Reconversion of Agri-Food Production Systems and Deagrarianization in Spain: The Case of Cantabria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article discusses de-agriculturalization. The information used in the discussion in the article is detailed, and on this basis, it can be further polished:

1. The research questions of the article can be further focused. For example, deagrarianisation is a key concept, and how to sort out the development process of this concept is a key step. At the same time, comparing the actual situation in Spain and finding out the core issues of deagrarianisation will also make readers more interested. In my opinion, the current line 174-188 expresses the research questions relatively loosely.

2. Argument organization can be more directed to the analytical framework required by the core issue. Existing frameworks for sharing seem to be more like reports, centered around specific issues. Proposals point to a conceptual development towards deagrarianisation, a reorientation.

3. There are too many tables, which need to be further streamlined and pointed to the concerns of the discussion. There are very detailed data arguments in the paper. I believe the writing team put a lot of experience into it, which presents readers with a wealth of detail. However, in order to further complete the link between experience and concepts, it is necessary to further summarize the contents of the data and tables.

The language expression is fluent, and it is recommended to further improve the standardization of the form.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, in an attached file I send you my response to your suggestions and indications, which I thank you for and which I have tried to attend to with the conviction that they will contribute to improving my article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The structure (sections) of the article does not meet the requirements of the journal. The manuscript should be reorganized into: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion; and Conclusions (or Discussion and Conclusions). References should not be cited in the abstract.
2. In a separate section or subsection, I recommend preparing an overview of the state and dynamics of agriculture in the  Cantabria region in the long term.

2. The results of the empirical analysis of only one CAP measure - milk quotas - are described and conclusions are drawn about its effect on the deagrarianisation of the Cantabria region. Why has the impact of other policy measures not been examined? For example, the Less Favoured Areas measure, one of the goals of which was to stop/slow down the withdrawal of rural residents from agricultural activities and prevent land abandonment. Or another measure - Decoupled Direct Payments to farmers, which were decoupled from production and paid according to previous historical production results, and which were gradually reduced annually). What is the effect of direct payments on deagrarianisation (especially the disappearance of small farms), when the majority of these payments go to large farms, while small farms receive small amounts that are insignificant for investments in agriculture? 
3. It is not clear what effect input and output prices (i.e. input costs and prices paid for livestock products) could have on deagrarianisation (subsection 3.2.4), or rather there is none. I will note that, on the one hand, real price indices should be examined, not nominal prices; and, on the other hand, the relationship between both price (input and output) growth indices should be examined. Which ones increased more during the periods under consideration? I will note that Table 5 is not needed when the data of the later period is not visualized in the table or graphically. I recommend using the traditional terms (AWU - annual work unit, UAA - utilised agricultural area), which are used in agricultural statistics and EU documents, especially since the article analyses statistical data. 
4. All graphs are of poor quality and need to be corrected (the text is blurred, and in many places, it is written in a very small font. The text of the legends presented in graphs 12 and 15-16 is impossible to see. Graphs (especially 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, 11-13) are disproportionately large in height. I also suggest unifying the graphic design (height and width, colours, text style, font size, etc.).
5. Even though the title of the article indicates that the case of the Cantabria region is empirically analysed, the names of all figures and tables should be written in the same order - to mention or not to mention the name of the region. It is recorded only in the title of the first picture.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, in an attached file I send you my response to your suggestions and indications, which I thank you for and which I have tried to attend to with the conviction that they will contribute to improving my article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx