Investigating How Policies and Other Conditions Contribute to Influencing Agricultural GHG Emissions in the EU

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please, see attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please, see attached PDF.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We extensively reviewed the manuscript based on your reviews and others. We believe the readability of the manuscript improved considerably and we hope it is now mature enough for publication in Land.

We addressed all your suggestions in this new version, including references to data sources (included in table 1), reordering of sections, further explanation of the methodology used, rewording of most of the sentences used in the former version to improve readability.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Please find below some suggestions. 

Abstract – What is the hypothesis of the study? You only described the objective.

Line 42-44 – Too short paragraph. Avoid these types of too-short paragraphs.

Line 45 – Add something about methane and nitrous oxide.

Line 47-48 – too general statement. To be more specific, which kinds of pests and diseases?

Line 48 -49 – What implies? These are too vague statements

Line 51-54 – This part should be placed before line 47-48

Line 59 – Add references

Line 62-64 – Too short paragraph

Line 69 – What hypothesis?

Line 70-73 remove this part. This goes to the end of the article.

The introduction is too vague. There are several general statements, the CAP program only appears in the objective, and there is no background for it.

 

2. The trends of GHG emissions from agriculture

 

This part here must be moved to the introduction to provide a background for the hypothesis.

 

3.1. The QCA Method

The statement "A cause is defined as sufficient if it can produce a certain outcome, but the outcome can occur even in the absence of the condition" (lines 146-147) might be confusing. It has two different types of conditions. A sufficient cause guarantees the outcome when present, but the outcome can still happen due to other causes. This needs clearer wording to avoid ambiguity.

Line 162-164- The description of "coverage" is conceptually unclear and somewhat inconsistent. Coverage for necessity is not adequately explained.

Line 166 – 169 – Why these thresholds must be followed as a rule? Any other references? Please explain their warrant of being trustworthy.

 

I find it difficult to understand the methods applied to the analysis, try to make the text easier to read.

 

3. Results and discussion

Line 282 – What other conditions or variables would change these results? Why they were left out?

Figure 2 e 3. Both graphs lost quality, it is especially difficult to understand graph 3. Check it.

 

Overall reading the article is a bit confusing. The text would benefit from a deep English revision for clarity and logical structure.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English requires a thorough revision to enhance clarity and consistency.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We extensively reviewed the manuscript based on your reviews and others. We believe the readability of the manuscript improved considerably and we hope it is now mature enough for publication in Land.

We addressed all your suggestions in this new version, including references to data sources (included in table 1), reordering of sections, further explanation of the methodology used, rewording of most of the sentences used in the former version to improve readability.

Please, find below detailed answers to your comments:

 

Abstract – What is the hypothesis of the study? You only described the objective.

Answer

In this new version of the manuscript, we included the hypotheses of the study in the abstract (lines 18-29 page 1), as provided below:

“The study begins by providing evidence on how the key CAP reforms contributed to accompanying the structural changes the European agriculture faced in the past. Based on these facts, we introduce the context of implementation of the 2014-2022 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), within which many interventions were designed to improve sustainability and increase competitiveness, and we formulate hypotheses on how CAP instruments can differently contribute to influencing GHG emissions from agriculture. The hypotheses formulated concern: 1) the influence of the income support payment on land prices and, consequently, on land distribution between small and large landowners; 2) the influence of the coupled payment on agricultural specialization; 3) the influence of agri-environmental-climate measures on the sustainable management of the agricultural lands. These causalities can have direct and indirect effects on GHG emissions from agriculture.”

 

Line 42-44 – Too short paragraph. Avoid these types of too-short paragraphs.

Answer

Done

 

Line 45 – Add something about methane and nitrous oxide.

Answer

We decided not to keep maintaining a generic reference to GHG emissions from agriculture in the main text and to provide few details in Note 3 of the current version of the manuscript, as provided below:

“It is estimated that almost 50% of the total GHG emissions in the agriculture sector stems from livestock, with methane (CH4) released from enteric fermentation. Emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O) from soil, associated with fertiliser application (31%), and the management of manure (16%) are also significant in the primary sector [15].”

 

Line 47-48 – too general statement. To be more specific, which kinds of pests and diseases?

Answer

Please, check the answer provided just above.

 

Line 48 -49 – What implies? These are too vague statements

Answer

We reformulated the sentences and provided further insights in the main text (lines 49-57) and in Note 1 to support our statements, including additional references.

Please find below the sentences reformulated in the new version of the manuscript:

“Intensification of crop and livestock production and unsustainable soil management have been identified as the main drivers of increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture [2,3]. The increasing concentration of livestock in some regions and the increasing specialization of farming systems exert severe pressure on the environment [4]. Agricultural intensification (e.g., growing the same crop year after year, deep tillage techniques, excessive use of chemical inputs) degrades soils [10] and increases the risk of diseases and pest outbreaks (Note 1). This implies the use of larger amounts of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides [10], with direct impacts on GHG emissions [11], pollution and biodiversity loss [12]. (lines 49-57, page 2)”

 

“Note 1. For instance, the recent biofuel-driven growth of monoculture in in the United States caused a decrese in the precence of natural enemies to soybean fields by 24% with a consequent increase of pesticide uses [6]. For similar reasons, again in United States, the recent epidemic of southern corn leaf bright in maize monoculture resulted in a 15% crop loss [7]. A study conducted in China revealed that rice varieties planted in mixtures reduce significanlty the incidence of blast diseases, increasing crop yield [8]. Another study conducted recently in the EU revealed that incrasing plant species diversity significnatly reduce the incidence of pest diseases in grasslands [9]. (page 2)”

 

Line 51-54 – This part should be placed before line 47-48

Answer

Corrected

 

Line 59 – Add references

Answer

Added

 

Line 62-64 – Too short paragraph

Answer

Corrected

 

Line 69 – What hypothesis?

Answer

We rearranged section 1 by merging it with the former section 2. The hypotheses are now extensively explained to support the statement made in line 69 of the former version of the manuscript. 

 

Line 70-73 remove this part. This goes to the end of the article.

Answer

We removed this part as requested.

 

The introduction is too vague. There are several general statements, the CAP program only appears in the objective, and there is no background for it.

Answer

In this new version we combined section 2 and 1 to provide an extensive background to address both the issue investigated in the paper (i.e., GHG emissions) and the some of the factors that contribute to influencing it (i.e., policies, characteristics of the agricultural sector, land markets).

 

2. The trends of GHG emissions from agriculture

 

This part here must be moved to the introduction to provide a background for the hypothesis.

Answer

Done

 

3.1. The QCA Method

The statement "A cause is defined as sufficient if it can produce a certain outcome, but the outcome can occur even in the absence of the condition" (lines 146-147) might be confusing. It has two different types of conditions. A sufficient cause guarantees the outcome when present, but the outcome can still happen due to other causes. This needs clearer wording to avoid ambiguity.

Answer

We extensively review the entire methodological section trying to improve its readability. As for example the above statement was reformulated as it follows:

“A condition is commonly defined as necessary if this must be present for a certain outcome to occur, but the condition might be present even in the absence of the outcome. A condition is defined as sufficient if its presence implies the presence of a certain outcome, but the outcome can occur even in the absence of the condition (i.e., the outcome can be explained also by other conditions) [28]. (lines 139-141, page 4)”

 

Line 162-164- The description of "coverage" is conceptually unclear and somewhat inconsistent. Coverage for necessity is not adequately explained.Answer

In this new version we entirely reformulated the explanation of the coverage parameter of fit for both necessity and sufficiency, as provided below:

“Coverage is the empirical importance of results. For sufficiency, the coverage cor-responds to the share of the outcome associated with the occurrence of the condition (i.e., how much of the outcome is explained by the condition). For necessity, the coverage corresponds to the share of the negated outcome (i.e., non-occurrence of the outcome) associated with the non-occurrence of the condition (i.e., how much of the negated outcome is not explained by the condition). As for consistency, scores less than 1 indicate imperfect relationship. (lines 155-161, page 4)”

 

 

Line 166 – 169 – Why these thresholds must be followed as a rule? Any other references? Please explain their warrant of being trustworthy.

Answer

We provided some more insight about the thresholds defined for consistency and coverage by the developers of the methodology. Below an extract of the explanation offered in the new version of the manuscript:

“Consistency is the most crucial measure as it reports the strength of the causal rela-tionship between conditions and outcomes. The standard necessity consistency threshold is 0.9, which permits a small degree of inconsistency to accommodate measurement error and imperfect relationships. The standard sufficiency consistency threshold is 0.75, which indicates that a given condition (or combination of conditions) is generally sufficient to produce the outcome [29-31]. The standard coverage score threshold is 0.6 for necessity and nihil for sufficiency. (lines 162-168, pages 4-5)”

 

I find it difficult to understand the methods applied to the analysis, try to make the text easier to read.

Answer

We hope now we made it clearer the methodology.

 

3. Results and discussion

Line 282 – What other conditions or variables would change these results? Why they were left out?

Answer

This is now explained in Note 8 at page 9. Below the note added in the new version of the manuscript.

“Other conditions not included in the analysis presented in this study, such as afforestation, changes in land uses from arable land to permanent crops, changes in livestock management (e.g. transition from intensive to extensive livestock systems) can significantly contribute to influencing changes in GHG emissions from agriculture. Such aspects are partially captured by the agri-environmental-climate measures of the CAP analysed in this study. To avoid the risk of using redundant information we limited the analysis to the set of variables more directly related to the hypothesis of our study.”

 

 

Figure 2 e 3. Both graphs lost quality, it is especially difficult to understand graph 3. Check it.

Answer

We changed all the figures provided in the manuscript trying to improve their readability.

 

Overall reading the article is a bit confusing. The text would benefit from a deep English revision for clarity and logical structure.

Answer

The paper undergone an English revision, also reformulating various sentences to improve the overall readability

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for providing the table of responses seems to be good enough the correction and adjustments.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

.