Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an excellent article (except for the large number of very minor improvement in the English). It is easy to follow (despite the many minor improvements necessary in the English).

This is the sort of analysis that should be encouraged in many other territories where there are several countries in a relatively small area.

As a reviewer I can't suggest the many specific modifications that are needed. But if I (or someone like me) could actually improve the the text it would take about an extra hour after reading through the text first.

Author Response

We are thankful for the comment. In our new version, the previous issues with the language have been helped using a professional language editor.

Reviewer 2 Report

The information presented in the article may be useful as expertise, but not as a result of scientific research.
Most of the data is a compilation of statistical data from the Eurostat database.
I do not recommend the article for publication in "Sustainability".

Author Response

The data presented in our paper is compiled from Eurostat data; it has been aggregated and analysed using our own methods, which has been described in the methodology section. The process has been further elucidated in the methodology section after the first review, to avoid confusion. All data in the paper is presented in figures and tables which are designed by the authors themselves. The data is analysed and put into a scientific context, using the concept of resilience and food security. We, therefore, argue that our paper is a result of scientific research.

Reviewer 3 Report

General Comments:

The manuscript entitled "Trends in the agricultural land in the EU countries of the Baltic Sea Region - in the perspective of resilience and food security" needs improvement to be considered for publication in the sustainability journal. Consider the following issues with the manuscript, mainly related to the readability and composition of the manuscript.

• Please review the quality of your English throughout the manuscript.
• I would like to see some more specific findings of this study reported at the end of the abstract.
• Please revise completely the methodology section. by adding sources of data, method of data collection, data analysis technique in separate subtitles.
• Reduce the list of Appendices to select only the most important one.
• Write the General introduction by mentioning the most important things according to your title, and then you can write by separate subtitles. Trends and challenges like that for the others also.

Specific Comments:

L52: ...more than 30 per year...what do you mean by 30?

L98: Social-ecological relations. I suggest that the comma could be separated as social, ecological.

L105: level for change    [40,41]. reduce the space

L121: urban sprawl (ibid) Not used a citation like written ibid to write according to the MDPI citation style and set the reference number instead of ibid.

L123: ...seen as one statement by joining L124: resident

L162-163: Write the objectives and purpose of the study in detail.

From L165-172: put on the methodology section on the source of data subtitles.

Methodology:

• Please describe the description of the study area by adding a map of the study area.

Revise the methodology section in detail by mentioning subtitles such as a source of data, data collection technique, data analysis technique.

Result section:

Please revise the result section by adding a sufficient interpretation of the tables and figures.

L191: (...between 2-6%) I suggest writing (2%-6%)

L206: Figure 1: please use the correct font size in the title "utilized agricultural area"

L214: (Appendix A-J) please mention that not all Appendices are written in each specific Appendix.

L219: Figure 3: Lack of interpretation.

4. Discussion section:

Please revise the discussion section by adding more points that need to be discussed.

5. Conclusion

I would like to see some recommendations based on your findings.

 

 

 

Author Response

We would first of all like to thank the reviewer for hers/his constructive comments on our paper. We have done our best to follow the recommended changes and revisited several parts of the paper as a result. However, we would like to stress the aim of the paper, which we argue is mainly to contribute to the research field on agricultural land in the context of resilience and food security. The main aim with our discussion and conclusion is therefore not intended to make a contribution to the policy discourse or for making any policy recommendation. Mainly since that would require a different type of methodology and a more in-depth dissection of the Common Agricultural Policy, as well as national agricultural policies, with that being said, we do see the added value of such a policy discourse and intend to investigate that further in another paper.

As a response to the other changes suggested by the reviewer, we have done the following changes:

1. The previous issues with the language have been helped using a professional language editor.
2. We have added text to the abstract, to clarify our findings.
3. The Methodology section has been rewritten and clarified according to the recommendations.
4. The appendices have been removed, and its references have been changed to the figures and tables in the paper.
5. The introduction has been slightly restructured.
6. The Figures and tables has been redrawn with higher quality and according to the format of the journal. All figures and tables caption has been revisited and clarified.
7. A map of the study area has been added.
8. Minor specific comments have been addressed according to the recommendations.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

After reading the amendments made by the Authors and Authors' Responses to Reviewier’s Comments, I want to express my statement that the article can be published.

The clarity of the charts has been improved compared to the previous version of the article.

The good part of the article is that it concerns the situation of all EU states within the Baltic Sea Region’s drainage basin.

It still needs to be improved:

L104, L105, L186: please reduce the space between paragraphs

L173: please remove repeated ‘2. Methodology’

In my opinion: too large disproportions of the font size on Figures 4,5,6,7.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are happy to hear that you find our paper publishable and that you find the study area interesting. We have corrected the layout issues concerning the text and reduced the font size in the figures.

Thank you for your comments!

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author's;

Most of the suggestions and comments from the first review have been corrected in the manuscript entitled "Trends in the agricultural land in the EU countries of the Baltic Sea Region - in the perspective of resilience and food security" but there are still some issues that need improvement to be considered for publication in the sustainability journal.

General Comments:

1. The way of responding to the comments is more general not in detail.
2. The manuscript lacks formatting. I suggest that the author corrects the format according to the MDPI format. For example, Line 6-12.

Specific comments:

Line 172 and Line 173 Methodology, delete one of these two.

Line 174 I suggest writing 2.1 Data sources and Method of data collection

2.2 Data analysis technique

Line 193-194 Figure 1, I suggest that the scale of the study area map be corrected. It seems to be more enlarged.

Line 209: (AWU/UAA)*100 = agricultural labour input per 100 ha. What does that mean? Please explain it well.

Line 229-230: Fix and correct the scale of the map in Figure 2.

Line 231: Delete Figure 2.

Line 250: The fourth column of Table 2 is empty. In the previous comment, I suggest that the Annex should not be completely deleted. I am making a comment that selects the most important one. Thus, in the fourth column, Table 2 needs a pictorial explanation.

Line 405: conclusion. In the conclusion section, I suggest that a number of recommendations are added to the last paragraph.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments, we have once more looked through our discussion and conclusion. As a result, we have made some recommendations based on our results. We have also, ensured that the paper follows the MDPI formating.

We have edited all the specific comments according to your recommendation.

However, in response to the suggested scale changes of the map, we are not quite sure which problem you refers to. The map is based on a raw vector file, portraying northern Europe in accordance with "Spherical Normal Mercator Projection", the same used by Google maps and other online maps. I have double checked that the scale is accurate, and I could not find any problem. We find this projection useful, since it shows the section of the globe in a relative accurate proportion. If you still find the map to be a problem, we would need a clarification on how you wish to change it.

We thank you for your comments!