Analyzing EU’s Agricultural Sector and Public Spending under Climate Change
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper studied the impact of climate change on public expenditure from the perspective of EU, using data and empirical analysis methods. The research topic has important practical significance and social impact, and is a hot topic worth paying attention to. However, unfortunately, the shortcomings of this study are also very obvious.
1. The innovation contribution of this study still appears insufficient. There are many similarities between this article and Yahaya's paper [27]. Although the author added some new variables, the proposed model did not form substantial theoretical and practical innovation.
2. The literature review needs further improvement. On the one hand, the author needs to supplement key literature. On the other hand, the author needs to clearly indicate the research hypotheses based on the literature review.
3. Some variables in Table 1 are not directly related to climate change.
4. The chart and table format in the entire text needs to be optimized.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Analyzing EU’s Agricultural Sector and Public Spending Under Climate Change
Our comments refer to the suggestions and recommendations the referees made in order to improve the quality of the research paper, and not to the positive remarks they made. We have to mention that most requirements were fulfilled in this new version of the paper.
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, we would like to express our gratitude for the work you dedicated for investigating our research, identifying the points for improvement and suggesting ways for achieving that. We are fully aware that your suggestions and recommendations are very important for improving our research and the way it is presented in this article.
Thank you and we hope we have answered all your suggestions and recommendations and improved our research.
Reviewer: “The innovation contribution of this study still appears insufficient. There are many similarities between this article and Yahaya's paper [27]. Although the author added some new variables, the proposed model did not form substantial theoretical and practical innovation.”
Comment: We appreciate the insightful feedback. We have explained in Introduction section more clearly the novelty of our paper” This paper stands out for its original contribution in elucidating the nuanced relationship between public spending and climate change. It diverges from conventional approaches by introducing innovative variables, particularly within the domain of agriculture. In contrast to prior literature that predominantly employed temperature and precipitation as proxies for gauging climate change impact, this study pioneers a distinctive methodological paradigm, employing agricultural output as a more refined proxy. This sophisticated analytical framework elevates the scholarly discourse, fostering a deeper and more nuanced comprehension of the intricate dynamics at the convergence of public spending and climate change.” (rows 171-182).
Reviewer: “The literature review needs further improvement. On the one hand, the author needs to supplement key literature. On the other hand, the author needs to clearly indicate the research hypotheses based on the literature review.”
Comment: Thank you for highlighting the need for improvement in the literature review. We have carefully addressed this concern by supplementing key literature by adding 10 new studies (273-284; 311-322; 331-335; 345-370; 376-381; 389-406). Additionally, we have revised and clearly stated the research hypotheses derived from the literature review: “The aim and objective of this paper is to clearly answer the following questions: What is the relationship between public spending and climate change by looking at evidence from EU’s agricultural sector? What is the relationship between public spending and climate change by looking at evidence from the Southern EU’s agricultural sector? What is the relationship between public spending and climate change looking at evidence from Northern EU’s agricultural sector?” and can be found between the (rows 179-188).
Reviewer: “Some variables in Table 1 are not directly related to climate change.”
Comment: We appreciate your observation. In Table 1, we have included variables that directly and indirectly relate to climate change. Our explanation is: “Harvested Agricultural Output, a pivotal metric within our study, stands as a direct barometer of climate change impact on agricultural productivity, thereby offering a tangible reflection of climatic repercussions on the economic landscape. Greenhouse Gas from Agriculture takes center stage, succinctly encapsulating climate change through its representation of emissions from agricultural activities, contributing significantly to the broader environmental spectrum. Mean Temperature Deviation emerges as a refined gauge, capturing nuanced shifts in average temperatures and thereby serving as a direct and sophisticated indicator of climate change dynamics. The variable Rainfall, intricately linked to climate change, assumes relevance as it reflects alterations in precipitation patterns, making it a key variable within the ambit of climate-related studies. While ancillary variables such as GDP growth rate, inflation rate, debt-to-GDP ratio, and agricultural labor input statistics indirectly echo the economic and societal consequences of climate change, we duly acknowledge their distinct non-climatic nature.” (rows 460-476).
Reviewer: “The chart and table format in the entire text needs to be optimized.”
Comment: Thank you for feedback regarding the formatting of charts and tables. We have taken measures to enhance the visual presentation for a more polished and reader-friendly experience:
Table 1 - Variables, Abbreviation, Unit, Source:
We've carefully aligned this table with the MDPI template, adjusting the width, alignment, and font to ensure a more cohesive and visually appealing layout (rows 480-520).
Table 2 - Table 2. Descriptive statistics EU27 countries
Is in accordance with the template specifications provided by MDPI. The width, alignment and format has been adjusted accordingly (rows 561-578).
Table 3 - Descriptive Statistics of South and North EU Countries:
Is aligned with MDPI template specifications, this table's formatting has been revised for a more harmonized appearance (rows 592-595).
Tables 4, 5, and 6 - Correlation Matrix of All EU Countries, Southern EU Countries, and Northern EU Countries.
These tables have been meticulously adjusted to align with the MDPI template, ensuring consistency and clarity (rows 624-649).
Table 7- Table 8. p-values showing the statistical significance of the considered variables, OLS, FEM and REM
We have thoughtfully arranged the elements of this table in accordance with the MDPI template, fine-tuning the width, alignment, and font to achieve a more cohesive and aesthetically pleasing design (rows 747-751).
Table 8 - Table 8. p-values showing the statistical significance of the considered variables, PCSE and GMM
Is conforming to the MDPI template specifications, the formatting of this table has been modified to achieve a more cohesive and harmonized appearance (rows 752 - 770)
We sincerely appreciate your guidance, and we remain receptive to any additional suggestions or refinements to further elevate the document's quality.
Best wishes,
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled"Analyzing EU’s Agricultural Sector and Public Spending Under Climate Change" is well written. This study has more focussed on climate and its effects on Agriculture sector. This study is very interesting and informative to researchers and readers.
The following issues need to be addressed:
1. "The main goal of this paper is to gain insight regarding the effect that climate change has on public spending in relation to the agricultural sector of the EU, by using the 15 pooled OLS and GMM methods."
Please provide the full name of "OLS and GMM", when using first time.
2.Please provide the suitable keywords, which should not repeaat with titles.
3."global warm- 34 ing to 1.50-2.0 degree C compared to the pre-industrial levels and eliminating greenhouse 35 gases. " Please "degree C" please rewrite according to acceptable format.
4.Intergovernmental?
5. The quality of figure 1 is not poor.
6.Please provide the clear objective of study.
7."baseline by .4%." Please correct it
8."1.2%. Kahn et. al [25] concluded that" Please remove space
9.GMM ?
10.Discussion portion is very poor. Please revise it
11. Please provide the sound recommendations and suggestions acquired from this study for further study
12. I have found some typing and gramar mistakes, Please check it throughout the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageOverall english is acceptable
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Analyzing EU’s Agricultural Sector and Public Spending Under Climate Change
Our comments refer to the suggestions and recommendations the referees made to improve the quality of the research paper, and not to the positive remarks they made. We must mention that most requirements were fulfilled in this new version of the paper.
Dear Reviewer,
First, we would like to express our gratitude for the work you dedicated to investigating our research, identifying the points for improvement, and suggesting ways of achieving that. We are fully aware that your suggestions and recommendations are very important for improving our research and the way it is presented in this article.
Thank you and we hope we have answered all your suggestions and recommendations and improved our research.
Reviewer: "The main goal of this paper is to gain insight regarding the effect that climate change has on public spending in relation to the agricultural sector of the EU, by using the 15 pooled OLS and GMM methods." Please provide the full name of "OLS and GMM", when using first time.
Comment: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. In response to your suggestion, we have incorporated the full names in the abstract, where these methods were initially introduced. The revised sentence now reads, "The main goal of this paper is to gain insight regarding the effect that climate change has on public spending in relation to the agricultural sector of the EU, by using the pooled Ordinary Least Square (OLS) and Generalized Method of Moments (GMM).".
Reviewer: “Please provide the suitable keywords, which should not repeat with titles”
Comment: Your suggestion regarding the selection of suitable keywords is noted and appreciated. The updated keywords now include: " economic growth, climate change, global warming, public budget, Generalized Method of Moments (GMM).".
Reviewer: "global warming to 1.50-2.0 degree C compared to the pre-industrial levels and eliminating greenhouse 35 gases. " Please "degree C" please rewrite according to acceptable format.”
Comment: We appreciate your attention to detail. We have meticulously reviewed the entire article to address similar errors and ensure accuracy (see rows 35- 90).
Reviewer: “Intergovernmental?”
Comment: Thank you for bringing attention to the term "Intergovernmental". We'd like to clarify that the correct reference is to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the United Nations body responsible for assessing the science related to climate change.
Reviewer:” The quality of figure 1 is not poor”
Comment: Thank you for your feedback regarding Figure 1. We have improved the quality of the figure by. We hope these adjustments meet your expectations (see rows 164-166).
Reviewer:” Please provide the clear objective of study”
Comment: Thank you for emphasizing the importance of a clear study objective. We appreciate your feedback, and we have taken it into consideration. The objective of our study has been revised to enhance clarity: "The aim and objective of this research paper is to clearly answer the following questions: What is the relationship between public spending and climate change by looking at evidence from EU’s agricultural sector? What is the relationship between public spending and climate change by looking at evidence from the Southern EU’s agricultural sector? What is the relationship between public spending and climate change looking at evidence from Northern EU’s agricultural sector?”.
Reviewer: "baseline by .4%." Please correct it.
Comment: We sincerely appreciate your meticulous review of our work and your constructive feedback. Your keen attention to detail is invaluable in maintaining the accuracy of our findings. The identified mistake has been promptly rectified (see rows 314-320).
Reviewer: "1.2%. Kahn et. al [25] concluded that. Please remove space.”
Comment: Thank you for your insightful observation. We genuinely appreciate your meticulous review and have promptly addressed the noted space (see rows 347-349).
Reviewer: “GMM?”
Comment: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have ensured that the full name of GMM (Generalized Method of Moments) has been provided the first time it appears in the article, as suggested (see rows 15-17)
Reviewer: “Discussion portion is very poor. Please revise it”.
Comment: We genuinely appreciate your feedback, and we have diligently revised the discussion portion of the manuscript to address your concerns (see rows 790- 850). We hope the enhancements meet your expectations and contribute positively to the overall quality of the paper.
Reviewer: “Please provide the sound recommendations and suggestions acquired from this study for further study.”
Comment: We genuinely appreciate your feedback. The sound recommendations and suggestions for future study of have been added to the research paper (see rows 983-999).
Reviewer: “I have found some typing and grammar mistakes, please check it throughout the manuscript”
Comment: Thank you for bringing the potential typing and grammar mistakes to our attention. We have meticulously reviewed the entire manuscript and made the necessary corrections to ensure clarity and accuracy.
We sincerely appreciate your guidance, and we remain receptive to any additional suggestions or refinements to further elevate the document's quality.
Best Wishes,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe aim of the paper is to gain insight regarding the effect that climate change on public spending in relation to the agricultural sector of the EU. The study used the pooled OLS and GMM methods. Our model is using public spending as an independent variable and harvested agricultural output, GDP growth rate, inflation rate, debt-to-GDP ratio, greenhouse gas from agriculture, agricultural labour, mean temperature deviation and rainfall as dependent variables. The finding could be important to show the impacts of climate change on agricultural productivities. However, the model variables included in the analysis involves a lot of uncertainties to indicate the real effects of climate change on agriculture. For instances, agricultural output can be affected by other factors related to inputs and crops management and the number of people employed in agriculture can be also affected by other factors related technologies substituting human resources. Using only agriculture related greenhouse gas emission as an indicator for climate change may not be realistic since other sources of greenhouse gases also increasing. Therefore, the paper is not scientifically strong because of poor assumption in model variables.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Analyzing EU’s Agricultural Sector and Public Spending Under Climate Change
Our comments refer to the suggestions and recommendations the referees made to improve the quality of the research paper, and not to the positive remarks they made. We have to mention that most requirements were fulfilled in this new version of the paper.
Dear Reviewer,
First, we would like to express our gratitude for the work you dedicated to investigating our research, identifying the points for improvement, and suggesting ways for achieving that. We are fully aware that your suggestions and recommendations are very important for improving our research and the way it is presented in this article.
Thank you and we hope we have answered all your suggestions and recommendations and improved our research.
Reviewer: “The aim of the paper is to gain insight regarding the effect that climate change on public spending in relation to the agricultural sector of the EU. The study used the pooled OLS and GMM methods. Our model is using public spending as an independent variable and harvested agricultural output, GDP growth rate, inflation rate, debt-to-GDP ratio, greenhouse gas from agriculture, agricultural labour, mean temperature deviation and rainfall as dependent variables. The finding could be important to show the impacts of climate change on agricultural productivities. However, the model variables included in the analysis involves a lot of uncertainties to indicate the real effects of climate change on agriculture. For instances, agricultural output can be affected by other factors related to inputs and crops management and the number of people employed in agriculture can be also affected by other factors related technologies substituting human resources. Using only agriculture related greenhouse gas emission as an indicator for climate change may not be realistic since other sources of greenhouse gases also increasing. Therefore, the paper is not scientifically strong because of poor assumption in model variables.”
Comment:
Thank you for sharing your perspective. Your insights into the potential impacts of climate change on agricultural productivity and the complexities involved in modeling such effects are valuable. Your comments contribute to the ongoing discourse on this important topic and highlight the need for a holistic approach in studying the effects of climate change on agriculture. Our substantiating rationale for the utilization of the previous stated variable is as follows: “Harvested Agricultural Output, a pivotal metric within the study, stands as a direct barometer of climate change’s impact on agricultural productivity, thereby offering a tangible reflection of climatic repercussions on the economic landscape. Greenhouse Gas from Agriculture takes center stage, succinctly encapsulating climate change through its representation of emissions from agricultural activities, contributing significantly to the broader environmental spectrum. Mean Temperature Deviation emerges as a refined gauge, capturing nuanced shifts in average temperatures and thereby serving as a direct and sophisticated indicator of climate change dynamics. The variable Rainfall, intricately linked to climate change, assumes relevance as it reflects alterations in precipitation patterns, making it a key variable within the ambit of climate-related studies. While ancillary variables such as GDP growth rate, inflation rate, debt-to-GDP ratio, and agricultural labor input statistics indirectly echo the economic and societal consequences of climate change, we duly acknowledge their distinct non-climatic nature.” (rows 460-476).
The justification for prioritizing greenhouse gas emissions over total gas emissions stems from their role as primary drivers of global warming and climate change. By focusing on alleviating the impact of this major contributor, proper mitigation and adaptation measurements can be put in place to address climate change externalities. Utilizing an analysis that specifically targets greenhouse gases enables policymakers to discern the precise contribution of the agricultural sector to climate change. Armed with this knowledge, policymakers can strategize more effectively, ensuring the judicious allocation of public resources to combat climate change.
We sincerely appreciate your guidance, and we remain receptive to any additional suggestions or refinements to further elevate the document's quality.
Best wishes,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors!
This paper is interesting, but with the consideration of the following concerns:
1. Please correct the text formatting, e.g. in the lines 764-765.
2. Please consider whether the description of statistical analysis in lines 388-394 should be included in point 4.” Results” or in point 3. “Materials and Methods”.
3. In the line 390-391 You wrote: "These approaches are most frequently used in the related analysis of this kind of panel data." . Perhaps it is worth citing examples of work using the indicated analyses?
4. It may be worth formatting Table 7 better? Table 7. presents the results with an accuracy of four decimal places - therefore the numbers do not fit into the rows. Maybe it's worth providing data to make the table more readable?
5. Under Fig.1. there is a line number (115).
6. Please provide the source and license in the map source caption (Fig.1.).
7. In the lines: 408-409, You wrote “Ramsey RESET test for robustness 408 show 0.0226> 0.05.” And on line 401 You wrote "respectively 0.7040 which are > than 0.05". And in lines: 441-442 it is written: "Ramsey RESET test for robustness show 0.9847> 0.05." Please check and consider whether it would be better to use words or mathematical operators consistently in the text. Please correct errors with the sign (">").
8. Please carefully check the calculations and the conclusions obtained on their basis.
9. Please edit the text carefully.
In spite of all these lines, I consider that the Authors have done good work. The topic of this paper is appropriate to the scope of Sustainability Journal. Finally, it is necessary to review all references and adopt the rules of the editorial. After corrections I recommend the article to be published.
Best Regards
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Analyzing EU’s Agricultural Sector and Public Spending Under Climate Change
Our comments refer to the suggestions and recommendations the referees made to improve the quality of the research paper, and not to the positive remarks they made. We must mention that most requirements were fulfilled in this new version of the paper.
Dear Reviewer,
First, we would like to express our gratitude for the work you dedicated to investigating our research, identifying the points for improvement, and suggesting ways for achieving that. We are fully aware that your suggestions and recommendations are very important for improving our research and the way it is presented in this article.
Thank you and we hope we have answered all your suggestions and recommendations and improved our research.
Reviewer: “Please correct the text formatting, e.g. in the lines 764-765.”
Comment: We appreciate your observation, and the formatting in lines 764-765 has been duly corrected as follows: “Tujula, M., & Wolswijk, G. What Determines Fiscal Balances? An Empirical Investigation in Determinants of Changes in OECD Budget Balances. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2005.” (see rows 1404 - 1406).
Reviewer: “Please consider whether the description of statistical analysis in lines 388-394 should be included in point 4.” Results” or in point 3. “Materials and Methods”.”
Comment: We genuinely appreciate your thoughtful suggestion. In response, we have carefully reorganized the manuscript as follows: The introduction to the application of the correlation matrix is outlined in Section 3 – Materials and Methods between rows 544-549. Consequently, the results stemming from this statistical tool can be found in Section 4 – Results, between rows 616-1649.
Reviewer: "In the line 390-391 You wrote: "These approaches are most frequently used in the related analysis of this kind of panel data.”. Perhaps it is worth citing examples of work using the indicated analyses?”
Comment: Thank you for your insightful suggestion. In response to your comment, we have cited examples of work that are using the indicating analysis. The following references have been used as examples:
- "Sarwary, M.; Samiappan, S.; Khan, G.D.; Moahid, M. Climate Change and Cereal Crops Productivity in Afghanistan: Evidence Based on Panel Regression Model. Sustainability 2023."
- "Nawaz, A.; Siddique, H.M.A.; Majeed, M. T. The Impact of Climate Change on Economic Growth: A Panel Data Analysis. Bulletin of Energy Economics 2016, Volume 4, Page 359-365."
- "Nugroho, A.; Feher, I.; Fekete-Farkas, M.; Lakner, Z. How to improve agricultural value-added in the MENA region? Implementation of Diamond Porter’s theory in agriculture. Front. Sustain. Food Syst 2022, Volume 6."
Reviewer: “It may be worth formatting Table 7 better? Table 7. presents the results with an accuracy of four decimal places - therefore the numbers do not fit into the rows. Maybe it's worth providing data to make the table more readable?”
Comment: We appreciate your feedback, and to address this concern, we have reformatted Table 7 by dividing it in two tables (Table 7 and 8) to enhance readability. The data has been presented in a more accessible manner, ensuring that the precision of the results is maintained while allowing for a clearer and well-organized presentation (see rows 746-771).
Reviewer: “Under Fig.1. there is a line number (115).”
Comment: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have replaced Fig.1 with an image of higher quality and contrast to enhance clarity and readability. We believe this modification has addressed the issue of the line number under the figure (see rows 164-165).
Reviewer: “Please provide the source and license in the map source caption (Fig.1.).”
Comment: We appreciate your suggestion; we have now included the necessary information in the caption for Fig.1. The source and license are specified as "Combined Drought Indicator – end of June 2022. © EC Joint Research Centre (JRC)" (see row 166).
Reviewer: “In the lines: 408-409, You wrote “Ramsey RESET test for robustness 408 show 0.0226> 0.05.” And on line 401 You wrote "respectively 0.7040 which are > than 0.05". And in lines: 441-442 it is written: "Ramsey RESET test for robustness show 0.9847> 0.05." Please check and consider whether it would be better to use words or mathematical operators consistently in the text. Please correct errors with the sign (">").”
Comment: Thank you for your valuable input, and we remain committed to ensuring clarity and precision in our presentation. The revised statement now uses the mathematical operator “>” for consistency throughout the paper (see rows 686-690; 700-703; 705-708; 722-724).
Reviewer: “Please carefully check the calculations and the conclusions obtained on their basis.”
Comment: We appreciate your diligent review and have thoroughly re-examined all calculations and the corresponding conclusions. Steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the results presented in the manuscript (see rows 854-953).
Reviewer: “Please edit the text carefully.”
Comment: The entire manuscript has undergone a careful review, and we have diligently addressed all grammatical and phrasing errors to enhance the clarity and coherence of the text.
We sincerely appreciate your guidance, and we remain receptive to any additional suggestions or refinements to further elevate the document's quality.
Best regards,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research is valuable to focus on the impact of climate on agricultural sector and public spending, while the framework, abstract and conclusion are not so clear. Climate, inflation, GDP and spending seem confusing as they are put together. So, more diagrams and result data are expected to solve this problem clearly.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Analyzing EU’s Agricultural Sector and Public Spending Under Climate Change
Our comments refer to the suggestions and recommendations the referees made in order to improve the quality of the research paper, and not to the positive remarks they made. We have to mention that most requirements were fulfilled in this new version of the paper.
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, we would like to express our gratitude for the work you dedicated for investigating our research, identifying the points for improvement and suggesting ways for achieving that. We are fully aware that your suggestions and recommendations are very important for improving our research and the way it is presented in this article.
Thank you and we hope we have answered all your suggestions and recommendations and improved our research.
Reviewer: “The research is valuable to focus on the impact of climate on agricultural sector and public spending, while the framework, abstract and conclusion are not so clear. Climate, inflation, GDP and spending seem confusing as they are put together. So, more diagrams and result data are expected to solve this problem clearly.”
Comment: Thank you for your feedback, we have been advised to rebuild our model and select new variables, therefore the abstract and conclusions have been changed in accordance with the new results. We hope that our new abstract, results and conclusion are clear and provide a better understanding of the analysis.
We sincerely appreciate your guidance, and we remain receptive to any additional suggestions or refinements to further elevate the document's quality.
Best wishes,
The authors
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
The research topic is interesting and deserves to be published in the journal Sustainability.
Questions have been raised about:
1. "Agriculture is an important sector of the European Union (EU), yet it is projected to decrease by 16% by 10 2050" - What does it mean?
2. Harvested agricultural output %GDP – the decline in the share of harvested agricultural output may not be the result of a decline in agricultural production, but the result of a faster growth rate of the economy than that of agriculture. Therefore, this indicator may lead to misleading conclusions. Please comment on this.
3. Does public spending include only expenditures related to climate change, all expenditures under the EU common agricultural policy, or only national expenditures? The characteristics of these expenses are not clearly presented.
4. "Table 3 lists the key descriptors of the variables employed in South EU countries" – and North
Best regards
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 6 Comments
Analyzing EU’s Agricultural Sector and Public Spending Under Climate Change
Our comments refer to the suggestions and recommendations the referees made to improve the quality of the research paper, and not to the positive remarks they made. We have to mention that most requirements were fulfilled in this new version of the paper.
Dear Reviewer,
Firstly, we would like to express our gratitude for the work you dedicated to investigating our research, identifying the points for improvement, and suggesting ways for achieving that. We are fully aware that your suggestions and recommendations are very important for improving our research and the way it is presented in this article.
Thank you and we hope we have answered all your suggestions and recommendations and improved our research.
Reviewer: “Agriculture is an important sector of the European Union (EU), yet it is projected to decrease by 16% by 10 2050" - What does it mean?”
Comment: Thank you for your thoroughly due diligence. The following statement has been rephrased as “Agriculture is an important sector of the European Union (EU). However, by 2050, the industry is projected to decrease by 16%.”
Reviewer: “Harvested agricultural output %GDP – the decline in the share of harvested agricultural output may not be the result of a decline in agricultural production, but the result of a faster growth rate of the economy than that of agriculture. Therefore, this indicator may lead to misleading conclusions. Please comment on this.”
Comment: Thank you for your feedback. It has been suggested that we select new variables that are a better fit for our analysis. Therefore, we have changed the variables and the model that we used in our analysis. The new model does not contain the variable harvested agricultural output % GDP. The new model is illustrated between the rows 414-421.
Reviewer: “Does public spending include only expenditures related to climate change, all expenditures under the EU common agricultural policy, or only national expenditures? The characteristics of these expenses are not clearly presented.”
Comment: We appreciate your question. It has been proposed that we should change the variables in our model for a more indicative analysis. Therefore, the new model uses agricultural subsidies as proxy for public spending as a depended variable. Agricultural subsidies are calculated at national levels for each country. The new model also uses total public expenditures at national levels for each country as an independent variable.
Reviewer: “"Table 3 lists the key descriptors of the variables employed in South EU countries" – and North”
Comments: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The following mistake has been rectified as “Table 3 lists the key descriptors of the variables employed in the southern and norther countries of the EU.”
We sincerely appreciate your guidance, and we remain receptive to any additional suggestions or refinements to further elevate the document's quality.
Best wishes,
The authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made many revisions to the manuscript and responded to all the questions and comments I raised. As for the revised manuscript, I argue that the paper needs a more detailed interpretation of the policy implications for the empirical results, especially regarding the specific and highlighted points of the EU's climate change policy planning? Besides, I still recommend authors to consider rebuilding empirical models around hypotheses and selecting new variables.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Analyzing EU’s Agricultural Sector and Public Spending Under Climate Change
Our comments refer to the suggestions and recommendations the referees made in order to improve the quality of the research paper, and not to the positive remarks they made. We have to mention that most requirements were fulfilled in this new version of the paper.
Dear Reviewer,
Firstly, we would like to express our gratitude for the work you dedicated for investigating our research, identifying the points for improvement, and suggesting ways for achieving that. We are fully aware that your suggestions and recommendations are very important for improving our research and the way it is presented in this article.
Thank you and we hope we have answered all your suggestions and recommendations and improved our research.
Reviewer: “The authors have made many revisions to the manuscript and responded to all the questions and comments I raised. As for the revised manuscript, I argue that the paper needs a more detailed interpretation of the policy implications for the empirical results, especially regarding the specific and highlighted points of the EU's climate change policy planning. Besides, I still recommend authors to consider rebuilding empirical models around hypotheses and selecting new variables.”
Comment: Thank you for the feedback, we truly appreciate it. We have rebuilt the empirical model based on our hypotheses. We have also added new variables, agricultural subsidies, government expenditure and government support in agricultural research and development. The new model uses public spending proxied by agricultural subsidies as the dependent variable and GDP growth rate, government expenditure, inflation rate, greenhouse gas from agriculture, agricultural labor input statistics, mean temperature deviation, rainfall and government support to agricultural research and development as independent variables.
We have also enriched the policy implications for the empirical results. (rows 696-705)
We sincerely appreciate your guidance, and we remain receptive to any additional suggestions or refinements to further elevate the document's quality.
Best wishes,
The authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI already rejected the paper. It is not appropriate to publish to this Journal.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Analyzing EU’s Agricultural Sector and Public Spending Under Climate Change
Our comments refer to the suggestions and recommendations the referees made to improve the quality of the research paper, and not to the positive remarks they made. We have to mention that most requirements were fulfilled in this new version of the paper.
Dear Reviewer,
Firstly, we would like to express our gratitude for the work you dedicated to investigating our research, identifying the points for improvement, and suggesting ways for achieving that. We are fully aware that your suggestions and recommendations are very important for improving our research and the way it is presented in this article.
Thank you and we hope we have answered all your suggestions and recommendations and improved our research.
Reviewer: “I already rejected the paper. It is not appropriate to publish to this Journal.”
Comment: We are sorry to hear that. We have made major changes in our model, we changed some variables, and we have improved our conclusion. We would be appreciative if you would take another look at our paper and provide us with feedback. Your feedback is important for us to improve our work style.
We sincerely appreciate your guidance, and we remain receptive to any additional suggestions or refinements to further elevate the document's quality.
Best wishes,
The authors
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe present paper seems better. I have no further comments.
