A Multidimensional Approach to Understanding Food Deserts in Vulnerable Contexts
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study examined the phenomenon of "food deserts" in Las Palmeras, a vulnerable neighborhood in Córdoba, Spain, a medium-sized city known for its agricultural traditions and Mediterranean diet. Through a mixed-methods approach, including spatial analysis, and quantitative and qualitative assessments, they compared dietary habits and food accessibility in Las Palmeras to other Córdoba neighborhoods. The article is very well written. The topic id original and relevant in the healthy life. The conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. The references are appropriate.
In order to further improve the article:
1. in the introduction, please indicate the research gap that the authors are filling with their research.
2) In the research methods section, please set out the research hypotheses.
3. in the limitation chapter, please indicate whether the research can be applied to other countries, cites, other geographical regions.
Author Response
I would like to express my gratitude for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have been instrumental in guiding the revisions to enhance the quality and clarity of our paper. We have carefully reviewed each suggestion and have made comprehensive amendments to address the concerns raised. Below, I present our revised responses to each of the comments, illustrating the specific changes made in the manuscript.
In the introduction, please indicate the research gap that the authors are filling with their research.
Acknowledging the importance of clearly defining the research gap, we have elaborated this section to emphasize the unique contribution of our study in exploring food deserts in medium-sized Spanish cities. The revised text now effectively captures the novelty and relevance of our research within the broader context of food desert literature. (page 2; Line 77 onwards)
In the research methods section, please set out the research hypotheses.
We have added a succinct yet comprehensive subsection in the methods to explicitly state the research hypotheses. This addition provides clarity on the objectives and expected outcomes of our study, aligning the research methods with the study's goals. (page 4; Line 122 onwards)
In the limitation chapter, please indicate whether the research can be applied to other countries, cites, other geographical regions.
The limitations section now includes a thoughtful discussion on the generalizability of our findings to other geographical contexts, acknowledging the specificities of the Las Palmeras neighborhood while considering broader implications. (page 15; Line 534 onwards)
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI need to express thanks to the authors for giving me good opportunity to remind food problems we face. The intension of study is to clarify that residents of Las Palmeras face significant challenges in accessing nutritious foods, primarily due to socioeconomic constraints and limited educational opportunities, despite geographical proximity to supermarkets, with an in-depth analysis of the complex interplay between geographical accessibility, socioeconomic factors, educational attainment, generational changes, and food variety.
1. As mentioned in conclusion, the situation in Las Palmeras is in stark contrast with the situation in affluent areas like El Brillante, where a variety of food options is readily available. From the mention, reader can recognize that variety of food options is another important factor for the difference between two areas. For more clear conclusion, variety of food options need to be explained compare with socioeconomic constraints and limited educational opportunities.
2. As the conclusion, the socioeconomic constraints and limited educational opportunities in Las Palmeras can be understood as the important factors. But the causal relationship between these factors and food deserts in the survey may not appear to be a direct relationship. But from a logical perspective, the socioeconomic constraints and limited educational opportunities are vulnerable conditions of residents in Las Palmeras who have chosen this area as their area of ​​life, not the direct variable for food deserts. Therefore, more structural and logical analysis and considerate statements are needed for more persuasive conclusion,
3. Maps and figure2 take up too much space in editing. In particular, it is sufficient for a map to contain only location and area information of Las Palmeras.
Author Response
I would like to express my gratitude for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have been instrumental in guiding the revisions to enhance the quality and clarity of our paper. We have carefully reviewed each suggestion and have made comprehensive amendments to address the concerns raised. Below, I present our revised responses to each of the comments, illustrating the specific changes made in the manuscript.
As mentioned in conclusion, the situation in Las Palmeras is in stark contrast with the situation in affluent areas like El Brillante, where a variety of food options is readily available. From the mention, reader can recognize that variety of food options is another important factor for the difference between two areas. For more clear conclusion, variety of food options need to be explained compare with socioeconomic constraints and limited educational opportunities.
We have expanded the discussion on the variety of food options in the conclusion, drawing a more detailed comparison between Las Palmeras and El Brillante. This revision provides a clearer understanding of how food variety interacts with socioeconomic and educational factors in shaping food accessibility. (page 12; Line 412)
As the conclusion, the socioeconomic constraints and limited educational opportunities in Las Palmeras can be understood as the important factors. But the causal relationship between these factors and food deserts in the survey may not appear to be a direct relationship. But from a logical perspective, the socioeconomic constraints and limited educational opportunities are vulnerable conditions of residents in Las Palmeras who have chosen this area as their area of ​​life, not the direct variable for food deserts. Therefore, more structural and logical analysis and considerate statements are needed for more persuasive conclusion.
We have clarified in the discussion that our analysis identifies correlations rather than causations, emphasizing the multifactorial nature of food deserts. Additionally, we have addressed the socio-economic realities of Las Palmeras residents, noting that their residential choices are often constrained by financial necessities. (page 12; Line 376 onwards)
Maps and figure2 take up too much space in editing. In particular, it is sufficient for a map to contain only location and area information of Las Palmeras.
Responding to the comment on the use of space by maps and figures, we have relocated the general map to the appendix and refined the main text map for better clarity and relevance. (page 6; Line 224)
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate having the opportunity to read about food deserts in Spain as I am rather familiar with food deserts in the United States. The paper is easy to read.
The writing starting with Section 2.2 seems different. The beginning of the paper is so well written and written in the active voice. Section 2.2 and 2.3 are written in the passive voice and then Section 2.4 goes back (thankfully) to the active voice. I see that this is a multi-author paper so perhaps that's the issue. Please do edit so that the paper is in the active voice.
Section 2.2 and 2.3 needs to be clear -- there are no actors - was conducted or was obtained (what is missing is by who)
As example,
The focus group was facilitated by a social worker is passive voice.
A social worker experienced in moderating focus groups and was already familiar with the participants facilitated the focus group (this is active voice and better!)
Section 2.4 goes back to the first person, active voice "we first evaluated" -more first person, active voice please.
The paper would be strengthened by adding some gender analysis / gender disaggregated information. The authors give the sex break down of respondents in Table One, but then don't do much with that with respect to analysis.
Women respondents dominate study participants. Could you add a bit more about the gender of division of labor in the household? Who is responsible for food shopping? Who is responsible for cooking? The gendered nature of food, cooking and household nutrition needs to be addressed a bit better since gender often shapes who goes out and purchases food and/or can travel distances.
The participant quotes are genderless. Participant 2: “I have to go to Mercadona to buy food”-- is the participant a man or woman. How far away is Mercadona? What would be the mode of transport for participant 2 to get to Mercadona? Food access is not just about presence of stores that stock fruits and vegetables but also ability to travel to purchase. As a reader I need more of this kind of attention to detail. Tell me more about the participants to make the data and its significance more robust.
Same with Table 3 - what is the gender of the 'you' eating or trying to find fruits and vegetables?
Some other analysis seems incomplete. For example; The ANOVA tests show that the neighborhoods with the highest income per capita (El Brillante) reported having the longest commute time to go to the supermarket in both ways of transport (Figure 2). How does this distance matter to the analysis in Table 3. Far away and with money so they have no issue which is why they are not referenced in Table 3? The answer to my questions are several pages away. I prefer findings and discussions that go together.
Is there some text that should go after this quote:
Participant 2: “The Young ones only eat burgers”. --- please add some interpretation or remove.
Overall, this paper is off to a great start. More nuance would improve its significance to the scholarship
Author Response
I would like to express my gratitude for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have been instrumental in guiding the revisions to enhance the quality and clarity of our paper. We have carefully reviewed each suggestion and have made comprehensive amendments to address the concerns raised. Below, I present our revised responses to each of the comments, illustrating the specific changes made in the manuscript.
The writing starting with Section 2.2 seems different. The beginning of the paper is so well written and written in the active voice. Section 2.2 and 2.3 are written in the passive voice and then Section 2.4 goes back (thankfully) to the active voice. I see that this is a multi-author paper so perhaps that's the issue. Please do edit so that the paper is in the active voice.
Section 2.2 and 2.3 needs to be clear -- there are no actors - was conducted or was obtained (what is missing is by who)
As example,
The focus group was facilitated by a social worker is passive voice.
A social worker experienced in moderating focus groups and was already familiar with the participants facilitated the focus group (this is active voice and better!)
Section 2.4 goes back to the first person, active voice "we first evaluated" -more first person, active voice please.
Thank you for highlighting the inconsistency in writing style. We have revised Sections 2.2 and 2.3 to maintain an active voice throughout, ensuring uniformity and enhancing the readability of the manuscript. (page 3; Line 124 onwards)
Women respondents dominate study participants. Could you add a bit more about the gender of division of labor in the household? Who is responsible for food shopping? Who is responsible for cooking? The gendered nature of food, cooking and household nutrition needs to be addressed a bit better since gender often shapes who goes out and purchases food and/or can travel distances.
We appreciate your suggestion on the importance of gender analysis. We have enriched the focus group section with details on gender roles in household food-related activities, particularly emphasizing the impact of changing gender dynamics on dietary habits. (page 10; Line 319 onwards)
Same with Table 3 - what is the gender of the 'you' eating or trying to find fruits and vegetables?
Regarding our statistical analyses of the survey, we conducted these analyses without specifically focusing on gender differences. However, we did include gender as a covariate in the General Linear Models (GLMs) to account for any potential gender-related effects. The rationale for this approach was based on our preliminary exploratory analysis, which did not reveal significant gender differences in the variables of interest. Despite this, we recognize the critical importance of gender considerations in our study.
To address this, we concentrated on gender analysis in the focus group component of our research. All focus group participants were women, and we have provided an explanation in the methods section about the reasons for this decision. We have further strengthened the gender analysis in the focus group section of our manuscript. This enhancement aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the gendered dimensions of food accessibility and dietary habits as experienced by the participants in Las Palmeras. We believe this approach offers a balanced view, combining gender-neutral quantitative analysis with a gender-focused qualitative exploration, thereby enriching the overall findings of our study.
Participant quotes and their interpretation
All participants in the focus group were women and we highlighted that in the methods section, we have integrated the participant quotes into the text, providing context and interpretation to enhance the reader's understanding of the data's significance (page 11; Line 328 onwards).
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author tried to compensate for the weaknesses of this paper, which were pointed out, and these efforts appear to be properly reflected in the revised paper.
Author Response
Thank you very much to reviewer 2 for taking the time to do a second review and giving us feedback.
