Underground Built Heritage and Food Production: From the Theoretical Approach to a Case/Study of Traditional Italian “Cave Cheeses”
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper deals with a very interesting aspect of cultural heritage, reflecting artefacts that are synonymous to natural caves or excavated spaces used in the past for various purposes and afterwards for food production or processing. It thus renders ‘food’ dimension a distinct part of the UBH scenery and the historical and cultural context of specific food origin regions and products. It also perceives that kind of UBH as a pillar for narrative building, branding and local development as well as marketing strategies at the business level, guaranteeing the linkage of this UBH with traditional ways of food-production processes.
Such a consideration is deliberately linked to certificates relevant to the three levels of protection envisaged by EU Regulation 1251/2012 and its subsequent amendments and additions regarding the quality of agricultural products and foodstuffs; and the regulatory provisions regarding Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and Traditional Specialty Guaranteed (TSG) products.
The structure of the paper is reasonable and well balanced, while the text ensures a pleasant reading from multiple-perspective audience.
Comment 1
In the introductory part, a paragraph presenting relevant practices from the international scenery, supported by relevant literature, would increase value of the paper and would give it a more international flavour. Respective enrichment of the references is implied in this respect.
Comment 2
Fig 1. and 2 are not well visible by the reader. Advised is to produce a better, in readability terms, visualization output.
Comment 3
Additionally, Tables 1 and 2 should be presented in a more cohesive way so that they provide all necessary information to the reader at a glance, without interrupting continuity of the paper’s reading.
Comment 4
In chapter 4, a map displaying the Italian regions from which cave cheeses, described in the paper, are originating would be very informative and eventually could also evoke some kind of discussion with regards to their spatial distribution in Italy, i.e. do all these traditionally-produced cheeses originate from a specific part of the country or are dispersed across the country, thus displaying a tightly-rooted tradition of well-known cheese production throughout Italy? Alternatively, such information could also be added in each single figure, as the example of Fig. 4, displaying also the origin region of the specific cave cheese presented.
Author Response
see attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Interesting subject, with high originality and positive contribution to the research related to UBH. The structure of the paper could be improved by analysing the four types of cave cheeses in a common framework with variables applicable to their analysis, and by using tables showing the state of these variables for each type of cave cheese. Then, you could attempt an assessment based on the performance of the variables.
Author Response
see attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper analyses the Underground Built Heritage from the perspective of food production. The authors use traditional Italian cave cheeses as study cases. While this is a very interesting paper, there are some issues the authors should revise. The authors should reduce the number of keywords. In the introduction, the authors should expand the understanding of Underground Built Heritage before the questions and expand the presentation of Italy before the answers. This will improve the relevance of the paper. The authors should also provide the structure of the paper at the end of the introduction. In the materials and methods, the authors should improve the description of the methodological steps. In the conclusion, the authors should expand the practical and theoretical implications, limitations and opportunities for further research.
Author Response
see attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Having carried out research on the wine sector, this intersection between heritage, place, standardisation and legislation is really interesting to me. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this work. On a personal level I am also just back from a visit to Puglia and Basilicata which are an area of Italy that I love and frequently visit. I had the good fortune of visiting Matera this time and was very close to the Gravine. While there I always make it a point to visit local cheesemakers and farms (produzione proprio) and the discourse they use is of culinary interest and academically fascinating. Especially in the light of the slow food movement. So I come into this discussion as an anthropologist with a keen interest in food (and wine).
I particularly enjoyed the section where the authors speak about how some cheesemakers use the standards visually, and others do not use them at all. This is done in the wine sector too, and normally so that the wine maker is not restricted by the legislation that binds the standard and its use. So my first question to the authors is: Is this the same story for the cheese making organisations that you studied? Why do people NOT use the standards? Is it deliberate?
Sometimes the use or deliberate non-use is a matter of pride and identity that then comes into the story telling which in turn influences the marketing. Feel free to use this thought in your argument if you wish to.
Otherwise I have two main points to bring to the authors attention, one of which is mainly cosmetic.
1. The language used, for the most part is quite clear. There are a few sections which need some minor clarification please. Eg Lines:
44-46: change to: As expressions of tangible and intangible heritage, caves that were used to produce food can today be included.....
69-70: ...to what degree UBH is exploited to its full potential in marketing strategies such as the creation of the correspondent logo, storytelling and branding, in the production of local food specialities.
Line 84 (and others) you use the term 'artefacts' for UBH. Is this the best term? Would 'spaces' be more useful as a term; especially since you are speaking of a locus where cultural production is taking place. And on a local level?
Around line 144, on the use of ice in the south of the peninsula, there is evidence of exportation of Etna snow/ice to Malta in the 16th and 17th century for the Knights of St John to make icecream/granita ...I m not sure if you wish to use this detail.
Line 225: you use the term regards. Should it be 'angles'?
Line 247: carsic should read Karst
Line 252: can you define what the 'disciplinare' is (the legislation outlining the rules for a typical cheese?)
Line 436: repetition of the local slow food presidium in sentence.
2. The conclusions are interesting. One point can be taken further where you relate how local traditional methods can superceed EU law. For this I think you should also read the wonderful work of Christina Grasseni who carried out extensive ethnographic work on val Taleggio and how local communities reacted to the EU framework that placed certain impositions on their shepherding and cheesemaking practices. Her work is wonderful and perfectly complementary to the argument being presented here. Referring to it can only enrich this article. One copy of her articles can be accessed here: https://journals.openedition.org/aof/6819. I m sure the authors can look up more of her work or contact her. If I am not mistaken she is originally from Bergamo herself, so local to the area. Use this work to develop the last 3 paragraphs of your conclusion just a little bit more.
Author Response
see attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have revised the paper.
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.
