Digital Economy, Factor Allocation, and Resilience of Food Production
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper under consideration discusses an interesting and up-to-date topic - the opportunities of the digital economy to enhance grain production resilience (based on an example of Chinese regions).
1. The theoretical part of the paper (Literature review) is well structured, and its reasoning is clear. However, the part ‘Research Design’ requires more care and attention in development:
- The construction of the Gpr variable has not been fully explained (4.1.1), p. 7). Only on page 12 is stated that the variable ranges [0;1]. Section 4.1.1 does not provide a final formula for determining this variable and does not provide its interpretation.
- More attention should be paid to the formulas and the explanation of the symbols used in them. There are inconsistencies in this regard; furthermore, not all symbols used in the formulas are explained, e.g.:
o The Markov process model is explained in the context of food production, which is a broader concept than the grain production system.
o Formula 1 includes the Zit variable, whereas in Formulas 2 and 3 the Xit variable was placed (Xit was not explained).
o Formula 4 contains μ2it (in Formula 2 μ1it was explained).
- An explanation of the Dig variable should also be developed (4.1.2), in particular:
o The variable of Digital Inclusive Finance (in Table 1) should be presented and explained more clearly.
o The construction of Dig variable, the results of the PCA analysis, and its interpretation should be presented (as it is a core research variable)
- The remarks on the formulas and the explanation of the symbols used in them, are also valid for part 4.1.3. Rules for the interpretation of the Lmi and Kmi variables should be given.
2. Results and discussion
The article lacks a deeper discussion of the results, a comparison, and references to the results of other studies. The article should be supplemented with a section: Discussion.
3. Research limitations should also be presented and discussed.
Minor:
- Introduction: The last paragraph should contain brief information on data sources and analytical methods.
- Table 2, Table 3: It is Fpr – it should be Gpr.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Editorial Board and Reviewers of《land》:
Greetings! Thank you for the reviewing experts to put forward valuable modifications to this paper, thank you for the editorial staff's hard work, these valuable modifications are very important for the improvement and enhancement of the article. According to the modification suggestions and recommendations, the author has made a more systematic modification of this thesis by combining the modifications proposed by the reviewing experts through deliberation and revision proofreading work. The changes focus on the introduction, research design, empirical analysis and other parts of the original text and the corresponding tables, interpretation of the results, conclusions, and the abstract of the article, and the specific modifications have been shown in red in the revised draft, and also shown in blue in this revision note. The specific modifications are as follows:
Point 1: The construction of the Gpr variable has not been fully explained (4.1.1), p. 7). Only on page 12 is stated that the variable ranges [0;1]. Section 4.1.1 does not provide a final formula for determining this variable and does not provide its interpretation.
Response 1: Many thanks to the reviewers for their hard work and criticism. The research design section needs to give the definition of the variables as well as a detailed description of how the variables were constructed. Accordingly, the author has further revised and improved the research design section in the hope of responding to the suggestions of the reviewers. The specific modifications are as follows:
Line 316 Combined with the previous analysis, this paper argues that the resilience of food production can be understood as the ability of the food production system to rely on internal and external dynamics to resist internal disturbances and external shocks in order to reshape the new development path, including the pre-disaster resistance to maintain the stability of the basic functions, the adaptive power in the disaster to adjust or change the mode of production, and the post-disaster reconstruction power for sustainable development.
Line 370 Formula 5
Point 2: More attention should be paid to the formulas and the explanation of the symbols used in them. There are inconsistencies in this regard; furthermore, not all symbols used in the formulas are explained, e.g.:
The Markov process model is explained in the context of food production, which is a broader concept than the grain production system.
Formula 1 includes the Zit variable, whereas in Formulas 2 and 3 the Xit variable was placed (Xit was not explained).
Formula 4 contains μ2it (in Formula 2 μ1it was explained).
An explanation of the Dig variable should also be developed (4.1.2), in particular:
The variable of Digital Inclusive Finance (in Table 1) should be presented and explained more clearly.
The construction of Dig variable, the results of the PCA analysis, and its interpretation should be presented (as it is a core research variable)
The remarks on the formulas and the explanation of the symbols used in them, are also valid for part 4.1.3. Rules for the interpretation of the Lmi and Kmi variables should be given.
Response 2: The comments of the reviewers are greatly appreciated. As pointed out, the article should clarify the concept and scope of “food” and “grain”. At the same time, the symbols used in the formulae and the core explanatory variables should be explained to highlight the research object. Accordingly, the author has further revised and improved the corresponding parts of the article in the hope of responding to the experts' suggestions. The specific modifications are as follows:
In the statistical indicators of the National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS) used in this paper, “food production” refers to the social production of grains such as rice, wheat, corn, sorghum, as well as potatoes and legumes. There are two kinds of English translations of food production, one is food production and the other is grain production. After the reviewer's point of view, this paper clearly uses the term food production, and the wording has been modified in the corresponding part of the article.
Zit in the original Formula 1 has the same meaning as Xit in Formula 2-4, and has been replaced with Xit in Formula 1, consistent with Formula 2-4.
Line 337 Formula 1
The explanation of μ2it has been supplemented with Formula 4 for illustration.
Line 362 Similarly, following the assumption of zero mean of the random error term, the conditional variance of food production in area i at time t can be estimated:
Line 364 Formula 4
Line 388
These include the breadth of coverage, depth of use and digitalization indices. The breadth of coverage index measures the geographic and demographic reach of financial services; the depth of use index assesses the actual use and depth of financial services; and the digitisation index reflects the level of digitalization and innovation in financial services.
Line 481 5.1 Trends in the level of the digital economy and the resilience of food production
Line 417 After calculating the labour price distortion coefficientand capital price distortion coefficientfrom equation (7), the mechanism variables labor factor mismatch index (Lmi) and capital factor mismatch index (Kmi) of this paper can be calculated by combining them with equation (6).
Point 3: The article lacks a deeper discussion of the results, a comparison, and references to the results of other studies. The article should be supplemented with a section: Discussion.
Research limitations should also be presented and discussed.
Response 3: Thank you very much for the reviewer's comments. As you said, the addition of a “Discussion” section is very important for the article. Accordingly, the author has further revised and improved the corresponding part of the article and hopes to respond to the expert's suggestions. The specific modifications are as follows:
Line 666
5.7 Discussion
This paper examines the effects and mechanisms of digital economy empowering food production resilience enhancement with the help of panel data from 30 provincial-level administrative regions in China from 2011 to 2022. The results show that the digital economy contributes to the enhancement of the human nature of food production within the study interval, which is consistent with the findings of existing studies. However, the difference is that this study also concludes that mitigating labour factor mismatch and mitigating capital factor mismatch are two important mediators of digital economy-enabled food production resilience, as a complement to the existing studies. However, due to data availability, this study mainly focuses on the resilience of regional food production at the macro level, and does not examine the resilience of individual farmers or firms at the micro level, which is a direction that should be focused on in the next research.
Point 4: Introduction: The last paragraph should contain brief information on data sources and analytical methods.
- Table 2, Table 3: It is Fpr – it should be Gpr.
Response 4: Thank you very much for the reviewer's comments, your suggestions are very helpful to improve the quality of the article. In response to your suggestions, the author has revised the original article as follows:
Line 70 Based on this, this study explores the relationship between the digital economy and the resilience of food production with the help of the panel data of 30 provincial-level administrative regions in China from 2011 to 2022, using the two-way fixed-effects model, so as to be able to reveal in depth the effect and mechanism of the digital economy on the resilience of food production.
Line 535 Table 3、Line 567 Table 4、Line 613 Table5、Line 665 Table7 modify to Fpr
Once again, I would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their valuable guidance on this article, and each revision is a refinement and enhancement of this manuscript. The author has followed the experts' comments to revise and adjust this article.
Best regards,
Ruikuan Yao
December 19, 2024
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The abstract and the introduction need to be revised to explain the question and the importance. It should provide a more comprehensive background.
2. The Conclusion Section needs to be written in more detail with more data.
3. The concepts of Food Production Resilience should be defined in the introduction or in the research methodology.
4. Kindly also describe the indicators that characterize the Food Production Resilience after defining the concept clearly. The Grain production resilience (Gpr) shown in 4.1.1 is not clear. Using only Yit (Line #324) or Y*(Line#355) is not persuasive enough.
5. Lack of a Discussion Section, which will be of help to the understanding of results and their significance.
6. The contribution needs to be clearly shown in the Conclusion and Discussion Section and make it clear how the research improves the knowledge of the literature.
7. Kindly standardize the References Section. Clarify whether this journal requires DOI available for this reference.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Editorial Board and Reviewers of《land》:
Greetings! Thank you for the reviewing experts to put forward valuable modifications to this paper, thank you for the editorial staff's hard work, these valuable modifications are very important for the improvement and enhancement of the article. According to the modification suggestions and recommendations, the author has made a more systematic modification of this thesis by combining the modifications proposed by the reviewing experts through deliberation and revision proofreading work. The changes focus on the introduction, research design, empirical analysis and other parts of the original text and the corresponding tables, interpretation of the results, conclusions, and the abstract of the article, and the specific modifications have been shown in red in the revised draft, and also shown in blue in this revision note. The specific modifications are as follows:
Point 1: The abstract and the introduction need to be revised to explain the question and the importance. It should provide a more comprehensive background.
Response 1: Many thanks to the reviewers for their expert guidance, your suggestions have improved the quality of the article substantially. As you pointed out in your suggestions, the abstract and introduction are very important to the article. Accordingly, the author has made changes in the corresponding parts of the article. The details are as follows:
Line 11 Abstract: This paper systematically explores the impact of the digital economy on the resilience of food production and its mechanism of action based on panel data from 30 provincial-level administrative regions in China from 2011 to 2022. The study shows that the digital economy significantly enhances the ability of the food production system to cope with external shocks by improving resource allocation efficiency and mitigating factor mismatch. Specifically, the digital economy directly improves the stability and resilience of food production through the wide application of digital technology; at the same time, it indirectly contributes to the enhancement of food production resilience by alleviating the mismatch of labour and capital factors. Heterogeneity analyses show that there are regional differences in the impact of the digital economy, in which the main food-producing regions benefit more significantly due to their agricultural resource advantages and policy support, and the improvement of food production resilience in the central region is particularly prominent. The study provides an important theoretical basis and practical reference for exploring the potential of the application of digital economy in agriculture and formulating policies to enhance food production resilience.
Line 28 Food production forms the bedrock of economic development, while food security is fundamental not only to social stability and public well-being but also to sustainable economic and social progress.For a country as populous as China, the importance of food security is even more self-evident.In 2023, China's total food output reached 695.41 million tons, achieving 20 consecutive years of abundant harvests.This milestone highlights the success of supportive government policies and ongoing innovations in agricultural technology. Food security has consistently been a strategic priority for China, with central government policy documents repeatedly emphasizing the critical role of food production. However, the world is undergoing unprecedented transformations, accelerated by the frequent occurrence of geopolitical conflicts, public health emergencies, and intensified climate change. These factors pose significant challenges to food production [1], threatening the stability of food supplies and drawing increased attention to the resilience of food production systems.Food production resilience refers to the capacity of the system to maintain stability and recover rapidly from external shocks such as climate change, natural disasters, and market volatility. It involves not only stable food output but also the continuity of supply chains and the safeguarding of farmers' incomes [2].
Point 2：The Conclusion Section needs to be written in more detail with more data.
Response 2:Thank you, reviewer, for your patience and thoughtfulness in reviewing the article, and your suggested revisions have improved the article. As you pointed out, the conclusion section needs more data written in more detail. Accordingly, the author has revised the article. The specific modifications are as follows:
Line 686 First, over the study interval, China's level of digital economy development has shown a steady increase, while food production resilience has remained relatively stable.
Second, the digital economy significantly contributes to the improvement of food production resilience. From the results of the benchmark regression, for every 1-unit increase in the level of digital economy, the food production resilience index increases by 0.0827 on average, indicating that the development of the digital economy has a significant positive effect on the resilience of food production, a conclusion that remains valid after a series of robustness tests. This suggests that with the penetration of digital technology in the agricultural sector, technological tools such as data sharing and intelligent production provide the agricultural production system with higher resilience to risk.
Third, the digital economy indirectly promotes food production resilience by alleviating factor mismatch. The results of the mechanism test show that the impact coefficient of the digital economy on the labour mismatch index is -0.2754, and the impact coefficient on the capital mismatch index is -0.8103, indicating that the digital economy has a significant role in reducing factor mismatches and improving factor allocation efficiency. By optimizing the efficiency of agricultural labour allocation and capital flow, the digital economy provides important support for the improvement of agricultural production efficiency and resilience.
Fourth, there is significant regional heterogeneity in the impact of digital economy on food production resilience. According to the results of the heterogeneity analysis, in the main food-producing areas, for every 1 unit increase in the level of digital economy, the food production resilience index increases by 0.1726, which is significantly higher than that of the non-main producing areas, which is 0.0932. In terms of geographic location, the coefficient of impact in the central region is as high as 0.5312, which is much higher than that in the eastern and western regions. This may be due to the more favourable agricultural production conditions and policy support in the central region, which makes it easier to release the dividends of the digital economy.
Point 3：The concepts of Food Production Resilience should be defined in the introduction or in the research methodology.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The concept of food production resilience, which is the central explanatory variable of the article, should be mentioned in the research design section. Accordingly, the author has revised the corresponding part of the article as follows:
Line 316 Combined with the previous analysis, this paper argues that the resilience of food production can be understood as the ability of the food production system to rely on internal and external dynamics to resist internal disturbances and external shocks in order to reshape the new development path, including the pre-disaster resistance to maintain the stability of the basic functions, the adaptive power in the disaster to adjust or change the mode of production, and the post-disaster reconstruction power for sustainable development.
Point 4：Kindly also describe the indicators that characterize the Food Production Resilience after defining the concept clearly. The Grain production resilience (Gpr) shown in 4.1.1 is not clear. Using only Yit (Line #324) or Y*(Line#355) is not persuasive enough.
Response 4: The comments of the reviewers are greatly appreciated. As pointed out, the article should be supplemented with a summary and definition of the concept of“food production resilience” in order to highlight the object of the study. Accordingly, the author has further revised and improved the corresponding part of the article in the hope of responding to the experts' suggestions. The specific modifications are as follows:
Line 370 Formula 5
Line 374 That is, the core explanatory variable of the paper, food production resilience（Fpr）.
Point 5：Lack of a Discussion Section, which will be of help to the understanding of results and their significance.
The contribution needs to be clearly shown in the Conclusion and Discussion Section and make it clear how the research improves the knowledge of the literature.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. Adding a discussion section would be more helpful for readers to understand the findings of the text and the comparisons with existing studies and research gaps. Accordingly, the author has made the following changes:
Line 666 5.7 Discussion
This paper examines the effects and mechanisms of digital economy empowering food production resilience enhancement with the help of panel data from 30 provincial-level administrative regions in China from 2011 to 2022. The results show that the digital economy contributes to the enhancement of the human nature of food production within the study interval, which is consistent with the findings of existing studies. However, the difference is that this study also concludes that mitigating labour factor mismatch and mitigating capital factor mismatch are two important mediators of digital economy-enabled food production resilience, as a complement to the existing studies. However, due to data availability, this study mainly focuses on the resilience of regional food production at the macro level, and does not examine the resilience of individual farmers or firms at the micro level, which is a direction that should be focused on in the next research.
Point 6：Kindly standardize the References Section. Clarify whether this journal requires DOI available for this reference.
Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. The author will contact the editorial office to confirm whether the DOI code of the reference is required.
Once again, I would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their valuable guidance on this article, and each revision is a refinement and enhancement of this manuscript. The author has followed the experts' comments to revise and adjust this article.
Best regards,
Ruikuan Yao
December 19, 2024
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Some English still can be further optimized.
2. The result and the policies suggestion can be more deliberate.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments
Dear Editorial Board and Reviewers of《land》:
Greetings! Thank you for the reviewing experts to put forward valuable modifications to this paper, thank you for the editorial staff's hard work, these valuable modifications are very important for the improvement and enhancement of the article. According to the modification suggestions and recommendations, the author has made a more systematic modification of this thesis by combining the modifications proposed by the reviewing experts through deliberation and revision proofreading work. The changes focus on the conclusions and the abstract of the article, and the specific modifications have been shown in red in the revised draft, and also shown in blue in this revision note. The specific modifications are as follows:
Point 1: Some English still can be further optimized.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your guidance. Your suggestions are very helpful in improving the quality of the article. Based on your suggestions, I have further improved the English presentation of the article.
Point 2: The result and the policies suggestion can be more deliberate.
Response 2: Thank you, reviewer, for your patience and thoughtfulness in reviewing the article, and your suggested revisions have improved the article. The specific modifications are as follows:
Line 686
First, the level of the digital economy has shown steady growth, but significant regional disparities remain. The data reveals that the digital economy index increased from -0.4617 in 2011 to 0.2882 in 2022, highlighting the success of advancements in information infrastructure and technology adoption. However, there is a marked imbalance in development across regions, with the eastern provinces exhibiting far higher levels of digital economy development compared to the central and western regions. The latter still face challenges, particularly in terms of weak digital infrastructure and delayed technology adoption, which hinder further growth in these areas.
Second, while food production resilience has remained relatively stable, there is considerable potential for improvement. The study shows that, despite the stable trend in food production resilience, driven by agricultural modernization and increasing policy support, its growth has not kept pace with the rapid development of the digital economy. This indicates that the current food production system still has significant room to enhance its adaptability and resilience in the face of complex external shocks.
Third, the digital economy has a substantial positive impact on food production resilience. The regression analysis confirms that a 1-unit increase in digital economy development correlates with a 0.0827-point increase in the food production resilience index. This underscores that the digital economy, through the integration of intelligent technologies, data sharing, and supply chain optimization, enhances the stability and risk resilience of the agricultural system, providing critical support for food security.
Fourth, the optimization of factors of production plays a crucial role. The findings reveal that the digital economy indirectly boosts food production resilience by addressing mismatches in labor and capital allocation. Specifically, the digital economy reduces both labor and capital mismatches, thereby improving resource allocation efficiency. The application of digital technologies not only improves the alignment of supply and demand for production factors but also strengthens the system's flexibility and adaptability to external shocks.
Fifth, the benefits of digital economy development are unevenly distributed across regions. The study highlights significant regional differences in the impact of the digital economy on food production resilience. In major food production areas, the effect is notably stronger (0.1726) compared to non-major production areas (0.0932). In the central region, the impact coefficient is as high as 0.5312, driven by advantages in agricultural resources and policy support, which far exceed the effects observed in the eastern and western regions. These disparities suggest that regional differences in resource endowment, policy support, and technology adoption result in spatial heterogeneity in the role of the digital economy in enhancing food production resilience.
Line 724
The above research conclusions reveal that the digital economy helps strengthen food production resilience.Moving forward, efforts should be directed toward accelerating digital economic development strategies, enhancing infrastructure, guiding the digital economy to support rural development, and fostering new drivers for growth in the grain industry. Based on these insights, the following policy recommendations are proposed:
First, strengthen digital infrastructure to reduce regional disparities. To address the inadequate digital infrastructure in central and western regions, the government should increase investment in key areas such as 5G networks, the Internet of Things, and data collection systems in rural areas. This will enable the full integration of digital technology into agriculture. Additionally, partnerships between enterprises and local governments should be encouraged to co-develop information infrastructure, ensuring balanced regional development and providing the technical foundation needed for a resilient food production system.
Second, accelerate the digital transformation of agriculture to improve system efficiency. The government should prioritize the promotion of intelligent agricultural technologies, including precision farming, smart machinery, drone monitoring, and smart irrigation. These technologies optimize resource allocation, reduce waste, and enhance efficiency in production. Furthermore, the use of big data and artificial intelligence should be expanded to improve real-time monitoring and management of the food supply chain, strengthening the stability and resilience of the agricultural system.
Third, optimize the allocation of labor and capital to boost efficiency. By advancing digital inclusive finance, the government can lower the financing barriers for agribusinesses and smallholder farmers, addressing the issue of uneven capital distribution. Simultaneously, policies should encourage the flow of skilled labor into high-value agricultural sectors to increase productivity. Digital platforms should be leveraged to connect agricultural producers with labor and capital markets, ensuring efficient allocation of resources.
Fourth, adopt regionally tailored policies to maximize digital economy benefits. In grain-producing and central regions, the focus should be on promoting intelligent farming equipment and precision planting techniques to further enhance production resilience. In the eastern region, innovation in digital technologies should be prioritized, while in the western region, infrastructure development must be accelerated to bridge the digital divide. These region-specific strategies will help unlock the full potential of the digital economy in enhancing food production resilience.
Fifth, strengthen digital literacy and provide targeted training for agricultural workers. To address the digital skills gap among rural agricultural workers, the government should implement both online and offline training programs. These programs should focus on helping farmers master digital tools for production and management, thus enhancing their ability to adapt to the digital economy and facilitating the modernization and transformation of the agricultural sector.
Once again, I would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their valuable guidance on this article, and each revision is a refinement and enhancement of this manuscript. The author has followed the experts' comments to revise and adjust this article.
Best regards,
Ruikuan Yao
December 23, 2024
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
