Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The author is tried to focus on important topic but the presentation of sections in papers need major changes before acceptance.

Abstract. 1. Please clear your hypothesis.

                2. The first sentence of the abstract need re-write (their importance)

            Line 23-25: Please revise it.

The presentation of Introduction is not correct, please delete sub-heading from introduction, and arrange this section in total of three paragraphs.

Materials and methods section is very short. not acceptable, Please write briefly.

I not found any statistics on your figures, please add it.

Please make conclusion in one paragraph.

Further, Please update citations, avoid more than 10years old citation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment, reviewer 1

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This review brings good potential for more deep scientific paper with important subject. However, several structural changes should be made in order to improve scientific soundness:

1. Comparison with other countries here means actually with two: Norway and Switzerland. Comparison should be made also with some EU countries and with more clear indicators. Or this goal shouldn't be mentioned as one of four main goals.

2. Farmers opinion should be more clearly presented according to environmental, economic, social and other factors. Authors should give more of their critical point of view.

3. Recommended policy measures need to be adressed in the context of Green Deal, EU members, current policy and future demands, not only according to Sweedish current situation and needs.

4. Overall, authors should add chapter with well-reasoned approach in order to assess data and findings in literature. I recommend using tables/diagrams in order to clearly present authors ideas based on existing information.

This is more narrative review written in an easily readible form, but to improve scientific soundness it is necessary to provide new insights.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The manuscript is structured according to the typical sections of scientific papers, but, in my opinion it was not well conceived and presented as a research paper.

The Authors stated that they “aimed to evaluate the various factors that determine to what extent cattle and sheep graze semi-natural grasslands in Sweden, instead of more productive land, and what this means for biodiversity in such habitats”.

The innovativeness and contribution to science of the study are not stated, while the paper deals with a topic of a great relevance for scientists, farmers, decision makers, evaluators and other stakeholders involved in the design and implementation of environmental and territorial policies, including the Common Agricultural Policy (I and II Pillars).

I suggest clarifying the focus of the study and identifying relevant research questions for the scientific literature, by identifying research gaps. My feeling is that it is a hybrid work between meta-evaluation, synthesis of previous evaluations and some elaborations “from monitoring data and from literature” (please see line 611). There are many scientific or technical references which may be helpful (e.g. those available at the following links: https://wmich.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/u58/2015/The_Metaevaluation_Imperative.pdf;

https://www.oecd.org/derec/denmark/36478191.pdf)

In any case, it is suggested that you review the theoretical framework of the work and modify the structure of the paper accordingly, i.e. by better distinguishing the background and results of your original work.

The “Material and methods” section is a critical deficiency, as the research design is missing. The content of the section refers to data sources. From a methodological point of view, it would be necessary to add a clear presentation of the criteria (effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, efficiency) used in the evaluation of policies, including agri-environmental payments for biodiversity.

In this respect, the paper is silent on point 3 mentioned in lines 84-85. The policy measures are not described and other valuable information is missing (Were the agri-environmental payments made under the I or II Pillar? What was the programming period? 2007-2013 or 2014-2022? Were they transitional CAP payments? Were they annual or multi-annual schemes?).

When judging the existing evaluations, did you consider how many years had elapsed between the implementation of the intervention and the time of evaluation? Were there attribution gap problems?

I also suggest rewriting the results after improving the theoretical framework and methodological sections.

The conclusions should be improved.

My other suggestions are to refer to the following points:

·       How was the survey mentioned in line 100 carried out?

·       Which plan is mentioned in line 320?

·       The sentences in lines 250-253 and 292-297 are too vague (please explain).

·       Are the process-oriented studies mentioned in line 288 process evaluations? If so, they would deserve a fuller description, as in many cases the lack of tailoring of public interventions is likely to be due to inappropriate selection criteria.

·       Please check the correspondence between what is said in lines 364-367 and Figure 2.

·       In Figure 2 and in Figure 3 the histogram for “AES” is missing.

·       Does what is expressed in lines 404-405 mean that the policy was ineffective? or did the policy accelerate what would have happened anyway but over several years?

·       Which is “the lower limit of farm size within the agri-environmental payment system” mentioned in line 640?

In addition, according to instructions for authors:

-       The abstract should be include the Background (please, highlight the purpose of the study) and Methods (please, briefly describe the main methods or treatments used).

-       The Discussion section is combined with Results, but the findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest possible context and limitations of the work highlighted. Future research directions may also be mentioned.

-       References must be numbered in the order they appear in the text (including table captions and figure legends).

-       All Figures, Schemes and Tables should have a short explanatory title and caption. Any further information or explanation should be included in the text.

 

Author Response

Response to comments from reviewer 3

Please note: The comments from reviewer 3 was made based on the version of the manuscript submitted 24 July, not the revised manuscript from 20 August.

The reviewer’s Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Point 1: The innovativeness and contribution to science of the study are not stated.

 

Response 1. The aim and focus of the study has been more clearly stated by addition of texts in the second half of the introduction (line 80-95) in the newly revised version.

 

Point 2. I suggest clarifying the focus of the study and identifying relevant research questions for the scientific literature, by identifying research gaps. My feeling is that it is a hybrid work between meta-evaluation, synthesis of previous evaluations and some elaborations “from monitoring data and from literature”.

 

Response 2. Text was added in the abstract and in the introduction to explain more clearly the focus and research questions of the study.

 

Point 3. Better distinguishing the background and results of your original work.

 

Response 3. More information on the background in relation to our original work was added to the introduction and abstract.

 

Point 4. The “Material and methods” section is a critical deficiency, as the research design is missing. The content of the section refers to data sources. From a methodological point of view, it would be necessary to add a clear presentation of the criteria (effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, efficiency) used in the evaluation of policies, including agri-environmental payments for biodiversity.

 

Response 4. Since the aim of the study was not to perform an independent evaluation of the policies, but rather to exemplify and highlight conclusions from existing evaluations of policy measures, the M&M section focus on the cases where we ourselves have made additional analyses of available data. In the new section on weaknesses and future research, we also describe why a strict evaluation procedure including both economy, attitudes and management effects on biodiversity is premature.

 

Point 5. The paper is silent on point 3 mentioned in lines 84-85. The policy measures are not described and other valuable information is missing (Were the agri-environmental payments made under the I or II Pillar? What was the programming period? 2007-2013 or 2014-2022? Were they transitional CAP payments? Were they annual or multi-annual schemes?).

 

Response 5. This information was added in the beginning of paragraph 2.1. in the new revised version.

 

Point 6. When judging the existing evaluations, did you consider how many years had elapsed between the implementation of the intervention and the time of evaluation? Were there attribution gap problems?

 

Response 6. See above. The survey of farmers’ attitudes that was performed in 2017 refer to their commitments for the ongoing programme period (2014-2020), and also the monitoring data (2015-2020) and the majority of Swedish evaluation reports were also from just this period. Number of year that had elapsed = 0.

 

Point 7. The conclusions should be improved.

 

Response 7. The conclusions has been revised, with a more clear structure according to the four main aims stated in the introduction.

 

Point 8. How was the survey mentioned in line 100 carried out?

 

Response 8. I assume that this comment refers to line 300 in the version of 24 July, rather than line 100? In the revised version of 20 August, this paragraph occurs in the Materials and methods in line 91-103. Now, this methods description has been elaborated in paragraph 2.1

 

Point 9. Which plan is mentioned in line 320?

 

Response 9. This refers to the design of the monitoring programme, and the word ”plan” was potentially misleading. This has now been clarified.

 

Point 10. The sentences in lines 250-253 and 292-297 are too vague (please explain).

 

Response 10. In both paragraphs, additional text was added with examples and more detailed reference to the implementation of CAP payments.

 

Point 11. Are the process-oriented studies mentioned in line 288 process evaluations? If so, they would deserve a fuller description.

 

Response 11. Our notion of ”process-oriented” in this context refers to the perceived advantage of taking into account ecological processes that determine the requirements and outcome of management to actual biodiversity, which we believe is necessary to increase efficiency of policy measures in relation to environmental variation. Our intention was not to evaluate the process of evaluation in itself (meta-evaluation), as we understand is the focus of the reviewer in this case. Some clarifying text was added to the paragraph.

 

Point 12. Please check the correspondence between what is said in lines 364-367 and Figure 2.

 

Response 12. More text has been added in the text and in the legends to clarify how the figures 2 and 3 should be interpreted. See also response to point 13, below.

 

Point 13. In Figure 2 and in Figure 3 the histogram for “AES” is missing.

 

Response 13. This comment is unclear or may have misunderstood the figures 2 and 3. In these figures ”SV” and ”GV” are the main two AES forms for management of grassland. For the bars ”NP”, the alternative ”all land” is not relevant, since it refers to farms that did not apply for any AES for grasslands. These are the alternatives available from the questionnaire, which means that we have no other options than to use them as they are. We have added some text in the legends to clarify that these categories refer to AES payments and that the results refer to what the farmers have applied for (or not).

 

Point 14. Does what is expressed in lines 404-405 mean that the policy was ineffective? or did the policy accelerate what would have happened anyway but over several years?

 

Response 14. Further comments with reference to the interpretation of this result by the Swedish Board of Agriculture was added to the text. Also the continued text and the results in figure 5 complements this statement by adding more details to the farmers’ response to AES rules.

 

Point 15. Which is “the lower limit of farm size within the agri-environmental payment system” mentioned in line 640?

 

Response 15. This information was a mistake and has been deleted, and the paragraph was slightly reformulated.

 

Point 16. According to instructions for authors, the abstract should be include the Background (please, highlight the purpose of the study) and Methods (please, briefly describe the main methods or treatments used).

 

Response 16. More information on the background and the purpose of the study, as well as the methods for comparison based on literature and monitoring data for evaluation, was added to the abstract.

 

Point 17. According to instructions for authors, the findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest possible context and limitations of the work highlighted. Future research directions may also be mentioned.

 

Response 17. A section with limitations and suggestions for future was added before the conclusions section.

 

Point 18. According to instructions for authors, references must be numbered in the order they appear in the text (including table captions and figure legends).

 

Response 18. In the revised version of 20 August, all references were again checked so that they were correctly numbered in the order they appear. Yet another such check was made for the latest submission.

 

Point 19. According to instructions for authors, all Figures, Schemes and Tables should have a short explanatory title and caption. Any further information or explanation should be included in the text.

 

Response 19. The titles and captions of Figure 6-9 have been shortened and in-depth explanation only presented in the text.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The revised version of this articles has been significantly improved and accepted for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

After authors' response and improvements the paper can be accepted.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Thank you for your attention to my comments. I would just like to point out a couple of typos:

- The correct paragraph number in line 170 is 2.2;

-There are two full stops in line 759;

-Please check "borth" in line 805.

Finally, please check the way you have numbered the references in the text.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study materials are interesting and has a significant role in the field of agriculture. However I feel some important issue which need to be fixed prior to the acceptance of this article. Below are my major changes

1. The introduction need to add more relevant text with recent reference.

2. Avoid bullet format in introduction.

Heading 2 and 3 are not good, try to add attractive title for journal reader, and which can improve the quality and presentation of your work.

Figure 1 ,2, and 3 X-axis words are very complex, try to add some short and explain it in the figure legend.

Same comment for Figure 4 and 5 y-Axis

Table 1 is not correct it is just like text presentation. Table materials must be short and informative.

I suggest to add color in the study area map (figure 6)

Revise all units in this format, such as kg ha^-1 (Table 3)

In this study,  add materials and method section.

Conclusion is just like a summary, Please make it short, to the point.