Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Agricultural Sustainability Assessment: A Study across 30 Chinese Provinces
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Please review the manuscript and edit as needed.
Author Response
Dear reviewer，
Thank you for your valuable comments! Your suggestions are very specific and useful, and they are very helpful for us to improve our research.
According to your comments, we have answered and addressed the issues one by one as follows:
COMMENT 1: Authors have looked at various indicators under 4 different dimensions namely economy, resource utilization, environmental quality and society. Authors have done a considerable work in developing the manuscript. I have concerns about the choice of indicators for the ANP. Due to this weakness, the results generated in this study seems less strong.
Reply 1: We appreciate your concerns and recognize your point about the importance of indicator selection in shaping the analytical results. The selection of indicators indeed plays a crucial role in shaping the analysis results. The indicators in our study were chosen based on the four aspects of sustainability we aimed to investigate, namely economy, resource utilization, environmental quality, and society. These selections were guided by a comprehensive review of existing literature and a balance of data availability. This method of indicator selection is commonly used in existing studies, and we have flagged this in the revised manuscript, citing literature sources for each indicator in our framework (see Table 1).Despite this, we appreciate your criticism and are open to revisiting these indicators to ensure their appropriateness and relevance to our study. We remain committed to enhancing the robustness of our assessment and thank you for your valuable insights which assist us in doing so.
COMMENT2: The association between the agricultural electrification level and agricultural sustainability is not clear/questionable.
Reply2: Thanks for your suggestion. We appreciate your concern. We have included this indicator based on existing research that suggests a robust electricity infrastructure can lead to improvements in agricultural practices. For instance, greater electrification often facilitates increased use of advanced machinery and irrigation systems, which can contribute to the development of sustainable agriculture. In our revised manuscript(line130-133), we will further elaborate on this relationship as follows:
In the agricultural economy dimension,…. Enhanced agricultural electrification (e4), for example, fosters the adoption of advanced machinery and irrigation systems, catalyzing production efficiency, economic growth, and, consequently, agricultural sustainability(vysochyna, 2020).
COMMENT3: Authors have mentioned that the higher scores in the resource utilization indicators reflect more sustainable resource use. If this is the case, authors need to justify how the higher per capita water resource use in agriculture link to agriculture sustainability!!
Reply3: Thanks for the reminder. We apologize if our initial explanation was unclear. This indicator was intended to reflect the per capita water resource availability, not usage, in agriculture. We see how our initial language may have led to confusion and will modify it to "per capita water resource availability" in the revised manuscript.
COMMENT4: Rural society dimension doesn’t necessarily reflect agricultural sustainability. Improving education in rural areas may lead to outer migration!! Authors better focus on agroecosystem sustainability indicators and should avoid focusing on broader issues in rural development.
Reply4: Thank you for your valuable advice. We understand your concern about the relationship between the rural societal factors and agricultural sustainability. Although there is no direct relationship and it can vary depending on regional factors, we believe that they indirectly promote agricultural sustainability. Our assessment of education, per capita GDP, Engel coefficient, and rural medical level, though reflecting broader issues of rural development, tends to emphasize their implications for agricultural sustainability. Moreover, we evaluate the education level of the existing rural population, thereby not involving the issue of migration due to higher education in rural areas. We propose that better-educated, healthier, and wealthier rural households are more likely to adopt sustainable production practices, thereby promoting agricultural sustainability. To enhance the scientific validity of the rural society dimension indicators, we will revise our manuscript accordingly（see line 150-158）.
Finally, the rural society dimension incorporates four indicators: per capita disposable income of rural residents (e15), Engel's coefficient of rural residents (e16), rural healthcare level (e17), and education level of rural residents (e18)…. These epitomize the overall welfare of the rural populace, integral to sustainable agriculture. High disposable income and education levels in rural areas foster investment in and comprehension of sustainable agricultural practice, while robust rural healthcare sustains a capable workforce(hu,2022). A lower Engel coefficient indicates improved rural living standards and a transition toward sustainable lifestyles. Collectively, these indicators buttress the long-term sustainability of agriculture.
COMMENT5: Accordingly, the Table 1 & Figure 2 needs to be revised, analysis should focus only on specific indicators related to agroecosystem sustainability (based on revised conceptual model) and present a more precious results with a clear focus on agriculture sustainability.
Reply5: We agree with you and accept this suggestion. All the changes in the above regarding indicators have been adjusted simultaneously in Table 1 and Figure 2. Please see the revised manuscript for details.
COMMENT6: Given the large number of provinces, the figures are difficult to read. Instead authors could combine provinces based on agro ecological characteristics and perform the analysis accordingly.
Reply6: Thank you for your insightful suggestions. We acknowledge the challenge of effectively presenting data due to the numerous provinces in our study. However, a key goal of our research is to highlight the differences among these provinces. While your suggestion to group provinces based on their agroecological characteristics for analysis is insightful and merits future investigation, it does not align with our current research objective. We will use this valuable suggestion in future studies to divide regions by agricultural characteristics for comparative analysis between regions.
Once again, thank you for your invaluable comments on our research. We hope that our revisions meet your expectations and can receive your support.
Kind regards,
Fan.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
"Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Agricultural Sustainability Assessment: A Study of 30 Chinese Provinces from 2005 to 2020" is well-written and informative. The study is comprehensive and considers the dataset from thirty provinces of China. Here are some of the points that need improvement:
1. Title: The span of the study, "from 2005 to 2020" is limiting the scope. The duration may be deleted from the title. Moreover, the information regarding onward years from 2020 may also be included depending on the availability of data. The authors need to mention this in the paper as well.
2. Abstract: This section is up to the mark except the authors repeatedly use first-person pronouns, which is usually not used in the scientific literature.
3. Keywords: OK
4. Introduction: Overall this section is good. Line 50, while talking about literature, I suggest authors add more references. In lines 55-58, while the authors discuss the limitations of previous studies, providing references will add vigor. In lines 58-60, the authors provide a need for the study, which is too short and the authors discuss only the methodology, not the issues as discussed in the previous lines (55-58). What limiting factors in the previous studies have been incorporated into the current study?
5. Materials and Methods: This section is well explained.
6. Results: Figure 3: I suggest authors provide labeling of the colors. Which color represents which network model as explained in the paper?
The overall quality of the manuscript is good.
Author Response
Dear reviewer，
Thank you for your positive feedback on our paper. We appreciate your suggestions and will take them into consideration when revising the paper. Your input will help us to improve the quality and clarity of our research. Thank you again for your time and effort in reviewing our work.
According to your comments, we have answered and addressed the issues as follows.
COMMENT 1: Title: The span of the study, "from 2005 to 2020" is limiting the scope. The duration may be deleted from the title. Moreover, the information regarding onward years from 2020 may also be included depending on the availability of data. The authors need to mention this in the paper as well.
Reply 1: Thank you for your suggestion. After careful consideration, we decided to revise our title by deleting "from 2005 to 2020". The revised title is“Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Agricultural Sustainability Assessment: A Study Across 30 Chinese Provinces”
COMMENT2: Abstract: This section is up to the mark except the authors repeatedly use first-person pronouns, which is usually not used in the scientific literature.
Reply2: Thank you for the advise, and we apologize for the unprofessional way of expressing it. The revised abstract is as follows:
Agricultural sustainability is crucial for ensuring food security, promoting economic development, maintaining ecological balance, and achieving sustainable development goals. In this study, based on relevant theories of agricultural sustainability, an analytical framework is constructed for agricultural sustainability encompassing economic, resource, environmental, and social dimensions. The Analytic Network Process (ANP) method is employed to determine indicator weights and assesses the spatiotemporal changes in agricultural sustainability levels across Chinese provinces. The findings reveal that environmental quality is the primary dimension for assessing agricultural sustainability, and the significance of the rural social development dimension is continuously increasing. Although the sustainability levels have significantly improved in various regions of China, there remain issues of development imbalance and instability. In conclusion, this paper offers a comprehensive understanding of the spatiotemporal changes in agricultural sustainability across Chinese provinces, providing valuable insights for policymakers and researchers.
COMMENT3: Introduction: Overall this section is good. Line 50, while talking about literature, I suggest authors add more references. In lines 55-58, while the authors discuss the limitations of previous studies, providing references will add vigor. In lines 58-60, the authors provide a need for the study, which is too short and the authors discuss only the methodology, not the issues as discussed in the previous lines (55-58). What limiting factors in the previous studies have been incorporated into the current study?
Reply3: Thanks for your suggestions. We have expanded the references in this section and further explored the issues previously mentioned, as shown below. Please see the submitted revised manuscript for details.
In the literature, indicators or models in agricultural sustainability assessment may differ due to variations in time, space, and theoretical considerations, with most involving the standardization of indicator data and weight calculation(talukder2018, scown2019, streimikis2020, hu2022). … While these studies have significantly contributed to understanding agricultural sustainability, many of these approaches fail to capture the full complexity and interconnectedness, ignoring the interactions among ecological, resource, environmental, and social factors(saaty1996, jharkharia2007). Addressing these limitations, this study constructs a comprehensive agricultural sustainability evaluation system using the Analytic Network Process (ANP) methodology. By acknowledging the interconnected nature of agricultural systems, this approach provides a more integrated and detailed understanding of agricultural sustainability, offering a more robust framework for its assessment.
COMMENT4: Results: Figure 3: I suggest authors provide labeling of the colors. Which color represents which network model as explained in the paper?
Reply4: Thank you for your suggestion. Since there are more secondary indicators that cannot be fully displayed, we have added a legend for the primary dimension, and the modified Figure 3 is shown below.
We greatly appreciate your constructive feedback and look forward to enhancing our manuscript based on your insights.
Kind regards,
Fan.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Agricultural sustainability is crucial for ensuring food security, promoting economic development, maintaining ecological balance. In this study, using the Analytic Network Process (ANP) method and based on relevant theories of agricultural sustainability, authors constructed an analytical framework for agricultural sustainability encompassing economic, resource, environmental, and social dimensions. The method is dependable and conclusions are correct. Especially, this research had good originality. Detailed comments are as follows:
i) This study omits the evaluation of a few regions and cannot incorporate all relevant evaluation indicators for data limitation.
ii) The assessment method employed in this research is mainly based on subjective and other relative perspectives. In the future it should have an in-depth exploration of influencing factors.
Altogether, I suggest that this paper should be polished on language expression by professional institutions. Finally, I suggest it should be minor-revision before be published.
I suggest that this paper should be polished on language expression by professional institutions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer，
Thank you for your positive feedback on our paper. We appreciate your suggestions and will take them into consideration when revising the paper. Your input will help us to improve the quality and clarity of our research. Thank you again for your time and effort in reviewing our work.
According to your comments, we have answered and addressed the issues as follows.
COMMENT 1: This study omits the evaluation of a few regions and cannot incorporate all relevant evaluation indicators for data limitation..
Reply 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. While we endeavored to cover as many relevant factors as possible, certain constraints in data availability indeed impacted the scope of our analysis. Although we omitted four regions - Shanghai, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau - we still covered the vast majority of areas, which we believe represents the overall level of agricultural sustainability development in China. We have explicitly mentioned this limitation in the 'limitations' section of our paper, hoping to address it in future research.
COMMENT2: The assessment method employed in this research is mainly based on subjective and other relative perspectives. In the future it should have an in-depth exploration of influencing factors.
Reply2: You've rightly pointed out that our assessment method is largely subjective, and we agree there's room for further exploration of the influencing factors. While the Analytic Network Process (ANP) method we used does involve subjective judgment, it is able to derive indicator weights by reflecting the influence relationships among indicators. This methodology provides a more scientific basis for determining weights compared to other methods that assume independence among indicators. Furthermore, ANP has been widely applied in fields such as supply chain management, risk assessment, and ecological safety evaluation, which is why we selected it for our study. Nevertheless, we agree with your suggestion for future research directions. In future studies, we plan to combine subjective assessments with more objective methods, such as machine learning or regression models, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of agricultural sustainability..
In addition, we have meticulously reviewed the language throughout the paper and corrected a number of grammatical errors. Please refer to the revised manuscript that we have uploaded. If further modifications are required, please let us know. We are more than willing to engage a professional external agency for language polishing.
We appreciate your patience and assistance in this process and look forward to your further suggestions for improvement.
Best regards,
Fan.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
