Environmental Pressures and Value Added Related to Imports and Exports of the Dutch Agricultural Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

An interesting publication describing the relationship between the conditioning of agricultural activity and the effects of foreign exchange on the example of Dutch agriculture. The authors try to assess the impact and relationship of the environmental pressures and added value associated with the import and export of the Dutch agricultural sector. The global MRIO and MRIO Exiobase methods were used in the calculations. The data is presented in charts and figures. Apart from presenting the results, the authors try to compare the obtained data with the indicators of other countries and look for conclusions. Generally, the article meets the requirements of a scientific publication. The authors presented a bit too little of the theoretical basis in the form of a literature review. The theoretical development of the topic would allow the readers to get to know and understand the issues better. Important note: there is no publication date (year) of the source publications used in the literature.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your comments. We have included the years in the source publications and added more background literature as requested.

Please let us know should this not be sufficient.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is interesting and deals with current issues. Old data (from 2011) were used, but the Authors explained why they could not use newer data.

The Authors of the paper correctly formulated the purpose of the work. However, the paper needs to be improved, in my opinion. Abstract should be supplemented with the purpose of the work and the main research results (it is worth giving the results as valuable). In my opinion, the Discussion should be separated from the Conclusions, this will make the paper more legible.

Please consider the possibility of explaining the research results with economic theories (environmental theories, theories of the efficiency of the use of production means, etc.). This will significantly increase the value of the paper from the point of view of economic theory.

For figures, I think the data source needs to be added.

In my opinion, the article needs to be refined from the editorial (e.g. lines 102, 136, 154, 189) and linguistic aspects.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your feedback. We have adjusted the abstract and separated the discussions from the conclusions as requested. The data source has been added to the figures in their captions and we have tried to address all linguistic aspects. Concerning the use of economic theories, we in fact do discuss the results in such terms along line 273: “it is understandable that the Netherlands creates such high pressures abroad. A densely populated country like the Netherlands will always specialize in sectors that have a lot of value added per unit of land, while for sparsely populated countries (from which the Netherlands partly imports) the opposite applies.”

Please let us know should this not be satisfactory.

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is potential and could be attractive for the readers.

Abstract should contain aim of the paper, methods, findings, and findings limitations. I think the abstract provides just general information and should be improved, i.e., changed into a proper shape.

Introduction should present the social order, why to solve the topic. There is description of the situation with using proofs in the form of citation. The trouble is, that the references are in a bad shape. I am missing information about years of the cited papers issue. I think that the objective expression is bad – to bring to the attention of policy makers …. It is not a marketing study. The objective should be defined properly. And then I suppose reaserch questions development. I recommend avoiding multiple citations where it is possible.

The methodology is described just in brief framework. The methodology should be repeatable. I recommend setting it in deeper detail. There is no literature review that would justify the choice of a research method.

The results are presented clearly.

Discussion should be answer to the research questions. However, there are no research questions.

Conclusions seem to be proper and clearly presented.

To sum up, the paper needs improvements to be ready for publishing.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you so much for you comments. We have updated the abstract according to your indication. We have fixed the citations and have eliminated “to bring to the attention of policy makers”. In the introduction we moved the objective of the study above the research questions to better highlight the connection between study justification and research questions. The methods section has been modified to better highlight the reasoning behind the choice of the model. At last we have also included equations explaining our approach,

Please let us know should this not be satisfactory.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is focused on a potential topic. I have made a review of the paper in the past. I recommended a few improvements. The authors have made some of them. I think the paper has been improved and its quality status allows it to be published. There is no need to make other changes.