Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Journal: Youth

Title: Architecture for Spatially Just Food System Planning with and for Urban Youth South Sudanese Refugees in Kenya

Date of Review: 29/10/2025

• General

Many thanks for the opportunity to review your manuscript. It addresses an important issue that is very relevant to this journal. The manuscript could benefit from major revisions; more comments, suggestions, and guidance are provided below.  

• Title

Thank you, the title is very clear and well formulated.

• Abstract

Your abstract is well-written and provides an overview of what is in the manuscript. However, in line 13, I noticed that you tend to use the present tense instead of the past tense. May you kindly correct this.

I also noticed that your abstract misses some key information, for example, methods of data collection and data analysis. It would also add value to briefly present a few findings of the study.

Consider taking some statements from the abstract to the introduction section so that the abstract remains a brief synopsis of how the study was undertaken.

• Introduction

Your introduction is solid and captures all the vital elements of the manuscript. Your understanding of literature around the subject area is impressive; it is evident that you have conducted thorough research on the topic. I was also impressed with how you linked this study with the previous study that was done on the matter.

Can I suggest that each time you use an abbreviation or acronym for the first time, you must first write it in full. In your introduction, I see several acronyms, e.g UNCTAD, FAO, NGOs, UNHCR

Is there any reason why “theme of fluidity” in line 80 is in bold?

You provided adequate background information, which helps in contextualising and understanding the issues. Well-done. I can see that a lot of effort and thought went into drafting this manuscript

Consider deleting the title of the article provided in lines 180-181 “A Framework for Youth Work with Refugees: 180 Analysis further to the expert seminar “Journeys to a New Life: Understanding the role of youth 181 work in integrating young refugees in Europe”, it does not serve any purpose, whoever wants to see the title of the article can just find in in the references section.

You mention that you used the postcolonial theory as your theoretical framework. Don’t you feel that the eco-social work framework, as presented in Figure 2, was more appropriate for this study? Moreover, consider using the sustainable livelihood approach or the social development approach.

Although your introduction section is impressive, it ends abruptly. Consider tucking it up with a solid rationale and justification of the study, including the aims and research questions, which will nicely lead to the materials and methods section.

• Materials and Methods

Although your methodology section shows a lot of creativity in collecting data. However, it is too brief and tends to miss key information on how the study was conducted. It needs to be more detailed and to clearly explain how the study was conducted.

Since you used a mixed-methods research approach, you should clearly explain how the qualitative phase was conducted and how the quantitative phase was undertaken. In each of these methodologies, you should clearly indicate the research design, population, sampling method, data, data analysis and measures that were put in place to safeguard the quality of data.

Your current methodology section is too generic and does not give a clear picture of how the study was undertaken.

This section seems to be silent on the ethical considerations of the study. This is imperative considering that the study was in one of the highly vulnerable population groups. You should also indicate whether ethical clearance was received for the study.

• Results

Your findings section contains valuable and relevant information, which, however, needs to be repackaged more elaborately, especially the survey results.

I want to suggest that, before presenting the results and findings, you should briefly present the demographic details/profile of participants so that it is easier to contextualise and cross-reference the profile details with the provided narratives. This can be done in a table to provide a consolidated, quick grasp of demographic information.

The verbatim/narratives should identify who said what, which is why the demographic profile table I alluded to earlier comes in handy.

Is there any reason why some statements are presented in bold, especially from lines 278 -308

Generally, the results section has golden information; however, it tends to lose its value by not being presented logically and coherently. Kindly repackage it differently, and the value of this information will skyrocket.

Other than that, I enjoyed and learnt a lot from your results and findings.

• Discussion

Your discussion section also needs to be revised so that it is more aligned with the results and findings of the study. At times, this section tends to venture into issues not mentioned in the results section, e.g. the participants being eager to receive completion certificates, the methods used by the facilitator. However, it is good that this section is supported by an integration of relevant literature.

I am struggling to see the influence of your theoretical framework in this section. May you kindly be more deliberate in showcasing this influence?

Your discussion section is all over the place and very difficult to follow.

Why are lines 618 – 621 in bold?

What is the relevance of the quote on lines 633-637?

Conclusions

Your manuscript ends abruptly and does not have a conclusion section. Please extend the manuscript by adding and thoroughly addressing the following:

5. Conclusions –

5.1. Significance and implications of the study –

5.2. Limitations –

5.3. Recommendations –

Author Response

Comment 1: However, in line 13, I noticed that you tend to use the present tense instead of the past tense. May you kindly correct this.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with you and have changed line 13 to say, “follow-up to previous findings, included 40 participants aged 19 to 32.”

Comment 2: I also noticed that your abstract misses some key information, for example, methods of data collection and data analysis. It would also add value to briefly present a few findings of the study.

Response 2: Thank you for your comment. The abstract has been re-worded to clarify the methods of data collection. The methods are surveys, food diaries, and food maps. We included a statement on findings, and did not have the additional words based on our maximum to expand further on data collection methods. As noted below, a statement was integrated elsewhere in order to focus on how the study was undertaken.

Comment 3: Consider taking some statements from the abstract to the introduction section so that the abstract remains a brief synopsis of how the study was undertaken.

Response 3: Statements have been integrated into other sections to focus on how the study was undertaken.

Introduction

Comment 4: Can I suggest that each time you use an abbreviation or acronym for the first time, you must first write it in full. In your introduction, I see several acronyms, e.g UNCTAD, FAO, NGOs, UNHCR.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing that out. We agree and have made the following changes:         

          Line 33-34: Put the full name for UNCTAD

          Line: 35-36: inserted the full name for FAO

  Line 49: Inserted “non-government organizations“ and put paranthesis around NGOs.

Line 50-51: inserted the full name for UNHCR

Comment 5: Is there any reason why “theme of fluidity” in line 80 is in bold?

Response 5: It was in bold to highlight it, but we have changed it to plain text.

Comment 6: Consider deleting the title of the article provided in lines 180-181 “A Framework for Youth Work with Refugees: 180 Analysis further to the expert seminar “Journeys to a New Life: Understanding the role of youth 181 work in integrating young refugees in Europe”, it does not serve any purpose, whoever wants to see the title of the article can just find in in the references section.

Response 6: Line 195-197: Thank you for bringing that to our attention. We agree with you and the title of the article has been removed. The sentence now reads: “Rambaree et al. created an “eco-social work framework for youth work with refugees”, as shown in Figure 2 (2016).”

Comment 7: You mention that you used the postcolonial theory as your theoretical framework. Don’t you feel that the eco-social work framework, as presented in Figure 2, was more appropriate for this study? Moreover, consider using the sustainable livelihood approach or the social development approach.

Response 7: Thank you for your feedback. We agree and have incorporated the eco-social theory more thoroughly throughout the manuscript.

Comment 8: Although your introduction section is impressive, it ends abruptly. Consider tucking it up with a solid rationale and justification of the study, including the aims and research questions, which will nicely lead to the materials and methods section.

Response 8: The introduction section has been re-worked, and a paragraph from the beginning section has been moved to the end to allow for a smoother transition to the materials and methods section. (see lines 235-248)

Materials and Methods

Comment 9: Although your methodology section shows a lot of creativity in collecting data. However, it is too brief and tends to miss key information on how the study was conducted. It needs to be more detailed and to clearly explain how the study was conducted.

Response 9: More detailed information added to the methodology section.

Comment 10: Since you used a mixed-methods research approach, you should clearly explain how the qualitative phase was conducted and how the quantitative phase was undertaken. In each of these methodologies, you should clearly indicate the research design, population, sampling method, data, data analysis and measures that were put in place to safeguard the quality of data.

Response 10: Thank you for your feedback, the methodology has been updated to explain how the research process.

Comment 11: Your current methodology section is too generic and does not give a clear picture of how the study was undertaken.

Response 11: Thank you for your feedback, we have provided more information.

Comment 12: This section seems to be silent on the ethical considerations of the study. This is imperative considering that the study was in one of the highly vulnerable population groups. You should also indicate whether ethical clearance was received for the study.

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. In lines 250-257, the following paragraph about ethics was added: “Before conducting the research, the proposed study underwent an extensive ethics review by the University of the Fraser Valley. Researchers also obtained a National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) certificate from the Kenyan government. In addition, at the start of the learning platform, participants were asked to fill in a letter of consent in which they were informed of the purposes of the study. Every effort was made to follow ethical guidelines for research with human participants.”

Results

Comment 13: Your findings section contains valuable and relevant information, which, however, needs to be repackaged more elaborately, especially the survey results.

Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed our results section to better highlight our findings and relevant information.

Comment 14: I want to suggest that, before presenting the results and findings, you should briefly present the demographic details/profile of participants so that it is easier to contextualise and cross-reference the profile details with the provided narratives. This can be done in a table to provide a consolidated, quick grasp of demographic information.

Response 14: Thank you for pointing that out. We agree and have inserted a chart to give quick visualization of the demographic information.

Comment 15: The verbatim/narratives should identify who said what, which is why the demographic profile table I alluded to earlier comes in handy.

Response 15: Thank you, we agree with this statement and have changed:

line 352 from “One respondent explained” to “A male respondent explained” line 401 from “One respondent indicated that he or she buys “because we cannot…” to “A male respondent indicated that they “buy because we cannot…”

Comment 16: Is there any reason why some statements are presented in bold, especially from lines 278 -308?

Response 16: The statements were presented in bold to make the document easier to scan and to differentiate from the statements in the survey and the responses. We have changed all the text to be plain text.

Comment 17: Generally, the results section has golden information; however, it tends to lose its value by not being presented logically and coherently. Kindly repackage it differently, and the value of this information will skyrocket.

Response 17: Thank you for this insight. We added more explanation and linking sentences to give the information we learned more emphasis.

Discussion

Comment 18: Your discussion section also needs to be revised so that it is more aligned with the results and findings of the study. At times, this section tends to venture into issues not mentioned in the results section, e.g. the participants being eager to receive completion certificates, the methods used by the facilitator. However, it is good that this section is supported by an integration of relevant literature.

Response 18: Thank you for bringing that to our attention. We have tightened up the discussion and removed parts that belong in the conclusion or results.

Comment 19: I am struggling to see the influence of your theoretical framework in this section. May you kindly be more deliberate in showcasing this influence?

Response 19: Thank you for your comment. We agree and have added so deliberate phrasing to showcase the influence.

Comment 20: Your discussion section is all over the place and very difficult to follow.

Response 20: see response 18

Comment 21: Why are lines 618 – 621 in bold?

Response 21:  Those lines were in bold for emphasis. The bold has been removed.

Comment 22: What is the relevance of the quote on lines 633-637?

Response 22: Thank you for your insight. The quote, along with the paragraph introducing it has been moved to the results section. It seems more relevant there.

Comment 23: Your manuscript ends abruptly and does not have a conclusion section. Please extend the manuscript by adding and thoroughly addressing the following:

1. Conclusions –

5.1. Significance and implications of the study –

5.2. Limitations –

5.3. Recommendations –

Response 23: Thank you for your recommendation to include a separate conclusion section. We have provided a conclusion now with the points indicated in 5.1.-5.3.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text I had the privilege of analysing, entitled "Architecture for Spatially Just Food System Planning with and for Urban Youth South Sudanese Refugees in Kenya," is pelased to read due to its fluidity and clarity. From the abstract to the conclusions, it allows one to grasp the subject under discussion. The objectives and methodology used are appropriate to the topic under debate. However, I would like some details to be taken into account.

Suggestions for improvement:

1. Introduction “on the third paragraph states: Many participants advocated… the author should avoid the use of many without indicating at least three authors.
2. 1.1.2 Avoid writing about Many urban refugees without a comparison basis.
3. 3.1.1 Compilation rates - Regrettably, not all participants completed both surveys; some only completed one, 263, which may have slightly skewed the results. How many did complete and how many did not complete?
4. In reference to figures, graphs, or tables, the reader's attention should be drawn to their existence.

Introduction “on the third paragraph states: Many participants advocated… the author should avoid the use of many without indicating at least three authors.

1.1.2 Avoid writing about Many urban refugees without a comparison basis.

3.1.1 Compilation rates - Regrettably, not all participants completed both surveys; some only completed one, 263, which may have slightly skewed the results. How many did complete and how many did not complete?

In reference to figures, graphs, or tables, the reader's attention should be drawn to their existence.

Author Response

Comment 1: Introduction “on the third paragraph states: Many participants advocated… the author should avoid the use of many without indicating at least three authors.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have changed the following 'many' to be more specific:

1. Changed “Many participants advocated…” from the 3^rd paragraph in the introduction to say “Eighty percent of the participants advocated…”
2. Second paragraph, last sentence: Changed “…many Kenyan refugees have shared …” to “…literature suggests refugees in Kenya have shared…”
3. 2.1. Changed “Many refugees rely…” to “Refugees rely”
4. Line 299: Changed “This is likely a reflection that many of the participants were already attending school in Kenya.” to “This is likely due to the fact that the platform required some educational background and speaks to the way participants were recruited.”

Comment 2: 1.1.2 Avoid writing about Many urban refugees without a comparison basis.

Response 2: we agree that 'many' is not specific here, but this sentence is saying that it is difficult to estimate exact numbers. We changed it to say "Urban refugees are not registered and are highly mobile, making it difficult to estimate exact numbers (Easton-Calabria et al., 2022; O’Callaghan et al., 2019; Perry, 2024). "

Comment 3: 3.1.1 Compilation rates - Regrettably, not all participants completed both surveys; some only completed one, 263, which may have slightly skewed the results. How many did complete and how many did not complete?

Response 3: We agree with this comment and have changed it to be specific: to “Regrettably, not all participants completed both surveys (15 completed one and 17 the other); some only completed one, which may have slightly skewed the results.”

Comment 4: In reference to figures, graphs, or tables, the reader's attention should be drawn to their existence.

Response 4: Thank you for catching this oversight. We now refer to the figures, graphs and tables in the body of the text. See below: 

1. Line 104: Added “see Figure 1” after Kenya hosts approximately 830,000 refugees and asylum seekers, with 25 percent being South Sudanese, and about one-fifth being urban refugees (HIAS, 2025; IIED, 2024
2. Line 279: Added “see Figure 3” to the end of “Surveys showed increases in knowledge and understanding for almost every statement.”
3. Line 353: Added “(see Figure 4) to the end of “45 percent said their diet has less variety than when they were in South Sudan, 36 percent said their diet has more variety, and 18 percent said it is the same”
4. Line 355: Added “(see Figure 5) to the end of “Corresponding to those numbers, 36 percent also say the nutritional quality of the food they eat has improved, while 18 percent say it has worsened and 45 percent say it is the same”
5. Line 368: Added “As shown in Figure 6,…” to The participant who reported the most food in their food diary cored a 7…”

Thank you for taking the time to refer our manuscript. We are also attaching it with the changes tracked in red.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for taking the time to address all the comments that I made in the previous draft. I am happy with the thorough revisions made, and the manuscript is now solid and well-rounded. Thank you for the wonderful work that you are doing.