Alternative Food Networks, Social Capital, and Public Policy in Mexico City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would eliminate the term "small" producers that appears in the summary since, although it refers to the "small size" of the farms (from 1 to 3 hectares), the type of company that is presented does not refer at all to the size of The explotion. 

I am surprised that the average size of the number of people that would make up each production unit: "16,000 people grouped into 11,543 production units" means an average of 1,386 people per production unit. It seems very small, but... 

Throughout the text, the terms "modernity" and "modernization" appear repeatedly. I think they are very ambiguous and that they could respond to already outdated approaches of the so-called "modernization theory"... 

Since Sustainability is not a journal of social sciences, wouldn't a couple of footnotes explaining the precise meaning of the concepts of "social capital" and "cultural capital" be superfluous? 

 I do not know if, for the typology of established production units, another variable could result to be considered, such as the "type and degree" of mechanization or their technification. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for the opportunity to review your work. Please find below some recommendations for improvement:

Review claim in line 55, SFSCs is actually a newer/more specific concept, please see the following article: https://doi.org/10.1068/a3510

Expand on the findings from articles [25] and [26] in lines 92-93. What have they found? What is the current gap? Why do we need this study?

Why Mexico City? Is this a typical or atypical place? How transferable are the findings to other cities in the global south/Latin-American?

The paragraph in line 134 is unclear. A review of the grammar is needed. The writing employs very long sentences and this does hinder readability. 

Provide more details regarding the length of the interviews/workshops. Were workshops/interviews recorded? Also, what types of initiatives (AFNs) were involved as participants? A brief characterization would help to set the context here and allow transferability of findings. 

What process was followed for the codification of the collected data? 

How was secondary data analyzed? This is still not clear.

Some consideration regarding research quality and rigour would be welcome in section 2. See table 5 in the following article: https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2021-1060

The cases selected analysis need to be better justified. Are they typical? Do they provide variety? Are you looking for theoretical/literal replications? Etc. 

Section 3 could be better organized, I would suggest presenting the theoretical discussion (lines 280-310) and then discuss that in the context of SFSC/AFN literature (lines 216-279). This section could definitely benefit from some re-writing, including explaining the overall concepts (e.g., social capital) before analyzing them in the context of AFN literature. Also, not sure whether the first paragraph in section 3 is relevant, I feel it detracts from the topic of the paper. 

A reference is needed for the statement in line 346

Paragraph in line 437 is unclear. 

When explaining the cases in section 4.2.1., I wonder if data collected from the websites/documents of the initiatives has been used to set the context. If so, references to the sources used would be ideal here. 

The description of the case studies is too lengthy. A table is needed to summarise the key findings from section 4.2.1. 

The results section would benefit from more verbatim/direct quotes considering the nature of the research/analysis and the amount of data collected for the study. 

The paper is very long and tries to cover too much content. Therefore, it is not always clear what the actual aim of the paper is or how the results are relevant towards achieving the research aim. A better alignment between the research aims and results is needed. I would recommended the inclusion of a final conceptual framework to tie everything together. As it is, the results on policy, social capital etc., seem disconnected. 

The last two sections are rather brief. Section 5 would benefit from further linkage to previous literature (if available). Section 6 could be further developed to include the theoretical and practical contributions of the work, as well as future research avenues.

Author Response

Please seethe attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject of the article is interesting and worth describing. However, the method of implementation requires correction. In the Introduction, the authors presented an introduction to the subject. The Introduction section is deficient. It does not contain all the necessary elements. There are no research hypotheses. Research should verify the hypotheses.

Lines 108-116. The description of the methods and tests should be included in section 2.

The layout of the work is not entirely correct. I have already listed the items that can be found in section 1 Introduction.

Section 2 Materials and methods is not consistent with the tests performed. The authors provide the sources of the materials. Ultimately, however, they compare the 7 AFN initiatives. Additionally, the order was not followed. There should be a proper sequence in this section, ie Materials first, then Methods. This section should provide more detailed information about the scope of the research and outline the stages of the research. A flowchart may be prepared to help readers understand the stages of the research.

Research methods do not convince me. They are very simple.

Section 3 is called Theoretical discussion. Usually, Literature review is placed before the Materials and methods section. Then the theoretical background of the research is presented.

Conclusion section is a misunderstanding. These conclusions are weak. In this section, you must certainly refer to the hypotheses or research questions posed. Is it possible to verify the hypotheses positively or negatively? The conclusions can be bulleted. Conclusions should be a synthesis. Future research directions and recommendations that can be provided on the basis of the obtained research results should also be indicated.

The article is too long and needs to be shortened.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper again. I see several improvements and I was able to better understand the logic/results of the manuscript. I still believe that some of the sentences are to lengthy so this could be further improved via editing. Additionally, I would like to offer you a few specific recommendations:

In line 180, please reinstate the three types of social capital that you will be focusing on.

From lines 185 to 201: cite any of your/others work that may underpin these assumptions.

The discussion/rationale in lines 62-67 is rather weak. From published literature, what definitions would your own view of AFNs be more aligned to? You could briefly discuss this before arriving to an operational definition of your own.

Table 1 is a very interesting addition. Please add a brief narrative to explain it within the text.

Line 996-997 – I wonder if contributions summarised within the table concern only managers and not other actors within the AFN? This may be worth clarifying. Also, the fact that organisers may also be producers and/or consumers could also be considered here.  The current narrative seems to suggest that they usually external figures (not part of the group of producers/consumers) who only carry out management activities.

From the table we can also see that AFNs are managed very differently, sometimes by a couple of individuals, or committees, or larger groups, so this may be worth discussing within the text too. From your experience, do managers share characteristics that could have an impact on the different dimensions of social capital?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors addressed most of the comments and made a major correction to the article. There are still some shortcomings. The Conclusions section needs correction. It's too long. In this part, you should certainly refer to the hypotheses or research questions put forward. Can hypotheses be verified positively or negatively? It has to be written down literally. Conclusions can be scored. Conclusions should be a synthesis

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf