Measures to Increase Local Food Supply in the Context of European Framework Scenarios for the Agri-Food Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

GENERAL COMMENT:

This is an interesting and well written paper that compared global food scenarios with local food measures. In general, the article is well structured, and presents current information on the topic addressed.

The authors identified six measures derived from  a local roadmap  in the context of European scenarios for the agri-food sector in 2035. In section 4.2., the authors present the details of the Framework scenarios for the European food sector in 2035. The scenarios describe possible future situations, where selected local measures are confronted with different framework conditions. The situations presented for the different scenarios are totally different and very contrasting.

In section 5. the authors present the results of setting the six measures in the context of the different scenarios, and they consider to measures that may be applied in more than one scenario as robust measures. Therefore, the robustness of the measures indicates that one measure is applicable in more than one scenario.

As a result of their analysis, In Section 5.4. the authors concluded that the measures with the highest robustness of the six examined ones was the "Food Policy Council", followed by the "Online Metafinder". The authors considered recommendable to implement these measures in local food systems, because they will most probably be successful in any future scenario.

Even though the comparison of the scenarios was not the objective of the paper, I suggest that in sections 6. and 7., the authors discuss and consider the importance of the measures in Scenario 2: Society drives sustainability. Scenario 2 is important because all the measures were relevant, with positive evaluation scales, which makes their application and implementation particularly interesting, and would justify a greater consideration of the authors in these sections.

 

Author Response

We added a comment in the conclusion to make this fact more visible. Please see lines 792 to 797. In general, all three scenarios describe possible future pathway and we do not know where the developments will lead. Therefore, we decided to give no special attention to one of the scenarios.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you so much for this interesting paper, where the authors elaboratively presented the six measures to increase local food supply in the context of two projects under three different scenarios. I found the paper quite interesting, however, quite concerned with a significant gap in methodological clarity on how and when the study was conducted. Moreover, I am a bit confused, how this paper differs from Berner et al., 2019 (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3876/htm?). Rather, Berner et al., 2019 have presented a clear explanation of the research methods, which I guess is the same for this paper as well. Under such context, it may also be interesting to know how the response varies with different types of stakeholders. In the same line, the relevant citations of Moller et al., 2020, would also guide the audience to the literature that describes the research methods in more detail, which as of now is done only once in Line 215.

Besides, please refer to the attached documents for few minor comments.

Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you so much for this interesting paper, where the authors elaboratively presented the six measures to increase local food supply in the context of two projects under three different scenarios. I found the paper quite interesting, however, quite concerned with a significant gap in methodological clarity on how and when the study was conducted.

We adjusted the methodology accordingly and stated clearly what was already published and what benefit this article provides.

Moreover, I am a bit confused, how this paper differs from Berner et al., 2019 (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3876/htm?). Rather, Berner et al., 2019 have presented a clear explanation of the research methods, which I guess is the same for this paper as well. Under such context, it may also be interesting to know how the response varies with different types of stakeholders. In the same line, the relevant citations of Moller et al., 2020, would also guide the audience to the literature that describes the research methods in more detail, which as of now is done only once in Line 215.

We added the reference of Moller et al. throughout the article, as well to help readers focusing on certain sections.

We adjusted the methodology to clarify that we used the results of two foresight studies. In subsection 3.1 and 3.2 the methodology of each of the studies is described. This is needed to understand the combination of the two approaches, which is the focus of this article. We hope this is explained better now throughout the article.

Besides, please refer to the attached documents for few minor comments.

Please see the document attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Using a robustness scale and a narrative/storytelling approach, the paper assesses the robustness and applicability of local measures to regionalize food supply within the framework of European agri-food scenarios. To perform the analysis the Authors used information from previous foresight researches, i.e. the project Smart Food Grid Graz (SFGG) and The European project FOX, to derive respectively the local roadmap measures and European scenarios (2035) to be integrated/combined in the study.

The paper is well written and easy to read. The objective is clear and the methodology appropriate.  Results are consistent with the research framework and the discussion is extensive and detailed.

A GENERAL COMMENT

The paper combines and re-elaborate the outcomes of two previous researches (cited in the References) using an original approach/methodology, with the aim to derive new information on the robustness and viability of local agri-food measures.

In my opinion, the structure of the paper should be revised to better focus the attention on the novel part of the research. For this reason, I would suggest moving the methodology (Chapters 3.1 and 3.2) and the results (Chapter 4) of the previous researches in an introductory Chapter (e.g. after Chapter 2). In my own view, the Chapter on the Methods should focus uniquely on the novel part of the study, in order to valorize the original content of the paper. Outcomes of the integration of the previous information consistently follow in Chapter 5.

SOME MINOR REVISIONS

• Lines 246-247 “This will set the baseline for chapter 4, where the two approaches are combined to derive robust measures”. Do you refer to Chapter 4 or Chapter 5 (Results)? It seems to me that the two approaches are combined in Chapter 5.
• Lines 324-325 “The scenarios for the European food sector in 2035 serve as the framework in this study, originated from the foresight process described in chapter 2”. Do you refer to Chapter 2 or Chapter 3.2 (Scenarios for the European food sector)?
• Lines 326-327 “This assists to understand the positioning of the local measures in the different scenarios done in Chapter 4”. Do you refer to Chapter 4 or Chapter 5 (Results)?
• It seems to me that Figure 3 (Framework scenarios for the European Food Sector in 2035) is not mentioned nor commented in the text. While Figure 2 (Measures in the local roadmap with allocation to the stages of the food value chain) is commented twice: from line 300 to line 320 (in Chapter 4.1) and, with more details, in Chapter 5.5. I suggest commenting in the text both Figures and to eliminate the double description of Figure 2.

 

Author Response

Using a robustness scale and a narrative/storytelling approach, the paper assesses the robustness and applicability of local measures to regionalize food supply within the framework of European agri-food scenarios. To perform the analysis the Authors used information from previous foresight researches, i.e. the project Smart Food Grid Graz (SFGG) and The European project FOX, to derive respectively the local roadmap measures and European scenarios (2035) to be integrated/combined in the study.

The paper is well written and easy to read. The objective is clear and the methodology appropriate.  Results are consistent with the research framework and the discussion is extensive and detailed.

A GENERAL COMMENT

The paper combines and re-elaborate the outcomes of two previous researches (cited in the References) using an original approach/methodology, with the aim to derive new information on the robustness and viability of local agri-food measures.

In my opinion, the structure of the paper should be revised to better focus the attention on the novel part of the research. For this reason, I would suggest moving the methodology (Chapters 3.1 and 3.2) and the results (Chapter 4) of the previous researches in an introductory Chapter (e.g. after Chapter 2). In my own view, the Chapter on the Methods should focus uniquely on the novel part of the study, in order to valorize the original content of the paper. Outcomes of the integration of the previous information consistently follow in Chapter 5.

We indicated in the introduction of chapter 3 more explicitly that information from two previous foresight studies was used. In addition, we restructured section 3 and we changed the title of section 4 into: "Previous foresight studies: Local roadmap and framework scenarios". It should now be clear what the novel part of the study is and where we draw on results from previous studies.

SOME MINOR REVISIONS

• Lines 246-247 “This will set the baseline for chapter 4, where the two approaches are combined to derive robust measures”. Do you refer to Chapter 4 or Chapter 5 (Results)? It seems to me that the two approaches are combined in Chapter 5.

This was a mistake, we refer to section 5.

• Lines 324-325 “The scenarios for the European food sector in 2035 serve as the framework in this study, originated from the foresight process described in chapter 2”. Do you refer to Chapter 2 or Chapter 3.2 (Scenarios for the European food sector)?

This was a mistake, we refer to section 3.2.

• Lines 326-327 “This assists to understand the positioning of the local measures in the different scenarios done in Chapter 4”. Do you refer to Chapter 4 or Chapter 5 (Results)?

This was a mistake, we refer to section 5.

• It seems to me that Figure 3 (Framework scenarios for the European Food Sector in 2035) is not mentioned nor commented in the text. While Figure 2 (Measures in the local roadmap with allocation to the stages of the food value chain) is commented twice: from line 300 to line 320 (in Chapter 4.1) and, with more details, in Chapter 5.5. I suggest commenting in the text both Figures and to eliminate the double description of Figure 2.

We mentioned figure 3 in the text and referred to both figure 2 and 3 in section 5.5. As well we corrected the reference in the first sentence of section 5 (see line 522).

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper currently reads as a study report/ dissertation or thesis. For example, the author(s) refer to chapters instead of sections. The methodology needs to be refined. Additional details are required to help the reader. It is recommended that the author(s) consult similar past studies to improve their own methodology. More links/ connections/ comparisons or contrasts should be done with past similar research. Implications are missing from this article. They should be provided and this should be done in a clear way which is relevant to the study. The contribution of the study both theoretically I is also recommended that the paper goes for professional language editing.

Author Response

We changed the wording from chapter to section. The methodology was adjusted to focus on the combination of the two foresight approaches, which is the main message of this article. In addition, we provided a short review of previous scenario-based roadmapping and made clear how our study differs from these approaches (see lines 78-81, 205-217, 783-787). Furthermore, we added implications in the last paragraph of the conclusion.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Please check, if the heading of section 3.2 is complete.

Reviewer 4 Report

The work has improved.