Transition to Organic Farming: A Case from Hungary
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting paper which focuses on the Transition to Organic Farming: A Case from Hungary. I believe that the topic of this empirical paper is worth investigating.
· The paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cites an appropriate range of literature sources.
· The methods, questionnaire development are well executed. However while the discussion section is well written, it should be updated with a possible reason why the third hypothesis does not go in agreement with the existing literature.
· Regarding the Results, it is not clear the final sample that was included in the regression analysis. The authors mention that: “Farmers who did not receive greening support were not included in our analysis”. How many were they?
· In the Discussion section, the authors also report that farmers who have already used a lot of adaptation practices don't appear to be more likely to switch to organic production. However in the Table 2, a relationship seems to exist (*** p<0.010).
· The authors should include implications for theory and practice, and limitations.
· Generally speaking, the paper was easy to be followed and the language encourages reading the text.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments you made in the review.
The methods, questionnaire development are well executed. However while the discussion section is well written, it should be updated with a possible reason why the third hypothesis does not go in agreement with the existing literature.
The Discussion section has been updated by a concluding sentence: „However, the fact that negative effects of climate change don't seem to make farmers more likely to adopt organic farming practices is likely because farmers still perceive the cost of transition is higher than the yield and revenue losses caused by climate change.”
Regarding the Results, it is not clear the final sample that was included in the regression analysis. The authors mention that: “Farmers who did not receive greening support were not included in our analysis”. How many were they?
The Results section has been updated by adding the requested data: „Thirteen farmers who did not receive greening support were not included in our analysis.”
In the Discussion section, the authors also report that farmers who have already used a lot of adaptation practices don't appear to be more likely to switch to organic production. However, in the Table 2, a relationship seems to exist (*** p<0.010).
The last paragraph in the Discussion section has been updated by addressing the error the reviewer highlighted.
The authors should include implications for theory and practice, and limitations.
The section on limitations has been added to the manuscript. A conclusion has been updated with descriptions of theoretical and practical implications.
Yours faithfully
Reviewer 2 Report
Formatting instructions were not followed sufficiently, E.g. Citing sources in the paper is in square brackets, not in exponents. See instructions for authors and formatting instructions.
Certain segments of the work are missing, after the Conclusion and before the references (Author Contributions, etc.)
The abstract is slightly longer than usual. Shorten it to about 200 words.
In the paper itself, I wrote suggestions and comments, so I ask that they be respected to the fullest extent.
It was a pleasure to read the paper and deepen the existing knowledge about organic food production, conversion, and influencing factors.
Good luck!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments you made in the review.
Formatting instructions were not followed sufficiently, E.g. Citing sources in the paper is in square brackets, not in exponents. See instructions for authors and formatting instructions.
In-text citation layout has been changed to square brackets!
Certain segments of the work are missing, after the Conclusion and before the references (Author Contributions, etc.)
The following sections have been added to the manuscript: Funding, Acknowledgement, Author Contribution, Data Availability Statement, and Conflict of Interest.
The abstract is slightly longer than usual. Shorten it to about 200 words.
The abstract has been shortened to 202 words
„Globally, one-third of harmful emissions can be ascribed to agriculture.” Reviewer: „Is this data objective? Industry and traffic produce far more harmful gases. Refer to previous research results”
The comment has been addressed by revising the original text. The original text has been corrected by reference to a 2020 FAO report: „Globally, 17 per cent of GHG emissions can be attributed to agricultural activities” Source: FAO. Emissions Due to Agriculture. Global, Regional and Country Trends 1990–2018. FAOSTAT Analytical Brief 18; Rome, 2020.
the time frame in which the survey questionnaire was distributed
Information on the time data collection has been added to Section 3.2 Data Collection: „The data was collected between September and December 2017.”
Yours faithfully
