Current Status of the Community-Supported Agriculture Model in Poland—Exploring Key Areas of Sustainable Operations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article examines the current status of the community supported agriculture (CSA) model in Poland, systematically analyzing the number of CSA farms, their mode of operation, consumer participation, and the challenges they face. The article's topic selection is relevant, and it provides an in-depth study of the application of the CSA model in Poland, as well as policy recommendations drawing on international experience. The research methodology is reasonable, the data are detailed, and the discussion section has certain theoretical contributions and practical guidance. However, there are still the following aspects that need further improvement.
First, the article uses in-depth interviews (in-depth interviews), but it does not fully explain the selection criteria of the interviewees, the content of the interviews and their coding and analyzing methods. It is recommended that the methodology section be supplemented with sample interview questions and a description of how the data were analyzed (e.g., using thematic analysis or a coding framework).
Second, the paper surveys 13 CSA farms, but lacks a discussion of the representativeness of these samples. For example, are these farms reflective of CSA in Poland as a whole? It is recommended to add a description of the criteria for the selection of CSA farms and to discuss potential sample bias.
Third, the article points out that actual participation of CSA consumers is low, but does not analyze the reasons for this in depth. It is recommended to explore why CSA consumers are not actively involved in farm management or labor, and to provide more specific suggestions on how to increase consumer participation.
Fourth, it is recommended that consistency in terminology be maintained throughout the text. For example, the term “CSA farms” is sometimes used and “CSA groups” is sometimes used, and the distinction needs to be clarified and defined when it first appears.
Fifth, the article cites CSA data from other European countries, such as the Czech Republic (23 CSA farms), Germany (467 CSA farms) and France (more than 2000 CSA groups). It is recommended to further analyze the reasons for the relatively slow development of CSA in Poland, such as policy support, market acceptance, and consumer awareness.

Author Response

Comment 1: The article uses in-depth interviews (in-depth interviews), but it does not fully explain the selection criteria of the interviewees, the content of the interviews and their coding and analyzing methods. It is recommended that the methodology section be supplemented with sample interview questions and a description of how the data were analyzed (e.g., using thematic analysis or a coding framework).

Response 1: Thank you for this comment as it made me realise that the article doesn’t present explicitly the analysing method and selection criteria of the interviewees. Therefore, section 3.1 Key area was complemented with additional information about the selection criteria (already mapped CSA farm in Poland that fulfil the criteria of a CSA model described in the European Declaration of CSA ). We also included the full questionnaire layout in the supplementary material. We hope that this helps to make the study more transparent and inspiring for others. In terms of the use of data analysis, we did not follow a thematic analysis nor coding framework. Instead, we did a direct interpretation of the text of the responses. The only thematic diversification was done about questions and the themes are presented in the article. We acknowledge that the coding framework is very useful in the network analysis of complex systems, and definitely food system is a complex system. However, this is our aim for more future research in which we would like to include more actors in an urban food system. The same with the analysing method of responses: we gave an example of open and closed questions providing the way the answers were analysed.

 

Comment 2: The paper surveys 13 CSA farms, but lacks a discussion of the representativeness of these samples. For example, are these farms reflective of CSA in Poland as a whole? It is recommended to add a description of the criteria for the selection of CSA farms and to discuss potential sample bias

Response 2: Thank you for this comment as it made me realise that the article doesn’t present explicitly and might have not been straightforward enough to the reader. Therefore, I added an explanation that all farms naming themselves as CSA Farm fulfil the criteria presented in the basic document for a CSA community in Europe: the European CSA Declaration. In Poland there is not much culture and good experience from history to gather under a common banner and act together for a positive cause. We are better known culturally for the model of organising against. Hence, there is a risk that unidentified groups are operating under the CSA model but not using this name or looking for other groups.

Commet 3: the article points out that the actual participation of CSA consumers is low, but does not analyze the reasons for this in depth. It is recommended to explore why CSA consumers are not actively involved in farm management or labour and to provide more specific suggestions on how to increase consumer participation

Response 3: The questionnaire was only devoted for Farmers and no one of eaters haven’t been asked. To analyse in depth the very low commitment from the CSA consumers it would be recommended to know their perspective as well. However, based on the discussion with farmers, emerge quite clear answer for that issue. Foremost the CSA groups are run and coordinated by farmers themselves. Organising work on the farm for eaters or involving them into farms life it’s an extra task. Hence they don’t cover it. On the other hand most of the farmers event don’t want to open their farm to the public – during the season they are really overwhelmed with work, out of the season there is little fun on the countryside. One suggestion that might work is to tighten cooperation between farmers and exchange their own experience in a way to  inspire each other- how to take advantage of the community potential. That exchange might create higher trust among members and asking for help could become acceptable for Farmer. That might be a win-win solution for both sides of a CSA community. This reflection also with a suggestion for further research was included in manuscript.

Comment 4: It is recommended that consistency in terminology be maintained throughout the text. For example, the term “CSA farms” is sometimes used and “CSA groups” is sometimes used, and the distinction needs to be clarified and defined when it first appears.

Response 4: Thank you for this comment as it made me realized that the article might introduce confusion between the CSA community and the CSA farm. Therefore, I have thoroughly revised the manuscript and where it was needed I’ve changed the used typology and also added explicit information, that one CSA Farm provides food to several CSA groups. Another notion is a question of a member – is it an individual or a family? Hence we added a clear explanation between these three notions.

Comment 5: the article cites CSA data from other European countries, such as the Czech Republic (23 CSA farms), Germany (467 CSA farms) and France (more than 2000 CSA groups). It is recommended to further analyze the reasons for the relatively slow development of CSA in Poland, such as policy support, market acceptance, and consumer awareness.

Response 5: Thank you for that comment. In this work, I focus on describing Polish CSA Farm from the quantitative perspective (how many they are? How big is the surface of arable land? How many families could have access to their harvest?) and from the qualitative perspective as well: what is the motivation of a farmer? What level of involvement between the farmer and the group of eaters is there? Where does the farmer find support in the CSA journey? As it is explained in the section 2.Materials, point 2.2 Questionnaire the interview is based on a CSA census from 2023 lead by URGENCI.  To answer the questions you bring here in the comment there would be a need to analyse also motivation of eaters and to make a brief review of existing objective and subjective obstacles to run such a demanding model of access to food. However that question pops up regularly while discussing about a Polish CSA community, and the first answer that arises is that the cultural and historical background in Poland wasn’t most favourable for long-term commitment based on trust and transparency. Polish farmers were thought to be self-sufficient and social competencies as good communication and interpersonal skills are not the stronger side of our culture. The same goes with finances – only farmers know how much she or he earned or lost at the end of a season. Presenting the total cost of a farm, including fair and decent wages is a cultural obstacle. Hence, even if the farmer was asked about the percentage of the total family budget covered by a CSA model income, no one of farmers explained at the end of the year to their group the finances. Only one farmer is about to propose a bidding round for eaters to establish a cost for one season.  In conclusion, the remark about giving possible reasons why the CSA model is so difficult to implement in Poland has been taken into account by elaborating on this topic in the concluding section, as well as this aspect has been given as one of the possible topics to be elaborated on in future research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is good article, for me English is fine.

Author Response

Thank you for your work in reviewing the manuscript. Currently, the article has been revised according to the comments of all reviewers and I have also included a file for interviewing farmers. 
Once again, thank you for your efforts and time,
sincerely,
Monika Onyzkiewicz

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is interesting and necessary. After minor clarifications, it is suitable for publication.
Namely, I would ask the authors to provide more detailed general descriptions of Polish agriculture, natural conditions and social background in the Material chapter. A reader who is not familiar with this should be able to find out about it immediately from the manuscript. For example, how large are the average Polish farms; are there any trends, e.g. the disappearance of small-scale agriculture in some regions of Poland; what are the natural conditions in Poland; what is the average purchasing power of the people, etc. What is the profitability of local agriculture in Poland; what are the most commonly produced vegetables, fruits, crops, etc. in agricultural production. What are the most commonly raised farm animals, etc. How many organic farms are there in Poland in general and how are they distributed and how many local organic products are available in shops today?

Author Response

Thank you for your work in reviewing the manuscript. Currently, the article has been revised according to the comments of all reviewers and I have also included a file for interviewing farmers. 
Once again, thank you for your efforts and time,
sincerely,
Monika Onyszkiewicz

Comment 1: Provide more detailed general descriptions of Polish agriculture, natural conditions and social background in the Material chapter

Response1: This is very true. Thank you for not giving up on this paper. I have thoroughly revised the Material chapter adding the missing general description of the Polish context for the agricultural environment including the size of an average farm (making the difference between conventional and ecological), and the trend towards the development of organic farming. I also completed the chapter giving the picture of the Polish food landscape and what the organic food market looks like (tendencies among consumers).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions are good and I agree to publish the manuscript.