Citizen Participation Practices in the Governance of Local Food Systems: A Literature Review
, Geneviève Mercille 2 and Marilou Fortin-Guay 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
your work is interesting and overall well done!
I would suggest creating a table that summarizes all the Key words. In the Results, see if you can report the percentages in a graph that immediately summarizes the idea of the various situations.
Make conclusions and future implications in a separate paragraph from the discussions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article addresses a key issue in the transition to more sustainable food systems: citizen participation.
The analysis proposed is a literature review, covering both scientific and grey literature. While both forms of literature are valid, they cannot be considered in the same way. The grey literature may in fact promote a type of initiative, without it necessarily having been analysed.
It would therefore be more robust to carry out a separate analysis and cross-check the results: are the practices highlighted in the scientific literature the same as those in the grey literature?
In addition, it is preferable not to quote grey literature (e.g. Stein, 2021) or use self-citation when setting the context and definitions.
There are three other major limitations in the text:
- the notion of citizen is not defined either in the formulation of the research question or in the articles examined. Depending on the definition given to citizen, participation may differ, and good/bad practice may differ (in general, representatives of associations/NGOs take part, not citizens directly, it's very important to say this);
- the notion of local food system is sometimes confused with that of local food policies (e.g. Bodiguel studied local food policies, and not local food systems), so it is necessary to check what the articles cited are about,
- the notion of 'significant influence on the initiative's decision-making process' is not defined, although it is very important: many articles on food democracy report that citizens are not really involved. As long as there is a review of the literature on citizen participation, the authors should point this out, and then target (by clarifying what is meant by 'top 30 results' - top according to what? - and significant influence) the articles where involvement is real.
As far as we know, there is a lack of articles, particularly in French. You therefore need to better justify the selection presented (or explore scientific databases further) and it's not appropriate to make %s on such a small number.
As it stands, your article is more of a guide for professionals than a scientific paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, the topic proposed by the manuscript "Citizen Participation Practices in the Governance of Local Food Systems: A Literature Review" is of interest to the readers and in line with the journal's aims and scope. The title is good enough and correlated with the content of the article, while the Abstract, Introduction, Aim and objectives, Methods, Results and Discussion are well structured, relatively clear and concise. I think the literature is also good enough. From my point of view, after some minor corrections/additions, the material can be publish in Sustainability Journal.
The article abstract is well structured and concise, including all specific key elements.
The introduction and references are sufficient and especially relevant for deepening the problem addressed. Thus, the authors mention the essential components of Local Food Systems, such as food security, healthy nutrition, food democracy, food policies councils, local initiatives, Milan Urban Food Policy Pact, local food governance and citizen involvement/engagement. The transition to the main topic explored, local food governance, is natural and intuitive.
Sections 2 & 3 (Aim and objectives & Methods) are as logical and well argued as possible, specific to a literature review. The Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) guidelines were used to guide the review, data extraction, and analysis process. The 34 studies analyzed outline an eloquent idea about the main topic addressed. Personally, I would have chosen at least one study from Mediterranean countries (Italy, Spain, Greece), known and appreciated for the importance of local agri-food systems and the involvement of citizens in promoting local gastronomy.
Section 4 Results is the main component of this article.
I recommend placing Table 1 (195 line) and Table 2 (205 line) on one page for ease of viewing. Moreover, Table 2 represents the key component of the article that presents us Characteristics of types of citizen participation in local food systems (Food governance committees including citizens, Citizen working groups, Participatory workshops, Citizen forums and assemblies, Participatory research). Then follows a coherent summary of each type of citizen participation in local food systems.
Sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 come in the logical completion of the typologies and characteristics argued above, focusing especially on: Benefits of Citizen Participation in Local Food Systems, The Influence of the Specific Characteristics of the Region, The Operation of Citizen Participation Initiatives and The Consideration of Citizen Participation Initiatives in the Decision-Making Processes of Local Food Systems.
Conclusively, section 5. Discussion emphasizes the fact that this study offers an overview of the state of knowledge and practices related to citizen participation in local food systems.
Some recommendations/ limitations of the research undertaken are mentioned at the end of the article (last paragraph L476-486).
The references seem to respect the journal's specific editorial rules.
I think that, after some minor corrections, this paper should be considered well suited for publication in the Sustainability Journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the corrections/modifications. The paper improved a lot. The text highlighted in yellow helped the reviewers see the changes.
