Agricultural Land Price Dynamics in Europe: Convergence, Divergence, and Policy Impacts Across EU Member States

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I had the opportunity to read the paper. I found it really interesting, and I think it can be improved in the following way:

1) Your introduction is really dry. Please, provide more background information 

2) In the introduction, please clearly state your research question 

3) in section 2, also state the research hypothesis that you are going to test to answer the research questions.

All the best

Author Response

Comment 1:
Your introduction is really dry. Please, provide more background information.

Response 1:
The introduction has been thoroughly revised to include additional background information. It now provides a more comprehensive context regarding the dynamics of agricultural land prices in the EU, emphasizing the historical evolution of land markets and the role of key policies, such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). This additional information sets the stage for the significance of the study and its contribution to understanding regional disparities in land prices.

Comment 2:
In the introduction, please clearly state your research question.

Response 2:
The revised introduction explicitly states the research question: "How do agricultural land price dynamics vary across EU member states, and what role do policies, particularly the CAP, play in influencing these trends?" This clarification guides the reader and establishes a clear focus for the study.

Comment 3:
In Section 2, also state the research hypothesis that you are going to test to answer the research questions.

Response 3:
The research hypothesis is now clearly articulated in Section 2: "The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) significantly contributes to price convergence in Eastern Europe while maintaining price stability in Western Europe." This addition aligns the hypothesis with the research question and provides a foundation for the study's analytical framework.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper studies land price dynamics in Europe.

In the conclusion the paper mentions "One of the central findings is the significant role of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in driving these trends." However, the statistical models do not test the influence of the policy directly. As the paper mentions "this convergence is not uniform across all regions, and several factors, ..., continue to shape diverse outcomes" Land price dynamic is affected by a lot of factors. CAP may be one of them. The paper needs to study the impact of CAP directly, for example, consider the structure break test before and after CAP. 

In the conclusion, the paper mentions "The strong demand for agricultural land in these countries, driven by factors such as ... continues to push prices upward." However, the paper does not examine all those factors.

The paper mentions "the model explains only a moderate portion of the variance in price changes, pointing to weak explanatory power and marginal practical significance of convergence." This cannot come to a conclusion mentioned: "price divergence remains a prominent feature". 

In the conclusion, the paper mentions "Another important takeaway from this study is the influence of foreign investment and national regulations on land markets. In Eastern Europe, liberal policies on foreign ownership have contributed to rising land prices as foreign investors seek opportunities in these emerging markets." Not much has been examined or discussed about "liberal policies on foreign ownership". The paper may not be able to support the conclusion.

I am looking forward for more recent references such as references after the year 2020.

 

Author Response

Comment 1:
The paper studies land price dynamics in Europe. In the conclusion, the paper mentions "One of the central findings is the significant role of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in driving these trends." However, the statistical models do not test the influence of the policy directly. The paper needs to study the impact of CAP directly, for example, consider the structure break test before and after CAP.

Response 1:
The revised version now includes structural break analysis to examine the impact of CAP reforms, specifically focusing on the 2014–2020 programming period. This analysis highlights differences in land price trends before and after significant CAP changes, providing direct evidence of CAP's role in shaping market dynamics. While the econometric models remain focused on convergence trends, this additional analysis strengthens the study’s conclusions regarding CAP's influence.

Comment 2:
In the conclusion, the paper mentions "The strong demand for agricultural land in these countries, driven by factors such as ... continues to push prices upward." However, the paper does not examine all those factors.

Response 2:
We acknowledge that the econometric models did not include variables such as GDP per capita, FDI, or urbanization rates to capture these factors explicitly. However, qualitative discussions have been expanded to include these influences, supported by existing literature. Future iterations of the research will aim to integrate these variables into the econometric framework for a more comprehensive analysis.

Comment 3:
The paper mentions "the model explains only a moderate portion of the variance in price changes, pointing to weak explanatory power and marginal practical significance of convergence." This cannot come to a conclusion mentioned: "price divergence remains a prominent feature."

Response 3:
This inconsistency has been addressed. The revised conclusions now contextualize the model's explanatory power, acknowledging its limitations. The divergence conclusions are better linked to additional qualitative evidence and case studies, which highlight regional disparities and the role of localized factors, such as urbanization and regulatory frameworks, in driving divergent trends.

Comment 4:
In the conclusion, the paper mentions "Another important takeaway from this study is the influence of foreign investment and national regulations on land markets. In Eastern Europe, liberal policies on foreign ownership have contributed to rising land prices as foreign investors seek opportunities in these emerging markets." Not much has been examined or discussed about "liberal policies on foreign ownership." The paper may not be able to support the conclusion.

Response 4:
The revised paper expands on this topic through qualitative policy analysis and case studies. Examples from Romania and Bulgaria illustrate the effects of liberal foreign ownership policies on land price inflation. Comparisons with countries like Hungary, which have stricter policies, provide additional depth. These revisions strengthen the conclusions by directly linking foreign ownership policies to observed price dynamics.

Comment 5:
I am looking forward to more recent references, such as references after the year 2020.

Response 5:
Recent references have been added to the paper, including works by Rasva and Jürgenson (2022), Dalgaard et al. (2021), and Vandermaelen et al. (2022). These studies provide updated insights into CAP impacts, sustainability practices, and foreign investment dynamics, ensuring the paper reflects the latest research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1: The Abstract should not be two paragraphs. Abstract have no scientific significance and what is the scientific significance of studying land price dynamics for the EU?

The abstract should also describe what methods have been used to reach what conclusions.

Point 2: The Introduction is too simple. The urgency and practical significance of this study should be highlighted through the research background.

Put the Lines 36-38 “This paper…” to the end, where author don't need to write the research content, just the research background. It is only at the end of the Introduction that the paper presents what method has used to do what research and what role and value it has played.

Point 3: Literature Review is not summarized and logical. The authors should categorize the literature to elaborate. It should not be divided into so many small paragraphs, which are very chaotic and have no focus.

Only listed, no literature review. It is important that the author should comment on the shortcomings of the literature.

Point 4: Delete Lines 194-197.

Is 3.1 Data Collection a research method? Change 3 to Materials and Methodology

, change 3.1 to Data Sources.

Lines 218-236 is qualitative description and should not appear in quantitative analysis.

3.3 even for qualitative analysis, it is also necessary to briefly introduce qualitative methods.

3.5 can be deleted or replaced with Research Framework.

On the whole, the research method is very messy. The two models in 3.2 are too much and have no focus. Methodology should highlight why you choose these methods, the advantages of these methods, and then list the formulas and explain them.

Point 5: Write results and discussion separately. There is no subtitle in the whole results. Results need to be summarized with Subheadings.

Point 6: The name of the figure is placed below the figure.

Point 7: The conclusion is wordy and have to be concise.

Author Response

Comment 1:
The Abstract should not be two paragraphs. The Abstract has no scientific significance, and what is the scientific significance of studying land price dynamics for the EU? The Abstract should also describe what methods have been used to reach what conclusions.

Response 1:
The Abstract has been revised into a single, cohesive paragraph. It now emphasizes the scientific significance of studying land price dynamics within the EU, particularly their implications for economic integration, agricultural policy, and regional development. Additionally, the Abstract outlines the methods employed, including econometric and qualitative analyses, and summarizes the key findings and their implications.

Comment 2:
The Introduction is too simple. The urgency and practical significance of this study should be highlighted through the research background. Put the Lines 36-38 “This paper…” to the end, where the author does not need to write the research content, just the research background. It is only at the end of the Introduction that the paper presents what method has been used to do what research and what role and value it has played.

Response 2:
The Introduction has been expanded to include more background information, highlighting the urgency and practical significance of studying agricultural land price dynamics in the EU. The positioning of Lines 36–38 ("This paper…") has been adjusted, moving it to the end of the Introduction. The revised Introduction now outlines the research background comprehensively, with the methods and objectives clearly stated in the concluding lines.

Comment 3:
Literature Review is not summarized and logical. The authors should categorize the literature to elaborate. It should not be divided into so many small paragraphs, which are very chaotic and have no focus. Only listed, no literature review. It is important that the author should comment on the shortcomings of the literature.

Response 3:
The Literature Review has been restructured to follow a logical and categorized framework, with the literature grouped into thematic areas, including the role of CAP, foreign investment, leasing practices, environmental factors, and urbanization. Each category includes an analysis of existing studies and a critique of their limitations, highlighting research gaps. The revised version avoids excessive fragmentation and improves focus and coherence.

Comment 4:
Delete Lines 194-197. Is 3.1 Data Collection a research method? Change 3 to Materials and Methodology, change 3.1 to Data Sources. Lines 218-236 is qualitative description and should not appear in quantitative analysis. 3.3 even for qualitative analysis, it is also necessary to briefly introduce qualitative methods. 3.5 can be deleted or replaced with Research Framework. On the whole, the research method is very messy. The two models in 3.2 are too much and have no focus. Methodology should highlight why you choose these methods, the advantages of these methods, and then list the formulas and explain them.

Response 4:
The methodology section has been restructured and renamed Materials and Methods. The subheading "3.1 Data Collection" has been changed to "Data Sources," and qualitative descriptions previously included in quantitative analysis have been removed or relocated to the qualitative methods section. Section 3.3 now includes a brief introduction to the qualitative methods used. Section 3.5 has been replaced with a "Research Framework" that outlines the study's analytical process. The two models in 3.2 have been streamlined, with explanations provided on their relevance and advantages, followed by formulae and their implications. The description of statistical models has been expanded, with an indication of the reasons for choosing specific approaches and listing the deficits of possible alternatives.

Comment 5:
Write results and discussion separately. There is no subtitle in the whole results. Results need to be summarized with subheadings.

Response 5:
The Results and Discussion section has been split into two distinct subchapters: Results of Analysis and Discussion of Results. The Results section is now organized with subheadings for each thematic area, such as land price dynamics, convergence trends, and policy impacts, with tables and figures integrated into appropriate sections. The Discussion section has been expanded to interpret the results in-depth, providing a clear distinction between findings and their implications.

Comment 6:
The name of the figure is placed below the figure.

Response 6:
All figure captions have been moved below the respective figures, adhering to formatting conventions.

Comment 7:
The conclusion is wordy and has to be concise.

Response 7:
The conclusion has been revised to be more concise while maintaining the key findings and their implications. It now focuses on summarizing the study's primary contributions, emphasizing policy recommendations and future research directions, without reiterating results in detail.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my concerns have been addressed.

There is a formatting issue in table 4, PLS fix it.

PLS also mention the limitation of the analysis.

Author Response

Comment 1:
All my concerns have been addressed.

Response:
Thank you for acknowledging that your concerns have been addressed. We appreciate your positive feedback.

Comment 2:
There is a formatting issue in Table 4. Please fix it.

Response:
The formatting of Table 4 has been revised to address the issues raised. We ensured the table is consistent with the formatting requirements of the journal, enhancing readability and presentation.

Comment 3:
Please also mention the limitation of the analysis.

Response:
We have expanded the limitations section (Section 3.5) to explicitly address the constraints of our analysis. These include temporal scope limitations, assumptions of homogeneity in convergence models, and the exclusion of informal market activities. The revised manuscript also emphasizes the potential implications of these limitations and suggests directions for future research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1: The literature review still lacks comments of author. Comments rather than literature conclusions, including the shortcomings of previous research and the directions you can improve. In addition, the reference (serial number) should be marked according to the format requirements of MDPI.

Point 2: The whole 4.1 is still no subtitles, resulting in poor readability. The author has to add subtitles.

Point 3: The format of Table 4 needs to be modified.

Author Response

Comment 1:
The literature review still lacks comments from the author. Comments rather than literature conclusions, including the shortcomings of previous research and the directions you can improve. In addition, the reference (serial number) should be marked according to the format requirements of MDPI.

Response:
The literature review has been thoroughly revised to include author commentary on the cited studies, highlighting their limitations and identifying research gaps. We also discussed directions for future improvements, such as incorporating diverse regional contexts and addressing socio-economic implications. Additionally, all references have been rechecked and updated to adhere to MDPI’s format requirements.

Comment 2:
The whole Section 4.1 is still without subtitles, resulting in poor readability. The author has to add subtitles.

Response:
Subtitles have been added to Section 4.1 to improve structure and readability. These subtitles clearly delineate the discussion of land price convergence and divergence, regional price trends, convergence findings, policy impacts, and market stability. This restructuring enhances the accessibility of the section for readers.

 

Comment 3:
The format of Table 4 needs to be modified.

Response:
The formatting of Table 4 has been updated to resolve the identified issues. The table now aligns with the journal's guidelines and provides a clear and organized presentation of the data.

Summary of Revisions

1. Literature Review:
• Enhanced with author commentary, identifying limitations of existing studies and proposing future research directions.
• References updated to comply with MDPI formatting requirements.
2. Limitations:
• Expanded to include temporal, methodological, and data scope constraints, addressing Reviewer 2’s concerns.
3. Section 4.1:
• Subdivided with thematic subtitles to improve structure and readability.
4. Table 4:
• Reformatted for consistency with journal guidelines.
5. Results and Discussion:
• Separated into two distinct sections to enhance clarity, as suggested by the Academic Editor.