European Permanent Grasslands: A Systematic Review of Economic Drivers of Change, Including a Detailed Analysis of the Czech Republic, Spain, Sweden, and UK

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Transformation of ecosystems is one of the urgent modern problems. Permanent grasslands feature in the European rural landscape and are major agricultural production resource. Sound, sustainable management and conservation of these ecosystems is of great importance not only for Europe, but for the biosphere as a whole. From this point of view, this paper is relevant because it draws attention to an important issue. The theme of the paper corresponds to the theme of Land.

 Scientific novelty

The scientific novelty lies in identifying the main economic influences shaping the management and maintenance of permanent grasslands, and the risks and opportunities for the provision of a range of ecosystem services.

 Scientific and practical significance.

The research will be useful in addressing the fundamental challenges of conserving and managing Europe's permanent grasslands.

 Title

The title corresponds to the content.

 Introduction

In the introduction, the relevance of the study is well substantiated and the state of the problem is described. The research objectives are formulated clearly and clearly.

 Methodology approaches

The methodological approaches are described in detail. The authors used methods appropriate to the tasks set, including the PRISMA recommendations. Appropriately chosen methods allow us to consider the conclusions to be justified.

 Research results

The results are presented clearly and clearly. However, the design of the tables needs to be improved. This is especially true of the tables in the application. I got confused and didn't understand anything because of the design problems. The paper itself also needs careful editing as there are many typos and other errors in the design and presentation.

Conclusions follow from the results and are reasonable.  The paper will be of interest to a wide range of readers whose scientific interests are related to permanent grassland ecology. Despite the fact that English is not my native language, I read the paper with interest and had no difficulties in understanding.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their comments.

1. We have edited the paper further (please see uploaded copy labelled "track changes")
2. Tables 1 and 2 have been redesigned - specifically new headings have been added, and the layout has been changed. We think this is much clearer now. Further, we have deleted the supplementary tables which detail the searches conducted, and added the note in the methods "details of searchers applied can be obtained from the  from the corresponding author upon request". This ensures that the transparency of the search methods in retained   (and is available to the interested reader)  but that the inclusion if these tables does not distract from the main messages of the paper. 
3.  Figure 2  have been replaced by PNG a file. It is now clearer. We have also added further detail to the caption.  

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

Reviewing  your paper I decided to use three colours to my comments.

In green, you will find along the text some errors in paragraphs, final points missing, words missing, etc. Minor changes are needed.

In yellow, you will find some English corrections I think are needed (lines 324 and 325).

Finally, I have two major comments which are identified in blue (lines 35 and 600).

In line 35, I think it is not acceptable to refer to 2016. This was 7 years ago. There are much more accurate statistics. You can cite the source to contextualize and then look for the area now in the statistics.

In line 600, you state that “These results suggest that incentivization in the form of subsidies is important in determining changes in farmer decision-making, based on changes made in farming practices rather than results”. I don’t understand this sentence. I see no evidence that the subsidies based on farming practices are effective in what concerns the results; yes, they are effective on changing the practices, because farmers do what is needed to receive the subsidy, but what about the maintenance of permanent grasslands in good agronomic conditions? Do they always respond to practices in the same way? Is it guaranteed that the practices deliver the result? I think there is no evidence of these assumptions. Instead, if the subsidies pay the result, there will be a strong linkage between the result (maintenance of permanent grasslands in good agronomic condition) and the payment, if the link between the indicators chosen to verify the result and the result is well defined.

I would like your comment (and probably a text change) on both these situations.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The english is ok.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their comments. 

1. We have edited the paper further (please see uploaded copy labelled "track changes")

Reviewer's comment. In green, you will find along the text some errors in paragraphs, final points missing, words missing, etc. Minor changes are needed.

These have been actioned. (Please see attachment labelled "with track changes". 

In yellow, you will find some English corrections I think are needed (lines 324 and 325).

These have been corrected as per the reviewers comments.  (Please see attachment labelled "with track changes". 

Reviewer's comment. In line 35, I think it is not acceptable to refer to 2016. This was 7 years ago. There are much more accurate statistics. You can cite the source to contextualize and then look for the area now in the statistics..

Authors response. We have added the following as a footnote (footnote 1) in the text. 

[1] The most recent data is from 2022 for EU-27, with PG occupying 32% of the utilised agricultural area,

Eurostat. (2022). Utilised agricultural area by categories, Data Browser. [Online]. Available at

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tag00025/default/table?lang=en [Accessed January 2024].

Reviewer's comment. In line 600, you state that “These results suggest that incentivization in the form of subsidies is important in determining changes in farmer decision-making, based on changes made in farming practices rather than results”. I don’t understand this sentence. I see no evidence that the subsidies based on farming practices are effective in what concerns the results; yes, they are effective on changing the practices, because farmers do what is needed to receive the subsidy, but what about the maintenance of permanent grasslands in good agronomic conditions? Do they always respond to practices in the same way? Is it guaranteed that the practices deliver the result? I think there is no evidence of these assumptions. Instead, if the subsidies pay the result, there will be a strong linkage between the result (maintenance of permanent grasslands in good agronomic condition) and the payment, if the link between the indicators chosen to verify the result and the result is well defined.

Authors' response. We agree with the reviewer and have modified the text as follows. 

These results suggest that if the subsidies pay for results, there will be a strong linkage between the result (maintenance of permanent grasslands in good agronomic condition) and the payment, although this assumes that  if the link between the indicators chosen to verify the result and the result is well defined 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors! The topic discussed in the article is very important from a theoretical and practical point of view. However, it is practically impossible to solve it within the framework of a common agrarian policy (CAP). As correctly stated in the article, the main problem of permanent grasslands is low profitability. As a result, commercial enterprises must either abandon such land or intensify its use. Additionally, climatic conditions and the financial state of the EU member states are important factors. Based on this, before solving this problem, it is necessary to formulate a detailed classification of permanent grasslands, taking into account all of the above factors. And only after that create a support system for all the listed territories.

In this case, the research is unsystematic and does not provide an opportunity to optimally solve the problem.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their comments.

We have edited the paper further (please see uploaded copy labelled "track changes")

We have added the following comment at the end of the discussion in response to these. 

Finally, a problem of permanent grasslands is low profitability, and so land abandonment or increased intensification may result as a way to increase the economic viability. At te same time, climatic conditions (and changes in these) and the financial capacity of EU member states may influence the subsidies. As such, an important step in developing policy is the formulation of a detailed classification of PG, which takes into account taking into account all of economic viability of farms, climatic conditions (and climate change) an the financial capacity of EU member states to subsidize PG lands. These factors can the be taken into account in policy development.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

It is interesting work and thank you. You have some modifications in your manuscript review. you will be check the attachment page or your manuscript.

Do you know have some programs to make a review paper or not?

Why did you not use web_Of_Science ?

Modification:

1. The quality of the table and figures are not good.

2. Supplementary Tables were not shown in the text.

3. Figure 1 was not indicated in the text.

4. Check your new version of "land-template" please. 

Best regards ...

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their comments

1. We have revised the tables and figures
2. We have removed the additional tables in the supplementary files.   The reader is asked to contact the corresponding  author if they require information regarding the dates and times of the searches.
3. We have added reference to figure 1.
4. We have used the template provided for land. 

Reviewer 5 Report

The manuscript discusses a very topical and very important topic from the point of view of future sustainability.

The international team of authors provides an adequate overview of the European situation.

The thesis deals with 51 publications, but there are 111 publications in the literature. 51 theses met the criteria. To be lucky in the evening, e.g. list these 51 references in the material and method or in a separate appendix.

It analyzes the European system based on the analysis of four countries (Czech Republic, Spain, Sweden, UK). Perhaps it would be more fortunate to add one more addition to the title, based on a detailed analysis of 4 countries. It is almost impossible to carry out the entire European country-by-country analysis in the form of an article, but the results are very much needed.

In the Pannonian region, the analysis of farms was also carried out in the framework of an international project:

Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Elek, E., Balázs, K., Centeri, Cs., Falusi, E., Jeanneret, P., Penksza, K.,  Podmaniczky, L., Szalkovszki, O., Báldi A. (2013): Reply to reviewers' comments on MS „Earthworms, spiders and bees as indicators of habitat and management in a low-input farming region - a whole farm approach” Ecological Indicators 33: 111-120.ű

Pinke, Zs., Vári, Á. Tormáné, Kovács, E. (2022): Value transfer in economic valuation of ecosystem services – Some methodological challenges. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 56 Paper: 101443 , 2 p.

I fully support the publication of the manuscript.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the comments.

Reviewer's comment. Perhaps it would be more fortunate to add one more addition to the title, based on a detailed analysis of 4 countries..

Authors response: We have changed the title to

European permanent grasslands: a systematic review of economic drivers of change, including a detailed analysis of the Czech Republic, Spain, Sweden, and UK.

Reviewers comment. The thesis deals with 51 publications, but there are 111 publications in the literature. 51 theses met the criteria. To be lucky in the evening, e.g. list these 51 references in the material and method .

Authors response, We have added the following to the caption in figure 1. 

Included in the systematic review are articles 32, 33, 39, 53-101 in the reference list.

In response to the comments about the Pannonian region, we have added the following text and reference. 

Further to this, it is important to consider all PG areas and landscapes in this analysis, despite methodological difficulties in so doing [112].

112. Pinke, Z.L., Vári, Á. Kovács, E., 2022. Value transfer in economic valuation of ecosystem services–Some methodological challenges. Ecosystem Services, 56, pp.No-101443.