Agritourism Accommodation and the Revaluation of the Local Agrifood Product in the Context of Global Change
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article presented "Agritourism accommodation and the revaluation of the local agrifood product in a context of climate emergency " tries to address a basic issue in agritourism, focused on the analysis of the offer of local products in the context of the stay in a farm.
It is interesting, if a bit ambitious, when addressing the climate emergency, which is barely addressed in the article.
From my point of view I think it is important to take into account the following aspects:
1) Introduction.
Although the objectives have been set, it might be necessary to improve the justification of the study, since the literature offers an important diversity of conceptualizations of agro-tourism, agro-ecotourism and even the link with gastronomy. It would also be advisable to talk about certified quality products (PDO, PGI, GI or TSG), since Catalonia has 23, 11.5% of the country's total. Some of them are located in Pyrenean areas, as is the case with the cheeses and butters of L'Alt Urgell, of proven quality. In addition, the European Commission also recognizes other smaller categories such as Mountain Products, for products made in high mountain areas.
On the other hand, in my opinion, there is a lack of references to complement the bibliographical review and to offer different perspectives in section 1.1:
- Testa, R., Galati, A., Schifani, G., Di Trapani, A. M., & Migliore, G. (2019). Culinary tourism experiences in agri-tourism destinations and sustainable consumption-understanding Italian tourists' Motivations. Sustainability, 11(17), 4588.
- Mirela, C. S. (2016). Agrotourism and gastronomic tourism, parts of sustainable tourism. Journal of Horticulture, Forestry and Biotechnology, 20(3), 106-109.
- Stanciu, M., Popescu, A., Stanciu, C., & Popa, S. (2022). Local Gastronomic Points as Part of Sustainable Agritourism and Young People's Perception on It. Case Study, Sibiu County, Romania. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev, 22, 697-705.
- Di-Clemente, E., Hernández-Mogollón, J. M., & López-Guzmán, T. (2020). Culinary tourism as an effective strategy for a profitable cooperation between agriculture and tourism. Social Sciences, 9(3), 25.
- Campón-Cerro, A. M., Folgado-Fernández, J. A., & Hernández-Mogollón, J. M. (2017). Rural destination development based on olive oil tourism: The impact of residents' community attachment and quality of life on their support for tourism development. Sustainability, 9(9), 1624.
- Ferreira, D. I. R., & Sánchez-Martín, J. M. (2022). Agricultural landscapes as a basis for promoting Agritourism in cross-border Iberian regions. Agriculture, 12(5), 716.
2) Materials and methods.
Although the study area is well described, it would be convenient to include a location map, since the journal has an international scope.
The authors indicate that they have carried out a bibliographic search, but do not explain the criteria they have followed: have they chosen to use keywords, have they included a territorial limitation, have they selected through indexing databases (WOS, SJR, Scopus), etc.? It contrasts too much with the effort made to explain the data collection procedure. In line with the interviews, I have doubts about the reliability and validity of these interviews, which would make it possible to verify the generalizability of the results. It should be borne in mind that only 26 interviews were conducted, although the number of owners is also small (87).
3) The results section is interesting, although excessively descriptive. Nevertheless, it allows us to know the main aspects of interest to the authors. Even so, perhaps it would have been positive to georeference the origin of the interviewees. Would it be possible to obtain differences in profile according to counties or other groupings?
4) The discussion and conclusions section should be improved, especially with regard to the discussion of the results and their interpretation.
the discussion of the results and their interpretation from the perspective of previous studies and the working hypotheses. The results and their implications should be discussed in the broadest possible context. Future lines of research can also be highlighted. On a personal note, I would separate the conclusions from the discussion.
Good luck.
Author Response
Please see the attachement.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. It is suggested to unify all 'Agrotourism 'to 'Agritourism'.
2. It is suggested to embed theory foundation for academic study.
3. In the abstract section it is suggested to briefly include methodology and results to further readership.
4. It is suggested to highlight the research question and research objective for the study.
5. It is suggested to specify a particular aspect of contribution of the study to Agritourism.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English language is fine.
Author Response
Please see the attachement.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper deals with an interesting – even if not innovative - topic, that is the role of agritourism within the local territorial development and the valorization of local food production.
The paper is very large and descriptive, in my opinion it needs to be greatly shortened and more focused on the main topic, that is the relationship between agritourist companies’ behavior and local food valorization.
I suggest focusing the Introduction and paying attention to some conceptual issues:
- the relation between climate change and small farms is not presented in a clear way (moreover climate change is not in my opinion the focus of the paper);
- the reference to public policies (lines 40-51): the EU strategic plan is not only oriented to social sustainability and the Rural Development Programs of the Regions are an application of the EU strategies (so it is not appropriate to simply produce a “list” of policies).
In Par. 3.1 many different issues about agritourism are introduced: also this part needs to be focused on the more relevant questions (i.e. agritourism boundaries, relation between agritourism and direct selling…). Other useful references about agritourism definition and role:
Streifeneder, T. (2016). Agriculture first: Assessing European policies and scientific typologies to define authentic agritourism and differentiate it from countryside tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 20(October), 251–264.
Lamie, R. D., Chase, L., Chiodo, E., Dickes, L., Flanigan, S., Schmidt, C., & Streifeneder, T (2021). Agritourism around the globe: Definitions, authenticity, and potential controversy. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development. Advance online publication.
Lines 155-159: the reference to Farm to fork strategy is very general (suggest eliminate).
The vision abut agritourism in Catalonia legislation is interesting and its role and contents need to be better analyzed in relation to the topic of the paper (for example in comparison with Italian legislation on agritourism, Italian Law “Legge 96/2006”).
Results (chapter 3). May be the numerous answers to the interviews reported in brackets in the paper could be summarized in some tables for making more easy the reading.
Table 6: I suggest eliminating
Table 8: it represents in my opinion the novelty of the research and, for this reason, it needs further details:
- The identification of the profiles needs to be better explained in relation to the provided reference, putting in evidence the choices of the authors.
- Within the Table, in the profiles definition the difference between Group 3 and 4 is not clear.
- It is not clear on which basis the interviewed agritourisms have been divided in group 3 or 4.
- In the text it is not described how from the classification in 4 groups of the interviewed agritourisms (lines 548/549) it was possible to derive the classification of the whole sample (the relations between the 2nd and the 4th columns in the Table)
- I have some doubts about the definition of group 3, because farms that provide catering / meals and farms that provide direct selling can be very different. Please justify the choice
Figure 1: are the percentages calculated over the whole sample or over the interviewed farms? Please specify.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIs the word "proprietors" appropriate? (owners?)
Please check line 23
Author Response
Please see the attachement
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The topic itself is an interesting one, only some additions must be made:
- The introduction, in my view, should be modified a little in the sense of creating an introduction part and a review of the literature in the field part. In the introduction, the reason/aim of the topic, the purpose of the work must be specified, and why not the hypothesis of the research.
- You must also have a literature review part…..maybe the point 1.1. Agritourism and agrifood products could be turn into this part.
- In the research method part you must add the limitation of this research, if they are any, and how they were overcome.
- In the conclusion part you may add your view and proposals for the future.
Author Response
Please see the attachement.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe changes made in the article are positive and resolve to a large extent the doubts that may arise for any reader.
In my opininon it is now clearer to understand the whole procedure followed and of course the results presented.
Likewise, the authors have responded to all the doubts and suggestions raised.
I believe that the article can be published in its present state.
Regards
Author Response
Thank you very much for your evaluation and for accepting the changes made thanks to your suggestions.
Once again, we thank you very much for your time and comments.
Kind regards!
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed reviewers concerns and is ready to proceed for publication
Author Response
Thank you very much for your evaluation and for accepting the changes made thanks to your suggestions.
Once again, we thank you very much for your time and comments.
Kind regards!
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors improved the manuscript dealing with the specific suggestions.
It remains my concern about the topic of climate change and its relation with small farms, which is not presented in a clear way. Climate change is not in my opinion the focus of the paper and the importance given to the topic in the Title does not correspond to its presence in the paper.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
//
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Indeed you improve the research.
Only one remark I have: in the conclusion part you must add the main conclusions of the research made, beside the limitation of the study and future direction of the research, because it is to small and not fit with research!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
