Efficiency Analysis of the Input for Water-Saving Agriculture in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper concerns the crucial issue of efficiency analysis of the input for water-saving agriculture in China. The following suggestions should be referred to. In the abstract the main achievements of the performed analysis should be presented. Line 22. What do you mean by relatively low efficiency? Add references to all of the equation, in the case You are not the Author of the equation. The Author should mention in conclusions, if obtained results will constitute a practical and quick tool for practitioners. Lines 286-287, what is the regional average? Lines 283-288. On what base it was stated, that agricultural work is not water-saving irrigation? Did you provide some criteria? Some figures should be provided, as to present in clear way the obtained results. The way of calculation of irrigation requirement index should be presented in the section of method. The main achievements of this study should be presented and underlined in the Conclusion. It is recommended to highlight the new contributions of the presented research. Besides, there is no discussion about possible limitations of using the proposed modelling. Therefore, I propose to consider the possibility of completing the last point for discussion on possibilities and limitations of the use of such analysis.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Lines 30 and 32: The quoted figures and claims in these two lines require appropriate references from the literature.
Line 41: The author should be consistent with the use of “water-saving” instead of alternating it with “water saving”.
Line 46: the “of” in the “…..individual farmer economic benefits are of limited.” is not necessary here.
Line 74: Section 2.1 that described the DEA model should be moved to the introduction section. It will be a better fit in this section than under the methodology.
Line 108: The abbreviation like BCC should be defined at the first point of mentioning.
Line 142. Section 2.3 for indicator selection and data source would be better if it comes first before the DEA-BCC methodology section.
Line 186: Why are these regions selected for the study?
There are no comparisons of the obtained results for this study with previous studies. The author should work on this area.
Line 107: The statement “The efficiency of water-saving irrigation input will significantly increase
The author needs to provide a reference from the literature to substantiate this claim.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This study explores the efficiency derived from the input for water-saving initiatives in the agricultural sector in China. According to a detailed statistical analysis based on DEA model execution, the authors show how the efficiency in the use of water has been improved thanks to different water-saving actions in crops of the 31 provinces in mainland China. This paper is well structured and written, with some useful outputs to be considered in agricultural water-saving management field. The main weakness is, in my opinion, the overextended quantitative analysis, which requires so much elaboration and explanation, rather than discussion of its main results.
However, there is some value in the study to be highlighted and my recommendation would be to accept the article once a reviewed manuscript is submitted according to the following points:
Even though the main goal is no specified as it is expected, the main purpose of this paper is to analyse the efficiency of water-saving initiatives coming from three main inputs. In this sense, I assume that the theoretical framework is regarding water-saving efficiency in agricultural sector. A literature review section is needed in order to frame the goal and link it to the theoretical background. I would recommend adding a new section with some ideas around this issue existing in the scientific literature, linking the whole study to this topic.
An introduction of the Study area would make the paper more readable as the method is territorialized applied. Figures and maps along this section would help the reader to better understand your findings.
As I mentioned before, the overextended statistical analysis requires so much explanation and elaboration. From my point of view, the discussion of the results needs to be developed in deep. In this sense, this section could be extended by considering, for instance, some recommendations or strategies to be adopted for each province. Which are the main challenges for provinces with the lowest level of efficiency in water-saving actions? And what about the lessons we could learn from those regions with the highest level? Could the authors propose some new insights in order to face the main challenges and based on the advances of the regions with the highest punctuation? These points need to be discussed and debated since, to sum up, I missed some discussion on the managing implications.
Which is the main contribution to the agricultural water-saving efficiency field? With a new Theoretical framework section, this issue would be clearer. The authors need to address the contribution of their paper in a convincing way to give value to their work.
Did the authors encounter any limitation during any stage of the study? If so, they need to be specified in the conclusion section. Also further research would be interesting to know, if any.
Some minor questions:
The Methods section is quite confusing. I would recommend restructuring it in some new sections, such as, for instance, “Research site”, “Sample and instruments”, “Study variables” and “Statistical analysis”.
Overall English style and language must be reviewed thoroughly. Moreover, typos and orthographic mistakes must be corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This manuscript uses a data envelopment analysis model to estimate avenues for improving water input efficiencies, measured by TE, PTE, and SE. The main problem I find with this manuscript is that the problem is not clearly explained in the introduction, so it’s not evident how the methodology addresses the problem. As I understand it, the problem is that water management efficiency is not measured carefully, and so this approach identifies key variables connected to these efficiencies TE, PTE and SE, and then calculates which provinces are most in need of improvement. If this is correct, then please say this, and explain why this the method used here is appropriate. The conclusion is where I understood the approach best. Maybe the paper can be modified to ask the four questions addressed in the conclusion, but to put these questions in the introduction. I think the study has merit; this is an attempt to rank areas of China that need the most water-focused tech improvements. The problem just needs to be framed more clearly in the introduction, and maybe a little in the Methods section. For example, in the the methods section, the predictor variables should be described in an example first. Minor comments: Please define the acronym “DEA” the first time it appears in the text. It’s in the abstract but it should also be in the main body. You need to define input slack here. Is it uncertainty? Please converts units of mu to units of square meters. Section 2.2.1: The inputs to a DEA model should be briefly mentioned before jumping in to the Please give examples of the types of data used in a DEA that would be represented by the X and Y variables. I think it would also be helpful to mention these explicitly in the introduction. Line 297: Please change to “in China generally is in the stage" Line 305: please change to “would play a significant effect"Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper focuses on crucial issue of the efficiency analysis of the input for water-saving agriculture in China. Please check the resolution of Figures, they should be of a good quality, eg. line 65. Figure 1. Water-saving irrigated and effective irrigated areas in mainland China. In the section of the discussion, line 391. add add some perspective of future work, which can concern the assessment of the water sources and reclaimed water can be used to balance water supply and demand, line 390 as presented in Rak,J.; Pietrucha-Urbanik, K. An approach to determine risk indices for drinking water – study investigation. Sustainability-Basel, 2019, 11, 3189, what enhance the efficiency of agricultural water-saving irrigation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The author(s) have produced a very systematic and comprehensive response to the referees' comments, which has made the task of evaluating the revised submission so much easier. Thank you for taking the time and making the changes so clear and transparent.
Since the issues I mentioned before have been carefully addressed, I would recommend accepting the paper, subject to some minor adjustments to ensure consistency in the rationale:
-Regarding figure 2, I would recommend to check and re-adjust the situation map, since I think it is wrong projected.
-Page 3, line 94: hyphen missing.
-Figure 3 provides a useful and comprehensive perspective to the whole study. Thank you very much for synthetizing your findings. Just a very simple minor: correct the “Analysis caculate” arrow.
All in all, the article has been significantly improved and I feel is suitable and ready to be published in the journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
