Temporal and Spatial Changes of Agriculture Green Development in Beijing’s Ecological Conservation Developing Areas from 2006 to 2016

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

This article is interesting and the topic is worthy of investigation. Before publication, a few minor issues need to be further clarified.

1. Even though the study has the potential to contribute significantly to current knowledge, the authors failed to show it novelty.

Thank you for the advice. We have revised the manuscript accordingly by adding a discussion section, where the novelty of this study is thoroughly described. For example, in line625-628 “Our AGD evaluating indicators are the organic integration, refinement, and even sublimation of the original statistical data, rather than a simple copy or pile-up of the traditional indicators in economic, environmental, social, and other fields.” In line 682-684 “As a result, our study fully reflected the comprehensive regional disparities, spatial differentiation, and evolutionary characteristics of AGD in Bei jing ECDA, which will provide researchers with a systematic study and analysis of the 685 regional disparities, spatial dynamics, and state transitions”

 

2. The study period (2006-2016) needs to be explained. Why the data in recent years is missing?

The data in this study are part of Beijing Bureau of Statistics research project on the Third National Agricultural census (2017012). The Chinese agricultural census is a major survey on national conditions and strengths. It is conducted with unified methodology, time, form and content, with a primary form of census takers’ direct visit to households and workstations for comprehensive information on rural areas, agriculture and farmers. It can provide theoretical basis for formulation of plans on economic and social development of rural areas, as well as policies on the construction of new rural areas. Meanwhile, it also provides statistical information services to agriculture production producers, managers and the general public. The agricultural censuses are conducted every 10 years in China. The 2^nd agricultural census was from 2006 to 2016 as in this study. This is how the study period was selected in this study. The 3^rd agricultural census on recent years is still going on. We will continue to compare and analyze the changes on AGD levels during different agricultural census periods.  

 

3. According to the empirical analysis, what useful and meaningful findings can be obtained?

Thank you for the advice. We have restructured the manuscript by integrating original parts 4 and 5 as part 4 of results and analysis, and adding a new discussion part 5, where the useful and meaningful findings on the empirical analysis is described. For example, Line682-684: ”As a result, our study fully reflected the comprehensive regional disparities, spatial differentiation, and evolutionary characteristics of AGD in Beijing ECDA, which will provide researchers with a systematic study and analysis of the regional disparities, spatial dynamics, and state transitions.” Line 791-792: ” Therefore, local authorities and decision makers should focus on promoting comprehensive improvements in the level of green agricultural development.”

 

4. How to consider the relationship among the indicators (Table 1), such as energy consumption per unit of gross agricultural output value and energy consumption per unit of arable land area?

The indicators, such as energy consumption per unit of gross agricultural output value and energy consumption per unit of arable land area, elaborated energy consumption from different perspectives. Energy consumption per unit of gross agricultural output value focuses on energy use efficiency, reflecting in AGD output; energy consumption per unit of arable land area focuses on energy use intensity, reflecting in environmental effect of AGD. These two types of indictors are the balance point of AGD in large cities. We can confirm the periodic characteristics of AGD in large cities from the changes in the weight coefficients of the indicator framework in the future.

4. In the introductory and literature review part, non-Chinese authors should also be mentioned.

Thank you for the advice. We have added 23 new non-Chinese author references:13-21, 28, 59-59, 65, 68, 70-73,76,80-81,89,91,98, in introduction (line83, line96) and literature review (line146, line150-152, line173-179, line182-185, line210-213, line225-230, line235, line241).

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present study analyzes the temporal and spatial changes of agricultural green development in the ecological conservation development areas of Beijing from 2006 to 2016

The objectives of this study were: (1) sort previous literatures on evaluating indicator frameworks and methods for AGD assessing; (2) establish an AGD evaluating indicator framework and model for Beijing ECDAs; (3) construct panel data based on socioeconomic statistical data from 2006 to 2016 that covering 13 districts of Beijing, to analyze temporal and spatial variations of AGD; (4) analyze AGD hindering factors and provide corresponding insights into effective policies and countermeasures in ECDA.

 

This topic is of great interest, as it analyzes and systematizes AGD indicators, enabling the establishment of a state policy that can generate an improvement in the regional production process.

The introduction of the paper presents a consistent review that addresses the topic in depth and in all its completeness.

The methodology presented is coherent and detailed, which made the article easier to understand. This is one of the strengths of the work.

The results were well presented. The figures are necessary and self-explanatory.

In the discussion, item “5.1. Poor infrastructure hindering development of green agricultural industries” has few citations, and the text is based almost entirely on the opinions of the actors.

The same situation occurred in the items “5.2 Slow improvement of agritourism quality affecting AGD in ECDA”, “5.3Low labor productivity hampering AGD in ECDA” and “5.4 Low resource utilization efficiency restricted AGD in ECDA”.

In general, the discussion should be more based on other articles so that its content is not based solely on the authors' vision.

The conclusions meet the objectives and are consistent with the results presented.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The present study analyzes the temporal and spatial changes of agricultural green development in the ecological conservation development areas of Beijing from 2006 to 2016

The objectives of this study were: (1) sort previous literatures on evaluating indicator frameworks and methods for AGD assessing; (2) establish an AGD evaluating indicator framework and model for Beijing ECDAs; (3) construct panel data based on socioeconomic statistical data from 2006 to 2016 that covering 13 districts of Beijing, to analyze temporal and spatial variations of AGD; (4) analyze AGD hindering factors and provide corresponding insights into effective policies and countermeasures in ECDA.

 This topic is of great interest, as it analyzes and systematizes AGD indicators, enabling the establishment of a state policy that can generate an improvement in the regional production process.

Thank you, the objectives of this study are embodied with details in line 124-134.  

The introduction of the paper presents a consistent review that addresses the topic in depth and in all its completeness.

The methodology presented is coherent and detailed, which made the article easier to understand. This is one of the strengths of the work.

The results were well presented. The figures are necessary and self-explanatory.

In the discussion, item “5.1. Poor infrastructure hindering development of green agricultural industries” has few citations, and the text is based almost entirely on the opinions of the actors.

The same situation occurred in the items “5.2 Slow improvement of agritourism quality affecting AGD in ECDA”, “5.3Low labor productivity hampering AGD in ECDA” and “5.4 Low resource utilization efficiency restricted AGD in ECDA”.

In general, the discussion should be more based on other articles so that its content is not based solely on the authors' vision.

Thank you for the advice. We have restructured the manuscript by integrating original parts 4 and 5 as part 4 of results and analysis, and adding a new discussion part 5, where discussion was more based on other articles in line583-793.

The conclusions meet the objectives and are consistent with the results presented.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am grateful to become familiar with and comment on a draft that has the potential to become a good publication. Here a my comments:

1. The abstract provides a clear overview of the research, outlining the significance of the ecological conservation developing area (ECDA) and the need for empirical studies on spatiotemporal variations of Agricultural Green Development (AGD) in large cities. The objectives, methodology, and key findings are well-articulated. However, there are some language and typographical issues that need attention. For example, "constructiing" should be corrected to "constructing" in line 17, and "were" in line 23 should be "where." Additionally, the term "AGD" should be spelled out upon first mention, and then the abbreviation can be used.

2. The introduction and the literature review provide a comprehensive background on the impact of rapid urbanization on ecological security, examining the state-of-the-art and introducing the concept of green development. It effectively sets the stage for the study on AGD in the ECDA of Beijing. However, there are a few suggestions for improvement:

1) The introduction could benefit from a more concise presentation of the background information to maintain reader engagement.

2) The transition between the general concept of green development and the specific focus on AGD in Beijing ECDA could be smoother.

3) The objectives of the study are well-stated, but it might be helpful to explicitly mention the importance of the study for policymakers and researchers.

3. The whole paper: the reference citations should follow a consistent format.

4. The conclusion effectively summarizes the key findings, emphasizing the effectiveness of the selected AGD indicators and evaluation method for Beijing ECDA. The spatial and temporal heterogeneity of AGD is well-discussed. The policy recommendations are comprehensive, addressing the long-standing and prominent status of AGD for sustainable development in Beijing. However, there are some suggestions for improvement:

1) The conclusion could be more succinct while maintaining clarity and emphasis on key points.

2) Consider breaking down the policy recommendations into bullet points or a numbered list for better readability.

3) The limitations of the study are mentioned towards the end, and it might be helpful to introduce them earlier in the conclusion to provide a balanced view.

Overall, the article is well-structured and informative, but attention to language, typographical errors, and minor improvements in the organization of information can enhance its readability and impact.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

I am grateful to become familiar with and comment on a draft that has the potential to become a good publication. Here are my comments:

1. The abstract provides a clear overview of the research, outlining the significance of the ecological conservation developing area (ECDA) and the need for empirical studies on spatiotemporal variations of Agricultural Green Development (AGD) in large cities. The objectives, methodology, and key findings are well-articulated. However, there are some language and typographical issues that need attention. For example, "constructiing" should be corrected to "constructing" in line 17, and "were" in line 23 should be "where." Additionally, the term "AGD" should be spelled out upon first mention, and then the abbreviation can be used.

Thank you. They have been revised.  

2. The introduction and the literature review provide a comprehensive background on the impact of rapid urbanization on ecological security, examining the state-of-the-art and introducing the concept of green development. It effectively sets the stage for the study on AGD in the ECDA of Beijing. However, there are a few suggestions for improvement:

1) The introduction could benefit from a more concise presentation of the background information to maintain reader engagement.

Thank you. We have reorganized the research background information around green development, green agricultural development and AGD in Beijing ECDA to make it more concise in structure and content.

2) The transition between the general concept of green development and the specific focus on AGD in Beijing ECDA could be smoother.

We have revised the introduction part. It transits from green development to green agricultural development, and then to green agricultural development in Beijing ECDA, which is a more smooth transition logically.

 3) The objectives of the study are well-stated, but it might be helpful to explicitly mention the importance of the study for policymakers and researchers.

Thank you for the advice. The objectives of this study have been revised as in line124-134.

3. The whole paper: the reference citations should follow a consistent format.

The reference citations have been revised. 

4. The conclusion effectively summarizes the key findings, emphasizing the effectiveness of the selected AGD indicators and evaluation method for Beijing ECDA. The spatial and temporal heterogeneity of AGD is well-discussed. The policy recommendations are comprehensive, addressing the long-standing and prominent status of AGD for sustainable development in Beijing. However, there are some suggestions for improvement:

1) The conclusion could be more succinct while maintaining clarity and emphasis on key points.

　 Thank you, We simplified our conclusion in line814-827。

2) Consider breaking down the policy recommendations into bullet points or a numbered list for better readability.  

Thank you, a policy recommendation list has been added in supplementary table 1.  

3) The limitations of the study are mentioned towards the end, and it might be helpful to introduce them earlier in the conclusion to provide a balanced view.

 Thank you, the limitations of this study has been moved forward to the conclusion in line816-819. 

Overall, the article is well-structured and informative, but attention to language, typographical errors, and minor improvements in the organization of information can enhance its readability and impact.