The Impact of High-Standard Farmland Construction Policies on the Carbon Emissions from Agricultural Land Use (CEALU)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper measured the carbon emissions of China's agricultural land from 2005 to 2017, and used the DID model to analyze the impact of the high standard basic farmland construction policy on the unit area of agricultural land carbon emissions and its regional differences. The article is full of data, the structure is completed, the logic is rigorous, and the evaluation results are objective and reasonable, but there are still places that need to be improved and supplemented with explanations, and the specific modification suggestions are as follows:

1. The research content and structure of the paper are too similar to other papers, and authors are advised to include their own original content.

2. According to our understanding, there are some studies on the impact of high-standard farmland construction policies on carbon emissions, and what is the basis for the paper's reference to "few scholars explored the impact of agricultural land policies on carbon emissions, such as the High-standard farmland construction (HSFC) in China, such as the High-standard farmland construction (HSFC) in China." 

3. in part 3.2.2, what is the basis for selecting control variables without any references.

4. In part 4.1, it is suggested that carbon emissions from agricultural land in China from 2005 to 2017 be presented graphically.

5. It is recommended that the formulas and calculations in parts 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 be moved to part 3.1.

6. The results of the paper's data are all presented in tabular form, and it is suggested to represent them graphically.

7. Discussion section 5 has no significance, the content is reflected in the introduction, and the discussion section should address the findings of the paper.

8. It is recommended that the authors make appropriate policy recommendations based on the results of the paper.

Author Response

1. The thesis does utilize the methods and objects of other research results, but this thesis tries to construct the logic of high standard farmland policy and carbon emissions from agricultural land use in part 2.2, which supplements some neglected points of previous research in order to elucidate the relationship between them. The author also realizes that there are still aspects of this theoretical framework that need to be improved, and will continue to go deeper in future research.

2. The loose statements in the abstract have been removed and corrected.

3. The selection of control variables in this part is based on the results of previous studies, because of our negligence we feel very sorry for not presenting it, now we have revised this part.

4. In part 4.1, the graphical presentation has been modified in response to expert comments.

5. In parts 4.2.2, Eq. (3) is the result of a reanalysis and may be more appropriate here. However, thanks to the experts' comments, these parts has been optimized and modified.

6. Due to our limited capacity, it is difficult to express the validation part of the study results graphically, so we keep the original form of the validation results.

7. The discussion section 5 has been rewritten.

8. The results of the study were optimized in the light of expert advice and appropriately referenced policy recommendations were made.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have posed a very interesting scientific question and a reasonable research method. But there are some problems with this manuscript.

1. The introduction logic leaves much room for improvement, and in addition, the introduction does not clarify the practical significance of the study.

2. There is a lack of connection between theoretical and empirical analysis.

3. High-standard farmland is a concept in China, but this journal is internationally oriented, so it is necessary for the manuscript to reveal the international revelations of the study.

4. The discussion section of the manuscript needs to be reorganized. It is suggested to add comparisons with previous research results, policy implications, etc.

Author Response

1. The logic of the introduction section was optimized and modified to clarify the significance of the study.

2. It is true that there is a lack of connection between the theoretical and empirical analyses, but we have tried our best to state the theoretical framework first, and will follow up with deeper and deeper research in connecting their direct relationship.

3. It's our negligence, and we have made some revelations in favor of international applicability by modifying the introduction, discussion, and conclusion sections to better suit the international audience of journal.

4. The discussion section 5 has been rewritten, and the results of the study were optimized in the light of expert advice and appropriately referenced policy recommendations were made.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Great paper, timely topic, maybe simplify findings a bit or distil down data to make for easier comprehension, maybe a bit more on the carbon fixing prperties of agrigulture as well (legummes)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English was very good, I found perhaps one or two words joined that woud not normally be done in english, maybe have it combed through one time with an english proffiient person, overall fine though.

Author Response

1. Thank you expert for your valuable comments, we have revised the paper.

2. We have made English polishing for making the expression clearer.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recommendations to authors

Although the manuscript presents an interesting approach, I believe that several issues must be addressed. The manuscript needs to be carefully edited.

My main concerns are the following:

1. There are no clear objectives outlined for this research. You attempt to assess the impact of new agricultural land policies on carbon emissions in China, such as the High-Standard Farmland Construction (HSFC). However, it seems risky to evaluate such policies without considering other contributing factors (such as changes in climate, in mean temperature, or others economy-related factors). Reductions in carbon emissions may be influenced by factors other than land policies, making it difficult to determine if a land policy alone can effectively reduce carbon emissions.

2. The period from 2005 to 2017 is relatively short for identifying trends and making assumptions. A longer period, ideally spanning at least 30 years, would be necessary to draw more reliable conclusions.

3. The 'Methods' section requires improvement as it lacks clarity. The ‘Results’ section must also be improved. For example, the ‘Parallel Trend Test and Dynamic Policy Effect’ needs to be reconsidered. English also must be improved.

4. Several improvements are needed throughout the manuscript, including: (a) rewriting certain sections to enhance clarity and fluency in English; (b) making necessary changes to figures; and (c) carefully editing the text for corrections.

5. The 'Discussion' section needs to be rewritten.

 

Detailed comments:

· In line 8: Replace “* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.’ with “Correspondence: Jian Lin”

· In line 12: Add a space before ‘Thus’.

· In lines 12 – 15: Rewrite the sentence and improve English.

· In line 18: I believe it is preferable to use 'led' rather than 'produced' to describe the positive outcome of the carbon emission reduction.

· In lines 28 – 44: You must always add a space after a period. Check this throughout the text.

· In lines 31, 32, 35: Please make the correction: “CO2” instead of “CO2”.

· In line 45: Would it be better to use “several researchers” instead of “numerous scholars”? Additionally, when referring to multiple studies, it is essential to provide references. It appears that these 'numerous' studies are analyzed shortly after. Therefore, I suggest moving this first sentence to the end of the paragraph to serve as a conclusion.

· In line 157: “richer”?

· In line 158: What is the meaning of having a y axis?

· In line 233: I think the color does not add any value to the figure.

· In lines 253 – 258: You need to check again the abbreviations. Also, you must explain in the text how α, β, δ are calculated.

· In line 270: The numbers that are mentioned in the caption must also exist in the figure otherwise just remove them.

· In line 275: Improve the title “Data and Variable”. Maybe “Dataset used” would be better.

· In line 312: You mentioned the control variables here, but perhaps 'Per unit area yield of grain' is missing. Please verify this and add it. Additionally, when referring to the control variables, maintain the same order as presented in Table 4. I believe an ascending order would be helpful in this context.

· In line 315: Table 4 needs to be improved and meet the standards set by the Journal. Check the Journal template, remove unnecessary spaces before commas, set one decimal digit to numbers, check font, numbers must have right alignment. Check several linguistic errors (“industrial” starts with a small letter).

· In line 329: Add axis titles (to the primary and secondary vertical axis). Also, you can increase the width of Figure 4.

· In line 347: Table 5 can be moved to the end of the manuscript to an Appendix or to Supplementary material.

· In line 353: You should provide more detail on the calculation of 'fixed and random effects', focusing not only on their conceptual meaning but also on the practical methods used for their calculation.

· In line 362, 440: Replace “ρ" with “p” for p-values. You do not provide abbreviation for the case of “***”.

· In line 365: This section must be improved. There are several logical gaps, and the text is not clear. Also, the two graphs in Figure 5 can be improved and maybe they can be merged into one to enhance the comparison between fixed and random effect.

· In line 370: You have two equations as (2) in the text in lines 292 and 370.

· In line 371: Is a “t” missing here?

· In lines 378 – 383: Improve English – rewrite this paragraph.

· In line 409: You mention the ‘mixed effect’ without providing any information on how it is calculated.

· In line 415: There is no interpretation for the results of the robustness test. There is a short comment on lines 411 – 413 but it can be improved.

· In lines 446 – 470: This section belongs in the introduction. You need to rewrite the entire section, discussing the findings of your study in comparison with what other researchers have reported on this topic.

· In line 489: At the end of the 'conclusions' section, you should mention how the findings of your study can be useful and outline further steps needed to maintain low carbon emissions from agricultural activities.

 

Author Response

1. Thanks to expert’s valuable and precious comments, we have revised and discussed the limitations of the study.

2. Due to the sustainability of data acquisition, publicly available data were not available before 2005 and after 2018, so the time interval for the study was chosen to be 2005-2017. Additional data and methodological applicability will continue to be explored in depth in subsequent studies.

3. We did our best to revise these two sections and rewrote and optimized the expressions in them in response to the expert’s comments.

4. The discussion section 5 has been rewritten.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of this manuscript have meticulously revised the peer-review questions posed. The paper is currently in a form suitable for publication in this journal.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, and we are honored that you have taken the time to suggest valuable comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recommendations to authors

It is obvious that you put a lot of effort into improving the manuscript. I see that almost all recommendations from the previous stage have been adopted and the most critical issues have been addressed. However, there are still some parts in the manuscript that need to be improved. Please check below my recommendations.

My main concerns are as follows:

1. The period from 2005 to 2017 is relatively short for identifying trends and making assumptions. A longer period, ideally spanning at least 30 years, would be necessary to draw more reliable conclusions. You replied that there is an issue on data availability, but you did not mention this in the text. The term “trend” is used throughout the manuscript. In my opinion, you cannot talk about “trends” when you analyze data for only 12 years (at least 30 years of continuous data are needed).

2. The 'Discussion' section has been improved. However, repetitions exist without providing evidence or discussing the findings of the study. 

3. The 'Conclusion' section has been enhanced, but it is now lengthy and could be more compact and concise

 

Detailed comments:

- In line 2: I do not find the title appropriate for this article. I would recommend something like “The impact of high-standard basic farmland construction policies on agricultural eco-efficiency in China” or “The impact of high-standard basic farmland construction policies on the carbon emissions from agricultural land use (CEALU)”. Please reconsider the title of the article.

- In line 260: Check Figure 3 and remove the outline.

- In line 261: Remove the numbering for regions in note.

- In line 268: Something is missing, or the sentence must be rewritten. Please check.

- In line 289: Check font size in Table 3; I think it is bigger than it should be.

- In line 307: Table 4 has been improved. Please check the font, I think it is not Palatino Linotype (based on the template of the Journal). Also, please keep only one decimal to numbers, it is more than enough. In labels, change the label of the first column to “Variables”.

- In line 322: Figure 4 has been improved. Please consider one more improvement: increase the width of the graph and slightly the width of the bars.

- In line 338: Figure 5 has also been improved. I suggest you adding the year in each map instead of using the alphabetic numbering below each map and make repetitions. Have in mind that if you choose to use alphabetic numbering then you must explain in the caption what each letter represents. In addition, I am not sure if separate maps for each year are better than one map showing the differences between 2005 and 2017. Maybe you should consider the latter.

- In line 351: Apply italics to statistic p.

- In line 436: The discussion section has been improved. However, please remove repetitions and phrases like “… the findings of this study provide valuable insights for understanding the role of HSFC policies in promoting sustainable agricultural development and reducing agricultural carbon emissions ..”. Try to provide evidence/discussion based on your findings and relocate this type of concluding sentence to the conclusion section.

- In line 493: Check English.

- In lines 495 – 500: This is just a repetition.

- In line 506: You should mention the issue regarding the data availability before 2005. In my opinion, you should not talk about “trends” when analyzing data for only 12 years (you need at least 30 years of continuous data).

 

Author Response

1. In line 2: After careful consideration, we have taken on board the expert's  feedback and changed the title to "The impact of high-standard farmland construction policies on the carbon emissions from agricultural land use (CEALU）". The word "basic" has been deleted, because high-standard basic farmland and high-standard farmland are not the same concept, the latter has a larger scope and is also the object of this study. We will synchronize the revision in the system.

2. In line 266: the outline of the picture has been deleted.

3. In line 268: The numbering for regions in note have been deleted.

4. In line 275: This part has been revised and the remedies for missing data have been described, together with a description of the data sources.

5. In line 296: We have adjusted the font size.

6. In line 314: The font has been adjusted to the "Palatino Linotype" format required by the journal, numbers have been keeped only one decimal, and the first column words have been changed to "variable".

7. In line 328: Figure 4 increases the width of the graph and the bars.

8. In line 345: We have revised Figure 5.

9. In line 359: We have changed the statistic P to italics.

10. lines 454 - 510: This part was revised to remove repetitions and phrases. Try to discuss based on the findings, as well as explaining the limitations of the data and what needs to be worked on next.

11. In lines 530: The conclusions have been revised.

12. The expert's comment is very reasonable, that only long sequences are better expressed as "trend", and we have changed this loose expression to "change".

Author Response File: Author Response.doc