Flipping the Tortilla: Social-Ecological Innovations and Traditional Ecological Knowledge for More Sustainable Agri-Food Systems in Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, the paper takes a very interesting perspective of looking at innovative approaches to transforming local food systems. I like the scale up, out and deep. However, the scaling up and out are unfortunately treated more superficially here. The connections between production and consumption practices was well done. I thought, though, that more could have been done on focusing on how TAeK-holders' knowledge could be used to creating innovations, rather than just saying that those who have the knowledge can be employable in these initiatives. It feels like a more passive, rather than active approach to TAeK.

The methods need just a bit more elaboration to understand the full extent of the data (see comments in the pdf). I was also missing a presentation of more of the results-- where were the terms you coded for and a presentation of that analysis.

Otherwise, please see the pdf for more specific comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your careful and thoughtful review. The paper has been substantially improved by the insights and changes suggested.

We answered to all the comments and questions in the PDF attached.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

See attached comments

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your careful and thoughtful review. The paper has been substantially improved by the insights and changes suggested by all reviewers.

We answered to all the comments and questions in the PDF attached.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Summary:

The aim of the study was to describe innovative food initiatives and explore how the use and valorisation of TAeK may transform conventional agri-food systems. It uses a case-study approach set in Spain, Based on the 12 interviews by semi-structured interviews a specific conclusions has been set. Overall, study lacks of possible replication possibility. Low number of initiatives has been used while it was justified by time pressure. Moreover, several specific comments can be raised.

Specific comments:

1. Do not repeat words and phrases from the title as a key words. Come up with new ones which describes the content of the manuscript and therefore better serve for indexing purposes.

2. Wrong reference style occurs (e.g. line 77 and further in the manuscript)

3. Sampling design is poorly described. Its relevance is not supported. In line 122-123 you define the validation of the initial list. Do you think it is sufficient?

4. Data collection shows how the interviews were collected however interviews / questions were not defined clearly.

5. Software or any other tools used in analysis needs to be described in closer details (e.g. line 142 ... Name, Version, Producer, Country ...).

6. The results are really the weakest part of this study. The discussion tries to return back to science but not sufficiently.

Final judgement:

Overall concept of the study is obviously not finished. There are more questions in the end than answers. It can be good enough for undergraduate thesis (see lines 506-509) but for sure not suitable for publication in scientific journal as Sustainability is for sure. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your careful and thoughtful review. The paper has been substantially improved by the insights and changes suggested by all reviewers.

We answered to all the comments and questions in the PDF attached.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have considered, discussed and used the comments to improve the overallquality of the paper. I still have some concern on the scientific soundness of the paper, mainly due to the qualitative approach: however this is probably something personal, which appears to be different from the feeling of other colleagues reviewing the paper. 

Reviewer 3 Report

It is obvious that authors invest some time into manuscript improvement. From my position I may recommend its publication.