Sustainable Gardening for Economic Inclusion, Poverty Reduction, and Culture Preservation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Esteemed Authors,

 

 It has been a great honor and a pleasantly challenging activity to review the article ”Sustainable gardening for economic inclusion, poverty reduction and culture preservation.”

The challenges facing the agri-food chain are numerous and in continuous growth. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), to the effect of demographic growth and changes in diets and incomes, the demand for food will likely grow by 70% by 2050. Considerable supply uncertainties mirror the global market's current outlook. Objective and subjective factors determine these uncertainties. Among the many factors that can decisively influence primary production and implicitly the evolution of global markets, the following can be mentioned: economic, political, and climatic factors.

As a rule, vegetable productions are subject to some of the most diverse challenges, which is why they can register significant variations from one year to the next. For example, maize production is one of the most critical crop productions. At the European Union level, corn production occupied second place after wheat and spelled: thus, in 2020, the total production of corn (grain maize and corn-cob-mixt) was almost 70 million tons.

As a first stage in the agri-food supply chain, the development of primary production must be supported by implementing new technologies for the processing, preservation, and distribution of foodstuffs, both of animal and non-animal origin.

Crop production is susceptible to prevailing weather and climatic conditions at crucial times of the growing season. For example, depending on a plant’s stage of development, heavy spring frosts can damage the growth of cereals and destroy fruit blossoms. Likewise, spring-to-summer droughts and heat waves can cause significant yield losses, while strong winds and heavy rainfall can make harvesting difficult and compromise quality.

When deciding which crops to sow every year, farmers have to think, among other issues, about crop rotations, anticipated profitability, whether there is a market for the harvest, whether they have the right equipment and whether there have been policy changes. These decisions also impact the production level of specific crops from one year to the next.

Plants need sunlight, water, healthy soils, air, and heat to grow, and farmers need suitable weather and soil moisture conditions to conduct the necessary field operations on time. Crop production is sensitive to weather conditions throughout the growing season, especially at harvest. For example, depending on a plant’s stage of development, heavy spring frosts can damage the growth of cereals and destroy fruit blossoms. Likewise, spring-to-summer droughts and heat waves can cause significant yield losses, while strong winds and heavy rainfall can cause harvest losses and compromise quality. Moreover, using fertilizers is an essential and mandatory condition for consistent cereal production.

This type of production - sustainable gardening - appears as an at least temporary solution for many categories of the population. Part of what is known as "subsistence agriculture" can be a short-term solution for many consumers, especially people with low or modest incomes.

Theory-wise, the paper is likely to elicit the interest of specialists in areas such as food security, economy, sustainable development of agriculture, environment protection, and farmers' behavior. The paper presents essential practical applicability related to food security, environment protection, the sustainable development of agriculture, and the economy. Moreover, the obtained results are relevant to the production sector, particularly certain agri-food products in developing countries.

The paper is well structured and possesses an appreciable novelty character. The major components of the article – Original Article - Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions - are organized judiciously and directly linked to one another.

The documentation is adequate, and the provided scientific results are precise. The goal of the conducted research is well-specified and delineated. The working protocol is appropriate, and the analysis methods are coherent with the proposed objectives.

The bibliography is generous, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Most publications are recent and very recent and provide adequate support for documentation and comparative presentation of results. Nevertheless, there are some non-compliant situations with the list of bibliographic references.

The first refers to authors who appear in the list of bibliographic references but are not cited in the text of the article - for example, number 39.

In addition, I suggest that the authors carefully check the list of bibliographic references and properly review any inaccuracies concerning the years or other details about the bibliographical references.

For example – page 20, lines 1002, number 27 in the bibliographic references list – Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1999). Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. 1st Edition. Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge Publisher, New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206. 

The work also benefits from adequate iconographic support, materialized by four figures. All these iconographic materials are representative of the objectives pursued and reflect synthetically the results of the studies undertaken.

The authors should pay more attention to certain abbreviations to avoid confusion; they should use all abbreviations only after at least one mention in the extenso.

The obtained results are interpreted correctly, and their practical value is visible.

The graphical representation of the results is adequate; as for the paper's grammar, the text is very well written. Consequently, I have only the following recommendations:

Page 1, line 24 (in Abstract) – replace “which leads to” with “which lead to”;

Page 5, line 239 – replace “case study” with “a case study”;

Page 6, line 265 – replace “between researcher” with “between the researcher”;

Page 10, line 427 – replace “non profit” with “non-profit”;

Page 13, line 614 – replace “serve as the” with “serves as the”.

Despite these little shortcomings, the authors' work and obtained results are highly commendable. They add significant value to the paper and may constitute a launching pad for further valuable studies.

The article can be accepted and published in Sustainability if the authors verify the paper and make the necessary corrections.

 

 

Best Regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewer 1

Dear reviewer, in the following table you will find all the changes made based on your suggestions. Please be aware that it might be a change that could be contradictory to a suggestion of yours; if that is the case, know that is due to another reviewer’s suggestion that we decided to follow. We highly appreciate all your feedback since allow us to improve our manuscript.

 

Suggestion	Response
The first refers to authors who appear in the list of bibliographic references but are not cited in the text of the article - for example, number 39.	citation removed and remaining citations corrected
In addition, I suggest that the authors carefully check the list of bibliographic references and properly review any inaccuracies concerning the years or other details about the bibliographical references.	all references in compliance with journal guidance were changed
The authors should pay more attention to certain abbreviations to avoid confusion; they should use all abbreviations only after at least one mention in the extenso	All abbreviations checked and corrected
Page 1, line 24 (in Abstract) – replace “which leads to” with “which lead to”;   Page 5, line 239 – replace “case study” with “a case study”;   Page 6, line 265 – replace “between researcher” with “between the researcher”;   Page 10, line 427 – replace “non profit” with “non-profit”;   Page 13, line 614 – replace “serve as the” with “serves as the”	all grammatical changes corrected according to the recommendation

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

the presented research topic "Sustainable gardening for economic inclusion, poverty reduction and culture preservation" studies to analyze whether sustainable gardening can generate economic inclusion while preserving culture. 

 

The presented research problem is relevant to urban green space. Allotment gardens, in addition to their main nutritional function, also influence the development of social and cultural fucktions , thus contributing to the development of sustainable green urban space. 

 Abstract: 

The abstract should be revised according to the guidelines of the journal. 

Keywords: keywords should be ordered according to the journal's instructions, e.g. research area is placed last. 

After reading the paper, I have comments and suggestions to improve the paper as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter is far too long [33-226]. This chapter should introduce the reader to the research problem and answer the questions: why did I take up this topic? I suggest the rest of the information be placed in the next chapter LITERATURE REVIEW.  

The end of this chapter should be: the purpose of the research, research questions or research hypothesis. 

The next chapter should be called DATA AND METHODS 

The current name is wrong Methodology - it is the study of methods  

In order to better understand the research procedure I suggest to present a scheme of research procedure. Methodology should be described in more detail. Categories of questions for semi structured interviews were well explained , while information was missing On what basis the authors made the selection of respondents? 

This section also lacked a presentation of the research area. I suggest including a map or city plan of which allotment gardens were surveyed?  

The Results 

The results are presented and described in a good way and are very interesting.  

The authors presented in descriptive form the results of surveys and in-depth interviews: gardening experience, family traditions, institutional support, economic barriers, technology use, cultivation methods, social integration.

However, statistics and figures showing the results obtained were missing. This section has no table with the results!  

 

In the Discussion Section, the authors should discuss and explain the findings and results of the paper more.  This would contribute to a high improvement of this paper. The authors should compare their project and results with results from similar conducted research on this topic from other parts of Mexic and all around the world.    

 Conclusion is too long. I suggest putting the most important conclusions and recommendations. 

Technical errors to be corrected:  

The literature list needs to be improved according to the journal's guidelines.  

In conclusion, I recommend this paper for publication in the journal Sustainability after major changes.  

Kind regards,   

Reviewer 

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewer 2

Dear reviewer, in the following table you will find all the changes made based on your suggestions. Please be aware that it might be a change that could be contradictory to a suggestion of yours; if that is the case, know that is due to another reviewer’s suggestion that we decided to follow. We highly appreciate all your feedback since allow us to improve our manuscript.

 

Suggestion	Response
The abstract should be revised according to the guidelines of the journal.	Abstract was revised and we replaced the list of conclusions for a summarize as other reviewer suggested, so the abstract is in accordance to the guidelines.
Keywords: keywords should be ordered according to the journal's instructions, e.g. research area is placed last.	Corrected
This chapter is far too long [33-226]. This chapter should introduce the reader to the research problem and answer the questions: why did I take up this topic? I suggest the rest of the information be placed in the next chapter LITERATURE REVIEW.    The end of this chapter should be: the purpose of the research, research questions or research hypothesis	Journal template includes literature review in the introduction. We used that template since the beginning.       The purposed of the research has been defined in the introduction.
The next chapter should be called DATA AND METHODS   The current name is wrong Methodology - it is the study of methods	Corrected
In order to better understand the research procedure I suggest to present a scheme of research procedure. Methodology should be described in more detail.	Image presenting research process added
while information was missing On what basis the authors made the selection of respondents?	The information needed is provided, see lines 254-256 for respondent selection process
This section also lacked a presentation of the research area. I suggest including a map or city plan of which allotment gardens were surveyed?	Maps added of communities visited
However, statistics and figures showing the results obtained were missing. This section has no table with the results!	A table with the results regarding a positive correlation between categories is introduced.
In the Discussion Section, the authors should discuss and explain the findings and results of the paper more.  This would contribute to a high improvement of this paper. The authors should compare their project and results with results from similar conducted research on this topic from other parts of Mexic and all around the world.	Discussion was deepened and there is a comparison with similar studies in Mexico.
Conclusion is too long. I suggest putting the most important conclusions and recommendations.	We changed the conclusion section by setting main conclusions and recommendations only.
Technical errors to be corrected	Corrected
The literature list needs to be improved according to the journal's guidelines.	Corrected

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper did a good job in the dual case study, but it needs more improvements in writing especially in Abstract, Results, Discussion and Conclusions. Specific comments are shown below.

 

[1] In Abstract “Primary results includes: a)…b)…c)…d)…e)…f)…g)…h)…”, I don’t think it is a way to list all results in abstract. I suggest summarizing these results and adding some words for recommendations.

[2] I suggest “sustainability; urban gardening; economic inclusion; poverty reduction; culture preservation” in Keywords.

[3] In line 114-133, this paragraph talked about the dual case study which helps “in deepening the understanding of benefits and challenges of urban gardening in both industrialized and developing regions”.  In line 119 “In the case of Mexico City, the chinampa system is claimed to be one of the most productive agricultural techniques ever developed”. It took more than one page (from line 119 to 170) for the introduction and literature review for the chinampa system.  Is there any system used in Ohio, USA as Ohio is one the dual cases?  

[4] In line 146, there are extra spaces before “Further”.

[5] In line 171-181, why does this paragraph show here? Does it have any relationship with this paper?

[6] In line 212-226, I don’t think the primary results could be shown here and it looks like repeating as in Abstract. I suggest showing the structure of this paper here.

[7] I suggest keeping the same format in this paper. For example, are spaces needed at the beginning of each paragraph? Do figure titles need to be centered?

[8] I suggest “.” Instead of “:” in line 311, 324, 334…etc.

[9] For figures, I don’t think they look good with grey shadows especially Figure 1 and Figure 2. Two ways can make them better. One is to remove grey shadows and add different colors. The other way is to remove grey shadows and use Hierarchy or Relationship with the SmartArt in Insert in word document.

[10] In Results, can a table or figure be used to show the results of Ohio, USA and Mexico City? And it will help to understand the results and the differences between the two cities.

[11] In Discussion, can any subtitle or one phrase in Bold be used at the beginning of each paragraph to show the topics discussed?

[12] In Conclusions, the same comment as in comment [11] for Discussion. The conclusion looks too long and should be summarized and be concise to understand.

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewer 3

Dear reviewer, in the following table you will find all the changes made based on your suggestions. Please be aware that it might be a change that could be contradictory to a suggestion of yours; if that is the case, know that is due to another reviewer’s suggestion that we decided to follow. We highly appreciate all your feedback since allow us to improve our manuscript.

 

Suggestion	Response
In Abstract “Primary results includes: a)…b)…c)…d)…e)…f)…g)…h)…”, I don’t think it is a way to list all results in abstract. I suggest summarizing these results and adding some words for recommendations.	The list for all of the results was deleted and then a summarize was included.
I suggest “sustainability; urban gardening; economic inclusion; poverty reduction; culture preservation” in Keywords.	The keywords were added as suggested
In line 114-133, this paragraph talked about the dual case study which helps “in deepening the understanding of benefits and challenges of urban gardening in both industrialized and developing regions”.  In line 119 “In the case of Mexico City, the chinampa system is claimed to be one of the most productive agricultural techniques ever developed”. It took more than one page (from line 119 to 170) for the introduction and literature review for the chinampa system.  Is there any system used in Ohio, USA as Ohio is one the dual cases?
In line 146, there are extra spaces before “Further”.	Corrected
In line 171-181, why does this paragraph show here? Does it have any relationship with this paper?	The comparison between Cape Verde, London, Mexico City and Ohio helps to understand the underlying characteristics of the stakeholders visited.
In line 212-226, I don’t think the primary results could be shown here and it looks like repeating as in Abstract. I suggest showing the structure of this paper here.	We eliminated the results and added the structure of the paper as suggested.
I suggest keeping the same format in this paper. For example, are spaces needed at the beginning of each paragraph? Do figure titles need to be centered?	We are following the journal template as suggested since the beginning.
I suggest “.” Instead of “:” in line 311, 324, 334…etc	All grammatical corrections were made.
For figures, I don’t think they look good with grey shadows especially Figure 1 and Figure 2. Two ways can make them better. One is to remove grey shadows and add different colors. The other way is to remove grey shadows and use Hierarchy or Relationship with the SmartArt in Insert in word document.	We added color to all figures and tables.
In Results, can a table or figure be used to show the results of Ohio, USA and Mexico City? And it will help to understand the results and the differences between the two cities.	A table with the results regarding a positive correlation between categories is introduced.
In Discussion, can any subtitle or one phrase in Bold be used at the beginning of each paragraph to show the topics discussed?	In the discussion we are neither analyzing by categories nor countries. The analysis is in general and related to the topics Economic Inclusion, Poverty Reduction and Culture Preservation.
In Conclusions, the same comment as in comment [11] for Discussion. The conclusion looks too long and should be summarized and be concise to understand.	We changed the conclusion section by setting main conclusions and recommendations only.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has been revised according to the reviewer's comments . I do not make any comments.