Evaluation of the Profitability and Competitiveness of Strategic Products with the Policy Analysis Matrix: The Case of Tekirdağ, Türkiye

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review manuscript sustainability-3570259, which addresses a timely and relevant topic concerning the economic sustainability of strategic crops in the context of global food security. While the paper offers valuable insight, several issues need to be addressed to enhance its analytical rigor, conceptual clarity, and international relevance:

1. “Economic sustainability”, as a concept, should be more cohesively integrated throughout the paper. Right now, it is explicitly mentioned in: the title, abstract, keyword, and discussion (4 times in total). I suggest the concept not to be reduced to profitability per hectare—a dangerously narrow interpretation. Please try to elaborate more in this regard and please allow to suggest some relevant papers in this regard: https://doi.org/10.3390/land14040731, https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12020232. Other references should be considered too, as right now the reference list is disproportionately weighted toward studies conducted in Türkiye or by Turkish researchers, hence limiting the contextual breadth of the current researching and creating an echo chamber of local perspectives without engaging sufficiently with the broader international discourse on agricultural competitiveness and sustainability.
2. The research relies entirely on a single analytical tool (PAM), with no triangulation or robustness checks. Please consider including sensitivity analysis for key input prices (e.g., fertilizer, rent) and potentially try to simulate alternative policy scenarios. Or, even better, consider the suggestion to complement PAM with stochastic frontier analysis or value chain analysis (if data availability allows) for robustness.
3. The analysis implicitly assumes all producers in Tekirdağ are homogenous. The reason behind this selection is omitted which also raises questions. Circling back, production economics and policy effects can vary substantially across: farm sizes, access to markets, subsidies etc. Therefore, explanations in these directions are highly recommended.
4. The paper claims “higher profitability” in sunflower based on social prices, but at private prices, both crops are almost equally marginal. This glosses over the fact that sunflower is severely penalized by current policy—shown by a -$400.57/ha net transfer (Table 3, page 7). A discussion would be beneficial to separate the theoretical efficiency (social prices) from real-world viability (private prices). Also, policy recommendation should acknowledge that sunflower is punished under current regimes.
5. The study is cross-sectional, based solely on 2021–2022 data, which, by design, can be limitative in some cases. If possible, please consider integrating a trend analysis to contextualize the presented snapshot and making the paper more suitable for policy-level insights (as promised in the title of the paper).
6. The discussion lacks granularity about which agricultural policies are at fault or effective. It refers to "government supports" vaguely. Thus, I propose disaggregating policy effects: Is the problem fertilizer subsidy design? Tariff regimes? Pricing floors? Would it be possible to include a policy matrix with specific instruments and their distortive effects?
7. The conclusion section needs to be articulated better, in the sense that it should respect the classical academic flow: restating the research objective, synthesizing the key findings in light of the theoretical framing, and developing empirical-based policy implications. Moreover, the study limitations should be acknowledged at the end of this section and the authors should propose future research directions.

Author Response

Comment 1 : “Economic sustainability”, as a concept, should be more cohesively integrated throughout the paper. Right now, it is explicitly mentioned in: the title, abstract, keyword, and discussion (4 times in total). I suggest the concept not to be reduced to profitability per hectare—a dangerously narrow interpretation. Please try to elaborate more in this regard and please allow to suggest some relevant papers in this regard: https://doi.org/10.3390/land14040731, https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12020232. Other references should be considered too, as right now the reference list is disproportionately weighted toward studies conducted in Türkiye or by Turkish researchers, hence limiting the contextual breadth of the current researching and creating an echo chamber of local perspectives without engaging sufficiently with the broader international discourse on agricultural competitiveness and sustainability.

Response 1:

Thank you very much for your highly relevant and insightful comment. We agree that the concept of economic sustainability encompasses far more than mere profitability per hectare. In light of your suggestions, we have taken the following actions:

Expanded the theoretical framing of economic sustainability in the Introduction section to include broader dimensions such as competitive advantage, resource use, and long-term resilience (Page 2, Paragraph 4, Lines 59–74).

Integrated the recommended references into the theoretical discussion and throughout the manuscript:

Constantin et al. (2023), Foods, https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12020232

Istudor et al. (2025), Land, https://doi.org/10.3390/land14040731

Diversified the reference list by adding international studies to better reflect the global scope of agricultural sustainability and competitiveness.

In the Discussion section, we explicitly differentiate between short-term profitability and long-term sustainability, emphasizing system resilience and market positioning (Page 15, Lines 510-516, page 16, lines 585-590).

We believe these changes significantly enhance the conceptual clarity and international relevance of the manuscript.

Comment 2: The research relies entirely on a single analytical tool (PAM), with no triangulation or robustness checks. Please consider including sensitivity analysis for key input prices (e.g., fertilizer, rent) and potentially try to simulate alternative policy scenarios. Or, even better, consider the suggestion to complement PAM with stochastic frontier analysis or value chain analysis (if data availability allows) for robustness.

Response 2:

Thank you very much for this valuable suggestion. We fully agree with your assessment regarding the need for robustness and methodological complementarity.

In response to your recommendation:

We have conducted a Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA) and integrated it with the existing Policy Analysis Matrix (PAM) framework. (Material and methods section, page 7-8, lines 267-296)

The results of the SFA, including technical efficiency coefficients for wheat (79.9%) and sunflower (88.9%), are now presented in detail in Section 3 (Results) and further discussed in Section 4 (Discussion). (Page 10-13, lines342-400)

Three alternative policy scenarios have been constructed and analyzed based on the SFA results:

Scenario 1: Efficiency-based input reduction,

Scenario 2: Input price subsidy simulation,

Scenario 3: Yield enhancement via increased fertilizer use.

These scenarios and their implications for profitability and competitiveness are now included in Table 8 (Pages 11–13).

These additions provide greater analytical depth and increase the robustness of the study's policy implications.

Comment 3: The analysis implicitly assumes all producers in Tekirdağ are homogenous. The reason behind this selection is omitted which also raises questions. Circling back, production economics and policy effects can vary substantially across: farm sizes, access to markets, subsidies etc. Therefore, explanations in these directions are highly recommended.

Response 3:

Thank you for this important point. In the research region, wheat and sunflower farming has been conducted for many years across almost the entire area. Producers in the region are highly specialized in this production activity, which has continued for generations. Product purchase channels and state support have remained stable over the years, allowing regional producers to make production decisions without encountering market access issues. Furthermore, following the application of the Stochastic Frontier Analysis, the efficiency coefficients for wheat and sunflower production were found to be quite high (0.7995461 and 0.888526). This finding also suggests that a significant portion of the producers have similar resource utilization patterns. (Page 11, Table 7).

We hope this explanation sufficiently addresses the concern regarding sample representativeness and contextual validity.

Comment 4: The paper claims “higher profitability” in sunflower based on social prices, but at private prices, both crops are almost equally marginal. This glosses over the fact that sunflower is severely penalized by current policy—shown by a -$400.57/ha net transfer (Table 3, page 7). A discussion would be beneficial to separate the theoretical efficiency (social prices) from real-world viability (private prices). Also, policy recommendation should acknowledge that sunflower is punished under current regimes.

Response 4:

Thank you for this insightful observation. We completely agree that the distinction between social and private profitability deserves a more thorough and explicit discussion.

In the revised manuscript:

The Discussion and Conclusion sections have been updated to clearly differentiate between theoretical efficiency (social prices) and practical viability (private prices).

We emphasized that sunflower, despite its high social profitability (641.39 $/ha), is significantly penalized under current policy frameworks due to a net transfer of -$400.57/ha and a NPCO of 0.80. (Page 16, Lines 563–580)

The policy recommendations have been revised to reflect the need for support measures specifically tailored to mitigate this negative net transfer for sunflower producers.

 

Comment 5: The study is cross-sectional, based solely on 2021–2022 data, which, by design, can be limitative in some cases. If possible, please consider integrating a trend analysis to contextualize the presented snapshot and making the paper more suitable for policy-level insights (as promised in the title of the paper).

Response 5:

Thank you for this constructive suggestion. While we acknowledge the limitation of cross-sectional data, we have taken the following step to enrich the context:

A supplementary section was added to the Introduction to present a brief trend analysis of agricultural support policies in Türkiye and in the Tekirdağ province over the last two decades.

This section helps to contextualize the 2021–2022 data within a longer-term policy and economic framework (Page 4, Lines 165–186):

 

Comment 6: The discussion lacks granularity about which agricultural policies are at fault or effective. It refers to "government supports" vaguely. Thus, I propose disaggregating policy effects: Is the problem fertilizer subsidy design? Tariff regimes? Pricing floors? Would it be possible to include a policy matrix with specific instruments and their distortive effects?

Response 6:

We appreciate this nuanced comment. Within the scope of our methodology, it is not possible to isolate the distortive effects of each individual policy instrument (e.g., diesel subsidy alone) due to data limitations. Precisely separating how much distortion a single, specific policy instrument (such as only a diesel subsidy or only wheat purchase price support) creates individually is not directly possible within the standard PAM framework. This would require modeling or measuring the effect of each policy instrument on prices and costs separately, which falls outside the scope of our current data collection and analysis. However, within the existing PAM structure, the article has disaggregated policy effects at the output, input, and factor levels, as well as based on specific tradable input and domestic factor categories. To make this information clearer, we have made additions to the section discussing policy effects in the Discussion section.

Comment 7: The conclusion section needs to be articulated better, in the sense that it should respect the classical academic flow: restating the research objective, synthesizing the key findings in light of the theoretical framing, and developing empirical-based policy implications. Moreover, the study limitations should be acknowledged at the end of this section and the authors should propose future research directions.

Response 7:

Thank you for this valuable structural feedback. We have fully restructured the Conclusion section to adhere to classical academic standards.

Specifically, we:

Restated the research objectives and theoretical framing;

Synthesized major findings from both PAM and SFA approaches;

Clearly articulated policy implications tied to empirical results;

Acknowledged study limitations, especially the cross-sectional nature of the data and regional scope;

Proposed future research directions, including longitudinal data integration and climate adaptation modeling.

 (Page 15, Lines 549–622):

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The article is a relevant and timely study of how cross-sectorial cooperation and business model innovation can be harnessed to support local sustainability transitions. The conceptual framework is theoretically sound, and the case is provided with a suitable level of methodological rigor. The findings are provided in a useful way and add to the literature on sustainability-oriented business models. Still, there is a need for some serious language polishing, albeit overall the English is acceptable, there are segments that would benefit from editing for grammar, clarity, and flow to best present the arguments being made; In particular, the abstract should be clearer and more concise. Some sentences contained within the introduction and discussion are quite long, or complex, and should be simplified to increase clarity for those reading. There are also moments where the passive voice or vague phrasing detracts as a result of meaning being obscured. Despite these minor language barriers the theoretical contribution and practical implications of the study are strong, and expand well on the field. Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences contained within the introduction and discussion are quite long, or complex, and should be simplified to increase clarity for those reading. There are also moments where the passive voice or vague phrasing detracts as a result of meaning being obscured. 

Author Response

Comment 1: The article is a relevant and timely study of how cross-sectorial cooperation and business model innovation can be harnessed to support local sustainability transitions. The conceptual framework is theoretically sound, and the case is provided with a suitable level of methodological rigor. The findings are provided in a useful way and add to the literature on sustainability-oriented business models. Still, there is a need for some serious language polishing, albeit overall the English is acceptable, there are segments that would benefit from editing for grammar, clarity, and flow to best present the arguments being made; In particular, the abstract should be clearer and more concise. Some sentences contained within the introduction and discussion are quite long, or complex, and should be simplified to increase clarity for those reading. There are also moments where the passive voice or vague phrasing detracts as a result of meaning being obscured. Despite these minor language barriers the theoretical contribution and practical implications of the study are strong, and expand well on the field.

Response 1:

Thank you very much for your encouraging and constructive feedback. We are especially grateful for your recognition of the study’s relevance, theoretical contribution, and practical implications. In response to your comments regarding the language:

• The Abstract has been completely revised to present the purpose, methodology, key findings, and implications of the study in a more clear, concise, and fluent manner (Page 1, Lines 4–17).
• We have thoroughly proofread and edited the manuscript to improve grammar, clarity, and sentence flow.
• Long and complex sentences in the Introduction and Discussion sections have been restructured to ensure improved readability and precision.
• We replaced instances of passive voice and vague wording with active, direct phrasing to strengthen the clarity and impact of our arguments.
• We trust that the revised version better communicates the key messages of the study.

Comment 2: Some sentences contained within the introduction and discussion are quite long, or complex, and should be simplified to increase clarity for those reading. There are also moments where the passive voice or vague phrasing detracts as a result of meaning being obscured.

Response 2:

Thank you once again for highlighting these important linguistic issues. To address them:

We conducted a line-by-line revision of the Introduction and Discussion sections to eliminate overly long or convoluted sentence constructions.

Passive voice usage has been significantly reduced, and ambiguous phrasing has been clarified wherever needed. The overall narrative flow of the manuscript has been improved by organizing paragraph structures more logically.

We hope these extensive revisions enhance the readability and accessibility of the paper and meet your expectations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript uses the PAM method to analyze the economic sustainability of wheat and sunflower production in the Tekirdağ region of Turkey. The study aims to assess the impact of agricultural policies on the profitability, competitiveness, and sustainability of these two strategic crops. The manuscript demonstrates the relationship between private prices, social prices, and policy effects, suggesting that adjusting price policies could improve the profitability and long-term sustainability of crop production. The results show that wheat production in Turkey is profitable under both private and social prices, while sunflower production is significantly more profitable at social prices. However, there are some minor issues that need to be addressed before acceptance for publication.

1. The uniqueness of this study compared to existing literature can be further emphasized, particularly in empirical studies using the PAM method in different regions, which will help more comprehensively showcase the distinctiveness of the Tekirdağ region in Turkey.

2. The hypothesis section can be further expanded, clearly listing the specific research hypotheses and expected outcomes of the study, which will help readers better understand the starting point of the research.

3. It is recommended to include the design of specific policy tools in the policy section, such as specific fiscal subsidy schemes and market incentive measures, so that readers can more clearly understand how to apply the theory to practice.

Author Response

Comment 1: The uniqueness of this study compared to existing literature can be further emphasized, particularly in empirical studies using the PAM method in different regions, which will help more comprehensively showcase the distinctiveness of the Tekirdağ region in Turkey.

Response 1:

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that highlighting the originality and regional significance of our case study is important for positioning it within the broader literature.

In response, we have:

Revised the Introduction, Materials and Methods, and Discussion sections to emphasize the specific agricultural significance of Tekirdağ for wheat and sunflower production (Pages 3–5 and 14).

Provided a comparative context with other PAM-based studies from different crops and regions to distinguish Tekirdağ's conditions more explicitly.

Highlighted that this study uniquely combines Policy Analysis Matrix (PAM) and Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA) in a regionally targeted framework, which enhances both the empirical depth and methodological robustness of our analysis.

We have revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to include detailed examples of fiscal policy tools (e.g., input subsidies, per-hectare payments) and market incentives (e.g., guaranteed minimum prices, contract farming schemes). These additions aim to better illustrate how the theoretical findings of our study can inform actionable agricultural policies.

 

Comment 2: The hypothesis section can be further expanded, clearly listing the specific research hypotheses and expected outcomes of the study, which will help readers better understand the starting point of the research.

Response 2

We appreciate this excellent suggestion to improve the clarity of our research objectives.

In the revised manuscript:

A new paragraph has been added at the end of the Introduction section, explicitly listing the specific research hypotheses and expected outcomes (Page 4-5, Lines 191–206).

These hypotheses guide the analytical structure of the paper and are directly linked to our methods (PAM and SFA) and policy analysis goals.

 

Comment 3: It is recommended to include the design of specific policy tools in the policy section, such as specific fiscal subsidy schemes and market incentive measures, so that readers can more clearly understand how to apply the theory to practice.

Response 3

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that providing more concrete policy tools enhances the practical relevance of our conclusions.

To address this:

We have refined the policy discussion in both the Discussion and Conclusion sections.

Specific examples of fiscal subsidy schemes and market incentives  have been included to help operationalize the findings.

We trust that these additions help bridge the theory–practice gap and increase the usefulness of our findings for policymakers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The issue taken in this manuscript is interesting and using regional evaluation with PAM is seemingly a viable means to measure the economic sustainability of the strategic crops considered in this manuscript.

However, this reviewer is unbale to understand the logics and the discussion in the paper, using regional evaluation with PAM, measuring the economic sustainability of strategic crops; wheat and sunflower.

the province considerd is the front runner in wheat and sunflower production with their yields above the average yield of the country, meaning many of the provinces have lower yield. How will the regional evaluaiton of such province can be used to discuss the economic sustainability of the crops for the whole country. In crop production regional variation matters. Hence more details of province level trend data of these crops production and their profitability, private and social prices, policy effects, etc. will be needed for  sustainability perspectivese.

To stretch the findings to global food security will be non academic excercise.  

This paper may need thorough revision and what ever conclusion derived should be supported by the findings and logical discussions, supported by evidence and literature,

 

Author Response

Comment 1:The province considered is the front runner in wheat and sunflower production with their yields above the average yield of the country, meaning many of the provinces have lower yield. How will the regional evaluation of such province can be used to discuss the economic sustainability of the crops for the whole country. In crop production regional variation matters. Hence more details of province level trend data of these crops production and their profitability, private and social prices, policy effects, etc. will be needed for sustainability perspectives.

 

Response 1

Thank you for this thoughtful observation regarding the regional representativeness of Tekirdağ and its implications for broader sustainability discussions.

We acknowledge that Tekirdağ, being a leading region in wheat and sunflower production, represents a high-performing agricultural context. However, we selected this province intentionally, as it serves as an informative benchmark for understanding how sustainability challenges manifest even under relatively favorable conditions.

In response to your comment:

We have added a new section in the Introduction detailing Tekirdağ’s strategic importance within Türkiye’s agricultural landscape and its yield superiority (Page 4, Lines 165–193).

We expanded the policy analysis discussion with more contextual data on how subsidy policies evolved in Türkiye and in Tekirdağ over time.

We clarified in the Discussion and Conclusion sections that the economic sustainability insights drawn from Tekirdağ are not intended to generalize directly to all regions but rather to highlight key issues—such as climate sensitivity, market vulnerability, and policy distortion—that are shared by farmers across the country.

We believe this contextual clarification strengthens the relevance and interpretation of our findings.

 

Comment 2: To stretch the findings to global food security will be non academic exercise.

 

Response 2

We appreciate this important clarification. Our original intention was not to claim that this regional case study alone could explain global food security dynamics. Rather, we aimed to frame the relevance of wheat and sunflower as globally strategic crops, and to situate Türkiye as a meaningful contributor to their supply.

To address your concern:

We have revised the manuscript title to better reflect the regional scope of the study:

“Economic Sustainability of Strategic Crops Important for Food Security: A Regional Evaluation with Policy Analysis Matrix”

We have also edited the abstract and conclusion to remove any overgeneralizations about global food security and replaced them with regionally grounded implications and insights that are globally relevant but not globally prescriptive.

Comment 3:This paper may need thorough revision and whatever conclusion derived should be supported by the findings and logical discussions, supported by evidence and literature.

Response 3

Thank you for this essential reminder about scientific rigor and consistency. We fully agree with your comment and have conducted a comprehensive revision of the manuscript.

In particular:

We integrated Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA) into the methodology to enhance robustness and provide an efficiency-based perspective.

We analyzed three distinct policy scenarios, improving the depth of our empirical results.

The Discussion and Conclusion sections were extensively revised to ensure that each conclusion is directly and logically supported by findings and relevant literature.

Several new references were added to enhance theoretical and empirical support throughout the manuscript.

We are confident that these revisions have strengthened the alignment between our conclusions, evidence, and theoretical framing.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the quality of the manuscript according to the suggestions.

Author Response

Comment 1:  The authors have improved the quality of the manuscript according to the suggestions.

Response 1: 

We sincerely thank you for your positive and encouraging feedback on our revised manuscript. We are very pleased to know that the improvements made in response to the previous suggestions were found satisfactory. Your thoughtful evaluation and kind remarks have contributed significantly to the refinement and quality of our work. We truly appreciate your time and support throughout the review process.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reply for the earlier comments by the authors is well appreciated. However, this reviewer still finds the asymmetry between the content /analysis of the manuscript and the discussion and conclusion that the authors wish to imply.

Sustainability issue undertaken in this paper can/must be established with trend data. However, authors put it as the limitation of the paper. In such a case the sustainability issue mentioned herein has the limitation as well and the sustainability issue has not been addressed properly.  

Further, to conclude "Finally, government support mechanisms should be holistic, encompassing not just price support but also initiatives promoting sustainable resource management, climate resilience, and market competitiveness to ensure the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of these strategic crops. This holistic approach should integrate measures like subsidies for climate-resilient varieties, crop insurance schemes to manage climate risks, and financial incentives for sustainable farming practices that reduce environmental impact." line (616-622) is beyond this manuscript.

BTW, wheat is the main source of food in all countries of the world (line 143-144). It may be one of the main sources of food in the world or is the main source of food in some countries of the world.

The revised manuscript still doesn't give the information of the regional variation of the studied crops in the country, which is vital to understand and grasp the importance of the issue and studied province as the case study.

With these revisions, the title of the paper at best may be, "Private and Social Profitability of Strategic Crops for Food Security in Turkey: Result of a Case Study of Tekirdağ Province using Regional Evaluation with Policy Analysis Matrix" or some other title that reflects the contents /analysis and not too much of stretch, which might not be an academic exercise.

Author Response

Comment 1: The reply for the earlier comments by the authors is well appreciated. However, this reviewer still finds the asymmetry between the content /analysis of the manuscript and the discussion and conclusion that the authors wish to imply.

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for this observation. The main objective of our study is to reveal the economic sustainability and competitiveness levels of wheat and sunflower production in Tekirdağ province. The discussion and conclusion sections are structured to reflect both the regional implications of the findings and their relevance to broader agricultural policy (see pp. 16–17). The holistic policy recommendations in the conclusion—encompassing price supports, climate resilience, resource management, and environmental protection—are derived directly from the study’s results. Therefore, we believe the manuscript maintains conceptual coherence between the analytical findings and the conclusions drawn. Additionally, a review of the cited literature (almost 23 references) shows that this approach is consistent with other studies using PAM and SFA methods, which are widely employed not only to assess current conditions but also to provide insights for future policy development.

Comment 2:  Sustainability issue undertaken in this paper can/must be established with trend data. However, authors put it as the limitation of the paper. In such a case the sustainability issue mentioned herein has the limitation as well and the sustainability issue has not been addressed properly.

Response 2:

We sincerely appreciate this valuable suggestion. In our study, we relied on cross-sectional data for the 2021–2022 production season, and this limitation is clearly acknowledged in the manuscript (see p.17). We fully agree that long-term datasets would allow for a more robust analysis of sustainability trends, and we intend to incorporate such data in future studies.

That said, the PAM and SFA methods employed in this study offer a scientifically sound basis for identifying the current economic and environmental weaknesses in production systems. This, in turn, allows for the development of evidence-based sustainability strategies.

For instance, the PAM analysis revealed a 20% policy-related price distortion in sunflower production (NPCO: 0.80, see p.13), suggesting potential policy-induced challenges to sustainability. These findings provide a solid foundation for proposing responsive measures aimed at wheat and sunflower production systems.

Similarly, SFA results indicate a potential for productivity improvement of 20.05% in wheat and 11.15% in sunflower production (see p.11). Enhancing input use efficiency is crucial not only for lowering production costs but also for reducing negative environmental impacts, particularly those related to soil degradation and greenhouse gas emissions.

Therefore, while acknowledging the limitations, we believe the study contributes valuable and actionable insights into both the economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability.

Comment 3: Further, to conclude "Finally, government support mechanisms should be holistic, encompassing not just price support but also initiatives promoting sustainable resource management, climate resilience, and market competitiveness to ensure the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of these strategic crops. This holistic approach should integrate measures like subsidies for climate-resilient varieties, crop insurance schemes to manage climate risks, and financial incentives for sustainable farming practices that reduce environmental impact." line (616-622) is beyond this manuscript.

Response 3:

We respectfully clarify that the policy recommendations in the conclusion are directly derived from the PAM and SFA analysis results. The identification of technical efficiency gaps and observed policy constraints indicates a need for broader and more integrated policy reforms (see pp.16–17). Thus, the suggested support mechanisms—including climate resilience, sustainable farming practices, and improved market access—are grounded in the empirical findings of the study and represent a logical extension of the analysis.

Comment 4: "BTW, wheat is the main source of food in all countries of the world" (line 143–144). It may be one of the main sources of food in the world or the main source of food in some countries of the world.

Response 4:

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The sentence has been revised for accuracy as follows:

"Wheat is considered one of the main food sources in many countries around the world and the basic raw material of feed in animal production."

Comment 5: The revised manuscript still doesn't provide information about regional variation of the studied crops in the country, which is vital to understand the importance of the issue and the province studied.

Response 5:

The scope of our study is limited to wheat and sunflower production in Tekirdağ province (see pp.5–8), and this limitation is clearly acknowledged in the manuscript (see p.17).

However, it is worth noting that Tekirdağ is one of the most advanced provinces in Turkey in terms of productivity and modern agricultural techniques for wheat and sunflower. Even under such favorable conditions, our findings reveal significant productivity losses—up to 20%—and various competitiveness-related challenges. This suggests that in regions with lower productivity and less efficient production systems, these problems may be more pronounced.

In this sense, the study not only evaluates Tekirdağ as a case but also provides insights into the potential challenges facing other, less advanced regions. We believe the findings contribute to understanding and addressing broader structural issues in Turkish agriculture. Future research will include comparative regional analyses to support the generalisability of the conclusions.

Comment 6: With these revisions, the title of the paper at best may be... or another title that reflects the actual analysis and content more clearly.

Response 6:

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the title accordingly:

"Evaluation of the Profitability and Competitiveness of Strategic Products with the Policy Analysis Matrix: A Regional Study from Turkey."

We believe this revised title better reflects the scope, methodology, and content of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The change in the title of the manuscript to better reflect the content is commendable. However, this reviewer would recommend being clear by putting the studied province name, reflecting the contents in the title, rather than "a regional study" which is vague.

Again, this reviewer still couldn't find the evidence to discuss the findings from the studied province to imply to other regions of the country, where the optimality of the production systems could be different, may be less efficient as the authors wish to suggest but maybe not, rather more efficient where the production may be low but the production cost may be even lower, consequently with better profitability and competitiveness.

 

Author Response

Comment 1:

“The change in the title of the manuscript to better reflect the content is commendable. However, this reviewer would recommend being clear by putting the studied province name, reflecting the contents in the title, rather than 'a regional study' which is vague.”

Response 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their constructive suggestion. In response, the title of the manuscript has been revised to clearly indicate the studied region. The updated title is as follows:

“Evaluation of the Profitability and Competitiveness of Strategic Products with the Policy Analysis Matrix: The Case of Tekirdağ, Türkiye”

We believe this change improves the clarity and precision of the manuscript, as recommended.

 

Comment 2:

“Again, this reviewer still couldn't find the evidence to discuss the findings from the studied province to imply to other regions of the country, where the optimality of the production systems could be different, may be less efficient as the authors wish to suggest but maybe not, rather more efficient where the production may be low but the production cost may be even lower, consequently with better profitability and competitiveness.”

 

Response 2:

We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable insights regarding the generalizability of the findings. In order to address this concern, we expanded the finding section by incorporating comparative economic data from various wheat producing regions in Türkiye. Specifically, we analyzed net profit margins at private prices as reported in previous studies conducted in provinces such as Çukurova, Konya, Yozgat, Erzurum, Ağrı, Tokat, and Ankara. This comparative analysis reveals significant regional variation in profitability levels and provides empirical context for interpreting the results from Tekirdağ.

The reason for taking the net profit margin is to reduce price and cost fluctuations (inflation, etc.) over the years and to be more comparable. We have added the following paragraph to the manuscript to reflect this (483-495):

"In order to compare with the data obtained in the study, economic analyses of wheat production in different regions of Turkey were examined and net profit margins at private prices were calculated. In the study conducted in Çukurova region, which is one of the important production regions of Turkey [52], the net profit margin was found to be the same as in Tekirdağ (0.16), while in Konya (known as the granary of Turkey) this ratio was calculated as 0.11 [53]. In the studies conducted in Yozgat [54, 55], 0.08 and 0.11 respectively, in Erzurum [56] -0.22, in Ağrı -0.14 [57], it was observed that they were considerably lower than Tekirdağ. The regions with negative profit margins are generally where animal production is concentrated. It was observed that the values in the studies in Tokat (0.22) [58] and Ankara (0.31) [59] were higher than the net profit margin in the research area. The soil structure and climatic factors of the region played an important role in the differentiation of these values."

When the wheat yields in the studies included in the article are examined, it is seen that the net profit margins of the provinces with low yields are generally low. Those with yields close to Tekirdağ province have high profit margins. For example, the province of Tokat yields 4242 kg per hectare and has a net profit margin of 0.22, Ankara yields 3511 kg per hectare and has a net profit margin of 0.31, Yozgat yields 2035 kg per hectare and has a net profit margin of 0.11.

We hope this additional discussion addresses the reviewer’s concern by demonstrating regional diversity in production efficiency and cost structures.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx