Research on Evaluation System and Optimization Strategy of Community Garden Based on IPA Method: A Case Study in Wuhan, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Dear authors,
Thank you for inviting me to review the paper titled “Research on evaluation system and optimization strategy of community garden based on IPA method: A case study in Wu-han, China.” Overall, the paper provides valuable insights into public space planning for rural immigrants settling in urban resettlement community. The research paper is well-written and clearly outlines its objectives, research field, and methodology.
Author Response
Thank you very much for recognizing our research. We will keep up the good work.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Very good and innovative paper dealing with an interesting subject, very useful for the inhabitants of big cities which is the different rypes of Community Gardens.
All parts of your paper are OK. Please pay attention to the text orthography. There are some secondary orthographic mistakes.
The quality of English language is very good.
Author Response
Thank you very much for recognizing our research. The spelling problem you mentioned has been checked and corrected.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Generally, this is a very interesting paper, covering various relevant issues related to current community gardens (CGs) in China.
The introduction addresses the background to community gardens, in the main focussing on UK, but some reference should also be made to the tradition of allotment gardens in Europe. The US situation is suitably explained. In this paper, the CGs in China seem to be only those associated with recent urban renewal; should not the existing long-standing Chinese CGs be included in this introductory background? The introduction also needs to include a brief summary of the relevant Urban Micro-renewal policies in Wuhan and the characteristics of the sites being considered. This should also mention issues about site remediation after demolition, especially when related to the cultivation of food.
Line 66 states that Chinese CGs are located in ‘empty zones of urban planning.’ This needs to be expanded and described more clearly. The discussion on the construction of CGs (line 117-119 and lines 184-191) needs to explain what physical form of CGs will be developed i.e. open field, incorporated into buildings, courtyards etc.
Construction of the indicator system is well explained (lines 158-178).
The categorisation of the CGs (line 183-189) needs a much fuller explanation supported by images, despite details in Appendix A. Line 185 refers to ‘spatial visualization’ what does this mean in this context – site plans? maps? This also applies to line 362-367 where the physical places and cohort of users is not clear. Also, what is ‘style positioning’?
The Analysis and Results (line 203-330) are satisfactorily recorded and explained.
In the Discussion and Application section (lines 333- 431) the need to have provided a fuller description of the 4 categories becomes more evident, particularly ‘Comp-CG’. For international readership, it is possible that this is China-specific; again, images would help the reader.
The Implication Discussion in Lines 432 – 472 is well-explained and important for the paper.
The Figures are not clearly presented in the review manuscript. Figure 6 is very important to the comprehension of the text but is almost impossible to read. Perhaps the figure needs to be presented as 4 separate figures.
Citations are relevant and current
Typographic Corrections
Line 50 ‘…at the bottom…’
Line 135 ‘… giving out questionnaires…’
Line 146 ‘…should not be limited…’
Line 248 complete title of Table 3
Author Response
Please see the attachment。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
It is an interesting paper concerning improvement of the spatial planning / design of green infrastructure in cities - an important and current topic.
The main objects of research are community gardens (understood as a multi-functional gardens in public space, being an important element of reneval polices in cities) - how to construct them better to meet social needs (residents/tourists - users needs) and the whole city development. The study has been based on evaluation metrics system, literature analysis, experts opinions and, what is basic, on users perception (questionnaires compleeted by users of existing community gardens in Wuchan, China).
Merhodical approach is interesting and partly innovative, especially as regards the set of evaluating system metrics and (what is more rare in previous studies) on users perception experienced in existing community gardens in cities.
Results are presented well, clearly (text, tables, figures, with statistical analysis), especially contents of Tables 3, 4 and 5 are interesting and valuable. Also the subsection concerning application and discussion is good. I like Figure 6, which is a a clear synthesis of research results, as regards proposed optimization strategies ( strategies, how to design community gardens better), having especially practical meaning (valuable for designers and managers of city green infrastructure, and of course - city residents).
Detailed notes:
Ad Keywords. Some keywords are in the title of the paper. Suggestion: remove keywords as IPA Method, evaluation system, optimization strategy; add keywords as: green areas development, city green infrastructure, construction of community gardens.
Ad 1. INTRODUCTION. The aim of the study should be formulated directly/ more clearly in the end of the introduction.
Ad 2. Materials and Methods. I suggest to present evaluation system metrics there (at least - listed) - it is important thing (they are included in Appendix in a questionnaire form, but it is methodically crucial: these are criteria of evaluation of existing and used gardens).
Ad Figure 1. I suggest to reformulate caption: Framework of methodical approach (not: method).
Ad 5. CONCLUSIONS. Please, formulate them as the conclusions, not as a summary.
Line 152: double full stop
Line 189: double full stop
Line 248: Title of the Table should be reformulated in a proper (clear) way
Line 225: lack of the space (3. Results).
In general: good and interesting paper worth publishing after minor revisions
English fine. Small corrections listed in the box above
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
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
Very good and interesting paper dealing with the theoretical and practical approach of modern urban planning and especially the contemporary planning of community gardens in the urban fridge. This is necessary for the planing and building of viable and sustainable cities of the future, based on the user preferences and the city characteristics.
The detailed analysis of 20 city gardens in combination with the opinions of a big sample of residents gives sufficient information about the existing status and the improvements needed in each community garden form.
A final orthography check is necessary.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions for revision. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for inviting me to review the paper entitled Research on evaluation system and optimization strategy of community gardens based on IPA method: A case study in Wuhan, China. Overall, the study requires to be rewritten according to scientific requirements. The structure of the paper needs to be improved to make it concise and easy to understand. Some technical errors need to be corrected. Finally, the conclusions need to be better supported by the evidence presented. There are clear areas for improvement in addressing the research problem, its aim, its importance, and how to benefit from its lessons. This systematic flaw is often repeated in scientific Research. Researchers must focus on a single issue and empirically test one thing to reach clear and effective results. We need Research that extends beyond the general narrative and details applicable results. Therefore, researchers should focus directly on the study's subject, community gardens.
Methodology and Research design must be revised to reach an objective, understandable, and convincing methodological form. Analytical methods need a convincing narrative. The biggest problem is that this Research needs a way to conclude. It relies on extracts from the analysis of the literature and questionnaires and the analysis of expert opinions without any background to conclude. To reach an objective, understandable, and convincing methodological form, researchers need to understand and apply the principles of the scientific method. This includes formulating a hypothesis, gathering data, and analysing the results. The narrative should draw on the data collected to explain the results and why the findings were reached. It should also explain the implications of the findings and provide a way to conclude the Research.
The Research is fragile compared to other Research in this field, so I cannot entirely agree with the publication in its current form. Instead, I suggest further research to strengthen the narrative and draw more concrete conclusions. Additionally, the Research should include a more detailed explanation for each analytical method used. Finally, the analysis should be more comprehensive, considering more data sources.
The authors should coordinate effectively to achieve a structured approach and method for team active participation to prepare a framework for concluding.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions for revision. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you very much for allowing me to review this interesting article. In itself the article is very good, the topic and the methodology are interesting and relevant.
However, I would like to suggest some improvements:
1.- It is necessary to establish why the stages ( Figure 1) and how these methodologies become convergent in the discussion and conclusions.
Regarding these strategies, it is convenient to establish the details of the links between the findings of the two stages and the strategies.
On the other hand, the figures should be larger, especially figures 4, 5 and 6.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions for revision. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper has seen improvements. However, it needs more methodological problems. Moreover, this study has many other comments:
First, it is advisable to provide definitions for abbreviations in the title, abstract, or text before using them, mainly if they may not be known to some readers, such as IPA.
Second, the abstract and introduction should clearly state the research objective. The results should be based on this objective.
Third, I am unsure about the purpose of “the evaluation system and optimal strategy for the community garden” mentioned in the title. Is this the primary goal of the study? If so, why wasn’t it explicitly stated in the introduction and the rest of the text?
Fourth, is the research purpose of summarizing the experience and identifying the shortcomings of community garden construction? Or is it to provide specific improvement strategies and practical guidance for future community garden development? The aim is to create evaluation indexing systems for community gardens suitable for China’s current planning situation.
Fifth, The introduction’s first paragraph covers various related subjects but lacks a central theme that defines the study’s primary direction. These topics include spontaneous agricultural labour in urban areas, epidemic infections, and frequent food safety concerns. The paragraph also discusses urban micro-renewal under the guidance of the 14th “Five-Year Plan,” urban governance, development, and community agricultural gardens. Ultimately, the section expresses a desire for community rejuvenation.
Finally, regarding Table e and Figure 3’s semantic network analysis, can you explain how the researchers identified the 45 words? Additionally, what benefit do these words have in obtaining reference literature?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
