Farming under Urban Pressure: Business Models and Success Factors of Peri-Urban Farms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review the article.

1.      The abstract is lengthy, I recommend focusing on the main aspects of the study rather than describing each and everything.

2.      I believe the study aims to identify success factors and the main barriers and threats to developing peri-urban farms implementing various business models. This objective is very importantly these days especially with the stiff competition and global changes and increasing in the high level of poverty and unemployment.

3.      The conclusion section should have the ability to show what benefits can the policy makers receive at the last section of the introduction section.

4.      The article needs some proofreading as I have observed some problems with grammar and syntax.

5.      I guess the section 2 should be titled as literature review and should be split into two section, the current section is crowded with many information making challenging for readers to follow up with the article.

6.      If possible please show the validity and reliability of the questions you have used in collecting the primary data and measures for them.

7.      Please provide a separate section for both practical and theoretical implications of the study as this is very important.

 

 

 

Thanks 

 

NA

 

Author Response

I would like to thank you for your suggestions. Your comments are very valuable and we really appreciate your help in improving the quality of our article

1. As suggested, we shortened the summary a bit. When writing the abstract, we tried to present the purpose, methods and sources of data. In addition, we presented the most important research results.
2. In the last section, we divided the section into both practical and theoretical implications of the study.
3. Section 2 has been split into two sub-sections,
4. We tried to correct the quality of the text. We hope we have eliminated grammar and syntax errors.
5. In the methodology, we supplemented the manuscript with the information concerning the validity and reliability of the research. I would like to thank you for this particular hint - it was very valuable.

I would like to thank you for your review.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript deserves to be published. Objectives, methodology and state-of-the-art fit with the topic of the Journal, and these are excellently presented. Just two minor questions to consider: the comparison with other periurban farms studies in other countries in the bibliographic framework, and the inclusion of a paragraph in the conclusions with some proposals and recommendations extracted of the research.  

Author Response

I would like to thank you for your suggestions. Your comments are very valuable and we appreciate your help in improving the quality of our article.

Your comments coincided with the comments of another reviewer. As recommended in the last section, we have distinquished a separate section describing both practical and theoretical implications of the study.

In addition, we made other changes:

1. We shortened the synopsis a bit.
2. Section 2 has been divided into two sub-sections,
3. We tried to correct the quality of the text. We hope we have eliminated grammar and syntax errors.
4. In the methodology, we supplemented the manuscript with the information concerning the validity and reliability of the research.

I would like to thank you for your review.

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript deals with a relevant issue: factors influencing the success and challenges of peri-urban farms.

The authors identify the main success factors, barriers and business models in urban agriculture in the areas surrounding the largest Polish cities.

The research issue and objectives are clearly stated.

The analytical framework and method are pertinent and coherent with the research objectives.

The results are clear, detailed and soundly presented and discussed.

The conclusions are pertinents and supported by the research results.

Nevertheless, for the final version it seems worth revisiting some points in the conclusions. 

In the conclusions it is stated that " In Poland, urban agriculture tends to be almost  entirely marginalised in urban strategies – they do not guarantee any "space" for agriculture. Moreover, the infrastructure necessary to effectively market local agricultural products is not being developed. In addition to that, there is no promotion of local products or producers. According to respondents, it is advisable to promote peri-urban agriculture, especially by increasing confidence in local producers and the quality systems they implement. We hope the present research will help urban municipalities better understand UA and recognise the potential of urban agriculture in satisfying residents' needs.".

The authors could be a little more specific about the public policy implications and suggestions that can be envisaged and suggested based on the research results.

 

Author Response

I would like to thank you for your suggestions. Your comments are very valuable and we appreciate your help in improving the quality of our article.

Your comments coincided with the comments of another reviewer. As recommended in the last section, we have separated a separate section describing for both practical and theoretical implications of the study.

In addition, we made other changes:

1. We shortened the synopsis a bit.
2. Section 2 has been divided into two sub-sections,
3. We tried to correct the quality of the text. We hope we have eliminated grammar and syntax errors.
4. In the methodology, we supplemented the manuscript with the information concerning the validity and reliability of the research.

I would like to thank you for your review.