Review Reports - How to Foster Rural Sustainability through Farming Workforce Rejuvenation? Looking into Involuntary Newcomers’ Spatial (Im)mobilities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper “How to Foster Rural Sustainability through Farming Workforce Rejuvenation? Looking into Involuntary Newcomers’ Spatial (im)Mobilities in Europe” deals with an important topic of aging rural farming population and possible positive future perspectives of the so-called “involuntary newcomers” in European rural areas.

However, we suggest the following improvements for the article in both technical and contextual sense:

In the technical sense, although the English language in the paper is satisfactory, there are some choices of words and formations of sentences in English that could be improved. For example, the first sentence of the Abstract talks about a “wicked problem” – another adjective would be more appropriate. Also, some sentences could be made clearer.
Sometimes it seems as if sources are missing, for example line 170-180 has no sources listed.
Conceptually, the new terminology of “involuntary newcomers” that the authors are introducing is interesting, as is the idea to analyze possible positive implications of their role in re-vitalizing farming and rural communities. However, even though they rely on the existing literature and the bioecological model to inform their theoretical research, there is at times a sense that the authors have a priori decided on the concept, its sub-categories (e.g. Table 1) and their description, rather than that it stems from a serious primary or secondary analysis. We suggest that this could be resolved by delving deeper into the complexity of this term, its subcategories (e.g. why are only categories of lower educated newcomers included, there are surely higher educated involuntary newcomers both from rural and urban areas, etc.), as well as the “involuntary newcomers’” motivations and nature of the involuntarity (e.g. it may stem not solely from the lack of choices or mobility but also from the poor working and living conditions in farming and rural areas, as push factors, lack of infrastructure, incentives, etc. It may also be connected to social and cultural factors, especially with regards to urban and migrant newcomers - none of this is discussed but the authors’ model is described and constructed in such a way as if all types and characteristics are exhausted).

Related to this, there is also no discussion on possible limitations of this “reflexive” analysis or the novel concept. There is, for example, discussion on the lacking of the term “newcomers” but not on the term the authors introduce, its subcategories and definitions.
When discussing positive implications of “involuntary newcomers”, it is again not clear whether these are some theoretical possibilities that the authors reflect on, or whether these implications are grounded in existing literature. When they do cite sources, they rely on literature that talks about “voluntary newcomers” but do not convincingly argue why their positive implications would be replicated among “involuntary newcomers” as well. For example, in lines 41, 42 and 43 the authors state “some of the younger generations of newcomers are becoming more interested in agro-ecology movements which support the ideas of more ecological and non-industrial agriculture globally” – but these sources talk about voluntary newcomers, who are of course enthusiastic to innovate – there is no proof that “involuntary newcomers” would be equally enthusiastic and thus positively contribute in this way. Another example is line 122 – “Newcomers seek to implement greener forms of farming thus upholding natural sustainability” – there is no source here, and again it is not clear how this claim about “voluntary newcomers” would translate to “involuntary newcomers”.

Author Response

In the technical sense, although the English language in the paper is satisfactory, there are some choices of words and formations of sentences in English that could be improved. For example, the first sentence of the Abstract talks about a “wicked problem” – another adjective would be more appropriate. Also, some sentences could be made clearer.

We have addressed this comment. The paper was reviewed by a professional, native English proofreader.

Sometimes it seems as if sources are missing, for example line 170-180 has no sources listed.

We have reviewed extensively the references list. We have added more specific references to several parts of the manuscript (e.g. works by Tocco, Hellio – 2014 and 2017, Perrota, Avallone or Kasimis – 2005 and 2010 – are just a few examples of that).

Conceptually, the new terminology of “involuntary newcomers” that the authors are introducing is interesting, as is the idea to analyze possible positive implications of their role in re-vitalizing farming and rural communities. However, even though they rely on the existing literature and the bioecological model to inform their theoretical research, there is at times a sense that the authors have a priori decided on the concept, its sub-categories (e.g. Table 1) and their description, rather than that it stems from a serious primary or secondary analysis. We suggest that this could be resolved by delving deeper into the complexity of this term, its subcategories (e.g. why are only categories of lower educated newcomers included, there are surely higher educated involuntary newcomers both from rural and urban areas, etc.), as well as the “involuntary newcomers’” motivations and nature of the involuntarity (e.g. it may stem not solely from the lack of choices or mobility but also from the poor working and living conditions in farming and rural areas, as push factors, lack of infrastructure, incentives, etc. It may also be connected to social and cultural factors, especially with regards to urban and migrant newcomers - none of this is discussed but the authors’ model is described and constructed in such a way as if all types and characteristics are exhausted).

We understand the reviewer’s concern, mainly because there was a lack of clarity from our side in stating that we were delivering a conceptual paper. To fully address his/her concerns, we conducted the following changes: (a) we now state that this is a conceptual, non-empirical paper from the abstract. In the introduction, we fully explain this option for a conceptual paper, based on international guidelines for delivering these works (lines 62-69). Thus the reviewer is right: this paper is a conceptual construction made by the authors based on the literature and on some of their recent experiences on this field of research. This is why we do not use any data; (b) we added an important part which was missing – an integrative literature review connecting all the concepts in a whole model – the sustainable farming framework, plus a graphic display of this model (please check the whole section 2); (c) we explain the factors behind (im)mobility as we clarify it based on the combination of aspirations and resources (which we acknowledge as preconditions for mobility, whether they are cultural, social, economic, etc.) (also in section 2); (d) we integrate and compare in greater detail as well the different types of newcomers (voluntary and involuntary) (please check section 3, lines 177 to 221) and (e) we further detail the different categories of non-voluntary newcomers (also in section 3, point 3.2). While we try to deliver the most complete conceptual proposal possible, we agree with the reviewer that it still may be incomplete. We address potential limitations of breath and coverage of the model in section 5 (subsection 5.1).

Related to this, there is also no discussion on possible limitations of this “reflexive” analysis or the novel concept. There is, for example, discussion on the lacking of the term “newcomers” but not on the term the authors introduce, its subcategories and definitions.

This was indeed lacking. In section 3, we discuss not the lack of the term newcomers (as it does exist in the literature) but its limitations and the need to be expanded. We now advance a list of potential limitations as we mentioned above, based on the concerns raised by the reviewer (please check subsection 5.1).

When discussing positive implications of “involuntary newcomers”, it is again not clear whether these are some theoretical possibilities that the authors reflect on, or whether these implications are grounded in existing literature. When they do cite sources, they rely on literature that talks about “voluntary newcomers” but do not convincingly argue why their positive implications would be replicated among “involuntary newcomers” as well. For example, in lines 41, 42 and 43 the authors state “some of the younger generations of newcomers are becoming more interested in agro-ecology movements which support the ideas of more ecological and non-industrial agriculture globally” – but these sources talk about voluntary newcomers, who are of course enthusiastic to innovate – there is no proof that “involuntary newcomers” would be equally enthusiastic and thus positively contribute in this way. Another example is line 122 – “Newcomers seek to implement greener forms of farming thus upholding natural sustainability” – there is no source here, and again it is not clear how this claim about “voluntary newcomers” would translate to “involuntary newcomers”.

The reviewer is right and that is why we envisage the involvement of involuntary newcomers in sustainable forms of farming as being hard and problematic. This argument was not sufficiently developed in our first version of our manuscript. We now present this in the introduction (third problem – lines 56 to 61) and come back to it in the beginning of section 4 (explaining why this category of newcomers is being left behind – lines 351 to 364). We also list and discuss the barriers to involuntary newcomers’ according to this argument (subsections 4.1. to 4.4.).

Reviewer 2 Report

This work is highly descriptive in nature. Even in this way it is possible to make some specific research methodology and present the results. In general, we see just theoretical part. Maybe it is possible to make more structured parts of the article.
The concrete research aim is not clear – it should be written in Introduction part. It is mentioned that „... our goal with this paper is to propose one specific group of potential newcomers that we label as “involuntary newcomers”. But it means that this group will be just characterised – but what do the authors seek by their research if such is done?
The suggestion for improvement of subchapter „Newcomers: An Incomplete Definition“ (from line 105 and further) – make some table whether theoretically to explore and compare the newcomers following different authors. It is clear that there are some potential characteristics groups – e.g. according to gender, educational level, activities, their aims in farming, approach towards sustainability, relations / cooperation with local rural residents etc.
In theory, everything seems clearly written and justified, but it still seems that empirical research should be done: for example – about profiling characteristics, causes/factors of involuntary newcomers.

Author Response

This work is highly descriptive in nature. Even in this way it is possible to make some specific research methodology and present the results. In general, we see just theoretical part. Maybe it is possible to make more structured parts of the article.

We understand the concern of the reviewer. We were not clear enough on the type of article that we intended to deliver. We now state clearly from the abstract and also in the introduction that this is a conceptual paper. By definition, conceptual papers are non-empirical and that is why we do not add an empirical part to our work. However, we now define what is a conceptual paper and what are its expected contributions (please check lines 62-69). We also follow the guidelines for delivering a paper (e.g. McGuire 2018), meaning that we revised the different sections of the paper (please check the rationale for this in lines 82-94). For instance, we now provide an integrative literature review, including a conceptual map of the different notions that we combine to propose the concept of involuntary newcomers.

The concrete research aim is not clear – it should be written in Introduction part. It is mentioned that „... our goal with this paper is to propose one specific group of potential newcomers that we label as “involuntary newcomers”. But it means that this group will be just characterised – but what do the authors seek by their research if such is done?

We fully agree with the reviewer that we were not clear enough. We now clearly state in the abstract and in the introduction that we are delivering a conceptual paper with the aim to expand the notion of farming newcomers (lines 62-63). We also explain that our conceptual standing is intended is to organize disparate ideas in order to open up new research avenues – which is the core aim of conceptual, non-empirical papers (please check the introduction).

The suggestion for improvement of subchapter „Newcomers: An Incomplete Definition“ (from line 105 and further) – make some table whether theoretically to explore and compare the newcomers following different authors. It is clear that there are some potential characteristics groups – e.g. according to gender, educational level, activities, their aims in farming, approach towards sustainability, relations / cooperation with local rural residents etc.

We made a series of improvements to this chapter now headed “3. Expanding the newcomers definition”. To address the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestions we made the following changes: (a) defining and comparing voluntary and involuntary newcomers – something that was absent in the previous version) (lines 177-221); (b) explaining in greater detail which are the main features of each of these categories (for voluntary newcomers check lines 188 to 199; for involuntary newcomers check lines 210 to 221); and (c) describing the profiles of each of these groups (subsections 3.1. and 3.2, respectively). Instead of a table, we focused on a more complete and parallel construction within the text.

Reviewer 3 Report

The issue addressed in the paper discusses: how to foster rural sustainability through farming workforce rejuvenation? The Authors proposed an important and interesting topic, compatible with the scope of the journal.

Such studies are partially analysed in literature. It would be worth presenting the state of the art in a broader way. I suggest a more dilligent, comparative description of other scientific research from the literature. State of the art should be more related to your research questions.

A study based on the four steps, as the authors initially report in the abstract, should stick to this way. These are therefore research problems that should also be reported in the four conclusions. But is this the case in the paper?

Even then, if it is a theoretical study, it cannot be based on an indefinite method. Therefore, I recommend a few corrections to improve the quality of this article:

- to precisely define the research scenario; needed to clarify the scope of the study and consequently a clear, step-by-step, simple, synthetic research pattern;

- to improve the description of the proposed steps implementation (the four indicated at the start), as the reader should know how to repeat a similar analysis on this basis;

that is, supplement the summary descriptive analysis.

I also strongly suggest that recommendations for specific, practical, not only general (and not entirely clear) applications of this research shall be provided (please complete point 3).

Does the conclusion answer all the questions posed at the beginning of the study (expressed in the objectives and hypotheses)? Please complete this and also correct it. Conclusions need to be supplemented.

The language of this paper is relatively correct, however some descriptions would benefit from being more concise.

Author Response

The issue addressed in the paper discusses: how to foster rural sustainability through farming workforce rejuvenation? The Authors proposed an important and interesting topic, compatible with the scope of the journal. Such studies are partially analysed in literature. It would be worth presenting the state of the art in a broader way. I suggest a more dilligent, comparative description of other scientific research from the literature. State of the art should be more related to your research questions.

We fully agree with the reviewer. This was certainly a part missing in the paper. We now fully clarify that our intention is to deliver a conceptual paper, which involves the preparation of an integrative literature review. This review combines different concepts in a sustainable farming framework. We describe these concepts (e.g., networked rural development), explain the ties between them and describe the flow from one to another, by providing a conceptual map (please check figure 3). Please check section 2 (integrative literature review – lines 98 to 174).

A study based on the four steps, as the authors initially report in the abstract, should stick to this way. These are therefore research problems that should also be reported in the four conclusions. But is this the case in the paper? Even then, if it is a theoretical study, it cannot be based on an indefinite method. Therefore, I recommend a few corrections to improve the quality of this article:

- to precisely define the research scenario; needed to clarify the scope of the study and consequently a clear, step-by-step, simple, synthetic research pattern;

- to improve the description of the proposed steps implementation (the four indicated at the start), as the reader should know how to repeat a similar analysis on this basis;

that is, supplement the summary descriptive analysis.

We agree that our structure was not clear-cut. To address the reviewer’s suggestions, we have made the following improvements: (a) we now clearly state our aim from the abstract (restated in the introduction) - to deliver a conceptual paper with the aim to expand the notion of farming newcomers (lines 62-63); (b) in the introduction, we describe in detail the three problems justifying our paper, which are aligned with our intended contributions (lines 36-61); (c) in the introduction, we also explain our option for a conceptual paper, explain its nature and offer an overview of the structure, based on existing guidelines (e.g. McGregor, 2018) – thus, we can consider this as our method, although it is not an empirical onw, but a guide to deliver a conceptual paper (lines 82 to 94); and (d) based on that guide, we organize our paper in four steps corresponding to the different sections following the introduction.

I also strongly suggest that recommendations for specific, practical, not only general (and not entirely clear) applications of this research shall be provided (please complete point 3).

We understand the reviewer’s comment for proposing practical implications. However, a conceptual paper is intended to offer a platform for empirical research. Suggesting practical implications would be an overstatement of our position which we cannot assume. Therefore, we reorganized our implications according to our argument, as we seek to provoke critical thinking about new research possibilities which can later inform policies and practices.

We now deliver a new conclusion in point 6, covering all the problems and answers brought forward.

The language of this paper is relatively correct, however some descriptions would benefit from being more concise.

We deleted some parts that seemed redundant. Still, in rereading this paper, we would like to ask the reviewer to take into consideration that the other reviewers required a great deal of revisions which resulted in including new sections and descriptions. We made our best to integrate these new parts in a concise manner.

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is a theoretical article with a clear objective: the proposal of a new social category of farming workforce. The theoretical texts are very interesting and relevant for the advance of scientific knowledge, but for this, the article must have at least three elements: first, to specify the area or field of knowledge to which it contributes; second, to identify a research problem or an innovative challenge that it help solve; and third, to confront the proposals with the previous dominant propositions or theories.

The article deals partly with these three aspects throughout the text, but without sufficient clarity. They should be exposed and analyzed more precisely in the introduction and taken up in the conclusions to show the contributions of the work and its theoretical value.

In accordance with the above, the evaluated article should improve in these three aspects:

Delimitation of the affected areas of knowledge: agrarian economy, rural sociology, social psychology labor sciences… a point of intersection of them.
Identification of the problem they are trying to solve and its practical dimension to guide social or economic interventions.
And finally, tyhe degree of novelty and proposal for change with respect to existing knowledge.

Other aspects to improve:

In addition, the authors should show, also, the global contribution of the paper to the rural sustainability, referring to academic studies and not only to political texts such as CAP.
Authors should also use statistical sources to quantify the social phenomenon they are studying, or at least critique the usefulness of the sources available for their study.
Finally, authors should be warned about the semantic confusion of the term “involuntary newcomer”: their differences with the concept of “refugee” should be clarified, to avoid misunderstandings

Global assessment: It is a good and interesting article, which can be published after including the indicated improvements.

Author Response

In accordance with the above, the evaluated article should improve in these three aspects:

Delimitation of the affected areas of knowledge: agrarian economy, rural sociology, social psychology labor sciences… a point of intersection of them.

We agree with the reviewer on this point. We believe our paper can have a multidisciplinary relevance, therefore we indicate the different fields that can draw on our conceptual proposal. When presenting our potential contributions, we now state this sort of impact across fields (please check lines 69 to 81).

Identification of the problem they are trying to solve and its practical dimension to guide social or economic interventions.

We believe the reviewer is right is asking for greater clarity in terms of defining the central problems. We do it from the beginning, in the introduction section (please check lines 36 to 61). We bring forward three problems which justify our goal. We also connect these problems with the specific goals of our work, formulated in the form of potential contributions to empirical research (please check lines 69 to 81). To include all of these changes, we made an extensive revision of the introduction section. Please check this section.

Other aspects to improve:

In addition, the authors should show, also, the global contribution of the paper to the rural sustainability, referring to academic studies and not only to political texts such as CAP.

We agree with the reviewer. We believe we now address this comment with the following: (a) we have included an integrative literature review that situates our research aim on the broader context of the sustainable farming framework (please check section 2); (b) we still focus on CAP, but when discussing the barriers to involuntary newcomers, we also discuss the role of national policies (please check subsection 4.4., lines 506-514); and (c) more importantly we clearly state and discuss one problem, that involuntary newcomers find much more barriers to contribute to rural sustainable farming. With this in mind, we now orientate the discussion of barriers to involuntary newcomers inclusion in farming to their integration in sustainable forms of farming, which seems a much more relevant discussion to us (please check the contextualization of this argument in lines 351 to 365).

Authors should also use statistical sources to quantify the social phenomenon they are studying, or at least critique the usefulness of the sources available for their study.

The author is right. We now add two graphs (Figures 1 and 2, in section 2) to illustrate how the farming workforce is declining and ageing in European countries.

Finally, authors should be warned about the semantic confusion of the term “involuntary newcomer”: their differences with the concept of “refugee” should be clarified, to avoid misunderstandings

We have worked on the clarification of the term involuntary newcomers in three ways: (a) first we more clearly explain the difference between voluntary and involuntary newcomers, by describing their main characteristics and background (section 3, lines 177 to 221); (b) we then profile each of the involuntary newcomers profiles (lines 248 to 321); and (c) we also explain the limitations of our proposal, including some groups that may remain invisible and others that may overlap or better describe some of the immigrants coming in Europe (e.g. refugees).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have corrected some of the previous issues in the paper, however, some remain and some new ones arise.

In the Introduction, a lot has been deleted. Therefore, there is nothing now to introduce the reader into the topic, but the authors go straight into the sentence "The efforts to profile newcomers entering into the farming sector are starting to increase, however, they remain insufficient". Who are these newcomers, what do they have to do with the farming sector, why would this be relevant - there is more information now in the summary than in the introduction which very abruptly moves to the main topic.

Some sentences are still not clear. For example, "Firstly, existing scholarship confuses the definition of newcomers with ownership" is now even less clear as we were not really introduced to the topic of the paper. What kind of ownership? Land? Should be stated more precisely.

I would move this whole first part of the introduction into the theoretical discussion of existing literature (Integrative literature review), where it is appropriate to point to several issues in the existing conceptualization. I would make the introduction a real introduction of the topic, its relevance, and several paragraphs where authors discuss their approach.

Why Integrative literature review - why not just Literature overview?

Sources under figures, for example 1 and 2, should be written according to the referencing style of the journal.

It is not until line 228 that we are actually introduced to the main terms differentiation: voluntary newcomers vs. involuntary.

Image on page 8 has no caption or sources.

A lot has been taken out from the overall text, and this has made some parts very disconnected and difficult to follow.

We still consider the topic of this paper novel and interesting, however, the paper itself is unfortunatelly not well-written. The original contribution of the authors should also be visible in conceptual papers, and this is not a problem here. However, conceptual papers have their own rules and the main is that based on clear analysis of existing sources (does not neccesarily need to be empirical research), there are clear arguments that follow one another, creating a coherent whole. It seems that in the new version this is missing even more than in the first one, due to all the deletions.

Author Response

We agree with the reviewer. We now include an opening statement to broadly contextualize the topic. We also include a general definition of newcomers to which we come later in the literature review sections. The relevance of the topic is stated in the three specific problems that we thoroughly describe. There we also present a general distinction between voluntary and involuntary newcomers (lines 80-84) before discussing this distinction later, in the integrative literature review.

We clarify that we mean land ownership. Where needed we have also made that clarification along the text.

Here we are dealing with distinct approaches from the reviewers that we would like to clarify. In the first round of reviews, other reviewers stated that they wished to see the problems arising from literature outlined from the introduction. The literature on conceptual papers that we followed (e.g., McGregor, 2018 and others) also proposes this type of construction, meaning to outline the problems in the introduction section, so that the gaps and the potential contributions being made are evident from the beginning. Based on the other reviewers opinion as well as on the literature, we have decided to keep the problems that we are addressing as part of the introduction.

Why Integrative literature review - why not just Literature overview?

Conceptual papers stand on an integrative literature review combining disparate concepts underlying a given argument. For instance, Gilson & Goldberg or McGregor (authors that we cite) mention this point. Therefore, an integrative literature review is different from literature overview and it is different from other types of literature reviews such as a systematic literature review. For a matter of precision we decided to keep this title.

Sources under figures, for example 1 and 2, should be written according to the referencing style of the journal.

The reviewer is right. We have now reviewed this. We have simplified the caption and moved the reference to the reference list.

It is not until line 228 that we are actually introduced to the main terms differentiation: voluntary newcomers vs. involuntary.

In the introduction we now offer a general definition of farming newcomers which was indeed missing, before discussing it in a deeper manner. We also advance a broad distinction between the two types of newcomers (lines 80-84) before going into a deeper exploration.

Image on page 8 has no caption or sources.

We believe the reviewer is referring to table 1. We now added the most important references within the table in the cells for “subgroups”.

Reviewer 2 Report

What is the number and title of Figure in the page 8 of 24 (the line 300) - it is not seen.
It is not seen separate research methdology part - design, methods???

Author Response

What is the number and title of Figure in the page 8 of 24 (the line 300) - it is not seen.

We have corrected this.

It is not seen separate research methodology part - design, methods???

This is a conceptual paper, meaning that a methods section is not usually presented. The method (or at least the procedure, to be more precise in this case) is described in the introduction section when we outline our intended contributions and when indicate the different parts of the manuscript.

We would just like to restate to the reviewer that we are now following closely the guidelines for delivering a conceptual paper, something that was not entirely met in the first version of this paper. We found the previous reviewer’s comments essential to improve our paper on that matter.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors!

Thank you for improving the text. Your corrections are partially acceptable. I believe that you have taken up an important topic, in line with the profile of the journal.

However, I recommend a few corrections to improve the quality of this article:

- to improve the readability and description of figures: 3 and ‘4’ ( ?? without number, description and source, found in line 300);

- to correct conclusion.

The language of this paper is relatively correct, however some descriptions would benefit from being more concise.

After making corrections that have been made appropriately, the work should be accepted.

Author Response

Thank you for improving the text. Your corrections are partially acceptable. I believe that you have taken up an important topic, in line with the profile of the journal.

However, I recommend a few corrections to improve the quality of this article:

- to improve the readability and description of figures: 3 and ‘4’ ( ?? without number, description and source, found in line 300);

We made these corrections according to the reviewers suggestion. We have also moved the source to the reference list.

- to correct conclusion.

We have rewritten the conclusion section. We now clearly state how we have addressed each of our specific intended contributions.

The language of this paper is relatively correct, however some descriptions would benefit from being more concise.

We have made an extensive revision of the paper. The paper was checked by a native English proofreader.

After making corrections that have been made appropriately, the work should be accepted.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have answered adequately at the suggestions.

Author Response

We would like to thank the Reviewer for his/her thoughtful comments.