Does Climate Change and Energy Consumption Affect the Food Security of European Union Countries? Empirical Evidence from a Panel Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper displays thorough work and is generally well-fit for the journal topic.

Brief summary

The paper investigates the influence of climatic variables on cereal yields & production in member states of the European Union. Empirical evidence is provided by means of panel data extended over a period of 30 years. Countries are divided into quantiles according to cereal productivity. Various advanced econometric models are employed such as FGLS analysis, bootstrap and quantile regression to determine the impact of temperature, rainfall, CO2 emissions, energy consumption on cereal production & food security in EU countries. The findings are tested for robustness. The conclusions drawn are important for policymakers in the agricultural sector in EU countries, depending on the yield of crops and may prove valuable for the future direction of the sector.

General comments

Abstract

It is stated that: “The study employed various analytical techniques to understand better the relationship between climate change, energy consumption, and economic growth”. In fact, this is incorrect. The study investigates the impact of the above-mentioned variables on cereal crop yields, but not in between themselves the 3 variables per se, as the reader might mistakenly conclude from the affirmation. Please reformulate to be in line with the main topic / core of the paper.

Introduction

The issue of the research (food insecurity, climate change, impact on agriculture) is well exposed and the main contributions to the literature are cited. The importance of the topic, specific objectives and hypotheses are underlined accordingly.

Lines 82-83: After “Prandecki et al. [14]…”, please add “…the volume of its CO₂ emissions…”, otherwise the text is confusing (“capacity of THIS gas” – which gas?!), because the next sentence is continued with “the other two greenhouse gases…”.

Lines 110-112: Please reformulate, the text is not clear: “CEREAL crops are recognised as a cornerstone of global food security [19]. They occupy 30.6% of the total CEREAL area, followed by maize…” I think you meant “wheat” instead of “cereal” in the first occasion.

The aim of the paper is clearly formulated.

Hypothesis 2 should be reformulated, “…most determinant of food security …” (?!) I think you mean: “the strongest determinant of food security”, or “most important determinant…” (text is not clear).

Literature review

The literature review part in my opinion needs some more citations concerning the application of the food security concept in the European Union. For some good studies in this field, please consult:

- Fusco, G. et al. (2020) Effect of trade openness on food security in the EU: A dynamic panel analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17, 4311, doi: 10.3390/ijerph17124311.

- Tecau, A.S. et al. (2020) A Qualitative Research on the Food Security of School Children in the Rural Area. Sustainability, 12, 9024. doi: 10.3390/su12219024.

Lines 191-195. The composition of cereals in the EU is outlined (50% wheat, 50% other cereals, in various percentages). It is also stated that there is a: “variation in technical efficiency scores across crops and countries”. However, in the rest of the paper, all the impact of various variables is only analyzed for “cereals” as a whole, lumped together, without making a difference between wheat, maize… Maybe these crops don’t react in the same way to the variables under question. Please issue a disclaimer or a limitation of the study in section 6, at the end of the article, why a customized approach / comment / observation etc., was not taken for different cereal crops.

Materials and methods

The methodological approach is correctly executed and the various econometric models for processing the data are well employed.

Lines 482-…  To me, it is not quite clear what is the specific use of renewable energy for agriculture. The link between renewable energy and agriculture should be better explained, by means of particular examples on how it is practically employed in the agricultural sector. Whereas the consumption of energy, generally, is quite clear, I would like to see a more specific explanation on the role played by renewable energy itself.

In section 4.2. Line 436. It is stated: “a more significant influence is the quality of the crop”. The data processed by means of the models does not include the quality of the crop. This comment /conclusion seems intuitive, but not supported by the calculus in this particular research, therefore a bit hazardous. Please drop this sentence or reformulate so as to give it a proper fundament / explanation.

 

In section 4.2. Line 436. It is stated: “temperature and the amount of precipitation induce a positive effect on yields”. I think this is a too overly general statement, as it is not fully consistent with the conclusions formulated at the end of the paper, section 6. Please write a more nuanced finding. Also, please use the difference between “positive influence” and “significant influence” with care.

Discussion

In the same vein of what was written above, in the first paragraph, the discussion about the findings is not clearly enough stated for readers. The author use words like “most pronounced impact”, “most negligible impact” and link these findings with other studies which demonstrated a “positive impact” or “negative impact”. To me, these words are not synonymous. Please reformulate.

Line 577 It is stated: “In this context, Polish researchers…” If the paragraph refers to a previous study by Polish researchers, then please insert the reference / citation. If the authors refer to the present study, then please reformulate (“the authors of this study…”), as the readership might get confused to which study the authors are pointing with the obtained results.

Conclusions

The concluding section follows up the research findings and highlights correctly the points raised by the research. However, it seems to me that the 4 hypotheses formulated in section 1 are dismissed to easily here (“The research findings supported the hypotheses, which were subsequently verified”.). Please refer briefly to each one of them, to give a more focused approach and to close the circle of the paper with the validation of the hypotheses formulated at the initial stage of the research.

References

-      Reference no. 1 seems completely wrong to me. What do you mean by: “Fao, I.” (Fao is not a person, it is an organization, of course = FAO). Why are all organizations listed at the end of the reference (“FAO ; IFAD ; UNICEF ; WFP ; WHO , 2023”), this is not customary at all for references. Please redo it according to the journal style.

-      No. 13 and no. 19 start with the title of the publication instead of the authors … (?!). Please redo.

-      No. 17 needs to be rearranged.

-      No. 21 and no. 23 should start with FAO as an institution, then the rest of the reference (as is the case with the European Commission, no. 26).

The diversity of publications cited is OK. Recent publications are cited, OK. Publications cited are relevant, OK. The number of references in general is OK. Still some elements in this section are inconsistent though with the required style of the journal.

Specific comments

·        Line 229 (Literature review): “Figures 2 and 3” (not: Figures 1 and 2!)

·        Line 276 (Literature review): “Southern Africa” (not: South Africa), I think you didn’t mean the country itself

·        Line 307 (Materials and methods) 3.1. “Data” (not: Date)

·        Line 318 (Materials and methods) in Table 2. “Area with cereal crops” (not: Area under cereals)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language used is OK, with minor mishaps and mistakes here and there. Some checking is required to improve the text.

Author Response

Thank you for sending in your review and your very helpful comments. Please be informed that we have taken into account all comments and suggestions provided.

Abstract

All remarks have been taken into account

Introduction

All remarks have been taken into account

Literature review

All remarks have been taken into account

Materials and methods

All remarks have been taken into account

Discussion

All remarks have been taken into account

Conclusions

All remarks have been taken into account

Specific comments

All remarks have been taken into account

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review concerns a scientific article investigating the impact of climate change and economic factors on cereal production in the European Union. I would like to start by noting that this is an extremely interesting article. It is worthy of publication. My comments are merely suggestions and are not essential for the article; they will allow for improvement.

The introduction effectively highlights the global challenge of food security and draws attention to the specific issue of climate change's impact on cereal production in the EU. It includes up-to-date data on hunger and cereal production, as well as an extensive literature review on food security, cereal production in the EU, and the effects of climate change on agriculture. The inclusion of figures illustrating trends in cereal yields and tables summarizing key findings from other studies strengthens the literature review.

It should be emphasized that both the methodology and the research have been conducted properly and are extremely interesting. The authors used appropriate econometric models and utilized reliable data sources, ensuring the reliability and credibility of the results. The study addresses a significant issue and makes a substantial contribution to the existing literature.

Suggestions for Improvement:

• Strengthen the link between climate change and economic factors by further developing the connection between climate change mitigation strategies and the economic factors affecting cereal production.
• Focus on the research gap, clearly mentioning specific aspects of climate change or economic factors that have not been thoroughly studied in the context of cereal production in the EU.
• Mention some specific climate change-related threats relevant to cereal production in Europe, such as droughts, heatwaves, or changes in precipitation patterns.
• Briefly discuss the research methodology used in the study to give readers context for the subsequent chapters.

The results clearly present the key findings regarding the impact of climatic variables (precipitation, temperature), arable land area, CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and renewable energy on cereal production in the EU. The authors effectively compare their results with previous studies, highlighting similarities and differences. They acknowledge the limitations of existing studies, particularly the focus on non-European countries and the assumption of linear relationships between some variables. The Discussion chapter translates the research findings into practical recommendations for policymakers, emphasizing the importance of reducing CO2 emissions, implementing technological advancements, and promoting the use of renewable energy in agriculture.

Suggestions for Improvement:

• Specify proposed directions for future research; for example, instead of merely mentioning "soil quality," propose examining the interaction between precipitation and soil type in terms of cereal production.
• Mention the potential economic consequences of the observed trends in cereal production across the EU.
• Briefly discuss the strengths of the econometric models used and how they accounted for potential confounding factors.

General Conclusions: The scientific article provides a solid basis for examining the impact of climate change and economic factors on cereal production in the EU. The introduction and literature review provide strong foundations, and the results and discussion clearly present the key findings and their significance. Both the methodology and the research have been conducted properly and are extremely interesting. By incorporating the suggested improvements, the authors can further enhance the clarity, coherence, and conclusions drawn from the study.

Author Response

Thank you for all your valuable comments and suggestions. It informs that we have taken them all into account in our work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject of the paper entitled ” Does climate change and energy consumption affect the food security of European Union countries? Empirical evidence from a panel study” presents a topical issue, but it would be necessary to take into account the following proposals:

-        The expression ”it is estimated that 828 million people worldwide will suffer from hunger and  malnutrition in 2021” should be reformulated, because we are in the year 2024;

-        ”agriculture significantly contributes to climate change, accounting for about 24% of global GHG emissions” - what are the arguments in favor of this statement? the authors should specify which branches of agriculture they come from;

-        The authors should provide more details on the specific variables used in the FGLS and QR models to enhance clarity;

-        The authors should include more graphical representations of the results for better visualization and understanding of the data;

-        The title is clear and directly indicates the study's focus on the relationship between climate change, energy consumption, and food security in EU countries. The abstract succinctly summarizes the study's aims, methods, and key findings, providing a comprehensive overview.

-        The introduction effectively sets the context by highlighting the global food security challenges and the specific impacts of climate change and energy consumption on agriculture. It connects the study to broader global issues such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and climate change, thereby emphasizing the study's relevance. The introduction also clearly outlines the research objectives and hypotheses.

-        The literature review is thorough and well-structured, providing a detailed background on food security, cereal production, and the impact of climate change and energy consumption on agriculture. It effectively integrates various sources, including recent studies and reports, to support the research problem's relevance and significance.

-        The methodology is robust and appropriately chosen for the research objectives. The use of panel data covering 1992-2021 and the application of feasible generalized least squares (FGLS) models and quantile regression (QR) models are well-justified. The study's use of multiple analytical techniques enhances the reliability and validity of the findings. The methodology section is detailed enough to allow for reproducibility.

-        The results section is comprehensive, with clear explanations of the findings. The study confirms the presence of cointegration between cereal production and climate variables, economic growth, and energy consumption. It provides detailed insights into how temperature, precipitation, and energy consumption impact cereal yields in EU countries. The use of quantile regression adds depth to the analysis by showing the differential impacts across countries with varying levels of cereal production.

-        The discussion section effectively interprets the results, linking them back to the research objectives and hypotheses. It provides a nuanced understanding of the complex relationships between climate change, energy consumption, and food security. The discussion also highlights the policy implications of the findings, suggesting technological advancements and increased use of renewable energy sources to improve food security.

-        The conclusion succinctly summarizes the key findings and their implications. It reinforces the study's contribution to understanding the impacts of climate change and energy consumption on food security in the EU. The recommendations for policymakers are practical and grounded in the study's findings.

-        The references are comprehensive and up-to-date, covering a wide range of relevant sources. They include both foundational studies and recent research, demonstrating a thorough engagement with the existing literature.

-        Overall, the article presents a well-structured and thorough analysis of the impacts of climate change and energy consumption on food security in the EU. The research is timely and relevant, addressing critical global challenges. The methodology is robust, and the findings are well-supported by the data. The discussion and conclusions are insightful and offer practical recommendations for policymakers.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your useful comments and suggestions. All comments included in the article

1. The expression ”it is estimated that 828 million people worldwide will suffer from hunger and  malnutrition in 2021” should be reformulated, because we are in the year 2024;

We have refined the indicated information as suggested.

2. ”agriculture significantly contributes to climate change, accounting for about 24% of global GHG emissions” - what are the arguments in favor of this statement? the authors should specify which branches of agriculture they come from;

We have refined the indicated information as suggested.

3. The authors should include more graphical representations of the results for better visualization and understanding of the data;

We have added an additional two visuals in the appendix.