The Impact of Agricultural Employment and Technological Innovation on the Environment: Evidence from BRICS Nations Considering a Novel Environmental Sustainability Indicator
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents an intriguing exploration of environmental sustainability, focusing on the transition from traditional evaluation metrics, like CO2 and greenhouse gases (GHG), to Load Capacity Factor (LCF). This shift in perspective is commendable. However, the paper falls short in achieving its objective of establishing the positive impact of the Agriculture-Energy-Environment Nexus, aided by technology, on environmental sustainability.
While the authors adeptly discuss the nexus between these facets based on previous studies (as seen in the literature review section), the research questions and the model estimation and results do not provide sufficient evidence to establish the nexus's potential impact on environmental sustainability. The research questions seem to evaluate these aspects in isolation, which is a significant weakness of the paper. To address this, the authors should either redefine their scope by removing the interconnected or nexus aspect and focus on assessing the impact of individual components or evaluate holistically by considering the complex nexus.
Furthermore, several key terms and concepts within the paper, such as LCF and natural resource rent, require clarification. It is also essential to specify the types of technology considered. Additionally, the paper should delve into why LCF is a more relevant measure than CO2 or GHG emissions in evaluating environmental sustainability.
The study should acknowledge that all technologies, whether used in agriculture or renewable energy, have a carbon footprint. However, it is well-documented that certain technologies, like ICT, can have positive environmental effects. Thus, the argument in the paper that technology universally leads to a decline in environmental sustainability needs reevaluation, as the results do not conclusively support this claim.
The paper also lacks clarity regarding the significance of agricultural employment and the type of employment considered—technology-enabled or manual labor. The assumption of this complex phenomenon appears overly simplistic.
Detailed information on data collection, including what data was collected, its format, sufficiency, and relevance, should be provided. This will enhance transparency and credibility.
Figure 2, titled "Connectivity and interaction towards environmental quality," suggests a positive impact of technology, yet the conclusion contradicts this. This inconsistency requires clarification.
Regarding Figure 2 (Page 4), it should be labeled as Figure 1, and its relevance and implications for the research problem should be explicitly explained.
The conclusion and policy implications should be more objective and straightforward. Clear and concise recommendations are essential.
BRICS-T should be defined to eliminate any confusion among readers.
Finally, the paper needs better articulation in some sections to enhance readability and comprehension.
The English language is acceptable but needs better articulation in some sections.
Author Response
Comment: The paper presents an intriguing exploration of environmental sustainability, focusing on the transition from traditional evaluation metrics, like CO2 and greenhouse gases (GHG), to Load Capacity Factor (LCF). This shift in perspective is commendable. However, the paper falls short in achieving its objective of establishing the positive impact of the Agriculture-Energy-Environment Nexus, aided by technology, on environmental sustainability.
Response: Thank you so much for your time and effort for reviewing this manuscript and providing us an opportunity to revise the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript following your feedback and also revised the title and scope of the study.
Comment: While the authors adeptly discuss the nexus between these facets based on previous studies (as seen in the literature review section), the research questions and the model estimation and results do not provide sufficient evidence to establish the nexus's potential impact on environmental sustainability. The research questions seem to evaluate these aspects in isolation, which is a significant weakness of the paper. To address this, the authors should either redefine their scope by removing the interconnected or nexus aspect and focus on assessing the impact of individual components or evaluate holistically by considering the complex nexus.
Response: Thank you so much for your valuable feedback. The main focus of this study is to evaluate the individual variable’s impact on the environmental sustainability presented by Load Capacity Factor. We did not investigate the nexus or interconnectedness among the variables. We have changed the title of the study for better understanding. Thanks for bring this in front, we apologies for the misleading. We have further refined the specific objectives and research and contribution of this study.
Comment: Furthermore, several key terms and concepts within the paper, such as LCF and natural resource rent, require clarification. It is also essential to specify the types of technology considered. Additionally, the paper should delve into why LCF is a more relevant measure than CO2 or GHG emissions in evaluating environmental sustainability.
Response: Thanks for your important remarks. We have clarified the LCF term in the revised manuscript and the reason behind using it rather than CO2 or GHG emissions have been extensively discussed in the revised manuscript (Line no. 63-80). However, the impact of natural resources has been discussed in the introduction section linking with the BRICS countries (Line 118-123). The technology considered in this study is the total number of patents application in every year which reflects the innovation capacity of a country (we use total patents application as a proxy of technological innovation following the previous literature discussed in the literature review section).
Comment: The study should acknowledge that all technologies, whether used in agriculture or renewable energy, have a carbon footprint. However, it is well-documented that certain technologies, like ICT, can have positive environmental effects. Thus, the argument in the paper that technology universally leads to a decline in environmental sustainability needs reevaluation, as the results do not conclusively support this claim.
Response: Thank you so much for your important feedback. We have acknowledged both positive and negative impact on the environment in the introduction section of revised manuscript (line no. 125-137). Also discussed this above Figure 2.
Comment: The paper also lacks clarity regarding the significance of agricultural employment and the type of employment considered—technology-enabled or manual labor. The assumption of this complex phenomenon appears overly simplistic.
Response: Thanks. We have considered the percentage of labor employment in the agriculture sector to the entire labor force of the country as reported by the World Bank report regardless of technology-enabled or manual labor. This is a shortcoming of the study that we consider the percentage of labor force engaged in agriculture irrespective of technology-enabled or manual labor due to data limitation. We have mentioned it in the “Limitations of the Study” section, and future research can use this subject to data availability.
Comment: Detailed information on data collection, including what data was collected, its format, sufficiency, and relevance, should be provided. This will enhance transparency and credibility.
Response: Thank you so much. We have revised the data description section and presented a data description table containing the unit and source of each variable.
Comment: Figure 2, titled "Connectivity and interaction towards environmental quality," suggests a positive impact of technology, yet the conclusion contradicts this. This inconsistency requires clarification.
Response: We have revised Figure 2 and inserted both positive and negative impact of the technological innovation on the environment (depicted by “+” and “-“ signs) also made table footnote for this. Also, this association of positive and negative have been clarified in both Introduction (Line no. 134-37) and above of Figure 2 (Line no. 383-392).
Comment: Regarding Figure 2 (Page 4), it should be labeled as Figure 1, and its relevance and implications for the research problem should be explicitly explained.
Response: Thanks a lot. We have revised Figure number, and its relevance with the research problem, particularly for the BRICS nations have been discussed in the Introduction section (Line no. 77-82).
Comment: The conclusion and policy implications should be more objective and straightforward. Clear and concise recommendations are essential.
Response: Thank you so much. We have revised the conclusion section and several unnecessary lines have been deleted. Also, we have made the policy section more concise. In addition, we have added a separate sub-section “Limitations and future research direction”.
Comment: BRICS-T should be defined to eliminate any confusion among readers.
Response: Thank you so much. We have defined the BRICS-T in the text (Line 207).
Comment: Finally, the paper needs better articulation in some sections to enhance readability and comprehension.
Response: Thank you so much. Apart from your previous comments. We have made substantial revision throughout the manuscript for enhancing the readability and made language corrections.
Reviewer 2 Report
No doubt the the paper gives a detailed understanding of the quality of the environment by investigating the impact of renewable energy usage, natural resource rent, agricultural employment, and technological advancements on the BRICS nations. However, the author's suggestion that government entities to offer financial assistance or additional resources to convert the employment flow toward the agriculture sector rather than the industrial sector may pose questions regarding the creation of employment avenues in the agriculture sector for such vast populated countries of BRICS.
Author Response
Comment: No doubt the paper gives a detailed understanding of the quality of the environment by investigating the impact of renewable energy usage, natural resource rent, agricultural employment, and technological advancements on the BRICS nations. However, the author's suggestion that government entities to offer financial assistance or additional resources to convert the employment flow toward the agriculture sector rather than the industrial sector may pose questions regarding the creation of employment avenues in the agriculture sector for such vast populated countries of BRICS.
Response: The authors appreciate the valuable input by the respected Reviewer for this valuable feedback which will indeed encourage authors. In response to the valuable feedback, we addressed all of the comments raised by the respected reviewers. We have revised the policy part as well as the line you mentioned (Line no. 683-686).
Reviewer 3 Report
I liked the way manuscript written with logical sequence and good flow. Authors have done a good job in identification and definition research problem.
Authors have cited most recent and relevant literature to design the study.
I found the methods employed for data collection and analysis are robust and appropriate for this kind of research. Authors used Stata for data analysis which appropriate for this kind of research.
Findings of this research make significant contributions in respect to policy and regulations especially to BRICS.
I failed to find any contributions to the body of existing knowledge. I recommend authors to highlight new knowledge contributions in the conclusions section and in the abstract as well.
Author Response
Comment: I liked the way manuscript written with logical sequence and good flow. Authors have done a good job in identification and definition research problem.
Response: Thank you so much. Your feedback is immensely appreciated.
Comment: Authors have cited most recent and relevant literature to design the study.
Response: Thanks for your great feedback.
Comment: I found the methods employed for data collection and analysis are robust and appropriate for this kind of research. Authors used Stata for data analysis which appropriate for this kind of research.
Response: The authors are thankful to the respected reviewer for valuable feedback.
Comment: Findings of this research make significant contributions in respect to policy and regulations especially to BRICS.
Response: Thank you.
Comment: I failed to find any contributions to the body of existing knowledge. I recommend authors to highlight new knowledge contributions in the conclusions section and in the abstract as well.
Response: Many thanks for your valuable feedback. We have modified and rewrite the contribution of this study in the Introduction section according to your comments (Line no 153-169). Also, at the beginning of the abstract, we have mentioned the literature gap that this study tries to fill. In addition, in the conclusion section, we have mentioned that additional knowledge of this has made to the literature.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed most of the concerns reasonably. May be some langiage editing is necessary.
The language is acceptable with minor modifications.,
Author Response
Response: The authors appreciate the valuable input by the respected Reviewer which will indeed encourage authors. In response to the valuable feedback, we addressed all of the comments raised by the respected reviewers. We have revised the manuscript and checked all the language issues also checked for the grammar mistakes.
