The Carbon Emissions Reduction Effect of Green Agricultural Subsidy Policy: A Quasi-Natural Experiment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study titled “Carbon Emissions Reduction Effect of Green Agricultural Subsidy Policy: A Quasi-Natural Experiment " evaluates GASP's impact and mechanisms on reducing ACEs by employing the DID model. The results demonstrate that GASP significantly reduces ACEs. The research examines a significant subject matter. However, substantial revision is required to enhance its quality. My comprehensive remarks are as follows.

·       The abstract should summarize the study's research aims, methodologies, and findings.  Please revise these concerns

·       Don’t use too many abbreviations in the abstract.

·       The first alphabet of keywords should be in capital letters.

·       In the introduction, clearly mention the importance of the topic, problem statement, objectives, contributions, and innovations. Further, explain the importance and provide an in-depth explanation of the Development of Enterprises and free trade zones

·       Follow the following articles to construct your introduction section. (1) Role of China's agricultural water policy reforms and production technology heterogeneity on agriculture water usage efficiency and total factor productivity change

·       Literature review is comprehensive and relevant. 

·       Check the table numbers.

·       What does ACE show in equation 1 shows?

·       There are too many subsections in the manuscript; see if you can concise it.

·       Add concise and comprehensive study results and more policy recommendations in the conclusion

·       Rewrite the following paragraph for clarity: “According to the main conclusions of this paper, we can clearly understand the impact, mechanism, and heterogeneity of GASP on ACE reduction. Based on the above empirical results, this paper puts forward some suggestions on how to optimize the GASP. First, the government must carry out GASP as planned and provide more funding. To completely realize the combination of "carbon reduction" and "sink increase," we should emphasize the correct direction of the strategy. Relevant departments should also increase supervision and pay attention to dynamic monitoring to ensure that farmers can achieve sustainable development in the production process.

·       Avoid grammatical errors throughout the manuscript.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is good

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article employs panel data from 172 prefecture-level cities in China and applies the DID model to analyze the impact of the Green Agriculture Subsidy Policy (GASP) on reducing agricultural carbon emissions in China. This topic has certain academic and practical value. The following comments are worth considering:

1.The author needs to revise the introduction, as it is a key part to attract readers' interest. For instance, what are the contributions of this article? Is it merely analyzing down to the city level and then measuring intermediary variables using a simple DEA model? I believe these aspects may not be sufficient to capture attention. Clarifying the contributions of this article is crucial, as it determines the positioning of the entire paper.

2.Why did the author only consider data from 2010 to 2019 for 172 prefecture-level cities? How timely is the data selection? There are far more than 172 prefecture-level cities in China, so why did the author not consider a more comprehensive approach? Adequate reasons must be provided in the manuscript.

3.Why is China a good research subject? The author should pay attention to telling the story of China in the manuscript and highlight the significance of studying China.

4.Is the impact of the Green Agriculture Subsidy Policy (GASP) on agricultural carbon emissions necessarily linear, or are there U-shaped effects? Is the author's theoretical analysis sufficient?

5.Are there any other intermediary variables besides ATPE and SME? How does the author demonstrate the comprehensiveness of mechanism analysis?

6.How does the author address endogeneity issues in mechanism testing?

7.Continue to refine the manuscript, including formatting, language expression, etc., to strive for the publishing standard of the journal.

8.It is suggested that the author add relevant literature, including but not limited to the following:

[1] Li Z., Chen H. & Mo B. (2022), Can digital finance promote urban innovation? Evidence from China, Borsa Istanbul Review.

[2]Ayodele Idowu, Obaika Micheal Ohikhuare, Munem Ahmad Chowdhury. Does industrialization trigger carbon emissions through energy consumption? Evidence from OPEC countries and high industrialised countries[J]. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2023, 7(1): 165-186.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

If we consider that the greenhouse gas emissions that leads to global change has “significantly impacted human survival and ecosystem”, the topic proposed by the authors is very challenging. They intend to investigate “ the impact and mechanisms of  green agricultural subsidy policy on the reduction of  agricultural carbon emissions”.

The theoretical part is very well contextualized, the authors presenting in a clear manner the previous studies regarding the agricultural carbon emissions, more precisely the way of measuring it, its determinants and the strategies for reducing it. Meanwhile, they have also investigated the literature regarding the green agricultural subsidy policy, including the methods through which the agricultural carbon emissions could be reduced. Based on the conducted literature review, the authors developed three research hypotheses.

The methodology is appropriate for this research and it is very well presented. It clearly describes the variables and shows the used the data sources and the regression model.

The arguments they offer in the results part are convincing. However, the authors do not mention anything about the acceptance or rejection of the second and third hypotheses. They only mention the fact that the first hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, it is compulsory to mention this aspect in there results part. 

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and they also offer some policy recommendations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is fine, with minor errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf