Interpreting Different Narratives about Land Services and Land Use Economics of Common Agricultural Policy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, first of all, I want to congratulate you for your work on CAP reform which is among one of the first works to deal with the impact of the reform that I have read.. We can certainly go deeper and address important issues related to the structure-conduct and performance of farms and the impacts of the new policy on them. However, I think the work is well done and clear. For this reason it deserves to be published in its current form. Just one recommendation: do a careful reread to correct small typing errors that I detected in some parts.

Furthermore, I wish you continued excellent work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper raises a very interesting issue that is of great importance to farmers and policy makers today. The manuscript contains a nice description of the differences between EU Member States in relation to three carefully selected aspects of the CAP. In addition, three research questions are posed for each of the three “narratives” (as the authors call them).

Despite efforts to raise interesting questions about the CAP today, the paper remains purely descriptive and superficial in its analysis and conclusions. First of all, it does not explain how these policies and/or policy measures have evolved and adapted in the different Member States. This would make it possible to understand the differences in the expected performance of certain indicators or measures when analysing the statistical material. The contextualization and brief presentation of policies is important to understand the complexity of the different performances of EU Member States. The Czech Republic, for example, is a relatively 'new' Member State and some differences can be attributed to the country’s late accession compared to the 'old' Member States. There is a long and interesting discussion on these issues.

Secondly, the data collected and the methodology used do not show an elaboration of narratives. To speak of “quantifying the different narratives” is a contradiction in terms, since narratives are rarely quantified, as their significance lies in their content and underlying meanings and not in the compilation of indicators and quantities without any interpretation. In short, narratives require interpretation, not enumeration. In this context, I believe that the paper should have treated the quantitative material as descriptive material that allows for comparison and synthesis. I am not against descriptions, but it is important to show what is actually analysed and discussed. Descriptions need a strong (socio-economic and policy) context as well as explanatory approaches/axes. Both are missing in this manuscript.

Third, the three research questions presented on page 3 of the manuscript are elliptical and are not really answered by the statistical material in the analytical section. Essentially, each of the research questions is too general so that any type of result/findings may be relevant. The conclusion is that these research questions are not properly answered by the empirical material. Rather, the research questions should have been structured in a more meaningful way.

Fourthly, the discussion section is poor and fragmented as it picks out some very specific ideas/results and tries to link them to each of the three research questions. The findings contained in the discussion could be mentioned without the preceding analysis.

Finally, the concluding section remains superficial and does not show how the research questions relate to the empirical analysis and how this paper contributes to the relevant literature.

Overall, I suggest rejecting the paper as the manuscript in its current form does not provide a meaningful discussion of current developments in EU Member States. A much more developed version of the paper may be considered for publication at a later date.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I think that only moderate changes are needed for the paper in terms of its English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present paper negotiates a very interesting topic which relates to the land services and land economies of CAP. The paper structure is clear and there is a logical flow. The writing style is also appropriate as a research manuscript and the English language use is also at high standard. In overall, the paper is at very good preparation level, but I would like to recommend a major revision. In particular, I recommend the following changes to be implemented:

 

·        Abstract: spell out the main “take home” message of this study.

·        Repeating the same references all along the manuscript content should be avoided as much as possible. In the present form, there is extensive repetition of specific references.

·        Introduction: link better the state of the art with your study objectives and state in a clearer way the specific study objectives.

·        Methods: consider adding a conceptual diagram (flowchart?) describing your methodological approach

·        Discussion: include a more critical reflection in it. Also, how your results compare vs other studies? How the main trends are explained? Discuss also your methodological approach limitations?

·        Ensure that you have separated correctly the results description from the discussion. Reading your discussion, I felt that some of the points were actually results description.

·        Conclusions: underline in a much stronger way the innovative aspects of the present study and it unique contribution.

·        Figure captions: ensure that all captions provide sufficient information to adequately explain the figure each time.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have found that the paper has been significantly improved and many generalizations and inconsistencies have been clarified. I still think that some aspects could be improved that have to do with the interpretations proposed by the authors. We should actually speak of "interpretative frameworks" rather than interpretations. The national perspective is necessarily biased in the EU context and therefore general points of view need to be emphasized. In my opinion, policies is rarely about technical regulations, but mostly about national and/or group interests and aspirations. Apart from this point, I believe that the paper deserves to be published as it may trigger further discussion on the issues it raises.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I think that English is good but a check for minor language errors is suggested.