How Does the Farmer Strike a Balance between Income and Risk across Inputs? An Application in Italian Field Crop Farms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper investigates the relationship between fertilisers, crop protection, irrigation water, and labour with the risk of using Italian irrigated field crop farms from 2008 to 2019.Overall, the content, conclusions and innovation of this paper are more in line with the standards of this journal.However, a number of issues remain of concern before publication.
Section I should add more literature references to highlight your research gaps.
Why is the minimum value of "income" in Table 1 negative?
Robustness tests were ignored.
There is a lot of content that is wrong. 'It may be caused by referencesError! Not a valid bookmark self-reference."
Author Response
We welcome requests from the reviewer. As a result, the document has been revised, more appropriate, and easier to read. In particular, we have rewritten the document, including the new literature. These changes have made the storytelling and background description more reader-friendly. As a result, the current version is more readable and balanced. Also, implementing the suggestions makes the discussion and results more transparent and coherent.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript establishes quite well the current debate that exists between productivity (increase of) and the need to be sustainable. But it needs to work deeply on it before sending to publish. There are many points that could be and should be updated concerning CAP (Common Agricultural Policy), which is about to change next year.
Apart from this, in my view, despite authors explain the different parts of the manuscript/article at the very end of the introduction, and they are clear enough. I would recommend authors to identify part three “Econometric framework” with methodology, “Data” with material. Material and methodology could be joined in the same section.
Results are not clear at all. This part as a whole should be redrafted and please try to be more explicit. Especially between line 261 and 281.
There are other comments and suggestions:
Why do authors introduce “JEL Classification codes: Q15, Q18, Q12, C23, D24” just before section 1 introduction?
Line 16 the acronym GMM appearing in the abstract should be first time explained.
Line 227, UAA should be defined first time that this acronym appears in the text (Utilized Agricultural Area)
Line 229 Missing final point.
Line 244. There is a little mistake. Comma should be right after 2019.
Line 259. There is no need of introducing into brackets the information regarding column1, column 2 etc…because it is written in the table. Also, table 2 should be somehow cited in the text. And it is not.
Lines 251, 252, 257, 263, 264, 269. There are three “errors” reference appearing tin the text.
It seems that this result part has not been revised from authors…there are many mistakes according drafting. i.e.. beginning of a sentence in line 271. Missing point at the end of a sentence in line 295.
Line 312. I would recommend authors to write, only the word “Conclusions” instead of Main conclusions.
Line 342 Policy should be written in capital letters.
Table A1. Final point in this “Amount of irrigation water distributed”.
Also…after forestry, work, holding, teaching, livestosck.
Land (10000 m2 = 1 ha)
Concerning references, I would honestly say that there are not enough current ones. We are about to finish this year 2022, and there are no references of this one 2022, none 2021. Most of the references are old…and considering we are dealing with such a topic CAP (common Agricultural Policy) I would recommend authors to update the whole text and try to introduce some of them from European Commission etc… Actually, we are about to change CAP next year, so there are a lot of documents.
Author Response
We fully agree with the reviewer’s requests and have revised both the content and organisation of the article. Thanks to these changes, the reader will find the background narrative and description easier to understand. Furthermore, we have eliminated redundant or not strictly necessary literature, leaving what is needed to interpret the text correctly. At the same time, we have enhanced the literature with the latest references. In addition, the literature review has been improved for better readability and streamlined because it is included in the “introduction”. Section 2 regarding “Methods and Materials” has been extensively revised to conform to journal requirements. The “Results” section has been rewritten by expanding the description of the results, clarifying the presentation with examples, and presenting the results in comparison with similar studies. Finally, policy implications, further development, and limitations have acquired more room in the conclusions.
Thanks to your advice, we have implemented a new paper structure that allows for easier reading and better exposure to our investigation.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic chosen for your paper turns out to be interesting but, in my opinion, requires further effort to make it truly appealing. As written is heavy to read, a strong process of simplification and revision of English would therefore be appropriate to make reading more fluid. Whole pieces of the text are repeated in the paper after a few lines. The methodological part should be better described, and the presentation of the results improved. The literature review and discussions are missing. Therefore, a comparison of their results with other works already present in the literature is lacking.
Here are some more specific suggestions:
1) Simplify the title;
2) the indication of the Institution to which the second author belongs is missing;
3) In the “Abstract”, it is suggested to make a complete presentation according to the research purpose and significance, data sources, research methods, research results and conclusions. Please check it;
4) indicate in full what the acronyms mean the first time they are used;
5) remove JEL classification, in Sustainability it is not used;
6) The article does not follow the editorial standards of Sustainability (see the instructions for the preparation of the article at the following link: Sustainability | Instructions for Authors (mdpi.com))
7) correct the bibliographic references: in the text they must be numbered in order of appearance and, "the number" must be inserted between square brackets. In the references they go in numerical order (of appearance) and not alphabetical. For example, line 30 must be [1] and not Pennings and Garcia, 2004;
8) all cereals? Why not specify which crops are being examined?;
9) irrigation water in cereals (I hope they refer to corn);
10) line 48: why not also use the last available accounting year of the FADN at this moment (2020);
11) line 49: delete FADN, FADN = RICA;
12) line 56: please check the sentence;
13) line 60-82: is it introduction? I think that it sounds like methodology. Please check the sentence;
14) Literature Review is missing;
15) number all the formulas on the right and not on the left;
16) line 97-101: better define the symbols used and better specify what the formulas and their transformations represent, also valid for all the other formulas that follow;
17) sometimes the text is disconnected within itself. Harmonizing sentences;
18) formula 2: what does h(X) represent? I guess it's the risk but specify it;
19) line 129-130: remove the double parenthesis;
20) paragraph 2: it is not clear what the second step is;
21) check appendix A1: there are repetitions and replace holding with agricultural holding or more simply with farm;
22) line 193: please check the (FEGLS - (Bai, Choi, and Liao, 2019));
23) perhaps paragraphs 2 and 3 could be merged into one, buti s necessary to harmonize them and make it more readble ... even to someone who is not an expert;
24) footnotes should be single spaced and please check the editing;
25) footnote no. 2 is already present in the text (see line 152-153);
26) row 223-225: the quantity of water distributed with irrigation also depends on the “needs” of the crop;
27) line 229: must be 6.015 and not 6015:
28) line 229: add period (.) at the end of sentence;
29) line 233: give an empty line;
30) line 233: this statement is repeated too many times: In This paper relies on individual farm data from the Italian Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) (EC, 2010).
31) Please check for repetitions in the text;
32) line 233-244: it is a repetition, see line 218-229;
33) line 245-247: the sentence is not understood, something is missing and it is completely disconnected from the rest. Please check the sentence;
34) I believe that the description of the sample should be better expressed and defined in the article;
35) lines 249-258: please check the sentence;
36) line 261: give a empty line to separate the text from the table;
37) line 261-270: it is a repetition, see line 249-258;
38) line 271-272: the sentence is not understood, something is missing and it is completely disconnected from the rest. Please check the sentence;
39) line 285-286: check the spaces inside the brackets;
40) line 291: irrigation not Irrigation;
41) line 293: “that” repeats 2 times;
42) line 295: add period (.) at end of sentence;
43) line 306: is Farm Net Income not Net farm Income;
44) discussions are missing. In particular, I miss the discussion of the results obtained, especially relative to other such studies conducted both in Italy and in other countries around the world;
45) limits of research and future perspectives of the work expressed in one line seems to me very little;
46) at the end of the article the following parts are absent: Author Contributions, funding, conflicts of interest, etc.;
47) check the bibliography, for example a work is missing: (Severini, Tantari, Di Tommaso, 2016) and, above all, indicate the name of all the authors, avoiding using “et al.” even in the correct and complete citation.
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewer’s proposals by welcoming them and thoroughly reviewing the paper. We have reorganised the article to make the narrative more linear and understandable. First, we removed redundant or superfluous literature by adding recent references. Then we implemented a new narrative of the theoretical and empirical framework. Regarding the “results” section, we broadened the discussion by comparing it with similar studies; moreover, we made the presentation of the results more transparent by adding examples. Finally, the “conclusions” section has been expanded by increasing the space for discussing future developments, limitations and policy implications. The English language and style have been revised to make the document more readable.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It can be accepted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Response to 2 nd round - Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: It can be accepted.
Response 1: We owe a debt of gratitude to the reviewer for offering ideas that helped to clarify the paper. We have improved the document through a more engaging story, a fascinating introduction, a useful explanation of the results, and clearer conclusions.
Reviewer 2 Report
It seems to me that the document has been much improved according to its structure. In my view, it is ready to be published talking into account some suggestions and comments:
Talking about format, there are in general, still many typos over the document (missing final point i.e. line 336 etc, 257 and 258 with the use of the commas). I would suggest authors reading it carefully.
Line 293. It seems something is missing…The risk a la (14??
References are all wrong, according MDPI rules. The surname is the first word to write and then the Initial of the name.
Table A1
No need to write than 1hectarea =10000 m2. It is already known
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for the effort that you made for the corrections to the text. Now the writing of the manuscript has definitely improved. Please, I ask to provide just a further effort in terms of check the editing in the text, below I specified some examples in more detail, and then I believe that the article is ready for publication.
Here are some more specific suggestions:
1) line 28: “Strategy (F2Fs [1] - [6]))” should be “Strategy (F2Fs) [1-6]”
2) references must be put together, as for example at line 35 [7] - [9] must be [7-9]
3) please check the brackets, for example on line 71 you open one that is never closed
4) please also check the spaces, both in the text and in the brackets
5) line 72: "basis according to [15]” should be “basis according to Just and Pole (1979) [15]”, please apply this rule to all references and please check the sentences
6) please check the references, for example in the case of [15] the name of the authors is repeated twice
7) please, where possible, add the units of measurement to the variables shown in the tables
8) line 111: I think “include” should be “included”
9) line 253: there is still “. Error! Reference source not found” please check
10) line 278: add period (.) at the end of the sentence
11) line 293: please check the sentence
12) line 312-313: please check the sentence
13) please check the footnotes, there is no correspondence between the number appearing in the text and the numbering of the footnotes
14) I think a reference to the tables in the appendix is missing in the text, please check.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
