Agricultural Production Efficiency and Differentiation of City Clusters along the Middle Reaches of Yangtze River under Environmental Constraints

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, please find below my detailed feedback aimed at refining and strengthening your manuscript for its next revision.

Abstract:

1. Specify which environmental variables were considered and how they impact agricultural efficiency. The abstract mentions "unexpected environmental output," but does not clarify what these are.
2. The abstract should explicitly state key quantitative findings, such as the percentage increase or decrease in efficiency, to provide a clearer picture of the research impact.
3. Include at least one sentence on the implications of these findings for regional agricultural policies or management strategies.
4. Briefly mention how this study fills a gap in existing literature, particularly concerning the SBM and SFA models’ application in this geographic context.
5. Ensure that the keywords include "environmental constraints" and other relevant terms directly tied to the manuscript's core focus areas.

Introduction:

1. Provide specific examples of previous studies that have used SBM and SFA models in similar contexts, including any limitations or gaps in these studies.
2. Clearly state the research question or hypothesis at the end of the introduction to focus the reader on what the study specifically seeks to address.
3. Explain why the middle reaches of the Yangtze River are specifically chosen for this study, including any unique environmental or agricultural characteristics of this region.
4. Frame the study’s objective within the broader context of sustainable agriculture and regional planning.
5. Integrate a brief discussion on the theoretical framework guiding the study, linking agricultural efficiency with environmental constraints.

Methodology:

1. Clearly state and justify the assumptions made in the SBM model, such as constant returns to scale, and discuss their implications on the study’s outcomes.
2. Specify the sources of data, the period it covers, and any limitations regarding data quality or completeness that might affect the results.
3. Explain the rationale behind the selection of parameters and variables included in the SBM and SFA models, linking them directly to the study's objectives.
4. Describe any robustness checks or sensitivity analyses performed to test the stability of the model outcomes under different assumptions or parameters.
5. Include a comparative analysis section to benchmark the results against other regions or previous studies to highlight the model’s effectiveness.

Results:

1. Provide more detailed findings related to the efficiency trends, if possible, including exact figures and statistical significance levels.
2. Compare the results obtained from the SBJ model and the SFA model to discuss any discrepancies or confirmations between the two methods.
3. Discuss the influence of specific factors like economic development, urbanization, and government policies on agricultural efficiency in a more quantified manner.
4. Relate the results back to the specific environmental and agricultural context of the Yangtze River region, explaining how the findings are relevant to local stakeholders.

Discussion:

1. Tie each point in the discussion directly back to results presented, specifying how they support or contradict existing theories or other empirical studies.
2. Discuss specific policies that could be influenced by these findings, including agricultural subsidies, resource allocation, or environmental regulation.
3. Discuss specific limitations related to the methodology, such as potential biases introduced by omitted variables or model specification errors.
4. Propose specific areas for future research, including potential modifications to the models used or different regions for comparative analysis.
5. Clarify the contribution of the results to theoretical advancements in the field of agricultural economics or environmental management.

Conclusion and Recommendations:

1. Concisely summarize the most critical findings, highlighting their relevance to the efficiency of agricultural production under environmental constraints.
2. Provide more actionable recommendations for practitioners and policymakers based on the study’s findings.
3. Discuss the long-term implications of the findings for sustainable agricultural practices in the Yangtze River region.
4. Clarify the contribution of this study to the existing literature, particularly in terms of understanding the impact of environmental constraints on agricultural efficiency.
5. Offer tailored recommendations for different stakeholders, including local governments, farmers, and environmental groups, detailing how they can apply the study's findings to improve agricultural efficiency.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript's use of English is generally clear but could benefit from revisions to address occasional grammatical errors, awkward phrasings, and inconsistencies in terminology. Simplifying complex sentences and ensuring correct punctuation would enhance readability and professional presentation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General opinion: The manuscript discusses and analyses the problem of agricultural production efficiency, incorporating the measures of unexpected (and unwanted) environmental output (i.e. carbon emission and pollution) into the usual concept of production efficiency. This assessment is used then to compare 31 cities in China, and identifying clusters of them. The methodology chosen is clear, but the details and the explanation of the results have some flaws which should be corrected before the paper is considered for publication. See details below.

 Language: the language is generally good, and understandable, but there are a number of grammar and usage errors, which should be corrected - please see below, in detail.

Detailed suggestions about content:

General problem: Please check the numbering of tables. You have a Tab1 in page 6, then a Tab2 in page 7, then Table 1 again in page 9, which should be Table 3, obviously. Line 325 then should mention not Table 1, but Table 3.

Abstract:  It is good, and clear, except for some language errors. But when you use SBM model (L13) and SFA (L14) write out the full names before you start using the acronyms.

Introduction:

·        L49-50: when you mention the absolute figures of 0.19 million people and 4.3 thousand hectares, please add what percentage these values represent of the total labour force, and total arable land of the region, respectively.

·        L63, and L68: you mention to „some scholar”, and „..scholars try to…” – please add more references to support your statements here.

·        L82: Please add more references about applications of DEA in China.

·        L83: Explain briefly the difference between radial and non-radial DEA models here.

·        L91: Explain the meaning of „FGLS models”, and write out the full name before you are using the acronym.

·        L100: Add a reference to the sentence ending in the middle of the line.

·        L105: Give the full name of the SBM model at its first mention.

·        L115-129: Please add further references to this paragraph. At the end of the paragraph state clearly the novelty of the paper, and the research questions you are going to answer with the research presented in the manuscript.

·        L140:  „Eq….” should be „In Eq. 1…..”

·        L 166: „Based on the former scholars…” please add here the references to these scholars.

Data and Indicator(s):

·        L181-202: The paragraph lists a lot of cities in China. It should be needed to add a map of China indicating the locations of these cities.

·        L199-201: The statistical yearbooks mentioned as data sources are not listed in the References section. Please include them in the References.

·        L201: You refer to missing data – please mention what proportion of your data were missing, so what propotion of the data is adjusted by the mentioned exponential smoothing.

·        L215-216: please give justification for using agricultural electrification as a proxy for capital input,  e.g. references that support your choice.

·        L216: How do you measure labor force? Do you consider raw numbers, or is there any adjustment made for full-time and part-time labor?

·        L263: „Most of the existing studies..” please give references to these studies.

·        L277: Table 2:  For Y2 (undesired output) you mention two variables/indicators, the carbon emmissions and the surface pollution. Please clarify how your are going to handle two indicators in one variable.

·        L277: A descriptive statistics table of the variables listed in Table 2 should be provided for the area under study.

Empirical analysis:

·        When you are explaining the results of SFA-analysis in Table 1 (p9),  there are some discrepancies between the Table and the text. Please double – check the table and the text.

·        L285: you use the expression „overall efficiency” , while in Figure 2 you use „comprehensive effficiency”. Please use the same expression in both case.

·        L287: Please explain how you created an overall time series from the city-wise data of the 31 selected cities. Is is a simple average value of all cities, or have you applied some other method for aggregation?

·        L329-330: Please check the values in Table 1  - the signs of the  coefficients for  X1, X2 are positive and of the coefficients for X6, X7 are negative, but you say that the impacts of these are all negative…

·        L349: What do you mean by „….’one-thirty-eight’ people left behind ..”? Please explain.

·        L356:  What is the „Raise the children for old age” model mentioned here? Please explain.

·        L356: Instead of the word „drugs” it is better to mention „chemicals”.

·        L361-362: The coefficient value of agricultural films is positive in Table 1, not negative as in the text

·        L393-394: Explain in more detail how the mentioned adjustment is made, or give a numerical example based on your results.

·        L400: you use the expression „overall efficiency” while later in L404 and in Figure 3  you use „comprehensive effficiency”. Please use the same expression everywhere.

·        L447: the mentioned „high-in-the-west-low-in-the-east” concept is somewhat meaningless here, without seeing the geographical locations of the three city clusters.  A map should clearly indicate which cluster is in the east, and which in the west. You can use Figs 4-5-6 for this purpose, denoting the boundaries of the mentioned city clusters, or insert a separate map.

·        L451: „… three major city clusters” – Please clarify, how you created the mentioned 3 city clusters – maybe the map could indicate their location. You should also clarify the aggregation method for the city clusters. The data you are using are city-wise data, so when you grouped the cities into 3 clusters, how is the aggregation made in these clusters? How many cities belong to each cluster? What are the characteristics of these clusters?  A descriptive statistics table of the variables listed in Table 2 should be provided for these city clusters.

·        Figures 7-8: The maps do not outline clearly the three city clusters. The maps should clearly show which region belongs to which city cluster mentioned in Figs. 4-5-6.

Discussions (?)

There is no separate „discussions” section in the paper. In the Empirical results- section the authors explain their findings in the context of the analysed region, but there are hardly any references to previous results (only two sources, ref 40 and ref 41 are mentioned once). A more detailed reflection is needed on your findings here – what similarities or what differences you found in comparison to previous research about this region, or related to the applied methodology. Can you make any relevant comparisons with other empirical studies using the non-expected.output-SBM and SFA approach?

 Conclusions and recommendations

The structure of this section is sound, buti t is very hard to evaluate the conclusions as there are flaws or discrepancies between the textual explanation of the results and the figures presented in Table 1 (p9, correctly Table 3). Please check the figures in the table, adjust the explanations accordingly, and then modify the conclusions, if needed.

Assuming that the textual explanations are correct, and the mistakes are in Table 3 (regarding the signs of the referred coefficients) the conclusions are good, and the policy recommendations are reasonable.

References:

The listed 41 items are relevant, they contain contemporary references, but as it was mentioned  above, some additional references should be added, to justify the mentioned sections of the manuscript.

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language: the language is generally good, and understandable, but there are a number of grammar and usage errors, which should be corrected. There are problems with singular-plural noun and verb matches,  missing spaces between words, etc. A few examples are listed below, but the authors should carefully check the whole text for such errors:

·        L28-29: „Both production …. and  pure….. haven’t reached”… should be „Neither production …. nor pure… have reached..”

·        L37-38: The first sentence of Introduction does not have a verb in the sentence. Instead of the expression in L38 „…and south, which plays an..” should be „…and south play an..” to correct this mistake.

·        L99: „has arisen” should be „has raised”

·        L104: „could not analyzed” should be „could not analyze”.

·        L121: ..”..studies mainly takes capital,…” should be „studies mainly take capital,…”

·        L134: ”Yangtze Riveras each..” should be :”Yangtze River as each..” (i.e. a space was missing)

·        L135.: „input term” should be „input terms”, and „output term”  should be „output terms”

·        L163 and L163: „..Indicates” should be „..indicates”

·        L165: „Denote” should be „denote”

·        L166. What do you mean here by the „Eq” term? If you wish to refer to some of the earlier equations, please refer back to the relevant number (I assume, you refer to Eq. 4 – but the mathematical formula is ambiguous here.)

·        L168: „ Reflects” should be „reflect”.

·        L170: at the end of the line the „to1” should be „to 1”, so a space is missing.

·        L185: Instead of „Data and Indicator” the title should be „Data and Indicators” in plural form.

·        Etc., please check the rest of the text for such errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript looks fine to be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your support.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have carefully considered my review recommendations. The required corrections were made in nearly all cases satisfactorily.

When the corrections were not made, the authors gave a reasonable explanation why they did not follow my suggestions. I can accept these considerations.

 

There is only one issue - in which the authors asked for further clarification of my comment.

This is the following (referring to the authors' Cover letter provided with the first review round).

(Reviewer's) Comments 21: L277: A descriptive statistics table of the variables listed in Table 2 should be

provided for the area under study.

(Authors') Response 21: The statistical description has a relatively small contribution to the subsequent

research, and due to limited space, the statistical description data was not displayed. I'm sorry

to ask, but if the editor feels it's necessary to display it, does it need to be displayed in every

city? I think this may not be appropriate, and I hope the reviewer can clearly explain what

kind of data needs to be presented.

 

What I mean here is to give the overall mean and the standard deviation for each variable mentioned in table 2. Of course, not for every city separately, but for the whole data series you are using. This surely should not take too much space in the manuscript, the two new columns could be inserted into Table 2.

This is the only thing I would suggest as further improvement, and otherwise the paper is good for publication.

Author Response

The overall mean and the standard deviation have been added in the newly revised manuscript.