Winding Pathways to Rural Regeneration: Exploring Challenges and Success Factors for Three Types of Rural Changemakers in the Context of Knowledge Transfer and Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper deals with an interesting topic on rural regeneration. The purpose of the study is "to identify key challenges and success factors for three types of rural changemakers - rural  newcomers, new entrants into farming, and farming successors - based on empirical data gathered in three case studies conducted as part of the Horizon2020 project "RURALIZATION" in Poland in 2021" (p.2).

Although the paper is interesting and well written, I think it needs some revisions before publication.

First, the authors provide an interesting literature review on rural regeneration and knowledge transfer. I would suggest that the authors focus more on the role of policy, particularly the Common Agricultural Policy and how this (and other policies) have impacted on rural areas in various ways (see for example Papadopoulos 2015). Similarly, it would be interesting to look more at issues of rural regeneration and gender aspects and differences (if any) between Western, Eastern and Southern Europe. Furthermore, issues of emigration, seasonal migration and EU enlargement and their impact on rural regeneration are addressed in a limited way.

Secondly, the methodology section needs further development. It would be helpful to have more information on the methods. I would suggest that the authors explain in more detail the criteria for selecting the three case studies. Similarly, 10 interviews were conducted in each case study. It would be interesting to know more about the selection of the participants and the profile of the participants, this would give the readers a better understanding of the empirical material presented. Also, as some interviews were conducted during Covid-19, it would be interesting to know what methodological challenges (if any) or insights from the field the authors encountered or observed.

Thirdly, the section on research findings needs strengthening. Although the material presented is interesting, the voice of the participants is missing. I would suggest the authors to add some quotes from the interviews to support the analysis presented. A critical stance may be adopted on how their research findings contribute to the existing literature in the field.

Finally, the authors could consider presenting some of the statistical data (e.g. on page 5) with a figure and include a map showing the location/area of the three case studies.

 

Suggested literature

Papadopoulos, A.G. (2015). The Impact of the CAP on Agriculture and Rural Areas of EU Member States. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, 4(1), 1-32

Author Response

Thank you very much for the comments sent, which will help improve the article.

• As suggested, the theme of the role of the Common Agricultural Policy in rural development has been included in the text, including the addition of suggested literature sources.
• Issues of specificity of gender structures in Poland are discussed in Section 4.1.
• Clarification and detailing was made in the methodological section, including regarding the criteria for selecting case studies and people to conduct interviews. It was also pointed out that due to the limitations of COVID-19, some of the interviews were conducted online.
• In the analytical part, the content containing respondents' opinions was added, and the conclusions were slightly expanded.
• Due to the small number of case studies and because they were discussed in the text, the presentation of their location on a map of the country would have no additional explanatory power, moreover, due to the necessity of using a small scale, it would be hardly readable.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your efforts in doing this research. It is better to include important results in the abstract. The results section of the abstract needs to be completed. It is recommended to clearly and briefly list the variables obtained from the research results (separately for challenges and success factors) at the beginning of the results section.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the comments sent, which will help to improve the article.

The text of the abstract includes a reference to the results of the study, while emphasizing that they are the result of the analysis carried out. Due to the limited character limit in the abstract, its further expansion is unfortunately not possible.

Synthetic results of the analyses presenting key challenges and success factors are included in Table 1 and discussed in the "Discussion and conclusions" section.

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject matter is interesting and important from a social and economic perspective.
There are no research hypotheses. Therefore, it is not known what the authors mean. The stated goal is not reflected in the content of the article.
Scientifically, the article is very weak. An interesting multithreaded story devoid of scientific value.
The literature review in Chapter 2 describes two topics. However, the description does not show the current state of science in these areas. A scientific query should indicate the evolution of the issue. Of course, you can point to the originality of the subject and the lack of research in a given area. However, the presented material is not a pioneering research approach.
The authors should define what they understand by the term village. At the same time, this concept should be applied to Poland. The analysis of rural areas in the socio-economic dimension is very diverse in the world. The countryside and its specificity should not be written only in the context of global trends. First of all, structural conditions and cultural, organizational, administrative and technical heritage should be taken into account. The authors point to the local context. Meanwhile, they write about global trends. Polish agriculture experienced very large changes after the fall of the so-called PGR, and then Poland's accession to the EU (among others: new rules, new guidelines, restrictions, subsidies).
The document of the European Union setting out the goals set for the changes in the countryside has no scientific value. It is science that should review the correctness of such documents. It is science that should create the substantive background of any development plans.

The authors often point to the "collapse of the village". However, they do not explain what is meant by this. What is the "fall of the village" about? The post-industrial period with the dominance of services is not the domain of urban areas. The countryside, where manual work dominates, does not have a large and direct relationship with higher education (which does not exclude innovation and high technologies). Education, or rather competences that are very important in the sphere of services, are not so important in agriculture.
One can get the impression that the authors do not understand the essence of life and work in the countryside. The transfer of knowledge in the countryside takes place on a generational basis. The age, sex and education of farm owners are related to structural changes in the Polish countryside.

The authors, referring to the inhabitants of the suburbs, do not address the topic of urban sprawl. A strictly technical issue of administrative borders having little to do with the concept of a village.
The presented case studies are interesting. The level of thoroughness of the analyzes is very low. There is no reference to the scale of such phenomena.

Recommendations such as: "Decision makers should provide adequate support" do not provide any information.
The authors propose a support system that includes e.g. access to land information, crop selection, supply chain design and marketing, and applying for financial support. They do not indicate who this information is for. For the purpose of the article, the authors indicated three types of change creators in the countryside. Therefore, it is necessary to precisely indicate the recommended solution broken down into these three groups.

There are no theoretical implications. Future research directions have not been indicated.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the comments sent which will help to improve the article.
References to the aim of the paper have been completed in the text. The assumed objectives (to identify key challenges and success factors for three types of rural changemakers) are the subject of empirical analysis contained in Chapters 4.2-4.4, the results of these analyses presenting key challenges and success factors are synthesized in Table 1 and discussed in the "Discussion and conclusions" chapter. 
The literature review focused on a selected aspect of rural regeneration, i.e. knowledge. A detailed analysis of the evolution of the issue (indicated in the review) due to the limitations of the text volume and the character of the article (an ampirical article, not a review article) was not possible. 
In accordance with the reviewer's suggestion, the text discusses the term "rural areas" used in the work, including changes in its meaning.
The article presents the most important global trends and tries to analyze local conditions against their background. The empirical analysis was preceded by a subsection (4.1) discussing the context of Poland in an aspect relevant to the aim of the paper. In addition, each case study analysis was preceded by a discussion of national conditions. The assumed element of the analysis is thus to combine observations relating to the local level with the global and national context. This corresponds with the formulated conclusions indicating that "reconciling the local context with global challenges and trends is one of the main challenges of the entire rural regeneration process."

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors still have not formulated research hypotheses. This element is obligatory in scientific articles.
The analysis requires the verification of research hypotheses to become theses.
The hypotheses (and the results of the analysis) are the basis for the discussion of the results.
Without these elements, the article is not suitable for publication in a scientific journal (especially of such high quality).

"Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?": does not allow the article to be published.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments on our article. As suggested, we have formulated a research hypothesis, which can be found in the revised version of the manuscript on page 2 (lines 63-65). Thus, we have also referred to the hypothesis in the conclusion on page 10 (lines 469-471), noting that it was accepted as a result of the research process. 

We hope that the article is now complete and will be approved for publication.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made the recommended changes.

The authors formulated a research hypothesis. However, it should be remembered that the research hypothesis results from the state of knowledge (review of the literature), the identified research problem. Therefore, the hypothesis should not necessarily be included in the introduction.

In their conclusions, the authors referred to the research hypothesis.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the indicated shortcoming - in the revised version of the article we have placed the research hypothesis at the end of the theoretical chapter, noting that it follows from the aim and state of knowledge.

We hope that this change will be appreciated by the Reviewer.