Backyards Are a Way to Promote Environmental Justice and Biodiversity Conservation in Brazilian Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Thank you for improving the paper!

Author Response

Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The article has significantly improved compared to the previous version. It is much more consistent and clear. 

Author Response

Thank you so much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

In the Guidelines for Authors of the journal Diversity, I found that this type of manuscripts (Interesting Images) "will be peer-reviewed under the same process as a regular research article". Therefore, I have reviewed it as a typical Research Article.

As a result, I found no analysis of data in the text. No statistical treatments are included in the text, too. It seems that the shown backyards have been photographed with a short time, with consequent inclusion to the short text of this manuscript. 

The idea of the authors is also not so clear for me. I didn't find any information about the list of taxa, which are planted in backyards of families with different economic status. It would be allowed us (reviewers, readers) to understand differences between these backyards.
The presented materials don't allow us to say about any conservation implications, too. What should we preserve? What threatened taxa can be found in these backyards? Where are they better protected? All these questions are not answered and not established.

In fact, the main aim of this paper seems to be a presentation a visual differences between various backyards. But we cannot be sure whether these families really have the economic status, which is stated by the authors. Some supplemental information is always needed. 

Therefore, I believe that this material is not publishable in this form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your pertinent observations and comments! We are currently experiencing a crisis in the peer review system: scientists have more and more commitments and less time to properly review manuscripts. So, it was very satisfying for the authors to read your thorough review, and it sparked an intense debate among us about how to answer their questions and improve our manuscript.

We have a slightly different understanding of the Interesting Images section. In our view, that section allows the publication of brief essays on important topics for biodiversity conservation, and that contain eloquent images on the topics that are addressed by the manuscript. Our understanding is based on these instructions: "No regular manuscript text (introduction/methods/results/discussion) should be included. Instead, they are treated as short notes with an abstract (max 100 words), a maximum of 7 keywords, and up to least 5 references."

Our manuscript was based on the master's thesis of the geographer Gedeone Lima, entitled "Lima, G.F. Quintais, Miséria Paisagística e Efeito Luxúria: Como Conservar e Democratizar a Flora nas Cidades Brasileiras? Dissertação de Mestrado. Universidade Federal de Rondonópolis, 2022.". Lima used geoprocessing techniques and census data on the socioeconomic status of neighborhoods in the city of Rondonópolis. The geographer obtained data that allows us to state that, in that city, the backyards of upper-middle-class families are more biodiverse.

However, given the format of the Interesting Images section, our objective was not to present the detailed results of Gedeone's research. Instead, we aimed to inform the scientific community - and urban planners - that environmental inequality exists and must be addressed by public policies.

Regarding your questions "What should we preserve? What threatened taxa can be found in these backyards? Where are they better protected?", we have added this paragraph (lines 88 to 92):

Duarte and Leite (2019) compiled a list of 64 tree species in the Cerrado biome that provide food resources for birds, mammals and arthropods. They could be easily grown in nurseries and some species (eg Anacardium occidentale, Caryocar brasiliense and Psidium canum) are consumed by Brazilians. They could also reinforce the food security of the citizens of Rondonopolis.

With the addition of this paragraph, we've emphasized another important message of our manuscript: backyards in Brazilian cities have enormous potential to promote food security. Currently millions of Brazilians suffer some level of food insecurity. It is a very serious social wound, whose solution is an urgent and essential task.

 

Dear Reviewer, thank you very much again for your intelligent observations. We are at your disposal.

 

With our best wishes,

 

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Authors,

Unfortunately, the manuscript has not been corrected considerably. Just cosmetic corrections were made. Therefore, I cannot change my previous recommendations, and suggest to reject. It is pity that I didn't find any explanation or appropriate reply to my comments. I see only the corrected text.

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

the article addresses an interesting issue. Still, it can be improved. Please find hereafter some suggestions:

- I think in the introduction you should stress more the advantages of backyard biodiversity not only for widlife but for residents too (in terms of ecosystem services - they are just very briefly cited).

- In the final considerations, the economic issue is not cited: do also maintenance costs play a role in the fact that poorest backyards have not complex vegetation?

- Figures' captions are too brief. It would be interesting to read some comments about vegetal species present in particular in the upper-middle-class family backyards, in order to understand what actually "biodiversity" is.

- The caption of figure 7 is not clear: which are the Cerrado fragments? Light gree areas, or dark green areas?

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of the manuscript

“Backyards are a way to promote environmental justice and biodiversity

conservation in Brazilian Cities”

Manuscript ID: diversity-2254822.

General comments:

The manuscript was submitted as an entry of interesting images and as such differs greatly in it’s structure and scope from regular articles focusing more on the images than on writing or methodology. In this case the manuscript features five images of backyards in Rondopolis, Brazil as an example of the in-equal distribution of vegetation based on wealth. While the topic is important, I do not feel this format is appropriate.

Primarily my concern is that these images only show anecdotal evidence. (i.e., five random gardens). Several studies have quantitatively and qualitatively shown how environmental injustice is exposed through the distribution of vegetation. These figures do not provide any evidence of environmental injustice. The authors may decide to turn the topic into a full manuscript with a thought-out methodology. Else this article might be suited for a non-academic audience.

Specific comments

1.     The title implies an analysis of several (or all?) Brazilien cities but the manuscript only focuses on one

2.     Line 45 – I would reword. The sentence ‘One of the causes for the unfair access to vegetation in Brazilian cities lies on the poor, or lack of, planning in poor neighborhoods.’ Could be understood as victim-blaming, i.e. the fault lies with the poor neighborhoods for not planning better and not in the systematic inequality in access to resources and wealth.

3.     Line 57 – need a better definition of what a cerrado is. Potentially some fotos.

4.     Line 63 – please provide evidence for the claim that ‘Backyards in upper-middle-class neighborhoods (Figures 1, 2 and 3) account for more biodiversity than those located in poor neighborhoods (Figure 4 and 5)’

5.     Fig 4,5, and 6 – check format of caption

6.     Fig 7. Not readable as legend too small, also in Portuguese (?) and source missing.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is very interesting and it is valuable and good research, the pictures are excellent. Here you can find some aspects to improve the paper. Please consider the followings:

The paper lacks a true theoretical approach, even if it a brief paper of interesting pictures, you must include a complete theoretical introduction.  I would suggest adding an extra paragraph about Environmental Injustices (EIJ). How it is understood and why it is important, what are the elements, and in which part the paper contributes to the scientific discourse? I would rephrase the introductory part like this:

EIJ is a phenomenon that evolves from unequal, unfair DISTRIBUTION of natural resources, hazards, burdens, and benefits. It is also understood as the PROCESS of the creation of unjust situations by decision-making. And It is also a phenomenon that can be researched by the RECOGNITION and PERCEPTION of the evolved injustices.  --- so if you have this kind of approach, it is framed. So you have your theoretical frame only within a paragraph and the results which are you showcasing can reflect the three elements of EIJ. 

In line 29 Authors name "another type of injustice", which is correct, yet the reader doesn't really know about the real theoretical background, it is not introduced at all and we don't really know what other EIJs are appearing.  

In line 32 Authors define environmental injustice relatively simply. I would suggest having a broaden understanding of EIJ or using words that assume that EIJ is not only distribution but in this paper, this is the major focus. 

In the paragraph starts, in line 45 the content is very important, but it is very Brazilian-focused. Yet the problem is very relatable anywhere in the world. I suggest making the conclusion very general like (it is not in scientific language, but I guess you will see my point): Free spaces are not existing in poor communities, bc of a lack of power and lack of advocacy. This is very typically a phenomenon everywhere, people in deprived community does not receive the same possibilities in accessing green spaces due to the UNJUST PROCESS of decision making. Also, this paragraph highlights the uneven DISTRIBUTION of green spaces. 

In the paragraph starts with line 56 there are several good points. That is actually the reason, why the fair and just distribution and process of greening and planning should be implemented everywhere. I suggest highlighting this issue a bit more as a claim. 

Figure 7 is very important, but it is not referred in the text. Please include it within the text and change the language to English, or prepare another map which is only showing and highlights the green areas. I would love to see a map, which is introducing the green areas and the poor communities and which shows, that the least green areas are situated in poor communities. Therefore, the map should be relocated and incorporated into the text when the Authors are writing about the distribution of green spaces. 

I do miss the methods in the paper. Only a sentence could be added: We have mapped the green areas and the poor communities through statistical analysis and GIS methods. And then the question is solved. 

The paper lacks a strong conclusion or a concluding remark, where the interesting pictures and the map, and every data about the EIJ showcased is included. It can be a brief paragraph but also it can be a very well-phrased sentence. 

I suggest something like this: The case of Rondonópolis' green area planning practice and the situation and location of green spaces are representing the distributional and procedural environmental injustices.

I suggest including some basic EIJ literature to be included:

https://www.routledge.com/Environmental-Justice-Concepts-Evidence-and-Politics/Walker/p/book/9780415589741

https://tet.rkk.hu/index.php/TeT/article/view/3373/5383

https://ojs.mtak.hu/index.php/hungeobull/article/view/8821/7445

https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/0022-4537.00184