Changes in Farmland Ownership in Oregon, USA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity of revising this manuscript.

This paper is about analysing the implications for the food systems from ownership and management of agricultural land in Oregon (US),

I would suggest to restructure the introduction:

Lines 23 to 38, this section should be at the end of the introductory chapter (which means after background, research problem, research questions, aims...)

Lines 134 to 150. This is actually part of the research problem and related research questions. It is not about methods.

Lines 156 to 161: This is the real "Methods" section

Lines 163-172: This section could be (differently) entered in the introduction and/or in the discussion section. 

Results, discussion and conclusion are fine.

I would suggest to deepen the concept and the strategy of "post-productivism". You could referee to these references:

- Wilson, G. A., & Burton, R. J. (2015). ‘Neo-productivist’agriculture: Spatio-temporal versus structuralist perspectives. Journal of Rural Studies, 38, 52-64.

- Prosperi, P., Kirwan, J., Maye, D., Bartolini, F., Vergamini, D., & Brunori, G. (2019). Adaptation strategies of small-scale fisheries within changing market and regulatory conditions in the EU. Marine Policy, 100, 316-323.

Author Response

Point 1: I would suggest to restructure the introduction:

Lines 23 to 38, this section should be at the end of the introductory chapter (which means after background, research problem, research questions, aims...)
My response: I moved lines 24-28 to the Conclusion, with some revising to fit in. I left lines 29-38 at the beginning of the Introduction, as to me it summarizes the structure of the following entire paper, so makes sense as a first paragraph. 

Point 2: Lines 134 to 150. This is actually part of the research problem and related research questions. It is not about methods.

Yes, good point. I moved these lines into the end of the Introduction.

Point 3: Lines 156 to 161: This is the real "Methods" section

My response: Good.

Point 4: Lines 163-172: This section could be (differently) entered in the introduction and/or in the discussion section. 

My response: Fair point. I could possibly move these lines into the Introduction, but I kept it here because it helps contextualize how I came to my methods. I added some language that focuses more on the methods aspect, rather than on the overall findings of these articles.

Point 5: Results, discussion and conclusion are fine.

My response. Good!

Point 6:I would suggest to deepen the concept and the strategy of "post-productivism". You could referee to these references:

- Wilson, G. A., & Burton, R. J. (2015). ‘Neo-productivist’agriculture: Spatio-temporal versus structuralist perspectives. Journal of Rural Studies, 38, 52-64.

- Prosperi, P., Kirwan, J., Maye, D., Bartolini, F., Vergamini, D., & Brunori, G. (2019). Adaptation strategies of small-scale fisheries within changing market and regulatory conditions in the EU. Marine Policy, 100, 316-323.

My response: I deepened the discussion of "post-productivism: and added these suggested references.

Reviewer 2 Report

Fix typo in line 10. 

Line 34 and many more places the single author of this paper keeps referring to "we".  It would seem more appropriate to say "I".

Line 35 fix typo.

Food policy is a consideration that could be further investigated. Oregon is a state where a raw milk dairy farmer is only allowed to have 3 milk cows.  This very small size limitation might influence desired farm size acreage.  

Line 128 fix typo.

Line 209-210 unclear.

Table 1. What is EFU?

Print in figures too small to read.  

Table 2.  Numbers wrap around.  

Organic agriculture is expanding rapidly.  Future research should determine which farms are USDA Certified Organic.   

Author Response

Point 1. Fix typo in line 10. 

My response: I am sorry but I do not see a typo to fix in line 10. I would be happy to do so. I lightly edited the entire Abstract and do not see remaining typos.

Point 2. Line 34 and many more places the single author of this paper keeps referring to "we".  It would seem more appropriate to say "I".

My response: I changed all references of "we" to "I" as the author. Likewise, i also changed "our" methods to "my" methods. 

Point 3. Line 35 fix typo.

My response: Again, I am not sure what specifically the reviewer is referring to. I completed a light editing of that entire paragraph (now lines 24-34) and do not see further typos.

Point 4. Food policy is a consideration that could be further investigated. Oregon is a state where a raw milk dairy farmer is only allowed to have 3 milk cows.  This very small size limitation might influence desired farm size acreage.  

My response: I added some additional context to the paragraph about Oregon, now lines 138-151.

Point 5. Line 128 fix typo.

My response: I revised lines 127-130 and there are no remaining typos.

Point 6. Line 209-210 unclear.

My response: I rewrote the lines.

Point 7. Table 1. What is EFU?

My response: I wrote out the full acronym in the table

Point 8. Print in figures too small to read.  

My response: That is a good point. I expended the figure size as much as I could in this Word version. I think the print will be more legible in the printed and the online versions of the article. In the online version, people will be able to click on and expand the figures.

Point 9 Table 2.  Numbers wrap around.  

My response: I fixed this by making the font one size smaller in the tables.

Point 10. Organic agriculture is expanding rapidly.  Future research should determine which farms are USDA Certified Organic. 

My response: I added a comment about this to the next steps, lines 583-584.