Can Rural Human Capital Improve Agricultural Ecological Efficiency? Empirical Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The issue of agricultural environmental efficiency is a key to deep ongoing transformation of global food system. So, shading light on AEE is very important not only for China, bit for whole Planet due to problem of climate change. The research framework shows interdisciplinary approach, but the role of digitalisation (new technology Industry 4.0), social capital (including social innovations) and change of demand driven by change of life style are not included as a parts beyond this research, but as very influential factors. So, those factors have to be part of introduction “setting the scene” and finally they have to be mentioned as a part of research limitation.

Abstract have to be rewritten

First motivation for research (two sentence) and clear aim (or research questions) has to be presented. In current version this is not a case.

Second method has to be clearly explained and linked with aim (or research questions)! Research framework have to be presented. Currently it is stated „... As a result, based on the data of 30 provinces in China from 2006 to 2019, the entropy method is employed to measure rural human capital from three dimensions of education, health and migration, and the super-efficient slacks-based measure model (SBM) with non-expected output is employed to effectively measure agricultural ecological efficiency (AEE). On this basis, this study discusses the impact of rural human capital on AEE, using the panel Tobit model. Meanwhile, the moderating effect of Internet popularization in the process of rural human capital promoting AEE is discussed...“

I suggest: First type of data and sources of data and then location where study is done – Data set (2006 to 2019) about XXXX are gathered form XXXX source in 30 provinces in XXXX part of China. First the three dimensions of human capital (education, health and migrations) are measured by employing of the entropy method. Second step was to measure agricultural ecological efficiency employing super-efficient slacks-based measure model (SBM) with non-expected output (it is not clear why you call two types of reduction and unexpected output – do you mean uncertain – not easy to predict?). Third step was focused on measurement of the impact of rural human capital on AEE, using the panel Tobit model. It is not clear how you measure this effect of Internet popularisation..... You have to say how and why you measure it.

After method you have to state results – just saying the results are different in different areas due to difference of local conditions (explain which one) and human capital development. Internet plays important role ...... explain which one

After results you just state conclusion of your research eg public policies have to be tailor maid according to local conditions or......

 

I suggest to change „agricultural ecological environment“ just to agricultural environment or environment

Author have to rechange statement “.. Improvement always brings reduction of emissions …”– this effect is not always certain and there are risk included.

It is important to define what is health (definition), why it is chosen to be part that define AEE (is there a problem with some conical diseases in rural areas  or it is chosen due to different reason)?

I suggest to change at 107 line – It is suggested because decision not farmers decision dominate whole chain! -  Farmers decisions dominate the whole agricultural production process, and those decisions are related to the economic and ecological benefits of agricultural production.

The sentence starting in line 322 should be changed – it is not clear – „... Although the economic benefits have increased to a certain extent, the corresponding agricultural ecological environment has also been greatly damaged, but the AEE has not increased rapidly...“ – some explanation (data, indicator how author knows that agricultural environment has greatly damaged. In addition, it is logical that AEE annual growth rate was low.

I suggest to explain why the mean value of AEE in the central region has been lagging behind other regions – different policy, different farm structure, different land use or??? Here is time to explain difference in all four regions – eg. In XXX region small size farms (XX ha – average size) dominates, while ..... Also, it is important to outline crop production structure (eg rice dominates or .....) pointing out culture that are more environment friendly due to nature of production (technology, farm size eg).

Line 405/406/407 should be changed – in sentence to change “physical quality”  to health conditions or health – it is currently stated as follow. „... This means that the physical quality of farmers has been greatly improved, and healthy farmers play a vital role in improving labor productivity, which is conducive to the improvement of AEE...“ – In addition statement that “…improving labor productivity is conductive to the AEE improvement…”, is questionable. It can be like that, but it is not straight forward – it has to be explained in more details – technology plays a role and tradition in approaching food production plays a role etc. So, this has to be changed.

In paper part “Discussion” I suggest to mention role of social capital in connection with RHC and AEE.

The study limitation (and partly policy recommendation) has to consider the role of social capital or better to say interplay of human and social capital in rural areas. It is important to mention social capital as an important tool to support climate optimised technology adopting and generally speaking modernisation of food sector – including demand side not to be focused only on offer/production (this focus on offer is one additional limitation of study that is never mentioned). Social innovation models, particularly based on technological innovation, have shown effective results in resolving social problems (Walker & Baird, 2019; Xie, Huang, Chen, & Hao, 2019). Development of education and health system is one part of social problems that rural China face. So it has to be mentioned. In policy recommendation when author rightly point out needed to adopt policy solutions to local condition, a measure that support social innovation driven by technology have to be add. Also, in study limitation it has to be stated clearly that social innovation can and will play a very important role in food system restructuring (globally, and specifically in Chine). In limitation author have to mention that demand side has to be researched as well because it can poll change in production. For more info I recommend to read: Chien-Chung Huang, Huiying Jin, Jieyou Zhang, Qinqin Zheng, Yafan Chen, Shannon Cheung, Chuwei Liu: The effects of an innovative e-commerce poverty alleviation platform on Chinese rural laborer skills development and family well-being, Children and Youth Services Review 116, 2020

The research framework shows deep understanding and interdisciplinary approach, which is needed to discuss such important issue of HR capital and agricultural ecology. English has to be improved significantly. Sometimes even technical terms are not used properly. The change of Abstract has to be radical. Some improvement in the result structure can improve it. Conclusion and Study limitation have to be improved to connect research with social capital (social innovations) and new technology role.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

It is a well-structured work.  The literature review is sufficient and well-presented. Works cited are recent and from reliable/influential journals. Analysis was undertaken correctly. The discussion is insightful. The conclusion and policy recommendations are satisfactory. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

From the reading and analysis of the article, I leave some contributions to qualify the study:

- In the abstract, the authors do not indicate the purpose of the study. And remember that the context of China may not be familiar to many, so it is necessary to structure the abstract indicating: objective, methodological steps and then the results and contributions of the study.

- In the Introduction: the authors do not present the context of the study environment, they lack production data, relevance on the number of people living or working in rural China. It is missing to indicate the problem and purpose of the study – clearly. It is also important to justify the relevance of the study in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals, listing the SDGs impacted by the results.

The theoretical review started with a figure that represents the methodological model of the study, in this case it is appropriate to shift Figure 1 to section 3 (Materials and methods), since it dialogues with the study variables.

Section 2 is very fragile, has few authors and is presented superficially, the authors do not use the context of other countries as an example, there is a lack of discussions between the authors about the conceptual alignment of the investigated topic. I understand that this hampered the analysis of the results, which also presents little dialogue with related/previous studies (or almost no discussion). The objective of the theoretical review is to guide the study's discussions, and to guide the readers' interpretation. Therefore, it needs to be deepened, with more authors and indicating the specificities of different rural production regions.

In the method, line 179, how much does 30 provinces represent? How many people or how many rural production units? How many rural producers are involved in this environment of 30 provinces? Note that this may be relevant information to include in the introduction (I don't know the rural environment in China, you need to indicate to the reader what the reality is like, possibly very different from Brazil, Europe or the United States of America).

What was the number of observations analyzed in the model?

The authors use the name Migratory Human Capital (MHC), however the indication migratory is an expression used for displacement in the sense of changing location, environment, which refers to the rural exodus. Would it be important to observe another way to denominate expenses with transport, or does it in fact represent expenses with displacement of region/place where rural producers work? Please clarify the text.

In the analysis of the results, observe in Lines 382, 422, 453, 470 – it is important to dialogue the results with previous studies, to allow the parameter of interpretation, as well as to identify whether the findings are better, relevant and make sense. Expand the reflections and the discussion presented, beyond the statistical data.

In section 5, the discussion of the results, I consider that there is a lack of dialogue and reflections with other studies, with the impact between the findings of your study and previous studies. Authors need to improve the integration of current research contributions with the results of other studies, carried out in China and other regions of the world, what distinguishes your research? This answer must be in the text based on the expansion of previous studies, it is not enough to say that it is different, it is necessary to indicate the previous result (by whom and where the analysis was carried out) to demonstrate the difference between the results (from your research and from others). Possibly this task can be facilitated by improving the construction of the theoretical framework (section 2).

In general, the study uses data and presents a robust statistical analysis model to validate the results. It is the strength of the study. However, basic aspects can qualify a new version of the survey, especially to make reading more pleasant and interesting for researchers:

- indicate the specific objective of the study (in the abstract and in the introduction). Presenting data on rural production in China, to situate readers who are not familiar with agricultural production in China, is the country self-sufficient? Are you a potential exporter? Indicate the context. And what is the relationship with the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda? aligning with the purpose of this call.

- And for the theoretical aspects, it is a process of deepening the basis of the theoretical discussion, the authors, references and previous studies carried out on the subject, indicating contexts in China and others, and advancing in the relationship between the variables indicated in the section . These elements should qualify the analysis of the results, bring comparisons and the difference between the findings. After the improvements, new contributions will possibly appear for the development of the presented conclusions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Authors can revise the text to make it more objective, making it easier to read and understand the text, especially in analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1 The article is logical and has a clear structural framework.

2 Unfortunately, in my opinion, the research topic of the paper is relatively old and lacks originality. At the same time, the research methods used in this paper are also widely used at present.

3 Data to be updated. It is now 2023, and the data is still in the macro data of 2019, so the data is lagging.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Can Rural Human Capital Improve Agricultural Ecological Efficiency? Empirical Evidence from China

A very current paper of interest to academia and society in general.

The abstract should clearly focus on the objective of the work, which should be mentioned again at the end of the introduction and at the beginning of the conclusion, in order to provide "a line of continuity and connection", which would allow the reader to never lose focus on the work.

The article is well written, balanced and meets all the standards of a scientific paper.

The bibliography is balanced and extremely recent, which in itself already greatly enhances the work.

Best regards,

Some details of the writing must be verified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

One sentence explaining structure or definition of AEE is still missing in Introduction.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors made important adjustments and insertions during the new version presented. I would like to suggest improvements in Section 5 - Discussions.

Note that the insertion of the new paragraph presents new authors, but there was no dialogue with the previous studies indicated in sections 1 and 2 of the research, as well as responding to the objective of the study.

In this regard, I believe that the authors can broaden the discussions by reflecting on the importance of the results and how they can be useful for resource management.

Verify the possibility of simplifying the interpretation of the text, to make reading more pleasant, especially in the use of Acronyms.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx