Food for Thoughts: The District Approach to Rural Areas Development—A Case Study in Campania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper engages with the methodological rationale to analyze local agro/rural systems adequately, and it proposes the implementation of a quality-quantitative case study regarding this topic. The paper is fairly well written and readable with ease, although English revision from a professional editing service is advised to avoid long verbose sentences and simplify the general narrative structure. 

The topic is interesting for the journal's readership, moreover, the case study presented is analyzed from a perspective that is within the journal's scope; however, it would not harm to bring more significant elements underlining the relevant relation with sustainable development.

In the introduction, a more nuanced distinction between industrial districts, and local food districts should be beneficial. In this regard see for example some references (some suggestions below) which appear to be more updated on the topic than those already mentioned. A bullet list of key differences won't do any harm, whereas would convey the messages more effectively. https://www.elgaronline.com/monobook/book/9781035304851/9781035304851.xml

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09654319608720351

https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/289/28942330003.pdf

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2307/1238615

https://agrifoodecon.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40100-014-0019-9

Line 147 " for the economist" ?? What do authors mean by that? Becattini, the journal, or the economists or economics in general? Which economics if the latter case?

Paragraphs 2 and 3 are titled the same. Maybe #3 should be about "the regional Italian context"?

Table 1 is too verbose. It could be replaced by a shorter tabel, whilst it could go in supplementary materials

In general, I found paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 too long. Some information is in my modest opinion un-necessary, and makes readability heavier. I would frankly try to cease out some text and make it lighter. Focus only on what is really important for the argument of the paper (i.e. lines 324-338, is it all of this really useful?), would it not be more important to further describe the patterns in the maps in Figure 1? And also to expand on the reasons behind the chosen indicators.  

Line 439-451 are essential to me for the paper. And as such should be further expanded. Actually this is all the paper should be about. I understand that adequate context (both theoretical and geographical) should be given, but sometimes less is more.

I won't question the methodology adopted because it is frankly over my head and out of my pond, although i do have expertise with statistical sampling. However, the chapter does not seem to include any sort of statistical validation or sensitivity analysis. For example in line 464 is said that the second part of the questionnaire is not statistically significant; what about the first part? how you measured it? for all questions or only some? The data and method should be described more thoroughly

Line 511 is stated that "STS represent [...] areas of homogeneity/affinity from an environmental socio-economic point of view". How so? How you measure it? Who said that?

Results and discussion are actually backward. Generally speaking, it improves readability to put results first quite systematically, to later discuss them critically, also in the light of potential bias or limitations (which here are almost missing completely)

Author Response

Food for thoughts: The district approach to rural areas development. A case study in Campania

 

Note for referee 1

We wish to express our gratitude to referee 1 for his/her useful comments and suggestions. All of them have been taken into account in the revised version of the paper (see attached file).

In the following, we report, among all the changes undertaken in the revision, those specifically addressing the main points raised and comments provided by referee 1.

 

• The topic is interesting for the journal's readership, moreover, the case study presented is analyzed from a perspective that is within the journal's scope; however, it would not harm to bring more significant elements underlining the relevant relation with sustainable development.

Discussions about the significance of the district policy instrument within the territorial or place-based approach (an approach that takes sustainability as a crucial goal) have been presented in sections 1 and 2 (lines 26-32 and lines 96-121, respectively).  The matter is also mentioned in the conclusions’ updated version (lines 838-841). Due to space limitations, we cannot elaborate further on this point.

• In the introduction, a more nuanced distinction between industrial districts, and local food districts should be beneficial. In this regard see for example some references (some suggestions below) which appear to be more updated on the topic than those already mentioned. A bullet list of key differences won't do any harm, whereas would convey the messages more effectively.

The conceptual distinction highlighted by the referee is important. Indeed, it was already extensively discussed in section 2 of the paper (lines 140-154, 156-171 in the revised version of the paper). The referee seems to prefer a more through discussion in the introduction.

However, the treatment of this point in the introduction would require its extension, making the introduction too long and too dense. So, to meet the referee request, in the revised version of the introduction we add an explicit reference (see line 52 in the revised version of the paper) to the ensuing text where this issue is discussed. This should give the reader, starting from the introduction, a precise idea that we consider the point as important.

From a regulatory point of view, more concise definitions of the different types of districts are also provided in Table 1 which has been revised. Following the referee's indications, it has been proposed in two versions:

1. a) a concise version inserted in the main text (section 3, line 208);
2. b) an expanded version (containing precise definitions), included in the supplementary materials (Appendix B)

As for the references, we thank the referee for the suggestions: the new version includes them.

 

• Line 147 “for the economist” ?? What do authors mean by that? Becattini, the journal, or the economists or economics in general? Which economics if the latter case?

For greater clarity, the term has been replaced (Line 143 in the revised version of the paper) with "In his view" (the reference is to Becattini, 1989)

 

• Paragraphs 2 and 3 are titled the same. Maybe #3 should be about “the regional Italian context”?

Thanks for pointing this out: paragraph 3 has been renamed “The regulatory framework at national and regional levels”.

 

• Table 1 is too verbose. It could be replaced by a shorter able, whilst it could go in supplementary materials

We accepted the suggestion: table 1 has been stream-lined and the full version has been moved to the supplementary material (appendix B).

 

• The chapter does not seem to include any sort of statistical validation or sensitivity analysis. For example, in line 464 is said that the second part of the questionnaire is not statistically significant; what about the first part? How you measured it? For all questions or only some? The data and method should be described more thoroughly.

The comment by the referee has been thoroughly discussed among the co-authors. It appears that the referee is requesting a more formal data analysis approach, specifically using statistical analysis and testing. As already noted in the paper (lines 460-463 and lines 646-654 in the revised version of the paper), response rates and sample selection bias have prevented the adoption of a standard statistical approach. However, we believe that the 24 questionnaires we collected and more importantly the 15 semi-structured interviews with key witnesses hold significant implications for descriptive analysis, particularly if supported by a suitable theoretical and methodological framework.

In conclusion, we do not assert substantial external validity from our empirical data analysis. We consider that the examination of responses given by important stakeholders and farmers provides valuable qualitative insights into the socio-economic dynamics underpinning the governance model deployed in the specific area investigated.

 

• Line 511 is stated that “STS represent […] areas of homogeneity/affinity from an environmental socio-economic point of view”. How so? How you measure it? Who said that?

STS refers to the territorialization elaborated by the regional government's planning unit in the 2008 Regional Territorial Plan. To enhance clarity, we have included the phrase "as stated in the Regional Territorial Plan" along with the relevant bibliography reference (line 502 in the revised version of the paper).

 

• Results and discussion are actually backward. Generally speaking, it improves readability to put results first quite systematically, to later discuss them critically, also in the light of potential bias or limitations (which here are almost missing completely)

We appreciate the suggestion by the referee. Nonetheless, a standard statistical analysis based on observational data or RCT benefits from an exposition organized in a sequence of data, results, and discussion. Our presentation, structured into Methods of analysis (Section 4) and Results and discussion (Section 5), reflects the specific use and the quality of the data collected for this contribution.

Notice that the revised version's concluding section includes an analysis in accordance with the referee's suggestion. We are confident that this enhancement increases the clarity and effectiveness of the paper.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The scientific article I've had the opportunity to review is a thought-provoking and insightful exploration of the evolving landscape of agricultural districts in Italy, particularly within the context of Campania. This article presents a rich tapestry of information and analysis, shedding light on various aspects of the district approach in agriculture and rural development.

  One of the strengths of this article lies in its ability to frame the subject matter within a broader context. The authors skillfully navigate the intricate relationship between recent legislative changes and the practical implementation of these changes in light of external factors.

  The research design and methods are relatively clear. The text outlines the purpose of the study, which is to examine the potential and role of agricultural districts in Italy. It also mentions the adaptation of a framework and the methodology used, which includes documentary analysis, geostatistical information, and qualitative surveys.

  The text presents an organized structure, starting with background information, theoretical framework, and a review of legislation before delving into the case study.

  The discussion of findings appears coherent and follows logically from the research design and methodology. It addresses the spatial distribution of the areas, characteristics of the districts, and governance models.

  My only observation is that the conclusion are presented in a somewhat indirect and exploratory manner rather than in a clear and definitive manner. A more structured and concise formulation of conclusions would enhance the overall clarity and impact of the text.

Author Response

Note for referee 2

We wish to express our gratitude to referee 2 for his/her useful comments.

As advised by the referee, we have revised the conclusions by adopting a more concise and structured approach.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

     The study aimed at: a) characterizing the stakeholders from the food and other types of districts from the province of Benevento, Campania region, Italy, and also at b) assess the potential contribution of these districts to to social cohesion and sustainability.

     In the first 3 subchapters / sections (Introduction, The theoretical framework) the theoretical background and justification for the creation of functional districts, as well as the regulatory context in which different types of districts function are extensively described. These sections are considered to be overextended.

      In section 4 the Benevento province is described and the employed methodology is mentioned.

      The results of the study, as well as the actual parts of discussion are presented in section 5 (Discussion). The actual results, obtained after employing the stated methods should have been mentioned in a distinct section (Results) (or at least the section should have been named Results and Discussion).

       The Conclusions section is considered to be overextended. The same conclusions could have been expressed in fewer sentences. Some of the stated conclusions seem not be entirely supported by the results.

        The main issue with this paper (critical) is the lack of statistical significance. The authors state that only 24 members responded to the questionnaire (11 for the District of agricultural and food quality “Sannio Vino Olio e Ortofrutta” (DAQ) and 13 for the Rural district “Terra Sannita” (DIR), while 156 out of 246 DIR members and 80 out of 121 DAQ members were contacted.

Author Response

Note for referee 3

We wish to express our gratitude to referee 3 for his/her useful comments and suggestions. All of them have been taken into account in the revised version of the paper (see attached file)

In the following, we report, among all the changes undertaken in the revision, those specifically addressing the main points raised and comments provided by referee 3.

 

• In the first 3 subchapters / sections (Introduction, The theoretical framework) the theoretical background and justification for the creation of functional districts, as well as the regulatory context in which different types of districts function are extensively described. These sections are considered to be overextended.

Some minor changes have been implemented in those areas, such as streamlining Table 1. In order to consider the diverse opinions of all reviewers, we opted not to make significant alterations to those sections.

• The results of the study, as well as the actual parts of discussion are presented in section 5 (Discussion). The actual results, obtained after employing the stated methods should have been mentioned in a distinct section (Results) (or at least the section should have been named Results and Discussion).

As suggested by the referee, we renamed section 5 “Results and Discussion”.

 

• The Conclusions section is considered to be overextended. The same conclusions could have been expressed in fewer sentences. Some of the stated conclusions seem not be entirely supported by the results.

As recommended by Referee 3, we have revised the conclusions using a more succinct and well-organized approach. We are confident that this will improve the value of the concluding section.

 

• The main issue with this paper (critical) is the lack of statistical significance. The authors state that only 24 members responded to the questionnaire (11 for the District of agricultural and food quality “Sannio Vino Olio e Ortofrutta” (DAQ) and 13 for the Rural district “Terra Sannita” (DIR), while 156 out of 246 DIR members and 80 out of 121 DAQ members were contacted.

As stated in the paper (lines 460-463 and lines 646-654 in the revised version of the paper), response rates and sample selection bias prevented us to adopt a standard statistical approach. However, we firmly think that the 24 collected questionnaires and, even more, the 15 interviews with privileged witnesses have interesting implications for a descriptive analysis, particularly if supported by a suitable theoretical and methodological framework.

More specifically and for the sake of clarity, we summarize the following points:

The purely qualitative survey was conducted through two different analytical tools (lines 452-456):

(a) semi structured (oral) interviews with key witnesses, mainly institutional actors (see table 3).

(b) (written) questionnaires addressed to private actors, mainly farmers.

Unfortunately, very few questionnaires were filled (only 24), despite a great deal of effort (they were administered to 236 subjects, contacted first by phone and then by e-mail). As mentioned (lines 464-465), one reason could be related to the data collection period (March-June) marked by adverse weather events that likely engaged farmers.

The low statistical relevance of the questionnaires prompted us to assign a priority and central role to interviews with privileged witnesses in the discussion of the results (lines 646 - 650).

In any case the collected questionnaires deserve, in our opinion, the due attention. For greater clarity, in the revised version (lines 650-654) we explicitly make the following statement:

Nevertheless, the low response rate of questionnaires can also be read, in our opinion, as an indicator of the little level of involvement and/or satisfaction with the district tool. The collected questionnaires seem to confirm this interpretation and at the same time they allow us to supplement the narratives of key actors interviewed with a “bottom-up view”.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The purposed manuscript entitled "Food for thoughts: The district approach to rural areas development. A case study in Campania" can be considered for publication in the current form.

However, a native speaker deep revision is highly recommended.

Based on these considerations, I suggest MINOR REVISION as personal decision.

 

Best regards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear English Language Service,

The purposed manuscript entitled "Food for thoughts: The district approach to rural areas development. A case study in Campania" can be considered for publication in the current form.

However, a native speaker deep revision is highly recommended.

Based on these considerations, I suggest MINOR REVISION as personal decision.

 

Best regards.

Author Response

Note to referee 4

We wish to express our gratitude to referee 4 for his/her comments.

As suggested, the paper has been reviewed by an English native.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

     The authors have made some modifications to the manuscript, according to my initial observations and to those made by other reviewers.

     Still, the issue regarding low statistical significance, as mentioned in the initial evaluation, still exists, even if the form of the manuscript has been improved.