Labor Endowment Change, Regional Difference, and Agricultural Production Location Adjustment: Evidence from China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see attached file with detailed comments
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comment #1
On page 5, line 173, the total number of people contains a typo.
Comment #2
The labor abundance index was briefly described on page 9, and examining table 3 the index appears to have a base of 1.0. It would be helpful to the reader if you could expand your discussion related to how this index was created. Also, briefly interpret the summary statistics for this variable in table 3.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, the article is nicely written but I as a reviewer, suggest the following improvements:
-> The abstract is narrated in the form of an introduction. Please be specific while writing the abstract. Start with a brief introduction and then state what exactly is this manuscript about. What is the source of data, and how it is collected? What methodology has been applied what are the main findings? and at the end what does this study suggest?
-> Please merge the first two paragraphs (Lines 27 to 33).
-> Line 53: Why the average cash income/hectare of 2018 is stated? incorporation of the latest information will be more suitable.
-> Line 62: Please also add the source of data and why data from 1990 to 2017 has been used. If the latest data is not available?
-> Table 3: Although defined in section 4 (4.1), authors may add a column (definitions) after “Variables” and shortly define relevant variables.
-> “5.2. Further analysis” this is not a suitable heading please be specific to the analysis.
-> A graphical representation of methodology and findings may augment the vigor of the manuscript.
-> Talking about the methodology applied by the authors, please state the reason for selecting this type of econometric analysis.
-> The paper is well-cited but most of the references are not the latest. Please add up-to-date references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have quickly read through the author's response and also at the new version of the paper. The authors respond positively to most of the suggestions. However, on reading the latest version of the article many of the suggestions are not incorporated in the main text and have apparently been pushed into the supplementary material. Hence, the reader will still be confused by such things as the classifications used with terms such as cash crops, oil crops, grain crops which are not adequately defined. Also the emphasis continues to be on mechanical technology although there is now mention of other ways of achieving increased labour productivity or labor saving. I would have expected in the discussion and conclusions some mention of the importance of developing labor saving or labor productivity enhancing technology especially in the light of the declining population in China and the increasing cost of labour. The whole question of vegetables being grown near to the urban centers and discussion seems to be very superficial, with important questions on infrastructure limitations missing. This is a very quick, rapid response. However, I do feel that this paper needs further improvement. Reading it again, even with the many improvement, I found myself struggling with the lack of definitions and the missing components on how the results lead to potential changes in policy.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
