Does an Alternative Local Food Network Contribute to Improving Sustainable Food Security?
, Diah Chaerani 2, Fernianda Rahayu Hermiatin 3, Audi Luqmanul Hakim Achmad 4 and Ananda Fridayana 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research demonstrates how the Local Food Network (LFN) might be able to address the challenges of food security and takes the standpoint of sustainability aspects to ensure food security can be achieved sustainably and responsibly. However, the following suggestions are recommended:
· Introduction section is very lengthy. Please try to reduce it. In addition, literature review section is missing author should divide the introduction section into two sections an make one section as a literature review. Compare the already available results with your research and present a comparison table.
· What are the limitation of the research and this article is more useful than already published research.
· English throughout the manuscript needs to be improved.
· It is necessary to check the format of the journal.
· I would like to suggest this article for publication after minor changes. Article is not acceptable in present form.
Author Response
Reviewer 1.
Point 1. Moderate English changes required. English throughout the manuscript needs to be
improved.
Response 1. We have tried to improve the grammar used in this article.
Point 2. Introduction section is very lengthy. Please try to reduce it.
Response 2. We have rewritten and improved the introduction. We include some relevant
statements and references (references start from lines 30 to 115)
Point 3. In addition, literature review section is missing author should divide the
introduction section into two sections and make one section as a literature review. Compare
the already available results with your research and present a comparison table.
Response 3. We agree that this article needs a literature review, so we tried adding a
literature review section to strengthen the argument we wrote in the introduction section.
We moved to the literature review section for some previously-stored statements in the
introduction section (lines 117 to 190).
Point 4. What are the limitation of the research and this article is more useful than already
published research.
Response 4. We have added research limitations and listed the limitations at the bottom of
the conclusion (lines 501 to 506).
Point 5. It is necessary to check the format of the journal
Response 5. We have already double check the format of the article and has been adjust
based on the Sustainability MDPI format.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The research entitled “Does Alternative Local Food Network Contribute to Improve Sustainable Food Security?” presented an interesting topic related to food security using multi-objective linear programming. The aim of the manuscript is to design an optimal food supply network. Along with these merits, the following points can improve the quality of the manuscript and should be considered before publication.
(1) Lines 304–305: There is no subsequent paragraph explaining the “strategy to achieve the optimum network from farm to fork”. The authors have either added an additional paragraph or deleted this line.
(2) The authors mentioned in Table 2 that there are many consumer areas; however, these areas have not been explained in the paragraph. Please explain these consumer areas in this section.
(3) Similarly add more details of Table 3 on page 11.
(4) In Figures 4,5,6 and 7, the area names are barely visible. Please improve the quality of the figure. This will help readers to understand these figures.
(5) Please add policy implications and suggestions to the discussion section and cite some references in support of your results.
(6) Page 3, add some references to support your results.
(7) The conclusion part is very brief. Explain your research outcomes, add limitations and future research in the conclusion section.
Author Response
Reviewer 2.
Point 1. Line 304-305: There is no subsequent paragraph explaining the “strategy to achieve
the optimum network from farm to fork”. The authors have either added an additional
paragraph or deleted this line.
Response 1. We revised the sentence and we tried to correct the sentence to make it more
understandable for the readers (has been moved to lines 354-356)
Point 2. The authors mentioned in Table 2 that there are many consumer areas; however,
these areas have not been explained in the paragraph. Please explain these consumer areas
in this section.
Response 2. We have added an explanation related to the consumer area from lines 337 to
344.
Point 3. Similarly add more details of Table 3 on page 11.
Response 3. We have added an explanation related to table 3 from lines 378 to 396.
Point 4. In Figure 4, 5, 6, and 7, the area names are barely visible. Please improve the quality
of the figure. This will help readers to understand these figures.
Response 4. We have tried to improve the figure quality of 4, 5, 6, and 7. However, the
improvement is not too significant because of the limitations of the application used.
Point 5. Please add policy implications and suggestions to the discussion section and cite
some references in support of your results.
Response 5. We have added theory implication and policy implication on lines 472 to 481.
Point 6. Page 3, add some references to support your results.
Response 6. We have tried to add relevant references and a literature review section to
support the study's arguments.
Point 7. The conclusion part is very brief. Explain your research outcomes, add limitations,
and future research in the conclusion section.
Response 7. Thank you for your valuable suggestion, we agree that the conclusion section is
too short, and according to the reviewer's suggestion, we add the limitations and future
research listed on lines 485 to 512.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper has been interesting to read, it deals with a topic that is currently of great interest to all, employs a sound methodology and arrives at some interesting conclusions.
I suggest some English editing and two points below that have not been so clear when reading it.
l.56 …economic trade in neighboring countries, and reduced business between countries.
It is not very clear what this part of the sentence refers to.
l.91 ….and/or aggregator within the same region.
Presumably ‘aggregators’ are the wholesalers.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 3.
Point 1. English language editing is definitely suggested.
Response 1. We have tried to improve the grammar used in this article.
Point 2. 56…economic trade in neighbouring countries, and reduce business between countries. It is not very clear what this part of the sentence reference to.
Response 2. The sentence in Line 56 has been revised, and we try to clarify the meaning of the sentence.
Point 3. 91….and/or aggregator within the same region. Presumably “aggregators” are the wholesalers.
Response 3. We have changed the word on line 91 (now line 81) and we agree with the word wholesalers
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors implemented all the suggestions. Paper acceptable in current form.
