Creative Food Cycles: A Cultural Approach to the Food Life-Cycles in Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article explains very well the very thought-provoking and timely topic of food waste and implications of this issue. The Creative Food Cycle (CFC) is very interesting and creative. However, the article addressed many elements that some were not related to the title of the article “Creative Food Cycles: a cultural approach to the consumption to disposal phase” which should have focused more on the cultural approach.

The proposal and the 3 objectives sound exciting but very little directions were given to how to achieve and implement these objectives. Are they practical anywhere geographically or just applicable for a few counties?  

The concept of “Ruban spaces” and “Agricultural Spaces” sound very inspiring, but it needs a lot of local and global coordination and collaboration.

Then the topic of disposal and waste recycling created a large interest in academia for research. Some companies are working toward more sustainable food systems that can feed people locally and globally now and, in the future, (also considering the pandemic or other environmental shocks).   

There were 7 phases identified for implementations, could these be generalized for all geographical locations? Authors should recognize and explain to readers that these may pose some limitations for some areas and cannot apply to everywhere.

Other suggestions/ comments:

• Figure 1 – Is this the final illustration? Subtitle is missing, etc.…
• Figure 3 – Needs clarification
• The brief explanation of the figures in the text will be helpful.
• Page 16 line 632- please change the font for 3D Printer.
• Edit the article carefully.

I would like to add to make this proposal successful, there should be an educational Campaign for all the stakeholders in the food systems to make this kind of projects effective and successful.  The following references showed how the consumers’ knowledge is integral to reducing food waste and recycling.

• Wunderlich, S.M., Smoller, M. (2019). Consumer awareness and knowledge about food sources and possible environmental impact. International Journal of Environmental Impact. Vol. 2 No. 1, 85-96 https://www.witpress.com/journals DOI:10.2495/EI-V2-N1-85-96

• Wunderlich, S.M., Martinez, N.M. (2018) Conserving natural resources through food loss reduction: production and consumption stages of food supply chain. International Soil and Water ConservationResearch, ISSN 2095-6339 https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.iswcr.2018.06.002

Author Response

We agree with the comments that have been made to us and that allow us to thoroughly review the article. Lines 59- 62 with the 3 objectives were erased as we think the introduction would have become too long to explain in detail such a complex subject which in reality refers to the Mediterranean countries. We had to rewrite large parts of the article and so the lines 320-336 with the 7 phases identified for implementations were erased. Out necessity was to describe more clearly the activities carried out in CFC.

Figures were completed with brief explanation and linked more clearly to the article.

We added the proposed references in the article as they fit with the article. Thank you for the suggestions they fit perfectly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject matter addressed in this article is very interesting, but as it stands it needs to be strongly rethought. After reading it, one sees many redundant paragraphs, it is really not easy to extract a clear idea or concrete knowledge from it. Many ideas are commented on, many experiences that are being carried out in different parts of the world to achieve a new design for cities are talked about. There is talk of integrating the rural with the urban, the usefulness of food as an agent to bring about change, etc. All of this argument is excellent, but it is the argument of the CFC project, and in order to turn it into an article now, great changes have to be made.

We encourage the authors to reformulate much of the structure and strive to provide a clear and concise thread, which provides useful information to the reader. For example:

The study's specific objectives have yet to be defined. Line 198, within materials and methods, does mention the general objectives of the CFC project, but does not consider that they could be the objectives of this article.

It is mentioned that many initiatives have been compiled and will be made public, but a summary table of the main ones could be made. And above all comment on why they may be useful for other cities that want to join the objectives of the CFC project.

It is said that workshops have been held, but no concrete results are given. Or at least how they have been planned, how to organize similar ones in other cities, we do not know.

It is said that this project is the result of the link with different research initiatives. Which are the most interesting? What do they consist of or how have they worked?  Another table with good practices (even if it is alluding to such lessons) would be good.

There are other things that are not understood, for example, only in the final moment, in the discussion, is reference made to the pandemic (from Covid-19?). Introducing new concepts, which have not been previously analyzed or justified, as part of the discussion is not very orthodox.

In short, your project seems to be very interesting, and it is surely already advanced, so if the idea is to help design new territorial policies and make cities more sustainable, try it:

Or give tools or guidelines to guide how to do this construction; or show concrete results of what has already been achieved in a timely manner in your project.

Author Response

We agree with the comments that have been made to us and that allow us to thoroughly review the article

In order to fulfill the requirements of the reviews we have revised the submitted paper

1 - The abstract has been modified.The specific objectives of this article have been better defined. together with the general objectives of the CFC project.

This part is also resumed in the Introduction - line number 180

2 - A summary table of the main initiative have been made with a comment on why they may be useful for other cities - line number 575.

3 A better description of the organization of workshops and their concrete results at line number 678.

4 As our project is the result of the link with different research initiatives we have introduced data and results from a similar project, Active Public Space, on which the CFC activity was built, to allow a wider understanding of the method adopted - – line number 490.

As the CFC project is not yet ended and is still in progress instead of discussing the final results the paper will give tools or guidelines to guide how to do this construction. Abstract and end of introduction - line number 180.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript titled "Creative Food Cycles: a cultural approach to the consumption to disposal phase" raises a very important problem of processing and handling food and its residues, and the place of food matters in city life.

Unfortunately, the preparation of the text has a number of drawbacks that prevent the publication of the article. The authors did not comply with the guidelines contained in the Instructions for authors. For example, figures are not cited in the text and do not contain captions, the list of literature does not contain all the expected information.

Among other things, the Introduction does not end with a precisely formulated research objective. However, some information can be found in the following sections of the article.
The material and methodology contain a lot of information about the issue and project description, there is no compact description of how the research was conducted.

These shortcomings make it impossible to evaluate the remaining parts of the article. The article requires thorough reformatting, i.e. in accordance with the principles of scientific publication, i.e. defining the purpose of the research (in one or two sentences, placed at the end of the introduction), describing the material and methodology of the research and discussing the results of these studies. The general description of the project and ideas should be proportionally included in the text.

Author Response

We agree with the comments that have been made to us and that allow us to thoroughly review the article

In order to fulfill the requirements of the reviews we have revised the submitted paper.

Figures are completed with brief explanation and linked more clearly to the article.

About literature we think it is arranged in the right way as the edition of the article has been fully revised, but a reviewer asked as to fix it also we really don't know what is missing. As architects and designers we belong to not-bibliographical sector and we are not used to cross references.

We tried to give logical sequence to the parts of the article by eliminating redundant parts and tailoring the article proportionally:

Please find the following edits.

1. Introduction and abstract completed with the research objective - line number 180.

2. A summary table of the main initiative have been made with a comment on why they may be useful for other cities - line number 575.

3. Results discussed in accordance with the principles of scientific publication - line number 678, line number 663 and 771 – and concluding remarks - line number 918.

English: We received the suggestion of Moderate English changes required and according to this we reviewed the article but if needed we will deal with the English editing service.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Unfortunately, the article still does not have content adapted to a journal such as Sustainability, which requires specific research approaches, and showing results based on scientific evidence. Undoubtedly, something elementary is to set some specific objectives of what is sought with this text itself, which we think cannot be confused with the overall objectives of a project that has not even been completed, so it is impossible at this time to show final conclusions of it.

We appreciate the effort made by the authors, and the improvements proposed in the last version. However, the text is still very redundant, and at all times seems to be the summary of the initial project proposal (a quality initiative since it has been funded and is being carried out). Moreover, as a result they simply narrate what they are doing to implement the project. The list of proposed activities is interesting, but from reading it it is not clear how they can help other cities to make the change they propose. For example, indicating the number of downloads or participants in the workshops carried out does not inform what they consisted of, nor is it an indication of the quality of the workshops .

We suggest that the authors try to present an article with greater rigour and scientific essence, surely this will be possible when they finish the project and they can have arguments that serve more effectively to teach other cities how to make a change in their design, or to provoke changes of habit in the citizens. However, with the current structure we cannot accept the text as a scientific article.

Author Response

The aim of the article was to on one hand test within the academic design community new products and materials derived from food waste, and on the other hand to organize creative events to raise awareness about the impact of food cycles in our cities. The first part of the research has already ended and in the article is missing just the final part related to creative events and their impact – just the final events that are delayed because of the pandemic period.. We already have described a sort of guidelines for this type of activity that puts together best practices, creative workshops and intallations/event. It is diffucult to measure the quality of the workshops so we decided to add a part with the outputs at the end . With dissemination actions such us the CFC usually in Creative funded projects the number of downloads can represent a feedback on the effectiveness of the action. We also tried to be more scientific as possible, but this is a non orthodox cross-disciplinary research and the language of the architects is different form this strictly scientific. Also we truly believe that multidisciplinary projects can help a lot in provoking changes of habit in the citizens. It is also diffucult for us to improve without more detailed info.

In general : Captions were added at the tables as well the abbreviations were corrected.

Redundand text was eliminated in order to make more easy reading the article. Materials and methods section was deeply modified following the goals already described in the introduction at line 190.

Briefly descriptions of the methodology line 357 separing this part from results.

The tables are more clear without useless info.

We hope this revised description of the research can be more clear and in order to do this table 3 and figure 3 - instead of the old ones - were added with some of the results of the project. We are sorry but with the english review our changes are not anymore visible because the “Track Changes" function in 
Microsoft Word allows only the english language changes and not the previous ones that were a lot as well.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article titled "Creative Food Cycles: a cultural approach to the consumption to disposal phase" was modified after the first review. The information and results were added. But I suggest modification of the title: "Creative Food Cycles: a cultural approach to the consumption and the disposal phase" to be more relevant to the text.

General comments

I understand that it is a cross-disciplinary research and the language of the architects is different form this strictly scientific. In the present form, the text is not easy to understand by not-architect. My suggestion is to read the text carefully and remain only the most necessary information connected with the goal of the presented research/project. What is more, please read the Material and Methods section and separate methodology from results. The workshop is the method, but prototypes/presentation is a result and should be described in different sections. 

Detailed information.

However, the text still does not meet the requirements of the journal and scientific publication. From the minor ie. abbreviation CFC should be placed when the name is first time mentioned (line 14) or tables without captions (line 367 and line 383) to the major ie. material and methods still contain mostly needless information (lines 145-235). Perhaps, reading other articles from the Sustainability will allow the authors to see that in this section you do not need to write an introduction, just brief information about what and how it was done. The presentation of relevant information begins at line 236. 

A goal has been added (lines 133-142), as I understand "this article presents the CFC research (line 139)" which concerned, among others (1) "testing within the academic design community new products and materials derived from food waste (line 134)" and (2) "to organize creative events to raise awareness about the impact of food cycles in our cities (line 135)".

And the authors should follow this order describing their own research.

Author Response

We really appreciate the suggestions to improve the article and we followed precisely the the detailed information.

Captions were added at the tables as well the abbreviations.

Redundand text was eliminated in order to make more easy reading the article. Materials and methods section was deeply modified following the goals already described in the introduction at line 190.

Briefly descriptions of the methodology line 357 separing this part from results.

The tables are more clear without useless info.

We hope this revised description of the research can be more clear and in order to do this table 3 and figure 4 were added with some of the results of the project. We are sorry but with the english review our changes are not anymore visible because the “Track Changes" function in 
Microsoft Word allows to view only the english language changes and not the previous ones that were a lot as well.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I sense that you cannot make any noticeable improvements, as I asked you in my previous assessments, which I regret. You must strive to adapt your work and research to follow a more scientific structure if you intend to publish in scientific journals.
In any case, I value the improvements made, both in terms of lightening the text by eliminating redundant paragraphs, and in terms of showing the preliminary results of your project.

Author Response

thank you for your suggestion we will keep them in mind for the final publication of the results.

Please find the updated version with other changes

All the information about the CFC project are gathered at line 126- last paragraph of the Introduction ( line 214 and line 322)

On the title the editor has also expressed some doubts but thanks to this clarification we can understand these doubts and change, going for a generale choice “Creative Food Cycles: A Cultural Approach to the Food Life-Cycles in Cities”. I think that even if the word Food Cycles is used twice this title is more clear

The name of the section "Material and methods" have been replaced with "Methodology".

About the methodology section at a general level: the catalogue is presented in the methodology as a call for projects and in the results as an output and the tables are just one in order not to repeat info.

• line 222-232 (methodology should contain only information that the catalog was prepared and where the information in it came from): erased all the info not necessary

• line 318 (table1) (the methodology are: workshops, installation, exhibition, conference/festival: the catalogue is presented as a call for projects.

• Tables are unified

• line 338 and next (the methodology is a workshop and prototype building. It is not clear to me ... but this part was moved to the results.

Notes:

It is difficult at this point to deeply modify the structure of the text and reduce the part on methodology to a brief description and move everything to the results but we have tried to simplify it as much as possible. Also in our scientific field it is quite important that the different parts of an article with multiple authors can be identified clearly and I understand that this fact goes against the scientific structure required for Sustainability.

Detailed info:

Figure 1Not a specific shape means city or landscape... it is just a patchwork

Figure 3 follows the list in Table 3: it is not clear where you suggest to move it. Really sorry

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The third version of the manuscript contains a significantly improved description of the project and the issue of a cultural approach to the food system. The text is more readable to non-architect. However, new questions arise regarding the aim and scope of the article.

1. What is the aim of this article? In line 126 we read about the project CFC;  line 214 contains another reference to the project; in line 322 is the next reference to the project. My suggestion is to gather all the information and put it in the last paragraph of the Introduction.
2. Is the title relevant to the text? The title suggests that "a cultural approach to the food system from consumption to disposal in cities" is the main topic, but its description starts on the 11th page. Before we have general information about the CFC project. As it stands now, the title should be more general, without being limited to one phase of the project.
   

In my opinion, the name of the section "Material and methods" should be replaced with "Methodology". Due to the nature of the project and the activities carried out, it is difficult to define "research material".

Nevertheless, in this section still are results i.e.:

• line 222-232 (methodology should contain only information that the catalog was prepared and where the information in it came from);
• line 318 (table1) (the methodology are: workshops, installation, exhibition, conference/festival);
• lines 334-337 (by the way, data in this table are mostly repeated from table 1, I suggest add details concerning participants to table 1 and create one table);
• line 338 and next (the methodology is a workshop and prototype building);

All these details should be transferred to the Results and properly incorporated into the existing text.

In fact, the methodology can be written in one paragraph. The rest of the information can be transferred to the Introduction (general) or Results (detailed, project-related).

Detailed comments

Line 79: Please add an explanation/legend which shape means building/factory and which is an agricultural area. It is not obvious to non-architects.

Line 341: Please move figure 3 to the next page. It is currently on page 4 from where it is quoted.

Author Response

thank you for your suggestions

Please find the updated version with other changes

All the information about the CFC project are gathered at line 126- last paragraph of the Introduction ( line 214 and line 322)

On the title the editor has also expressed some doubts but thanks to this clarification we can understand these doubts and change, going for a generale choice “Creative Food Cycles: A Cultural Approach to the Food Life-Cycles in Cities”. I think that even if the word Food Cycles is used twice this title is more clear

The name of the section "Material and methods" have been replaced with "Methodology".

About the methodology section at a general level: the catalogue is presented in the methodology as a call for projects and in the results as an output and the tables are just one in order not to repeat info.

• line 222-232 (methodology should contain only information that the catalog was prepared and where the information in it came from): erased all the info not necessary

• line 318 (table1) (the methodology are: workshops, installation, exhibition, conference/festival: the catalogue is presented as a call for projects.

• Tables are unified

• line 338 and next (the methodology is a workshop and prototype building. It is not clear to me ... but this part was moved to the results.

Notes:

It is difficult at this point to deeply modify the structure of the text and reduce the part on methodology to a brief description and move everything to the results but we have tried to simplify it as much as possible. Also in our scientific field it is quite important that the different parts of an article with multiple authors can be identified clearly and I understand that this fact goes against the scientific structure required for Sustainability.

Detailed info:

Figure 1: Not a specific shape means city or landscape... it is just a patchwork

Figure 3 follows the list in Table 3: it is not clear where you suggest to move it. Really sorry

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf