Synthesizing Knowledge about Structural Change in Agriculture: The Integration of Disciplines and Aggregation Levels

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper needs major changes in the following areas.

• Figures and Tables need to be centralized and captain it properly with correct annotation and its position in the paper. Please remove the red markers from figure 2.  Please check the typos. 
• Please include literature related to another continent of the world And compare it with China,
• The statics mentioned in the paper seem very vague and unsatisfactory. 
• Please discuss the potential of smart farming and how it affects the integration of disciplines and aggregation levels 
• It would be good if you can use a correlation metric between different dimensions. 
• Also please discuss the top major 5 countries in agriculture, how they are different from china in the integration of disciplines and aggregation levels

Please refer these paper and cite them, if find them relevant 

Das V, Jithin, Shubham Sharma, and Abhishek Kaushik. "Views of Irish farmers on smart farming technologies: An observational study." AgriEngineering 1.2 (2019): 164-187.

https://www.mdpi.com/2624-7402/1/2/13

Pivoto, Dieisson, et al. "Scientific development of smart farming technologies and their application in Brazil." Information processing in agriculture 5.1 (2018): 21-32.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214317316301184

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

I find your paper interesting but have the following suggestions:

Major:

1) It is uncommon and in my view not sufficient to conduct a literature review only based on 3 keywords and Google Scholar. It would be better to develop a fully search strategy with e.g. 15 keywords and all feasible combinations of them and to search through web of science, the most relevant journals, scopus, etc. Then of also backwards- and forward linkages should be considered until a more or less balanced coverage of the literature is achieved. In addition, it would also be nice to show a world map with the geographic distribution of the incl. studies.

 2) I feel the currently included literature is a bit biased and it should be wider.

3) Also related to included literature, I think the introduction could motivate the importance of structural change more. There is so much recent research on the implications of different farming structures such as:

Collier, Paul, and Stefan Dercon. "African agriculture in 50 years: smallholders in a rapidly changing world?." World development63 (2014): 92-101.

Ricciardi, Vincent, et al. "Higher yields and more biodiversity on smaller farms." Nature Sustainability (2021): 1-7.

Wuepper, David, Stefan Wimmer, and Johannes Sauer. Are Small Family Farms Managed More Sustainably? Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Design in Germany. Working Paper, 2019.

Wuepper, David, Stefan Wimmer, and Johannes Sauer. "Does family farming reduce rural unemployment?." European Review of Agricultural Economics 48.2 (2021): 315-337.

Minor

1) Since you are a single author I find it strange to write about "the authors"

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This study aims to explore the theme of structural change in agriculture. Although the paper proposes a relevant theme, the paper is not well organized and the theoretical contribution very scarce.

Being a meta-analysis, this study needs a strong implementation of the theoretical framework that explains the concept of "structural change in agriculture" and how the economic and social sciences conceptualize it. Furthermore, the complexity that emerges, deriving from the factors influecing this variability of structural change from the micro level to the mark level, are not proposed in an orderly way and there is no clear distinction on the factors that fall within the various levels of aggregation. In addition, the reasons why factors were chosen as economic and social forces in characterizing the various levels (for example company succession as a driving social force at the micro level) could be better justified. Without a good justification for these choices, the description of the various levels of aggregation appears partial and unjustified from a theoretical point of view.

The meta-analysis is conduced with the support of Google Scholar. To provide a more rigorous approach it would be recommended to search on more scientifically recognized databases such as Scopus and Web of Science.

In my opinion, the basic proposal could provide important contributions and many concerns for future studies. However, the study needs a strong reorganization and in depth theoretical study. 

INTRODUCTION:
* The topic to explore is relevant. I have some concerns:

In the first part the concepts of "agricultural structure" and "structural change" are proposed. The concepts, as key elements of the proposed paper, should be better defined in the light of current literature and how these are conceptualized by the economic strand and sociological sciences, as it is described opens a path of interdisciplinarity. The theoretical background is very lacking, especially due to the relevance of the theme.

Furthermore, in order to grasp the complexity of “structural change” in agriculture, it is necessary to further investigate the levels of aggregation in the introduction, giving a ready definition with the support of current studies. It is necessary to better explain the framework of factors that fall into the various levels of aggregation and the mechanisms that bind them.

*Line 53. It is required to better explain how Luhmann's systems theory or other theories that can represent a reference to explain the structural change of the agricultural system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

* The meta-analysis was carried out on Google Scholar. To provide a more rigorous approach it would be recommended to search on more scientifically recognized databases such as Scopus and Web of Science.

* The analysis of the micro level appears partial, which is analyzed only through the concept of succession in the farm, leaving out other aspects (such as structural factors). A clear justification for this methodological choice is required. As well, for meso and macro levels.

* The sectoral and macro-level perspective are also not well framed. In general, the unclear distinction between the three levels of aggregation makes the description of various aspects very confusing. It may be necessary to add a graphic explaining the elements that represent the various levels.

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

* In this section, the social and economic forces acting on various levels here seem to be described in a more orderly manner. The concerns at the micro, meso and macro levels, evolved in three distinct meta-studies, as you described, should also be explained in the introduction part.

*The graph is not easily understandable, and the interdependence between the levels should be promptly described.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Correlation would be recommended. 

Author Response

Although I still cannot see which data I could use for a correlational analysis, I thank you once again for the work you have put in my manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

no more comments from my side

Author Response

Thank you for your appreciation and your work