The Impact of Agricultural Green Development on Farmers’ Income Quality in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is interesting and addresses an important issue. The author identifies a research gap and describes the research methodology and indicators in detail. He thoroughly analyzes the results and draws conclusions. He also points out the limitations of the research. 

1. The concept of income quality raises some doubts. The author constructed a system of indexes for assessing farmers' income quality across four dimensions: adequacy, structure, growth, and knowledge intensity. Therefore, it requires clarification on what constitutes high or low income quality. 
2. Why were control variables such as the level of government support, the level of social security, natural resources, local market vitality, transport accessibility, industrial structure modernization and financial development vitality chosen?
3. What caused the decline in green agricultural development in 2021-2022? 
4. I propose that the study be supplemented with research hypotheses.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines the impact of agricultural green development (AGD) on farmers’ income quality (FIQ) in China using provincial panel data from 2011 to 2022. The authors employ a two-way fixed effects model and entropy weight method to construct composite indices for AGD and FIQ. The paper is well-structured, methodologically sound, and addresses an important topic in the context of sustainable agricultural development and rural revitalization. The findings provide valuable insights for policymakers, especially regarding regional and structural heterogeneity.

1. Could the criteria for measuring farmers’ income quality be specified in the introduction?
2. It is recommended to supplement the literature review with references from an international context.
3. Could the mechanism diagram (Figure 1) be accompanied by explanatory notes for each pathway in the main text?
4. Since agricultural-related expenditures may include non-direct farmer benefits, is there a potential inaccuracy in the control variable “government support level”?
5. Should the lagged effects of variables be considered in the robustness tests?
6. Could the negative result in the Northeast region be explained in greater depth?
7. Is there a lack of policy-oriented analysis regarding the heterogeneity between the central and western regions?
8. Could the discussion section be enhanced by incorporating more connections with existing theories?
9. Could the conclusion explicitly specify the regional or policy scope to which the research findings apply?
10. Inconsistencies in the formatting of the references were detected. Additionally, a number of grammatical errors are present throughout the manuscript and must be revised.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1: The introduction provides a comprehensive overview of the Chinese context of agricultural green development and farmers’ income. However, it would significantly strengthen the paper if the authors linked their study to the global context. At present, the discussion is too narrowly focused on China, while agricultural green development is a worldwide issue.

Point 2: The methodology section provides a detailed description of the construction of the composite indices for both agricultural green development (AGD) and farmers’ income quality (FIQ). However, the paper employs a large number of indicators, and it is not entirely clear why these specific indicators were chosen over other possible alternatives.

Point 3: In the section describing the methodology and the use of the two-way fixed effects model, it would be desirable to indicate whether the basic assumptions for applying panel data models were tested. In particular, the authors should clarify if they checked for unit roots, cross-sectional dependence, heteroskedasticity, and serial correlation, as well as whether a Hausman test was conducted to justify the choice of fixed effects.

Point 4: The authors mention that missing data were handled through linear interpolation. Since this method may introduce bias or distortions, it would be advisable to test the robustness of the results using alternative imputation techniques.

Point 5: The discussion relies almost exclusively on Chinese studies, which limits the international relevance of the findings. It would strengthen the paper if the authors compared their results with evidence from other regions.

Point 6: In the discussion section, it would be desirable to state more clearly whether the main research objective has been achieved. While the results are summarized and interpreted, the link back to the stated aim of examining how agricultural green development impacts farmers’ income quality is not made explicit. A concluding statement confirming the extent to which the study met its objective would strengthen the coherence of the paper.

Point 7: In the conclusion, it would be desirable to also mention the limitations of this study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a well-structured and timely study exploring the relationship between agricultural green development (AGD) and farmers’ income quality (FIQ) in China. By using provincial panel data from 2011–2022, the authors develop a comprehensive index system for both AGD and FIQ and apply a two-way fixed effects model with instrumental variables and robustness checks. The topic is highly relevant to sustainability policy, rural development, and agricultural economics. The paper is thorough, and the literature review demonstrates an impressive breadth of sources. Overall, the study makes a valuable contribution, but some areas could be clarified or streamlined to improve readability and policy relevance.

Major Comments

Clarity and Conciseness: While comprehensive, the manuscript is very long and dense (39 pages), which may overwhelm readers. Consider shortening the literature review slightly and moving some descriptive statistics, tables, or methodological formulas to an appendix.

Causal Interpretation: The authors argue for a causal effect of AGD on FIQ using IV-2SLS and GMM. More detail is needed on the validity of the chosen instruments: How strong is the correlation between AGD in other regions and AGD in the target region (first-stage statistics)? Could there be spillover effects that violate the exclusion restriction (e.g., national policies affecting all provinces simultaneously)? Strengthening this discussion will help convince readers of causal claims.

Interpretation of Negative Short-Term Effects: The finding that environmentally friendly practices initially reduce income quality is important but under-discussed. The authors should explore policy trade-offs, such as transition costs for farmers, and suggest support mechanisms.

Regional Analysis Depth: Although regional differences are reported, the explanation is somewhat descriptive. A deeper discussion linking results to specific agricultural policies, resource endowments, or historical contexts of each region would make this section more impactful.

Income Knowledge-Intensity Indicator: Using only average years of education to measure knowledge intensity seems narrow. Could additional indicators (e.g., participation in training programs, extension services) be incorporated or at least discussed as a limitation?

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thsnk you for your effort,

I accept the manuscript in present form.