Social Transformation in Peri-Urban Communities toward Food Sustainability and Achievement of SDGs in the Era of Disruption
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is my pleasure to review the manuscript (sustainability-2471703) submitted to Sustainability by Sumardjo et al. In this article, the authors studied/analyzed the factors that influence social transformation in peri-urban communities and their impact on food sustainability and the achievement of six indicators of the SDGs through a qualitative approach.
The manuscript is well written. However, the manuscript is unnecessarily lengthy in some sections. Here are some observations to improve the article further:
[1] Abstract: Please mention specifically (with respect to your study on the peri-urban area of Indonesia's two districts, not general comment) – ‘This social transformation leads to increased food production and poverty ------------------------------- attitudes, and behavior of people managing community resources.
- First, write the full form of the SDGs and use the abbreviated form later.
- Please add more keywords.
[2] Introduction: This section seems to be lengthy and discusses various parameters related to the SDGs. Is it possible to incorporate research related to food sustainability?
[3] Materials and Methods:
According to the authors- ‘The research instruments used include interview questionnaires, observation guidelines, and document and policy checklists. ---------------- followed by data collection through interviews ----‘. There should be some evidence in favour of this statement (type of questions used in interviews, etc.). In the results section, the same evidence is missing.
[4] Results:
- Need to improve the title of Figure 1.
- In lines 480-481, 538, it must be CO2 (not CO2). In line 537, it must be CH4 (not CH4).
[5] Conclusions: I am confused as the authors mentioned implications after conclusions. I prefer the authors mention a conclusion based on the significance, important findings, and future prospects of the study.
Some typos and grammatical errors must be checked and improved.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable inputs, corrections and suggestions on our article. Below is our response to the reviewer's suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is entitled “Social Transformation in Peri Urban Communities towards Food Sustainability and Achievement of SDGs in the Era of Disruption”. This study attempts to examine the factors that influence social transformation in peri-urban communities, as well as their effect on agricultural sustainability and the attainment of SDGs. In two districts, in-depth interviews, field observations, and focus group discussions (FGD) constitute the qualitative research method. The manuscript is well done and planned. The experiment design was reasonable, and consecutive. Only some points should be addressed.
How many cases were examined in this study employing qualitative research techniques?
In this study, human subjects were interviewed in depth. So, the information on ethical approval by the institutional review board and the informed consent statement have to be provided.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable inputs, corrections and suggestions on our article. Below is our response to the reviewer's suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It is my pleasure to review the revised manuscript (sustainability-2471703-v2) submitted to Sustainability by Sumardjo et al. In this revised manuscript, the authors improved several sections. However, they modified some parts with mistakes.
[1] Need to improve lines 38-43.
[2] Need to delete lines 45-46.
[3] As the authors added ‘The data collection instrument’ in the authors response section, the same should/must be added as a supplementary file.
[4] Please recheck lines 500, 501, and 524.
[5] Please write ‘4. Conclusions’ instead of ‘4. Conclusions and implications’. Also, reduce these 5 points to 4 points under the heading ‘4. Conclusions’. There is no need to write subheadings like ‘conclusions’ and ‘Future prospects of the study’.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable corrections and suggestions to improve our paper. We have tried to make improvements as requested.
Best Regards,
Author Team
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
