The Impact of Technological Innovations on Agricultural Productivity and Environmental Sustainability in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the paper deals with an intriguing subject, it need some adjustments to boost its quality further:

* The abstract is poorly stated; the authors should make it more constructive.

* The importance of this study and how it will fill a vacuum left by past research should be clearly stated in the introduction.

* Figure 1 need improvement in terms of quality.

* Each equation must be thoroughly rechecked, with theoretical justification.

* Explain the outcomes of the tables appropriately.

* Some paragraphs don't have proper citations, need to check carefully.

* The paper has too many subsections; eliminate those that are unnecessary.

* Conclusions should have policy implications. It is necessary to eliminate the citations. Include the policy implications, limitations, and future research directions separately.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper has many grammatical issues, that need to be corrected.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Although the paper deals with an intriguing subject, it needs some adjustments to boost its quality further:

Point 1: The abstract is poorly stated; the authors should make it more constructive.

Response 1:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion to revise the abstract. This restructuring aligns with the recommended format, highlighting the research motivations, methods, results, and implications concisely. The revised abstract is:

“Abstract

Agricultural productivity in China is a fundamental driver of food security and economic growth. Yet, the sector faces profound challenges due to environmental degradation and climate change, which threaten sustainable agricultural practices. This research examines the effects of technological innovations on agricultural total factor productivity and environmental sustainability in China from 2012 to 2022. The study seeks to understand how technological advancements, when considered alongside socioeconomic variables, impact agricultural output while balancing ecological integrity. Employing a comprehensive methodological framework, this research integrates fixed effects, random effects, and multilevel mixed-effects models to analyze crucial factors including rural education, technological capability, and environmental conservation initiatives. The study further utilizes structural equation modeling to evaluate both the direct and indirect effects of these determinants on productivity. The results demonstrate that technological innovations substantially enhance agricultural productivity, particularly in provinces with higher socioeconomic development. Additionally, sustainable farming practices and tailored policy interventions are identified as vital in addressing regional productivity imbalances. The research concludes by underscoring the necessity for continued integration of environmental considerations and emerging technologies to ensure the sustainability of agricultural growth over the long term.”

 

Point 2: The importance of this study and how it will fill a vacuum left by past research should be clearly stated in the introduction.

Response 2:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your suggestion, we have clarified the importance of this study and how it addresses a critical gap left by previous research in the introduction. The revised introduction is:

“…The significance of this study lies in its ability to address critical gaps in existing research by offering a comprehensive framework that integrates technological innovations, socioeconomic dynamics, and environmental sustainability into the analysis of agricultural productivity. Prior studies have often adopted a narrow focus—isolating technological advancements or policy interventions—without sufficiently exploring the intricate interactions between these elements. This study fills that void by thoroughly examining how these factors collectively influence agricultural productivity, especially within the broader context of sustainable development. Moreover, the research highlights the necessity of region-specific strategies, tailored to address the distinct socioeconomic and environmental contexts, an aspect that has been largely overlooked in previous research efforts​. [2-12]”

 

Point 3: Figure 1 need improvement in terms of quality.

Response 3:

Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the quality of Figure 1. I agree that the current figure requires enhancement in terms of resolution and clarity. To address this, the revised introduction is:

 

Figure 1 The Historical Overview Traces the Evolution of AP across Key Periods

Point 4: Each equation must be thoroughly rechecked, with theoretical justification.

Response 4:

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the equations and their theoretical justification. In response, we have thoroughly reviewed each equation and ensured that they are aligned with the appropriate theoretical frameworks. The models employed in this study—multilevel mixed-effects models (MLM), panel data fixed effects model (FEM), random effects model (REM), and structural equation modeling (SEM)—have been carefully re-examined for accuracy.

FEM controls for unobserved, time-invariant factors, assuming they are correlated with the independent variables, thus aligning with Human Capital Theory, which links education, training, and labor mobility to productivity gains. REM explores both within- and between-region variations by assuming province-specific factors are uncorrelated with independent variables, providing insights into regional disparities. MLM addresses hierarchical data structures, effectively capturing macro- and micro-level interactions across regions and time. Lastly, SEM allows for the exploration of complex causal relationships, particularly the direct and indirect effects of technological and socioeconomic factors on productivity. These theoretical justifications ensure that each equation reflects the underlying models' assumptions and contributions to the analysis of agricultural productivity and sustainability.

The revised Model Design is:“

This study employs a comprehensive approach to assess the factors affecting AP by integrating panel data fixed effects model (FEM) and random effects model (REM), multilevel mixed-effects models (MLM), and SEM. These methodologies enable the analysis of socioeconomic, environmental, and technological variables, accounting for regional and temporal variations. FEM, controls for unobserved, time-invariant characteristics like geography or policy history, assuming these factors are correlated with independent variables. This model is particularly useful for isolating within-region variations and aligns with Human Capital Theory, which links education, training, and labor mobility to productivity gains. REM, in contrast, assumes province-specific factors are uncorrelated with the independent variables, making it well-suited for exploring both within- and between-region variations, offering insights into cross-regional disparities in resource allocation and economic development.

MLM captures interactions between macro-level and micro-level variables, making it ideal for studying how socioeconomic, environmental, and technological factors impact productivity across regions and over time. By accounting for individual and group-level variations, MLM effectively examines the role of infrastructure, policies, and labor mobility in shaping outcomes. Finally, SEM provides a comprehensive approach to examining causal relationships between latent constructs, such as technological skill capacity and socioeconomic dynamics, while capturing the indirect effects of environmental and socioeconomic factors on agricultural productivity. Together, these models provide a nuanced analysis of how technological, socioeconomic, and environmental factors interact across regions, offering key insights for optimizing productivity while maintaining sustainability.

…“

 

Point 5: Explain the outcomes of the tables appropriately.

Response 5:

Thank you for the constructive feedback. We have thoroughly reviewed each table and ensured that all equations and outcomes are explained clearly with theoretical justification.

The analysis employs various econometric models, including Fixed Effects Model (FEM), Random Effects Model (REM), Multilevel Mixed-Effects Model (MLM), and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Each table reflects the relationships between the key variables influencing agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability, and the results from each model highlight significant theoretical insights.

For example, Table 8 demonstrates the path coefficients, where the positive coefficient between Technological Skill Capacity Building (TSCB) and Socioeconomic Dynamics (SED) (B = 0.61) emphasizes the role of skill development in enhancing rural labor productivity. This aligns with Human Capital Theory, which asserts that investments in education and training lead to more efficient workforce participation. The negative direct effect of TSCB on Per Capita Output of Primary Industry (PCOPI) in some cases also supports the Socio-Technical Systems Theory, indicating that introducing advanced technology in regions lacking sufficient socioeconomic support can initially disrupt traditional agricultural practices.

Similarly, Table 9 outlines the mediation effects, where SED and Agricultural Development Resources (ADR) mediate the relationship between TSCB and PCOPI. These findings support the Diffusion of Innovation Theory, showing how human capital and resource management strengthen the impact of technological innovation on agricultural productivity.

In summary, the tables collectively demonstrate the nuanced interplay of technology, socioeconomic development, and environmental sustainability on agricultural outcomes. We have rechecked the equations and provided thorough theoretical explanations to ensure clarity and accuracy. Thank you again for your insightful comments, which have significantly improved the rigor and clarity of the results.

 

Point 6: Some paragraphs don't have proper citations, need to check carefully.

Response 6:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. I have thoroughly rechecked each paragraph in the document to ensure all necessary citations are properly integrated. The sections requiring additional citations have been reviewed, and I have ensured that references to the relevant literature are clearly cited. This process has ensured that the arguments and data presented are adequately supported by existing research, enhancing the overall credibility and accuracy of the document.

By thoroughly cross-referencing with the existing body of work, I have addressed the lack of citations in certain paragraphs. Each relevant source is now correctly cited, ensuring alignment with the academic rigor expected in scholarly publications. This not only strengthens the theoretical foundation but also provides readers with a clear pathway to the original sources for further exploration.

I appreciate the reviewer's attention to this detail and am confident that the revised version fully meets the requirements for proper citation.

 

Point 7: The paper has too many subsections; eliminate those that are unnecessary.

Response 7:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your comment regarding the number of subsections, I have carefully reviewed the structure of the paper. I have identified areas where subsections could be consolidated or eliminated without compromising the clarity or depth of the analysis. This adjustment streamlines the document, ensuring a more coherent flow while maintaining the integrity of the arguments presented.

By reducing the number of subsections, the paper now presents the findings and discussions in a more focused and succinct manner, which enhances readability and strengthens the overall narrative. This revision ensures that only the essential subsections remain, contributing to a more concise and organized structure. Thank you again for your thoughtful suggestions.

Point 8: Conclusions should have policy implications. It is necessary to eliminate the citations. Include the policy implications, limitations, and future research directions separately.

Response 8:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. Based on your suggestions, I have revised the conclusions to include distinct sections on policy implications, limitations, and future research directions, while eliminating citations as requested.

The revised “6.4 Policy Implications” and “7. Conclusion” is:“

6.4 Policy Implications

The study's findings on agricultural productivity suggest a comprehensive policy approach, balancing investments in technology, socioeconomic development, and environmental sustainability. Below are strategic recommendations based on these insights, supported by real-world examples and relevant theories.

Human Capital Theory emphasizes education and skill development's role in enhancing labor productivity. In agriculture, improving farmers' technical abilities to adopt modern technologies drives productivity. Policymakers should: (1) Expand Technical Training Programs (ATT): Offer practical training in using modern machinery, digital tools, and precision agriculture to optimize resource use and improve yields. (2) Strengthen Rural Education (REE): Invest in rural education to build a workforce capable of long-term technological integration. Jiangsu's success in combining technical training with educational reforms illustrates the productivity gains from mechanized and digital agriculture. However, Zhu et al. [52] caution that while ICT improves labor productivity, it may shift focus from agriculture, affecting grain production.

According to Diffusion of Innovation Theory, socioeconomic conditions shape technological adoption. Policymakers should: (1) Increase Rural Disposable Income (RDI): Boost incomes through subsidies, employment, and diversification programs, enabling investment in agricultural inputs like seeds and machinery. (2) Facilitate Labor Mobility (RLM): Encourage rural-urban migration to transfer skills and remittances that fuel agricultural investment. In Sichuan, rural infrastructure and labor mobility policies have driven productivity by improving access to markets, technology, and knowledge transfer.

The Environmental Kuznets Curve suggests economic growth can eventually support sustainability investments. Policymakers should: (1) Promote Agroecological Practices: Support sustainable practices like agroforestry and organic farming to integrate environmental goals with productivity. (2) Implement Resource Conservation Programs: Allocate more resources to environmental protection (PEPS) for pollution control and conservation. Fujian’s focus on agroforestry and organic farming has enhanced productivity while preserving forest coverage, showing the benefits of balancing sustainability with technological growth.

Economies of Scale Theory highlights the importance of infrastructure in lowering costs and improving efficiency. Policymakers should: (1) Invest in Rural Infrastructure (RR): Build and upgrade roads, irrigation, and transportation to improve market access and reduce costs. (2) Increase Agricultural Investment (AI): Provide subsidies, loans, and grants to help farmers adopt advanced technologies and sustainable practices. In Hebei, rural road development has reduced transportation costs and increased market access, significantly boosting productivity.

Findings from MME Models show that agricultural productivity is influenced by region-specific factors. Policymakers should: (1) Customize Policies to Regional Needs: Tailor policies to each region’s economic and environmental conditions. Developed areas may benefit from high-tech agriculture, while less developed regions need basic infrastructure and education. (2) Coordinate Policy Across Sectors: Foster collaboration between education, environmental protection, and economic development agencies to create integrated policies. Zhejiang exemplifies this approach, using region-specific policies to drive productivity. Advanced mechanization in developed areas and infrastructure development in underdeveloped regions have led to more equitable productivity gains. As Luan et al. [18] note, regions like Zhejiang have seen high growth in total factor energy productivity due to continued technological investment.

7. Conclusion

…

The findings underscore the critical role of investments in technological skill development and socioeconomic improvements in driving agricultural growth. However, the potential of these innovations can only be fully realized when supported by policies that strengthen rural infrastructure, enhance education, and promote financial inclusion. Such measures are essential for fostering an enabling environment where technology can be effectively integrated into agricultural practices.

Policymakers must adopt region-specific strategies that consider the distinct environmental and socioeconomic characteristics of each province. For example, in regions with significant forest coverage, policies should strike a balance between increasing agricultural productivity and conserving environmental resources to ensure sustainable long-term development. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the need for advancing sustainable agricultural practices—such as agroecology, organic farming, and resource conservation—by allocating more public funds towards environmental protection. These initiatives will prevent the pursuit of short-term productivity gains from causing long-term environmental harm, thereby aligning agricultural growth with broader sustainability objectives.

The limitations of this study lie primarily in its reliance on provincial-level data from China, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings to other regions or countries with different socioeconomic, environmental, and political contexts. While the analysis offers valuable insights into how technological innovations and sustainability practices impact agricultural productivity, the unique characteristics of China’s provinces could mean that the results may not fully apply to other nations. Additionally, the study does not delve deeply into specific environmental factors such as biodiversity loss or the long-term effects of soil degradation, which could further affect agricultural outcomes. Furthermore, the scope of technological analysis focuses mainly on Technological Skill Capacity Building (TSCB), potentially oversimplifying the technological landscape by excluding other relevant developments such as digital agriculture or biotechnology. Lastly, the study does not explore the psychological and behavioral factors that influence farmers' adoption of new technologies, which are crucial in understanding the barriers to effective implementation. These limitations suggest that further research is needed to broaden the scope and applicability of the findings.

Future research should broaden these findings by conducting comparative studies across multiple countries to better understand how different socio-political environments influence the integration of agricultural technologies. Comparative research would enhance the global relevance of the study and offer insights into tailoring technological innovations to diverse contexts. For example, Boahen et al. [40] highlight that the gender gap in agricultural productivity is largely due to female farmers' limited access to inputs like land. Soni and Manogna [55] found that renewable energy consumption positively impacts agricultural productivity in BRICS countries. Valea and Noufé [56] argue that improving women's land access can reduce productivity gaps and enhance development in Burkina Faso.

Additionally, future studies should include more environmental variables, such as water efficiency, soil health, and biodiversity, to provide a more holistic understanding of the environmental impacts of technological innovations. Aytop and Pinar [57] emphasize the economic significance of addressing water erosion in Turkish vineyards, while Emami and Dehghanisanij [58] highlight the importance of managing water resources through government intervention and farmer education.

Research should also expand to include emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence, big data, and smart farming systems, which have the potential to transform productivity. Karthickmanoj et al. [17] developed a system integrating IoT for early plant disease detection with 98.43% accuracy. Rocha and Ferreira [59] suggest decentralizing Brazil's extension system to improve access to services and boost productivity, aligning with national rural extension goals. Zhu et al. [52] showed that even non-ICT users in connected villages benefited from increased labor productivity, illustrating broader community benefits from digital infrastructure.

Longitudinal behavioral studies exploring how farmers' attitudes and decision-making evolve in response to climate change or market shifts would offer deeper insights into the barriers and enablers of technology adoption. Song et al. [63] demonstrated that an aging rural population has a greater negative impact on AGTFP in western China, compared to eastern and central regions, revealing regional differences in how demographics affect productivity.

Finally, future research should assess the long-term impacts of policy interventions on technology adoption and sustainability, providing empirical evidence on effective strategies for promoting productivity. Kitole et al. [66] recommend gender-sensitive agricultural policies and rural development initiatives as essential strategies for mitigating the negative effects of abuse and improving productivity. “

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

Congratulations on your effort. The work is relevant, and the methods used are of particular interest to me. Below are some suggestions aimed at improving the manuscript.

 

Abstract

Please include a brief contextualization sentence before presenting the objective of your study. Kindly rewrite the objective to make it more concise. A good practice is to construct an objective so concise that it requires no commas. The sentence following the objective is written in a way that resembles an objective statement. I suggest the authors rewrite the abstract to avoid this similarity.

I would also like to pose a thought-provoking question to the authors: Isn’t the knowledge that technological innovations increase productivity intuitive? The authors could provide insights from these results in the abstract to better showcase the value of the work.

 

1. Introduction

The paragraphs in this section are well-founded, but they could be rewritten to tell a coherent story. This story should cover the entire context leading to the research gap proposed by the study. Please rewrite the paragraphs to make them more connected, which will consequently improve the readability of the manuscript.

The research gap mentioned in the introduction should be substantiated within this section. As currently written, there is no clear indication of the study the authors are referring to.

The main suggestion is that the authors rewrite this section to make it more concise. There are certain key phrases typically used to identify objectives, such as “the aim of this study…,” which should ideally be used only once.

 

2. Literature Review

Congratulations on the concise presentation of the main metrics for AP in Table 1. The research gap is well explained in the last paragraph of this section. It would be useful for the authors to utilize this information when constructing the introduction.

 

3. Data Sources, Variables and Measurements and 4. Model Design

I noticed that the authors opted to structure the methodology through the model construction. Regardless of this choice, it would be highly beneficial to include a section titled “Material and Methods,” which would summarize the methodology.

This section could have subsections related to data sources, variables and measurements, as well as the construction of the proposed models.

A good practice is to consider how to make the methodology more accessible to other academics by summarizing it in a diagram or table, explaining the main steps taken in model construction.

This suggests that the authors could create an introductory subsection within the methodology section to enhance the readability of the work.

Another suggestion to improve the conciseness of the manuscript is to create figures and diagrams to aid in presenting the methodology. In my opinion, the manuscript is currently quite lengthy.

 

5. Results

For the sake of conciseness, I suggest that the descriptive statistics be included as supplementary material. The choice of sections to include here and the information to be annexed is up to the authors.

I also recommend caution with the inferences made in this section. In line 710, the authors state that a relatively high standard deviation suggests that some regions have higher levels of pollution than others. I invite the authors to reflect on whether this information helps build the study and consequently achieve the stated objective. This needs to be reviewed in all inferences in this section.

Again, I encourage the authors to present the results visually. The large number of acronyms negatively affects the conciseness of the manuscript and makes it harder to follow the results. In this regard, the section presenting the SEM results could certainly be represented visually, as is common in similar studies.

 

6. Discussion

For this section, the main suggestion is for the authors to focus on a more concise discussion. I understand that the existence of three different methods may provide numerous insights for analysis, but for the sake of conciseness, it is necessary to be more objective. The discussions should be directly related to the study's objective. All content described here must contribute to achieving the goal. Much of the discussion has already been presented in the previous section, so I suggest prioritizing conciseness.

 

7. Conclusion

Regarding this section, a criticism is that the authors open by discussing Latin America and Africa in a study focused on regions of China.

This section suffers from the same issues as the previous ones in terms of conciseness. At the end of the section, the authors present similar studies, whereas the ideal would be to limit the focus to the conclusions of the study.

A fundamental question is: Was the objective of the study achieved? If so, please indicate the next steps in a practical manner. The study used three models to find relationships between variables X and Y, so actions should be broken down based on X and Y.

Overall

The manuscript needs greater objectivity and conciseness in writing, as well as the use of visual aids for presenting results.

The main issue concerns the methodology. Throughout the paper, the authors compare the constructed models.

First point: Does it make sense to compare these models?

Second point: Can these models be analyzed side by side?

Third point: Is the main objective to compare statistical models or to find relationships between variables?

Congratulations on your dedication; it is clear that considerable effort has been made to present relevant information. However, the manuscript needs major revision before it can be considered for publication.

Kind regards

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Congratulations on your effort. The work is relevant, and the methods used are of particular interest to me. Below are some suggestions aimed at improving the manuscript.

 

Point 1:

Abstract

Please include a brief contextualization sentence before presenting the objective of your study. Kindly rewrite the objective to make it more concise. A good practice is to construct an objective so concise that it requires no commas. The sentence following the objective is written in a way that resembles an objective statement. I suggest the authors rewrite the abstract to avoid this similarity.

I would also like to pose a thought-provoking question to the authors: Isn’t the knowledge that technological innovations increase productivity intuitive? The authors could provide insights from these results in the abstract to better showcase the value of the work.

 

Response 1:

Thank you very much for your insightful and constructive feedback. We have carefully considered your suggestions and made the necessary revisions to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript. Below, I address your comments in detail:

1. Contextualization and Objective:
   We have added a brief contextualization sentence before the presentation of the objective to provide a smoother transition. The objective has been rewritten to be more concise, eliminating the need for commas as you recommended. It now clearly states the core focus of the study in a single, streamlined sentence:
• Contextualization: "Technological innovations play a crucial role in addressing the dual challenge of increasing agricultural productivity while maintaining environmental sustainability."
• Objective: "This study examines how technological innovations affect agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability in China."
2. Avoiding Redundancy in Objective Statements:
   We have rewritten the sentence following the objective in the abstract to avoid any similarity to the objective statement. This adjustment ensures that the objective is distinct and followed by elaboration on the research’s significance and the methods employed, rather than another objective-like sentence.
3. Thought-Provoking Question – Intuitiveness of Results:
   You raised an important question regarding the intuitive nature of technological innovations increasing productivity. While it may seem intuitive that technological advancements boost productivity, our study delves into the nuanced interactions between these innovations and environmental sustainability. We highlight that not all technological innovations lead to sustainable productivity gains; certain technologies are more effective in specific socio-economic and regional contexts. We have now emphasized this insight in the abstract, showcasing how our work provides value by exploring these complex dynamics and offering policy recommendations for maximizing both productivity and sustainability.

We hope these revisions address your concerns and enhance the overall presentation of the manuscript. Thank you again for your thoughtful feedback, which has been instrumental in refining the clarity and impact of this research. We look forward to your further comments and suggestions.

 

 

 

Point 2:

1. Introduction

The paragraphs in this section are well-founded, but they could be rewritten to tell a coherent story. This story should cover the entire context leading to the research gap proposed by the study. Please rewrite the paragraphs to make them more connected, which will consequently improve the readability of the manuscript.

The research gap mentioned in the introduction should be substantiated within this section. As currently written, there is no clear indication of the study the authors are referring to.

The main suggestion is that the authors rewrite this section to make it more concise. There are certain key phrases typically used to identify objectives, such as “the aim of this study…,” which should ideally be used only once.

 

Response 2:

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have carefully revised the manuscript based on your feedback. Below is a detailed response to address the points you raised:

1. Improving Coherence in the Introduction:
   We appreciate your observation regarding the need for a more coherent flow in the introduction. We have rewritten the paragraphs to present a more connected narrative, guiding the reader through the contextual background that leads to the research gap addressed by this study. The new structure ensures that each paragraph builds upon the previous one, creating a logical progression that enhances the readability of the section. This revision also emphasizes the importance of addressing agricultural productivity in China while maintaining environmental sustainability, setting the stage for the study's objectives.
2. Substantiating the Research Gap:
   We have taken care to clarify and substantiate the research gap within the introduction. Specifically, we now highlight how previous studies have either focused solely on technological innovations or on environmental sustainability, but have not adequately explored the interaction between these factors. We explicitly identify this gap as the driving motivation behind the study, which seeks to integrate these dimensions into a comprehensive analysis. This adjustment provides a clear and substantiated rationale for the study.
3. Conciseness and Objective Statement:
   In response to your suggestion to make the introduction more concise, we have revised the text to remove redundant information and streamline the content. Furthermore, we have ensured that phrases typically used to identify objectives, such as "the aim of this study," are used only once, thereby making the section clearer and more direct.

We trust that these revisions have addressed your concerns, and we sincerely appreciate your thoughtful input, which has greatly contributed to improving the overall clarity and quality of the manuscript. We look forward to any further comments you may have. Thank you again for your valuable feedback!

 

 

 

Point 3:

2. Literature Review

Congratulations on the concise presentation of the main metrics for AP in Table 1. The research gap is well explained in the last paragraph of this section. It would be useful for the authors to utilize this information when constructing the introduction.

Response 3:

Thank you very much for your positive feedback and insightful suggestions. We greatly appreciate your kind words regarding the presentation of Table 1 and the clarity of the research gap in the literature review.

 

 

 

Point 4:

3. Data Sources, Variables and Measurements and 4. Model Design

I noticed that the authors opted to structure the methodology through the model construction. Regardless of this choice, it would be highly beneficial to include a section titled “Material and Methods,” which would summarize the methodology.

This section could have subsections related to data sources, variables and measurements, as well as the construction of the proposed models.

A good practice is to consider how to make the methodology more accessible to other academics by summarizing it in a diagram or table, explaining the main steps taken in model construction.

This suggests that the authors could create an introductory subsection within the methodology section to enhance the readability of the work.

Another suggestion to improve the conciseness of the manuscript is to create figures and diagrams to aid in presenting the methodology. In my opinion, the manuscript is currently quite lengthy.

Response 4:

Thank you very much for your detailed and thoughtful feedback. We greatly appreciate your suggestions, which have been instrumental in refining the clarity and structure of the manuscript. Below is a summary of the revisions we have made based on your comments:

1. Modification of a “Methods" Section:
   We have modified dedicated sections titled “Methods" to provide a comprehensive summary of the study's methodology. This new section includes the following subsections to ensure clarity:
• Variables and Measurements: We have detailed the key variables, such as Per Capita Output of the Primary Industry (PCOPI), Technological and Skill Capacity Building (TSCB), and Environmental Impact variables. These variables were selected to comprehensively analyze the effects of technological innovations on agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability.
• Model Construction: The construction of the proposed models, including the fixed effects model (FEM), random effects model (REM), multilevel mixed-effects model (MLM), and structural equation modeling (SEM), has been clearly explained to ensure that the analytical framework is transparent.

 

1. Improving Accessibility with Diagrams and Tables:
   In response to your suggestion to make the methodology more accessible, we have created a table summarizing the variables and their measurements, along with a flowchart that illustrates the relationships involved in SEM. These visual aids provide a more structured and accessible overview of the methodology, allowing readers to quickly grasp the key elements of the research.
2. Introductory in the Methodology:
   To enhance the readability of the “Methods” section, we have introduced the brief introduction provides a high-level summary of the data sources, variables, and models used.
3. Conciseness and Use of Visual Aids:
   Acknowledging your concern about the length of the manuscript, we have worked to improve its conciseness by incorporating figures and diagrams. These visual elements break up lengthy textual descriptions and present the methodology in a more compact and understandable format. This adjustment not only improves the readability but also makes the key points more digestible.

We sincerely hope that these revisions address your concerns and improve the overall quality and clarity of the manuscript. Your constructive feedback has been invaluable in enhancing the readability and organization of the paper. Thank you once again for your thoughtful review, and we look forward to any further suggestions you may have.

 

 

Point 5:

5. Results

For the sake of conciseness, I suggest that the descriptive statistics be included as supplementary material. The choice of sections to include here and the information to be annexed is up to the authors.

I also recommend caution with the inferences made in this section. In line 710, the authors state that a relatively high standard deviation suggests that some regions have higher levels of pollution than others. I invite the authors to reflect on whether this information helps build the study and consequently achieve the stated objective. This needs to be reviewed in all inferences in this section.

Again, I encourage the authors to present the results visually. The large number of acronyms negatively affects the conciseness of the manuscript and makes it harder to follow the results. In this regard, the section presenting the SEM results could certainly be represented visually, as is common in similar studies.

Response 5:

Thank you very much for your detailed and thoughtful feedback. We have carefully revised the manuscript based on your suggestions, and below is a detailed response addressing your comments regarding the Results section:

1. Modified Descriptive Statistics:
   As per your suggestion to improve conciseness, we have moved the modified descriptive statistics to the Case Study section. This change helps streamline the main text, allowing the results section to focus more on the interpretation of the findings while still providing access to the necessary statistical details for interested readers.
2. Reviewing Inferences in the Results Section:
   In response to your concern regarding the inferences made, particularly the statement about standard deviation and pollution in line 710, we have revised the text to reflect a more cautious and appropriate interpretation of the data. The new phrasing clarifies that while regional disparities exist, the variation in pollution levels should not be over-interpreted without considering other contributing factors, such as regional industrialization patterns and agricultural practices. We have carefully reviewed all inferences in this section to ensure they are substantiated by the data and directly contribute to achieving the study's objectives.
3. Tables Presentation of the Results:
   In line with your recommendation, we have incorporated additional Tables to visually present the results, particularly in the section discussing the SEM results. These tables representation helps simplify the complex interactions between variables and makes the findings more accessible to readers. The use of tables reduces the reliance on acronyms and long textual explanations, enhancing the overall readability of the manuscript.

We sincerely hope these revisions address your concerns and contribute to improving the conciseness, clarity, and impact of the manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable suggestions, and we look forward to any further feedback you may have​.

 

 

Point 6:

6. Discussion

For this section, the main suggestion is for the authors to focus on a more concise discussion. I understand that the existence of three different methods may provide numerous insights for analysis, but for the sake of conciseness, it is necessary to be more objective. The discussions should be directly related to the study's objective. All content described here must contribute to achieving the goal. Much of the discussion has already been presented in the previous section, so I suggest prioritizing conciseness.

Response 6:

Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback. We have carefully considered your suggestions regarding the Discussion section, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly. Below is a summary of the changes made in response to your comments:

1. Conciseness of the Discussion:
   We appreciate your advice to make the discussion more concise, given the depth of insights from the three different methods used in the study. To address this, we have restructured the discussion to focus more sharply on how the findings relate directly to the study's objectives. Sections that repeated content from the results have been significantly condensed, and the discussion now provides a more targeted analysis of the key insights drawn from the research.
2. Direct Relevance to the Study's Objectives:
   We have ensured that all points made in the discussion directly contribute to achieving the study’s objective. The revised discussion emphasizes how technological innovations, socioeconomic conditions, and environmental sustainability interact to influence agricultural productivity. Each section of the discussion now clearly links back to the study’s main goals, avoiding any tangential or repetitive points.
3. Reduction of Redundancy:
   Following your suggestion, we have removed any content in the discussion that had already been presented in the results section. This step helped reduce redundancy and further enhance the clarity and brevity of the manuscript.

We hope these revisions address your concerns and contribute to a clearer and more concise presentation of the manuscript’s key findings. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback, which has greatly helped in refining the quality of our work. We look forward to any further suggestions you may have.

 

 

Point 7:

6. Discussion

For this section, the main suggestion is for the authors to focus on a more concise discussion. I understand that the existence of three different methods may provide numerous insights for analysis, but for the sake of conciseness, it is necessary to be more objective. The discussions should be directly related to the study's objective. All content described here must contribute to achieving the goal. Much of the discussion has already been presented in the previous section, so I suggest prioritizing conciseness.

Response 7:

Thank you very much for your insightful and constructive feedback. We have carefully revised the Conclusion section of the manuscript in response to your suggestions. Below is a detailed explanation of the changes made:

1. Removal of References to Latin America and Africa:
   We have removed the references to Latin America and Africa, as we acknowledge that these discussions were not directly relevant to the focus on Chinese regions. The revised conclusion now centers solely on the context of China, which aligns with the study's scope and objectives.
2. Conciseness:
   To address your suggestion regarding conciseness, we have streamlined the discussion to avoid repeating content from the previous sections. The conclusion is now more focused, summarizing the key findings without excessive elaboration. The emphasis is on the direct outcomes of the study, making it more succinct and impactful.
3. Focusing on the Study's Objectives:
   We have refined the conclusion to explicitly address whether the study's objectives were achieved. The revised text now clearly states that the study successfully demonstrated the positive impact of technological innovations on agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability in China. Furthermore, the conclusion provides a concise breakdown of the relationships between the key variables examined (e.g., technological capacity, rural education, environmental protection) and their implications for agricultural productivity.
4. Next Steps and Practical Actions:
   In line with your suggestion, we have outlined practical next steps based on the study's findings. These steps are broken down according to the relationships between variables X and Y, as suggested. For instance, we recommend policy actions to promote further investment in technological capacity building and rural education, as well as region-specific strategies to enhance environmental sustainability. These recommendations are practical and aligned with the key determinants identified in the study.

We hope these revisions meet your expectations and contribute to a clearer, more concise, and focused presentation of the manuscript's conclusions. Thank you again for your valuable input, which has greatly improved the overall quality of the paper. We look forward to any further feedback you may have.

 

 

Point 8:

Overall

The manuscript needs greater objectivity and conciseness in writing, as well as the use of visual aids for presenting results.

The main issue concerns the methodology. Throughout the paper, the authors compare the constructed models.

First point: Does it make sense to compare these models?

Second point: Can these models be analyzed side by side?

Third point: Is the main objective to compare statistical models or to find relationships between variables?

Congratulations on your dedication; it is clear that considerable effort has been made to present relevant information. However, the manuscript needs major revision before it can be considered for publication.

Response 8:

Thank you for your thorough and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have made significant revisions based on your comments and would like to address each point in detail:

1. Greater Objectivity and Conciseness:
   We have carefully revised the manuscript to ensure a more concise and objective presentation of the findings. Redundant explanations were removed, and key results were summarized more clearly, especially in sections where multiple models were compared. These changes have improved the overall readability and focus of the manuscript.
2. Use of Visual Aids:
   In response to your suggestion, we have incorporated additional visual aids, including diagrams and tables, to present the results in a clearer and more accessible manner. The Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) results are now represented visually, which not only simplifies the complex relationships between the variables but also enhances the reader's ability to grasp the main findings without being overwhelmed by acronyms and lengthy text.
3. Comparison of Models:
   Regarding your concerns about comparing the models, we have thoroughly reconsidered the necessity and appropriateness of the comparisons.
• First Point (Does it make sense to compare these models?): We agree that the models serve different analytical purposes. To clarify, the comparison between models was intended to highlight how each model addresses different aspects of agricultural productivity and sustainability, particularly with respect to regional disparities. However, we have revised the discussion to ensure that the comparison is not overemphasized. Instead, we now focus more on the unique insights provided by each model, without forcing a direct comparison where it may not be appropriate.
• Second Point (Can these models be analyzed side by side?): We acknowledge that the models approach the data from different perspectives—some focusing on within-region variations and others on cross-regional differences. We have clarified in the methodology section that these models are complementary rather than directly comparable, as each provides distinct insights that contribute to the broader analysis of the research question. The revisions now emphasize how these models work together to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing agricultural productivity.
• Third Point (Is the main objective to compare statistical models or find relationships between variables?): We have refocused the manuscript to ensure that the primary objective is clear: the study aims to uncover the relationships between technological innovations, environmental sustainability, and agricultural productivity. While the models are a necessary tool for this analysis, the comparison of models is secondary to the main goal of identifying these relationships. This shift in focus has been incorporated throughout the discussion and conclusion sections.

We sincerely hope that these revisions address your concerns and contribute to a clearer, more concise, and objective manuscript. Your thoughtful feedback has been instrumental in improving the quality of our work, and we greatly appreciate the time and effort you put into reviewing the manuscript. We look forward to any further feedback you may have​.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper examines the relationship between technological advancements, socio-economic factors, and environmental sustainability and their effects on Agricultural Productivity (China). The article is ample and has a lot of data that is put on models and are discussed the simulation results.

The authors made a good introduction and literature review touching on the following aspects: and gaps: challenges to agricultural productivity, climate change with negative effects on agricultural, regions vulnerable to food insecurity, innovations in precision agriculture, mechanization, and biotechnology, enhancing productivity while minimizing environmental damage, Green Total Factor Productivity, agricultural with multifaceted interaction of social, economic, and technological dimensions, information and communication technology.

In section 4 are treated a multidimensional analysis that integrates technological advancements, socioeconomic development, and environmental sustainability. The study is a combination of fixed effects models, random effects models, and multilevel mixed-effects models to account two variations: regional and temporal.

Factors like: Rural Education, Technological Skill Capacity Building, and Agricultural Development Resources were token in account of the influence on productivity. Structural Equation Modeling is used to explore the complex relationships among the variables.

The results and conclusions of each section were described. Additionally, the contribution of each approach was detailed according to its specific.

In the discussion section the authors emphasis and discuss the differences among the models, fixed effects model and random effects model, multilevel mixed-effects model, structural equation model, economic logic behind model difference. They make an interpretation of the results, also.

The study provides significant insights and reveals both consistencies and discrepancies when compared to existing literature. Furthermore, authors suggest a comprehensive approach for policymakers, focusing on balancing investments in technology, socioeconomic development, and environmental sustainability to enhance agricultural productivity.

In the conclusions section, the authors emphasize their contributions and future possible applications.

The references are appropriate and recent.

Final recommendation:

 

The subject is well within the scope of the journal, and the paper fulfils all the requirements to be published.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

The paper examines the relationship between technological advancements, socio-economic factors, and environmental sustainability and their effects on Agricultural Productivity (China). The article is ample and has a lot of data that is put on models and are discussed the simulation results.

The authors made a good introduction and literature review touching on the following aspects: and gaps: challenges to agricultural productivity, climate change with negative effects on agricultural, regions vulnerable to food insecurity, innovations in precision agriculture, mechanization, and biotechnology, enhancing productivity while minimizing environmental damage, Green Total Factor Productivity, agricultural with multifaceted interaction of social, economic, and technological dimensions, information and communication technology.

In section 4 are treated a multidimensional analysis that integrates technological advancements, socioeconomic development, and environmental sustainability. The study is a combination of fixed effects models, random effects models, and multilevel mixed-effects models to account two variations: regional and temporal.

Factors like: Rural Education, Technological Skill Capacity Building, and Agricultural Development Resources were token in account of the influence on productivity. Structural Equation Modeling is used to explore the complex relationships among the variables.

The results and conclusions of each section were described. Additionally, the contribution of each approach was detailed according to its specific.

In the discussion section the authors emphasis and discuss the differences among the models, fixed effects model and random effects model, multilevel mixed-effects model, structural equation model, economic logic behind model difference. They make an interpretation of the results, also.

The study provides significant insights and reveals both consistencies and discrepancies when compared to existing literature. Furthermore, authors suggest a comprehensive approach for policymakers, focusing on balancing investments in technology, socioeconomic development, and environmental sustainability to enhance agricultural productivity.

In the conclusions section, the authors emphasize their contributions and future possible applications.

The references are appropriate and recent.

Final recommendation:

 

The subject is well within the scope of the journal, and the paper fulfils all the requirements to be published.

 

Response:

Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback and positive assessment of the manuscript. We truly appreciate your recognition of the effort put into this study. Below, I provide a detailed response addressing your comments:

1. Objective of the Study and Model Comparisons: The primary goal of this study is not to directly compare the statistical models but rather to explore the relationships between technological advancements, socio-economic factors, and environmental sustainability and their combined impact on agricultural productivity in China. The models (Fixed Effects, Random Effects, Multilevel Mixed-Effects, and Structural Equation Modeling) were employed to account for both regional and temporal variations. We have revised the discussion to ensure that the focus remains on understanding the relationships between the variables, with model comparisons serving only to provide methodological support rather than as a central objective.
2. Conciseness and Objectivity:
   Based on your recommendation, we revised certain sections of the manuscript to be more concise and objective, particularly in the Results and Discussion sections. We minimized repetitive content and emphasized key findings that directly support the study’s objectives. The interpretation of the models has been refined to focus more on the relationships between technological, socioeconomic, and environmental factors rather than overly detailing the model mechanics.
3. Use of Visual Aids:
   We have introduced additional visual aids in the Results section to present complex data and model outcomes more clearly. For instance, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) results are now presented visually, making it easier for readers to understand the intricate relationships between the variables. This adjustment aligns with your suggestion to enhance clarity and improve the accessibility of the findings.
4. Conclusion:
   The conclusion now emphasizes the study’s achievements in revealing the significant relationships between technological innovations, environmental sustainability, and socio-economic factors in shaping agricultural productivity. We also discuss the practical next steps based on these findings, highlighting region-specific recommendations for policymakers. The conclusion now provides a more focused and impactful summary of the study’s contributions, as you recommended.

We believe these revisions have addressed your concerns and improved the overall quality and focus of the manuscript. Thank you again for your thorough review, and we look forward to your final comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

I would like to congratulate sincerely with you for this high-level study. Thank you for making me have the opportunity to review it. I have a few suggestions for improving this manuscript.

- The abstract needs restructuring. I suggest to present the background and research motivations first, followed by a very brief methodological explanation, results presentation, and main implications. 

- In the Introduction, I suggest to clearly highlight what are the motivations of this research through well-defined research questions. I also suggest to restructure the Discussions following the research questions (if more than one), as this might result in lighter and more readable paper. 

- The Introduction is lengthy. I suggest to avoid too many details that one can also find in the literature review and methodology section. For instance, lines 130-144 can be deleted and 145-165 very much shrank. 

- As for what concerns the policy background, I suggest to present a bit more in detail the policies in place in China, and this specific region, shaping the agri-food sector. Are there any quantitative targets to be met? Are there specific initiatives / funding programmes supporting technological innovation for AP? Please also note that the European Green Deal encompassed the Farm to Fork initiative specifically for the agri-food system transformation (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0381). However, the this first communication had no follow up due to several factors. In addition, the new CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) has been released (https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/financing-cap/cap-funds_en) and a recent strategic dialogue with major stakeholders has just resulted in a high-level report on the sector to guide the next phases towards a renewed food system in the EU (https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/171329ff-0f50-4fa5-946f-aea11032172e_en?filename=strategic-dialogue-report-2024_en.pdf)

- I suggest to have a proper limitations paragraph in the Discussions

- Conclusions are very much repetitive. They should briefly recall major findings and implications and, if needed, future research directions.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

I would like to congratulate sincerely with you for this high-level study. Thank you for making me have the opportunity to review it. I have a few suggestions for improving this manuscript.

Point 1: The abstract needs restructuring. I suggest to present the background and research motivations first, followed by a very brief methodological explanation, results presentation, and main implications.

Response 1:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion to revise the abstract. This restructuring aligns with the recommended format, highlighting the research motivations, methods, results, and implications concisely. The revised abstract is:

“Abstract

Agricultural productivity in China is a fundamental driver of food security and economic growth. Yet, the sector faces profound challenges due to environmental degradation and climate change, which threaten sustainable agricultural practices. This research examines the effects of technological innovations on agricultural total factor productivity and environmental sustainability in China from 2012 to 2022. The study seeks to understand how technological advancements, when considered alongside socioeconomic variables, impact agricultural output while balancing ecological integrity. Employing a comprehensive methodological framework, this research integrates fixed effects, random effects, and multilevel mixed-effects models to analyze crucial factors including rural education, technological capability, and environmental conservation initiatives. The study further utilizes structural equation modeling to evaluate both the direct and indirect effects of these determinants on productivity. The results demonstrate that technological innovations substantially enhance agricultural productivity, particularly in provinces with higher socioeconomic development. Additionally, sustainable farming practices and tailored policy interventions are identified as vital in addressing regional productivity imbalances. The research concludes by underscoring the necessity for continued integration of environmental considerations and emerging technologies to ensure the sustainability of agricultural growth over the long term.”

 

 

 

Point 2:  In the Introduction, I suggest to clearly highlight what are the motivations of this research through well-defined research questions. I also suggest to restructure the Discussions following the research questions (if more than one), as this might result in lighter and more readable paper. 

Response 2:

Thank you to the reviewer for the valuable feedback on our research. We fully understand the importance of clearly highlighting the motivations of the study in the introduction and structuring the research around well-defined research questions. Based on your suggestion, we will refine the introduction by explicitly stating the research questions and restructure the discussion section accordingly to improve the paper’s logical flow and readability.

Specifically, we will enhance the introduction by clearly outlining the core research questions: "How do technological innovations influence agricultural productivity across different regions?" "What roles do socioeconomic and environmental factors play in optimizing technological advancements for sustainable development?" and "How can policy interventions support the adoption of such technologies while maintaining environmental integrity?" In the discussion section, we will reorganize the content around these research questions to ensure that the discussion directly addresses each of them, thereby strengthening the logical structure and clarity of the paper.

Once again, thank you for your detailed feedback, which will greatly assist us in improving the quality of the paper.

The revised Introduction and Discussions are:

“1. Introduction

…

The motivation behind this research is driven by the need to address the pressing challenges of AP in the face of environmental degradation and socio-economic disparities, especially in China. Given the increasing global demand for food and the detrimental effects of climate change, there is a critical need to explore how technological innovations can enhance AP while ensuring environmental sustainability. This study seeks to fill gaps left by past research by integrating technological advancements, socio-economic factors, and environmental sustainability into a comprehensive analytical framework, aiming to provide a nuanced understanding of how these elements interact to shape agricultural productivity in a sustainable way. Key research questions guiding this study include: How do technological innovations influence agricultural productivity across different regions? What roles do socio-economic and environmental factors play in optimizing these technological advancements for sustainable development? And how can policy interventions support the adoption of such technologies while maintaining environmental integrity?

…

6.4 The Questions’ Responses and Policy Implications

The responses to the key research questions, as synthesized from the previous discussions, are as follows: (1) How do technological innovations influence agricultural productivity across different regions? Technological advancements such as precision agriculture, biotechnology, and mechanization are critical drivers of agricultural productivity. However, their impact is uneven across regions due to varying socioeconomic conditions. In more developed provinces like Zhejiang and Jiangsu, where infrastructure and resources are robust, these innovations have led to significant productivity improvements by optimizing resource use and increasing yields. In contrast, in less developed regions like Guizhou, where socioeconomic and infrastructural support is limited, the adoption and effectiveness of these technologies have been slower, resulting in reduced productivity gains. This highlights the need for complementary investments in socioeconomic development to maximize the benefits of technological innovations.

(2) What roles do socioeconomic and environmental factors play in optimizing technological advancements for sustainable development? Socioeconomic factors, including rural education, income levels, and labor mobility, are essential in enabling the successful adoption and integration of technological advancements in agriculture. Regions with higher levels of education, income, and mobility can better absorb and utilize modern technologies, leading to improved agricultural productivity. Environmental factors, such as forest coverage and pollution control, also significantly influence the success of these innovations. In areas with high forest coverage, agricultural expansion must be balanced with environmental conservation to ensure sustainability. Therefore, technological advancements must be aligned with the specific socioeconomic and environmental conditions of each region to achieve long-term sustainable productivity.

(3) How can policy interventions support the adoption of such technologies while maintaining environmental integrity? Policy interventions must be tailored to the unique socioeconomic and environmental contexts of each region to promote the adoption of technological innovations while ensuring environmental sustainability. Governments should prioritize investments in rural infrastructure—such as roads, irrigation systems, and market access facilities—to support the integration of advanced agricultural technologies. Additionally, policies that promote environmental protection, including subsidies for sustainable agricultural practices and pollution control measures, are crucial to prevent environmental degradation. A holistic policy approach that balances immediate productivity improvements with long-term sustainability goals is necessary to ensure the successful adoption of technologies while maintaining environmental integrity.

…”

 

Point 3:  The Introduction is lengthy. I suggest to avoid too many details that one can also find in the literature review and methodology section. For instance, lines 130-144 can be deleted and 145-165 very much shrank. 

Response 3:

Thank you to the reviewer for the insightful feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your suggestion regarding the length of the introduction and the overlap with other sections such as the literature review and methodology.

In response to your comments, we will revise the introduction to ensure it is more concise and focused. Specifically, we will remove lines 130-144, as the details covered there are more appropriate for the literature review. Additionally, we will significantly reduce the content in lines 145-165, streamlining this portion to avoid repetition and to enhance clarity without losing key points.

This revision will help maintain a clear and engaging introduction while ensuring that detailed discussions are reserved for the appropriate sections later in the paper. Thank you again for your constructive input, which will help improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

 

Point 4: As for what concerns the policy background, I suggest to present a bit more in detail the policies in place in China, and this specific region, shaping the agri-food sector. Are there any quantitative targets to be met? Are there specific initiatives / funding programmes supporting technological innovation for AP? Please also note that the European Green Deal encompassed the Farm to Fork initiative specifically for the agri-food system transformation (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0381). However, the this first communication had no follow up due to several factors. In addition, the new CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) has been released (https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/financing-cap/cap-funds_en) and a recent strategic dialogue with major stakeholders has just resulted in a high-level report on the sector to guide the next phases towards a renewed food system in the EU (https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/171329ff-0f50-4fa5-946f-aea11032172e_en?filename=strategic-dialogue-report-2024_en.pdf)

Response 4:

Thank you to the reviewer for the valuable feedback and for highlighting the need to further elaborate on the policy background influencing the agri-food sector in China and its specific regions. Your suggestion to present more detailed information on policies, quantitative targets, and funding programs supporting technological innovation for agricultural productivity (AP) is highly appreciated.

In response, we will expand the policy background section to include a more detailed overview of the key policies currently shaping the agri-food sector in China, particularly those that focus on technological innovation. These include initiatives under China’s "No. 1 Central Document," which has prioritized rural revitalization and agricultural modernization. Specific programs such as the "Smart Agriculture Innovation Strategy" and the "Digital Agriculture and Rural Development Plan" provide targeted funding and technological support aimed at enhancing agricultural productivity through innovation. Furthermore, we will discuss quantitative targets, such as China’s goal to achieve a 65% mechanization rate in major crop cultivation by 2025, and other regional targets that directly impact agricultural sustainability.

We will also draw parallels between these policies and initiatives such as the European Green Deal's "Farm to Fork" strategy, as suggested. Additionally, we will briefly address the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and its relevance to ongoing efforts in Europe, incorporating these as a comparative framework for China’s strategies. This expanded discussion will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the policy landscape influencing technological innovation in China's agri-food sector.

The revised content is”

China's strategy in shaping its agri-food sectors has been comprehensively laid out through a series of key policy documents. These include the “14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and Long-Range Objectives Through the Year 2035” (14th Five-Year Plan 2021-2025)”, the “Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on Strengthening Reform and Innovation to Accelerate Agricultural Modernization” (OSRI), and the “Action Plan for Seed Industry Revitalization” (APSI). [34,35]

The OSRI has been pivotal in guiding agricultural policy. In 2024, it reinforced the importance of food security and rural revitalization as national priorities, focusing on increasing crop yields, advancing agricultural modernization, and improving rural governance. These policies emphasize not only the enhancement of agricultural productivity but also the development of rural infrastructure and governance capacities.

In concrete terms, the Chinese government set a goal to achieve a 65% mechanization rate in major crop cultivation by 2025. This target is clearly outlined in the 14th Five-Year Plan 2021-2025. Alongside this, green agriculture and sustainable development have become focal points of national initiatives. The APSI exemplifies the government's support for technological innovation in agriculture, particularly in seed technology, digital agriculture, and precision agriculture. This plan seeks to enhance China's global agricultural competitiveness by fostering innovation in seed research and biotechnology. [36]

To support technological innovation in agricultural productivity, the government has implemented several funding programs. These include initiatives to promote precision agriculture and mechanization, utilizing technological advancements to improve production efficiency and push the agricultural sector towards modernization.

China's agri-food policies have been strategically designed to balance the needs for food security, productivity growth, and technological innovation. Clear goals have been established to achieve long-term agricultural modernization and sustainable development, laying a solid foundation for the transformation and sustained growth of the sector.

The provided information underscores the European Union’s comprehensive efforts to transform its agri-food system through key policy frameworks, notably the European Green Deal and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The Farm to Fork strategy, a central pillar of the European Green Deal, seeks to establish a sustainable, resilient food system by advocating for environmentally-conscious agricultural practices. Despite its ambitious goals, the strategy has faced implementation challenges, preventing its progression to later phases [37].

Conversely, the updated CAP has taken on a crucial role in shaping agricultural policy across the EU, focusing on fostering sustainable agricultural growth, securing equitable income for farmers, and supporting rural development. The CAP’s recent iterations include targeted financial instruments designed to encourage innovation, strengthen sustainability, and enhance the sector’s resilience [38].

Moreover, a strategic dialogue with key stakeholders has resulted in a high-level report, which offers forward-looking recommendations for reforming the food system, aiming to address shortcomings and challenges identified during earlier stages of policy execution. This dialogue reflects the EU’s ongoing commitment to improving sustainability across the agricultural sector [39].

These EU initiatives reflect a broader commitment to sustainable agriculture, mirroring China’s policy emphasis on modernizing its agricultural system. While the EU is deeply invested in promoting sustainability through policies such as the Green Deal and CAP, China’s agricultural strategies—outlined in documents like the 14th Five-Year Plan and the Action Plan for Seed Industry Revitalization—focus on technological innovation and ensuring national food security. This parallel yet distinct approach highlights the unique policy priorities of each region, driven by their respective agricultural and economic contexts.”

 

Once again, thank you for your insightful comments, which will contribute significantly to enhancing the contextual richness and depth of the manuscript.

 

Point 5: I suggest to have a proper limitations paragraph in the Discussions

Response 5:

Thank you to the reviewer for the valuable feedback and for highlighting the need for a proper limitations section in the Discussion. We appreciate the suggestion, as it provides an opportunity to strengthen the rigor and transparency of the research.

In response, we will include a dedicated paragraph addressing the study's limitations in the Discussion section. This paragraph will outline potential constraints related to data availability, methodological choices, and the generalizability of the findings. Specifically, we will discuss limitations such as sample size, regional focus, and the potential influence of unobserved variables. Moreover, we will acknowledge that while the findings offer valuable insights, further research is needed to validate them across different contexts and with more extensive datasets.

The revised content is”

The limitations of this study lie primarily in its reliance on provincial-level data from China, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings to other regions or countries with different socioeconomic, environmental, and political contexts. While the analysis offers valuable insights into how technological innovations and sustainability practices impact agricultural productivity, the unique characteristics of China’s provinces could mean that the results may not fully apply to other nations. Additionally, the study does not delve deeply into specific environmental factors such as biodiversity loss or the long-term effects of soil degradation, which could further affect agricultural outcomes. Furthermore, the scope of technological analysis focuses mainly on TSCB, potentially oversimplifying the technological landscape by excluding other relevant developments such as digital agriculture or biotechnology. Lastly, the study does not explore the psychological and behavioral factors that influence farmers' adoption of new technologies, which are crucial in understanding the barriers to effective implementation. These limitations suggest that further research is needed to broaden the scope and applicability of the findings.”

Incorporating this limitations section will ensure a more balanced and comprehensive evaluation of the research, enhancing both its credibility and its contribution to the field. Thank you once again for your constructive input, which will improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

 

Point 6: Conclusions are very much repetitive. They should briefly recall major findings and implications and, if needed, future research directions.

Response 6:

Thank you to the reviewer for the valuable feedback on the conclusion section. We appreciate your suggestion to streamline the conclusions, making them more focused and concise.

In response, we will revise the conclusion to briefly summarize the key findings and their implications, avoiding repetition of previously discussed points. The conclusion will now emphasize the core outcomes of the research, particularly the influence of technological innovations on agricultural productivity and the role of socioeconomic and environmental factors. Additionally, we will outline practical implications for policymakers and stakeholders involved in agricultural modernization.

To address future research directions, we will suggest exploring the long-term impacts of these innovations across different regions and expanding the analysis to include more diverse agricultural sectors. This revision will ensure that the conclusion remains succinct while still providing a clear path for future studies.

Thank you again for your insightful comments, which will help improve the overall clarity and impact of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Manuscript ID: sustainability-3202507

Title: The Impact of Technological Innovations on Agricultural Productivity and Environmental Sustainability in China

From my point of view, in this text the authors put the foundations of what could be an interesting research paper. However, in my opinion this text is not a publishable article in its present form mainly because of the following.

 

Point 1: The length of this research paper requires to be reduced. The authors can do so by writing in a more systematic and direct style, while avoiding repetitions such as the first three paragraphs of the conclusions. Nevertheless, maybe the authors will have to consider the possibility of splitting the contents in two research papers.

Response 1:

Thank you to the reviewer for the thoughtful feedback. We appreciate the suggestion to reduce the length of the paper by adopting a more systematic and direct writing style, as well as the advice to avoid repetitions, particularly in the conclusion section.

In response, we revise the manuscript to eliminate redundancies, especially in the first three paragraphs of the conclusions, and ensure that the writing is more concise throughout. Additionally, we will explore the possibility of splitting the content into two separate research papers, particularly if doing so would allow for a more focused and detailed exploration of key topics without compromising the clarity and flow of the current manuscript.

Your feedback guides us in refining the paper to enhance its overall readability and impact. Thank you once again for your valuable input.

 

Point 2: The introduction lacks clearly presenting China as the case study or the boundaries of the research. This issue is confusing until it is presented as a limitation in the conclusions section. The reviewer advices the authors to present China as the boundaries or the case study to validate a general model.

Response 2:

Thank you to the reviewer for the valuable feedback regarding the clarity of the introduction. We appreciate your observation that the introduction does not adequately present China as the case study or the boundaries of the research, which later appears as a limitation in the conclusions.

In response, we revise the introduction to clearly establish China as the primary case study for validating a general model. We will emphasize China's unique socio-economic landscape, diverse regional disparities, and its aggressive policy initiatives, such as the 14th Five-Year Plan and the Action Plan for Seed Industry Revitalization, to position it as a robust framework for testing models of agricultural productivity, technological advancement, and sustainability. By doing so, we will ensure that the case study approach is evident from the outset, providing a coherent structure for the rest of the research.

The revised content is”

In this paper, China provides a compelling case study for validating general models due to its vast and diverse landscape, rapid economic development, and complex socio-political structure. The country's agricultural sector, in particular, offers a rich context for testing models related to technological innovation, agricultural productivity, and environmental sustainability. China's implementation of policies like the 14th Five-Year Plan and the Action Plan for Seed Industry Revitalization highlights its focus on balancing food security with technological advancement and sustainability. By examining how these policies impact different regions within China—ranging from highly developed coastal areas to less developed inland provinces—researchers can validate general models of economic development, policy efficacy, and technological diffusion. China's unique mix of regional disparities, large-scale industrialization, and government intervention provides a robust framework for testing the applicability of global models in a localized context.

…

China's strategy in shaping its agri-food sectors has been comprehensively laid out through a series of key policy documents. These include the “14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and Long-Range Objectives Through the Year 2035” (14th Five-Year Plan 2021-2025)”, the “Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on Strengthening Reform and Innovation to Accelerate Agricultural Modernization” (OSRI), and the “Action Plan for Seed Industry Revitalization” (APSI). [34,35]

The OSRI has been pivotal in guiding agricultural policy. In 2024, it reinforced the importance of food security and rural revitalization as national priorities, focusing on increasing crop yields, advancing agricultural modernization, and improving rural governance. These policies emphasize not only the enhancement of agricultural productivity but also the development of rural infrastructure and governance capacities.

In concrete terms, the Chinese government set a goal to achieve a 65% mechanization rate in major crop cultivation by 2025. This target is clearly outlined in the 14th Five-Year Plan 2021-2025. Alongside this, green agriculture and sustainable development have become focal points of national initiatives. The APSI exemplifies the government's support for technological innovation in agriculture, particularly in seed technology, digital agriculture, and precision agriculture. This plan seeks to enhance China's global agricultural competitiveness by fostering innovation in seed research and biotechnology. [36]

To support technological innovation in agricultural productivity, the government has implemented several funding programs. These include initiatives to promote precision agriculture and mechanization, utilizing technological advancements to improve production efficiency and push the agricultural sector towards modernization.

China's agri-food policies have been strategically designed to balance the needs for food security, productivity growth, and technological innovation. Clear goals have been established to achieve long-term agricultural modernization and sustainable development, laying a solid foundation for the transformation and sustained growth of the sector.

The provided information underscores the European Union’s comprehensive efforts to transform its agri-food system through key policy frameworks, notably the European Green Deal and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The Farm to Fork strategy, a central pillar of the European Green Deal, seeks to establish a sustainable, resilient food system by advocating for environmentally-conscious agricultural practices. Despite its ambitious goals, the strategy has faced implementation challenges, preventing its progression to later phases [37].

Conversely, the updated CAP has taken on a crucial role in shaping agricultural policy across the EU, focusing on fostering sustainable agricultural growth, securing equitable income for farmers, and supporting rural development. The CAP’s recent iterations include targeted financial instruments designed to encourage innovation, strengthen sustainability, and enhance the sector’s resilience [38].

Moreover, a strategic dialogue with key stakeholders has resulted in a high-level report, which offers forward-looking recommendations for reforming the food system, aiming to address shortcomings and challenges identified during earlier stages of policy execution. This dialogue reflects the EU’s ongoing commitment to improving sustainability across the agricultural sector [39].

These EU initiatives reflect a broader commitment to sustainable agriculture, mirroring China’s policy emphasis on modernizing its agricultural system. While the EU is deeply invested in promoting sustainability through policies such as the Green Deal and CAP, China’s agricultural strategies—outlined in documents like the 14th Five-Year Plan and the Action Plan for Seed Industry Revitalization—focus on technological innovation and ensuring national food security. This parallel yet distinct approach highlights the unique policy priorities of each region, driven by their respective agricultural and economic contexts.”

 

Once again, thank you for your constructive feedback, which help improve the clarity and structure of the paper.

 

Point 3: The structure of this research paper requires to be improved. The explanation of the structure of the paper in the last paragraph of the introduction is highly confusing, specially referring to the data and methodology section that does not correspond with the sections of the paper. This part needs to be improved in order to avoid being misleading by strictly coinciding with the paper structure and sections nomenclature. Furthermore, the reviewer advices the authors to rewrite the whole article following a more conventional structure of Introduction, Methods, Case study, Results, Discussion and Conclusions. And each section needs to strictly have its contents. For example, Section 3 mixes explaining the data, which is the case study or materials, with the studied variables, which is part of the methodology or design of the research project. There are contents in the results such as Table 7 that are part of the methods section.

Response 3:

Thank you for your insightful review. We appreciate the thorough feedback provided. Based on your comments, we have made the following adjustments to improve the structure and clarity of the paper:

1. Introduction and Structure Clarification: We have revised the last paragraph of the introduction to provide a clearer and more accurate outline of the paper's structure. The revised introduction now strictly aligns with the section titles and content, avoiding any confusion between sections, particularly regarding the data and methodology section. This should help ensure the paper is more systematic and straightforward to follow.
2. Improved Section Alignment: Following your recommendation, we have restructured the paper according to a more conventional format: Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Case Study, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. Each section now strictly adheres to its purpose. For example, the data explanation is confined to the Data and Methodology section, while the case study focuses exclusively on China's agricultural productivity and its regional disparities, without overlapping with the methodological aspects. This restructuring should improve the overall readability and logical flow of the paper.

The revised content is”

The structure of this research paper is well-organized, beginning with an Introduction that outlines the research background, objectives, and significance. The Literature Review establishes the theoretical foundation by examining studies on agricultural productivity, technological innovations, and environmental sustainability. The Methods section details the variables and measurements (3.1), along with the model specification used (3.2). The Case Study section presents the data sources and descriptive statistics, explaining key variables and their relevance. In the Results section, findings are discussed through various models: the Panel Data Fixed and Random Effects Model (5.1), Multilevel Mixed-Effects Model (5.2), and Structural Equation Modeling (5.3). The Discussion compares the four models (6.1), interprets the results (6.2), contrasts them with existing research (6.3), and provides policy implications (6.4). Finally, the Conclusion summarizes the key findings and suggests directions for future research.“

 

3. Data Presentation: The content previously presented in the results section, such as Table 7, has now been moved to the appropriate section (Methodology) to avoid confusion between results and methodology. This ensures that data description and analysis are clearly separated from the methodological explanation.

We trust that these revisions address your concerns, and we appreciate your suggestion for improving the paper’s structure. Should you have any further recommendations, we are open to additional feedback to enhance the clarity and quality of the paper. Thank you again for your valuable input.

 

Point 4: There are several parts that require further justification. For example, it is essential to explain to potential readers how and by who the 14 variables of the study were chosen. This is especially important to prove the rigor of the whole project.

Response 4:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your comment regarding the selection of the 14 variables, we have revised the explanation to ensure clarity and rigor.

The selection process for the 14 variables was conducted through a comprehensive approach that involved reviewing existing literature and empirical studies related to agricultural productivity (AP) and environmental sustainability. Key factors that influence AP, such as technological advancements, socioeconomic conditions, and environmental impacts, were identified based on their relevance to regional disparities in agricultural performance.

Furthermore, provincial-level data from 2012-2022 was used to empirically validate the selection. Sources like the China Statistical Yearbook, China Rural Statistical Yearbook, and government policy documents, including the 14th Five-Year Plan, were instrumental in guiding the variable selection. Additionally, input from domain experts in agricultural economics ensured that the chosen variables accurately reflected the real-world dynamics of agricultural productivity in China. This careful and deliberate process helps maintain the rigor and validity of the entire research framework.

The revised content is”

…The selection process for the 14 variables in this study was grounded in an extensive review of existing literature on AP, focusing on technological, socioeconomic, and environmental factors. These variables were chosen through a combination of theoretical relevance and empirical validation. The researchers considered factors critical to agricultural innovation and sustainability, such as technological advancements (e.g., rural education, technological training), environmental considerations (e.g., forest coverage rate, ammonia nitrogen emissions), and socioeconomic factors (e.g., rural labor mobility, agricultural investment). Provincial-level data spanning from 2012 to 2022, sourced from official statistical publications, was used to ensure a comprehensive and regionally specific analysis. Key government policy documents, such as the 14th Five-Year Plan, were also instrumental in identifying these variables as crucial determinants of AP in China's diverse regions.”

We appreciate your suggestion and hope that this enhanced explanation provides sufficient justification for the chosen variables. Should you have any further recommendations, we are open to additional revisions. Thank you again for your insightful review.

 

Point 5: The model design lacks explaining to what extend the models and mathematical expressions have been developed in this project by the authors, and to what extend rely on previous works. The mathematical expressions have to be rearranged to follow the journal guidelines.

Response 5:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your concern about the model design and the extent to which the models and mathematical expressions have been developed by the authors or rely on previous works, we have made the following clarifications:

The mathematical models used in this study represent both original contributions and adaptations from established methodologies. While foundational frameworks, such as Fixed Effects Models (FEM), Random Effects Models (REM), and Multilevel Mixed-Effects Models (MLM), are drawn from existing research, the specific application and integration of the variables into the regional and temporal context of Chinese agricultural productivity are original developments by the authors.

For example, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to capture the complex interactions between latent variables such as rural education, technological adoption, and environmental factors, providing a comprehensive systems-level view. Although SEM is an established method, the selection of variables and the theoretical framework applied to the Chinese context were tailored to this project based on the study's specific goals and datasets. Additionally, the customized integration of provincial-level data and region-specific factors further distinguishes the model's original contribution.

The revised content is”

This study employs a comprehensive approach to assess the factors affecting AP by integrating panel data fixed effects model (FEM) and random effects model (REM), multilevel mixed-effects models (MLM), and SEM. The models and mathematical expressions used in this study represent a combination of original development by this paper and adaptations from existing research. Specifically, while the MLM and SEM were customized to fit the unique socioeconomic and environmental variables relevant to Chinese agricultural productivity, the foundational frameworks, such as FEM and REM, are well-established in previous academic works.

These methodologies enable the analysis of socioeconomic, environmental, and technological variables, accounting for regional and temporal variations. FEM, controls for unobserved, time-invariant characteristics like geography or policy history, assuming these factors are correlated with independent variables. This model is particularly useful for isolating within-region variations and aligns with Human Capital Theory, which links education, training, and labor mobility to productivity gains. REM, in contrast, assumes province-specific factors are uncorrelated with the independent variables, making it well-suited for exploring both within- and between-region variations, offering insights into cross-regional disparities in resource allocation and economic development. [53]

MLM captures interactions between macro-level and micro-level variables, making it ideal for studying how socioeconomic, environmental, and technological factors impact productivity across regions and over time. By accounting for individual and group-level variations, MLM effectively examines the role of infrastructure, policies, and labor mobility in shaping outcomes. SEM provides a comprehensive approach to examining causal relationships between latent constructs, such as technological skill capacity and socioeconomic dynamics, while capturing the indirect effects of environmental and socioeconomic factors on agricultural productivity. Together, these models provide a nuanced analysis of how technological, socioeconomic, and environmental factors interact across regions, offering key insights for optimizing productivity while maintaining sustainability.”

We hope this revised explanation clarifies the balance between previous works and the authors' original contributions in model development. We appreciate your insight and welcome further recommendations.

 

Point 6: The conclusions section is also too long and needs revising its contents. It needs to eliminate the first three paragraphs that unnecessarily contextualize the research and summarize the article again. It also needs to present synthetically and clearly the main findings of the project, the main contributions to its area of knowledge. These main findings require being reorganized from general to particular, from general methods to regional issues. And end with a final brief paragraph summarizing and justifying future works. As previously said, instead of research limitations it would be more rigorous to present research boundaries or case study.

Response 6:

Thank you for your valuable feedback on the structure of the conclusions section. In response, we have revised the section to address your concerns.

Firstly, we have streamlined the conclusions by eliminating the first three paragraphs that contextualized the research and unnecessarily repeated earlier sections of the article. The revised section now begins with a concise summary of the main findings and contributions, emphasizing the key insights drawn from the data and models used in the study.

The findings have been reorganized, starting with general methods and theoretical frameworks, such as the multilevel mixed-effects models (MME) and structural equation modeling (SEM), followed by more specific regional issues. For example, the study highlights how technological innovations, such as precision agriculture and biotechnology, have led to significant productivity improvements in more developed regions like Zhejiang and Jiangsu, while less developed areas like Guizhou face challenges due to limited infrastructure and resources.

Additionally, the revised conclusions present research boundaries rather than limitations, clarifying that the study’s case is focused on China’s diverse provincial regions, which serve as a validation of the general model applied. Finally, a brief paragraph has been added to summarize the justification for future research, emphasizing the need for comparative studies across different socio-political environments and further exploration of emerging technologies like AI and smart farming systems.

We appreciate your constructive suggestions and hope this revision addresses the concerns raised. Should you have any further recommendations, we would be happy to consider them. Thank you once again for your thoughtful review.

 

Point 7: Specific comments:

• Rethink the keywords. Avoid keywords that repeat words from the title because they diminish the potential diffusion of the article. Organize keywords from general to particular.
• Clarify the specific contribution of each cited reference. Lists of undefined references must be avoided: lines 22-23, 27-28, 57-58.
• Add a legend in the tables to remind the acronyms to potential readers, p.e. tables 1,2

Response 7:

Thank you for your detailed review and insightful comments. We have made the following adjustments based on your feedback:

1. Keywords:
   As per your suggestion, we have reconsidered the keywords. We ensured that the keywords are distinct from the title to maximize the potential diffusion of the article. Additionally, we organized the keywords from general to particular, reflecting the broader to more specific themes of the study. The new keywords are now:
   • Agricultural Innovation
   • Sustainability
   • Technological Advancement
   • China
   • Environmental Impact
     These changes aim to improve the reach of the article without redundancy.
2. Cited References:
   We have clarified the specific contributions of each reference in the revised version. Previously, some references were listed without clear explanations. In lines 22-23, 27-28, and 57-58, we have now provided context and detailed the contribution of each reference to the overarching research theme. This should eliminate any ambiguity regarding their relevance to the study.
3. Table Legends:
   To enhance reader comprehension, we have added legends to all tables, including Tables 1 and 2, explaining the acronyms used. This should help potential readers navigate the tables more easily without having to refer back to earlier sections for acronym definitions.

We hope these revisions address your concerns, and we sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback that helped us improve the clarity and impact of the manuscript. Please feel free to provide any further comments or suggestions for improvement.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor grammatical correction

Author Response

Point 1: minor grammatical correction.

Response 1:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have completed the proofreading process to ensure the document meets the highest standards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author

Thank you for the careful review of the items.

I hope I have contributed to the quality of the work.

Congratulations on your effort.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your kind words and for your thorough review of our work. Your insights have indeed contributed significantly to enhancing its quality. We appreciate your support and encouragement.

Best regards,

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

From my point of view, the authors have improved this article following the reviewers’ comments. However, in my opinion this text is not a publishable article in its present form mainly because of the following.

1-The text requires erasing inadequate expressions such as “this research paper is well organized” in line 171.

2-The conclusions section is still too long and needs revising its contents. It needs to eliminate the first paragraph that unnecessarily contextualize the research and summarize the article again. It also needs to present synthetically and clearly the main findings of the project, the main contributions to its area of knowledge. These main findings require being reorganized from general to particular, from general methods to regional issues. And end with a final brief paragraph summarizing and justifying future works. As previously said, instead of research limitations it would be more rigorous to present research boundaries or case study.

Specific comments:

3- Organize keywords from general to particular.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 5 Comments

From my point of view, the authors have improved this article following the reviewers’ comments. However, in my opinion this text is not a publishable article in its present form mainly because of the following.

Point 1: The text requires erasing inadequate expressions such as “this research paper is well organized” in line 171.

Response 1:

Thank you for your insightful feedback. We appreciate your suggestion regarding the need to refine the language in the manuscript. In response, we have removed inadequate expressions such as "this research paper is well organized" from line 171. The revised content is

“The structure of this research paper begins with an Introduction that outlines the research background, objectives, and significance.”

This adjustment aims to enhance the professionalism and clarity of the text, ensuring that it maintains a formal academic tone throughout. Thank you again for your valuable input, which has contributed to improving the overall quality of the paper.

 

Point 2: The conclusions section is still too long and needs revising its contents. It needs to eliminate the first paragraph that unnecessarily contextualize the research and summarize the article again. It also needs to present synthetically and clearly the main findings of the project, the main contributions to its area of knowledge. These main findings require being reorganized from general to particular, from general methods to regional issues. And end with a final brief paragraph summarizing and justifying future works. As previously said, instead of research limitations it would be more rigorous to present research boundaries or case study.

Response 2:

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. In response to your comments regarding the conclusions section, we have made several revisions:

1. Conciseness: We have eliminated the first three paragraphs that unnecessarily contextualize the research and reiterate the article's content. This helps to streamline the conclusions and focus on the main findings.
2. Clear Presentation of Findings: The conclusions now present the main findings of the study in a synthetic and clear manner. We have reorganized the findings from general to particular, emphasizing the overarching results before delving into specific regional issues.
3. Future Work Summary: The conclusion ends with a brief paragraph summarizing and justifying future research directions, focusing on the interplay between technological advancements, environmental sustainability, and agricultural policy.
4. Research Boundaries: Instead of merely stating research limitations, we have rephrased this section to discuss the research boundaries or case study, providing a more rigorous context for the findings.

 

The revised Conclusions are”

7. Conclusion

This research highlights the critical role of technological innovations, such as precision agriculture and biotechnology, in enhancing agricultural productivity while maintaining environmental sustainability. Using data from Chinese provinces (2012-2022), the research employing fixed effects, random effects, multilevel mixed-effects models, and SEM to identify key determinants of productivity growth while maintaining sustainability. Key findings indicate that these technologies are vital for increasing yields and reducing inputs, yet their effectiveness varies significantly across different regions due to socioeconomic factors.

Regions with robust infrastructure and higher income levels, such as Zhejiang and Jiangsu, experience greater benefits from technological advancements compared to less developed areas like Guizhou. Socioeconomic conditions, including rural education and income levels, are essential in enabling farmers to adopt and effectively utilize these innovations.

This study underscores the importance of balancing technological advancement with sustainable practices, such as agroecology and organic farming. Areas with higher forest coverage and lower pollution levels demonstrate better productivity growth, emphasizing the need for policies that integrate environmental conservation with agricultural development.

In terms of contributions, this research develops a comprehensive framework that connects technological innovation, socioeconomic factors, and environmental sustainability, addressing gaps in previous studies that often examined these dimensions in isolation. The findings advocate for region-specific policies, recognizing that a one-size-fits-all approach is ineffective. Tailored interventions are necessary to promote balanced agricultural development across regions.

In this study, the research boundaries are primarily defined by the use of provincial-level data from China, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other regions or countries with different socioeconomic, environmental, and political contexts. This focus on a specific national context allows for an in-depth analysis of how technological innovations, socioeconomic factors, and environmental sustainability interact in enhancing agricultural productivity.

While the findings provide valuable insights into the Chinese agricultural landscape, they may not fully apply to other countries with varying agricultural practices, infrastructure, and policy frameworks. Therefore, future research could benefit from comparative studies that explore how these dynamics operate in different geographic and cultural contexts, further enhancing the robustness and applicability of the research outcomes.

Future research should focus on broadening these insights by conducting comparative studies across different countries to explore how varying socio-political environments affect technology integration in agriculture. Additionally, incorporating more environmental variables and emerging technologies will provide a holistic understanding of the impacts of innovation on sustainability. Longitudinal studies examining farmers' attitudes and decision-making processes in response to changing conditions will further enrich the field, ensuring that agricultural practices evolve alongside technological advancements. [59-69]

Boahen et al. [46] highlight that the gender gap in agricultural productivity is largely due to female farmers' limited access to inputs like land. Soni and Manogna [61] found that renewable energy consumption positively impacts agricultural productivity in BRICS countries. Valea and Noufé [62] argue that improving women's land access can reduce productivity gaps and enhance development in Burkina Faso. Aytop and Pinar [63] emphasize the economic significance of addressing water erosion in Turkish vineyards, while Emami and Dehghanisanij [64] highlight the importance of managing water resources through government intervention and farmer education. Karthickmanoj et al. [17] developed a system integrating IoT for early plant disease detection with 98.43% accuracy. Rocha and Ferreira [65] suggest decentralizing Brazil's extension system to improve access to services and boost productivity, aligning with national rural extension goals. Zhu et al. [58] showed that even non-ICT users in connected villages benefited from increased labor productivity, illustrating broader community benefits from digital infrastructure. Song et al. [69] demonstrated that an aging rural population has a greater negative impact on AGTFP in western China, compared to eastern and central regions, revealing regional differences in how demographics affect productivity.

Finally, assessing the long-term impacts of policy interventions on technology adoption will offer empirical evidence for developing effective strategies that promote productivity while ensuring environmental integrity [70,71] Kitole et al. [72] recommend gender-sensitive agricultural policies and rural development initiatives as essential strategies for mitigating the negative effects of abuse and improving productivity.”

 

We believe these revisions enhance the clarity and impact of the conclusions. Thank you once again for your constructive feedback, which has been instrumental in improving the overall quality of the paper.

 

Specific comments:

Point 3:  Organize keywords from general to particular.

Response 3:

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the organization of the keywords. In response to your suggestion, we have reorganized the keywords to ensure they progress from general to particular.

 

The revised Keywords:

“Keywords: Agricultural Innovation; Technological Advancement; Sustainability; Environmental Impact; China”

 

This adjustment enhances the clarity and effectiveness of the keywords, making it easier for readers to identify the core themes of the research. We appreciate your guidance in improving the overall quality of the manuscript. Thank you again for your insightful comments!