Does Decentralized Food Crop Cultivation Threaten Water-Land-Food Nexus? A Spatial Econometric Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscritp deals with a relevant issue: the sustainability of the Water-Land-Food nexus (WLF nexus) of agricultural decentralized production systems.
The authors explore the current Chinese public policy that emphasizes the optimization/specialization of food cultivation structure to calculate the sustainability of the WLF nexus of 30 provinces in China from 2003 to 2019.
The research issue and objectives are clear and coherently stated.
The methods and materials are clear, sound and coherent with the research objectives.
The research results are clear, detailed and soundly presented and discussed.
The conclusions are pertinent and supported by the research results.
This manuscript presents relevant methodological and empirical contributions about the sustainability of agricultural production systems (decentralized and specialized).
Suggestion: in the Abstract, it seems relevant to add the public policies implications that can be envisaged from the results (explore the content of the section of conclusions).
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of our article. Based on your suggestion and request, we have made corrected modifications on the revised manuscript. Furthermore, we would like to show the details as follows.
Recommendation 1: In the Abstract, it seems relevant to add the public policies implications that can be envisaged from the results (explore the content of the section of conclusions).
Response：We have added to the public policies implications in the abstract.
Thank you again for your suggestions on our article. Your comments have been very helpful in improving the article. Please correct us if there is any revision deficiency, we will do our best to revise it again. Greatly appreciated.
Kindest regards,
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a good job. There are some suggestions for improvement of manuscript.
1. Why is the information only updated to 2019?
2. “30 provinces” should be “30 provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions”.
3. Figure 1 should be more clearly.
4. The valid figures in the manuscript should be consistent.
5. Note the alignment of the numbers of formulas in the manuscript.
6. Center the headings below the figures in Figure 1, 2, 3, and 5.
7. Please check and modify the grammar in the manuscript.
8. The first letter of the sentence should be capitalized. Please check and modify.
9. The use of Fig or Figure in manuscripts needs to be consistent.
10. The reference format should be consistent. Please check and modify.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of our article. Based on your suggestion and request, we have made corrected modifications on the revised manuscript. Furthermore, we would like to show the details as follows.
- Why is the information only updated to 2019?
Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. On the one hand, the 2020 statistics for some of the indicators involved in this study have not been fully disclosed. On the other hand, as the COVID-19 has a large impact on the statistics for a whole year in 2020, extreme values are prone to occur. Therefore, the data used in this study are only updated to 2019.
- “30 provinces” should be “30 provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions”.
Response: We have revised it based on reviewer suggestions.
- Figure 1 should be more clearly.
Response: We have modified the image to make it clearer.
- The valid figures in the manuscript should be consistent.
Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised it based on reviewer suggestions.
- Note the alignment of the numbers of formulas in the manuscript.
Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised it based on reviewer suggestions.
- Center the headings below the figures in Figure 1, 2, 3, and 5.
Response: We have revised it based on reviewer suggestions.
- Please check and modify the grammar in the manuscript.
Response: We have asked an English major to revise the grammar.
- The first letter of the sentence should be capitalized. Please check and modify.
Response: We have checked and modified it.
- The use of Fig or Figure in manuscripts needs to be consistent.
Response: We have revised it based on reviewer suggestions.
- The reference format should be consistent. Please check and modify.
Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have checked and modified it.
Thank you again for your suggestions on our article. Your comments have been very helpful in improving the article. Please correct us if there is any revision deficiency, we will do our best to revise it again. Greatly appreciated.
Kindest regards,
The authors
