Driving Forces of Agricultural Land Abandonment: A Lithuanian Case

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors analyse driving forces of agricultural land abandonment in Lithuania and estimate the importance of predictors in the abandonment development. The topic covered by this study is suitable for Land. However, several improvements of the text are needed, especially in the description of the methodology and aim definition.

1. Introduction is relatively comprehensive and provides a good overview of the issue. However, the literature review does not sufficiently elaborate approaches to mapping abandoned agricultural land based on aerial photographs or VHR satellite images

2. Text in the Lines 218 -230 would be appropriate to move to the „ Study area“ section, as i tis directly related to the presented map on the Fig. 1b.

 

3. It would be appropriate to indicate what land cover classes within Cropland have declined the most? Arable land, orchards, vineyards? Are Grasslands (meadows, pastures) part of agricultural land? Does ALA apply to them?

 

4. Table 1. Why farmers are not involved among the stakeholders ? They can provide the best information on the reasons for land abandonment especially those who farm near the abandoned areas in the study area.

 

5. The problematic definition of ALA is repeatedly mentioned in the text (Lines 475, 490,...). Although there are many different approaches and definitions, it should be clear how ALA is defined for the purposes of this study. Based on what criteria was the ALA map created with the categories Abandoned, Not abandoned and Other? What physiognomic features do these individual classes represent? How do the classes differ/manifest on aerial images? The identification of abandoned agricultural land based on remote sensing data should be preceded by field surveys that are focused on the acquisition of the physiognomic characteristics (see https://doi.org/10.1080/07038992.2021.1929118; https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/13/2488; https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/7/7/8300)

 

6. It is not clear what does the class Abandoned represent. (e. g. areas with Cropland in 2012 but overgrown by other than agricultural vegetation in 2018 / 2021 ). The methodological procedure of ALA mapping should be specified
7. The typical sign/manifestation of the abandonment of agricultural land is its overgrowth with woody vegetation. In this case, the presence of woody vegetation is classified as Other (line 240- 241). Why? This contradicts the claim that abandoned land could be categorized according to specific characteristics such as areas with woody vegetation (Line 485 – 487)
8. Language revision is recommended (e.g. Lines 104 – 111 Redundant repetition of the words “In Lithuania” (3x in 8 lines)

 

9. What were the driving forces behind the transition from abandoned to non-abandoned (line 305)

 

10. Line 344 - 345 “Abandoned land is overgrown with vegetation but not trees. If trees are present it is no longer considered abandoned”. What about other woody vegetation, small trees or shrubs? What percentage of woody coverage is considered? More than 10%? 50%
11. It would be appropriate to formulate recommendations in which locations rewilding might be desirable (line 518- 519) – e.g . slopes over 5°? landscape with low diversity of woody vegetation ?

 

12. Some studies are not cited correctly in the List of references, first names are replaced by surnames. Study 38 should be Goga, T., Feranec, J., Bucha et al, (not Tomáš G., Ján F. Bucha T. et. al.) Similarly, the study 62  Caroline, P.C. et al. should be Castillo, P. C. et al. Please check.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: The authors analyse driving forces of agricultural land abandonment in Lithuania and estimate the importance of predictors in the abandonment development. The topic covered by this study is suitable for Land. However, several improvements of the text are needed, especially in the description of the methodology and aim definition. ,   

1. Introduction is relatively comprehensive and provides a good overview of the issue. However, the literature review does not sufficiently elaborate approaches to mapping abandoned agricultural land based on aerial photographs or VHR satellite images

Response 1: We acknowledge the essential role of remote sensing in monitoring ALA processes. Moreover, our data for modeling ALA dynamics were derived from orthophotos based on aerial imagery. Through the course of this study, we identified several limitations in remote sensing–based approaches to mapping abandoned agricultural land by Lithuanian authorities, such as significant omission errors. Nonetheless, we believe that an in-depth discussion of remote sensing extends beyond the scope of the present paper. Therefore, we propose only a minor revision to the Introduction – namely, the addition of one sentence highlighting the role of very high-resolution satellite imagery in ALA mapping in Lithuania. However, we have expanded the description of the methodology used to interpret abandoned land, as detailed in our responses to other comments.

Comment 2: 2. Text in the Lines 218 -230 would be appropriate to move to the „ Study area“ section, as i tis directly related to the presented map on the Fig. 1b. 

Response 2: Adjusted, part of the text was moved to the “Study area” section

 Comment 3: 3. It would be appropriate to indicate what land cover classes within Cropland have declined the most? Arable land, orchards, vineyards? Are Grasslands (meadows, pastures) part of agricultural land? Does ALA apply to them?

Response 3: This study focused on land use rather than land cover. Although several datasets are available that identify land cover types, these may misclassify abandoned land as, for example, forest land, even when the land does not meet the official criteria for forest classification. To address this issue and ensure consistency within the datasets, we utilized the land use database currently being developed within the framework of the Lithuanian National Forest Inventory for the national greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting obligations. This database supports GHG accounting in the LULUCF sector. Accordingly, the present analysis concentrated primarily on cropland and grassland, as interpreted in the context of the national GHG inventory. The following text was therefore included in the Results section: “Nearly all abandoned lands identified in 2021 were located within areas classified as grassland by the Lithuanian National Forest Inventory, with only a few instances involving producing land or permanent orchards. It is important to note that virtually none of the grasslands classified as abandoned were situated in areas declared as permanent pastures or meadows for the purpose of obtaining EU agricultural subsidies”.

 Comment 4: 4. Table 1. Why farmers are not involved among the stakeholders? They can provide the best information on the reasons for land abandonment especially those who farm near the abandoned areas in the study area.

Response 4: The following text was inserted: “The qualitative component of our study is based on a relatively small sample of land management policy stakeholders in Lithuania. This necessarily limits the statistical generalizability of our findings to broader populations, such as farmers, who are directly involved in land abandonment or reclamation. Some scholars recommend including no more than 5–6 informants in case study research of this nature []. So, our approach was to engage a limited number of experts who possess in-depth knowledge of agricultural processes and who are also informed about, and have the authority to influence, land management policies, including those related to ALA”. For this reason, we did not consider farmers to be the most suitable informants for our study, despite their recognized importance as stakeholders. Farmers constitute a highly heterogeneous group, with varying degrees of engagement in ALA processes. Given the specific aims and methodological design of this research, only a small subset of farmers would likely have contributed meaningfully to the development of our core findings.

 Comment 5: 5. The problematic definition of ALA is repeatedly mentioned in the text (Lines 475, 490,...). Although there are many different approaches and definitions, it should be clear how ALA is defined for the purposes of this study. Based on what criteria was the ALA map created with the categories Abandoned, Not abandoned and Other? What physiognomic features do these individual classes represent? How do the classes differ/manifest on aerial images? The identification of abandoned agricultural land based on remote sensing data should be preceded by field surveys that are focused on the acquisition of the physiognomic characteristics (see https://doi.org/10.1080/07038992.2021.1929118; https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/13/2488; https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/7/7/8300)

Response 5: We have completely revised the paragraph introducing the procedures for ALA identification across the three dates considered. Additionally, a flowchart summarizing the methodological approach has been included (see Figure 2). In brief, the process focused on identifying all areas with woody vegetation, following the concept of AAL as defined in the Lithuanian Law on Land Tax. Subsequently, areas outside the scope of agricultural land were excluded. The conceptual issues surrounding AAL are further discussed in the Discussion section. The methodological approach used for interpreting orthophotos was originally developed several decades ago; however, it is predominantly documented in the Lithuanian language. Therefore, the reference we cite offers the most comprehensive coverage of these principles, which are also visually represented in the inserted flowchart. Nevertheless, we appreciate the suggested references and have incorporated them into the preceding text.

 Comment 6: 6. It is not clear what does the class Abandoned represent. (e. g. areas with Cropland in 2012 but overgrown by other than agricultural vegetation in 2018 / 2021 ). The methodological procedure of ALA mapping should be specified

Response 6: We hope that our response above adequately addresses this comment.

 Comment 7: 7. The typical sign/manifestation of the abandonment of agricultural land is its overgrowth with woody vegetation. In this case, the presence of woody vegetation is classified as Other (line 240- 241). Why? This contradicts the claim that abandoned land could be categorized according to specific characteristics such as areas with woody vegetation (Line 485 – 487)

Response 7: The category “Other” refers to a specific case not typically associated with ALA but visually represented in the same way on orthophotos. It reflects the accuracy of forest land delineation in the State Forest Cadaster (SFC) database. Specifically, although land formally classified as forest in the SFC was excluded from our analysis, we observed several long but narrow forested polygons adjacent to the forest edge that were not included in the SFC. These omissions are likely due to mapping inaccuracies rather than ALA processes. To prevent these areas from confounding the interpretation of ALA dynamics, we classified them as “Other” and excluded them from the analysis. To minimize potential misinterpretation, the manuscript was edited accordingly to clarify the use of this category: The “other” category typically included areas covered by tree and brush vegetation located outside, but adjacent to, forest land – such as along roads or in similar settings – and usually pertaining to the precision of forest edge delineation.

 Comment 8: Language revision is recommended (e.g. Lines 104 – 111 Redundant repetition of the words “In Lithuania” (3x in 8 lines)

Response 8: Repetition of “in Lithuania” was reduced in the whole paragraph

 Comment 9: 9. What were the driving forces behind the transition from abandoned to non-abandoned (line 305)

Response 9: The discussion was expanded to underline the factors related to the backward processes of transformation of “abandoned” land to “not abandoned”. Some extra discussion included, like “The intensity of agricultural practices significantly influences the likelihood of land transitioning from abandonment back to active use. Agricultural fields located near productive zones are more likely to be revitalized due to supportive institutional or economic frameworks, increasing the probability that abandoned lands in these areas will be reclassified as actively used []”.  We additionally discuss what is likely the key factor driving land reclamation: the risk that land overgrown with tree vegetation may be formally reclassified as forest land.

 Comment 10: 10. Line 344 - 345 “Abandoned land is overgrown with vegetation but not trees. If trees are present it is no longer considered abandoned”. What about other woody vegetation, small trees or shrubs? What percentage of woody coverage is considered? More than 10%? 50%

Response 10: Several informants expressed views that diverge from these legal classifications, indicating that the concept of abandoned land is subject to interpretation and contestation. According to Lithuanian legislation, ALA is typically associated with the presence of woody vegetation. However, the informants cited in this study emphasize that land covered with trees should not automatically be considered abandoned. Legally, such land is not recognized as forest land unless it meets specific criteria regarding tree characteristics and is officially registered in the State Forest Cadastre. Without such registration, even tree-covered areas are classified as abandoned agricultural land. We address this issue in greater detail later in the manuscript. To clarify this point earlier in the text, we added the following sentence: “It should be noted that the insights provided by informants may differ from the official legal definitions of abandoned land or forest land used in Lithuania”.

Comment 11: 11. It would be appropriate to formulate recommendations in which locations rewilding might be desirable (line 518- 519) – e.g . slopes over 5°? landscape with low diversity of woody vegetation ?

Response 11: We recognize that there are multiple opportunities to enhance the ecological diversity of agricultural landscapes by making effective use of land that is considered abandoned from the perspective of agriculture-oriented stakeholders. For instance, we posit that abandoned agricultural land holds substantial potential for contributing to increasing carbon stock changes in the LULUCF sector, long before man-made afforestation efforts become efficient. However, in order to maintain alignment with the focus and extent of our study, we have limited our extra recommendations to those directly supported by our findings. Accordingly, we include only a reference to the EU Nature Restoration Regulation: “Areas with naturally occurring woody vegetation have the potential to contribute significantly to the optimization of green infrastructure, particularly in the context of the EU Nature Restoration Regulation. This can be achieved through measures such as the permanent removal of drainage systems on previously drained soils now overgrown with woody vegetation, or by introducing high-diversity landscape features into agricultural areas – such as scattered trees, small forest patches, and similar elements”. 

 Comment 12: 12. Some studies are not cited correctly in the List of references, first names are replaced by surnames. Study 38 should be Goga, T., Feranec, J., Bucha et al, (not Tomáš G., Ján F. Bucha T. et. al.) Similarly, the study 62  Caroline, P.C. et al. should be Castillo, P. C. et al. Please check.

Response 12: Hopefully, all the citing issues were corrected

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by Juknelienė et al. quantified the characteristics of land abandonment in Jonava, Lithuania, by integrating interviews and geographic information and further explored the driving factors of land abandonment using 15 factors. In addition, they put the critical driving factors into a Markov chain model and simulated the development of agricultural land abandonment. Overall, the manuscript has research and practical significance and provides some insights. However, some issues need to be addressed and explained.

I suggest breaking up the longer paragraphs in the introduction, for example, the first and third paragraphs are quite lengthy. In addition, I think the first half of the first paragraph (Lines 35-61) could be shortened because it provides very limited information.

The author revealed that the proximity of forests is a vital natural factor affecting the process of land abandonment. Still, the introduction did not mention whether there are related studies that have revealed similar conclusions. Whether this main natural factor is universal is worth discussing. In addition, the drainage factor is also worth discussing. Assuming that in arid areas with sparse precipitation, will the conclusion become whether the improvement of water conservancy facilities is an important factor driving land abandonment? Therefore, the authors should emphasize that the manuscript is a finding of local research, and the applicability of the conclusions is still worth discussing.

I fully agree with the author's classification of driving factors into internal and external factors in the introduction, and I think the logic of land abandonment is not complicated. Specifically, the internal cause should be the lack of profit leading to land abandonment, while the external cause should be the external driving force that makes the land unprofitable. This is the most fundamental reason for land abandonment in my opinion, but I do not deny the impact of multiple factors on land abandonment emphasized by the authors in the manuscript. Personally, I think these factors in the manuscript are not the essential reasons, but just a link in the cascade relationship.

How was the red abandoned land in Fig.2 identified in lines 231-236? The author did not explain this clearly in the manuscript, and the webpage for lines 237-239 cannot be opened.

In the discussion section, I suggest that the author further discuss how the proximity of forests affects the process of land abandonment. The current discussion on this part is not convincing.

The conclusion is too long, and I suggest further simplifying it.

Although there are some doubts, the author conducts research by combining interviews with empirical evidence, which is very commendable.

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript by Juknelienė et al. quantified the characteristics of land abandonment in Jonava, Lithuania, by integrating interviews and geographic information and further explored the driving factors of land abandonment using 15 factors. In addition, they put the critical driving factors into a Markov chain model and simulated the development of agricultural land abandonment. Overall, the manuscript has research and practical significance and provides some insights. However, some issues need to be addressed and explained.   

I suggest breaking up the longer paragraphs in the introduction, for example, the first and third paragraphs are quite lengthy. In addition, I think the first half of the first paragraph (Lines 35-61) could be shortened because it provides very limited information. 

Response 1: We acknowledge some redundancy in the Introduction. Accordingly, we revised it by restructuring the text and removing certain sections – primarily those discussing general methodological approaches that were only loosely related to our specific methodology and findings.  

Comment 2: The author revealed that the proximity of forests is a vital natural factor affecting the process of land abandonment. Still, the introduction did not mention whether there are related studies that have revealed similar conclusions. Whether this main natural factor is universal is worth discussing. In addition, the drainage factor is also worth discussing. Assuming that in arid areas with sparse precipitation, will the conclusion become whether the improvement of water conservancy facilities is an important factor driving land abandonment? Therefore, the authors should emphasize that the manuscript is a finding of local research, and the applicability of the conclusions is still worth discussing.

Response 2: It should be noted that the Introduction was substantially shortened, leaving limited space for an in-depth review of specific drivers of ALA. As a result, the discussion of forest proximity and drainage as influencing factors – along with references to supporting studies – was moved to the Discussion section. We incorporated additional text addressing the ecological factors which may impact the potential for ALA near existing forests and drainage networks and made some adjustments to the original manuscript text.  

Comment 3: I fully agree with the author's classification of driving factors into internal and external factors in the introduction, and I think the logic of land abandonment is not complicated. Specifically, the internal cause should be the lack of profit leading to land abandonment, while the external cause should be the external driving force that makes the land unprofitable. This is the most fundamental reason for land abandonment in my opinion, but I do not deny the impact of multiple factors on land abandonment emphasized by the authors in the manuscript. Personally, I think these factors in the manuscript are not the essential reasons, but just a link in the cascade relationship.

Response 3: In principle, we agree with the reviewer’s position. However, the interpretation also depends on the chosen approach to studying ALA processes. Moreover, previous studies indicate that multiple interpretations are possible. To address this issue, we have inserted the following sentence in the Introduction: “These factors often interact; for example, the lack of profit – an internal driver of agricultural land abandonment – is largely determined by various external factors that render land use unprofitable”. However, economic profitability may not necessarily be the primary driver of ALA, at least under certain circumstances. While the current paper lacks sufficient empirical data to explore this issue in depth, it is important to acknowledge the potential influence of other internal factors, such as state land ownership and related institutional conditions, etc.  

Comment 4: How was the red abandoned land in Fig.2 identified in lines 231-236? The author did not explain this clearly in the manuscript, and the webpage for lines 237-239 cannot be opened.

Response 4: We have completely revised the paragraph introducing the procedures for ALA identification across the three dates considered. Additionally, a flowchart summarizing the methodological approach has been included (see Figure 2). In brief, the process focused on identifying all areas with woody vegetation, following the concept of AAL as defined in the Lithuanian Law on Land Tax. Subsequently, areas falling outside the agricultural land were excluded from the analysis. Accordingly, the red color in the figures indicates agricultural areas overgrown with woody vegetation in the years 2012, 2018, and 2021. Regarding the referenced website, we have updated the link to direct the reader to the official depository of geospatial information in Lithuania, which is expected to provide more stable and permanent access than the previously cited metadata page for orthophotographic maps, which is no longer functional.  

Comment 5: In the discussion section, I suggest that the author further discuss how the proximity of forests affects the process of land abandonment. The current discussion on this part is not convincing.

Response 5: Additional text was included to elaborate on the ecological rationale behind the forest proximity factor – see also our response to the related comment above.  

Comment 6: The conclusion is too long, and I suggest further simplifying it.

Response 6: The Conclusions section was carefully revised with the aim of simplifying and shortening the content, while preserving the key findings and messages.  

Comment 7: Although there are some doubts, the author conducts research by combining interviews with empirical evidence, which is very commendable.

Response 7: We hope the doubts are reduced   

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Food security is the foundation of national security, and excessive abandonment of land will endanger food security. Therefore, the author discusses an interesting and meaningful topic. In order to better improve the quality of the paper, several suggestions for reference:

(1) The introduction needs to be moderately rewritten. First, the introduction part is too long, one paragraph wants to express too much meaning, it is suggested that the content should be properly divided, one paragraph expresses a core meaning. Second, the marginal contribution of the whole research is not clear, so it is suggested that the author systematically summarize the marginal contribution of this research at the end of the introduction.

(2) Integration of research methods and data. The author used GIS to obtain the spatial distribution pattern of abandoned land, and used focus interview to obtain the factors that may affect the abandonment of land. One is a quantitative approach and the other is a qualitative approach. How do the two fit together? It is too broad and not focused enough to say only the possible influencing factors of farmland abandonment. Theoretically speaking, it is necessary to combine quantitative data and use models to fit, and finally get the exact influencing factors of land abandonment. How does the author balance this issue?

(3) The discussion part is not in-depth enough. The authors did not make sufficient dialogue between their own research and the existing research on farmland abandonment, and did not point out the similarities and differences between this research and the existing research results, and the reasons for the differences. This area needs a good comparison and conversation.

Author Response

Comment 1: Food security is the foundation of national security, and excessive abandonment of land will endanger food security. Therefore, the author discusses an interesting and meaningful topic. In order to better improve the quality of the paper, several suggestions for reference: ,   

(1) The introduction needs to be moderately rewritten. First, the introduction part is too long, one paragraph wants to express too much meaning, it is suggested that the content should be properly divided, one paragraph expresses a core meaning. Second, the marginal contribution of the whole research is not clear, so it is suggested that the author systematically summarize the marginal contribution of this research at the end of the introduction.

Response 1: The introduction has been substantially revised. We removed certain portions of text across two paragraphs and reorganized the sequence in which the information is presented. Some paragraphs conclude with summary statements synthesizing the preceding content. In response to the second part of the reviewer’s comment, we added a clarifying statement to the final paragraph – prior to the introduction of the research questions. This addition is intended to better articulate the contribution of our study, which adopts a relatively narrow scope, to the broader development of approaches for examining ALA, emphasizing the value of combining desk-based research with both qualitative and quantitative methods: “So, to understand and effectively manage the process of ALA, it is essential to integrate diverse information sources and research methodologies. However, studies on ALA are often challenged by several factors, including the ambiguous definition of ALA, differing interpretations of its impacts, a lack of transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches, and the influence of socio-economic and political contexts as well as research traditions. These challenges become particularly pronounced when analyses focus on specific regions or countries”.  

Comment 2: (2) Integration of research methods and data. The author used GIS to obtain the spatial distribution pattern of abandoned land, and used focus interview to obtain the factors that may affect the abandonment of land. One is a quantitative approach and the other is a qualitative approach. How do the two fit together? It is too broad and not focused enough to say only the possible influencing factors of farmland abandonment. Theoretically speaking, it is necessary to combine quantitative data and use models to fit, and finally get the exact influencing factors of land abandonment. How does the author balance this issue?

Response 2: By combining qualitative interviews with empirical evidence, we aimed to better understand and validate the processes influencing land abandonment. While the interviews helped to frame the problem of ALA, GIS modelling provided additional insights at a scale that is often inaccessible through qualitative methods alone. We sought to align the findings from the qualitative survey, particularly by introducing results that were not initially anticipated by the experts. The Discussion section was further developed to highlight the connections between the two approaches.  

Comment 3: (3) The discussion part is not in-depth enough. The authors did not make sufficient dialogue between their own research and the existing research on farmland abandonment, and did not point out the similarities and differences between this research and the existing research results, and the reasons for the differences. This area needs a good comparison and conversation. 

Response 3: The Discussion section was moderately revised, including the addition of new references. We also added the statement: “These factors or drivers are further examined in the discussion, where we also reference other studies that substantiate or provide context for our findings.” In the Discussion, we present our findings and argument-specific statements alongside references to relevant studies that generally support or help to explain them. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. I have no further comments on the content of the study. I accept the paper for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has addressed my concerns.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no other comments, thank you.