The Value of Farmland and Its Determinants—The Current State of the Art
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is a typical review paper on the value of farmland and its determining factors. The authors have summarized many previous studies and described in detail the commonly accepted research methodologies and results, as well as conflicting conclusions. However, the determinants of the factors affecting the value of farmland used in the prior studies organized as shown in Table 1 do not deviate from the variables recognized and considered by the authors when writing a new research paper. Also, I find it challenging to agree with the classification of research methodologies (Hedonic, Econometric, and other alternative models). And even if the classification is correct, it is difficult to think that the role of a review paper has been fulfilled by simply listing the conclusions of papers using such methodologies without evaluation or comparison of methodologies. Therefore, I believe that these review papers are unlikely to provide important information for future research or policymakers.
Author Response
This paper is a typical review paper on the value of farmland and its determining factors. The authors have summarized many previous studies and described in detail the commonly accepted research methodologies and results, as well as conflicting conclusions. However, the determinants of the factors affecting the value of farmland used in the prior studies organized as shown in Table 1 do not deviate from the variables recognized and considered by the authors when writing a new research paper. Also, I find it challenging to agree with the classification of research methodologies (Hedonic, Econometric, and other alternative models). And even if the classification is correct, it is difficult to think that the role of a review paper has been fulfilled by simply listing the conclusions of papers using such methodologies without evaluation or comparison of methodologies. Therefore, I believe that these review papers are unlikely to provide important information for future research or policymakers.
Dear reviewer.
Thank you for your comments and improvement requests. We have tried to make changes to respond to requests. There are three reviewers, so we try to make a balance of changes in the text, to meet what everyone requests (which is not always easy).
We hope that our responses have been in accordance with the requests, but if necessary, we are available to make any necessary improvements, as it is very important for us to be able to publish this paper in Journal Land.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comment #1
In your discussion of section 3, why did you focus on only a subset of the factors listed in table 1? Also, when discussing the factors, it would make sense to me to discuss net return to land and cash rent. Many of the variables listed in table 1 are likely proxies for net return to land. Having said this, you did list net income in table 1. Did some of the authors define net income as net return to land or cash rent? If not, how did they measure net income? Given that this arguably is the most important factor impacting land values, the discussion of the net income variable needs to be expanded.
Comment #2
When discussing table 1, I think it is important to first focus on the fundamental factors used in the capitalization formula (i.e., net return to land and the capitalization rate). Make sure to explain why these two variables are so important to include. Also, note the variables that serve as proxies or more detailed variables related to net return to land or the capitalization rate.
Comment #3
In section 4, I recommend you start the section with econometric models and then discuss hedonic models. In the econometric section, it is important to highlight the variables that are commonly included in the models (e.g., net return, interest rate, etc.). The reader should not have to read each of the articles cited to garner this information.
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
Thank you for your comments and improvement requests. We have tried to make changes to respond to requests. There are three reviewers, so we try to make a balance of changes in the text, to meet what everyone requests (which is not always easy).
We hope that our responses have been in accordance with the requests, but if necessary, we are available to make any necessary improvements, as it is very important for us to be able to publish this paper in Journal Land.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Revisor 2
Comment #1
In your discussion of section 3, why did you focus on only a subset of the factors listed in table 1? Also, when discussing the factors, it would make sense to me to discuss net return to land and cash rent. Many of the variables listed in table 1 are likely proxies for net return to land. Having said this, you did list net income in table 1. Did some of the authors define net income as net return to land or cash rent? If not, how did they measure net income? Given that this arguably is the most important factor impacting land values, the discussion of the net income variable needs to be expanded.
We focus on factors that indirectly impact net return. We tried to improve the text. We hope to have met your expectations.
Comment #2
When discussing table 1, I think it is important to first focus on the fundamental factors used in the capitalization formula (i.e., net return to land and the capitalization rate). Make sure to explain why these two variables are so important to include. Also, note the variables that serve as proxies or more detailed variables related to net return to land or the capitalization rate.
This is a pertinent point. In fact, we focused on the determinants of agricultural land value. In these determinants, we focused on the hedonic aspects, which is why we did not refer to capitalization rates.
Comment #3
In section 4, I recommend you start the section with econometric models and then discuss hedonic models. In the econometric section, it is important to highlight the variables that are commonly included in the models (e.g., net return, interest rate, etc.). The reader should not have to read each of the articles cited to garner this information.
We added a sentence to resolve the situation. Please note that, with the editor’s suggestion, part of the discussion about the models has been moved to the subsequent section. The suggestion had an impact on the original text and on the evaluation carried out by other evaluators. If it is really necessary, we will have to change the structure and ask for authorship from other reviewers of the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the invitation.
The article reviews the studies that investigate the determinants and the methods to find the most important determinants for the agricultural lands. The content of this review article made me feel so happy, and this is a very valuable review. The key determinants investigated in the literature are well introduced and discussed. The common methodologies to define these determinants are adequately reviewed. I suggest an acceptance with minor revisions. My suggestions are listed below. If the authors would like to adopt my suggestions, I believe that the article content will boost.
1) The article does not distinguish the individiual - mass valuations. The mass valuation for agricultural lands is very important, especially for land consolidation practices. Besides, data-driven techniques are adopted for such a mass valuation and the use of rural lands. These techniques (machine learning techniques etc.) can be mentioned in the methodological review.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.044
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2009.12.003
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813516652115
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X21008657
Furthermore, data-driven techniques help to find the key determinants/factors/drivers of the values at data set scale or sample-wise scale. For instance, Borusta algorithm, feature importance approches, explainable AI techniques enable the analyst to find the most important factor contributing to the pricing of any real estate. I know that such techniques are not adopted for agricultural land valuation very much, and they are so common in residential research. However, it would be so good to mention them in your discussions as a future remark.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2022.102660
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.01.044
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPIF-01-2016-0001
https://doi.org/10.3390/land11060931
2) The third section covers mainly land use and locational factors affecting the agricultural land value. However, your Table 1 covers a significant amount of papers which find the effect of parcel geometry, soil and climate. It would be so nice to review them in the text by adding one-two paragraphs.
3) In line 50, you use 'urban necessities'. Can you briefly introduce there what they are. Urban expansion?
4) There are some gender pronouns in the text. Please remove them.
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
Thank you for your comments and improvement requests. We have tried to make changes to respond to requests. There are three reviewers, so we try to make a balance of changes in the text, to meet what everyone requests (which is not always easy).
We improved the text and removed some gender pronouns in the text as requested.
We hope that our responses have been in accordance with the requests, but if necessary, we are available to make any necessary improvements, as it is very important for us to be able to publish this paper in Journal Land.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Revisor 3
Thank you for the invitation.
The article reviews the studies that investigate the determinants and the methods to find the most important determinants for the agricultural lands. The content of this review article made me feel so happy, and this is a very valuable review. The key determinants investigated in the literature are well introduced and discussed. The common methodologies to define these determinants are adequately reviewed. I suggest an acceptance with minor revisions. My suggestions are listed below. If the authors would like to adopt my suggestions, I believe that the article content will boost.
1) The article does not distinguish the individiual - mass valuations. The mass valuation for agricultural lands is very important, especially for land consolidation practices. Besides, data-driven techniques are adopted for such a mass valuation and the use of rural lands. These techniques (machine learning techniques etc.) can be mentioned in the methodological review.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.044
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2009.12.003
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813516652115
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X21008657
Furthermore, data-driven techniques help to find the key determinants/factors/drivers of the values at data set scale or sample-wise scale. For instance, Borusta algorithm, feature importance approches, explainable AI techniques enable the analyst to find the most important factor contributing to the pricing of any real estate. I know that such techniques are not adopted for agricultural land valuation very much, and they are so common in residential research. However, it would be so good to mention them in your discussions as a future remark.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2022.102660
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.01.044
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPIF-01-2016-0001
https://doi.org/10.3390/land11060931
Thanks for your observation. In fact, we did not distinguish between individual assessments and mass assessments. We thought it was adding a new aspect to the paper. The other reviewers also did not mention the matter. Therefore, we chose not to add this subject to the present text. Moreover, although including a paragraph on data-driven techniques would be a relevant add-on to our paper, we decided not to include it because with the changes suggested by the reviewers and the editor, the paper is already nearly 9000 words long, so it would become too long. However, if you understand that it is unavoidable to comply with these requests, we will do so.
2) The third section covers mainly land use and locational factors affecting the agricultural land value. However, your Table 1 covers a significant amount of papers which find the effect of parcel geometry, soil and climate. It would be so nice to review them in the text by adding one-two paragraphs.
We added some further explanatory text in the manuscript, hopefully it matches your suggestion.
3) In line 50, you use 'urban necessities'. Can you briefly introduce there what they are. Urban expansion?
Done.
4) There are some gender pronouns in the text. Please remove them.
Done. Thanks for the remark.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The current manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Land. Thanks.
Author Response
Review Report (Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The current manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Land. Thanks.
Thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comment #1
On page 4, line 159, I suggest changing “yields” to “rents or net returns”.
Comment #2
I still have concerns with your lack of focus on market fundamentals (i.e., net income and interest rates). Addressing the comments below would be helpful.
Is table 1 meant to discuss all of the factors impacting farmland values or just those used in hedonic models? I assume you are trying to discuss all factors, not just those used in hedonic models. With that in mind, citations 54 and 55 need to be mentioned under “farm income” or a separate variable category called “rent”. Also, when discussing the macroeconomic factors on page 4, add a brief discussion of the importance of interest rates (see your discussion on page 7, lines 311-314). Finally, rent is mentioned again on page 8, line 354. Thus, citation 42 needs to be added to the “farm income” category in table 1 or a new “rent” category.
Author Response
Review Report (Reviewer 2)
Comment #1
On page 4, line 159, I suggest changing “yields” to “rents or net returns”.
We agree with your suggestion and corrected the manuscript accordingly. Thank you.
Comment #2
I still have concerns with your lack of focus on market fundamentals (i.e., net income and interest rates). Addressing the comments below would be helpful.
Is table 1 meant to discuss all of the factors impacting farmland values or just those used in hedonic models? I assume you are trying to discuss all factors, not just those used in hedonic models.
Exactly, you are correct.
With that in mind, citations 54 and 55 need to be mentioned under “farm income” or a separate variable category called “rent”.
We checked those articles and you are right. Thank you for the suggestion.
Also, when discussing the macroeconomic factors on page 4, add a brief discussion of the importance of interest rates (see your discussion on page 7, lines 311-314).
We added a small and comprehensible explanation on the impact of interest rates in real estate prices. Thank you for the suggestion.
Finally, rent is mentioned again on page 8, line 354. Thus, citation 42 needs to be added to the “farm income” category in table 1 or a new “rent” category.
We consider rent as a type of farm income throughout the paper; so, citation 42 has been added to that category. Thank you again for the remark.
