Trade-Off Analyses of Food Loss and Waste Reduction and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Food Supply Chains
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well-written and informative. The authors present a significant problem related to food losses and waste (FLW) and its impact on the environment, and they propose an accessible calculator to assess the net effects of FLW-reducing interventions. The paper provides relevant information on the importance of reducing FLW and the associated GHG emissions. The authors clearly describe the limitations and challenges of assessing the net effects of FLW-reducing interventions, such as the additional GHG emissions induced by the interventions themselves. The ACE calculator introduced in this paper provides a useful tool for researchers and practitioners to assess the net effects of FLW-reducing interventions with little effort, as it offers a structure of a generic supply chain and data sets for crop GHG emission factors and FLW at different stages of production and distribution. The paper also provides results of several case studies, which demonstrate the impact of post-harvest activities on the carbon footprint of supplied food products and the effectiveness of FLW-reducing interventions. The authors recommend using this approach for climate-smart FLW reduction intervention prioritization.
Overall, the paper is well-organized, and the writing is clear and concise. The information presented is relevant and useful. However, I have a few minor suggestions for improvement:
The authors could provide more details on the data sources used in the ACE calculator and the case studies.
The authors could discuss the limitations and assumptions of the ACE calculator and the case studies.
The authors could expand on the policy implications of the findings and provide suggestions for future research.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
The authors could provide more details on the data sources used in the ACE calculator and the case studies.
Done: we have added a large number of sources used for parameters in the ACE calculator and for the case studies.
The authors could discuss the limitations and assumptions of the ACE calculator and the case studies.
Done: we have added a section that states limitations of the calculator and added a comment in the ‘case study results’ chapter.
The authors could expand on the policy implications of the findings and provide suggestions for future research.
Done: we have further elaborated suggestions in the Conclusions chapter.
Reviewer 2 Report
The present paper introduces the Agro-chain Greenhouse gas Emission calculator that can be used with substantially less effort than full Life Cycle Analyses. This paper presents several case studies, with interventions at the production stage as well as in post-harvest operations. The paper examines an issue of considerable interest and significance. I feel, however, that it suffers from a lack of clarity in its overall structure and the contents of some of the individual sections. The paper can be improved by considering the following issues.
1. The Introduction section is inadequate. This section must appropriately highlight the motivations and objectives of this research.
2. The introduction section will have to improve giving the research gaps. I prefer a schematic diagram of the proposed approach so that the reader can catch the novelty at a glance.
3. The authors must refer to more updated articles to improve their paper such as the following references but no limit to: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-022-00258-y; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-022-07806-1
4. Incorporate the major contributions in a bulleted list.
5. How was the data collected for the case studies? Briefly describe.
6. It is difficult to figure out the practical importance of this study. Please elaborate on managerial insights from the industrial cases in a distinct section.
7. There is no conceptual comparison with existing approaches, no discussion on the benefits and drawbacks the new approach. Thus discussions and comparative analyses should be added, also it is important to compare your method with the literature ones.
8. Please add a Conclusion section. The "Conclusions" section intends to help the reader understand why your research should matter to them after they have finished reading the paper. It is suggested to organize this section much better as it should be presented in one 250-300 words paragraph that contains unique results and findings.
9. The description of future research directions should be extended in the last Section.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
The paper can be improved by considering the following issues.
- The Introduction section is inadequate. This section must appropriately highlight the motivations and objectives of this research.
We have rewritten the introduction accordingly. Also because of the comment of another reviewer we have slightly re-adjusted the focus: the ACE calculator is now introduced as a means for doing the case studies, not as the primary goal of the paper.
- The introduction section will have to improve giving the research gaps. I prefer a schematic diagram of the proposed approach so that the reader can catch the novelty at a glance.
We agree that schematic diagrams can be very informative. However, the paper introduces a research approach that is not easily captured in a scheme. As a work-around we have split up chapter 2 into sections that each give more clear explanation of the method than in the original version of the paper
- The authors must refer to more updated articles to improve their paper such as the following references but no limit to: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-022-00258-y; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-022-07806-1
Thanks for this suggestion, I would gladly refer to work that you recommend, but the scope of the mentioned papers are completely different from our paper. We have substantially increased the number of references in our paper, including more recent ones.
- Incorporate the major contributions in a bulleted list.
This work is original in the sense that we did not simply add some functionality to an existing methodology. The contribution is the provision of a number of case studies (from which we draw general conclusion) and the ACE calculator that is completely new. To our understanding that is clear from the abstract, introduction as well as from the conclusions paragraphs.
- How was the data collected for the case studies? Briefly describe.
Where possible we added some explanation in the ‘chain configuration parameters’ tables. Through referencing to scientific literature and companies we implicitly indicate that we use combination of scientific literature and company contacts. Since we hope to keep the focus on the main messages of this work, we try not to derive attention by adding (non-essential) details on data collection.
- It is difficult to figure out the practical importance of this study. Please elaborate on managerial insights from the industrial cases in a distinct section.
Thanks for this valuable comment. We have enriched the Conclusions section on this subject.
- There is no conceptual comparison with existing approaches, no discussion on the benefits and drawbacks the new approach. Thus discussions and comparative analyses should be added, also it is important to compare your method with the literature ones.
Indeed, this is an important subject. We have added section 2.3 for this.
- Please add a Conclusion section. The "Conclusions" section intends to help the reader understand why your research should matter to them after they have finished reading the paper. It is suggested to organize this section much better as it should be presented in one 250-300 words paragraph that contains unique results and findings.
We have rewritten the Discussion section to Conclusions
- The description of future research directions should be extended in the last Section.
Done: we have addressed this in the Conclusions section.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors developed a calculator to calculate the life cycle impacts of any agricultural product in a simpler way than any LCA software present.
However, as it stands, this is not a scientific paper, but more like an introductory report of the developed programme. The research question is missing. Why the literature needs this paper? The case studies are independent of each other and are not designed to answer a common scientific question but to promote the software. Since there is no scientific research question in the study, it is impossible for the findings to answer any question. My advice to the authors is to focus on a single research question and reorganise the article by finding answers to this question. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to submit this study as a report for evaluation in different scientific sources other than peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
The authors developed a calculator to calculate the life cycle impacts of any agricultural product in a simpler way than any LCA software present.
However, as it stands, this is not a scientific paper, but more like an introductory report of the developed programme. The research question is missing. Why the literature needs this paper? The case studies are independent of each other and are not designed to answer a common scientific question but to promote the software. Since there is no scientific research question in the study, it is impossible for the findings to answer any question. My advice to the authors is to focus on a single research question and reorganise the article by finding answers to this question. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to submit this study as a report for evaluation in different scientific sources other than peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Thanks for this view and recommendations.
We have discussed the calculator with various renowned stakeholders, amongst which leaders from the World Bank sustainability, CGIAR project lead and large industrial stakeholders. They strongly embrace the approach (“a unique method that complements existing approach and can generate strong messages on trade-offs between FLW and GHG emissions”). They expressed strong interest in publishing the method in a peer-reviewed journal. We have seen various journals that likewise present other calculators, and we think that this suits very well to Sustainability.
We have furthermore reorganized the formulation of first chapters, not focussing on the presentation of the ACE calculator, instead now explaining it as the method used in the paper. We hope that this solves the objections.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised version can e accepted in its present form.
Reviewer 3 Report
Although I still doubt the scenario setting, the authors noticeably improved the paper. I think it is closer to a scientific article in its current form.
