Does Rural Labor Transfer Impact Chinese Agricultural Carbon Emission Efficiency? A Substitution Perspective of Agricultural Machinery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article under review examines the impact of rural labor transfer (RLT) on agricultural carbon emission efficiency (ACEE) in China. The study proposes that increased use of agricultural machinery (AMI) as a substitute for labor influences ACEE. The authors constructed a Simultaneous Equations Model (SEM) and used the Three-Stage Least Squares (3SLS) method to address the endogeneity of the model. The key findings are that both RLT and AMI significantly improve ACEE, while improvements in ACEE and AMI further promote RLT. Additionally, the article highlights the regional heterogeneity in China, noting that economic base, technology level, and farmers' attitudes are critical for enhancing ACEE.

Overall, the article is quite well written and addresses the significant issue of CO2 emissions in the context of increasing mechanization in agriculture and urban migration. However, there are several critical issues that need to be addressed:

1. Equation (1), Page 5, Line 218:
• The notation and explanation here are confusing. The authors refer to Equation (1) but what is presented seems to be 5 equations. It is necessary to specify which part of the equation the differentiation refers to, leading to Equation (2). Furthermore, in the first part of Equation (1), the variable C appears on both sides. Simplifying the fraction ​ implies 1=1/P ​, which is clearly nonsens.
2. Page 5, Line 225:
• The authors claim that differentiating Equation (1) yields Equation (2). However, the meaning of the delta notation (∆) is not clearly explained, and it is not differentiation in the proper sense of the word (you probably mean difference operator?)
3. Page 5, Line 242:
• The phrase "M and A as a new variable" seems to continue with "M and A as a new variable AMI," which is unclear.
4. Page 7, Line 292, Equation (4):
• Is epsilon_i  the coefficient as listed in Table 1? This needs explicit clarification.
5. Table 2:
• The results of the Granger causality tests are presented, but the corresponding F-statistic and p-values are not included. These values are essential for evaluating the statistical significance of the tests.
6. Page 10, Lines 360-363, Equations (7)-(9):
• The notation and explanation are inadequate. It is unclear whether these equations represent a regression or a linear model fit. What do the coefficients represent? Where are the statistical test data? Why is the sum from 3 to 8? The reader can only guess all this answers. The addition of the "index" -it in these equations is also unexplained.
7. 3SLS Method:
• The article does not provide an adequate explanation of the Three-Stage Least Squares (3SLS) method (exceptof the citation). Given the interdisciplinary audience of the journal, a brief description of the method, its purpose, and when it is used (e.g., for dealing with endogeneity in simultaneous equations models) should be included. At the very least, t-statistics and p-values of the estimates should be presented.

After addressing these issues, the article would be suitable for publication. It provides valuable insights into the interactions between rural labor transfer, agricultural machinery intensity, and carbon emission efficiency in China, but clarity and completeness in the presentation of the methods and results are crucial for ensuring the findings are accessible and comprehensible to a broad audience.

Author Response

Comments 1: Equation (1), Page 5, Line 218:

The notation and explanation here are confusing. The authors refer to Equation (1) but what is presented seems to be 5 equations. It is necessary to specify which part of the equation the differentiation refers to, leading to Equation (2). Furthermore, in the first part of Equation (1), the variable C appears on both sides. Simplifying the fraction  implies 1=1/P , which is clearly nonsens.

 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have modified equation 1. AEEC, AMI, TL and NS are definitions of the variables in Equation 1. We have separated it from equation 1 to make it clearer. Please check line 94 and line 95.

 

Comments 2: Page 5, Line 225:

The authors claim that differentiating Equation (1) yields Equation (2). However, the meaning of the delta notation (∆) is not clearly explained, and it is not differentiation in the proper sense of the word (you probably mean difference operator?)

Response 2: Agree. We added the definition of ∆, which represents the rate of change. We removed the unclear description. Please check lines 102 to 105.

 

Comments 3: Page 5, Line 242:

The phrase "M and A as a new variable" seems to continue with "M and A as a new variable AMI," which is unclear.

Response 3: Agree. We removed the unclear description.

 

Comments 4: Page 7, Line 292, Equation (4):

Is epsilon_i  the coefficient as listed in Table 1? This needs explicit clarification.

Response 4: Agree. We added the description of epsilon_i. Please check line 147.

 

 

Comments 5: Table 2:

The results of the Granger causality tests are presented, but the corresponding F-statistic and p-values are not included. These values are essential for evaluating the statistical significance of the tests.

Response 5: Agree. We added the Z-statistic and p-values of the Granger Causality test. Since this is a Granger causality test for panel data, z-statistic has been shown. Please check line 208.

 

Comments 6: Page 10, Lines 360-363, Equations (7)-(9):

The notation and explanation are inadequate. It is unclear whether these equations represent a regression or a linear model fit. What do the coefficients represent? Where are the statistical test data? Why is the sum from 3 to 8? The reader can only guess all this answers. The addition of the "index" -it in these equations is also unexplained.

Response 6: Agree. We added the explanation of these three equations. Please check line 220 to line 225. 3 to 8 represent the 3rd to 8th coefficients because there are already coefficients 0, 1 and 2.

 

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:    Re-edited the English version

5. Additional clarifications

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for inviting me to review Zheng and Maharjan paper named “Does rural labor transfer impact Chinese agricultural carbon emission efficiency? A substitution perspective of agricultural machinery”. After reading the whole paper, I think the research goal of this paper is clear, and the statistical method is reasonable. Because its results have certain guiding significance for understanding carbon emissions in rural China and proposing relevant measures, it will be widely read in the future and have good publication value. I recommend that major revisions. There are several suggestions for the author to improve the quality.

 

1. The second paragraph of the Introduction is too long. I suggest dividing it into two paragraphs from line 54. This treatment forms small paragraphs that are easier for the reader to read the paper. As far as I'm concerned, too much text in a paragraph makes reader miss the point, and don't want to read it.

2. The Literature review should be combined with the Introduction. Typically, the Introduction includes a review of relevant research and propose scientific questions based on the review. In addition, doing a Literature review alone will lead to a lot of duplicate contents.

3. I propose splitting the Theoretical framework into two parts. The first part should be merged with the Introduction, and the other part should be merged with Data and Model. The latter part corresponds to Materials and Methods. During the merge process, remove as much redundant content as possible. There are too many invalid statements in the current version.

4. The carbon emission standards of fertilizer and pesticide in Table 1 are quoted from the United States, why are they not data published by Chinese scientific institutions?

5. line 299-305：The carbon emissions of China's provinces should be shown in numerical terms. This section should be moved to the Results section.

6. line 345：The statistical value of Granger Causality test should be displayed.

8. line 382-401：Results and methods are mixed together. I suggest that the author move some non-result text into the Methods section. In the E\Results section, THE author need to present the most important results succinctly.

9. Line 449-454：Move this section into Methods section.

10. I propose to amend "4. Results" to "4. Results and Discussion". In this part, the author combines the results with the discussion. In addition, all the subheadings of 4.1-4.3 should be modified. When the results are combined with the discussion, you need to use your research conclusions as subheadings, not research methods.

11. line 382-394：Statistical variables such as χ2, CFI, TLI, and RMSEA should be used to judge the quality of SEM models, such as Xu et al. 2024 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172785). The authors need present them in their papers.

In conclusion, although the author's research is very meaningful, I really like its framework and logic. But at present, the paper is not organized according to the framework of Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion, Conclusions and Prospects. This leads to a lot of repetitive language and invalid statements. The combination of methods and results and discussions is not conducive to readers' reading. I suggest that the author reframe the paper and present it in a format that is easy for readers to accept. In addition, the statistical results of the research methods are not shown in the paper. This leads to a lack of credibility in the results, and it is recommended that it be added during the authors' revision.

Author Response

Comments 1: 1. The second paragraph of the Introduction is too long. I suggest dividing it into two paragraphs from line 54. This treatment forms small paragraphs that are easier for the reader to read the paper. As far as I'm concerned, too much text in a paragraph makes reader miss the point, and don't want to read it.

 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have restructured the introduction to make it easier for readers and to introduce our research more clearly. Please check line 27 to line 125.

 

Comments 2: 2. The Literature review should be combined with the Introduction. Typically, the Introduction includes a review of relevant research and propose scientific questions based on the review. In addition, doing a Literature review alone will lead to a lot of duplicate contents.

Response 2: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have restructured the introduction and combined it with a literature review. We removed duplicate content. Please check line 27 to line 125.

 

 

Comments 3: 3. I propose splitting the Theoretical framework into two parts. The first part should be merged with the Introduction, and the other part should be merged with Data and Model. The latter part corresponds to Materials and Methods. During the merge process, remove as much redundant content as possible. There are too many invalid statements in the current version.

Response 3: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We changed Data and Model into Materials and Methods and added some contents of the theoretical framework into Materials and Methods. Please check the section of Materials and Methods from line 127.

 

Comments 4: 4. The carbon emission standards of fertilizer and pesticide in Table 1 are quoted from the United States, why are they not data published by Chinese scientific institutions?.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We refer to the coefficient of agricultural carbon emissions in Zhuang's (2023) research. Please check line 139.

 

Comments 5: 5. line 299-305：The carbon emissions of China's provinces should be shown in numerical terms. This section should be moved to the Results section.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We revised Figure 2. Since the calculation of carbon emissions is relatively important and is related to the subsequent calculation of carbon emission efficiency, we put it in Materials and Methods. Please check line 128 to line 163.

 

Comments 6: 6. line 345：The statistical value of Granger Causality test should be displayed.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. Agree. We added the Z-statistic and p-values of the Granger Causality test. Since this is a Granger causality test for panel data, z-statistic has been shown. Please check line 208.

 

Comments 7: 8. line 382-401：Results and methods are mixed together. I suggest that the author move some non-result text into the Methods section. In the E\Results section, THE author need to present the most important results succinctly.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. Agree. We have moved this part to 2.3 Model and Method. Please check line 233 to line 255.

 

Comments 8: 9. Line 449-454：Move this section into Methods section.

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We have moved this part to Materials and Methods. Please check line 255 to line 261.

 

Comments 9: 10. I propose to amend "4. Results" to "4. Results and Discussion". In this part, the author combines the results with the discussion. In addition, all the subheadings of 4.1-4.3 should be modified. When the results are combined with the discussion, you need to use your research conclusions as subheadings, not research methods.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We have modified the subheadings. Please check line 264, line 307, line 368.

 

Comments 10: 11. line 382-394：Statistical variables such as χ2, CFI, TLI, and RMSEA should be used to judge the quality of SEM models, such as Xu et al. 2024 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172785). The authors need present them in their papers.

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We used a simultaneous equation model(SEM), and this article uses structural equation modelling (SEM). They are not the same model.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:    Re-edited the English version

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.        In the abstract, it is recommended that the background of the study be appropriately supplemented. In addition the abstract states “In this paper, the ratio of gross agricultural production (GAP) and agricultural carbon emission is defined as agricultural carbon emission efficiency (ACEE). emission is defined as agricultural carbon emission efficiency (ACEE)." Is this the definition given in this paper. If it is the definition given in this paper, then for what reason, if not, why is there the “In this paper,...... is defined as ......” expression?

2.        Line 27: In the introductory part of the article, you should introduce what scientific problem this research is going to solve and what practical significance it has; "With the advancement of urbanization in China, there is an irreversible trend of rural labor transfer to non-rural areas as well as non- agricultural production sectors.” The cause and effect of labor transfer to non-agricultural because of the advancement of urbanization is in conflict with the latter.

3.        Line 33-36: "More than 63.06% of China's total carbon emissions come from the industrial sector, but the agricultural sector remains important for achieving overall carbon reduction goal. With 17% of China's greenhouse gases originating from agriculture, compared to 7% in the U.S. and 11% globally, China's total carbon emissions of 63.06% come from the industrial sector, but the agricultural sector remains important for achieving overall carbon reduction goal. ” 63.06% of China's total carbon emissions originate from the industrial sector, so where is the need to study the rural areas, also, ‘17% of China's greenhouse gases originate from agriculture, compared to 7% in the U.S. and 11% globally’, what is the statement trying to say, suggest to write it in the text.

4.        Line 79: Literature review part of the synthesis content is not broad and deep enough, for example, Line125 “At present, there is no unified definition of carbon emission efficiency in the academic circles” is not too absolute? It is suggested to increase or decrease the number of references in the literature review part, the current citation is not comprehensive enough, for example, Line 81-82 “Current research on agricultural carbon emissions focuses on the measurement and efficiency of carbon emissions.

5.        Line 80: The meaning of the concept “standard carbon” should be explained.

6.        Line 95: In the theoretical framework section, it is proposed to explain why the use of fertilizers, agricultural films, diesel fuel and pesticides increases carbon emissions.

7.        Line 157: Line 157 mentions that the existing literature does not yet have a uniform measure of rural labor transfer: “The existing literature does not yet have a uniform measure of rural labor transfer. ” This is followed by an example that criticizes the inaccuracy of previous research. However, in line 170, the previous method is cited again, using a formula to measure rural labor transfer. Despite citing the previous literature, it does not directly point out in the text what makes the measure used in this study better than others and suggests targeted additions.

8.        Line 204: “and under the condition that the production method and technology level remain unchanged, the higher the carbon emissions represent the greater the output, and the carbon reduction behavior that ignores the output will affect the efficiency.” Please explain in detail, and label any citations.

9.        Lines 217-243: Two C appear in the first equation of formula (1), if the two C represent different meanings, it is suggested to modify one of them; if the meanings are the same, the first equation seems to be a wrong equation, please check it. Also, the second equation of Eq. (1) states that ACEE = GAP/C, but in the first equation of Eq. (1) 1/ACEE is used, so ∆ACEE in Eq. (2) does not match Eq. (1), please check and revise or add explanatory notes.

10.     Line 245: As it stands, Figure 1 has too many arrows, and as described in the article, Figure 1 should be able to be simplified to make it easier for the reader to understand. The picture frame is incomplete and changes are suggested.

11.     Line 274: When describing the data sources, all the data used in the study should be included, not only the yearbook data.

12.      Line 300-307: It is suggested that the map of China be projected for the sake of the aesthetics of the picture, and there is an extra font “text” in the Tibet section of the picture. In addition, it is written here: “Agricultural carbon emissions have a certain aggregation effect, and the big provinces of agricultural carbon emissions are mainly concentrated in North China, Northeast China, and North America. Agricultural carbon emissions have a certain aggregation effect, and the big provinces of agricultural carbon emissions are mainly concentrated in North China, Northeast China, and Central China, followed by Guangdong, Sichuan, and Xinjiang, which are also big provinces in terms of carbon emissions. terms of carbon emissions.” What are the criteria for ‘big provinces of agricultural carbon emissions’?

13.      Line 328: The axes in Figure 3 are missing units, the figure is not clear and the font size is too small. In addition, which folds are represented by the primary and secondary axes? The font of the picture is not Times New Roman and the horizontal lines inside the axes should be removed.

14.     Line 380: “4. Data and Model” and “4. Result”, please revise the title numbers.

15.     Line 534: In the conclusion section, it is mentioned that there is regional heterogeneity or even opposite impacts of the factors influencing agricultural carbon emissions in different regions, has the paper taken such differences into account when making policy recommendations? It is important to provide targeted advice to different regions to accurately promote agricultural carbon emission reduction. What are the possible innovations of this paper that are suggested to be indicated. In addition, the strengths and limitations of this paper should be mentioned.

16.     Line 537: Previously it was written that the 2SLS method was used for regression on the raw data (line 527), but here it is written “......and use the 3SLS method for regression analysis to draw the following conclusions.” Please check if the name of the method is wrong.

17.      Lines 565-578: The content of this section is a recommendation based on the conclusions of the study, but the current content does not seem to be well integrated with the conclusions of the study and is not deeply integrated with the current policy, so it is recommended to increase the relevance of this section to the conclusions of the paper and the current policy.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Comments 1: 1.        In the abstract, it is recommended that the background of the study be appropriately supplemented. In addition the abstract states “In this paper, the ratio of gross agricultural production (GAP) and agricultural carbon emission is defined as agricultural carbon emission efficiency (ACEE). emission is defined as agricultural carbon emission efficiency (ACEE)." Is this the definition given in this paper. If it is the definition given in this paper, then for what reason, if not, why is there the “In this paper,...... is defined as ......” expression?

 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We added support for the definition of ACEE. Please check line 11.

Comments 2: 2.        Line 27: In the introductory part of the article, you should introduce what scientific problem this research is going to solve and what practical significance it has; "With the advancement of urbanization in China, there is an irreversible trend of rural labor transfer to non-rural areas as well as non- agricultural production sectors.” The cause and effect of labor transfer to non-agricultural because of the advancement of urbanization is in conflict with the latter.

Response 2: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We deleted this unclear statement.

 

Comments 3: 3.        Line 33-36: "More than 63.06% of China's total carbon emissions come from the industrial sector, but the agricultural sector remains important for achieving overall carbon reduction goal. With 17% of China's greenhouse gases originating from agriculture, compared to 7% in the U.S. and 11% globally, China's total carbon emissions of 63.06% come from the industrial sector, but the agricultural sector remains important for achieving overall carbon reduction goal. ” 63.06% of China's total carbon emissions originate from the industrial sector, so where is the need to study the rural areas, also, ‘17% of China's greenhouse gases originate from agriculture, compared to 7% in the U.S. and 11% globally’, what is the statement trying to say, suggest to write it in the text.

Response 3: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We revised this statement. Please check line 29 to line 31.

 

Comments 4: 4.        Line 79: Literature review part of the synthesis content is not broad and deep enough, for example, Line125 “At present, there is no unified definition of carbon emission efficiency in the academic circles” is not too absolute? It is suggested to increase or decrease the number of references in the literature review part, the current citation is not comprehensive enough, for example, Line 81-82 “Current research on agricultural carbon emissions focuses on the measurement and efficiency of carbon emissions.

Response 4: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We deleted these unclear statements.

 

Comments 5: 5.        Line 80: The meaning of the concept “standard carbon” should be explained..

Response 5: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We removed the presentation of standard carbon and used the IPCC to explain agricultural carbon emissions. Please check line 129 to line 132

 

Comments 6: 6.        Line 95: In the theoretical framework section, it is proposed to explain why the use of fertilizers, agricultural films, diesel fuel and pesticides increases carbon emissions.

Response 6: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We explained why the use of fertilizers, agricultural films, diesel fuel and pesticides increases carbon emissions. in line 129 to line 144.

 

Comments 7: 7.        Line 157: Line 157 mentions that the existing literature does not yet have a uniform measure of rural labor transfer: “The existing literature does not yet have a uniform measure of rural labor transfer. ” This is followed by an example that criticizes the inaccuracy of previous research. However, in line 170, the previous method is cited again, using a formula to measure rural labor transfer. Despite citing the previous literature, it does not directly point out in the text what makes the measure used in this study better than others and suggests targeted additions.

Response 7: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We deleted these unclear statements.

 

Comments 8: 8.        Line 204: “and under the condition that the production method and technology level remain unchanged, the higher the carbon emissions represent the greater the output, and the carbon reduction behavior that ignores the output will affect the efficiency.” Please explain in detail, and label any citations.

Response 8: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We deleted these unclear statements.

 

Comments 9: 9.        Lines 217-243: Two C appear in the first equation of formula (1), if the two C represent different meanings, it is suggested to modify one of them; if the meanings are the same, the first equation seems to be a wrong equation, please check it. Also, the second equation of Eq. (1) states that ACEE = GAP/C, but in the first equation of Eq. (1) 1/ACEE is used, so ∆ACEE in Eq. (2) does not match Eq. (1), please check and revise or add explanatory notes.

Response 9: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We revised this equation.  Please check line 94.

 

Comments 10: 10.     Line 245: As it stands, Figure 1 has too many arrows, and as described in the article, Figure 1 should be able to be simplified to make it easier for the reader to understand. The picture frame is incomplete and changes are suggested.

Response 10: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We revised Figure 1.  Please check line 78.

 

Comments 11: 11.     Line 274: When describing the data sources, all the data used in the study should be included, not only the yearbook data.

Response 11: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We provided a more detailed description of the data sources.  Please check line 165 to line 171.

 

Comments 12: 12.      Line 300-307: It is suggested that the map of China be projected for the sake of the aesthetics of the picture, and there is an extra font “text” in the Tibet section of the picture. In addition, it is written here: “Agricultural carbon emissions have a certain aggregation effect, and the big provinces of agricultural carbon emissions are mainly concentrated in North China, Northeast China, and North America. Agricultural carbon emissions have a certain aggregation effect, and the big provinces of agricultural carbon emissions are mainly concentrated in North China, Northeast China, and Central China, followed by Guangdong, Sichuan, and Xinjiang, which are also big provinces in terms of carbon emissions. terms of carbon emissions.” What are the criteria for ‘big provinces of agricultural carbon emissions’?

Response 12: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We modified this map using ArcGIS. We deleted some unclear statements and described this map again.  Please check line 151 to line 161.

 

Comments 13: 13.      Line 328: The axes in Figure 3 are missing units, the figure is not clear and the font size is too small. In addition, which folds are represented by the primary and secondary axes? The font of the picture is not Times New Roman and the horizontal lines inside the axes should be removed.

Response 13: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We revised the figure 3. Please check line 199. And we explained the units in lines 184 and 185.

 

Comments 14: 14.     Line 380: “4. Data and Model” and “4. Result”, please revise the title numbers.

Response 14: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We revised all of the title numbers.

 

 

Comments 15: 15.     Line 534: In the conclusion section, it is mentioned that there is regional heterogeneity or even opposite impacts of the factors influencing agricultural carbon emissions in different regions, has the paper taken such differences into account when making policy recommendations? It is important to provide targeted advice to different regions to accurately promote agricultural carbon emission reduction. What are the possible innovations of this paper that are suggested to be indicated. In addition, the strengths and limitations of this paper should be mentioned.

Response 15: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We revised the recommendations and added innovations and limitations in the conclusions. Please check line 399 to line 485.

 

Comments 16:   16.     Line 537: Previously it was written that the 2SLS method was used for regression on the raw data (line 527), but here it is written “......and use the 3SLS method for regression analysis to draw the following conclusions.” Please check if the name of the method is wrong.

Response 16: Thank you for pointing this out. 2SLS was used to do robustness tests. We explain it in line 390.

 

Comments 17: 17.      Lines 565-578: The content of this section is a recommendation based on the conclusions of the study, but the current content does not seem to be well integrated with the conclusions of the study and is not deeply integrated with the current policy, so it is recommended to increase the relevance of this section to the conclusions of the paper and the current policy.

Response 17: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We revised the recommendations according to our study’s results. Please check line 434 to line 452.

 

 

 

 

 

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1: Re-edited the English version

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. It is suggested to list the innovation points of the article in the literature review section

 

2. The theoretical analysis of the article is insufficient, and the theoretical basis proposed in Hypothesis 2 is not elaborated in detail. It is suggested to add relevant theoretical analysis.

 

3. Figure 2 shows the distribution of agricultural carbon emissions in China in 2021, but the carbon emission data in the figure lacks units, and it is suggested to supplement.

 

4. There is a problem with the description of figure 3. The year of rapid growth in rural labor transfer (RLT) is 2019-2020, not 2015. At the same time, it does not explain why the intensity of agricultural mechanization has declined since 2015, which seems to be inconsistent with the reality

 

5. The policy recommendations should match the research conclusions, and it is suggested that the policy recommendations should be modified according to the research conclusions drawn from the article.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

1. It is suggested to list the innovation points of the article in the literature review section

 

2. The theoretical analysis of the article is insufficient, and the theoretical basis proposed in Hypothesis 2 is not elaborated in detail. It is suggested to add relevant theoretical analysis.

 

3. Figure 2 shows the distribution of agricultural carbon emissions in China in 2021, but the carbon emission data in the figure lacks units, and it is suggested to supplement.

 

4. There is a problem with the description of figure 3. The year of rapid growth in rural labor transfer (RLT) is 2019-2020, not 2015. At the same time, it does not explain why the intensity of agricultural mechanization has declined since 2015, which seems to be inconsistent with the reality

 

5. The policy recommendations should match the research conclusions, and it is suggested that the policy recommendations should be modified according to the research conclusions drawn from the article.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: 1. It is suggested to list the innovation points of the article in the literature review section

 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have listed the innovation points of the article in the literature review section. Please check lines 117 to 126.

 

Comments 2: 2. The theoretical analysis of the article is insufficient, and the theoretical basis proposed in Hypothesis 2 is not elaborated in detail. It is suggested to add relevant theoretical analysis.

Response 2: Agree. We added more theoretical basis. Please check line 43 , line 53, line59, line 69 and line 72. We proposed hypothesis 2 by varying Kaya Identity; please check line 93 to line 112.

 

 

Comments 3: 3. Figure 2 shows the distribution of agricultural carbon emissions in China in 2021, but the carbon emission data in the figure lacks units, and it is suggested to supplement.

Response 3: Agree. We added units in Figure 2. Please check line 162.

 

Comments 4: 4. There is a problem with the description of Figure 3. The year of rapid growth in rural labor transfer (RLT) is 2019-2020, not 2015. At the same time, it does not explain why the intensity of agricultural mechanization has declined since 2015, which seems to be inconsistent with the reality

 

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We explained Figure 3 again. Please check line 199. And we explained the units in lines 184 and 185.

 

Comments 5: 5. The policy recommendations should match the research conclusions, and it is suggested that the policy recommendations should be modified according to the research conclusions drawn from the article.

 

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We revised the recommendations and added innovations and limitations in the conclusions.

Please check line 399 to line 485.

 

 

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:    Re-edited the English version

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The issue addressed in the peer-reviewed article discusses the question: does and how does rural labor transfer impact Chinese agricultural carbon emission efficiency. The Authors made the perspective of agricultural machinery substitution the background of their study.

The paper's topic is in line with the journal's profile. In the proposed scope, the paper is important and generally correct. However, I recommend a few corrections to improve the quality of this article:

-          complete the review of international literature (not only on the perspective of Chinese agriculture) /section 2/ ; I am encouraged to expand on the theoretical background, which only vestigially alludes to the New Economics of Labor Migration (NELM) concept.

-          to precisely define the research scenario (it is very general); needed to clarify the scope of the study and consequently a clear, step-by-step, simple, synthetic research pattern; I recommend more precision, as the reader should know how to repeat a similar analysis on this basis (please consistently correct section 2 and 3);  

-          to improve the readability and description of tables (since they are the basis for analysis verification), supplement the history of their description, a clear and not laconic reference in the paper;

-          supplement the discussion and summary descriptive analysis (please do so in a separate section) .

Please remember that the formulated objectives - find a clear answer in the conclusion of the study. Is this really the way it works? Does the conclusion answer all the questions posed at the beginning of the paper (expressed in objectives and hypotheses)? Please complete it and also correct it.

Proposing a simultaneous equation model (SEM) of ACEE, RLT and AMI, the authors analyzed the interaction mechanism of the three variables using the three least squares (3SLS) method, verifying the endogeneity of the model.

Two (actually three) hypotheses were formulated:

(1a). Rural labor transfer will impact agricultural carbon emission efficiency;

(1b). Agricultural machinery intensity will impact agricultural carbon emission efficiency;

(2). There are interactive influence mechanisms among agricultural carbon emission efficiency, rural labor transfer and agricultural machinery intensity.

Please verify that the result of hypothesis evaluation is given? Is it indicated on what basis the authors confirm or falsify them. For each question raised by the researchers, there should be an answer given in the discussion and then in the conclusion.

Meanwhile, the following conclusions were drawn:

The first: RLT and AMI significantly promote improvement of ACEE, while improvement of ACEE and AMI further promotes RLT.

The second: the causal relationship and impact mechanism of ACEE, RLT and AMI are interactive and multi-directional.

Which, according to the authors, is enough to conclude that: AMI growth promotes ACEE, but ACEE growth inhibits AMI growth. That is, it is suggested that the marginal rate of substitution of machinery for labor is decreasing. It is necessary to demonstrate not only in general, but to give the resulting research a basis for the claim that, factors such as the economic base, the level of technology and the attitudes of farmers provide environmental support for effective improvement of ACEE.

I also strongly suggest that recommendations for specific, practical, not only general (and not entirely clear) applications of this research shall be provided (section 5).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of this paper is relatively correct, however some descriptions would benefit from being more concise (please include native speaker verification).

Author Response

Comments 1: complete the review of international literature (not only on the perspective of Chinese agriculture) /section 2/ ; I am encouraged to expand on the theoretical background, which only vestigially alludes to the New Economics of Labor Migration (NELM) concept.

 

Response 1: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We added more theoretical basis. Please check line 43, line 53, line59, line 69 and line 72. We proposed hypothesis 2 by varying Kaya Identify, please check line 93 to line 112.

 

Comments 2: to precisely define the research scenario (it is very general); needed to clarify the scope of the study and consequently a clear, step-by-step, simple, synthetic research pattern; I recommend more precision, as the reader should know how to repeat a similar analysis on this basis (please consistently correct section 2 and 3); 

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have restructured the introduction to make it easier for readers and to introduce our research more clearly. Please check line 27 to line 125. We changed Data and Model into Materials and Methods and added some contents of the theoretical framework into Materials and Methods. Please check the section of Materials and Methods from line 127.

 

Comments 3:  to improve the readability and description of tables (since they are the basis for

analysis verification), supplement the history of their description, a clear and not laconic reference in

 the paper;

Response 3: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We revised figure 2. Please check line 128 to line 163. We revised Figure 1.  Please check line 78. We describe tables in more detail, for example, we added the explanation of Descriptive statistics table. Please check line 182.

 

Comments 4:  supplement the discussion and summary descriptive analysis (please do so in a separate section) .;

Response 4: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We have added this section. Please check line 265 to line 396.

 

Comments 5:  Please remember that the formulated objectives - find a clear answer in the conclusion of the study. Is this really the way it works? Does the conclusion answer all the questions posed at the beginning of the paper (expressed in objectives and hypotheses)? Please complete it and also correct it.

Response 5: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We revised the conclusions according to our hypotheses, added innovations and limitations in the conclusions.

Please check line 399 to line 485

 

Comments 6:  I also strongly suggest that recommendations for specific, practical, not only general (and not entirely clear) applications of this research shall be provided (section 5).

Response 6: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We revised the recommendations according to our study’s results. Please check line 434 to line 452.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:    Re-edited the English version

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the editor for inviting me to review the paper again. After reading it carefully, I found that the author made a good reply to my comment. The quality of the paper has been greatly improved. I suggest that the author revise and accept the following minor problem.

Figure 2. Please explain the source of the vector base map, which I believe is not made by the author himself.

Author Response

Comments 1: Figure 2. Please explain the source of the vector base map, which I believe is not made by the author himself.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We calculated the Chinese agricultural carbon emissions data and generated Figure 2 using ArcGIS 10.8.1. We added a description of the source of Figure 2; please check lines 151 to 155.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf