Contributions of Urban Collective Gardens to Local Sustainability in Mexico City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript concerns an interesting subject, which is the evaluation of urban garden management policy on the example of Mexico City. The broad description of the typology of city gardens, the methodology of work and evaluation criteria in terms of compliance with the paradigm of sustainable development makes the work a reference point for similar research conducted in other parts of the world.

A slight drawback of the work is lack of clear explanation, why the authors use the number of three as a criterion of collectivity. The perception of the text would be improved by changing the format of Table 3. Stretching its content over five pages distracts attention from the essence of the study.

The manuscript also requires some linguistic corrections - i.a.:

• tipology (3.2),
• 2 times a week,
• two abbreviations for collective urban gardens are being used - UCG and CUG,
• the sentence "In addition to the fact that products from gardens are not transported long distances" appears to be incomplete.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The manuscript concerns an interesting subject, which is the evaluation of urban garden management policy on the example of Mexico City. The broad description of the typology of city gardens, the methodology of work, and evaluation criteria in terms of compliance with the paradigm of sustainable development makes the work a reference point for similar research conducted in other parts of the world.

 

Reviewer 1. A slight drawback of the work is lack of clear explanation, why the authors use the number of three as a criterion of collectivity.

Authors: In our previous literature review we could not find a particular reference to number three as a criterion of collectivity. We decided to have this number, at least since it was the lower number recorded in our fieldwork experience. We included an explanation in this respect in the Methods section.

 

Reviewer 1. The perception of the text would be improved by changing the format of Table 3. Stretching its content over five pages distracts attention from the essence of the study.

 

Authors: We modified Table 3 as suggested

 

Reviewer 1. The manuscript also requires some linguistic corrections - i.a.:

typology (3.2),

Authors: We corrected the sequence 3.2 to 3.1

 

2 times a week,

Authors: Done

 

Reviewer 1:two abbreviations for collective urban gardens are being used - UCG and CUG,

Authors: We use only UCG throughout the text

 

the sentence "In addition to the fact that products from gardens are not transported long distances" appears to be incomplete.

Authors: We rephrased the whole sentence

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, please see the file attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

This paper discusses collective urban gardens in Mexico City and tries to understand the contribution they make to sustainability.

I enjoyed reading the paper and the authors have performed some interesting analyses.

Nevertheless, the paper needs major revisions in a number of areas to make it publishable.

Reviewer 2: First, there is a number of typos and sentences that are not running smoothly. I suggest having the paper edited by a native speaker.

Authors: We attended this suggestion.

 

Reviewer 2

Also please see the page numbers (somewhere halfway they start again at 1), and there is one paragraph that is mostly written in italics. Some examples:

Authors: We doublechecked the correct sequence of page numbers. The paragraph written in italics was a text indicating the response of interviewees. To avoid confusion we only use quotation marks.

 

Reviewer 2

- Sometimes you refer to HUCs, sometimes to UCGs, but I think that you mean the same thing with these abbreviations

Authors: Yes in the revised version of the manuscript we only use UCG throughout the text.

 

- Keyword: Latin-AmericanS cities

Authors. We corrected this tipo.

 

- Page 2: “urban inhabitants do not know where they come from”. They in this sentence refers to food but the sentence seems to imply that the inhabitants do not know where they themselves come from

Authors: Yes, we are sorry. We modified the sentence “urban inhabitants do not know where food comes from”

 

- Page 2: “benefits like as biodiversity”

Authors: We corrected the phrase as follows: “benefits like biodiversity”

 

- Page 2: “Too promotes educational space creations and reconnection with nature, and access to food consumption healthy”. Too should be to, and the sentence doesn’t run smoothly (healthy food consumption?)

Authors: Yes, we are sorry “To promote educational spaces and recovering connection with nature, and access to healthy food”

 

- Page 3: “the inhabitants of Mexico City fed through”: were fed through

Authors: Correction did.

 

You could argue that these are minor things, but they do sometimes make it hard to understand your message.

No, these are not minor things, we thank very much your suggestions

 

Reviewer 2

Second, you do not define sustainability. You do mention the MESMIS framework, but it is unclear how the seven points in there relate to sustainability. What type(s) of sustainability are you referring to? Environmental, social, economic? This MESMIS framework seems a bit random, and I don’t even clearly see why – or how - these 7 items are linked to sustainability. So please explain why you chose this framework and how it relates to how you define sustainability, and why you choose not to focus on other parts of sustainability.

Authors: We included a general definition of sustainability from a multidimensional perspective in the Introduction section. In addition, we included detailed information about the MESMIS framework and the way it operates to analyze general management systems and our study system in particular.

 

Reviewer 2: Both points above relate to the third and most important issue, which is that it is often not clear to me what you are doing in the results section (and some related sections in the methods). I am sure that it makes sense, and some of the tables and graphs are very powerful, but in some instances I really cannot follow what you are doing and why, and where certain assumptions or starting points come from. I am thinking that it is mostly a matter of taking the reader by the hand much clearer, and to clarify what it is you are doing and what argument you are trying to make. So to be clear, I don’t think you need to do something else: I think you need to tell your story differently and to keep in mind that the reader wasn’t there and that several thinking steps that are clear to you, are not clear to the reader.

Authors: We modified the text and figure 2 in order to reinforce the coherence between the Methods and Results sections. We modified Figure 2, which is a general scheme of the methodological framework, indicating in a more logical order the results obtained in our study. In addition, we reordered the headings and their content in the Methods section. Also, we ordered subheadings and content of the Results section, following the sequence of those of the Methods section, maintaining congruence with Figure 2.

 

Reviewer 2: For instance, in 2.2.3 you start out by saying: “From the network of relationships, we identify critical points for sustainability, that is, those factors that drive or limit it.“ This leaves me puzzled: what network of relationship? How did you identify those critical points for sustainability? Where did these come from? How do you know that they drive or limit sustainability? Where do the indicators in table 1 come from? Did you think of them yourself? Did they come from the literature? Table 1 also speaks of ‘the two identified risk factors’: who identified them? Based on what?

Authors: All these aspects are important parts of the MESMIS framework to evaluate sustainability. We probably should have made this aspect more explicit. In the revised version of the manuscript, we described in more detail the section 2.2.2. We firstly identified the critical points for analyzing the sustainability of our study system as those factors that drive or limit UCG. We identified such critical points based on the point of view of the UCG managers, our participant observations, and the literature review of similar analyses. Then, from the critical points identified we defined the relevant indicators to evaluate their state. And, in turn, these indicators were related to sustainability attributes. This is in general the proposal of the MESMIS framework that we followed.

 

Reviewer 2: Figure 2 is really quite clear. Maybe you can use something similar to explain what you are doing in the results.

Authors: Yes, thank you. We modified Figure 2 to make clearer the sequence of the results. As explained above, in the revised manuscript we followed a similar sequence for explaining Methods and Results in the main text.

 

Reviewer 2: I suggest that in the results you start with table 3 because this introduces the gardens (although perhaps put it in an appendix, or change the layout so that it is more readable).

Authors: We improved Table 3 and converted it into Appendix 1, as suggested

 

Reviewer 2

The pictures are nice and illustrative. Then take the reader by the hand and explain what you have been doing and based on what (see my questions in the previous paragraph and the next ones). In some instances I really couldn’t follow.

Authors: We included in the Figure caption a deeper explanation about what they illustrate.

 

Reviewer 2: Perhaps add a table with characteristics of the interview respondents – and put this in the methods section.

Authors: We included a summarized description of interviewees where we characterize the UGC and the typology in the Results section

 

Reviewer 2: You then talk about four subsystems. Why? Why is this relevant? How did you come up with them? If this all follows very logically from the data you do not necessarily have to explain exactly where it came from, but as a reader, I don’t really have a clue why you are telling me this. I am not trying to say that you should not talk about subsystems, but explain to the reader where they come in your argument. Perhaps work with subheadings here, but also explain what the point is of this data and this analysis.

Authors: To avoid confusion, we removed the organization of our explanation of the system based in subsystems. We in addition removed Figure 3, which was related with this form of explanation. This is not necessarily useful for the purposes of our work.

 

Reviewer 2:

This paragraph in italics on page 13 is also very unclear.

Authors: We removed the italics format and corrected the text.

 

Reviewer 2

Figure 4 is in some way illuminating, although I don’t know how you came to it. Did you develop it based on interviews? And also: why? What is the point? Where does this go in your argument? (And also: wouldn’t it be more logical to design the picture from left to right rather than the other way around?).

Authors:Because it caused confusión to the reader, we removed Figure 4.

 

Reviewer 2

Table 4 is clear. But section 3.4 is not. I don’t understand what you are doing here. What critical points? Where did these come from?

Authors: We included a detailed description of the meaning and way of identifying critical points in the Methods section.

 

Reviewer 2

I don’t understand where table 5 comes from. What are these attributes? Where did you derive them from? What are they trying to show?

Authors: We included a detailed description of the meaning and way of identifying critical points, indicators, and attributes in the Methods section.

 

Reviewer 2

Then in 3.5 you talk about identified benefits: who identified them? What indicator? And how is the ‘permanence of participants’ a benefit? Is it necessarily better if people stay longer? Also, this section could be structured a bit better.

Authors: The permanence of participants significantly contributes to the sustainability of UCG by strengthening the attributes of the system stability. The permanence of participants allows learning continuity and that the net of relationships among people maintains other indicators and attributes related to the system sustainability.

 

Reviewer 2

Table 6 is clear! Here I understand what it is you are doing.

Authors: Thank you!

 

Reviewer 2

In section 3.6 you lost me again though. I really don’t understand what you are doing there, and I don’t understand the message you try to bring across.

Authors: We made our best to make clearer the information provided.

 

Reviewer 2

Figure 5 is clear though, and here I also see why the different categories make sense.

Authors: Thanks!

 

Reviewer 2

Then finally, I think you can do some more in the discussions. Can you reflect on your findings a bit more? You found four categories of gardens, and each have a different sustainability impact (I think). What does this mean for practice, or for research? Why are they so different for sustainability? So, there are some interesting analyses within the discussion, but the section could be a bit tighter and better organized, and with a few more insights considering what your findings mean.

Authors: We improved the general Discussion section taking into account all these suggestions

 

Reviewer 2

I know that this may be a bit harsh. I really think you have some interesting data here, and that the paper can be potentially very interesting. You found different types of gardens and they have different benefits. Great. Some of your analyses are clear, for instance, the spider diagram. But in some instances, I really couldn’t follow the story. If you clarify what you were doing and on what your results are based, this could be a very interesting paper.

Authors: We generally improved our report, we restructured some parts, improved figures, removed some probably noisy parts, and improved the text. We have attended most as possible your recommendations and those from Reviewer 1 and Editor.

Reviewer 2

Some minor issues:

- I think you should be more careful about assuming the benefits of UA. For instance on page 2, the paragraph that starts with ‘Urban agriculture practices’ is very positive about UA. I think you need more sources to back up your statements. You do mention sources after a few sentences but some of the sentences need sources more immediately (so not after a number of sentences).

Authors: We included the references supporting these statements.

 

Reviewer 2

 Also, in the discussion and conclusion, you often talk about how the projects lead to awareness (‘it generates awareness processes’). But you didn’t really study this, did you? You saw that there are OPTIONS for awareness, but this doesn’t mean that there really IS more awareness! Similarly, you state that there are now more healthy products available: but do people are eating them, for instance?

Authors: We have substituted the concept of awareness for reflection which appears to be closer to what we found. For instance, in our study, we identified specific responses in relation to the need of changing patterns of food consumption.

 

Reviewer 2

- On page 3 you write: “HUCs are relatively new systems in CDMX, but it is essential to know and understand the role they play within this City”. Why is this essential? You seem to argue that they play a particular role within this city. What is that, or why do you expect there to be any? Why is it essential to know this role? Why would you expect the role in this city to be anything else than somewhere else? Or is it a more general question, and is ‘this city’ a case study in which you aim to find answers for your research question? Both work, but please clarify.

Authors: We rewrote this paragraph emphasizing the current role of the systems studied and the importance to evaluate the potential role they can play.

 

Reviewer 2

- On page 4, the last sentences before 2.2 are a bit hard to understand and untangle. You mention some laws and some initiators, but it seems a bit messy. Perhaps you can find another structure for this paragraph.

Authors: We rewrote the sentences referred to

 

Reviewer 2

Also on page 4: “We identified some experiences during the application of interviews through the snowball method [51].“ I don’t understand what you are trying to say. The same goes for the following sentence: “Understanding these properties or sustainability attributes facilitates the operation of sustainability; also, said attributes order the methodological sequence. [55]”,

Authors: We explained the idea in a better way we used the snowball methods to sample people participating in CUG and documenting their experiences. Through this method, we documented valuable experiences. The second sentence was modified as follows “understanding attributes of sustainability allows operative interventions to achieve sustainability and to organize methodological strategies of understanding and acting”

 

Reviewer 2

and the last paragraph before 2.2.3 (page 5). I also don’t understand what you mean by: “These last two forms of participation, volunteering, and social service are intermittent interactions; however, they are relevant within the cognitive subsystem.”

Authors: We modified the sentence as follows “Volunteering and social service are intermittent interactions but relevant for learning from direct experiences”

 

Reviewer 2

- You found (not founded!) 40 UCGs and you studied 19. It isn’t clear to me whether these 40 are the ones that meet your criteria, and that you picked 19 to study, or whether you found 40 in total, of which 19 met the criteria.

Authors: We recorded 40 UCG with the characteristics we established before starting our study, then we selected 19 where we got permits to study and people accepted to be interviewed.

 

Reviewer 2

- You talk about participant observations, but please give more details: how many observations, on how many days, how many visits per garden, etc. What did you do during those observations, was it clear that you were a researcher, did you make notes, did you participate in any activities?

Authors: We specify all this information in the Methods section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf