into headings. Currently, the results are perplexing, and the description is overly long at times. It is also suggested that a table be included that shows which provinces were considered for the Western, Central, and Eastern regions. Much of the information in the text at the beginning of the results section needs to be presented in the form of a table.

Response 4: We restructured Results section and Discussions section to make the manuscript easier to follow. Results section was divided into three parts: Crop Water Footprints, North-to-South Grain Transportation and Crop Production Areas. The description of the calculating results and their interpretation were moved from Discussions section to Results section. Descriptive narratives on water footprints of three crops in Results were replaced by tables, which show the average, minimum, and maximum value of the water footprint and the provinces to which they belong. The table can also show the comparison of water consumption between 2000 and 2015-2019. Three tables were added to Appendix A to indicate which provinces comprise the three categories of regions. Table A1 shows regional division of China, Table A2 shows regional division in "North-to-South Grain Transportation", and Table A3 shows regional division in crop production areas. Table A13, A14 and A15 were added to perform the data of statistical analysis in Results section.

Point 5: On the Y-axis of all figures, the measurement units are missing.

Response 5: The measurement units were added into three figures, thanks to your comments.

Point 6: Please provide appropriate recommendations in the form of bullet points following the conclusions section on how to reduce WFP and increase WUE.

Response 6: In Discussions section, we focused on estimating the agricultural water use efficiency in China and proposing directions for policy improvement. And in Conclusion section, we presented the Contribution of this article. North-to-South Grain Transportation and the food production areas have advantages in terms of reducing total water consumption in grain production, but reconfiguring the crop production policies could be a good way to increase the use efficiency of irrigation water. Large amounts of crop are planted in provinces that consume more water (both green water and blue water) under the current policies, for example planting rice in Heilongjiang and corn in Zhejiang. The article provided perspectives to reconfigure the crop production policies, growing less grain in provinces that consume more water, and multiple grains in provinces that consume less water to increase water use efficiency. The article provided perspectives to reconfigure the crop production policies by comparing the water footprint of staple grain in provinces.

Point 7: Please discuss your research's limitations.

Response 7: At the end of Discussion section, we discussed the limitation of our study. The climate data used in this study were obtained from meteorological observation stations in different provinces, rather than measured through field experiments, which is the main limitation. However, the climate conditions of the planting areas can be replicated to a greater extent by using data from meteorological observation stations closer to the crop planting areas. Although the water footprint calculation results were inaccurate, we thought the calculation results were still convincible. Field climate observation data of the planting areas can be used to make the calculation results more accurate and the analysis more effective, which is the direction of our future research.

We greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions to help us improving this manuscript. We hope meet with your approval and the revised manuscript is suitable for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript "An Analysis of Water Use Efficiency of Staple Grain Productions in China: Based on Crop Water Footprints at the Provincial Level" is an intriguing study in which the authors used a relatively new approach (WFP) to measure the water use efficiency of staple grain production in China. The authors divided the country into three regions and compared the WFP results for each region. Overall, this is an important study that can provide useful recommendations to policymakers in the face of growing problems caused by climate change. However, there are some concerns that the authors must address before making a final decision on whether or not to publish this article. My observations and recommendations are as follows:

The Introductions section should be revised because it is too long and sometimes deviates from the point. For example, in the second paragraph, the authors mention the DEA approach to measuring water use efficiency. I propose that the authors first introduce the scope of the problem in China, then review existing studies and their findings, and finally review the approaches used to analyze water use efficiency. Furthermore, the authors should present an overview of previous studies that used the water footprint approach approach (in China as well as in other regions). Finally, the authors should explain why this study was necessary and what research gaps it can fill in the given context.
Please break up the methods section into different headings and simplify the structure. Have the authors also considered including an econometric analysis, such as regression, to identify the factors affecting WUE as measured by WFP?
It's difficult to tell the difference between the results and the discussion section. For example, there isn't a single graph table in the results section, whereas the discussion section contains numerous figures. It is suggested that you revise this section in accordance with the journal's guidelines and standard scholarly practices. Furthermore, the authors are expected to compare their findings with the existing literature and the given context in the Discussion section.
Please compare some of your findings to those of the year 2000 and present them in the form of a graph or table.
It is recommended that the authors present the descriptive statistics for the study area in the form of a Table.
The tables in the appendix should also indicate which provinces comprise the three categories of regions depicted in the various figures.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: The Introductions section should be revised because it is too long and sometimes deviates from the point. For example, in the second paragraph, the authors mention the DEA approach to measuring water use efficiency. I propose that the authors first introduce the scope of the problem in China, then review existing studies and their findings, and finally review the approaches used to analyze water use efficiency. Furthermore, the authors should present an overview of previous studies that used the water footprint approach approach (in China as well as in other regions). Finally, the authors should explain why this study was necessary and what research gaps it can fill in the given context.

Two further papers were added to Literature Review section and Reference section (” Evaluation of crop production, trade, and consumption from the perspective of water resources: A case study of the Hetao irrigation district, China, for 1960–2010.” and “An evaluation of the water utilization and grain production of irrigated and rain-fed croplands in China.”). According to the papers above and others cited in the manuscript (reference 10, 28, 29, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44), we found previous studies that used water footprint approach mainly focused on the estimation of China's agricultural water use efficiency, while they didn’t relate the water footprints theory to China’s agricultural policies.

We also found the advantages of water footprints theory is not clear in our manuscript, so we added the advantages of the theory and why water footprints yield new result in estimating efficiencies of China’s agricultural policies. The theory of water footprints combined the real and virtual water usage in daily life, which represent both natural water use efficiency and irrigation water use efficiency. From the perspective of water footprint, this paper estimated the water use efficiency of two policies and proposes ways to improve the policies.

Point 2: Please break up the methods section into different headings and simplify the structure. Have the authors also considered including an econometric analysis, such as regression, to identify the factors affecting WUE as measured by WFP?

Response 2: Methodology section was divided into 4 parts (Virtual Water and Water Footprints According to Allan and Hoekstra, Classification of Water Footprints, Methods of Calculating Crop Water Footprints, CROPWAT Model and Calculation) to make the structure simplified. The Methodology section tend to show the development of the theory and the calculation method of the water footprint. The revised section was clearer and easier to understand than before, thanks to your suggestions.

The current manuscript mainly focused on the efficiency of China's agricultural water usage and analyzed the effectiveness of two agricultural policies. Thanks to your suggestion and inspiration, we found interprovincial trade can be considered in the analysis to estimate the efficiency of water saving and food supply, which relate economic efficiency to sustainability. This is the direction of our future research.

Point 3: It's difficult to tell the difference between the results and the discussion section. For example, there isn't a single graph table in the results section, whereas the discussion section contains numerous figures. It is suggested that you revise this section in accordance with the journal's guidelines and standard scholarly practices. Furthermore, the authors are expected to compare their findings with the existing literature and the given context in the Discussion section.

Response 3: We also restructured Results section and Discussions section to make the manuscript easier to follow. Results section was divided into three parts: Crop Water Footprints, North-to-South Grain Transportation and Crop Production Areas. The description of the calculating results and their interpretation were moved from Discussions section to Results section.

In Discussions section, we estimated the agricultural water use efficiency in China, and the results demonstrated consistency with existing literature. Then we focused on proposing directions for policy improvement. At the end of this part, we discussed the limitation of our study.

Point 4: Please compare some of your findings to those of the year 2000 and present them in the form of a graph or table.

Response 4: Descriptive narratives on water footprints of three crops in Results were replaced by tables, which show the average, minimum, and maximum value of the water footprint and the provinces to which they belong. The table can also show the comparison of water consumption between 2000 and 2015-2019.

Point 5: It is recommended that the authors present the descriptive statistics for the study area in the form of a Table.

Response 5: We added Table 1-3 to present descriptive statistics of water footprints.

Point 6: The tables in the appendix should also indicate which provinces comprise the three categories of regions depicted in the various figures.

Response 6: Since three categories of regions were mentioned in the manuscript, we prefer to add three tables to Appendix A to indicate which provinces comprise the three categories of regions. Table A1 shows regional division of China, Table A2 shows regional division in "North-to-South Grain Transportation", and Table A3 shows regional division in crop production areas. Table A13, A14 and A15 were added to perform the data of statistical analysis in Results section.

We greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions to help us improving this manuscript. We hope meet with your approval and the revised manuscript is suitable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

I advise splitting the methodology, discussion and results into smaller chapters;
The conclusions could be more concrete;
No statistical analysis of the survey data was performed;
I suggest providing photos of the experiment.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: I advise splitting the methodology, discussion and results into smaller chapters;

Response 1: We structured the Methodology section, Results section and Discussions section to make the manuscript easier to follow.

Methodology section was divided into 4 parts (Virtual Water and Water Footprints According to Allan and Hoekstra, Classification of Water Footprints, Methods of Calculating Crop Water Footprints, CROPWAT Model and Calculation) to make the structure simplified. The Methodology section tend to show the development of the theory and the calculation method of the water footprint. The revised section was clearer and easier to understand than before, thanks to your suggestions.

Point 2: The conclusions could be more concrete;

Response 2: In Conclusion section, we presented the Contribution of this article. The results showed that compared to 2000 water use efficiency of crop production for maize, rice and wheat during 2015-2019 were increased about 12.4%, 10.8%, and 2.5% respectively. The two agricultural policies we focused have advantages in terms of reducing total water consumption in grain production, but reconfiguring the crop production policies could be a good way to increase the use efficiency of irrigation water. Then we provided perspectives to reconfigure the crop production policies by comparing the water footprint of staple grain in provinces.

Point 3: No statistical analysis of the survey data was performed;

Response 3: Descriptive narratives on water footprints of three crops in Results section were replaced by tables, which show the average, minimum, and maximum value of the water footprint and the provinces to which they belong. The table can also show the comparison of water consumption between 2000 and 2015-2019. Three tables (Table A13, A14 and A15) were added to Appendix A to perform the data of statistical analysis in Results section.

Point 4: I suggest providing photos of the experiment.

Response 4: The climate data used in this study were obtained from meteorological observation stations in different provinces, rather than measured through field experiments, which is the main limitation of our study, therefore we were unable to provide photos of the experiment. However, the climate conditions of the planting areas can be replicated to a greater extent by using data from meteorological observation stations closer to the crop planting areas. Although the water footprint calculation results were inaccurate, we thought the calculation results were still convincible. Field climate observation data of the planting areas can be used to make the calculation results more accurate and the analysis more effective, which is the direction of our future research.

We greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions to help us improving this manuscript. We hope meet with your approval and the revised manuscript is suitable for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

I found the topic of the study very interesting and in line with the scope of the journal. To improve the overall quality of the manuscript, I have some suggestion/comments as below:

It is recommended to insert a map with the locations of the different áreas.

Section 2. Methodology is very dense and requires an expert knowledge of the subject. It would be advisable to use a diagram or graph to clarify this.

Lines 237-274: The calculation method of the crop’s blue and green water footprints, need a better explanation on the equations. It is hard to understand it.

Section 4 Discussion, needs better explanation in figures 1 to 3. It is difficult to understand and needs to comment on the values of the graphs. Also, continuously repeat the sentence "The results are shown in the figure below."

References: bibliographic citations should be reviewed (format of the year, ...)

English needs to be revised.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

Point 1: It is recommended to insert a map with the locations of the different áreas.

Response 1: In order to make readers easier to understand the division of regions, three tables were added to Appendix A to indicate which provinces comprise the three categories of regions. Table A1 shows regional division of China, Table A2 shows regional division in "North-to-South Grain Transportation", and Table A3 shows regional division in crop production areas.

Point 2: Section 2. Methodology is very dense and requires an expert knowledge of the subject. It would be advisable to use a diagram or graph to clarify this.

Lines 237-274: The calculation method of the crop’s blue and green water footprints, need a better explanation on the equations. It is hard to understand it.

Point 3: Section 4 Discussion, needs better explanation in figures 1 to 3. It is difficult to understand and needs to comment on the values of the graphs. Also, continuously repeat the sentence "The results are shown in the figure below."

Response 3: We restructured Results section and Discussions section to make the manuscript easier to follow. Results section was divided into three parts: Crop Water Footprints, North-to-South Grain Transportation and Crop Production Areas. The description of the calculating results and their interpretation were moved from Discussions section to Results section. Descriptive narratives on water footprints of three crops in Results were replaced by tables, which show the average, minimum, and maximum value of the water footprint and the provinces to which they belong. The table can also show the comparison of water consumption between 2000 and 2015-2019. Table A13, A14 and A15 were added to perform the data of statistical analysis in Results section. In Discussions section, we focused on estimating the agricultural water use efficiency in China and proposing directions for policy improvement, which provided better explanation of Figure 1 to 3. At the end of this part, we discussed the limitation of our study.

Point 4: References: bibliographic citations should be reviewed (format of the year, ...)

English needs to be revised.

Response 4: We have used the editing services listed at www.mdpi.com/authors/english. During revising manuscript, we found several spelling and format mistakes and corrected them. The sentences “The results are shown in the figure below.” and other repetitive statement were corrected.

We greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions to help us improving this manuscript. We hope meet with your approval and the revised manuscript is suitable for publication.

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting paper.

I think that the main issue is due to the lack of scientific soundness of this paper. I suggest to stress this issue and to add and underline the aim and the scientific contribution of this paper.

I strongly recommend to read the following references:

Magazzino, C., Mele, M., Schneider, N., Shahbaz, M., (2021), Can Biomass Energy Curtail Environmental Pollution? A Quantum Model Approach to Germany, Journal of Environmental Management, 287, 112293 A non-parametric bootstrap-data envelopment analysis approach for environmental policy planning and management of agricultural efficiency in EU countries, Toma et al, Ecological Indicators (2017)

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 5 Comments

Point 1: I think that the main issue is due to the lack of scientific soundness of this paper. I suggest to stress this issue and to add and underline the aim and the scientific contribution of this paper.

I strongly recommend to read the following references:

Response 1: We read two studies you mentioned carefully and realize the scientific contribution of our article was vague before. During revising the manuscript, we found the advantages of water footprints theory was not clear in our manuscript due to your comments, so we added the advantages of the theory and why water footprints yield new result in estimating efficiencies of China’s agricultural policies. The theory of water footprints combined the real and virtual water usage in daily life, which represent both natural water use efficiency and irrigation water use efficiency. Previous studies focused on how to improve China's agricultural water use efficiency and evaluation of policies effects, but they didn’t relate the water footprints theory to North-to-South Grain Transportation and the crop production areas. From the perspective of water footprint, this paper estimated the water use efficiency of two policies and proposes ways to improve the policies. We also added one of the studies you recommended (“A non-parametric bootstrap-data envelopment analysis approach for environmental policy planning and management of agricultural efficiency in EU countries.”) to the text and Reference section to supplement our literature review.

In Conclusion section, we presented the Contribution of this article. The article provided perspectives to reconfigure the crop production policies by comparing the water footprint of staple grain in provinces. Then we raised future research idea: interprovincial trade can be added into the analysis to estimate the efficiency of water saving and food supply, which relate economic efficiency to sustainability.

Furthermore, we restructured the Introduction section, Methodology section, Results section and Discussions section to make the manuscript easier to follow.

The former Introduction were divided into two sections (Introduction and Literature Review). The first section introduced the scope of the problem in China and two China's agricultural policies, and presented the issues we tried to address. The second section reviewed existing studies about approaches to improve water use efficiency in China and the world, and estimations of China’s agricultural policies efficiencies.

Results section was divided into three parts: Crop Water Footprints, North-to-South Grain Transportation and Crop Production Areas. The description of the calculating results and their interpretation were moved from Discussions section to Results section. Descriptive narratives on water footprints of three crops in Results were replaced by tables, which show the average, minimum, and maximum value of the water footprint and the provinces to which they belong. The table can also show the comparison of water consumption between 2000 and 2015-2019. Three tables were added to Appendix A to indicate which provinces comprise the three categories of regions. Table A1 shows regional division of China, Table A2 shows regional division in "North-to-South Grain Transportation", and Table A3 shows regional division in crop production areas. Table A13, A14 and A15 were added to perform the data of statistical analysis in Results section.

In Discussions section, we focused on estimating the agricultural water use efficiency in China and proposing directions for policy improvement, which provided better explanation of results. At the end of this part, we discussed the limitation of our study.

We greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions to help us improving this manuscript. We hope meet with your approval and the revised manuscript is suitable for publication.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In response to my comments and suggestion in the first round, the authors have made satisfactory modifications to the article which has improved its quality. I am pleased to recommend the acceptance of the article for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has now reached the required level of scientific publication quality. I am pleased to inform the auhtors that the article can be accepted in its present form. Congratulations.

Reviewer 4 Report

The revised version is well-written, scientifically conducted and the conclusions were comprehensively supported by the data, therefore, the revised version can be accept in present form.

Reviewer 5 Report

Thank you for the revised paper. I’m satisfied about this version.

Article Menu

An Analysis of Water Use Efficiency of Staple Grain Productions in China: Based on the Crop Water Footprints at Provincial Level

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI