Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Study doesn´t present research question in abstract nor in introduction, but is written that this study aims to attempt to operationalize the socio-metabolic approach to re-investigate urban, peri-urban and rural interlinkages in terms of intrinsic alternative food supply chains (AFSCs) embedded in urban areas by examining the spatial distribution of  AFIs (alternative food initiatives) and distance based spatial density of AFIs (geographical proximity) through the urban geographies (concentrated, extended and differential) of cities. I think that it is clear and enough. I think that this study ix exploring a hot topic but I suggest to authors to justify novelty or innovation of this research through previous research on bases such SCOPUS and Web of Science, showing up how many articles were published about. In relation to the method of the research I think is important to refer scientific support, like authors of articles supporting research steps, because as it is written seems that authors conceived research procedures. I suggest to explain better geoprocessing analysis with details. It is relevant to remember that description of the method must enable anyone to replicate research. In results I suggest to present quantitative results, through tables, figures, graphs evidencing what is stated. 

Author Response

We would like to thank to the valuable contributions of reviewers which significantly raised the quality of our manuscript. The below items show our responses and changes that we made in the manuscript according to the critiques of reviewers.

REVIEWER 2

Comment 9

Study doesn’t ́t present research question in abstract nor in introduction, but is written that this study aims to attempt to operationalize the socio-metabolic approach to re-investigate urban, peri-urban and rural interlinkages in terms of intrinsic alternative food supply chains (AFSCs) embedded in urban areas by examining the spatial distribution of AFIs (alternative food initiatives) and distance based spatial density of AFIs (geographical proximity) through the urban geographies (concentrated, extended and differential) of cities. I think that it is clear and enough. I think that this study ix exploring a hot topic but I suggest to authors to justify novelty or innovation of this research through previous research on bases such SCOPUS and Web of Science, showing up how many articles were published about. In relation to the method of the research I think is important to refer scientific support, like authors of articles supporting research steps, because as it is written seems that authors conceived research procedures. I suggest to explain better geoprocessing analysis with details. It is relevant to remember that description of the method must enable anyone to replicate research. In results I suggest to present quantitative results, through tables, figures, graphs evidencing what is stated.

 

Response 9

The suggestions are valuable for the manuscript and have been included in the discussion and results part. The geoprocessing analysis can be found under the materials and methods at page 7.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for the very interesting and certainly contemporary research.

In the context of improving the quality of the work, it is desirable that:

1. Although the introduction of the paper in its current form is very extensive and substantial, it does not mention the elements of sustainable development at all, specifically SGDs that are relevant to the research and of which there is more than one. The entire concept of AFN, AFI, LFS, etc. must be sustainable - after all, the concept of the socio-metabolic approach itself is fundamentally based on the assumption of maintaining urban functions related to food production and distribution. In this sense, the research must be linked to sustainability.

2. On the other hand, the socio-metabolic approach, as you yourself wrote in the introduction, implies a certain impact on the environment, whether in the context of production, distribution or disposal of food waste. There is no data in this paper at all and they must be listed and linked to current initiatives in the field of environmentally responsible food production and distribution.

3. The AFN and AFI concepts are certainly relevant, but in addition to quantity and quality, there is also the issue of safety, sustainability and reliability of such systems compared to traditional ones. An example of an analysis of advantages and disadvantages is necessary in the paper.

4. Where in the context of food safety do the standards that regulate this area belong - ISO 22000, FSSC 22000, HACCP... These protocols/standards must be described in the paper.

5. Images must be adequately announced in the text with comments after the images. In addition, the paper mentions Figure 3 but it is nowhere to be found!

6. The biggest complaint and suggestion for improvement relates to the Discussion - which does not exist! Dear authors, the introductory part of your paper is excellent, but after Figure 2 and before the conclusion there is a need to adequately discuss one, I believe very interesting research conducted as part of the FUSILI project.

7. The conclusion can be supplemented with relevant quantitative statements.

8. It is desirable to expand the list of references.

Best regards

Author Response

We would like to thank to the valuable contributions of reviewers which significantly raised the quality of our manuscript. The below items show our responses and changes that we made in the manuscript according to the critiques of reviewers.

REVIEWER 1

Comment 1

Although the introduction of the paper in its current form is very extensive and substantial, it does not mention the elements of sustainable development at all, specifically SGDs that are relevant to the research and of which there is more than one. The entire concept of AFN, AFI, LFS, etc. must be sustainable - after all, the concept of the socio-metabolic approach itself is fundamentally based on the assumption of maintaining urban functions related to food production and distribution. In this sense, the research must be linked to sustainability.

 

Response 1

The comments of the reviewer have been included in different parts of the manuscript including introduction, literature discussions and newly added discussion part.

Comment 2

On the other hand, the socio-metabolic approach, as you yourself wrote in the introduction, implies a certain impact on the environment, whether in the context of production, distribution or disposal of food waste. There is no data in this paper at all and they must be listed and linked to current initiatives in the field of environmentally responsible food production and distribution.

Response 2

The critique is handled in the discussion part.

Comment 3

The AFN and AFI concepts are certainly relevant, but in addition to quantity and quality, there is also the issue of safety, sustainability and reliability of such systems compared to traditional ones. An example of an analysis of advantages and disadvantages is necessary in the paper.

Response 3

The advantages and disadvantages are discussed in the discussion part.

Comment 4

Where in the context of food safety do the standards that

regulate this area belong - ISO 22000, FSSC 22000, HACCP...These protocols/standards must be described in the paper.

Response 4

The mentioned food safety standards and regulations are out of the context of this research and this manuscript. It would be valuable if there was another research that focuses on the issue of food safety standards. AFIs are more related with food sovereignty, food justice, food democracy and food citizenship.

Comment 5

Images must be adequately announced in the text with

comments after the images. In addition, the paper mentions

Figure 3 but it is nowhere to be found!

Response 5

Figure 3 was mistakenly kept in the manuscript; it has been excluded as it should be in the previous version. We also have provided a reference for it in page 3.

Comment 6

The biggest complaint and suggestion for improvement relates to the Discussion - which does not exist! Dear authors, the introductory part of your paper is excellent, but after Figure 2 and before the conclusion there is a need to adequately discuss one, I believe very interesting research conducted as part of the FUSILI project.

Response 6

It has been added, thanks for the valuable suggestion.

Comment 7

 The conclusion can be supplemented with relevant

quantitative statements.

Response 7

The request has been provided but not in the part of conclusion, but in the part of results.

Comment 8

 It is desirable to expand the list of references.

Response 8

It has been completed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

corrections followed my suggestions. It is ok now.

Author Response

There is no new comments from Reviewer 1, but our revisions are:

Dear Editor and Reviewers

Thanks for your valuable comments. The revisions are highlighted in yellow within the text.

 

1) The abstract is shortened and reduced methodological explanations.

2) The introduction is shortened and revised, dublications are eliminated, methodology has sub-sections as mentions.

3) In the results , Table 1 is revised, the differences is much more emphasihed between Rome and Oslo, and comparsion between cities is dicussed at both discussion and results.

4) the discussion is revised and shortened, policy implications for cities are added, limitations of the study are also added

5) the conclusion is shortened, recommendations for future studies are added.

 

best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the significantly improved work in which you have included all the requested suggestions.

I believe that the paper can be published without additional corrections, but I would like to point out that the issue of food safety cannot be neglected in any food supply chain, regardless of whether it is a traditional or alternative one.

Warm greetings

 

Author Response

There is no new comments from Reviewer2 , but our revisions are :

 

Dear Editor and Reviewers

Thanks for your valuable comments. The revisions are highlighted in yellow within the text.

 

1) The abstract is shortened and reduced methodological explanations.

2) The introduction is shortened and revised, dublications are eliminated, methodology has sub-sections as mentions.

3) In the results , Table 1 is revised, the differences is much more emphasihed between Rome and Oslo, and comparsion between cities is dicussed at both discussion and results.

4) the discussion is revised and shortened, policy implications for cities are added, limitations of the study are also added

5) the conclusion is shortened, recommendations for future studies are added.

 

best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx