Food for Thought: Addressing Urban Food Security Risks through Urban Agriculture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See document attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please refer to attached document with comprehensive feedback on comments received

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting paper.

Changes which must be made before publication:

1. The weakest part of the article is the introduction.There is no background in this introduction stating the urge and novelty of the study in which innovative ideas must be flown through the background along with the useful insights. The research gap should be justified much better. Overall, I think the Introduction should be totally modified and re-written.

2. It is worth referring to the works published in "Sustainability". It is worth to refer to the works of the following authors:

Zimon, D.; Madzik, P.; Domingues, P. Development of Key Processes along the Supply Chain by Implementing the ISO 22000 Standard. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6176.

Zhao, X., Castka, P., & Searcy, C. (2020). ISO Standards: A Platform for Achieving Sustainable Development Goal 2. Sustainability, 12(22), 9332.

Fonseca, L.M.; Domingues, J.P.; Pereira, M.T.; Martins, F.F.; Zimon, D. Assessment of Circular Economy within Portuguese Organizations. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2521.

Göbel, C.; Langen, N.; Blumenthal, A.; Teitscheid, P.; Ritter, G. Cutting food waste through cooperation along
the food supply chain. Sustainability 2015, 7, 1429–1445.

3. I propose to develop a short discussion section.

4. Research limitations must be better explained.

Good Luck!

Author Response

Please refer to attached document with comments on the feedback received

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very interesting and engaging paper. There are just a few minor points remaining:

I still think Table 2 doesn't list criteria for inclusion in your multiple-case study. Rather, it lists characteristics of the various cases. If these were criteria, you'd be able to state whether a given case does or does not meet this requirement, and if not, it would not be included in this review. Sorry if I'm not understanding your use of the word "criterion." My suggestion is to just remove this table.

In Table 1, I think the heading of the third column would be more accurate as "Contribution to climate change and environmental degradation." Downstream contamination due to runoff from farms doesn't cause climate change, but it does cause environmental damage.

There is a need for editing, as some words are misused. For example, in the second paragraph, climate change doesn't have "externalities", it has negative impacts. However, this comment is minor.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments received. We revised the paper as follows:

 

Table 1 (Line 296):

Reviewer comment:

In Table 1, I think the heading of the third column would be more accurate as “Contribution to climate change and environmental degradation.” Downstream contamination due to runoff from farms doesn’t cause climate change, but it does cause environmental damage.

Revision:

The recommendation to change the column header has been done, and the header now includes environmental degradation.

 

 

Table 2 (Line 488):

Reviewer comment:

I still think Table 2 doesn’t list criteria for inclusion in your multiple-case study. Rather, it lists characteristics of the various cases. If these were criteria, you’d be able to state whether a given case does or does not meet this requirement, and if not, it would not be included in this review. Sorry if I’m not understanding your use of the word “criterion”. My suggestion is to remove this table.

Revision:

Table 2 has been removed and the criteria for case selection has been highlighted in text instead (Line 472-479).

Since Table 2 is removed, the subsequent tables have been renumbered in Line 542, 555, 567 and 580.

 

Entire document:

Reviewer comment:

There is a need for editing, as some words are misused. For example, in the second paragraph, climate change does not have “negative externalities”, it has negative impacts. however, this comment is minor.

Revision:

Entire document has been reviewed for grammatical errors, and the changes have been marked via “Track Changes”.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx