Agricultural Land Market Dynamics and Their Economic Implications for Sustainable Development in Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study offers a timely and analytically robust examination of agricultural land price dynamics in Poland over the period 2009–2023. Using panel and spatial econometric models, the authors identify significant spatial dependencies and patterns of regional clustering in land price formation. The findings highlight GDP per capita as a key positive driver of land prices, while—unexpectedly—higher soil quality and agricultural specialization are associated with lower price levels, suggesting structural economic challenges in rural areas. The study also underscores the influential role of non-market transactions and restrictive land policies aimed at protecting family farms. Policy recommendations focus on spatially differentiated strategies, enhanced land access for young farmers, transparent land governance, and integration with environmental objectives. While the topic is highly relevant and the analytical approach is solid, several areas require substantial revision to enhance clarity, methodological transparency, and overall contribution to the academic discourse:

• Expand the background section to provide a more comprehensive literature context. In particular, include relevant and recent contributions such as 10.3389/fpls.2022.949537 and 10.3390/SU12156279

• Explicitly articulate the research gap addressed by the study and explain how this work contributes novel insights beyond existing literature.

• Provide additional details on the criteria for selecting panel and spatial econometric models, including the rationale behind spatial weighting schemes and model validation procedures.

• Include a dedicated discussion of data limitations and assumptions in the spatial modeling approach, as well as any constraints arising from regional aggregation or time series availability.

• Standardize the use of numerical punctuation (e.g., periods vs. commas) across the manuscript to ensure consistency and readability.

• Improve the quality and clarity of figures and tables. For example, Figure 7 appears to be more appropriately classified as a table, but it is currently presented in a poorly formatted manner. Enhance its layout and labeling for better interpretability.

• Rewrite the conclusions to more clearly restate the study’s key findings, particularly emphasizing how they confirm or contrast with previous research. This section should also revisit the broader policy implications in light of existing literature and the study’s original contributions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Improve English language

Author Response

We thank Reviewer for the insightful and constructive comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to the suggestions, and we provide detailed responses below.

 

Comment 1:
Expand the background section to provide a more comprehensive literature context. In particular, include relevant and recent contributions such as 10.3389/fpls.2022.949537 and 10.3390/SU12156279.

Response 1:
We have expanded the background and theoretical framework in section 4.1, incorporating both suggested references. The paragraph now integrates the insights from Zasada et al. (2022) and Tong et al. (2020) to strengthen the theoretical and empirical grounding of our approach. These references help contextualize the role of multifunctional land use and urbanization impacts within our spatial analysis.

 

Comment 2:
Explicitly articulate the research gap addressed by the study and explain how this work contributes novel insights beyond existing literature.

Response 2:
A paragraph was added to the end of the Introduction section that clearly defines the research gap. We now emphasize that, despite growing interest in land markets, few studies combine panel and spatial econometric analysis of agricultural land prices across such a long time horizon (2009–2023) in a post-transition EU member state. Our work contributes novel insights into how policy, demographics, and spatial dynamics interact in shaping land prices.

 

Comment 3:
Provide additional details on the criteria for selecting panel and spatial econometric models, including the rationale behind spatial weighting schemes and model validation procedures.

Response 3:
Section 2.2 on methodology has been expanded to clarify the rationale for model choice. We explain the justification for applying fixed-effects panel models, followed by SAR, SEM, and SDM specifications. We also describe the use of a contiguity-based spatial weighting matrix and report model selection based on standard diagnostic tests (AIC, LM tests, Moran’s I).

 

Comment 4:
Include a dedicated discussion of data limitations and assumptions in the spatial modeling approach, as well as any constraints arising from regional aggregation or time series availability.

Response 4:
A paragraph discussing data limitations has been added to the end of the Methods section and referenced again in the Discussion. We note the constraint of using voivodeship-level data, the challenge of limited intra-regional variance, and potential endogeneity in interpreting policy impacts. The time coverage limitation related to variable harmonization is also discussed.

 

Comment 5:
Standardize the use of numerical punctuation (e.g., periods vs. commas) across the manuscript to ensure consistency and readability.

Response 5:
All numerical punctuation has been standardized across the manuscript to follow the journal’s English formatting guidelines. Periods are used as decimal separators consistently in text, tables, and figures.

 

Comment 6:
Improve the quality and clarity of figures and tables. For example, Figure 7 appears to be more appropriately classified as a table, but it is currently presented in a poorly formatted manner. Enhance its layout and labeling for better interpretability.

Response 6:
Figure 7 has been reformatted and relabeled for clarity and now conforms to table formatting. Its structure has been enhanced for interpretability and visual alignment with other data presentations in the manuscript. All figures and tables have been reviewed to ensure consistent labeling, units, and captions.

 

Comment 7:
Rewrite the conclusions to more clearly restate the study’s key findings, particularly emphasizing how they confirm or contrast with previous research. This section should also revisit the broader policy implications in light of existing literature and the study’s original contributions.

Response 7:
The Conclusions section has been rewritten to clearly restate the empirical findings, linking them to the literature cited earlier in the manuscript. We now summarize how our results align with or diverge from previous findings, and we highlight the implications for sustainable land policy, particularly regarding spatial inequalities, generational renewal, and multifunctional land management.

 

Comment on English Language:
Improve English language.

Response:
We have thoroughly edited the manuscript to improve grammar, style, and academic tone. The revised version reflects clearer sentence construction, corrected article usage, and improved paragraph flow. We believe the current version meets the language standards of Sustainability.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is well focused. 
With regard to the introduction, it is recommended that the references to the specific scenario in which the study is carried out be expanded. 

Some additional references could be provided regarding the current situation of the CAP. 

The methodology is appropriate and well described and defined.

The variables selected are appropriate for the study. 

The graphs and map are appropriate. 

In Figure 4, is it possible to have more up-to-date data?

Do you think the coronavirus pandemic has had any impact on your analysis?

 

Author Response

Comment 1:
With regard to the introduction, it is recommended that the references to the specific scenario in which the study is carried out be expanded.

Response 1:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. In the revised version of the manuscript (Section 1: Introduction), we have expanded the contextualization of the Polish agricultural land market by including more detailed background on institutional reforms, dual market structure (private vs. state-owned land), and historical evolution of policy instruments. We also added references to recent policy changes and socio-economic conditions relevant to the national context.

 

Comment 2:
Some additional references could be provided regarding the current situation of the CAP.

Response 2:
We appreciate this suggestion. In Section 4.2 of the revised manuscript, we have expanded the discussion on the current Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), specifically the 2023–2027 programming period. We added references to relevant literature, including recent analyses of CAP reform implications for land markets, sustainability objectives, and rural equity (e.g., Schulte et al., 2019; Kopytsia, 2024; Navarro & López-Bao, 2019).

 

Comment 3:
In Figure 4, is it possible to have more up-to-date data?

Response 3:
Thank you for raising this point. Unfortunately, the latest available official data on the structure of WRSP land (Figure 4) is as of the end of 2023. No newer datasets have been released by the National Center for Agricultural Support (KOWR) at the time of submission. We have clarified this limitation in the figure caption and in the main text to ensure transparency.

 

Comment 4:
Do you think the coronavirus pandemic has had any impact on your analysis?

Response 4:
This is a very relevant question. We have addressed it by including a new paragraph in the Discussion section, which reflects on the potential influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on land price dynamics, transaction volumes, and farmer decision-making in 2020–2022. While pandemic effects are difficult to isolate statistically within our model, we acknowledge possible impacts such as inflationary pressures, increased investment uncertainty, and shifts in land demand.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached comments and suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1:
Table 1: names of the variable category and type are separated.

Response 1:
Thank you for noting this issue. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have corrected Table 1 by aligning the variable categories and types properly. The layout has been adjusted to ensure clear association between variables and their definitions.

 

Comment 2:
The decimal signs in Tables 2 and 3 need to be consistent.

Response 2:
We appreciate this suggestion. The decimal signs in Tables 2 and 3 have been reviewed and standardized throughout the manuscript to ensure consistency and clarity, using periods (“.”) as the decimal separator in line with the journal’s formatting style.

 

Comment 3:
Minor grammar, spelling, and clarity checks are needed for the manuscript.

Response 3:
Thank you for this remark. We conducted a thorough proofreading of the manuscript and implemented minor grammar and language corrections throughout the text to improve clarity, fluency, and formal academic tone. Particular attention was given to punctuation, article usage, and sentence structure.

 

Comment 4:
The appropriate alphabetical order in the references.

Response 4:
We acknowledge the importance of proper reference formatting. However, the references in our manuscript are intentionally listed in the order of appearance in the text, in accordance with the citation style required by the Sustainability journal (MDPI). Therefore, they are not arranged alphabetically but sequentially, as per journal guidelines.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision work has been completed with care and precision.