Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture: Case Study of Lis Valley Irrigation District, Portugal
, Francisco Gomes da Silva 3, Susana Ferreira 1, Margarida Teixeira 4, Henrique Damásio 5, António Dinis Ferreira 1,2 and José Manuel Gonçalves 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors carry out an analysis of the innovation programs in agricultural and evaluates the effects of the implementation of one of these in a Portuguese case study. I find limited novelty in this study and I am not aware about the international interest for the Sustainability readership. Moreover, the paper has got a unusual structure (I would expect after the general part a "Materials and methods" section and more data about the case study). In the present form both the general part and the case study are a mere general discussions without results that may enhance knowledge and advances in the field.
Some other concerns are reported in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
1. The authors carry out an analysis of the innovation programs in agricultural and evaluates the effects of the implementation of one of these in a Portuguese case study. I find limited novelty in this study and I am not aware about the international interest for the Sustainability readership
Response: This article presents a deeply study of the problem of innovation in agriculture with a view to the sustainability of EU agricultural systems. The article is particularly focused are the aspects of the European Union's strategy of research and innovation with the Operational Group (OG) Programs and their role in the development of agri-food market in Portugal. The analysis of the criteria applied in the project proposals selection facing the concepts of innovation in agriculture and the practical consequences of the adopted policies and procedures is a novelty. In fact, it opens a survey and a discussion about the importance of the priorities and corresponding concepts of innovation in agriculture, useful for the forthcoming European programs for innovation, in the consequent environmental and socioeconomic sustainability. We believe in the interest of this theme for readers of Sustainability more tied to the problems of agriculture.
The quality of the English was further improved
2. Moreover, the paper has got a unusual structure (I would expect after the general part a "Materials and methods" section and more data about the case study).
Response: The paper have been structured according a more usual style, including a Materials and Methods section and more data about the case study.
New additions and a new manuscript structure were implemented to demonstrate the supranational relevance of the findings and conclusions.
3. In the present form both the general part and the case study are a mere general discussions without results tha
Response: The paper reorganization allowed the results highlighted and a Conclusions section to a better view of the contributes to enhance knowledge and advances in the field.
4. Some other concerns are reported in the attached file.
Response: The answers to the other questions of the reviewer were answered in the revised text
Reviewer 2 Report
table 1. The header contains an unexplained GR abbreviation. This may be a typo. In the text or in the header of the table it should be said that this is data from Portugal.
The abbreviation AGR should be named in the text before appearing in the table. Check this and other abbreviations to check this topic.
line 99 the reference [6] is in very small size.
Figures 1, 2 should somehow highlight the data from Portugal.
Is table 6 necessary? I don't think it provides relevant information. A reference or comment on a specific indicator would suffice.
Author Response
1. Table 1. The header contains an unexplained GR abbreviation. This may be a typo. In the text or in the header of the table it should be said that this is data from Portugal.
Response : In table 1 the unexplained GR was complete with the complete phrase to explain the abbreviation “Research and Development (R&D)”
The quality of the English was further improved
2. The abbreviation AGR should be named in the text before appearing in the table. Check this and other abbreviations to check this topic.
Response : The authors about the abbreviation AGR agree with the reviewer and introduce the phrase “In table 1 and now table 2 we can observe the Growth Rate (GR) and the Annual Growth Rate (average of three years). Those values show a decreases in expenditure on R&D as we refer before” to introduce the abbreviation.
3. line 99 the reference [6] is in very small size.
Response : The number in line was corrected
4. Figures 1, 2 should somehow highlight the data from Portugal.
Response : To highlight the values of Portugal was introduced around the one of these a rectangular geometric figure.
5. Is table 6 necessary? I don't think it provides relevant information. A reference or comment on a specific indicator would suffice.
Response: The authors consider important table 6, as it will allow readers who do not know the evaluation system of the projects of this program. Table 6 will allow the notion of the relative relation of the values of the variables that are analyzed to evaluate the projects presented in this program. Is give particular emphasis on the importance of the variable innovation and how it is calculated and its importance in relation to the others variables. Considering that the variable innovation is the variable in question in this article and considering that the case study had a low value in this variable, the table allows understanding how, despite this question, the project was approved
Reviewer 3 Report
I recommend the following to improve the article's content:
Completion of the scientific context with other research of this kind.
Detailed case study with examples of newly implemented technologies, products, benefits, etc.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
1. Completion of the scientific context with other research of this kind.
Response : We consider that the bibliography used is extensive and about the program there is no bibliography on issues of the theme because the program starts now and this is one of the articles that criticizes the program. On the effect of innovation on agriculture that does not produce products.
According to Prager et al. (2017), the system of innovation in agriculture is such a complex and broad system that emphasizes political and contextual factors that present a real challenge to determine the effectiveness and impact of the services produced by the system. This article aims to demonstrate the complexity of the system in the farmer and the issues that should be raised when one intends to use methods of evaluating projects of other economic interests in agriculture. The objective of the article and what it is intended to add (benefit) to the scientific environment is to draw attention to the particularities of agriculture so that there is some unique dynamics in the processes of analysis of innovation for this particular sector and not pure and simple application of innovation in other economic activities. The transfer without adaptation of what is innovation in other economic activities can bring problems to the innovation of agriculture that often innovate is to return to techniques and products already withdrawn from the market by evolution.
2. Detailed case study with examples of newly implemented technologies, products, benefits, etc.
Response: The description of Lis Valley Irrigation District was improved, including the reference to the new agricultural and water management technologies.
The quality of the English was further improved.
New additions and a new manuscript structure were implemented to demonstrate the supranational relevance of the findings and conclusions.
Reviewer 4 Report
General comments
As it is currently structured the article does not allow to highlight the novelty of the research.
It has an unusual structure for a scientific paper. In the present form the paper looks like a general discussions without results. The introduction is too long because de facto it also includes sections 2 and 3. The conclusions are missing.
I recommend the authors to review all the text before submitting a new version of the article, also taking into account the suggested instructions for the manuscript preparation.
Author Response
1. As it is currently structured the article does not allow to highlight the novelty of the research.
Response: This article presents a deeply study of the problem of innovation in agriculture with a view to the sustainability of EU agricultural systems. The article is particularly focused are the aspects of the European Union's strategy of research and innovation with the Operational Group (OG) Programs and their role in the development of agri-food market in Portugal. The analysis of the criteria applied in the project proposals selection facing the concepts of innovation in agriculture and the practical consequences of the adopted policies and procedures is a novelty. In fact, it opens a survey and a discussion about the importance of the priorities and corresponding concepts of innovation in agriculture, useful for the forthcoming European programs for innovation, in the consequent environmental and socioeconomic sustainability. We believe in the interest of this theme for readers of Sustainability more tied to the problems of agriculture
2, It has an unusual structure for a scientific paper. In the present form the paper looks like a general discussions without results. The introduction is too long because de facto it also includes sections 2 and 3. The conclusions are missing.
Response: The paper reorganization allowed the results highlighted and a Conclusions section to a better view of the contributes to enhance knowledge and advances in the field.
3. I recommend the authors to review all the text before submitting a new version of the article, also taking into account the suggested instructions for the manuscript preparation.
Response - the manuscript was reviewed taking into account the reviewers suggestions.
The quality of the English was further improved
New additions and a new manuscript structure were implemented to demonstrate the supranational relevance of the findings and conclusions
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper quality is slightly improved although I think that other improvements can be introduced.
Author Response
The paper quality is slightly improved although I think that other improvements can be introduced.
Response: Several improvements were made to the text taking into account some of the remarks made under the first revision. This improved the text even further.
The English was revised to improve the grammatical and orthographic structure, and improvements were introduced in the style and quality of English, making it more fluent.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article it's ok.
Author Response
Response: The English was revised to improve the grammatical and orthographic structure, and improvements were introduced in the style and quality of English, making it more fluent
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
No comment
Author Response
Response: The English was revised to improve the grammatical and orthographic structure, and improvements were introduced in the style and quality of English, making it more fluent
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I am satisfied about the revised paper.
