Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Minor changes:

1. What represents “main farm operators’ non-farm activity”
2. Must be rephrased “Many studies concluded a negative effect of the level of education of potential farm successors on their decision to continue farming”
3. Minor language editing is needed.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The content of the article is interesting and describes a significant problem of the primary sector in Pakistan and especially in mountainous areas (Gilgit-Baltistan). So, the manuscript presents mainly local interest even if the problem exists and has lots of similarities in many countries all over the world. The manuscript needs improvement, most international oriented and reformulation in some points to be clearer.
General comments
1.There are many repetitions in various points of the manuscript. Please avoid repetitions.
2. The literature should be significantly enriched. There is a very large number of similar and important research on this subject, which are not included between the references of the manuscript.
3. In the results section the authors prefer to present certain positions of the key informants, literally (exactly as they expressed their views and in parentheses). They also, mention the names of the key informants. I appreciate and suggest that the number of literal opinions be limited and that the names of the key informants not be mentioned as this is not common in scientific papers.
Comments
4. The introduction section is limited and does not mention important elements of the problem. It is also good to make the aims of the research clearer. At the end of the introduction and after the purposes of the research, it would be good to add a brief description of the structure of the paper. 
5. The introduction does not provide information on the primary sector in the country of research, data relating mainly to the rural economy and employment.
6. The authors should also clarify whether they wish to link their research purely to the mountainous and disadvantaged areas of the country (this can be seen from the research area but is not emphasized in the rest of the manuscript). If they so wish, they should add data for the mountainous areas of Pakistan compared to the country, employment in these areas as well as evidence of the migratory flows from these areas to the major cities of Pakistan.
7. The literature review section focuses on the factors related to farm succession and factors affecting the occupational choice of farm successor. In my opinion, the literature review should be strengthened and in other directions, presenting the real problem in its real dimensions and its effects.
8. A map showing the research areas in relation to the country should be added to subsection 3.1.
9. In subsection 3.1. data concerning agriculture in the Gilgit and Nagar areas (number of agricultural and livestock holdings, number of employees in agriculture, etc.) should be added.
10. In the line 201 the authors mention that the total number of the key informants was 15 but in the line 299 mention that 'Out of the total 12 key informants ,....' which of the two numbers is the correct?
11. I suggest the subsection content 4.2 to shrink and the authors to presents by another way some of the informants' sentences.
12. The research results indicated between the personal characteristics which affect the farm succession it is the gender of the successor but in the findings of the qualitative research the reader can read almost nothing about this factor and about the informants’ comments and views about that.
13. There is no Discussion section. I suggest to the authors to add this section and compare their findings with similar studies international oriented.
14. The Conclusions section must be rewrite. Almost all paragraphs that section includes are simply repetitions of research results which add nothing.
15. Please add also the contribution of your research and the future research.
16. what are the limitations of your study?

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No comments