Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Simplifying complex indicators such as population decline, rural classification and unemployment rate into 0/1 binary classification will lose key gradient information.  For example, unemployment rates of 5% and 30% may be very different in socio-economic terms, but they may score the same in this system, which is contrary to the original intention of multi-criteria assessment. 
 If licorice is indeed the subject of study, this species prefers a temperate continental climate and salt tolerance, but southern Spain (Andalusia and other places) has a Mediterranean climate and extreme drought and high temperature in summer, which may not be the optimum area. 
 Risk of licorice as an invasive species: Glyrhiza glabra has strong dispersal ability in arid areas and may threaten native plants. Research completely ignores ecological risk assessment. 
 Water demand contradicts Spain's water shortage: licorice is drought-tolerant, but commercial cultivation still requires irrigation, contrary to the "European Bioeconomy" water-saving objectives in the extremely arid southern regions. 
 Conflict of soil pH preferences: licorice prefers alkaline soils (pH>7.5), but a large number of soils in southern Spain are acidic or neutral. The authors do not explain the source of data and matching accuracy. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comments. In response to your observations, the manuscript has been improved as follows (see reviewed version of the manuscript in which the new content is highlighted):

1. Binary classification of socioeconomic indicators
   The methodological rationale behind the binary scoring of demographic and economic indicators has been clarified (lines 289-295), together with an explicit definition of how “sustained population decline” is operationalised using official INE records. Our approach indeed uses a binary (0/1) classification for certain social indicators, which inevitably simplifies part of the gradient information. This choice was deliberate and aligned with the structure of our assessment framework, which intentionally prioritized agronomic aspects as a criterion before evaluating social factors, ensuring that the crop is adaptable to the local environment (an essential prerequisite for any meaningful social benefits to materialize in the context of this study). With agronomic viability considered, the binary social indicators function as a conservative screening tool rather than a detailed socio-economic quantification. Their purpose is to flag the presence or absence of enabling social conditions, not to replace a full multi-criteria socio-economic analysis. We acknowledge that more granular scoring (e.g., distinguishing between 5% and 30% unemployment) could enrich future assessments, and this limitation is now clarified in lines 656-670 and add a bullet point to the limitations of the manuscript.
2. Climatic suitability in southern Spain
   Section 3.1 (see lines 368-389 in the reviewed version) has been expanded to clarify the native or long-established status of Glycyrrhiza glabra in Mediterranean regions and its documented adaptation to semi-arid climates, high summer temperatures and calcareous soils.
3. Ecological risk and invasive potential
   A dedicated paragraph now addresses the ecological status of G. glabra in Spain, and the limitations section explicitly acknowledges that ecological risk indicators were not included in the present model (see lines 368-397 and 649-651 in the reviewed version).
4. Water requirements and regional water scarcity
   The text now clarifies that although commercial licorice requires irrigation during adaptation, the suitability model prioritises municipalities with natural water support and does not propose cultivation in severely water-stressed areas (see lines 390-394).
5. Soil pH preferences and data sources
   The description of soil pH data sources has been expanded, detailing the ESDAC dataset, its resolution, and the procedure used for assigning dominant pH values at municipal scale, see lines 244-257 in the reviewed version.

We appreciate your valuable input and believe the revised manuscript reflects your recommendations.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The paper presents a well-grounded and timely contribution; however, to reach the standards of a Sustainability journal, several substantive improvements are recommended, as detailed below.

1. The introduction provides relevant contextual information, but the research gap is not explicitly articulated. Please clearly state what is missing in the existing literature and how this study addresses that gap.

1. The manuscript implicitly describes its aims, but explicit, well-formulated research objectives or research questions would strengthen the scientific framing and improve coherence throughout the paper.
2. The discussion section is predominantly descriptive. Please deepen the analytical component by integrating and contrasting your findings with previous studies on licorice cultivation, Mediterranean crops, GIS-based suitability assessments, and rural development.
3. While the limitations are mentioned, they should be presented in direct dialogue with recognized methodological standards for multi-criteria evaluation, spatial decision-support tools, and climate–soil suitability modelling.
4. The conclusions currently summarize findings but should go further by outlining clear managerial implications (e.g., for farmers, cooperatives, local administrations) and policy implications linked to CAP, rural revitalization strategies, and bioeconomy frameworks.
5. The manuscript would benefit from a clearer articulation of how it contributes to academic literature—such as combining agronomic GIS modelling with socioeconomic vulnerability indicators, or proposing a replicable analytical framework for underutilized crops.
6. Since the GIS-based framework is one of the strengths of the study, please highlight its potential for replication in other regions or for other crops, and specify conditions under which it can be generalized.
7. Explicitly indicate how your work advances the understanding of crop diversification, circular value chains, and rural socio-economic regeneration within the bioeconomy research field.
8. The EcoRadiz case study is highly insightful, but its connection to the main GIS results could be more explicitly articulated in terms of how it validates, illustrates, or challenges the suitability model.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your comprehensive and insightful comments, which have substantially strengthened the manuscript. The major revisions undertaken are as follows (see reviewed version of the manuscript in which the new content is highlighted):

1. Explicit research gap in the Introduction
   A dedicated paragraph now clearly articulates the absence of studies integrating agronomic suitability and socioeconomic vulnerability for G. glabra, defining the research gap addressed by our work (see lines 190-219 in the reviewed version).
2. Clear formulation of research objectives
   Explicit research objectives have been added at the end of the Introduction to strengthen the scientific framing (see lines 205-212 in the reviewed version).
3. Enhanced analytical depth in the Discussion
   The discussion section now provides a more analytical interpretation of the results, contrasting our findings with previous research on licorice cultivation, Mediterranean crops, GIS-based suitability assessments, and rural development (see new content highlighted along the section).
4. Limitations in dialogue with methodological standards
   The limitations section has been expanded to situate the model in relation to established MCDA methods (AHP, TOPSIS), spatial decision-support tools, and best practices in climate–soil modelling (see lines 656-670).
5. Managerial and policy implications
   The Conclusions now include concrete implications for farmers, cooperatives and local administrations, together with explicit connections to CAP instruments, rural revitalisation strategies and the EU bioeconomy framework (see lines 719-746 in the reviewed version).
6. Contribution to academic literature
   The manuscript now explains more explicitly how the study contributes to the literature by combining agronomic GIS modelling with socioeconomic vulnerability indicators and by proposing a replicable framework for underutilised crops (lines 214-219, 595-610).
7. Replicability and generalisation of the GIS framework
   A specific paragraph clarifies the conditions under which the approach can be transferred to other crops or regions (lines 633-638).
8. Bioeconomy, crop diversification and circular value chains
   The discussion now explicitly links our findings to debates on crop diversification, circular value chains and rural socio-economic regeneration (lines 691-700).
9. Connection between EcoRadiz and GIS results
   Section 3.4 has been expanded to clarify how the EcoRadiz case study illustrates and partially validates the suitability patterns identified by the model (see lines 520-531 in the reviewed version).

We sincerely appreciate your detailed comments and believe the revisions reflect them adequately.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The Abstract is complete and coherent.

The Introduction offers a comprehensive overview of the topic under investigation, including the relevance and performance of licorice cultivation. However, it lacks a clearly articulated gap—either within the existing body of knowledge or in cultivation practices—that would substantiate the significance of the analyses presented in the article.

The Methodology is clearly presented. With regard to the selection of socioeconomic criteria, it remains unclear which specific values were used to classify a region as experiencing sustained population decline.

The Results are thoroughly presented, clearly articulated, and logically derived from the analyses conducted.

The Conclusions and Recommendations are pertinent.

In the final part of the article, it is important to include, in a separate section, a discussion of the study’s limitations.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your positive assessment and constructive suggestions. The following modifications have been implemented in response to your comments (see reviewed version of the manuscript in which the new content is highlighted):

1. Clear articulation of the research gap
   The Introduction now contains an explicit and well-defined statement of the research gap, emphasizing the lack of integrated agronomic–socioeconomic suitability studies for licorice (see lines 190-203 in the reviewed version).
2. Clarification of the depopulation criterion in the Methodology
   The methodological section now explicitly defines how “sustained population decline” is identified using official INE data, thereby addressing the ambiguity noted in your comment (see lines 283-284 in the reviewed version).
3. Dedicated section on study limitations
   A clearly delimited subsection has been added in the final part of the manuscript, where the methodological and conceptual limitations of the study are synthesised and discussed (see section 3.5 and the new content highlighted along the section).

We are grateful for your helpful feedback and believe the revised manuscript addresses all the points raised.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations