Legal and Socio-Economic Conditions Underlying the Shaping of the Agricultural System in Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research presented by authors has been devoted to an important issue – how the interventionism of the State in the sale of agricultural land affects the shape of agricultural system in Poland. The shaping of agricultural system is still relevant in the world. The article shows the role of the Polish State and how it tries to control the trade in agricultural land. The article shows the role of the state in managing the Polish market of agricultural land through introduced legal regulations.

This research is important, comprehensive and new, and has high added value in sustainable development area. It will be interesting for scientists, PhD students and many other readers.

I have a few comments on the article:

1.     The article defines the concept of a family farm. In my opinion, there is no definition of the research area, i.e., agricultural real estate. It is advisable to explain more detailed what should be understood by this term and precisely what is the subject of the research.

2.     Figures 4 and 6 should have a description of the axes in English.

The article meets high requirements of the journal, after making the indicated additions, the article is recommended for publishing in special issue of Journal.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

We are very grateful for your comments. According to your advice, we have amended the relevant parts of the manuscript. Your kind questions and suggestions are answered below.

Point 1.     The article defines the concept of a family farm. In my opinion, there is no definition of the research area, i.e., agricultural real estate. It is advisable to explain more detailed what should be understood by this term and precisely what is the subject of the research.

Response 1: We agree with the reviewer’s comments. As suggested, we have added a definition of agricultural real estate, which has been included in the Materials and Methods chapter. The changes were marked in red in the revised manuscript.

 

Point 2.     Figures 4 and 6 should have a description of the axes in English.

Response 1: We have improved figures 4 and 6.

 

We appreciate your work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has a good quality and interesting subject. However, I have recommendations to improve the quality of the paper. Please see my comments:

Point 1. The article is very clear and include to indicate the structure of the document, and facilitates the reader's comprehension.

Point 2. It is advisable to reconstruct the abstract. It is good to start with the undertaken research goal, scope and methodology, then I would include the problem and the results.

Point 3. What are the other factors (than restrictions) that could explain significant drop in the number of agricultural property transactions in Warmia i Mazury.

Point 4. The discussion provides too little information about restrictions and limitations on agricultural land market in other EU countries. It is advisable to explain their concern, especially in the post-soviet system countries.

Point 5. Conclusions are very clear and clearly express the content of the document.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are very grateful for your comments. According to your advice, we have amended the relevant parts of the manuscript. Your kind questions and suggestions are answered below:

Point 1.     The article is very clear and include to indicate the structure of the document, and facilitates the reader's comprehension.

Response 1: Thank you for appreciating our contribution to the preparation of the manuscript

 

Point 2. It is advisable to reconstruct the abstract. It is good to start with the undertaken research goal, scope and methodology, then I would include the problem and the results.

Response 2: As suggested by the reviewer and the journal's requirements, the abstract has been redrafted, but also shortened

 

Point 3. What are the other factors (than restrictions) that could explain significant drop in the number of agricultural property transactions in Warmia and Mazury.

Response 3:  Based on many years of own research on the management of agricultural real estate in Poland, it appears that the main determinant of the decrease in the number of transactions are the introduced legal regulations. The main premise of the introduced provisions was the ending transitional period of real estate acquisition by foreigners. Secondly, the Polish government has taken measures to limit the acquisition of agricultural real estate by persons not related to agriculture. The stock status is also of key importance (most of the property from the Stock has been distributed).

It can now be said that the stagnation on the real estate market also in Warmia and Mazury is due to the crisis initiated by the covid-19 pandemic, but it was not the subject of reprisals.

 

Point 4. The discussion provides too little information about restrictions and limitations on agricultural land market in other EU countries. It is advisable to explain their concern, especially in the post-soviet system countries.

Response 4: We added in the section Discussion some related references to support our research about restrictions and limitations on the agricultural land market in other EU, and especially in the post-soviet system countries. The changes were marked in red in the revised manuscript.

 

Point 5. Conclusions are very clear and clearly express the content of the document.

Response 5: Thank you for appreciating our contribution to the preparation of the manuscript

 

We appreciate your work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

in my opinion, there is no accurate data and no statistics, and as a consequence, no empirical proof that we can accept or reject the hypothesis. unfortunately, I suggest changing the manuscript because the methodology is rather hard to evaluate. Hypothesis 1 and 2.  are not correct. What does mean "is much interest" 10 people are already high interest or 100 people is high enough or maybe 50% is high?  What do the authors mean by undesirable changes"? Why changes are undesirable? by whom? The manuscript is just a description of the situation, but the analysis is not sufficient. I would like to see data concerning the number of transactions, nationality of buyers, number and characteristics of the rejected transactions, nationality of potential buyers, reasons for transaction rejections, etc. Conducted conclusions are not confirmed in the manuscript.

I suggest rewriting the manuscript, improving the methodology and Hypothesis, add data and statistics because the subject is interesting.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are very grateful for your comments. According to your advice, we have amended the relevant parts of the manuscript. Your kind questions and suggestions are answered below:

Point 1.     In my opinion, there is no accurate data and no statistics, and as a consequence, no empirical proof that we can accept or reject the hypothesis. unfortunately, I suggest changing the manuscript because the methodology is rather hard to evaluate. Hypothesis 1 and 2.  are not correct. What does mean "is much interest" 10 people are already high interest or 100 people is high enough or maybe 50% is high?  What do the authors mean by undesirable changes"? Why changes are undesirable? by whom? The manuscript is just a description of the situation, but the analysis is not sufficient. I would like to see data concerning the number of transactions, nationality of buyers, number and characteristics of the rejected transactions, nationality of potential buyers, reasons for transaction rejections, etc. Conducted conclusions are not confirmed in the manuscript.

Response 1: The research hypotheses in the current wording do not fully apply to the presented research. Therefore, the research hypotheses have been modified. One hypothesis has been defined.

The provision regarding the interest in the acquisition of agricultural real estate by foreigners and other persons not related to agriculture resulted from previous research conducted by my own, as well as by other researchers. It has not been studied in this manuscript.

The aim of the research in this article is to show the change in the Polish state's approach to shaping the agricultural system in Poland. The change in legal regulations has led to the introduction of large restrictions on the purchase of agricultural real estate by persons not related to agriculture, including foreigners. The right of pre-emption and purchase of real estate state agencies were included in their own tasks, introduced by the Act on shaping the agricultural system of 2003. However, until 2016, the state exercised this right only in situations where there were justified grounds for manipulating the land market in Poland. After 2016, the practice became more common (lower total number of transactions and higher share of using ukur Act).

Table 1 is additionally included in the manuscript.

Taking into account the unfavorable changes, the aim was to limit the use of agricultural land (with high valuation classes) for purposes other than agriculture (including, for example, housing, service or recreation). It was the subject of considerations (e.g. agricultural property acquired by KOWR, Figures 8, 9 and 10).

Point 2. I suggest rewriting the manuscript, improving the methodology and Hypothesis, add data and statistics because the subject is interesting.

Response 2: As suggested by the reviewer the research hypothesis has been modified. The research methodology also specified the subject of research and the definition of agricultural property.

The detailed justification is described in point 1.

 

We appreciate your work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the improvements you have made quickly to the manuscript. 

The data presented in Table 1 are interesting and give more detail to the subject you describe. Now it is possible to understand the scale of the analyzed phenomenon. 

At the same time I have several remarques: 

1. There is duplication of the same sentence in Abstract 27-28-29. Please delate.

2. My main concern is that you added the hypothesis, which is a good idea, but at the same time:

- you mention in the hypothesis "adverse functional changes in rural areas." However, such a statement was not mentioned in the manuscript, and the reader may not know what you mean by "adverse functional changes in rural areas." Please explain. In my opinion, it can be argued whether other agricultural land management is a bad idea; it depends on what quality of this soil, its location, unemployment level, etc. Economic development often requires investments, e.g., the construction of roads, factories, airports, resorts, or houses. Please at least define "adverse functional changes."

- the second sentence of the hypothesis should be deleted or corrected and placed as a second hypothesis in the form of "The measures taken by KOWR support the development of family farms in Poland" if you can prove it by showing any results.

Still, no statistics or comparable data show Poland's situation in the agricultural property market before the regulations you analyzed were implemented. 

- you haven't indicated in the manuscript (nor in the Result part, nor the conclusion part) that you confirmed the hypothesis and what kind of results prove your hypothesis. Please provide information concerning this issue. 

3. You repeatedly use the abbreviation "STR" in the Abstract before you explain it. Please move this explanation where the abbreviation was used for the first time. 

4. In table 1, you use the abbreviation "UKUR" as printed letters, but in lines 366 and 388, there is "ukur," and there is no explanation of what this abbreviation means. Please add an explanation. 

5. There is no data (results) concerning foreign buyers in the "Result" part of the manuscript, but there is some discussion about this issue. Please add appropriate data. 

6. Some Eglish improvements (spetially in added or changed text) are needed.

Best regards

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very grateful for your comments. Your comments are right and accurate. According to your advice, we have amended the relevant parts of the manuscript. Your kind questions and suggestions are answered below:

1. There is duplication of the same sentence in Abstract 27-28-29. Please delate.

The duplication of the same sentence in Abstract has been deleted.

2. My main concern is that you added the hypothesis, which is a good idea, but at the same time:

- you mention in the hypothesis "adverse functional changes in rural areas." However, such a statement was not mentioned in the manuscript, and the reader may not know what you mean by "adverse functional changes in rural areas." Please explain. In my opinion, it can be argued whether other agricultural land management is a bad idea; it depends on what quality of this soil, its location, unemployment level, etc. Economic development often requires investments, e.g., the construction of roads, factories, airports, resorts, or houses. Please at least define "adverse functional changes."

- For the purposes of this study, the concept of adverse functional changes in agricultural areas was defined (Lines 308-314).

Such properties (attractive location and investment potential) were the subject of consideration. The results and conclusions also mention this.

- the second sentence of the hypothesis should be deleted or corrected and placed as a second hypothesis in the form of "The measures taken by KOWR support the development of family farms in Poland" if you can prove it by showing any results.

- The second hypothesis has been defined according to your suggestion.

- Relevant information in the manuscript was completed (Lines: 467-473, 486-489, 635-636).

Still, no statistics or comparable data show Poland's situation in the agricultural property market before the regulations you analyzed were implemented.

- This was not studied in this manuscript. About the situation in the Polish agricultural real estate market, we refer to our previous research on this topic (e.g., items 10,11,30, 42, 43).

- you haven't indicated in the manuscript (nor in the Result part, nor the conclusion part) that you confirmed the hypothesis and what kind of results prove your hypothesis. Please provide information concerning this issue.

- In the conclusions, it was clearly emphasized that Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 were confirmed (lines 648-651)

3. You repeatedly use the abbreviation "STR" in the Abstract before you explain it. Please move this explanation where the abbreviation was used for the first time.

- The abbreviation STR was explained in the abstract when it was first used.

4. In table 1, you use the abbreviation "UKUR" as printed letters, but in lines 366 and 388, there is "ukur," and there is no explanation of what this abbreviation means. Please add an explanation.

- The abbreviation ukur has been verified throughout the manuscript. The corresponding reference is given next to the full name of the legal provision (the ukur Act)

- Table 1 has been corrected for English

 

5. There is no data (results) concerning foreign buyers in the "Result" part of the manuscript, but there is some discussion about this issue. Please add appropriate data.

- Regarding foreigners - this was not the subject of separate analysis in this manuscript. The methodology and other parts of the manuscript verified the information contained accordingly.

Foreigners are included in the group of people not related to agriculture in Poland (family farm). The knowledge that the authors of the manuscript have about the purchase of real estate by foreigners in Poland also stems from previous separate research of their own on the subject.

6. Some Eglish improvements (spetially in added or changed text) are needed.

The manuscript has been carefully revised to improve the grammar and spelling.

All changes are visible in the change tracking function.

 

Best wishes,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for all your effort in improving the manuscript. I think the article can be published in its present form, as it gives some information that may interest the audience. 

Best regards