The Impact of Technological Innovation on Agricultural Green Total Factor Productivity: The Mediating Role of Environmental Regulation in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPage 2, Lines 62 - 65: Unless mandated for inclusion by the journal, these lines of information add little to the manuscript and may be deleted without harming the manuscript.
Page 5, Line 174: What are “control variables”? Are these province dummy variables? Would be good for authors to state what control variables are in the manuscript.
Page 5, Lines 174 - 176: The authors state that “Recognizing the lagged nature of policy variables like environmental regulation, we apply a two-period lag to ER to mitigate endogeneity concerns stemming from reverse causality.” What was the rational behind using a two-period lag? How was this determined? Did the authors choose a two-period lag based on the literature?
Table 3, Page 7: The authors report regression results for both a fixed effects model and a random effects model in this table. However, the authors state in the text that they performed the Hausman test and determined based on this test that the fixed effects model to be a more accurate model than the random effects model. Why show estimated coefficients for both models? Why not simply show coefficients for the fixed effects model only and state in the text why this model was deemed better than the random effects model based on the Hausman test?
Table 4, Page 8: The authors title this table “Regression results of agricultural technological innovation on AGTFP.” Yet the authors also look at the effects on other variables besides agricultural technological innovation on AGTFP and also estimate the impacts of agricultural technological innovation and other variables on environmental regulation. The title for Table 4 is not complete and misleading. Perhaps simply “Table 4. Regression results for Agricultural Green Total Factor Productivity and Environmental Regulation in China.” Also, why do the authors add (1), (2), and (3) in the column headings? These numbers in parentheses may be deleted as they add nothing to the table.
Table 7, Page 9: See comments above for Table 4, Page 8. The title for Table 7 needs to be reworded for clarity and the numbers in parentheses need to be removed for the column headings.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your constructive comments and the opportunity to enhance the quality of our manuscript. Please find below our responses to your insightful suggestions.
- Response to Page 2, Lines 62 - 65:
Reviewer's Comment: Unless mandated for inclusion by the journal, these lines of information add little to the manuscript and may be deleted without harming the manuscript.
Response:
Thank you for your suggestion. Considering your advice, we have removed these lines from the manuscript to streamline the content. The deletion is reflected on page 2, paragraph 3.
- Response to Page 5, Line 174:
Reviewer's Comment: What are “control variables”? Are these province dummy variables? It would be good for authors to state what control variables are in the manuscript.
Response:
Thank you for your attention to the control variables in our study. As detailed in lines 230 to 246 of the manuscript, our control variables are carefully selected based on prior research to capture factors influencing AGTFP.
Regarding the exclusion of province dummy variables, our statistical approach, as explained in the methodology section, utilizes Fixed Effects models combined with Cluster-Robust Standard Errors to control for unobservable heterogeneity and autocorrelation across the panel data covering multiple provinces. This approach effectively accounts for provincial variations without the need for province dummies, ensuring the robustness of our regression analysis and the reliability of our findings. This methodological choice is consistent with our focus on capturing overarching trends rather than province-specific effects.
- Response to Page 5, Lines 174 - 176:
Reviewer's Comment: What was the rationale behind using a two-period lag? How was this determined? Did the authors choose a two-period lag based on the literature?
Response:
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the two-period lag for the environmental regulation (ER) variable. In response to your question, we have incorporated two additional references into our manuscript that support this approach. The studies recently added [37, 38] provide empirical evidence of the delayed effects of policy interventions. Utilizing a two-period lag allows us to more accurately reflect these delayed impacts, mitigating potential endogeneity issues due to reverse causality and enhancing the robustness of our findings.
- Response to Table 3, Page 7:
Reviewer's Comment: Why show estimated coefficients for both models? Why not simply show coefficients for the fixed effects model only and state in the text why this model was deemed better than the random effects model based on the Hausman test?
Response:
Thank you for your insightful comment. Initially, both Fixed Effects (FE) and Random Effects (RE) model results were presented to provide a comprehensive view of the analysis. However, following a rigorous Hausman test, which strongly favored the FE model over the RE model (statistic of 57.56, p-value < 0.0001), we decided to present only the FE model results in the final revision. This decision was made to avoid confusion and to emphasize the most statistically appropriate model, as the FE model accounts more accurately for the provincial unobservable heterogeneity affecting AGTFP. We appreciate your feedback which guided this refinement.
- Response to Table 4, Page 8:
Reviewer's Comment: The title for Table 4 is not complete and misleading. Perhaps simply "Table 4. Regression results for Agricultural Green Total Factor Productivity and Environmental Regulation in China." Also, why do the authors add (1), (2), and (3) in the column headings? These numbers in parentheses may be deleted as they add nothing to the table.
Response:
Thank you for your feedback on the title and column headings of Table 4. We have revised the title to "Table 4. Regression Results for Agricultural Green Total Factor Productivity and Environmental Regulation in China," which accurately reflects the content and scope of the analysis. Additionally, the numbers in parentheses within the column headings have been removed to simplify and clarify the presentation, ensuring that each column directly represents its respective variable without unnecessary symbols.
- Response to Table 7, Page 9:
Reviewer's Comment: See comments above for Table 4, Page 8. The title for Table 7 needs to be reworded for clarity, and the numbers in parentheses need to be removed from the column headings.
Response:
We appreciate your comments regarding Table 7 and have taken steps to enhance the clarity of its presentation. The title has been revised to "Table 7. Robustness Analysis of Environmental Regulation's Mediating Effects on AGTFP," which more precisely describes the analysis performed. Similarly, we have removed the unnecessary numbering from the column headings, aligning with the changes made in Table 4 for consistency and to avoid confusion.
We believe these changes have substantially addressed the concerns raised and have improved the robustness and clarity of our study. We hope that the revisions meet the journal's standards and look forward to your feedback.
Thank you for your consideration.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article provides insights in the field of agricultural economics and sustainability research. Below are my suggestions for improvement:
1. The abstract suggests adding data to support the conclusions.
2. In line 19, delete ‘and Literature Review’.
3. The introduction suggests adding relevant literature to adequately describe current research advances.
4. All tables in the article are recommended to be formatted as three-line tables.
5. Figure 1 should be changed to a single line graph.
6. Figure 2 suggests that the South China Sea be displayed as a small figure in the upper left corner, and that attention be paid to the display of figure projections.
7. Table 3 and Table 6 pay attention to data alignment.
8. The limitations of the study and future work should be added at the end.
9. Please check and correct according to the journal format uniformly, and suggest to add relevant references.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your constructive comments and the opportunity to enhance the quality of our manuscript. Please find below our responses to your insightful suggestions.
- Reviewer's Comment: The abstract suggests adding data to support the conclusions.
Response: We appreciate your valuable suggestion. To address this, we have included key data points in the abstract to substantiate our conclusions, such as the significant coefficient of 0.030 at a 1% level indicating the positive impact of agricultural technological innovation on AGTFP. The updated abstract can be found on lines 15-26 of the revised manuscript.
- Reviewer's Comment: In line 19, delete ‘and Literature Review’.
Response: As advised, we have removed the phrase 'and Literature Review' from line 19 to streamline the introduction and focus more sharply on the topic at hand.
- Reviewer's Comment: The introduction suggests adding relevant literature to adequately describe current research advances.
Response: In response to this comment, we have expanded the introduction to include a thorough review of the relevant literature, showcasing current research advances and situating our study within the existing body of knowledge. These additions are reflected on lines 59-101.
- Reviewer's Comment: All tables in the article are recommended to be formatted as three-line tables.
Response: We have reformatted all tables in the article to conform to the three-line table format, adhering to the journal's standards for clarity and consistency.
- Reviewer's Comment: Figure 1 should be changed to a single line graph.
Response: Acknowledging the suggestion for clarity in data presentation, Figure 1 has been revised to a single line graph, ensuring that the trends are conveyed effectively.
- Reviewer's Comment: Figure 2 suggests that the South China Sea be displayed as a small figure in the upper left corner, and that attention be paid to the display of figure projections.
Response: We understand the importance of presenting comprehensive geographic information in Figure 2. However, the software used for generating the original figure, Stata, does not support the insertion of an inset for the South China Sea within the main figure. We are exploring alternative software solutions that can accommodate this request and will update the figure accordingly if possible.
- Reviewer's Comment: Table 3 and Table 6 pay attention to data alignment.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully adjusted the data alignment in Tables 3 and 6 to improve readability and ensure accuracy in our presentation of data.
- Reviewer's Comment: The limitations of the study and future work should be added at the end.
Response: We agree that acknowledging the study's limitations and suggesting directions for future work is essential. These sections have been added and can be found on lines 438-457 of the revised manuscript.
- Reviewer's Comment: Please check and correct according to the journal format uniformly, and suggest to add relevant references.
Response: The manuscript has been thoroughly checked to ensure uniformity with the journal's formatting requirements. We have also updated our references to include pertinent literature, strengthening the manuscript's academic rigor.
We believe these changes have substantially addressed the concerns raised and have improved the robustness and clarity of our study. We hope that the revisions meet the journal's standards and look forward to your feedback.
Thank you for your consideration.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study examines an interesting and relevant topic: The Impact of Technological Innovation on Agricultural Green Total Factor Productivity: The Mediating Role of Environmental Regulation in China.
The authors use an adequate database to analyse their research questions.
However, the literature review is very narrow. There are many paper in the literature about the examined topic Eg. (Alem, 2023; Baráth et al., 2024) (Staniszewski et al., 2023). The literature review should be extended.
The authors in the first stage apply a DEA based Green Total Factor Productivity Index, and in the second stage different regression models. More detail about the applied index would improve the paper.
After DEA based measures the standard second stage regression provide biased results. It should be improve or at least mention it as a limitation.
References:
Alem, H. (2023). The role of green total factor productivity to farm-level performance: evidence from Norwegian dairy farms. Agricultural and Food Economics, 11(1), 2.
Barath, L., Bakucs, Z., Benedek, Z., Ferto, I., Nagy, Z., Vígh, E., Debrenti, E., & Fogarasi, J. (2024). Does participation in agri-environmental schemes increase eco-efficiency? Science of the Total Environment, 906, 167518.
Staniszewski, J., Guth, M., & Smędzik-Ambroży, K. (2023). Structural conditions of the sustainable intensification of agriculture in the regions of the European Union. Journal of cleaner production, 389, 136109.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your constructive comments and the opportunity to enhance the quality of our manuscript. Please find below our responses to your insightful suggestions.
- Reviewer's Comment: The literature review is very narrow. There are many papers in the literature about the examined topic, e.g., (Alem, 2023; Baráth et al., 2024) (Staniszewski et al., 2023). The literature review should be extended.
Response: We acknowledge the importance of a comprehensive literature review and have expanded this section to include a broader range of studies that contribute to the topic, including those suggested. The literature review has been extended to provide a more thorough background and context for our research. This has been incorporated into the revised manuscript on lines 59-101.
- Reviewer's Comment: The authors in the first stage apply a DEA based Green Total Factor Productivity Index, and in the second stage different regression models. More detail about the applied index would improve the paper. After DEA based measures, the standard second stage regression provides biased results. It should be improved or at least mention it as a limitation.
Response: Your feedback regarding the methodological detail is highly valued. We have expanded our explanation of the DEA-based Green Total Factor Productivity Index used in our study. Additionally, we have included a discussion on the potential for bias in the standard second stage regression analysis, which is inherent to DEA-based measures, as a limitation of our study. This is now thoroughly detailed in lines 179-208 of the revised manuscript.
We believe these changes have substantially addressed the concerns raised and have improved the robustness and clarity of our study. We hope that the revisions meet the journal's standards and look forward to your feedback.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors replied to all of my previous questions.I don't have more questions.
