Identifying the Driving Factors of Food Nitrogen Footprint in China, 2000–2018: Econometric Analysis of Provincial Spatial Panel Data by the STIRPAT Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
No novelty is clearly presented in the manuscript. The text should change so to clearly present the novelties it brings in its research field. Conclusions present no novelties either but are similar to previous studies.
The authors should show better what is the novelty of their work with respect to similar previous studies.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you for your pertinent comments on this manuscript. I follow your comments and suggestions to revise and explain this manuscript.
Point 1: No novelty is clearly presented in the manuscript. The text should change so to clearly present the novelties it brings in its research field. Conclusions present no novelties either but are similar to previous studies.
Response 1: The conclusion of EKC is different from the previous one. The U-shaped EKC hypothesis is presented in this manuscript, which is different from the EKC of the previous environmental indicators of nitrogen oxides.
In the revised 5.1 Conclusion section, the third paragraph is added, and one of the value of this paper is to provide a framework and research program for the selection of spatial economic model of food nitrogen footprint.
Point 2: The authors should show better what is the novelty of their work with respect to similar previous studies.
Response 2: The environmental impact index studied in this manuscript is food nitrogen footprint, which is different from the previous nitrogen oxides. Food nitrogen footprint is a comprehensive nitrogen emission index, involving production and consumption.
The measurement model of the manuscript introduces spatial factors, involving 30 provincial administrative units in China, which is different in previous studies.
With Best Regards
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper describes an interesting topic and is described in broad detail (the methods, concepts and process). However, there are small details and segment, where I would suggest improvements and changes.
Throughout the article, some word and sentences are repeated.
The references which are accumulated should be within one bracket, and not mentioned separately (e.g. [46, 87, 88, 89] and not [46], [87], [88], [89]).
Some numbers in the text need to be fixed - they do not correlate with the numbers presented in tables.
Additionally, more explanation on the STIRPAT model is needed. There is a short explanation in the Introduction section, but it is not enough.
There is a lot of references in the Introduction section, which are potentially not needed - this section should describe the previous research and how the existing research topic falls into this, i.e. what is new and how is the topic of the article inspired, etc.
In paragraph 126-138, it is not clear why these fields are chosen. What is the reason behind this selection? Only the description that it is based on the theory framework and hypothesis is not clear enough.
Conclusion section could use an additional paragraph which specifies what could be a potential for further research on this topic.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you for your pertinent comments on this manuscript. I follow your comments and suggestions to revise and explain this manuscript.
Point 1: Throughout the article, some word and sentences are repeated.
Response 1: In order to make some common words more concise, 76 repeated phrases of per capital FNF in this manuscript are replaced by abbreviated FNFP. Per capital GDP in 11 places is replaced by GDPP. population density in 6 places of are replaced by PDEN. Gross domestic product in 1 place is replaced by GDP.
Point 2: The references which are accumulated should be within one bracket, and not mentioned separately (e.g. [46, 87, 88, 89] and not [46], [87], [88], [89]).
Response 2: 22 misexpressed references which are accumulated in this manuscript are corrected.
Point 3: Some numbers in the text need to be fixed - they do not correlate with the numbers presented in tables.
Response 3: Two numbers expressions in the text are revised, which are inconsistent with those in the table.
Point 4: Additionally, more explanation on the STIRPAT model is needed. There is a short explanation in the Introduction section, but it is not enough.
Response 4: The explanation of the STIRPAT model in the Introduction section is strengthened. mainly explains the driving factors of environmental impact based on STIRPAT model. The industrial structure, foreign trade and urbanization are introduced into the basic STIRPAT model, and the extended STIRPAT model is formed, which adds 6 additional references to this paragraph, with the serial number of [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. Therefore, the reference in this manuscript is revised according to the order of presentation, and 151 references are revised in the main part of the manuscript. The References section of the manuscript is also revised accordingly.
Point 5: There is a lot of references in the Introduction section, which are potentially not needed - this section should describe the previous research and how the existing research topic falls into this, i.e. what is new and how is the topic of the article inspired, etc.
Response 5: The writing idea of the Introduction section in this manuscript is as follows:
We analysis of STIRPAT model in environmental impact research. Then summarize and analyze the research scope, research methods, variable selection and research conclusions of the EKC model, and furthermore analyze the research progress of the combination of STIRPAT model and EKC model. Finally, the stage characteristics and driving forces of the provincial food nitrogen footprint EKC in China were clarified.
Point 6: In paragraph 126-138, it is not clear why these fields are chosen. What is the reason behind this selection? Only the description that it is based on the theory framework and hypothesis is not clear enough.
Response 6: In paragraph 120-128, Through the analysis of the existing literature, the conclusion is that the most of researches reflect that EKC relationship of the NOx emissions and the economy/income are in an inverted U-shape or an inverted N shape. However, the research conclusion of this manuscript is that China's FNF appears as a U-shaped EKC hypothesis curve.
In paragraph 129-142, the research progress of the combination of STIRPAT model and EKC model was analyzed
Point 7: Conclusion section could use an additional paragraph which specifies what could be a potential for further research on this topic.
Response 7: As for the potential of further research, two paragraphs are added, mainly from the uncertainty of this study and the possible direction of future research. The two paragraphs are placed at the end of the Discussion section. Because the conclusion part needs to add policy recommendations.
With Best Regards
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer Comments to Author
This paper tried to investigate the driving factors of food nitrogen footprint in China in 2000–2018. It must have taken much effort to conduct the research, but its contribution is not clear to readers. In specific, it should be improved in the following ways to be published.
(1) Contribution
This research is based on the panel data of carbon emission intensity and other influencing factors of 30 provinces in China from 2000 to 2018. It seems that the contribution of this research also lies in this sample towards these. Readers may wonder identifying an evaluation model is the same important for different areas or countries. That is, please discuss more about the contribution of this research and explain how the research findings can be used to give values to different area or country.
(2) Methods
Please include more information about the survey process of spatial data analysis. What are the criteria or bias that you choose the sampling procedure?
(3) Theoretical and managerial implications
Please extend the discussions in this paper and link them to the contribution. In this paper, the implications are lacked without linked to the empirical findings. Instead of linking to the empirical results, it is also recommended to emphasize what the previous studies could not identify but this paper did.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you for your pertinent comments on this manuscript. I follow your comments and suggestions to revise and explain this manuscript.
Point 1: (1) Contribution This research is based on the panel data of carbon emission intensity and other influencing factors of 30 provinces in China from 2000 to 2018. It seems that the contribution of this research also lies in this sample towards these. Readers may wonder identifying an evaluation model is the same important for different areas or countries. That is, please discuss more about the contribution of this research and explain how the research findings can be used to give values to different area or country.
Response 1: In the revised 5.1 Conclusion section, the third paragraph is added, and one of the value of this paper is to provide a framework and research program for the selection of spatial economic model of food nitrogen footprint.
Point 2: (2) Methods Please include more information about the survey process of spatial data analysis. What are the criteria or bias that you choose the sampling procedure?
Response 2: The geographical scope of this manuscript is 30 provinces in China mainland. Because Tibet's data are missing, it does not include Tibet.
The research period of this manuscript is from 2000 to 2018, which was originally planned to be 20 years from 2000 to 2019. Due to the incomplete statistical data in 2019, the research period is only 19 years.
There are 8 kinds of food items in food nitrogen footprint accounting, which are cereal, vegetable, fruit, livestock meal, food meal, aquatic product, egg and dairy, which mainly refer to the N-calculation model proposed by Leach et al. (2012).
VNF of food nitrogen footprint accounting is based on the research results of Li, Y. X. (2012), Xian, C. F. (2016) and CAI, J. H. (2017).
The selection of environmental impact factors is mainly based on basic STIRPAT model and extended STIRPAT model, and two variables of nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) and Engel coefficient of urban houses (ECU) are added in combination with this study.
As for the choice of spatial panel model, LM Test is used to judge whether the no fixed panel model or spatial fixed panel model is adopted. Hussan Test is used to judge whether the random model or fixed model is adopted. LR and Wald test is used to judge which form of spatial econometric model (SLM, SEM, SDM) is adopted.
The data sources have been explained in 2.7 Data sources..
Point 3: (3) Theoretical and managerial implications Please extend the discussions in this paper and link them to the contribution. In this paper, the implications are lacked without linked to the empirical findings. Instead of linking to the empirical results, it is also recommended to emphasize what the previous studies could not identify but this paper did.
Response 3: In the Conclusion section of the manuscript, Policy Recommendations are added, and the third paragraph of the previous conclusion part is placed in the Policy Recommendations part. In addition, based on the research on the driving force of food nitrogen footprint, policy suggestions on food consumption and food production are put forward, as well as the role that science and technology should play.
With Best Regards
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
All my concerns had been answered adequately, good luck with your research.
