Proximities and Logics of Sustainable Development of the Territorial Resource: The Case of the Localised Agro-Food System of Kalâat M’gouna in Morocco

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Manuscript ID: Sustainability-2013339 (previous version ID 1652057)

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Proximities and logics of sustainable development of the territorial re-source: The case of the localized agro-food system of Kalâat M'gouna in Morocco.

1.     Unfortunately, I could not find any Authors' Responses to the Reviewer's Comments on the previous draft of the article

2.     The abstract is still not organized well. Earlier suggestions have not been considered.

3.     The revised version of the article's Introduction and Chapter 2 is basically no different from the previous one, except for a significant improvement in the English language and a changed citation style. The big improvements are not visible here. The Authors have not provided citations from the empirical literature related to the topic.

4.     Section 3: one paragraph and map added (previously 3.1)

5.     Section 4. Methodology. This section has been improved (more detailed characteristics of the sample and questionnaire, etc.) The size of the sample was increased from 35 to 47 actors (interviewees). The period for conducting the surveys is still missing. The paragraph on methods provided in Section 5.3 (lines 564-561) should be included in Section 4 (Methodology)

6.     No big changes suggested by reviewers were made in the section  “Results and Discussion” (now #5), except for the replacement of the “correlation” table and its description. Surprisingly, the data presented in current Figure 6 (“Types and frequencies of proximity identified among the actors of K-M LAFS rose”) and in the corresponding Figure 5 from the previous version of the manuscript do not differ, even though the number of respondents/actors has changed (from 35 to 47). How can the Authors explain it? A coincidence? The same comment applies to Figure 7 and Table 3. In the Discussion section (5.3), the Authors have a discussion with themselves, without citing other research.

7.     Despite the changed sample size and possibly its composition, and despite the new results (Table 2), the conclusions of the study and of the entire paper are exactly the same as before the paper was revised.

8.     The Authors did not take into account the reviewers' suggestions regarding the selection of literature. The reference list has been expanded merely by four literature entries (including previously cited but omitted in the References) and now consists of 24 items, predominantly in French. It would be helpful to readers if non-English titles of cited articles were translated into English, followed by the original language in parentheses

9.     Please follow the instruction for authors on how to quote the references in the main text for the Sustainability journal and on how to organize the reference list. When citing authors in the text, in some cases co-authors are omitted. Additionally, be aware of the different styles of citing used in the manuscript (see, for example, lines 107-111 and 213-219).

10.  Below are the selected examples of inconsistencies

“According to Torre, this organized (relational) proximity (...) to make its members interact' [14]. [14] M. Filippi et A. Torre, Proximités et changements socio-économiques dans les mondes ruraux. INRA Editions - Collection 809 Un point sur, 2005. Consulté le: 20 octobre 2022. 

“It is in this sense that Pecqueur [20] stresses”.. [20] B. Pecqueur et J. B. Zimmermann, « Processus cognitifs et construction des territoires économiques », Econ. Con-824 naiss. Organ., 1997.

“according to Torre and Armelle [8]”. [8] A. Torre et A. Caron, « Réflexions sur les dimensions négatives de la proximité : le cas des conflits d’usage et de 797 voisinage », Économie Inst., no 6‑7, p. 183‑219, déc. 2005, doi: 10.4000/ei.952.

11.  Other technical and editorial comments

The units of measurement in Figure 4 need clarification

Quotation marks are not unified

Explanations of abbreviations from the head of Table 2 should be under the table, not in the footnotes

 

There are no sources under Tables and Figures

Author Response

Dear reviewer, Hello

First, we would like to thank you for your efforts and valuable time in evaluating our work.
In response to your comments, we have tried to respond point by point by further improving our paper. Please see the attachment relating to our answers.

We thank you once again

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Review:

Sustainability-2013339

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Proximities versus logics for the sustainable valorization of the territorial resource: The case of localized agro-food system of Kalâat M'gouna in Morocco

 

I would recommend the authors to separate parts: Results and Discussion. Please do not put any tables or graphs in the discussion part, as they should be placed the results section.

Generally the research has been improved compared to its first form, but the authors should revise the language of the manuscript to improve its quality and the possibility of a publication in the Sustainability journal. And once again, please check the instruction for authors - how to quote the references in the main text for Sustainability, MDPI.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, Hello

First, we would like to thank you for your efforts and valuable time in evaluating our work.
In response to your comments, we have tried to respond point by point by further improving our paper. Please see the attachment relating to our answers.

We thank you once again

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The article in this round made many improvements.

I could recommend that authors take a look at a work they can cite: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/3057

Author Response

Dear reviewer, Hello

First, we would like to thank you for your efforts and valuable time in evaluating our work.
In response to your comments, we have tried to respond point by point by further improving our paper. Please see the attachment relating to our answers.

We thank you once again

Best regards

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The manuscript revisions are satisfactory.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This one is an Interesting work that mainly integrates traditional and scientific knowledge by identifying the types of proximity and the modes of valorization of the territorial resource "rose" activated by the territorial actors of a localized agri-food system (LAFS). These actors are specialized in the production, and the transformation of the fresh rose at Kalâat M' Gouna (K-M), Province of Tinghir in Morocco.

 

Appointments

The introduction does not go into depth about what the paper seeks to elucidate, bringing definitions that will be better explained in the next section. To give dimension to what the work is about, these definitions should be briefly summarized as they will be densely commented, and placing information about the importance of the rose in the territory, which difficulties are intended to be improved. The way it was written, it seems that the work is about terms and not a social construction of the topic addressed.

In section 2, a lot of information is used, some of which are even repeated a few times, I believe that brief definitions are important to situate the reader about what will be discussed, however, the amount of information placed in this section made the text very dense, since when dealing with the results and discussion, the terms are brought, together with brief definitions, which makes the reader immediately remember what is being discussed. Definitions are important as a guide, but when used in excess they become unnecessary in a broad context.

For methodology part 1, some information could come in the introduction as a way of showing the real importance of rose production. In addition, the information brought in the methodology does not give the real dimension of its importance, as it does not present values, it does not present the number of people involved who depend on the production, this type of information is important to contextualize how the production of roses affects the management of the territory under study. For the methodology part 2, there is a table 1 that does not add new information to the text, I believe it can be reedited or removed, in addition I missed the direction for which this methodology was used, what are the results that this methodology will bring, it was written only one paragraph, and very briefly still.

For the results part 1, the main actors were written, and this information would be better in the form of a table. For better understanding, bring the information of the actors in tables, and rewrite the results, writing only the main information. No comments for the results part 2. For the discussion the table 2 presented is difficult to understand, a re-edit is recommended in order to clarify the information.

 

1 - when citing a work they use arrows to indicate, I think they should use the standard format of quotation marks or remove

2 – book citations do not follow an exact pattern, it is preferable to standardize.

3 – line 151: fix the citation.

4 - line 173: etc or and?

5 – line 209: is missing the citation.

6 – figure 2: Neoclassical?

Reviewer 2 Report

Review:

Manuscript ID: Sustainability-1652057

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Proximities versus logics for the sustainable valorization of the territorial resource: The case of localized agro-food system of Kalâat M'gouna in Morocco

               The manuscript has been divided into two parts - theoretical, with presentation of the meaning and classifications of proximity, and the second part which is empirical. Such system and layout of the study seems to be logical, and succinct. However, this part of the text (from line 62 - in the Introduction), should be transferred to the part Methodology, and then Authors should separately refer to the theoretical, and empirical parts of the study in the Results.- From line 62: "To understand this problem, we divide the article into two parts: the first is theoretical, in which we present the meaning and classifications of the notion of proximity in the literature, and the second is empirical, in which we propose our methodological framework, the results of the field survey, the analysis and discussion of these results...." - Some sentences are incomprehensible, for example:- Line 208 - "Otherwise, the accumulation of common knowledge alone does not allow the" - the sentence ends there - sth. is missing.- Fig. 2. - it should be: neoclassical;- Line 261 - is Methodology, and then in line 300 is Methodology again - please, be more precise.

- Line 340 -  Results & Discussion and line 468- Discussions?

You should not present the results in the section Discussion (table 2, table 3).The list of the references in the manuscript at this moment contains only 19 literature items. It should be significantly broadened, by at least 10-20 additional, relevant items of current, scientific literature, concerning the topic of the study. Moreover, please check the instruction for authors - how to quote the references in the main text for Sustainability, MDPI. In fact, it should be numbered [1,3]. Generally, throughout the text there have been noted some repetitions, typos, unnecessary words, that should be corrected. Some sentences are also unclear. All the lines, of the manuscript should be verified, in order to remove the above-mentioned errors and shortcomings that are found in the text.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The manuscript will fall within the “Sustainability” journal’s aims and scope provided that it stresses and proves (empirically or based on the literature) the linkage between proximity and sustainability
2. The concepts/terms in the manuscript title are not explained/clarified (e.g. “sustainable valorization”)
3. The abstract is not organized well. I suggest focusing on such issues as purpose, methods, findings, discussions, and conclusion.
4. The paper in its Introduction should justify the importance of the topic, and indicate the gap in existing research, knowledge, or theory it aims to fulfill.
5. The objective of the reviewed paper is “to analyze the existing proximities between the actors of a localized agri-food system operating in the exploitation of the fresh rose at the territory of Kalâat M'gouna (ecosystem of rose of K-M), while seeking to understand the mechanisms of valorization of the resources "rose" set up by the actors of this localized agri-food system through the proximities activities by these actors on the territory of study”. The second part of the objective (starting from "while") is not clear enough.
6. The study problem is presented as follows: “to what extent can the logics of proximity explain the mechanisms of valorization of the territorial resource "rose" by the actors of the Lafs of rose at Kalâat M' gouna in Morocco?” – What logic is the focus of this study? Logics for the Sustainable Valorization (title) or “the logics of proximity”? or both?  
7. The current authors attribute the classification of proximities into cognitive, organizational, institutional, geographical, and social to Boschma et al., 2014 (lines 44-46), while we can find some of these elements in Pecqueur and Zimmermann, 2004.
8. Lines 51-52: [study] “is to seek the possible adequacy between the proximity of the actors in the broad sense and…”  What does “the proximity of the actors in the broad sense” mean? First of all, the paper should indicate at the beginning what concept of proximity applies in an empirical study.
9. Section 2: The authors have failed to provide a review of the empirical literature related to the topic. The review of definitions and classifications of proximity is interesting but not enough. In the scientific paper, we should look at the contributions of other authors who empirically addressed the problem of proximity and its relation to sustainability, sustainable development, or sustainable use of resources, for example. Additionally, this “review” section does not care about the explanation of such terms used by authors as “sustainable valorization”, “ sustainable development”, “ sustainable agrosystems”, and “sustainable territorial development”.
10. For an economist, like myself, splitting proximities into "classical" and "neoclassical" is confusing since it suggests approaches applied by classical and neoclassical economics. If even so, the “institutional” dimension is not included in classical economics’ approach. Can be changed to “traditional” and “non-traditional”.
11. The methodology section has obvious weaknesses: What was the time of the empirical study (questionnaire survey and semi-directive interviews)? What was the method for selecting “a representative sample of 35 actors”? What was the minimum size of the sample to be representative? What questions in the questionnaire survey were related to the selected types of proximity (Figure 5)? A frequency analysis, let's be clear - is not a statistical analysis - it does not mathematically test any relationships. Nothing comes out that would make it possible to say something meaningful about a population. There is no so-called statistical inference, i.e. a data analysis strategy that translates the results obtained in a certain small group into the entire population.
12. Discussion: Table 2 – was it impossible to calculate the correlation coefficients between frequencies of the types of proximity and the types of valorization?
13. The authors propose ways to improve the exploitation of the fresh rose in the Tinghir province but they do not provide the theoretical implications of their study.
14. References: I suggest authors expand the references to the most recent works (also in English) on the undertaken topic, including empirical research works to consult and compare their own results with those of other researchers.
15. The manuscript needs revision and resubmit 

Other comments

1. The abbreviation "LAFS" should be clarified when it appears for the first time in the text (except for the abstract).
2. Line Bouba-Olga, O; Grossetti, M. (reference list) versus  Bouba-Olgra and Grossetti (line 44)
3. 134: “According to Torre” (should be Torre et al.)
4. The reference list includes two items from Pecqueur and Zimmermann, 2004. In text there is no distinction between the two (2004 a and 2004 b),
5. Some in-text citations are missing in the reference list, e.g. Gilly and Torre (2000); Pecqueur (1997)
6. Some items listed in the Reference list are missing in the text, e.g. Filippi, M.; Torre
7. 617: Regional development and proximity relations – Journal titles should be capitalized
8. No explicit reference to Figures 3-6 in the text (by indicating their numbers)
9. This paper needs to undergo professional proofreading.