Analysis on the Development Mode of Leisure Agriculture Industrialization Based on General Equilibrium Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The premise for the manuscript seems suitable for the Land and of potential interest to the readers of the journal. I thank the author for presenting a paper, which adds some interesting insights into upgraded equilibrium model applied in leisure agriculture. Nonetheless, the structure of the manuscript should be rearranged because, at the present stage, it doesn’t flow well and it’s not easy to follow. The author disregarded the basic structure of the scientific manuscripts, e.g. there is no conclusion, and methodology and results are practically the same section of the paper (!?).
In addition, there are a few shortcomings that need to be resolved:
Abstract needs slight improvements. After a detailed description of the topic and suggested model, it is necessary to clarify the theoretical and/or practical implications in one or two sentences. Moreover, I would suggest adding a short piece of the study’s outcomes and short guidelines for the future instead of the current (quite general) last sentence.
1. Introduction: This section skips a basic explanation of the leisure agriculture terminology and moreover, study’s objective(s). The main limitation of the proposed research is the lack of the theoretical conceptualization of the study and the fact that conducted research provides only a limited contribution to the existing knowledge on leisure agriculture issues. Even by indicating the intention to build a two-sector general equilibrium model, there is still no clear picture of the projected research goal and proper citations supporting your research idea. Future readers need to recognize the background and clear aim of the manuscript in order to follow the research findings and accompanying conclusions.
2. Materials and methods: Considering the dominant methodological approach to the topic, the author gave a detailed and satisfactory clarifications of the two-sector general equilibrium model projection, involving short conclusions. However, the author should explain the research instrument, procedure, and data collecting in more detail. Even more, the lack of references in this part of the paper is quite noticeable.
3. Discussion: This section intends to replace the concluding remarks of the study, which is not advisable. If so, the proper interpretation is omitted, while it is really necessary to shed more light on the scientific significance of the paper, which isn’t clear at this stage. Also, the limitations of the research and proposal for future research are not highlighted, which makes the obvious gap to the concluding remarks. Moreover, how does this upgraded the reports from other research, given in the Introduction and Methodology? I think this just needs several sentences, with those references repeated (the lack of references in this section is also evident).
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Abstract needs slight improvements. After a detailed description of the topic and suggested model, it is necessary to clarify the theoretical and/or practical implications in one or two sentences. Moreover, I would suggest adding a short piece of the study’s outcomes and short guidelines for the future instead of the current (quite general) last sentence.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable comments! After communicating with the co-authors, we accept your valuable advice and revise the summary. The revised content is shown in the paper.
Point 2: Introduction: This section skips a basic explanation of the leisure agriculture terminology and moreover, study’s objective(s). The main limitation of the proposed research is the lack of the theoretical conceptualization of the study and the fact that conducted research provides only a limited contribution to the existing knowledge on leisure agriculture issues. Even by indicating the intention to build a two-sector general equilibrium model, there is still no clear picture of the projected research goal and proper citations supporting your research idea. Future readers need to recognize the background and clear aim of the manuscript in order to follow the research findings and accompanying conclusions.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your valuable comments! After communicating with the co-authors, we accept your valuable advice, explain the concept and connotation of leisure agriculture, and adjust the introduction. The revised content is shown in the paper.
Point 3: Materials and methods: Considering the dominant methodological approach to the topic, the author gave a detailed and satisfactory clarifications of the two-sector general equilibrium model projection, involving short conclusions. However, the author should explain the research instrument, procedure, and data collecting in more detail. Even more, the lack of references in this part of the paper is quite noticeable.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your valuable comments! After communicating with the co-authors, we accept your valuable advice and add some general equilibrium section references to the literature. The revised content is shown in the paper.
Point 4: Discussion: This section intends to replace the concluding remarks of the study, which is not advisable. If so, the proper interpretation is omitted, while it is really necessary to shed more light on the scientific significance of the paper, which isn’t clear at this stage. Also, the limitations of the research and proposal for future research are not highlighted, which makes the obvious gap to the concluding remarks. Moreover, how does this upgraded the reports from other research, given in the Introduction and Methodology? I think this just needs several sentences, with those references repeated (the lack of references in this section is also evident).
Response 4: Thank you very much for your valuable comments! After communicating with the co-authors, we accept your suggestion, delete the original discussion part and rewrite the conclusion part. The revised content is shown in the paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Analysis on the development mode of leisure agriculture industrialization based on general equilibrium model” seeks to use a general equilibrium model to discuss how the industrialization of leisure agriculture can promote the economic competitiveness of rural areas. The research gap is well established in the introduction but I am struggling to understand the contribution to the literature or how the authors reached their conclusion with a purely theoretical approach. Furthermore, the literature suggests that many of assumptions in the model are inaccurate (see below for specific examples). I think this theoretical approach fails to capture the complexity of leisure agriculture or significantly contribute to literature.
Major issues
· This article would benefit from following a typical article structure (e.g., methods, results, discussion, and conclusion section).
· Because of the many assumptions the model requires, it does not help understand the synergies between leisure agriculture and the agricultural production sector. See below for the specific assumptions not supported by the literature.
· Add a definition of leisure agriculture to better delineate the scope of the research or other concepts introduced (e.g., Dutch Disease Effect or Hamilton function). Maybe some of the assumptions would make sense with a very narrow definition.
Minor Issues
· Check spelling, e.g., article needed on line 75, ‘the’ market economy
· Define newly introduced concepts
· Lines require citation 475, 541, 512
Introduction
The research gap is well established.
Materials and Methods
2.2.1 Household lifetime utility function: Assumption that traded goods are labor intensive while non-traded goods (leisure agriculture) are capital intensive: agritourism is labor intensive and there is a growing concern about how labor shortages will impact countries like the USA with a strong agritourism industry (Salzwedel, 2022).
2.2.2. Demand function and market clearing: It fails to capture the complexities of agritourists motivations. Line 59 reads “Assuming that external tourists only have demand for non-traded commodities (mainly refers to tourists’ consumption of leisure agricultural products and incidental consumption of local infrastructure construction)” is not supported by the literature. Leisure agriculture and consumption of agricultural products is intimately linked (Kline et al., 2016), being experiential consumption of agricultural products one of core attractors of leisure agriculture (Quadri-Felitti & Fiore, 2012), and even promoting the consumption of agricultural products (Brune et al., 2021)
2.3.1. Construction of Hamilton function in closed economy
Another assumption related to the impact of leisure agriculture on infrastructure which is supposed to be positive is also highly doubtful. “Because the development of leisure agriculture has a positive impact on the infrastructure construction sector, and the factor intensity is higher than that of agriculture and agricultural processing industry”. One of the advantages of agritourism is that enables generating additional income by repurposing existing farm assets (land, labor, machinery, and infrastructure such as unused barns) that might be underutilized or used in some seasons. Thus, farms with agritourism are better able to manage seasonal fluctuations of labor and cash flow and expands employment opportunities for family members (Barbieri et al., 2008; Tew & Barbieri, 2012). This assumption is also doubtful as many offerings in leisure agriculture require little infrastructure (e.g., U-pick, corn maze, Christmas trees farms) which is another reason why it is an appealing activity for farms to venture in.
Discussion
Example of why the conclusion is not sound: The assessment concludes that it should be market-based, but the literature it’s advocating for moving away from merely economic-based indicators to incorporate the positive impacts leisure agriculture provides like female empowerment, educational value, conservation of natural resources and cultural patrimony among other things (Barbieri et al., 2008; Halim et al., 2020; Tew & Barbieri, 2012).
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Add a definition of leisure agriculture to better delineate the scope of the research or other concepts introduced (e.g., Dutch Disease Effect or Hamilton function). Maybe some of the assumptions would make sense with a very narrow definition.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable comments! After communicating with the co-authors, we accept your valuable advice and explain the concept and connotation of leisure agriculture、Dutch Disease Effect and Hamilton function. The revised content is shown in the paper.
Point 2: Some Minor Issues
Response 2: Thank you very much for your valuable comments! We have made some detailed corrections to the article. In addition, it needs to be noted that the content of the 475 line is the derivation of the article, and there is no good literature on this part of the content to be detailed
Point 3: 2.2.1 Household lifetime utility function: Assumption that traded goods are labor intensive while non-traded goods (leisure agriculture) are capital intensive: agritourism is labor intensive and there is a growing concern about how labor shortages will impact countries like the USA with a strong agritourism industry (Salzwedel, 2022).
Response 3: Thank you very much for your valuable comments! We assume that the leisure agriculture sector and the infrastructure sector have the same factor intensity. and , non-tradable goods industries are (relatively) capital intensive, while tradable goods industries are labor intensive. If it's and , the other way around.
Point 4: 2.2.2. Demand function and market clearing: It fails to capture the complexities of agritourists motivations. Line 59 reads “Assuming that external tourists only have demand for non-traded commodities (mainly refers to tourists’ consumption of leisure agricultural products and incidental consumption of local infrastructure construction)” is not supported by the literature. Leisure agriculture and consumption of agricultural products is intimately linked (Kline et al., 2016), being experiential consumption of agricultural products one of core attractors of leisure agriculture (Quadri-Felitti & Fiore, 2012), and even promoting the consumption of agricultural products (Brune et al., 2021)
Response 4: Thank you very much for your valuable comments! Leisure agricultural products belong to the non-trade sector and need to be consumed locally. Although tourists have consumption demand for agricultural products, most of the agricultural products are consumed locally, and the commodities can be purchased in cities.
Point 5: 2.3.1. Construction of Hamilton function in closed economy. Another assumption related to the impact of leisure agriculture on infrastructure which is supposed to be positive is also highly doubtful. “Because the development of leisure agriculture has a positive impact on the infrastructure construction sector, and the factor intensity is higher than that of agriculture and agricultural processing industry”. One of the advantages of agritourism is that enables generating additional income by repurposing existing farm assets (land, labor, machinery, and infrastructure such as unused barns) that might be underutilized or used in some seasons. Thus, farms with agritourism are better able to manage seasonal fluctuations of labor and cash flow and expands employment opportunities for family members (Barbieri et al., 2008; Tew & Barbieri, 2012). This assumption is also doubtful as many offerings in leisure agriculture require little infrastructure (e.g., U-pick, corn maze, Christmas trees farms) which is another reason why it is an appealing activity for farms to venture in.
Response 5: Thank you very much for your valuable comments! First, agri-tourism can generate income from existing agricultural assets such as infrastructure, but the development of leisure agriculture will boost income in the infrastructure sector. Second, most of the goods and services in recreational agriculture require infrastructure, such as corn mazes and access roads for the entertainment of Christmas tree farms.
Point 6: Example of why the conclusion is not sound: The assessment concludes that it should be market-based, but the literature it’s advocating for moving away from merely economic-based indicators to incorporate the positive impacts leisure agriculture provides like female empowerment, educational value, conservation of natural resources and cultural patrimony among other things (Barbieri et al., 2008; Halim et al., 2020; Tew & Barbieri, 2012).
Response 6: Thank you very much for your valuable comments! We've already rewritten the conclusion. The revised content is shown in the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The author took up an interesting issue concerning the analysis of the way of developing recreational agriculture in the context of industrialization based on the general equilibrium model.
What is missing here is how the author defines "recreational farming". Is it the same as agritourism?
The weakness of these studies is that they are based solely on a theoretical model with 3 variables. In the case of tourism and recreation, such an approach is not a good idea, because the development of the tourism and recreation function of rural areas is also closely dependent on many other determinants and conditions that are not mentioned here. The basic elements of tourist attractiveness (which has the greatest impact on the development of tourism) include tourist values (both natural and anthropogenic), tourist infrastructure, accessibility by transport, creativity of tourist service providers and many other issues. An analysis of the development of recreational agriculture without taking them into account is wrong and incomplete.
In some of the 6 conclusions, statements diverging from reality are formulated. Moreover, the entire "3. Discussion" section contains conclusions and recommendations that have no connection with the research and analysis conducted in the earlier sections. In this case, therefore, they make no sense, because they can be formulated without research. The discussion and conclusions should be about research.
I suggest that the purpose of the article be clarified and indicate why the statistical analyzes were limited to only three variables - despite the fact that the development of recreational agriculture is influenced by many more variables. You can also mention it in "Limitations", which is missing here.
It is also necessary to completely redraft the "Discussion" section. Also, I feel like the "Discussion" section should be called "Conclusions". Discussion is about discussing your own results and comparing them to the results of other researchers. There's no such thing here. There are only conclusions, so the section should be called "Conclusions".
Other shortcomings have been marked in the text in the form of comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: What is missing here is how the author defines "recreational farming". Is it the same as agritourism?
Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable comments! After communicating with the co-authors, we accept your valuable advice and explain the concept and connotation of leisure agriculture. The revised content is shown in the paper.
Point 2: The weakness of these studies is that they are based solely on a theoretical model with 3 variables. In the case of tourism and recreation, such an approach is not a good idea, because the development of the tourism and recreation function of rural areas is also closely dependent on many other determinants and conditions that are not mentioned here. The basic elements of tourist attractiveness (which has the greatest impact on the development of tourism) include tourist values (both natural and anthropogenic), tourist infrastructure, accessibility by transport, creativity of tourist service providers and many other issues. An analysis of the development of recreational agriculture without taking them into account is wrong and incomplete.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your valuable comments! We mainly investigate the influence of variable factors. Traffic accessibility is a fixed factor, and the creative ability of tourism service providers is not easy to be directly measured. Of course, there are some limitations in considering only three variables, which are pointed out in the conclusion of this paper.
Point 3: In some of the 6 conclusions, statements diverging from reality are formulated. Moreover, the entire "3. Discussion" section contains conclusions and recommendations that have no connection with the research and analysis conducted in the earlier sections. In this case, therefore, they make no sense, because they can be formulated without research. The discussion and conclusions should be about research.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your valuable comments! After communicating with the co-authors, we have revised some of our conclusions. The revised content is shown in the paper.
Point 4: I suggest that the purpose of the article be clarified and indicate why the statistical analyzes were limited to only three variables - despite the fact that the development of recreational agriculture is influenced by many more variables. You can also mention it in "Limitations", which is missing here.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your valuable comments! After communicating with the co-authors, we have made a supplementary explanation in the "limitation" in the conclusion. The revised content is shown in the paper.
Point 5: Other shortcomings have been marked in the text in the form of comments.
Response 5: Thank you very much for your valuable comments! After communicating with the co-authors, we have revised the content of your comment. The revised content is shown in the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have adequately addressed most of the issues raised in my review. The changes made are clear and adequately address the issues raised and I think that the paper is ready to move forward. Thanks.
Author Response
Thanks for your affirmation and valuable comments, we have checked the spelling of the article and made some minor modifications.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
