Evaluation of Sustainable Development Objectives in the Production of Protected Geographical Indication Legumes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Observations have been made on the document with the aim of improving clarity, methodological precision and structuring of the content. It is suggested to optimise the wording in some sections to make it more concise and focused on the application of the methods.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Lines 23-25 Regarding this highlighted part, I cannot see the comment. Thank you

Line 38 Increase the number of keywords, minimum 5, to improve the visibility and accessibility of the work in scientific databases and search engines.

Thank you very much, two keywords have been added.

Lines 41-42 Add bibliographical references

Thank you very much, all bibliographical references throughout the document have been modified and several more have been added.

Lines 64-70 Relate the study in Asturias to the implementation of the SDGs in local agriculture.

Thank you very much, I have clarified this by adding information with the relevant bibliographic reference (lines 75-81)

Line 65 It is recommended that the first time the acronym SDG is mentioned, its full meaning should be spelled out.

Thank you very much, I have added the definition of these terms.

Lines 84-89 Mention if there are differences between PGI and conventional crops in terms of sustainability.

Thank you very much for this consideration, I took the opportunity to clarify this concept (lines 100-108) and add bibliographical references.

Line 110 It is recommended for the whole methodology to reduce the theoretical explanation and focus more on how the work was carried out. The methodology would be improved by focusing more on the application of the methods and providing details on the execution of the study.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have removed some parts that seemed repetitive and did not add anything further to the text. We believe it is important to keep the rest to ensure everything is as clear as possible, given that it is a new methodology and the study area is very focused on a specific region.

Line 111 Make the description more synthetic, reduce the information to what is strictly necessary to understand the study area and its relevance to the research. Focus on methodological aspects, present geographical, climatic and agronomic characteristics only in terms of their relevance for the sustainability analysis.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have removed some parts that seemed repetitive and did not add anything further to the text. We believe it is important to keep the rest to ensure everything is as clear as possible, given that it is a new methodology and the study area is very focused on a specific region.

 

 

Lines 140-169 Include a reference to previous studies justifying the methodology.

Thank you very much. I have added the following bibliographical references [69-71]

Lines 145-148 Indicate the scale of spatial resolution used for the analyses.

Thank you very much. I have included the spatial resolution scale next to the source of each piece of data collected in Table 1. It is in brackets next to the name of each data set

Lines 156-160 What criteria were used to decide when to use each type of data.

Thank you very much. I added this information by rewriting the whole paragraph (lines 180-187)

Lines 189-197 It is recommended to move this content to the introduction or discussion and focus on how sustainability was operationalised in this study.

Thank you very much, I have moved this content to the introduction and added a more careful description of how sustainability was operationalised in this study (lines 120-128).

Lines 208-210 Specify how many and what was their profile (e.g. researchers, agronomists, sustainability specialists).

Thank you very much, I have better specified the number and their speciality (lines 227-228)

Lines 210-215 It is suggested to reduce the conceptual part and focus more on how the method was applied in this study. Lines 215,216 How the weight of each indicator was calculated.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have tried to remove the less important part of this section. However, we had to expand it because we also needed to explain the calculation of the weights concept and introduced additional literature references [95-97] (lines 227-240)

Lines 222-224 What were the correlated variables

The variables to be used for the calculations are those shown in Table 2, which is why we did not want to repeat them here. If it is necessary to include them here, we will have no problem doing so in the next revision, as we believed it was sufficiently clear.

Line 228 Reduce the theoretical part and explain which variables were represented in the violin plots and focus more on the methodology.

Thank you very much. The theoretical part of this section has been drastically reduced; however, as in the previous revision, we considered it sufficient not to present the variables here. The results section shows the graphs of each of the variables considered.

Lines 295-297 Justify the selection of these thresholds with references.

Thank you very much. I have added the following bibliographical references [105,106]

Lines 317-320 Explain whether this relationship is due to more intensive agricultural activity or to climatic factors.

Thank you very much. Something more has been added to the discussion of the results in those relationships (Lines 331-336).

Lines 347-349 Explain whether this conclusion is based on the observed correlation or on previous studies.

Thank you very much for this clarification. This conclusion is based on the study cited earlier, so presenting it in a new paragraph led to a different interpretation. Therefore, we have placed it immediately after the previous citation, aiming to make it clear that it is a continuation of the preceding text. (Lines 363-365).

Lines 368-370 Mention which indicators show asymmetry

Thank you very much for this suggestion. The text in lines 394-396 has been added.

Lines 381-384 Explain whether this variability affects the model's ability to assess sustainability.

With the analysis we have carried out, we have not examined this aspect in depth, as determining this variability would require field visits to observe them in situ. Since this is a new methodology, it is possible to improve it in the future if we see the shortcomings.

Lines 410-423 Refer to the methodology and focus this part on the interpretation of the results.

Thank you very much. I have removed a merely descriptive part of the method and added a more in-depth discussion on why this grouping exists and how it affects green and sustainable agriculture in Asturias.

Lines 445-449 Support these assertions with previous data or studies.

Thank you very much. I have included bibliographical references to support my assertion.

Lines 460-462 Consolidate this idea in a single paragraph to avoid redundancy.

Very good. I have taken your correction into consideration and merged everything into one paragraph

Line 552 Conclusions are lengthy and repeat information already discussed in the results section. Summarise key points and avoid repeating analysis already explained in the previous section. It is recommended to present only the main conclusions in a more direct format.

Thank you very much. I have rewritten the conclusions while trying to make a summary without making it redundant.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for Author:

I have reviewed this paper, entitled “Evaluation of Sustainable Development Objectives in the Production of Protected Geographical Indication Legumes”. This paper addresses the environmental sustainability of the Protected Geographical Indication legume (PGI) Phaseolus vulgaris L. cultivated in the Asturias region, of Spain. This article provides valuable information and addresses the role of PGI in enhancing sustainable and clean agricultural practices by meeting geographical and quality requirements for local production. Thus, I recommend it for publication in this journal. However, I suggest that certain revisions and corrections be made before its final acceptance.

1. Line 27-28: "Spatial positive autocorrelation was confirmed by Moran’s I test...It should be rewritten as " a significant positive spatial autocorrelation was observed using Moran’s I test.
2. Keywords: The number of keywords should be increased to meet the journal's requirements, ensuring a minimum of five keywords are included or according to the journal guidelines.
3. The role of PGI in environmental sustainability is mentioned but lacks a detailed explanation. More specific examples of PGI regulations and their impact on sustainability should be included in the revised version.
4. Moran’s, result suggests astrong spatial autocorrelation, but the authors need to include a deeper discussion on why this clustering occurs and how it affects green and sustainable agriculture in Asturias.
5. The authors need to provide more details about correlation analysis (for example, the relationship between greenhouse gases and water withdrawal) must indicate whether it suggests a cause-and-effect relationship or simply reflects associations.
6.  Biodiversity and land degradation loss should be analyzed in the context of farming practices. Does PGI certification mitigate these issues effectively?
7. Figure 1. lacks a clear scale and legend for better readability. Improve the figure quality.
8. The reference list includes "FAO Conference 25th Session, Rome, Italy, November 1989" without a proper DOI or source link. Please provide a proper DOI or source link in the revised version.

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The entire article needs to be revised to correct for English grammatical mistakes and typos.

Author Response

I have reviewed this paper, entitled “Evaluation of Sustainable Development Objectives in the Production of Protected Geographical Indication Legumes”. This paper addresses the environmental sustainability of the Protected Geographical Indication legume (PGI) Phaseolus vulgaris L. cultivated in the Asturias region, of Spain. This article provides valuable information and addresses the role of PGI in enhancing sustainable and clean agricultural practices by meeting geographical and quality requirements for local production. Thus, I recommend it for publication in this journal. However, I suggest that certain revisions and corrections be made before its final acceptance.

Thank you very much for taking my work into consideration and for making a valuable contribution with these corrections.

1. Line 27-28: "Spatial positive autocorrelation was confirmed by Moran’s I test...It should be rewritten as " a significant positive spatial autocorrelation was observed using Moran’s I test.

Thank you very much, I have changed this sentence.

1. Keywords: The number of keywords should be increased to meet the journal's requirements, ensuring a minimum of five keywords are included or according to the journal guidelines.

Thank you very much, two keywords have been added.

1. The role of PGI in environmental sustainability is mentioned but lacks a detailed explanation. More specific examples of PGI regulations and their impact on sustainability should be included in the revised version.

Thank you very much for this consideration, I took the opportunity to clarify this concept (lines 100-108) and add bibliographical references.

1. Moran’s, result suggests astrong spatial autocorrelation, but the authors need to include a deeper discussion on why this clustering occurs and how it affects green and sustainable agriculture in Asturias.

Thank you very much. I have removed a merely descriptive part of the method and added a more in-depth discussion on why this grouping exists and how it affects green and sustainable agriculture in Asturias.

1. The authors need to provide more details about correlation analysis (for example, the relationship between greenhouse gases and water withdrawal) must indicate whether it suggests a cause-and-effect relationship or simply reflects associations.

Thank you very much. Something more has been added to the discussion of the results in those relationships (Lines 331-336). Similarly, a paragraph has been added explaining that the model can be improved, as this is a new methodology considered as the first step for subsequent improvements and adapting by adding new factors that allow for a closer approximation to reality (Lines 363-365).

1. Biodiversity and land degradation loss should be analyzed in the context of farming practices. Does PGI certification mitigate these issues effectively?

Thank you very much for this question. The idea of Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) certification has been proposed as a tool to promote traditional and sustainable production systems, capable of preserving agroecological heritage and mitigating the negative effects of intensive agriculture. However, with the analysis we have conducted, we did not fully examine this aspect, as determining these losses would require field visits to observe in situ the possible differences between the plots associated with the PGI and those that are not.

1. Figure 1. lacks a clear scale and legend for better readability. Improve the figure quality.

Thank you very much, I have added the scale to the previous image. As for the other figures such as indicators and sustainability, I tried to recreate them but the cadastral plots are so small compared to the area that it is very difficult to make them clear anyway.

1. The reference list includes "FAO Conference 25th Session, Rome, Italy, November 1989" without a proper DOI or source link. Please provide a proper DOI or source link in the revised version.

Thank you very much, I have corrected the bibliographical reference [18]

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments made above were adequately addressed by the authors. However, corrections need to be made regarding the conclusions, summarising the key points. I therefore recommend accepting the article with corrections.

Line 570 to 607, it is necessary to summarise the conclusions 

Author Response

The comments made above were adequately addressed by the authors. However, corrections need to be made regarding the conclusions, summarising the key points. I therefore recommend accepting the article with corrections.

Line 570 to 607, it is necessary to summarise the conclusions

Thank you very much for your comment.
We have summarized the conclusions to highlight the main ideas of the document. You can find the revised conclusions section on lines 571-587.

Thank you again for your review.