Effects of Decentralized Water Regulation on Agriculture in China: A Quasi-Natural Experiment Based on Incentives for Promoting Officials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Article	Sustainability
Submission ID	Sustainability-2074104
Title	Environmental Targe, Irrigation Water Quality, and Agricultural Sustainability: A Quasi-Natural Experiment Based on Incentives for Promoting Officials

 

The paper examines the effects of incentives on the promotion of officials that acts as an enabler for local officials to pursue environmental achievements that have implications on agricultural output. The study found effects that show local officials reacting to promotion incentives by controlling pollution which in turn has a positive effect on agricultural output. The authors highlight the implications of social incentives and government policies that embeds goal-oriented incentive mechanisms that can have environmental and economic implications. The following points outline certain recommendations for the paper which are chronologically outlined.

Points:

1.	Title - Wording.  I think you meant “target” rather than “targe”. Secondly, the title might be more effective by addressing effects rather than listing three facets. Ie - The effects of X on Y: A quasi-natural...
2.	Abstract - Clarification. You may need to clarify the sentence “ However, the local officials promoted... government cannot monitor using water quality monitoring stations.”  What do you mean by a single goal? Do you mean that without active monitoring (ie no incentives) the officials no longer supervise pollution discharges?
3.	Theoretical Contribution. In effect, the study is about incentives and monitoring. The fact that incentives promote certain forms of behaviour and of the lack of monitoring reduces such behaviour is not theoretically new. The main research contribution is not clear and not theoretically novel.
4.	Research Motivation and Literature Review – Missing component. Related to point 2, you need to develop a theoretical basis for your paper. What is your research question? Why is the question important? What are your contributions to the existing literature? Why do we need to know about these issues examined in the paper?
5.	Mechanisms and Formal Hypotheses – Missing component. What are your expectations and outcomes of the study based on your literature review? Is it expected that you found the results that you did? I think you need to develop the mechanisms and highlight some of the formal hypotheses that are derived from your literature review. For example, this will enable us to understand why you consider enterprise pollution as a critical component of your model.
6.	Data. You have a very robust and unique dataset. However, more details need to be provided. For example, what kinds of biographical data were collected from local government websites? What is the source of ‘data on promotion of officials (line 114)? How did you manage data where local officials shifted counties or dropped out between the years 2000 – 2015? You need to elaborate on the steps taken to collect each segment of your data.
7.	Data. Table 1 on descriptive statistics should be shifted forward to section 2.1, before regression design.
8.	Variables. Why are these variables theoretically and conceptually relevant? Why do you specifically consider oil cotton and grain output? You need foundational justifications for looking at these contexts and data.
9.	Clarification - Control versus Treatment Group. The treatment versus control should be the areas where the incentive mechanisms were implemented versus those counties where such policies were not in place. The way you handled the present model may bring about concerns related to reverse causality. It is not entirely clear why this is considered a quasi-natural experiment where the treatment and control are not distinct and are co-dependent.
10.	Clarification - Model. Did you impose a time lag for promotion?
11.	Terminology – Table 1. Terminologies should be Explanatory variables (dependent variable), independent variable, moderators and controls.
12.	Model. It will be useful to draw the model out, especially when you have two or more moderators.
13.	Results. Interesting results but not entirely surprising. Secondly, the presentation of the regression table should adopt publication standards.

 

I am thankful and honoured for the opportunity to read your manuscript. The paper potentially serves to illuminate the importance of examining governmental policies as an influencing factor for agricultural output through environmental controls.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

This contribution does quite fit within the scope of the journal.

The article shows findings related to quantify how promotion incentivized behaviors by local officials affect agricultural output in China under a decentralized environmental governance system.

Title, in general, reflects the content.

The abstract is informative and reflects background, objectives, and results in a proper summarized form.

Keywords are proper but should be placed in alphabetical order.

The highlights are suitable.

The organization of the article is satisfactory and figures & tables are necessary.

 Introduction

 The following text between the lines 88 – 97 belongs to the Materials and methods section  “We divided the samples into an experimental group and a control group according... mechanism of environmental governance has not 96 effectively addressed this problem”

The following text between the lines 97 – 98 belongs to the Results and discussion section “According to the results of the quasi-natural experiment, we believe that the single promotion incentive for environmental performance in the decentralization system is the key limiting factor”.

The following text between the lines 100 – 105 belongs to the Conclusion section “This study has shown that substantial progress is still required in terms of sustainable agricultural… improving social welfare, and maintaining social stability”.

Material and methods outline properly what was done and how it was done.

In this section the authors need to mention from the beginning the period in when this research was developed.

The results and discussion are in line with the theme and proposed objectives. However, the authors provide conclusions in this results section. These should be moved to the corresponding section "Conclusions" Eg. Line 331 – 338 & Lines 351 – 359.

The authors have drawn up acceptable conclusions but they should take into account that they are not merely a summary of the main topics covered or a re-statement of the research problem, but a synthesis of key points.

The references are acceptable.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Article	Sustainability
Submission ID	Sustainability-2074104
Title	Environmental Targe, Irrigation Water Quality, and Agricultural Sustainability: A Quasi-Natural Experiment Based on Incentives for Promoting Officials

 

Thank you for the revision. The revised manuscript addressed, developed and engaged with the issues mentioned in the previous review and clarified the paper’s methodology, hypotheses, critical concepts and mechanisms of the paper. Some issues remain for the author(s).

Points:

1.	Hypothesis 1 - Wording.  Do check this. I think you mean agricultural growth and a positive effect.
2.	Hypothesis 2. Are you able to differentiate between officials pursuing environmental performance for promotion versus other forms of performance that leads to the same outcome - promotion?
3.	Hypothesis 3 - Wording. Do check this. Be clearer on what monitoring constitutes of and affect agricultural growth, productivity etc.
4.	Hypotheses development. Apart from the issues stated in points 1 to 3, the hypotheses needs to be developed and substantiated. Why should we expect the directionality of effects you have posited in the hypotheses? What is the conceptual and theoretical basis where you expect (i) positive effect between jurisdiction and promotion, (ii) pursuit of performance and agricultural productivity, and (iii) monitoring, performance and agricultural implications? What are the mechanisms and arguments that drives your hypotheses and your paper?
5.	Table 1 versus Figure 2 - Clarification. Total sown area of crops and total power of agricultural machinery – these controls and not IVs? Table 1 shows your DVs as gran, oil and cotton in tons and controls as total sown area of crops and total power of agricultural machinery.
6.	Related to point 5. You may want to distinguish agricultural growth and agricultural productivity conceptually.
7.	Results. Your number of observations vary and fluctuate quite a lot between your panels. Is there a reason for this?

Thank you for the revisions. I hope the following comments will be helpful in furthering your work.   

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors followed the recommendations and made all corrections as suggested by this reviewer.

They provide detailed answers to the reviewer's comments, which definitely contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.

The proposal concludes that promoting environmental governance through political incentives may lead to deviations in the implementation of policies, which will have a differentiated impact on agricultural output.

I'm satisfied with the author's corrections; therefore, I consider that this research paper can be published in this scientific journal.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing this manuscript entitled “Effects of decentralized water regulation on agriculture in China: A quasi-natural experiment based on incentives for promoting officials” (ID: sustainability-2074104). All comments have been valuable and helpful in revising and improving our paper and crucial in guiding the significance of our research. We have looked into the comments carefully and revised the manuscript accordingly, and we hope we have achieved the expectation for approval. The revised sections are marked in red on the manuscript, and major corrections and the responses to the reviewer's comments are detailed below.