Sustainable Agriculture’s Contribution to Quality of Life

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [The abstract outlines the purpose and approach of a study on sustainable agriculture.

However, the abstract is quite general. It mentions the "composite index of sustainable agriculture" and the "Quality-of-Life index" but provides no specifics about how these indices were constructed or what they measure. Specifics would make the research more transparent.]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the abstract [In line with this imperative, the formulation of the composite index for sustainable agriculture was achieved through a compound, multi-stage procedural framework. This process involved the systematic grouping of 44 indicators into a specialized set, thereby delineating distinct facets within the dimensions of environmental (comprising 20 indicators), economic (comprising 16 indicators), and social (comprising 8 indicators) domains. The quality of life in this study is represented by the Quality of Life Index (QoL) computed by CEO World.  – page number-1, paragraph- Abstract, and lines – 11-13, 18-19.]

Comments 2: [The abstract references "results" but doesn't provide any specific findings or data. It would be more informative if it included at least a brief mention of key findings.]

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the abstract [The outcomes reveal that a systemic approach is most suitable for researching sustainable agriculture. The assessment of sustainable agriculture through the composite index underscores the relevance of all three dimensions in its formulation. Results from the correlation analysis suggest a robust connection between sustainable agriculture and quality of life. Simultaneously, a prominent level of interdependence between GDPs per capita and sustainable agriculture is observed. – page number-1, paragraph-Abstract, and lines – 22-26.]

Comments 3: [The abstract repeats the notion of "multidimensionality" multiple times. This repetition could be streamlined to make the abstract more concise and focused.]

Phrases like "quite extensive," "somewhat abstract concepts," and "challenge" without specific details can make the abstract seem vague and less compelling.]

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the abstract [The notion of multidimensionality is used only once in the abstract, and phrases like "quite extensive," "somewhat abstract concepts," and "challenge" have been eliminated. – page number-1, paragraph- Abstract, and lines – 8-26.]

Comments 4: [The abstract mentions the link between sustainable agriculture and quality of life but does not explain why this link is important or how it can inform policy or practice. The purpose could be clarified for a broader understanding.]

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the abstract [This study aims to establish the correlation between the advancement of sustainable agriculture and quality of life, which encapsulates the circumstances of an individual's existence. The significance of probing this correlation lies in the fact that sustainable agriculture, rooted in the efficient utilization of natural, social, and economic resources, inherently influences the quality of life—a paramount objective in the realm of social development. – page number-1, paragraph- Abstract, and lines – 14-18.]

Comments 5: [The research objectives and hypotheses are a good starting point, but they could benefit from greater specificity, a clear rationale for their importance, and more explicit connections between objectives and corresponding hypotheses. Additionally, it would be helpful to briefly describe the research methods that will be used to achieve these objectives and test the hypotheses.]

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added information that clarifies the mentioned aspects.  [The hypotheses were developed from the perspective of their connection with research objectives. At the same time, research methods were described to achieve the objectives and test the hypotheses. – page number-3-4 and 6, paragraph- Introduction and Materials and Methods and lines – 104-116, 117-131, 132-145, 264-271.]

Comments 6: [In the study, the composite index was calculated for groups of countries and disaggregated into subindices but doesn't provide details on the methodology used for these calculations. Adding information about the evaluation methodology and criteria used would enhance the credibility of the study.]

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added information [In the manuscript, we have added info about the evaluation methodology. – page number-8,11 paragraph- Materials and Methods, Data and Selection of Variables and lines – 344-346, 401-413.]

Comments 7: [The study states that the results confirm a relatively high correlation between sustainable agriculture and Quality of Life, but it does not provide a deeper interpretation of what this correlation might mean. Explaining the implications or potential causal relationships between these variables would add value to the analysis.]

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added information that clarifies the mentioned aspects. [In the manuscript, we have detailed the aspects related to the connection between sustainable agriculture and the quality of life. – page number-18 and 20-21, paragraph- Results and Discussion, and lines 578-588, 708-737.]

Comments 8: [In the manuscript, it is used different terms like "sustainable development of agriculture" and "sustainable agricultural development." Standardizing the terminology would improve clarity and consistency.]

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. [In the manuscript, we substituted the notions "sustainable development of agriculture" and "sustainable agricultural development" with the "development of sustainable agriculture"]

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Making minor improvements in terms of conciseness, clarity, and consistency can further enhance the quality of the language

Response 1: (Improvements to the quality of English have been made in the manuscripts and are marked in blue.)

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Moderate editing of English language required

Response 1:   (Improvements to the quality of English have been made in the manuscripts and are marked in blue)

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [Lines 105-108 are unnecessary.]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. [The mentioned lines have been redacted – page number-4, paragraph – Introduction.]

Comments 2: [Fig.1 How do you explain the significant role of China in the figure?]

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added information [In the manuscript, we added information regarding China's significant role in problems with environmental quality, especially air and water. – page number-5, paragraph- Introduction, and lines – 210-213.]

Comments 3: [Table 1 - Air Quality CO2 is not methane. In addition, please correctly format the units. Source - Authors do not exist]

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. [We are sorry that we did not detail the source. The source is The World Bank. World Development Indicators, Environment/Emissions. Available online:  https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators. As for the unit, it was taken from the source. Therefore, we have specified that it is the CO2 equivalent.]

Comments 4: [Line 451 - Why were only 108 countries analyzed?]

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added information [In the manuscript, we added information regarding the selection of 108 countries – page number-20, paragraph- Discussion, and lines – 667-671.]

Comments 5: [Chapter 6 Discussion. Here I miss entirely the comparison of your results with other authors. It is the discussion chapter that should discuss your results with others]

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified a considerable part of Chapter 6 Discussion. [In the Chapter 6 Discussion, as a result of the suggestions, the following were changed – page number-19-21, paragraph- Discussion, and lines – 615-616, 626-631, 637-660, 665-691, 695-705, 708-737.]

Comments 6: [Moreover, on lines - 549-556, the information is repeated]

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. [After the review of Chapter 6, these lines were omitted.]