Mapping and Assessing Urban Agriculture in São Paulo: Tackling Socio-Economic and Environmental Issues through Nature-Based Solutions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores the potential of urban agriculture (UA) in São Paulo, Brazil, particularly its potential in addressing socio-economic and environmental issues, providing valuable insights for urban planning and policy-making.

The presentation is adequate; anyway, I have detected some criticisms in the text that should be properly addressed.

The Authors can benefit from the comments below to improve their paper.

1. A clear map of the study area can better help readers understand the location of the research area. It is recommended that the author include a map of the study area in Section 2.1, Study Area.

2. Please adhere to mapping standards and include a compass rose and scale on the maps.

3. In lines 71-82, the author should elucidate the logic between habitat quality and the questionnaire, exploring the relationship between these two studies. What role does comprehensive habitat quality research play in urban agriculture assessments? How does it influence the formulation of the questionnaire?

4. In section 2.1, choosing São Paulo as the study area, where does its typical representativeness in urban agriculture research manifest? Please elaborate on this aspect in detail.

5. At line 159, why were these 49 locations selected for on-site visits from the initial 152? Please elucidate the reasons for this selection.

Other suggestions

(1)   Please review the entire document for typographical errors and any other necessary corrections; check headings, tables, and figures.

(2)   Authors should check this manuscript for the grammar.

 

(3)   Authors should follow the journal format.

Author Response

1) A clear map of the study area can better help readers understand the location of the research area. It is recommended that the author include a map of the study area in Section 2.1, Study Area.

Suggestion implemented in Section 2.1 to facilitate the readers' understanding of the study area's location and dimensions.

2) Please adhere to mapping standards and include a compass rose and scale on the maps.

A compass rose has been included in all map figures. However, we have not incorporated the editors' suggestion to add a scale to the maps. We believe that the current representation effectively conveys the necessary geographical information without compromising the accuracy of our data.

3) In lines 71-82, the author should elucidate the logic between habitat quality and the questionnaire, exploring the relationship between these two studies. What role does comprehensive habitat quality research play in urban agriculture assessments? How does it influence the formulation of the questionnaire?

The change suggested  has been implemented at the end of Section 1 to better elucidate the logic between the habitat quality evaluation and the questionnaire about ecosystem services in urban agriculture.

4) In section 2.1, choosing São Paulo as the study area, where does its typical representativeness in urban agriculture research manifest? Please elaborate on this aspect in detail.

Suggestion implemented in Section 2.1 to facilitate the reader's understanding of the existing urban agriculture in the study area.

5) At line 159, why were these 49 locations selected for on-site visits from the initial 152? Please elucidate the reasons for this selection.

We have better explained the selection process for the on-site visits. We also highlight that in Figure 2 details are provided.

6) Please review the entire document for typographical errors and any other necessary corrections; check headings, tables, and figures.

All headings, tables and figures were corrected if necessary.

7) Authors should check this manuscript for the grammar.

Grammar was checked and corrected if necessary.

8) Authors should follow the journal format.

We made the necessary corrections to adhere to the journal's format, including adjustments to the layout and configurations of tables, figures, and section titles.

 

We would like to express our gratitude for the thorough review conducted and the comments and suggestions provided.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-referenced and the topic is up-to-date. The methodology consists of both qualitative and quantitative methods combined well. 

The aim of the paper, as well as goals and objectives, are not clearly explained. The hypothesis is missing too. It is not clear why you did this research and who would benefit from the obtained results.  Maybe in the introduction, the research gap should be stressed.

Do you have approval of the questionnaire from the ethical board?

The Discussion should be reorganized to be more readable.  There are a lot of discussed results but they are not classified into sub-chapters. The discussion should be followed with pro-and-cons argumentation. 

The Conclusion could be widened with answers to the hypothesis and objectives of the research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English checking is necessary.

Author Response

1) The aim of the paper, as well as goals and objectives, are not clearly explained. The hypothesis is missing too. It is not clear why you did this research and who would benefit from the obtained results.  Maybe in the introduction, the research gap should be stressed.

The study's hypothesis and information regarding the potential beneficiaries of the findings have been included at the end of Section 1 to enhance readers' understanding of the study's objectives and relevance.

2) Do you have approval of the questionnaire from the ethical board?

Yes, this information can be checked in line 201.

3) The Discussion should be reorganized to be more readable.  There are a lot of discussed results but they are not classified into sub-chapters. The discussion should be followed with pro-and-cons argumentation. 

We have restructured the discussion section of the article by dividing it into separate subsections for the habitat quality results and the questionnaire results. Additionally, we divided the text into subsections for considerations to better elucidate how the results from both applied methodologies relate to each other, as well as a subsection on the limitations of the employed methods.

Regarding the emphasis on the pros and cons of the results and methodologies, we opted not to delve further into these aspects as we believe that the discussion throughout the paper has already addressed these points comprehensively. The detailed examination of the results and methodologies has been integrated into the overall analysis, which we feel sufficiently addresses these concerns.

4) The Conclusion could be widened with answers to the hypothesis and objectives of the research.

We have integrated answers to the hypothesis and objectives of the research into the conclusions section to better highlight and underscore the results and conclusions obtained. This approach ensures that the key findings are clearly emphasized and valued in relation to the research aims.

5) English checking is necessary.

English was checked and corrected if necessary.

 

We would like to express our gratitude for the thorough review conducted and the comments and suggestions provided.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As urban agriculture is one of the important solutions to avoid the negative ecological and socio-economic effects of increasing urbanization, the research results can be useful to decision makers in the field of urban, agricultural, and overall sustainable development of the city of São Paulo and the analysed country. The significance of the research lies in the fact that it refers to a city that is the main economic centre of Latin America and one of the largest cities in the world. The study uses spatial mapping and a producer survey. The role of urban agriculture (as one of the nature-based solutions that offer ecosystem services) is not the same in various parts of São Paulo, as highlighted in a very detailed discussion of the research. The conclusion provides general recommendations for improving habitat quality, solving urban challenges, and building a more sustainable city.

The paper is well structured. The abstract contains all the necessary information about the subject, approach, and goal of the research, as well as the results of the research. Introduction clearly describes goals and research questions. The importance and justification of the research was also emphasized. The title fully reflects the content of the paper. The text has no technical and grammatical errors. It relies on a detailed literature review. The paper provides sufficient background information and literature review regarding its topic. Discussion is based on presented results and methodology. In this section, the authors connect the results of their own research with the results of research by other authors on a similar topic. Also, the limitations of the research are given. The research is of interest to a wider audience, including scholars, urban policy makers, as well as sustainable development policy makers. References are appropriate and up to date; more than 50% of references are from the previous five years.

The paper meets the expected scientific standards, so it is suitable for publication in the journal "Sustainability" in its present form.

Author Response

As urban agriculture is one of the important solutions to avoid the negative ecological and socio-economic effects of increasing urbanization, the research results can be useful to decision makers in the field of urban, agricultural, and overall sustainable development of the city of São Paulo and the analysed country. The significance of the research lies in the fact that it refers to a city that is the main economic centre of Latin America and one of the largest cities in the world. The study uses spatial mapping and a producer survey. The role of urban agriculture (as one of the nature-based solutions that offer ecosystem services) is not the same in various parts of São Paulo, as highlighted in a very detailed discussion of the research. The conclusion provides general recommendations for improving habitat quality, solving urban challenges, and building a more sustainable city.

The paper is well structured. The abstract contains all the necessary information about the subject, approach, and goal of the research, as well as the results of the research. Introduction clearly describes goals and research questions. The importance and justification of the research was also emphasized. The title fully reflects the content of the paper. The text has no technical and grammatical errors. It relies on a detailed literature review. The paper provides sufficient background information and literature review regarding its topic. Discussion is based on presented results and methodology. In this section, the authors connect the results of their own research with the results of research by other authors on a similar topic. Also, the limitations of the research are given. The research is of interest to a wider audience, including scholars, urban policy makers, as well as sustainable development policy makers. References are appropriate and up to date; more than 50% of references are from the previous five years.

The paper meets the expected scientific standards, so it is suitable for publication in the journal "Sustainability" in its present form.

 

We would like to express our gratitude for the thorough review conducted and the comments provided.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have diligently addressed the reviewers' comments and comprehensively revised the manuscript. The grammar has been checked and corrected, and the journal format has been adhered to, including adjustments to the layout and configurations of tables, figures, and section titles. A clear map of the study area has been included to illustrate the research location better, and a compass rose has been added to all map figures for orientation. The authors have also provided a detailed explanation of the logic between habitat quality evaluation and the questionnaire about ecosystem services in urban agriculture, as well as elaborated on the representativeness of São Paulo in urban agriculture research. The selection process for the on-site visits has been clarified, and all headings, tables, and figures have been reviewed for typographical errors and necessary corrections. The manuscript now includes innovative insights into ecosystem services related to urban agriculture in São Paulo, offering valuable input for urban policies. The revisions are thorough, and the manuscript is ready for acceptance after minor revisions.

Author Response

The authors have diligently addressed the reviewers' comments and comprehensively revised the manuscript. The grammar has been checked and corrected, and the journal format has been adhered to, including adjustments to the layout and configurations of tables, figures, and section titles. A clear map of the study area has been included to illustrate the research location better, and a compass rose has been added to all map figures for orientation. The authors have also provided a detailed explanation of the logic between habitat quality evaluation and the questionnaire about ecosystem services in urban agriculture, as well as elaborated on the representativeness of São Paulo in urban agriculture research. The selection process for the on-site visits has been clarified, and all headings, tables, and figures have been reviewed for typographical errors and necessary corrections. The manuscript now includes innovative insights into ecosystem services related to urban agriculture in São Paulo, offering valuable input for urban policies. The revisions are thorough, and the manuscript is ready for acceptance after minor revisions.

Thank you very much for your thorough review and the constructive feedback provided. We are grateful for the positive evaluation of our revisions and for your acknowledgment of our efforts to address the reviewers' comments comprehensively. We are pleased to hear that the adjustments made to the manuscript, including the grammar corrections, adherence to the journal format, and the addition of a clear map of the study area, have been well received.

We appreciate your recognition of the detailed explanation provided regarding the logic between habitat quality evaluation and the questionnaire about ecosystem services in urban agriculture, as well as the elaboration on the representativeness of São Paulo in this research area. Clarifying the selection process for the on-site visits and reviewing all headings, tables, and figures for accuracy were important steps in ensuring the quality of our manuscript, and we are glad these efforts were acknowledged.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is corrected due to the comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is fine.

Author Response

The article is corrected due to the comments.

Thank you for your feedback and for acknowledging the corrections made to the article. We appreciate your guidance throughout the revision process and are pleased that the changes have addressed the comments provided.