Social Values in Stimulating Organic Production Involvement in Farming—The Case of Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has got a potential that has not been fully used by the authors. I see. Main issue are related to the three points desribed below.

1. The paper is very under-theorized. The theoretical framework lacks very large partion of the academic research that has been dealing with the motives of farmers. The paper seems to focus on "social values" of farming, which is then melted into the discussion of social aspects of sustainability. The focus of the paper should be made clear and the literature review adjusted accordingly. Due to a loose theoretical framework, it is not clear what shall be the main message of the paper. Why and how is the Polish care particularly important? What lessons can be learned from this case outside Poland? Why should non-Polish readers pay attention to the paper? Authors should provide clear answers to these questions in the beginning of the paper.
2. The sampling procedure used by the authors opens many questions. The author argue that the sample is representative for Polish farmers' population. What is the margin of error in their sample? A simple calculation (1.4 mil. farms and 260 in sample) indicates that confidence interval around 6%. How does this marging of error affects the presented results? Secondly, authors mention that their quotas included only farm size? How does the sample reflect the diverse natural conditions with respect to the main production regions in Poland? How does this issue affect the presented results?
3. Due the lack of theory, it is not clear how exactly the authors measured the applied constructs. There is no single information on operationalization and conceptualization of the items used in the survey. Most of the items (such as asking about "clean environment around the farm" have multi-dimensional nature). It is not possible to measure these constructs directly and obtain valid and reliable results, since the wording connotates many different meaning. This is a major methodological fallacy and other should justify how they actually proceed in their research and how they designed the qustions in their survey.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper discusses the social value of organic production. The paper is well written

In Line 184, the authors stated: There are two perspectives that are applied for assessing the social aspects of organic farming, but not elaborate on the two social aspects clearly.

The survey covered 350 conventional and 70 organic individual farms in 2011, 260 and 65 in 2019. The sample size may be an issue for your results. Also, some of the results are very different in 2011 and 2019. This may be the sample problem not the real differences of the producers. The authors need to provide explanations for the data and the limitation of the study and possible problems due to the data issue.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors analyze the social impact of organic agriculture through the relationships between farm, market, governance and environment. While admitting that these factors are important, some essential aspects are missing from this analysis. Work is a determining productive factor, in the manuscript it is just mentioned but the categories of workers, type and level of hardship, social inclusion are aspects to be considered in a social evaluation. As well as the relationships between producers and their groups with health agencies, employment centers and training bodies.

Social interests are often the real driving force behind starting farm transformation processes.

The authors should also provide information regarding the  farms production orientation, in order to understand the relationships between work, capital and investments in the different farm categories.

Furthermore, in a research funded by the ministry of science and education, the evaluation of the role of Research Centers should also be highlighted.

Finally, the authors declare in the text that the analytical approach of their study follows the European directives but no reference is made to any activity promoted by the EU, first of all the establishment of Operating Groups within the Partnership for Innovation or the formation of territorial integrated networks for the development of social agriculture, in which the EU is investing large economic and human resources.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I thank the authors for the opportunity to read their paper, which I find very interesting. I have only a few tips to give:
1) it would be interesting to know the composition of the sample regarding size and production orientations, to understand if these characteristics can influence the responses (information to be included also in a synthetic way)
2) It is encessary to included in the conclusions: research and results limitations and future research developments

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors made a considerable and appreciable effort to improve the manuscript in almost all the points indicated in the first revision