Public Urban Agriculture Equipment: A Tool for Fair and Sustainable Food Policies? Potager du Roi and Cité Maraîchère, Two French Case Studies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a valuable contribution to the descriptive and conceptual understanding of urban agriculture in a European setting, with implications for the discourse around sustainability in local politics. The most important aspects are the detailed explanation of the context and activities of two urban agricultural projects. The concepts of "triple layered business model" and "public urban agriculture equipment" are usefully introduced as frameworks. As the paper notes in the conclusion, its aims do not encompass a full assessment of policy cost-effectiveness which could be an interesting next step. Overall this is a highly informative and in-depth examination of two projects which deserve to be well-known in the urban agriculture discourse, and the paper suggests ways of thinking about the role of urban agriculture in public policy which will be useful for supporting ideas of sustainability in policy discourse at both national and sub-national levels.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work deals with urban agriculture in france, public facilities and two case studies. it highlights the important role that urban agriculture plays, both environmentally and socially. The great work done by France in implementing policies that encourage such urban agriculture is highlighted.

The research appears interesting and complete. However, it is necessary to make some corrections:

1. format everything according to the MDPI standard

2. summarize the work in some passages: in fact, it seems more like an advertisement sometimes than a scientific work

3. it is also necessary to focus on the agricultural part: what is grown in the two companies under study?

4. the figures must be inserted with greater quality: it is difficult to read

6. the references must be inserted according to the MDPI format

7. there are some passages to eliminate

8. there are some parts to integrate: for example the one on water saving could be interesting and useful to study in more depth.

For more informations see the file PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The figures 2, 3 and 4 are quite small for reading.

Results shown in figure 3, Environmental life cycle BM can be presented in a table for comparing PDR vs. CM und for a better understanding.

Figure 4 The Social canvas of TLBM shows just an overview about the important parameter but no results. The results such as the local and healthy products sold by PDR (26 mt) and the CM (16 mt) and the number of customers follows in the text. The results should be presented in a table PDR vs. CM too.

Right now, some of the results are presented just in the text and it is hard to compare the PDR and the CM for these parameters. 

 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the first review the authors improved the work and made it more complete.

The authors followed the reviewer's suggestions and filled the main gaps. The case studies examined, as described now, appear clearer and more complete. Reading is simpler and more understandable. The bibliography has also been improved, as well as figures and graphs that present higher quality.

For these reasons the work can be published on this journal.