Food Markets and Free Fairs as Contributors for Designing Climate Resilient Cities: A Study Case in Southern Ecuador

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors highlight the strategic importance of a robust network of markets and free fairs in order to enhance food sovereignty and climate adaptation. They find that market and free fairs enjoy considerable approval from customers. The authors conclude that the supply market system should be based on fixed facilities (markets) and temporary spaces (free fairs) capable of responding to the consumption needs of the population and of incorporating supply from farmers in peri-urban areas. They propose extending the network of free fairs in order to make them accessible within a 10-minute walk, thus contributing to food sovereignty and climate adaptation.

The issue is relevant and timely, and the article is interesting. It is straightforward, well-written and well structured. Methods are appropriate and are adequately described. Figures and tables are informative, illustrative and clearly presented. The discussion and conclusions are supported by the results, are consistent and answer the aims of the study.

I have some very minor comments which I think the authors should address:

·       Line 130: The authors state that “Ten people were selected in each market and free fair” and “the final sample consisted of 155 participants”. If I multiply 10 people by (7 + 13) markets and free fairs, the number 155 is not correct. I would suggest explaining why the final sample consisted of 155 participants.

·       Line 202: Isn´t San Sebastian a market?

·       Line 220: The authors state that “in addition to the 2,950 vendors, a further 23,000 people are 220 benefited”. Is the number 23,000 correct?

·       Figure 2: I cannot see municipal market g.

·       Lines 244-248: Are the results of this cluster analysis presented anywhere in the paper? I would suggest giving more information on this.

·       Line 250: The section is not numbered correctly.

·       Table 2: I would suggest using the same format and order of headings as in Table 1.

·       Lines 298-299: The authors state that “The analysis of the potential location of free fairs in the city identified 73 sites”. Based on what? I would suggest including an explanation about this.

·       Line 309: The figure is not correctly numbered. It is Figure 4.

·       Line 341: What does the word “it” refer to?

Author Response

Reviewer 1  

The authors highlight the strategic importance of a robust network of markets and free fairs in order to enhance food sovereignty and climate adaptation. They find that market and free fairs enjoy considerable approval from customers. The authors conclude that the supply market system should be based on fixed facilities (markets) and temporary spaces (free fairs) capable of responding to the consumption needs of the population and of incorporating supply from farmers in peri-urban areas. They propose extending the network of free fairs in order to make them accessible within a 10-minute walk, thus contributing to food sovereignty and climate adaptation.

The issue is relevant and timely, and the article is interesting. It is straightforward, well-written and well structured. Methods are appropriate and are adequately described. Figures and tables are informative, illustrative and clearly presented. The discussion and conclusions are supported by the results, are consistent and answer the aims of the study.

I have some very minor comments which I think the authors should address:

•     Line 130: The authors state that “Ten people were selected in each market and free fair” and “the final sample consisted of 155 participants”. If I multiply 10 people by (7 + 13) markets and free fairs, the number 155 is not correct. I would suggest explaining why the final sample consisted of 155 participants. 

Author’s response: we really appreciate this comment as we have not been clear enough to explain the procedure of the methods applied. We have addressed this issue in the Methods section in three parts. First, between lines 122-131 we explain that we collected data over three time periods, and only during the first period (2019-2020) the survey was applied because of mobility restrictions. Second, in line 143 we corrected the number 155 to 150, this because by this time period there were 6 markets and 9 free fairs, this change is properly elaborated in the results section  between lines 234-248. Third, the other five people that we initially declared in the survey (155), were not surveyees, they rather participated in the interview during the second time period. This was corrected in lines 169-173.

•       Line 202: Isn´t San Sebastian a market?

Author’s response: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have noticed that we did not clarify that San Sebastián was both a market and a free fair. However, after the pandemic the fair was canceled and currently there is only a martey San Sebastián. This is explained in lines 223-226.

•       Line 220: The authors state that “in addition to the 2,950 vendors, a further 23,000 people are 220 benefited”. Is the number 23,000 correct?

Author’s response: Data has been revised and updated up to 2022 given that some free fairs have stopped operating while others started operating (lines 266-270).

•       Figure 2: I cannot see municipal market g.

Author’s response: The figure was updated with slight stylistic changes to make all markets and free fairs visible.

•       Lines 244-248: Are the results of this cluster analysis presented anywhere in the paper? I would suggest giving more information on this.

Author’s response: these results were initially presented narratively while describing teh dynamic of markets and free fairs. We welcome the reviewer's comment and have decided to create a map showing the clusters that represent teh origin of food sold in markets and free fairs (lines 296-302).

•       Line 250: The section is not numbered correctly.

Author’s response: Indeed, we have corrected the numbering.  

•       Table 2: I would suggest using the same format and order of headings as in Table 1.

Author’s response: the table was modified with the requested format

•       Lines 298-299: The authors state that “The analysis of the potential location of free fairs in the city identified 73 sites”. Based on what? I would suggest including an explanation about this.

Author’s response: we understand the reviewer’s confusion. For clarification purposes, between lines 209-219 it is explained how the potential scenarios were outlined.

•       Line 309: The figure is not correctly numbered. It is Figure 4.

Author’s response: All figure numbers have been updated.

•       Line 341: What does the word “it” refer to?

Author’s response: we understand the reviewer’s confusion, we have clarified that we are talking about markets and free fairs (lines 421).

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper explores the very important concept that is very common activity in many countries all over the world. It is interesting study and need some major changes to improve the quality of the work to reach it to the publishable level. Followings are  recommendations needed to improve quality of the work before it is finally published.

 

Line 38-39 Can you explain infrastructure and non-infrastructure little bit more

Line 106, i think agriculture includes crop, livestock, fisheries and forestry, please re-check it.

Line 125-135: Survey should be illustrated more clearly.

Insert the exact time of survey as mentioned in line 390, pre and post COVID 19.

how 10 respondents from each markets and free-fairs were selected?

how you confirmed that the a respondent does not visit the another market or free fairs. if it is the scenario, then it is possible to get the dat from one visitor twice.  

How 155 respondents were selected as optimal sample size. how much markets and free fairs you selected for. 

why only 155 respondents selected why not more or less than 155?

You wrote one shopper selected from every 10 shopper, do you know already the total number of shopper which enable you to select 1 from every 10 shopper. 

Line 168; the time calculation regarding travel needs more clear explanation.

Line 213-214. where you analysed the role of women and  decreasing trend of young peoples?

The results should be presented in form of table that were explained only in text form.

Line 223 recheck the sentence again. 

Line 244-248. Author explain the cluster of respondents at different place in the article, why they clustered the respondents and what was their purpose of doing this. moreover, these clusters should be explained in method section. 

Line 255-262. present these results also in table form to clear the situation that author wants to explain here. 

Table 2; insert frequencies in side of percentage, and use full-stop (.) rather than commas (,).

Table 2: remove a between 15 and 20 min

Income is also one of most important variable that affects the access to market or free-fair  it should be more attractive if author add the income also as a variable when they access the markets and free fair.

 

3.3 Future scenario

Although future scenario and potential locations are described, kindly briefly explain how you were able to draw these future scenario, I mean it was based on the data collected during survey or it has been drawn just based on future perception.

 

 

In line 317 -321. Authors wrote about the climate change effect on market and free fairs access and stability, but I could not find the results regarding effect of climate change on market and free fair access anywhere throughout the whole article. What can authors explains clearly where and how they accessed the effect of climate change … How they can explain only by measuring satisfaction of visitors, or by spatial analysis where they only explained the time based access to markets and free fairs.

 

 

Line 325-326: how food sovereignty were considered in the results, author should explain clearly. Similarly what does mean of transportation. It is transportation means used by visitors or it is something other.

 

Line 330-340; it is not a time of defining and explaining the food sovereignty. It is time to discuss your findings.

 

Line 356-380; these calculation should be inserted in methods section and should be relate with the actual data collected time for travelling. It could increase the quality of the article which was important to present in result section to explain how markets and free fairs contributes to climate resilient.

 

Many references are in other language, the author should replace the titles of those references with English translated title.  

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

This paper explores the very important concept that is very common activity in many countries all over the world. It is interesting study and need some major changes to improve the quality of the work to reach it to the publishable level. Followings are  recommendations needed to improve quality of the work before it is finally published.

 Line 38-39 Can you explain infrastructure and non-infrastructure little bit more

Author’s response: we appreciate this comment and have proceeded to provide examples of infrastructural and non-infrastructural between lines 41-42 to better explain our arguments.

Line 106, i think agriculture includes crop, livestock, fisheries and forestry, please re-check it.

Author’s response: thank you for this observation, we used initially the name used in the Ecuadorian census, however we understand the observation and therefore we use only the word agriculture (line 108).

Line 125-135: Survey should be illustrated more clearly.

Insert the exact time of survey as mentioned in line 390, pre and post COVID 19.

how 10 respondents from each markets and free-fairs were selected?

Author’s response: we really appreciate this comment as we have not been clear enough to explain the procedure of the methods applied. We have addressed this issue in the Methods section in three parts. First, between lines 123-131 we explain that we collected data over three time periods, and only during the first period (2019-2020) the survey was applied because of mobility restrictions. Second, in line 143 we corrected the number 155 to 150, this because by this time period there were 6 markets and 9 free fairs, this change is properly elaborated in the results section  between lines 234-248. Third, the other five people that we initially declared in the survey (155), were not surveyees, they rather participated in the interview during the second time period. This was corrected in lines 169-173. We also added some clarifications regarding the sample size between lines 140-147.

 how you confirmed that the a respondent does not visit the another market or free fairs. if it is the scenario, then it is possible to get the dat from one visitor twice.  

Author’s response: we thank the reviewer for this observation since it gave us the opportunity to clarify this issue. We did indeed make sure to avoid surveying the same people, we explain this in the methods section between lines 146-147.

How 155 respondents were selected as optimal sample size. how much markets and free fairs you selected for. why only 155 respondents selected why not more or less than 155? You wrote one shopper selected from every 10 shopper, do you know already the total number of shopper which enable you to select 1 from every 10 shopper. 

Author’s response: we thank the reviewer again for this observation. As explained in previous comments, we did have a sample size of 150 people. The size was set by following recommendations by Newing (2011 pp. 79), who claim that a minimum sample size between 60 and 150 participants is necessary for statistical inferences. We recognise that the larger the size the less the error, but still the size allows the researchers to make statistical inferences. Finally, we did not know the number of shoppers, the type of sampling used was systematic sampling. The idea behind selecting this sampling type was to give all shoppers the same probability to be included in the sample. The sample size provides a tendency, yet, we agree that further research with a larger sample size will benefit our debate. These clarifications can be found in lines 143-147, and as caveats in the discussion section in lines 521-522.

Line 168; the time calculation regarding travel needs more clear explanation.

Author’s response: We understand the reviewer’s confusion. We clarified this confusion by better explaining the process followed between lines 189-208. This is complemented with what is written between lines 209-219.

Line 213-214. where you analysed the role of women and decreasing trend of young peoples?

The results should be presented in form of table that were explained only in text form.

Line 255-262. present these results also in table form to clear the situation that author wants to explain here.

Author’s response: we appreciate these observations and therefore have proceeded to better explain our findings (lines 253-257). We complement the narrative by creating Table 1 and Table 2 where it is described the vendor’s demographic profile and the visitor’s demographic profile accordingly (Lines 258; 311).

Line 223 recheck the sentence again. 

Author’s response: we did recheck and found word duplication. This has been corrected in line 273.

Line 244-248. Author explain the cluster of respondents at different place in the article, why they clustered the respondents and what was their purpose of doing this. moreover, these clusters should be explained in method section.

Author’s response: we thak the reviewer observation and agree that we need to clarfiy these results. To do so, we complemented what we initially presented in a narrative form (lines 294-299) with a map (figure 3) to explain where food come from.  This is important in that it shows how markets and free fairs contribute to reach food sovereingty. We also discuss about this in the discussion section (lines 410-413).

Table 2; insert frequencies in side of percentage, and use full-stop (.) rather than commas (,). Table 2: remove a between 15 and 20 min

Author’s response: the style corrections suggested have been corrected (Table 2)

Income is also one of most important variable that affects the access to market or free-fair  it should be more attractive if author add the income also as a variable when they access the markets and free fair.

Author’s response: we agree with the reviewer. We cannot change what we have already done, but we acknowledge the need to include an income question in the questionnaire in further research. We declare this concern in the discussion section (lines 518-521).

 3.3 Future scenario

Although future scenario and potential locations are described, kindly briefly explain how you were able to draw these future scenario, I mean it was based on the data collected during survey or it has been drawn just based on future perception.

Author’s response: we understand the reviewer’s confusion. For clarification purposes, we inform that between lines 209-219 it is explained how the potential scenarios were outlined.

 In line 317 -321. Authors wrote about the climate change effect on market and free fairs access and stability, but I could not find the results regarding effect of climate change on market and free fair access anywhere throughout the whole article. What can authors explains clearly where and how they accessed the effect of climate change … How they can explain only by measuring satisfaction of visitors, or by spatial analysis where they only explained the time based access to markets and free fairs. 

Author’s response: We thank the reviewer for this comment and for giving us the opportunity for clarification. We have indeed spotted a confusing narrative, the effects of climate change are on food access and stability and a strengthened network of food markets and free fairs may reduce these effects. We clarified this in the discussion section (lines 398-406). 

Line 325-326: how food sovereignty were considered in the results, author should explain clearly. Similarly what does mean of transportation. It is transportation means used by visitors or it is something other.

Author’s response: We thank the reviewer for this comment because it gives us the opportunity to improve our manuscript. To address this comment we first explain that food sovereignty requires understanding the dynamics of trade as well as the governance and functioning of domestic food markets (lines 27-29). We also declare that  food sovereignty stands out for the promotion of sustainable livelihoods, independence from large corporations and the strategic localisation of urban food systems, especially the reduction of the distance between producer and consumer, promotes ancestral knowledge, encourages small and medium-scale local production, allows people to define their own food policies to adapt them to their ecological, social, economic, and cultural realities (lines 408-420). In order to highlight how we considered food sovereignty in the results we first added an objective to describe the current dynamic of the network of markets and free fairs (lines 93-94), then we spotted this objective in the methods section (lines 157-163), finally, we added a new results subsection explaining such results (line 234).

We also did some clarification regarding transport. We did so first by adding in the methods section a CO2 calculations derived from transport (lines 220-232). We presented the results of such calculations (lines 372-391), and improved our discussion (lines 438-452).

Line 330-340; it is not a time of defining and explaining the food sovereignty. It is time to discuss your findings.

Author’s response: we agree with the reviewer and have proceeded to complement the literature review with our findings (lines 408-430). 

Line 356-380; these calculation should be inserted in methods section and should be relate with the actual data collected time for travelling. It could increase the quality of the article which was important to present in result section to explain how markets and free fairs contributes to climate resilient.

Author’s response: we thank the reviewer for such a good observation. We have indeed added the calculations in the methods section (lines 220-232), results (lines 372-391), and discussion (lines 438-452). 

Many references are in other language, the author should replace the titles of those references with English translated title.  

 Author’s response: We checked for the Journal templates and requirements and it is not mandatory to translate into English the references as can be read in the following link: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#references 

We also looked for recent publications in “Sustainability” and found that the articles using references in other languages that English keep the original language (e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/11/6751

Reviewer 3 Report

The article analyses food markets and free fairs as contributors to climate-resilient urban planning in a middle-size city in southern Ecuador. Its stated purpose is to analyze the public’s satisfaction with these places, develop a spatial analysis regarding markets and free fairs access and distribution, and outline future scenarios for climate-resilient urban planning. The study is well structured and well-argued, albeit with minor grammar issues that need to be addressed. Besides, the following issues require attention:

2. Materials and Methods

I find this title very "hard-sciences wannabe"... In social sciences, unlike physics or biology, there are seldom "materials" in the methodological approach. Consider renaming it simply "Methodology," eliminating session 2.2 and upgrading sessions 2.2.1 to 2.1, 2.2.2 to 2.2, and 2.2.3 to 2.3.

Likewise, the results can be presented in two levels (no need for a 3.1.1 or 3.2.2, which are inconsistently numbered).

The conclusions seem abrupt and short. Consider elaborating on a synthesis of the article's main managerial and theoretical contributions as part of the conclusions.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The article analyses food markets and free fairs as contributors to climate-resilient urban planning in a middle-size city in southern Ecuador. Its stated purpose is to analyze the public’s satisfaction with these places, develop a spatial analysis regarding markets and free fairs access and distribution, and outline future scenarios for climate-resilient urban planning. The study is well structured and well-argued, albeit with minor grammar issues that need to be addressed. Besides, the following issues require attention:

2. Materials and Methods

I find this title very "hard-sciences wannabe"... In social sciences, unlike physics or biology, there are seldom "materials" in the methodological approach. Consider renaming it simply "Methodology," eliminating session 2.2 and upgrading sessions 2.2.1 to 2.1, 2.2.2 to 2.2, and 2.2.3 to 2.3.

Author’s response: We agree with the recommendation provided and therefore we have made the necessary modifications. Please see lines 101; 122. Yet, we stick to the Journal’s format and keep the heads and subheads. For example, we kept subsection 2.2. but we renamed it as “methods”. Since we have several methods we need to use the subheading levels for each of the methods. If both the Editor and the reviewer agree, we have no problem removing the subtitles.

Likewise, the results can be presented in two levels (no need for a 3.1.1 or 3.2.2, which are inconsistently numbered).

Author’s response: We agree with the recommendation and have corrected the levels in the results section. 

The conclusions seem abrupt and short. Consider elaborating on a synthesis of the article's main managerial and theoretical contributions as part of the conclusions.

Author’s response: We agree with the reviewer’s recommendation. The conclusions have been expanded to explain the main results (lines 526-533).

Reviewer 4 Report

• What is the main question addressed by the research? The main question of this manuscript is how to analyse food access and stability within the system of urban markets and free fairs in Ecuador. In particular, the previous research question was evaluated by the assessment of the i) public satisfaction with these spaces, ii) the distribution and access to the same spaces, and iii) analysed future scenarios that envisage a food system that contributes to the designing of a climate-resilient city.
• Is it relevant and interesting? The present manuscript sounds both relevant and interesting because it could be considered a guide for the future climate change actions
• How original is the approach? Very original especially when we are talking about the Latin American scientific context
• What does it add to existing publications on related topics? It adds more empirical applications to the ongoing climate change debate
• Is the paper well written? Yes
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Yes

The manuscript fits well the aim and the scope of the journal 

Author Response

Reviewer 4

 

• What is the main question addressed by the research? The main question of this manuscript is how to analyse food access and stability within the system of urban markets and free fairs in Ecuador. In particular, the previous research question was evaluated by the assessment of the i) public satisfaction with these spaces, ii) the distribution and access to the same spaces, and iii) analysed future scenarios that envisage a food system that contributes to the designing of a climate-resilient city.
• Is it relevant and interesting? The present manuscript sounds both relevant and interesting because it could be considered a guide for the future climate change actions
• How original is the approach? Very original especially when we are talking about the Latin American scientific context
• What does it add to existing publications on related topics? It adds more empirical applications to the ongoing climate change debate
• Is the paper well written? Yes
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Yes

The manuscript fits well the aim and the scope of the journal

Author's response: there is no particular observation that we needed to address. Still, we believe that we have made a significant improvement of teh manuscript by following the recommendations from other reviewers. All changes are in red in the new version of the manuscript. 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations to authors they has addressed the comments well but just spell check is required