Analysis of Economic Ripple Effects in the Agricultural Field Using Input–Output Analysis: Drought Damage in Korea in 2018

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study provides a thorough analysis of the economic ripples caused by the 2018 agricultural drought in Korea, applying input-output analysis. The authors successfully adapt various models to estimate both the demand-driven and socio-economic impacts on the agricultural sector and its connection with the rest of the industries. The production, value-added, employment inducement effects, the supply shortage, and the price-inducing effect of the drought get closely examined. Additionally, the focus on the industry linkage supplements the picture of the agricultural sector’s role and significance for the country’s economy. In general, the research makes a substantial contribution to understanding the economic effects of agricultural droughts and might be useful for policymakers and researchers in the area.

It should be revised following the belowing suggestions before it can be accepted.

Recommendations for Improvement:

The paper could have been improved by expanding the simulation period (if possible) to a longer term or by considering multiple drought events to provide an extensive forecast of the economic effects over time.

It would also add value to include more sensitivity models or a case-based approach that would reveal the effect of the drought extremity or intervention policies.

At last, it would strengthen the findings if the authors expanded the input-output analysis integrating it with other modeling approaches, such as computable general equilibrium models to bring in the macroeconomic perspective.

Moreover, the discussion could be enriched if the authors explicitly compared their findings with existing research, making an emphasis on their unique contribution and the matter of implications.

Finally, more specific recommendations for action for policymakers could be included to respond effectively to the severe drought scenarios.

 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 1

Thank you for the reviewer's comments. I have written responses to reviewer comments and revised paper pages. The reviewer's corrections are marked in Green. Duplicate opinions are marked in purple. Again, thanks for the comments, we made the corrections with the utmost care.

comments

1. The paper could have been improved by expanding the simulation period (if possible) to a longer term or by considering multiple drought events to provide an extensive forecast of the economic effects over time.

► I agree with the reviewer's opinion. However, although droughts in Korea are specified on p.6-7, there are not many droughts that have caused large-scale damage. With records of drought damage continuing every year after 2020, long-term drought analysis has limitations in conducting research. On p.16, a research method for ongoing drought is proposed for future research. (on page 16)

 

2. It would also add value to include more sensitivity models or a case-based approach that would reveal the effect of the drought extremity or intervention policies.

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 16)

 

3. At last, it would strengthen the findings if the authors expanded the input-output analysis integrating it with other modeling approaches, such as computable general equilibrium models to bring in the macroeconomic perspective.

► The analysis methods for this study were input-output analysis and computable general equilibrium models. However, the CGE model had to consider a relatively large number of factors, so input-output analysis was selected to conduct the study. Thank you for your good opinion.

 

4. Moreover, the discussion could be enriched if the authors explicitly compared their findings with existing research, making an emphasis on their unique contribution and the matter of implications.

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 15-16)

 

5. Finally, more specific recommendations for action for policymakers could be included to respond effectively to the severe drought scenarios.

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 17)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors employ input-output analysis to investigate the economic repercussions of drought damage in the agricultural sector of Korea during 2018. The study utilizes a comprehensive methodological approach, applying various analytical models within input-output analysis to quantify and understand the interdependence and ripple effects among industries. The paper is well written and easy to follow. Nevertheless some points should be addressed. In particular:

1. Use passive voice within the text.

2. Figure 1 is actually a table.

3. Provide clearer interpretations and implications of the quantitative results obtained from the input-output analysis. Explain in-depth how the calculated production inducement effects, value-added inducement effects, and employment inducement effects reflect the economic significance of agricultural shocks.

4. Discuss the observed trends or patterns in the socio-economic ripple effects.

5. Connect the study's findings more explicitly to potential policy implications or recommendations.

6. Provide more detail on the methodology and potential benefits of applying multi-year industrial cascade analysis in the context of water resource management and economic modeling.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A minor editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2

Thank you for the reviewer's comments. I have written responses to reviewer comments and revised paper pages. The reviewer's corrections are marked in red. Duplicate opinions are marked in purple. Again, thanks for the comments, we made the corrections with the utmost care.

 

comments

1. 1. Use passive voice within the text.

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (whole page)

 

2. Figure 1 is actually a table.

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 3)

 

3. Provide clearer interpretations and implications of the quantitative results obtained from the input-output analysis. Explain in-depth how the calculated production inducement effects, value-added inducement effects, and employment inducement effects reflect the economic significance of agricultural shocks.

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 8-10)

 

4. Discuss the observed trends or patterns in the socio-economic ripple effects.

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 15-16)

 

5. Connect the study's findings more explicitly to potential policy implications or recommendations.

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 16)

 

6. Provide more detail on the methodology and potential benefits of applying multi-year industrial cascade analysis in the context of water resource management and economic modeling.

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 16)

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Abstract

1/ L13: Correct "pro-vided" to "provided" and "im-portance" to "importance" in L27, "agricul-tural" to "agricultural" in L28.

2/ L16: Please introduce the abbreviation KRW before its first use.

3/ Can the authors label findings numerically, e.g., (1), (2), etc.?

In general, the abstract is well-organized and well-written, and requires only a few minor edits.

Introduction

4/ L36-40: These sentences lack references and must be supported by references: “Climate change causes a variety of natural disasters [suggest ref 10.1109/jstars.2024.3380514], among which droughts are very damaging in various countries and have significant socio-economic impacts as well as impacts on agriculture and water management [10.3389/fenvs.2023.1304845]. The increase in temperature and variability of precipitation due to climate change increases the frequency and intensity of droughts (reference?). The occurrence of such droughts has far-reaching spillover effects on national economies through direct impacts such as reduced food production, water shortages, and reduced economic growth (reference?)"

5/ L47-63: While these sentences were well-written, they lack an in-depth analysis of gaps in previous studies that your proposed work must address so please revise them. The second half of the paragraph focuses on highlighting the impacts of droughts on economic growth and methods used by previous works; however, these are not clearly explained. Consider revising these sentences to focus more in-depth on only a few studies instead of many. The reason for the 2018 drought being analyzed as a single-year event needs more background explanation, such as potential causes like high temperatures or human infrastructures, e.g., dam operation [10.3850/978-90-833476-1-5_iahr40wc-p1339-cd].

6/ L64-88: These paragraphs introduce methods but are lengthy; can the authors make them more concise?

7/ L100-109: Can the authors numerically label the study’s objectives, e.g., (1), (2), etc.?

Materials and Methods

8/ Figure 1 should be a Table, not a Figure. Additionally, if the authors could draw a framework, it would be beneficial to understand.

9/ Can you add a map of the study area? Is this study conducted for the entire South Korea or specific regions?

10/ Section 2.1 should briefly introduce the climate types of South Korea, its main crops, and significant historical droughts, and include a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) to show the elevation of the country [refer to 10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101282].

11/ In Table 1, does the No. indicate the ranking of these categories? If the data from the Bank of Korea is confidential, can you provide the link to it?

12/ Section 2.2 was well-written and good at describing the method, but can we draw a framework of how these are implemented in the study?

13/ L206-207 and L210-214 need references.

Results and Discussion

14/ L367-375: Can the authors include references to previous works on South Korea for better comparison?

15/ The current discussion lacks a detailed analysis using the results from the results section and should be revised.

16/ I am curious if the agricultural drought in 2018 was influenced by the operation of dams/reservoirs in the context of reduced rainfall due to climate change.

Conclusion

17/ The conclusion should briefly highlight the main outcomes; please do not write them in full form format. Provide them at the end of the Discussion section instead.

18/ Can you numerically label the main findings, e.g., (1), (2), etc.?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 3

Thank you for the reviewer's comments. I have written responses to reviewer comments and revised paper pages. The reviewer's corrections are marked in blue. Duplicate opinions are marked in purple. Again, thanks for the comments, we made the corrections with the utmost care.

comments

1. 1. L13: Correct "pro-vided" to "provided" and "im-portance" to "importance" in L27, "agricul-tural" to "agricultural" in L28.

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 1)

 

2. L16: Please introduce the abbreviation KRW before its first use.

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 1)

 

3. Can the authors label findings numerically, e.g., (1), (2), etc.?

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 1)

 

4. L36-40: These sentences lack references and must be supported by references: “Climate change causes a variety of natural disasters [suggest ref 10.1109/jstars.2024.3380514], among which droughts are very damaging in various countries and have significant socio-economic impacts as well as impacts on agriculture and water management [10.3389/fenvs.2023.1304845]. The increase in temperature and variability of precipitation due to climate change increases the frequency and intensity of droughts (reference?). The occurrence of such droughts has far-reaching spillover effects on national economies through direct impacts such as reduced food production, water shortages, and reduced economic growth (reference?)".

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 1)

 

5. L47-63: While these sentences were well-written, they lack an in-depth analysis of gaps in previous studies that your proposed work must address so please revise them. The second half of the paragraph focuses on highlighting the impacts of droughts on economic growth and methods used by previous works; however, these are not clearly explained. Consider revising these sentences to focus more in-depth on only a few studies instead of many. The reason for the 2018 drought being analyzed as a single-year event needs more background explanation, such as potential causes like high temperatures or human infrastructures, e.g., dam operation [10.3850/978-90-833476-1-5_iahr40wc-p1339-cd].

► The papers in L47-63 are composed of papers whose classification or special features are not clearly connected to or partially match the main study. Analysis methods and highly relevant research topics are covered in L68-103.

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 2)

 

6. L64-88: These paragraphs introduce methods but are lengthy; can the authors make them more concise?

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 2)

 

7. L100-109: Can the authors numerically label the study’s objectives, e.g., (1), (2), etc.?

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page2)

 

8. Figure 1 should be a Table, not a Figure. Additionally, if the authors could draw a framework, it would be beneficial to understand.

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 3)

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 4)

 

9. Can you add a map of the study area? Is this study conducted for the entire South Korea or specific regions?

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 6)

 

10. Section 2.1 should briefly introduce the climate types of South Korea, its main crops, and significant historical droughts, and include a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) to show the elevation of the country [refer to 10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101282].

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 6)

► This study conducts economic analysis and does not deal with geographical data. The 2018 damage data was displayed in map form rather than DEM.

 

11. In Table 1, does the No. indicate the ranking of these categories? If the data from the Bank of Korea is confidential, can you provide the link to it?

► Table 2 shows the major categories of the industry-related table. Links to the data are below.

https://ecos.bok.or.kr/#/

 

12. Can you add a map of the study area? Is this study conducted for the entire South Korea or specific regions?

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 4)

 

13. L206-207 and L210-214 need references.

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 7)

 

14. L367-375: Can the authors include references to previous works on South Korea for better comparison?

► The analysis of socio-economic damage from domestic agricultural drought has differences in analysis methods and techniques compared to this study. Additionally, some of the researched papers were not used as reference material.

 

15. The current discussion lacks a detailed analysis using the results from the results section and should be revised.

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 15)

 

16. I am curious if the agricultural drought in 2018 was influenced by the operation of dams/reservoirs in the context of reduced rainfall due to climate change.

► In the agricultural drought of 2018, selective supply through dam/reservoir operation was not possible. It could not be implemented due to conflict of opinion over regional water use. Recently, R&D on water use is underway. I participated in that study and the results of this study were primarily presented.

 

17. The conclusion should briefly highlight the main outcomes; please do not write them in full form format. Provide them at the end of the Discussion section instead.

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 15-16)

 

18. Can you numerically label the main findings, e.g., (1), (2), etc.?

► Modified according to reviewer's opinion. (on page 16)

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It can be accepted 

Author Response

Thank you for your positive review.
We will come back with a better paper in the future.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing all if my comments.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive review.
We will come back with a better paper in the future.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your revision. 

Author Response

Thank you for your positive review.
We will come back with a better paper in the future.