Approaching Urban Food Waste in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Framework and Evidence from Case Studies in Kibera (Nairobi) and Dhaka
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is necessary to provide an explanation of the concept of "mapping" already in the methodology part, so that the reader can understand what is meant, as it is currently given in Chapter 2 (line 152).
Chapter 2 analyzes "(i) understanding the urban food supply chain and mapping urban FW hotspots, (ii) choosing and designing a proper FW intervention and (iii) evaluating its correct implementation". The information is relatively general and there is a lack of focus, especially regarding the appropriate implementation and evaluation of FW intervention, which should be used directly in low- and middle-income countries. Because the authors themselves indicate that the different situation of high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries requires different FW interventions. It would be necessary in Chapter 2 to emphasize the appropriate FW intervention in relation to low- and middle-income countries.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your manuscript and please find my remarks and comments.
The presented paper deals with an important topic, however, requires significant reconsideration. There is potential to prepare two separate papers based on the collected data:
1/ related to the behaviour of the household
2/ related to the supply chain (food system)
Below you can find several remarks which might be taken into consideration:
General comment
The whole text needs to be significantly reconsidered. In the presented version there is no clear statement of the study objective. The description of the method is not clear, the reader does not know how you have reached the aim.
I believe there is a potential to prepare a paper (or even two separate papers) based on the collected data, however the current version is not relevant for publication.
More specific comments you can find below:
1/
In the abstract you stated that:
“The aim of this article is to frame and discuss urban FW in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and present possible tools for monitoring and reducing it.” => I found this statement imprecise, especially “frame and discuss” – what does it mean? I would suggest rephrasing the declaration of the aim.
2/
Lack of clear declaration of the paper’s aim in the main body of the text. You have referred somehow to the research gap by saying “However, most of the studies are biased towards Western food systems”. And then explained that “LMIC urban food systems have specific features, such (…). Therefore, assessing urban FW in LMICs represents a key scientific challenge to be filled. Starting from this research gap,…”
Honestly, my impression is that the research gap is still not defined. You have said: there are some specific challenges of FW in LMIC related to the less developed infrastructure. But whether the gap means we do not know the challenges, or we are not able to assess FW.
It is important to state that.
3/
The methodological approach is not clear.
I do not understand what is the role of the point “2. Approaching urban food waste in low- and middle-income countries” => it looks like a literature review, but (starting from line 93) you have said “To address these research questions, the paper draws on the following method. First, it presents a food system 3-step approach to urban FW in LMIC. This approach is based on (i) understanding the urban food supply chain and mapping urban FW hotspots, (ii) choosing and designing a proper FW intervention and (iii) evaluating its correct implementation.
If I understand correctly – it is somehow related to the “general methodological approach” you have used.
Title of the section “3. Materials and Methods” – suggests it presents how the study was designed. However, for the study in Kibera’s, I found (not so clear) a description of the data collection technique and description of the target audience, some remarks related to the “descriptive statistics”.
But, the way how FW was identified is not presented.
4/
2.1. Understanding urban food systems and FW => presents only available approaches to the FW measure. The food system is not presented at all.
5/
Results, discussion, conclusions
As the aim of the study is not declared it is very difficult to follow the result, discussion and conclusions. Especially the results part looks like a “technical report”.
Technical comments
1/
Line 199; 390; 419; 423; 451; 468; 477; 478; 520; 576 Now is
Error! Reference source not found
Should be or comment:
Please check the references
2/
Line 199 and 390, Now is:
3. Materials and Methods>
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The Manuscript is dealing with urban food waste in low- and middle-income countries, Kibera and Dhaka. The topic is very interesting. The research is carried out accurately. However, there are several issues needed to be addressed.
1. Ln 78, change " in addition" to " In addition".
2. Line 175, check the writing throughout the manuscript and keep the writing in standard.
3. Line 197, Part 2.2, it is a bit too long. The authors should emphasize the key point.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I found the updated version significantly improved comparing the initial one and could be published.
I recommend to check the paper carefully before sending the final version.
Good luck,
Reviewer
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept in present form.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
