Mechanism and Empirical Test of the Impact of Consumption Upgrading on Agricultural Green Total Factor Productivity in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript draft is devoted to an interesting problem that touches on the impact of consumption upgrading on agricultural green total factor productivity. The authors propose SBM-DEA model to measure agricultural green total factor productivity and the PVAR model and provincial panel data. The experimental section is good. The proposed approach is logical, results are clear. However, I have the following remarks:
1. Introduction section is good. In the final part of the introduction, a brief overview of the rest of the paper should be written (please, remove it from the Literature review section). It is appropriate for the authors to explain not only the structure but also the logic of the remainder of the paper.
2. The authors should write a clear methodology section. The authors should list potential weaknesses in methodology and present evidence supporting their choice.
3. The formulas at lines 252, 254 should be formatted.
4. The authors should provide deep analysis of the models results.
5. It would be of utmost importance that the authors provide a sound theoretical framework for your case study and explain the objectives and contributions of their research and ensure that they properly justify how the proposal of an overall framework for consumption upgrading on agricultural green total factor productivity can be constructed based on this study.
6. The conclusion should summarize how the work advances the field from the present state of knowledge. The author should provide a clear scientific justification for this work in conclusion section, and indicate uses and extensions if appropriate.The reference needs improvement. The geography of cited publications should also be widened.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: Introduction section is good. In the final part of the introduction, a brief overview of the rest of the paper should be written (please, remove it from the Literature review section). It is appropriate for the authors to explain not only the structure but also the logic of the remainder of the paper.
Response 1: The revision is accepted. In conjunction with other reviewers' comments, we have combined the first two parts of the original paper and revised them as appropriate. A description of the structure of the article has been added to the first part of the new revision.
Point 2: The authors should write a clear methodology section. The authors should list potential weaknesses in methodology and present evidence supporting their choice.
Response 2: The revision is accepted. We have re-found the literature and re-written the reasons for the selection of the empirical model in accordance with the review comments. It is clearly stated that the PVAR model theory is still in the process of continuous development and improvement, and there are still key issues such as dimensional catastrophe, variable endogeneity and spatial correlation that need to be analysed and resolved in depth. However, considering that the PVAR model retains the good characteristics of the VAR model, extends the pure time series model to the spatial direction, overcomes the time span requirement of the VAR model, and is able to enrich the data from both time and regional dimensions using the panel data model. By imposing constraints on the model, reducing the number of parameters, setting a reasonable order of variables based on economic principles and choosing appropriate estimation methods, the impact of the aforementioned problems can be effectively reduced.
Point 3: The formulas at lines 252, 254 should be formatted.
Response 3: The revision is accepted.
Point 4: The authors should provide deep analysis of the models results.
Response 4: The revision is accepted. In conjunction with other reviewers' comments, a discussion of the results section has been added to Part V of this paper, and further analysis of the model results is presented in that section.
Point 5: It would be of utmost importance that the authors provide a sound theoretical framework for your case study and explain the objectives and contributions of their research and ensure that they properly justify how the proposal of an overall framework for consumption upgrading on agricultural green total factor productivity can be constructed based on this study.
Response 5: The revision is accepted. (1) In conjunction with other reviewers' comments, we have combined the first two parts of the original paper and revised them as appropriate. A description of the structure of the article has been added to the first part of the new revision. (2) In line with the comments of other reviewers, we have retained the section on "Consumption Upgrading and Green Production Efficiency in Agriculture: the Mechanism of Influence", but have clarified the main purpose of the analysis of the mechanism of influence in accordance with the needs of the paper, and have indicated the aspects of the theoretical analysis from which the subsequent empirical analysis of the pathways of influence will be based, and the subsequent empirical analysis of impact pathways will be based on this. Finally, it is pointed out that the various ways in which consumption upgrading drives agricultural green total factor productivity are ultimately the same, and the mechanism of the impact of consumption upgrading on agricultural green total factor productivity can be summarised in the following diagram(see the revised paper for details).
Point 6: The conclusion should summarize how the work advances the field from the present state of knowledge. The author should provide a clear scientific justification for this work in conclusion section, and indicate uses and extensions if appropriate.The reference needs improvement. The geography of cited publications should also be widened.
Response 6: The revision is accepted. (1)We have rewritten the section in accordance with the reviewer's comments, taking into account the comments of other reviewers. (2)We have re-found and updated the references in line with the needs of the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
You have to revise the manuscript based our comment
The topics of the article is interesting enough. The manuscript is clear and suitable enough with the topics of the journal scope. The green total factor productivity is interesting topics now. The authors can explain the background clearly. The authors need state very good data in background and very relevant with the topics. The literature was used is very complete and relevant with the topics. The methodology is clear and use the good data analysis. The data analysis is very clear and using the very appropriate data 2008-2020. The authors presented the result very well and already using the literature to explain the discussion. The graph and picture is presented clearly and easy for reader to understand. And finally the conclusion is well written and already answer the objective of the research but the recommendation need to rewrite more operational
Author Response
Point 1:The topics of the article is interesting enough. The manuscript is clear and suitable enough with the topics of the journal scope. The green total factor productivity is interesting topics now. The authors can explain the background clearly. The authors need state very good data in background and very relevant with the topics. The literature was used is very complete and relevant with the topics. The methodology is clear and use the good data analysis. The data analysis is very clear and using the very appropriate data 2008-2020. The authors presented the result very well and already using the literature to explain the discussion. The graph and picture is presented clearly and easy for reader to understand. And finally the conclusion is well written and already answer the objective of the research but the recommendation need to rewrite more operational
Response 1: The revision is accepted. In conjunction with other reviewers' comments, we have not only revised the concluding section of the article, but also removed the content related to policy recommendations from the original version and rewritten the relevant recommendations or insights based on the results of the empirical model. The details of the revisions are detailed in Part VI of the article.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The article describes interesting issue of mechanism of the effect of consumption upgrading on agricultural green total factor productivity. Methodology is clear, the results presented and discussed sufficiently. Anyway I have following remarks:
1- Title: should be changed, to avoid the repetitions in words. f.e. Mechanism and empirical test of impact of Consumption Upgrading on Agricultural Green Total Factor Productivity in China.
2- Abstract- remove the sentences giving advices to government, rather focus on indicated
3- Part named “literature overview “ should be inserted in “Introduction”, because there is no need to separate them. Although, after merging, it should be shortened, avoid repeating main ideas.
4- Part 3- one could have impression, that all factors causing the influence of consumption upgrading on agricultural green factor productivity is explained by described laws in economy.. Re-write it, include to introduction.
5- Conclusions: remove the political implications. This is article about Agriculture.
6- Half of references- too old, please refresh it.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: Title: should be changed, to avoid the repetitions in words. f.e. Mechanism and empirical test of impact of Consumption Upgrading on Agricultural Green Total Factor Productivity in China.
Response 1: The revision is accepted. Revision accepted. Revise the title of the paper to "Mechanism and Empirical Test of the impact of Consumption Upgrading on Agricultural Green Total Factor Productivity in China”.
Point 2: Abstract- remove the sentences giving advices to government, rather focus on indicated
Response 2: The revision is accepted. In conjunction with other reviewers' comments, we have not only removed the suggested content, but also revised the abstract section in accordance with the journal's requirements.
Point 3: Part named “literature overview “ should be inserted in “Introduction”, because there is no need to separate them. Although, after merging, it should be shortened, avoid repeating main ideas.
Response 3: The revision is accepted. In conjunction with other reviewers' comments, we have combined the first two parts of the original paper and revised them as appropriate. A description of the structure of the article has been added to the first part of the new revision.
Point 4: Part 3- one could have impression, that all factors causing the influence of consumption upgrading on agricultural green factor productivity is explained by described laws in economy.. Re-write it, include to introduction.
Response 4: The revision is accepted. (1) In conjunction with other reviewers' comments, we have combined the first two parts of the original paper and revised them as appropriate. A description of the structure of the article has been added to the first part of the new revision. (2) In line with the comments of other reviewers, we have retained the section on "Consumption Upgrading and Green Production Efficiency in Agriculture: the Mechanism of Influence", but have clarified the main purpose of the analysis of the mechanism of influence in accordance with the needs of the paper, and have indicated the aspects of the theoretical analysis from which the subsequent empirical analysis of the pathways of influence will be based, and the subsequent empirical analysis of impact pathways will be based on this. Finally, it is pointed out that the various ways in which consumption upgrading drives agricultural green total factor productivity are ultimately the same, and the mechanism of the impact of consumption upgrading on agricultural green total factor productivity can be summarised in the following diagram(see the revised paper for details).
Point 5: Conclusions: remove the political implications. This is article about Agriculture.
Response 5: The revision is accepted. In conjunction with other reviewers' comments, we have not only revised the concluding section of the article, but also removed the content related to policy recommendations from the original version and rewritten the relevant recommendations or insights based on the results of the empirical model. The details of the revisions are detailed in Part VI of the article.
Point 6: Half of references- too old, please refresh it.
Response 6: The revision is accepted. We have re-found and updated the references in line with the needs of the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper submitted for review, "The impact of Consumption Upgrading on Agricultural Green Total Factor Productivity in China: Impact Mechanism and Empirical Test " is a review and empirical paper.
The paper addresses a very important topic related to the green economy and in particular to the greening of agriculture. Green agriculture is important for sustainable development and ensuring adequate food quality and quantity.
After reading the paper, I have the following comments and suggestions for improving the paper:
Structure of the paper
I propose to improve the structure of the paper according to the guidelines of the journal Agriculture.
The Discussion chapter is missing from the article.
Abstarckt
I propose to make improvements according to the Journal guidelines. What is the aim of the research? What research methods were used? Please present the main conclusions.
In the introduction
The introduction should be deepened with world literature. I suggest adding information about green agriculture, that it is part of sustainable agricultural development. And answer the following questions: What is the current status of this research. Who has been involved so far. Why is green agriculture important?
2 Literature Review I suggest combining with Chapter 3, Consumption Upgrading and Green Production Efficiency in Agriculture: the Mechanism of Influence.
There is a lack of global literature review, most of the literature items are from China.
Results
The results are presented and described in a very good way and are very interesting. They contribute to the value of the paper.
In the Discussion chapter, the authors should discuss and explain the conclusions and results of the work more. What tangible benefits have been gained from conducting this study?
Could the results of the study be useful for the development of sustainable agriculture? This would contribute to a high improvement of the work. The authors should compare their project and results with the results of similar studies on this topic from other countries in the world.
All in all, I strongly recommend this paper for publication in the Journal “Agriculture” after minor changes.
Kind regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
Point 1:Structure of the paper
I propose to improve the structure of the paper according to the guidelines of the journal Agriculture.
The Discussion chapter is missing from the article.
Response 1: The revision is accepted. In conjunction with other reviewers' comments, a discussion of the results section has been added to Part V of this paper, and further analysis of the model results is presented in that section.
Point 2: Abstarckt
I propose to make improvements according to the Journal guidelines. What is the aim of the research? What research methods were used? Please present the main conclusions.
Response 2: The revision is accepted. In conjunction with other reviewers' comments, we have not only removed the suggested content, but also reworked the abstract section in accordance with the journal's requirements.
Point 3: Abstarckt
I propose to make improvements according to the Journal guidelines. What is the aim of the research? What research methods were used? Please present the main conclusions.
Response 3: The revision is accepted. In conjunction with other reviewers' comments, we have not only removed the suggested content, but also reworked the abstract section in accordance with the journal's requirements.
Point 4: In the introduction
The introduction should be deepened with world literature. I suggest adding information about green agriculture, that it is part of sustainable agricultural development. And answer the following questions: What is the current status of this research. Who has been involved so far. Why is green agriculture important?
2 Literature Review I suggest combining with Chapter 3, Consumption Upgrading and Green Production Efficiency in Agriculture: the Mechanism of Influence.
There is a lack of global literature review, most of the literature items are from China.
Response 4: The revision is accepted. (1) In conjunction with other reviewers' comments, we have combined the first two parts of the original paper and revised them as appropriate. A description of the structure of the article has been added to the first part of the new revision. (2) In line with the comments of other reviewers, we have retained the section on "Consumption Upgrading and Green Production Efficiency in Agriculture: the Mechanism of Influence", but have clarified the main purpose of the analysis of the mechanism of influence in accordance with the needs of the paper, and have indicated the aspects of the theoretical analysis from which the subsequent empirical analysis of the pathways of influence will be based, and the subsequent empirical analysis of impact pathways will be based on this. Finally, it is pointed out that the various ways in which consumption upgrading drives agricultural green total factor productivity are ultimately the same, and the mechanism of the impact of consumption upgrading on agricultural green total factor productivity can be summarised in the following diagram(see the revised paper for details).
Point 5: Results
The results are presented and described in a very good way and are very interesting. They contribute to the value of the paper.
In the Discussion chapter, the authors should discuss and explain the conclusions and results of the work more. What tangible benefits have been gained from conducting this study?
Could the results of the study be useful for the development of sustainable agriculture? This would contribute to a high improvement of the work. The authors should compare their project and results with the results of similar studies on this topic from other countries in the world.
Response 5: The revision is accepted. (1) In conjunction with other reviewers' comments, a discussion of the results section is added to Part V of the article, and the model results are further analysed in this section. (2) The conclusion section of the article is revised by removing the policy recommendation-related content from the original version and rewriting the relevant recommendations or insights based on the empirical model results.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper could be accepted in its present form
