Enhancing Public Health and SDG 3 Through Sustainable Agriculture and Tourism
, Danai Antonaki 3, Erasmia Angelaki 3,*, Christos Lemonakis 4 and Garefalakis Alexandros 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The topic investigated in the work is certainly worthy of investigation. The article examines how private initiatives, i.e. the “Phāea Farmers,” “Sustainable Landscape Management,” and “Plan Bee” programmes run by the hotel group Phāea Resorts in Crete, could an contribute to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG 3) by improving public health, environmental quality, and economic resilience. The study combines a systematic literature review with a case study that analyses company reports, KPIs, and public‑private collaboration. The findings show that eliminating pesticides, adopting organic agriculture, and protecting biodiversity reduce health risks, strengthen local supply chains, and offer a scalable model for the tourism sector. The following major revisions are necessary before the manuscript can be considered for publication:
- Clarify the novelty of the study compared to the state of the art at the end of the introduction section.
- The title is too long; a more concise version is recommended.
- Reduce repetitions of “sustainable” and rephrase the very long sentence on lines 24–
- Move Figures 1–2 next to the relevant text and enhance their quality.
- Explicitly link the Cretan context to health challenges.
- Incorporate recent European studies on pesticide reduction in agri‑tourism.
- Clearly differentiate studies that assess direct health effects—such as human exposure to pesticides—from those that investigate indirect pathways, including nutrition‑related outcomes and biodiversity‑driven ecosystem services.
- Table 3: specify the units for “Production (kg)” and clarify whether it includes only produce supplied to restaurants.
- Table 4: state the total property area to contextualise the 1 720 m² of organic gardens.
- Add a pre‑/post‑intervention comparison (baseline 2018‑19) for all key KPIs.
- Explicitly state the study’s limitations, including a paragraph titled "Limitations of the study".
- Include the following references: 10.3390/SU12156279, 10.1016/j.still.2022.105418.
- Correct typographical errors: “pra crtices,” “edible Landscape Mangement,” “intergration,” etc.
- Conclusion needs to be rewritten.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Firstly, we would like to thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Enhancing Public Health and SDG 3 through Sustainable Agriculture and Tourism Initiatives.” All the comments are precious and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as these comments can also be a significant guide for our future research. We have studied all the comments carefully and proceeded with all the appropriate corrections, which we hope to meet with the acceptance of our paper. Revised portions are marked in red on the paper.
So, the main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:
- Clarify the novelty of the study compared to the state of the art at the end of the introduction section.
Response: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. We improved the paper by include the novelty of the study compared to the state of the art at the end of the introduction section.
- The title is too long; a more concise version is recommended.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to refine the title for conciseness. In response, we have revised the title by removing the final word to make it more succinct while preserving the core focus and scope of the study. The new title now reads: "Enhancing Public Health and SDG3 through Sustainable Agriculture and Tourism." We believe this revised title maintains clarity and accurately reflects the study's objectives.
- Reduce repetitions of “sustainable” and rephrase the very long sentence on lines 24
Response: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. We reduced repetitions of “sustainable” and rephrase the very long sentence on lines 24.
- Move Figures 1–2 next to the relevant text and enhance their quality.
Response: We thank the Reviewer for the valuable suggestion. We have repositioned Figure 1 (Article Review Outcomes) to immediately follow the paragraph in Section 4.1 where the analysis of literature gaps is discussed. Additionally, Figure 2 (PRISMA Flow Chart) has been relocated to Section 3.1, directly adjacent to the description of the screening and selection process. Both figures have also been enhanced in terms of resolution and layout to improve clarity and readability. We trust these adjustments enhance the overall coherence and presentation of the manuscript.
- Explicitly link the Cretan context to health challenges.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. To strengthen the contextual relevance of the study, we have added a sentence in the Introduction section directly after the description of Phāea Resorts’ sustainability programs. The new sentence highlights how agricultural pesticide use and tourism-related pressures in Crete are associated with specific environmental health risks, such as water contamination and chronic diseases. This addition clarifies the local health challenges and reinforces the significance of the initiatives studied in advancing SDG 3 within the Cretan context.
- Incorporate recent European studies on pesticide reduction in agritourism.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to contextualize our study within recent European efforts to reduce pesticide use in agriculture. In response, we have incorporated references to the European Commission's Farm to Fork Strategy, which targets a 50% reduction in chemical pesticide use by 2030, and the INRAE foresight study outlining scenarios for pesticide-free agriculture by 2050. These additions provide a broader policy and research context, demonstrating the relevance of Phāea Resorts' practices within the European movement towards sustainable agritourism.
- Clearly differentiate studies that assess direct health effects—such as human exposure to pesticides—from those that investigate indirect pathways, including nutrition‑related outcomes and biodiversity‑driven ecosystem services.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion. In response, we have added a clarifying sentence in Section 4.1, immediately following the discussion of health risks associated with pesticide use. The added sentence distinguishes between studies assessing direct health effects—such as pesticide exposure—and those exploring indirect health pathways, including dietary improvements and biodiversity-related ecosystem services. This distinction helps to clarify the scope and categorization of the studies included in our review.
- Table 3: specify the units for “Production (kg)” and clarify whether it includes only produce supplied to restaurants.
Response: Thank you for pointing out the need for clarification. We have revised Table 3 to include a footnote that specifies "Production (kg)" refers to the total annual weight of pesticide-free produce harvested by Phāea Farmers. The footnote also clarifies that this figure includes only the quantity supplied directly to the resort’s restaurants. We trust this addition improves the table’s precision and interpretability.
- Table 4: state the total property area to contextualise the 1 720 m² of organic gardens.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. To provide clearer context, we have added a footnote to Table 4 indicating that the organic gardens occupy 1,720 m² across Phāea Resorts properties. Although the total landscaped area varies by site, the gardens represent a strategically significant portion dedicated to sustainable food production and guest engagement. This addition offers spatial context for the scale and importance of the garden initiatives.
- Add a pre‑/post‑intervention comparison (baseline 2018‑19) for all key KPIs.
Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that including baseline data would enhance the impact assessment of the initiatives. However, systematic KPI tracking for Phāea Resorts' sustainability programs began in 2019, and reliable data from 2018 is not available. To maintain transparency, we have added a note beneath each relevant table clarifying the absence of 2018 data and indicating that 2019 serves as the baseline for comparison. We hope this clarification addresses your concern.
- Explicitly state the study’s limitations, including a paragraph titled "Limitations of the study".
Response: We thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. In response, we have added a dedicated section titled “Limitations of the Study” prior to the Conclusions. This section outlines key methodological and contextual constraints, including the single-case design, lack of pre-2019 baseline data, reliance on proxy indicators for health outcomes, and the use of self-reported performance data. It also acknowledges the limited generalizability and the need for broader policy and community-level analysis. We believe this addition provides a more balanced and transparent appraisal of the study’s scope and implications.
- Include the following references: 10.3390/SU12156279, 10.1016/j.still.2022.105418.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. We have added these 2 citations.
- Correct typographical errors: “practices,” “edible Landscape Management,” “integration,” etc.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have corrected all the typological errors
- Conclusion needs to be rewritten.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to strengthen the conclusion. In response, we have substantially revised the Conclusion section to enhance analytical depth, clarity, and cohesion. The updated conclusion synthesizes the key findings of the study, emphasizes the novelty of investigating private sector agritourism initiatives in relation to SDG 3, and discusses the practical implications for policy, sustainability reporting, and public health. It also incorporates a critical reflection on the study’s methodological limitations and offers recommendations for future research.
We hope that these revisions and clarifications address your concerns effectively. Thank you once again for your detailed review and for helping us improve the quality of our work.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper focus on Enhancing Public Health and SDG3 through Sustainable Agriculture and Tourism Initiatives, it is an interesting topic, however, there still have some place to be improved.
From the abstract, Crete the fifth-largest island in the Mediterranean, as an exemplary case fir analyzing the intersection of sustainable agriculture, tourism, and public health This part belongs to the Study area.
2. From the perspective of Literature Review, the literature review needs to be further reorganized. Regarding the topic of this study, what is the progress of the relevant previous literature? An illustrative example of sustainable food production in the tourism sector is Phāea Farmers program in the paper which promotes environmentally responsible agricultural practices by training resort staff in organic and sustainable farming methods. This initiative seeks to mitigate the ecological and climatic impact of food supply chains while enhancing food security and preserving biodiversity. This part does not belong to the literature review and the entire part needs to be reorganized.
3.3.2 Case Study: How is the representativeness of conducting a study with a case reflected?
4. The Figure 2 graph needs to be redrawn to be more readable;
5. The research results should closely revolve around the title of the paper. At present, the results section has little connection with the title and needs to be reorganized.
6. The format of the full text should be readjusted, such as moving away from synthet-ic pesticides, planting(Line 411); .Through this ini-tiative, the water (Line 420), the formats are all incorrect
Author Response
- From the abstract, Crete the fifth-largest island in the Mediterranean, as an exemplary case for analyzing the intersection of sustainable agriculture, tourism, and public health This part belongs to the Study area.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In response, we have revised the Abstract to focus more succinctly on the overall study objectives and have removed the specific geographic context of Crete from this section. The detailed description of Crete as an exemplary study area has been appropriately relocated to the “Materials and Methods” section, under “Case Study Selection,” where its relevance to sustainable agriculture, tourism, and public health is more contextually developed. This adjustment enhances the logical structure and clarity of the manuscript.
From the perspective of Literature Review, the literature review needs to be further reorganized. Regarding the topic of this study, what is the progress of the relevant previous literature? An illustrative example of sustainable food production in the tourism sector is Phāea Farmers program in the paper which promotes environmentally responsible agricultural practices by training resort staff in organic and sustainable farming methods. This initiative seeks to mitigate the ecological and climatic impact of food supply chains while enhancing food security and preserving biodiversity. This part does not belong to the literature review and the entire part needs to be reorganized.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We have revised the literature review section.
- 3.3.2 Case Study: How is the representativeness of conducting a study with a case reflected?
Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need to clarify the representativeness of our selected case. In response, we have added a new paragraph at the beginning of Section 3.3.2 explicitly explaining why Phāea Resorts serves as a relevant and illustrative case for this study. The paragraph outlines the unique position of Crete as a region where tourism and agriculture intersect, and highlights the measurable, integrated sustainability interventions implemented by the resort. These features provide both context-specific relevance and broader applicability to tourism-driven areas facing similar sustainability and public health challenges. We believe this addition strengthens the methodological justification for our case study approach.
- The Figure 2 graph needs to be redrawn to be more readable;
Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have redrawn the figure in order to be more readable.
- The research results should closely revolve around the title of the paper. At present, the results section has little connection with the title and needs to be reorganized.
Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have revised some paragraphs of the results in order to connect the results with the title.
- The format of the full text should be readjusted, such as moving away from synthetic pesticides, planting (Line 411); Through this initiative, the water (Line 420), the formats are all incorrect
Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment we have adjust the errors.
We hope that these revisions and clarifications address your concerns effectively. Thank you once again for your detailed review and for helping us improve the quality of our work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGood work. Your paper is now worthy of publication in the journal. Best regards
