Designing Food Hubs for Territories of Proximity: Assessing the Spatial, Ecological, and Cultural Potentials of Places through Multi-Criteria Decision Support Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the topic proposed by the manuscript "Designing Food Hubs for territories of proximity. Assessing the spatial, ecological, and cultural potentials of places through multi criteria decision support systems" is of interest to the readers and in line with the journal's aims and scope . The title is good enough and correlated with the content of the article, while the Abstract, Introduction, Background, Methods, Results, Discussion and Final remarks and outlook are well structured, relatively clear and concise. I think the literature is also good enough. From my point of view, after some minor corrections/additions, the material can be published in Land Journal.

The article abstract is well structured and concise. It is also recommended to insert a phrase with the purpose of this article in the abstract (like Lines 113-114 "We aim to demonstrate how these distribution models can not only support but also integrate seamlessly into landscape planning and design." or Lines 117-118 "This study focuses on addressing spatial challenges and issues, and land use planning to design spatial strategies for urban foodscapes.").

The introduction and references are sufficient and especially relevant for deepening the problem addressed. Thus, the authors mention the essential components like the foodscapes, Alternative Food Networks, Local Food Systems, Short Food Supply Chains and Food Hubs.

Section 2. Background introduces us to the problem addressed in the present research. It is well argued and does not require improvement.

The HelpFood 4.0 project was a good example to increase local food production through the creation of food ecosystems, which opened opportunities for a more secure, local, and sustainable food system.

The methodology is based on the methodology of the HelpFood 4.0 project, namely the example of the Trentino case study (pilot project) in which GIS analysis and graphical representation were used. Among the many multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), the authors chose the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), being identified 4 possible scenarios described in detail in Section 4. Results. Incidentally, Section 4. Results is the main component of this article.

The MCDA method combined with spatial analysis processed through GIS software can be an excellent decision-analysis tool to support Alternative Food Networks in making decisions on the placement of their locations for the distribution of food and goods within the short supply chain. These tools prove valuable, particularly due to their ease of communication and transparency.

The tables and figures used are suggestive and have the role of highlighting the research results, but must comply with the specific technical editing rules of the journal (please, pay special attention to the figures).

Conclusively, Section 5. Discussion and Section 6. Final remarks and outlook naturally draw the final conclusions of this research.

At the end of Section 6. Final remarks and outlook, if necessary, some limitations of the present experiment carried out within the HelpFood 4.0 project can be inserted.

The references seem to respect the journal's specific editorial rules.

Please check if Appendix: Description of decision attributes (Lines 683 to 687) should be inserted before or after References.

I think that, after some minor corrections, this paper should be considered well suited for publication in the Land Journal.

Congratulations for the authors!

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and your overall appreciation.

 

1. The article abstract is well structured and concise. It is also recommended to insert a phrase with the purpose of this article in the abstract (like Lines 113-114 "We aim to demonstrate how these distribution models can not only support but also integrate seamlessly into landscape planning and design." or Lines 117-118 "This study focuses on addressing spatial challenges and issues, and land use planning to design spatial strategies for urban foodscapes.").

Thank you for your suggestion. We have improved the introduction by specifically mentioning the aim of the study.

 

2. The tables and figures used are suggestive and have the role of highlighting the research results, but must comply with the specific technical editing rules of the journal (please, pay special attention to the figures).

Thank you for your comment. We have corrected some mistakes in the figure numeration and integrated the missing figures’  references in the texts.

 

3. At the end of Section 6. Final remarks and outlook, if necessary, some limitations of the present experiment carried out within the HelpFood 4.0 project can be inserted.

Thank you for your comment. We have integrated a brief reflection to limitations regarding the methodological approach to one case study that could be further developed with other local, national and international contexts. 

 

4. Please check if Appendix: Description of decision attributes (Lines 683 to 687) should be inserted before or after References.
   Thank you for the comments. We have decided to include the table in the full text in section 3.4.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Minor editing is required due to typos and strange word choices--perhaps due to an automated translation process rather than a native English speaker or professional translator.

Some problems with citations/references, especially in the background section as there are many factual assertions that should have associated references. Some of the statements are opinions and/or broad generalities about the development of urban centers and decline in rural populations. These are significant topics and the subject of extensive scholarship. To the extent these statements remain in the final draft, there should be citation to those references rather than stating an opinion.

The term "food hub" is confusing as it is a term of art in the U.S. context referring to a central processing place (generally a commercial kitchen) used by multiple entrepreneurs to process raw agricultural products into value added food products. It seems here the authors are referring to distribution centers with no processing. This should be made more clear and, perhaps, even change the title to reflect food distribution rather than a "hub" or make that clear in the introduction & abstract.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some typos, especially in the introduction/background and strange word choices. The general flow is acceptable, but typographical errors should be corrected.

Author Response

1. Minor editing is required due to typos and strange word choices--perhaps due to an automated translation process rather than a native English speaker or professional translator.

We have deeply reviewed the whole text and corrected mistakes and typos.

 

2. Some problems with citations/references, especially in the background section as there are many factual assertions that should have associated references. Some of the statements are opinions and/or broad generalities about the development of urban centers and decline in rural populations. These are significant topics and the subject of extensive scholarship. To the extent these statements remain in the final draft, there should be citation to those references rather than stating an opinion.

Thank you for your comment. We agree with your recommendation, and we have reviewed section “2. Background” by adding references where they were missing. In particular, we have added scientific references referring to the relationship between urban and rural landscapes.

References:

Antrop, M. (2004). Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landscape and urban planning, 67(1-4), 9-26.

 

Davoudi, S. (2008). Conceptions of the city-region: a critical review. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Urban Design and Planning, 161(2), 51-60.

 

De Rossi, A. (2019). Riabitare l'Italia: le aree interne tra abbandoni e riconquiste. Donzelli editore

 

Girardet, H. (2019). The metabolism of cities. In The Living City (pp. 170-180). Routledge.

 

Harrison, J., & Heley, J. (2015). Governing beyond the metropolis: Placing the rural in city-region development. Urban Studies, 52(6), 1113-1133.

 

Marini Govigli, V., Alkhaled, S., Arnesen, T., Barlagne, C., Bjerck, M., Burlando, C., ... & Górriz-Mifsud, E. (2020). Testing a framework to co-construct social innovation actions: Insights from seven marginalized rural areas. Sustainability, 12(4), 1441.

 

Pianegonda, A.; Favargiotti, S.; Ciolli, M. Rural–Urban Metabolism: A Methodological Approach for Carbon-Positive and Circular Territories. Sustainability (Switzerland) 2022, 14, doi:10.3390/su142113964

 

3. The term "food hub" is confusing as it is a term of art in the U.S. context referring to a central processing place (generally a commercial kitchen) used by multiple entrepreneurs to process raw agricultural products into value added food products. It seems here the authors are referring to distribution centers with no processing. This should be made more clear and, perhaps, even change the title to reflect food distribution rather than a "hub" or make that clear in the introduction & abstract.

Thank you for your comment. We have integrated the article (section “1. Introduction”) with further definitions and references by highlighting how “Food hub” is still an evolving concept and its definition can take on different aspects depending on the context. We have therefore tried to clarify our point of view and our definition in comparison with other definitions in the literature and our research experience with the HelpFood 4.0 project (www.eitfood.eu/projects/helpfood4-0). Accordingly, “As a hub, it represents a central focal point where a number of directions, people, and products related to the presence of food converge. Therefore, food hubs are represented by all those central physical or virtual points where producers and consumers are connected. Food hubs have, therefore, a software component represented by virtual meeting points through online platforms, and a hardware component comprising the physical structure of connections such as distribution spaces and people. The research focuses on the definition and characterization of food hubs within the short supply chain defined by The EU's rural development regulation (1305/2013) as a supply chain involving a limited number of economic operators, committed to cooperation, local economic development, and close geographical and social relations between food producers, processors and consumers.”

 

4. There are some typos, especially in the introduction/background and strange word choices. The general flow is acceptable, but typographical errors should be corrected.

 

We have deeply reviewed the whole text and corrected mistakes and typos.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See comments in my suggestions to authors

Author Response

1. The manuscript needs thorough technical editing as there is inconsistent capitalization and indenting. There is also a lack of clarity in certain areas due to language differences; see specific comments below for examples. Some of your works cited also seem to be incomplete (e.g., #8).

 

We have deeply reviewed the whole text and corrected mistakes and typos. Generally, we used capitalization for naming national and international programs, projects, institutions, and concepts that have been cited though their acronym.

2. Is a value-ladened statement such as “industrial food systems” appropriate for objective, scientific research? Given the world’s current population and its expected peak in coming years, does the food system proposed in your manuscript aid in meeting nutritional goals? Your use of “dizzying” implies there is something wrong with the use of fertilizers and pesticides. The types of fertilizers used may have changed but are a necessary input into any agricultural production process. These statements also ignore concerns about labor availability for needed agricultural purposes which has partially resulted in increased mechanization. This also leads to concerns regarding loss of economies of scale which will increase cost to consumers while also potentially lowering the value returned to them. I accept you are discussing ideas which are intangible due to inability to accurately quantify sustainability. In short, how does your research objective demonstrably add value to society?

 

Thank you for your constructive feedback. The term “industrial food systems” is used in the manuscript to describe food systems that prioritize large-scale, mechanized production with a strong focus on economic efficiency, often at the expense of environmental and social considerations. This terminology is based on established literature (e.g. Vivero-Pol, 2017, Blay-Palmer, A. (2016)) and is widely used to distinguish between conventional, large-scale agricultural practices and alternative, more sustainable practices. However, we recognize the need for objective language and have clarified this term in the manuscript.
The food system proposed in our manuscript aims to contribute to meeting nutrition goals by promoting diversified and sustainable agricultural practices. These practices can improve food security by increasing the resilience of food production systems to environmental change and by promoting local food systems that can provide fresh, nutritious food. This approach is in line with the European Union's Farm to Fork Strategy, which aims to make food systems fair, healthy and environmentally friendly (European Commission, 2020). We recognize the need for fertilizers and pesticides in agricultural production. Our use of the term "dizzying" was intended to highlight the rapid increase and reliance on synthetic inputs, which can have adverse social and environmental effects, rather than to imply that their use is inherently wrong. We specified this in the manuscript.
The manuscript does not overlook the challenges related to labor availability and the role of mechanization in modern agriculture. We recognize that mechanization can address labor shortages and improve efficiency. However, our research focuses on complementing conventional systems with sustainable, localized approaches that can also create employment opportunities in rural areas, potentially addressing labor availability concerns. Our research suggests that sustainable food systems that incorporate local and traditional practices can provide long-term benefits by reducing social and environmental externalities. Although these systems may incur higher costs initially, they can potentially reduce costs over time through improved ecosystem services and increased resilience. We will extend this discussion to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the economic implications.
The aim of our research is to explore and promote food production methods that are sustainable, environmentally sound and socially equitable. We believe our findings can provide valuable insights to inform policy-making and community-based initiatives, ultimately adding value to society by supporting the transition to more sustainable food systems.
We appreciate the opportunity to address these concerns and will incorporate these clarifications into the revised manuscript.

References:

Blay-Palmer, A. (2016). Food fears: From industrial to sustainable food systems. Routledge.

European Commission. (2020). A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system.

Vivero-Pol, J. L. (2017). The idea of food as commons or commodity in academia. A systematic review of English scholarly texts. Journal of Rural Studies, 53, 182-201.

3. Other phrases such as “crisis of the urban systems” and “cities fed on territory” are unclear in their meanings. For the latter term, are you referring to urban sprawl? Can you provide a reference or a definition of these terms for readers who are unfamiliar with these terms?

 

Thank you for your comment. Based on your recommendation, we have reviewed section “2. Background” by adding references where they were missing. In particular, we have added scientific references referring to the relationship between urban and rural landscapes.

References:

Antrop, M. (2004). Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landscape and urban planning, 67(1-4), 9-26.

 

Davoudi, S. (2008). Conceptions of the city-region: a critical review. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Urban Design and Planning, 161(2), 51-60.

 

De Rossi, A. (2019). Riabitare l'Italia: le aree interne tra abbandoni e riconquiste. Donzelli editore

 

Girardet, H. (2019). The metabolism of cities. In The Living City (pp. 170-180). Routledge.

 

Harrison, J., & Heley, J. (2015). Governing beyond the metropolis: Placing the rural in city-region development. Urban Studies, 52(6), 1113-1133.

 

Marini Govigli, V., Alkhaled, S., Arnesen, T., Barlagne, C., Bjerck, M., Burlando, C., ... & Górriz-Mifsud, E. (2020). Testing a framework to co-construct social innovation actions: Insights from seven marginalized rural areas. Sustainability, 12(4), 1441.

 

Pianegonda, A.; Favargiotti, S.; Ciolli, M. Rural–Urban Metabolism: A Methodological Approach for Carbon-Positive and Circular Territories. Sustainability (Switzerland) 2022, 14, doi:10.3390/su142113964

 

4. In line 442, did you consider looking at the interaction of people and profit, people and planet, and planet and profit? If I’m understanding your math correctly, you are not interacting these terms together which wouldn’t account for economic incentives at the intersection of these ideas.

We thank the reviewer for the pertinent comment. We acknowledge the existence of more general aggregation functions and in this new version we motivate the use of the additive model by recalling (i) its robustness and (ii) the difficulties in estimating the interaction coefficients where already finding the weights of the three dimensions is difficult. We added the following part in the new manuscript (see end of section 3.4):

“Furthermore, this last equation shows that the underlying model is additive. That is, the final scores of alternatives are convex linear combinations of the scores of the alternatives with respect to the three dimensions: planet, profit, and people. We acknowledge that more general formulations, for example based on multilinear functions (Liesiö and Vilkkumaa, 2021) and non-additive aggregation functions like the discrete Choquet integral (Grabisch and Labreuche, 2010) exist. However, in most of the cases, especially when extreme alternatives are not considered, the additive model is sufficient to represent the preferences of a decision maker. For example, Vilkkumaa et al. (2014) claimed that, in multi-attribute value theory, the conditions leading to the additive model “can be usually achieved through careful problem structuring”.  This was corroborated by simulation studies (Stewart, 1996). Moreover, the use of a more general model could allow us to consider positive and negative interactions between the three dimensions of the analysis, but this would require the elicitation of further parameters characterizing such levels of interactions. In our context, where even the determination of individual weights for the three dimensions is extremely problematic, this could be an insurmountable problem. Thus, thanks to the capacity of the additive model to represent preferences, we chose to use it in this case study.”

 

5. Is there a way you can be more concise in your table and figure names? Some of what’s included in the existing titles should be listed as a note (or footnote) below the table/figure.

 

We believe that descriptive captions for figures and tables helps the comprehension of the visual material. Based on our experience with other publications with the same editors, we have been asked for detailed information regarding sources and data for each figure. We believe in this approach and structure rather than on footnotes.

6. In several of your scenarios, you discuss the number of residents or families. How would your results differ if you used the number of housing units (e.g., number of homes, apartments, etc.) instead of existing number of families in the area? Are there residences (i.e. living spaces) not

being used which might lead to an incorrect conclusion on where to locate the Food Hub? Similar to my second paragraph above, are you accounting for future potential growth in the region of study?

 

Thank you for your comment. During the analyses conducted for the study of the different scenarios, we used the number of families as the data provided by L'Ortazzo. Therefore, for coherence we wanted to keep the same comparison term in the third scenario. For the research purposes, we also considered the number of housing units to be insignificant as the study area is a tourist area with many holiday homes. The solidarity purchasing group is based on a direct relationship with the families in the area, less those that insist in the area for a short time. As far as future development is concerned, we have not looked into the issues of a potential increase in population in the area, but the potential growth of the pool of users for the association considering the current resident families. 

 

 

5. Table 2 is out of order (end of manuscript) and would be more appropriate earlier (around line 359) in the manuscript to aid readers in understanding terms.

 

Thank you for the comments. We have decided to include the table in the full text in section 3.4.

Specific comments

Line 33 – suggest a different word than “uprisal” such as “advent” or “onset.”

Done

Line 39 – “rural” instead of "rual.”

Done

Line 81 – Highlighted is misspelled.

Done

Line 100 – How can you make your research objective clearer?

Building upon this theoretical framework, our research delves into the integrated approach among spatial, landscape and logistical aspects of Food Hubs. We deeply integrated our theoretical position at the end of the introduction.

 

Line 210 – The acronym RIS is never explained.

Done

Line 360 – If you want to scale this case study up to a larger geographic area, can you really ignore “range of products”? What are the range of products that would be guaranteed? Local or regional food systems are not going to be able to provide all types of food products currently on  offer that are culturally important. Your manuscript should be clear on what range of products you are referring to.

 

We believe that this interpretation of the attribute “range of products” is correct. It is also true that, in other case studies, possibly larger ones, the “range of products” should not be ignored. It was not used in our case study, because all the food hubs would have guaranteed the same range of products, and therefore the attribute itself would have been irrelevant as it does not help discriminate among alternatives. More on the spot, we added the following part in the text:

 

“It goes without saying that in larger and/or more complex cases such attributes can be relevant. One can think of quickly perishable products like some special types of salad that require fresh temperatures once harvested or meat and dairy products requiring certification levels that some locations may not have.”

 

 

Table 2 – “Fragile subjects” is never defined in this table. What does this mean?

Done: we have changed with “vulnerable people”.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

1. The manuscript has been improved since the initial submission. I still have concerns about the manuscript. Thank you for adding the references for terms such as “crisis of the urban systems.” However, you should still define what you mean for readers of your manuscript.

We have reframed the sentences to be more clear.

2. You have too much information in the titles of your tables and figures. Some of the information should be included in the text of your manuscript and possibly as a footnote to the table.

As mentioned in the previous comment, we believe in the need for descriptive captions rather than on footnotes for figures and tables to help the comprehension of the visual material. Following the Land template, footnote doesn’t seem to be recommended except for tables. It also seems that there is no limitation for the length of captions. Therefore, also for our style preferences, we agreed to avoid footnotes and include all the information in the captions.

Beside that, we have reduced some figures’ captions and moved the information in the main texts.

3. I agree the number of families was the appropriate way given this is an area with a significant number of tourism. Could this be added to your manuscript when you discuss this model? Consider adding the insignificance of housing units when the model is specified as a footnote.

We have integrated this information in the manuscript in lines 518-525. 

4. In lines 738-743, what do you mean by one stakeholder? Do you mean one association/group? If so, it needs to be stated as such. If you mean one stakeholder (i.e., only one person), then your results may not be generalizable beyond this region.

We have specified this information in the manuscript.

 

In the full text, you can find in yellow the integrated information.

 

With warm regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf