Working through Disaster Risk Management to Support Regional Food Resilience: A Case Study in North-Eastern Australia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
detailed study by the writers
Author Response
Please check the attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for this opportunity to review this timely and novel study. The content contributes massively to food insecurity, food systems, and sustainability research.
In general, I believe the authors provide an important model that applies to disaster management in other areas outside of Australia. Furthermore, although the authors highlight COVID-19 specific impacts on the food system, the "Local Food Access Model" applies to other areas outside of Cairns, Australia. For example, there are areas that regularly experience extreme climate conditions independently of the COVID-19 pandemic, where climate causes seasonal mobility restrictions or seasonally "vulnerable" populations (e.g., remote areas in Alaska in the winter). Shifts to shorter food supply chains and local food access were necessary for such areas even before the pandemic. Now, insightful studies since the pandemic like this bring forth extremely useful and impactful concrete processes that decision-makers can implement. So, thank you for your contribution.
I believe the study is written well. I provide some detailed comments on minor issues below.
References: I believe Sustainability in-text citations are to be numbered and in brackets? I have provided the instructions from the guide for authors below but perhaps this is a copyediting issue...
In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10). or [6] (pp. 101–105).
Typos:
pg. 2 ln 43 - I wonder if this is meant to read "pandemic crippled economies."
pg. 2 ln 80 - "mitigating the impacts future disasters" may be missing an "of"
pg. 3 ln 137 - "with a typically of poorer nutritional quality" may have an extra "of"
pg. 5, ln 213-214 - I suggest a re-write of the sentence that begins with "The SEIFA data shows..." for clarity. I am not sure what this sentence is trying to convey but perhaps it is due to a typo?
pg. 6 ln 273 - "...undertake telephone interviews" - I suggest moving (8 responses) to immediately after "interviews" instead of "response rate" for clarity.
pg. 6 ln 265 - "to create map the trends in survey responses" was a bit unclear.
pg. 15 ln 538 - Shorter Food Supply Chains (SFSCs) is written out here so perhaps not necessary on pg. 16 ln 558. Additionally, the acronym on pg. 16, ln 563 reads SCFS.
pg. 19 ln 721 - comma before and after "therefore"
Author Response
Please check the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review comments
The study aims to present the findings on the topic of “Working through disaster risk management to support regional food resilience: A north-eastern Australian case study”. This pamphlet addresses an important topic in a timely manner, and it will help to improve food security and resilience in the event of future catastrophic situations. I believe the findings of the study will help with future planning activities in North-Australia. The manuscript is clear but it does not follow the journal format, therefore, my recommendation is that the authors should careful to submit their manuscript properly according to the journal format. I think the abstract and keywords provide a good summary of the topic being covered but the format of keywords again is not correct with the journal format. However, my suggestion is that the Authors should better address some of the points I have provided before publishing.
I like to suggest a major revision for this paper.
Topic:
Point 1: It is better to reconsider the topic. “Working through disaster risk management to support regional food resilience: A Case study in north-eastern Australian”
3.2 Case study setup
Point 2: Line no – 194 to 221, it mostly provides the information of study area set up so I believe that it can become before the discussion of the main methodology to have a nice flow in the thesis. (Major problem is Authors did not follow the journal format properly)
3.3 Stakeholder workshop
Point 3: Line no 223 – 236, Although the way in which data was collected is well illustrated, it is important to indicate the number of participants in the two workshops, as the effectiveness and the validity of the data collected through the workshops depends on the number of participants.
Line no 229, need to add the date or date ranges of the workshop
Line no 232, need to add the date or date ranges of the workshop
Point 4: Line number 246, Citations are missing and should mention the list of references
Point 5: In your methodology section, desk-review is a major approach in your study, So, you should represent the summary of finding through the desk-review process in the results section as a table, graph, or any other form.
Point 6: Are Colom two and three are the findings from your study or are they part of the “Disaster Resilience Strategy”? It is not clear in the text so It is better to emphasize it in the text clearly.
Point 7: I recommended including the telephonic questionnaire survey at the end of the paper as the appendix as we do not have any reference to the collected information presented in Figures 3 to five.
Point 8: It should not be concluding remarks but it should be conclusion according to the journal format.
Point 9: The authors should make sure to remove things that do not fit the conclusion chapter (Line No 718-719).
Point 10: The list of references and the citations should be formatted according to the journal format.
Point 11: Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 need to be enhanced. What is represented by the Y-axis of the figures and it looks like the authors prepare the graphs without having good attention.
Point 12: If it is possible, the author needs to add some description of the future approaches of adopting an adapted methodology for similar/different study areas. Also can emphasize how policymakers or planners can use your finding for future Disaster Risk Management (DRM).
Point 13: Do you have any limitations? If so, Explain
Author Response
Please check the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The issue is highly relevant especially in this period of pandemics. To embed local food access into disater risk management processes is a vision fully supported by the most recent scientific publications in Australia and over the world. The study purposely aims at responding to the key question " How to improve the disaster management strategies and practice through better access to local food chains"
Excellent background with extensive litterature review and local context description.
However, there is a need for some improvements.
The method used is quite empiric, with little information on the respondants and questions raised; in particular on the adequacy of food supplies and nutrition needs and demand of vulnerable families.
Key management issues, as implied in the conclusions , such effectiveness of local resilience and efficiency of local food production, processing, retailing, selling and distribution, may be highlighted and discussed. They have been well pointed out by many authors such Bene, Capelli, Maruzak ....These parameters for planning, preparedness, prevention and response to disasters are key ingredients for successfull results.
If the study cannot fully meet this request , at least it should be treated in the section on Discussions. Strenghts and limitations of the study may be developped in spite of the length of the publication. Some editing could be made to reduce duplications and not essential information.
In conclusion, i recommand the publication with some revision
and over the world.
Author Response
Please check the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
There is no further comment for the authors as the manuscript has been improved in a better way.
