A Social Life Cycle Assessment as a Key to Territorial Development: A Study of the Hydrangea Crop in Colombia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work done by the authors has the potential to contribute to knowledge; however, it requires some adjustments in its content. Below are some suggestions for improvement:

Literature Review

Review the use of the acronym SLCA, as in some sections the full meaning is used.

A paragraph should be included describing the production process of hydrangeas so that it can be associated with the stakeholders.

The literature review requires a brief explanation about SLCA, its use, application, etc. On the other hand, it is considered appropriate that instead of using Table 1, they expose the main findings of these articles and the relationship they could have with the study carried out by the authors.

It is considered that it is not necessary to mention that it is the first publication specifically oriented towards SLCA.

Methodology

How many small and micro-businesses were included in the study? Time it took for the study.

It is considered appropriate to provide more information on how the stakeholders and subcategories were selected. In line 243 it is mentioned that the social indicators were validated by a panel of experts; how was this panel integrated? What was the procedure to validate them?

Review and ensure that all acronyms used have the full words to understand their meaning. Not all acronyms have their meaning described; for example: PRP (line 263). 

Results and Conclusions

The discussion of the results and the description of how they were arrived at should be increased. A greater review of the conclusions should be made, at the moment there is not a direct relationship between the results obtained and the conclusions.

There is no Figure 5, it should be included.

The tables should be presented complete.

Finally, please check all the typing mistakes, for example: 

Line 100, says "Table1 Shows" should say "Table 1 shows"

Line 538 says “inly” and should say “only”  

Line 577 says "local governance/." should say "local governance"

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Only minor typing mistakes were detected. Please check the whole document.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The English language requires big improvement. There are a lot of mistakes in the text.

It would be better to add a discussion section.

Figures and Tables demand serious formatting.

There is no Figure 5 at all

The Conclusion has to be rewritten.

“The purpose of this study was to evaluate small and medium-sized Hydrangea growers using the social life cycle assessment methodology and to analyze how this economic activity represents a development alternative for the province of La Paz.”

The conclusion should show the results of this evaluation and analysis.

I have some serious concerns about the analytical part of the paper. I do not really know how it is possible to conduct analyses without any numbers, and there is no a single one in the paper. May be there is one family of farmers in the whole province? We do not know it.

 

It is highly recommended to add some statistics.resents a development alternative for the province of La Paz.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language requires big improvement. There are a lot of mistakes in the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper and provide my comments. In my opinion, the article requires many changes and additions. Moreover, the paper was prepared carelessly, as evidenced by, among others, figure 5 missing, word "años" in table 5, incomplete figure 1.

The Authors presented their thoughts chaotically on paper. The aim of the paper was: “…to assess small and medium-sized Hydrangea producers using the S-LCA methodology and to analyze how this economic activity can serve as a development alternative for the province of La Paz”. However, there is no description of the method in the paper. There is also no, although brief, description of the studied province. In my opinion, it is also worth expanding the characteristics of hydrangea production. No information on what the authors consider a small and medium-sized farm?

Part 3 of the paper requires changes. There is no indication of who was examined, how the research sample was selected, how many people were examined, there is no description of the research methods and no indication why such methods were chosen.

Part 4 of the paper. On what basis were priority stakeholders selected? There is no quantitative indication of the research results in this part.

The Conclusions section is very short and general. It is worth pointing out the main conclusions from the research and referring directly to the purpose of the paper (or research hypotheses, if any were formulated in the paper).

In my opinion, the article requires significant corrections and should not be accepted for publication in the Journal in its presented form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are many type mishmash errors in this work, the authors must be more careful.

For example,

The abstract is too long (almost 307 words). Abstract must be a single paragraph of about 200 words maximum.

Literature review can be shorter.

          Materials and Methods can be better presented and highlighted.

Figure 1 is out of page

Line 191 “Figure 2” are bolded.

The explanations for figure 2 are too vague.

       Results and discussion

Try to highlight better the results and the discussions.

 

Line 217 “Table 2” are bolded.

Table 2 is out of page

Line 226 “Table 3” are bolded.

I don't see the meaning of table 4

Line 260 “Table 4” are bolded.

Line 297 “Figure 3” are bolded.

Give more explications for figure 3.  You have 2 axes Affectation and Influence and value but didn’t explain mothing about this.  Value is the rating?  Didn’t mentioned this.

       From line 306 to 417

Here the results should be presented.

What is presented here does not look like results.

It is not clear how you reached the conclusions presented.

Also, if we refer to conclusions, they must be mentioned in the respective chapter

Line 577 – missing figure 5

From line 578 to 591

What is presented here does not look like results.

      Line 592 – Conclusions
Conclusions must be supported by results, Results that should be presented in the previous chapter.

The conclusions must be highlighted and emphasized better.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Regarding this latest version of the work, I only have one comment; in line 435 the word ‘Hortensia’ is used when ‘Hydrangea’ was used throughout the document; it is considered appropriate to make the change to avoid confusion.

Finnally, the authors have made the appropriate adjustments, so in the opinion of this evaluator, the work can be published as presented.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their supportive and constructive comments. 

The suggested change has been made, changing the word "Hortensia" to "Hydrangea" in line 428 to provide clarity in the document.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors responded in detail to my comments and indicated the changes made to the paper. The quality of the revised paper has improved significantly. In my opinion, the article requires only minor changes of a technical nature (standardization of paragraph indents, improvement of tables). The paper can be published in Sustainability, in my opinion.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their supportive and constructive comments. 

The indentation of paragraphs has been standardized according to the criteria used in the example document of the journal and the tables have been improved.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been  improved, and I think most of my comments have been corrected

 

There are many type mishmash errors in this manuscript.

For example page 2 line 94 "improvement. [13]."

or 

page 4 line 171 "and Haryati et [17, 21, 22]."  (et al) 

or 

Equation numering in left 
Keep atention on tempate indications. 

 

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their supportive and constructive comments. 

The typographical errors that were previously present have been rectified, and the numbering of the equations has been adjusted in accordance with the instructions and format of the journal as outlined on its website.