Contemporary Urban Agriculture in European and Chinese Regions: A Social-Cultural Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have a few minor recommendations:

In the abstract Authors stated „...This paper uncovers the characteristic patterns of UA in Europe through theoretical examination, academic frontier exploration, and case analysis. A bibliometric method is applied to analyze relevant data from the Web of Science (WoS) core collection database..“ – The paper suggests research in the area of UA in the EU and China – so it is very unusual to say that the paper uncovers characteristic patterns of UA in Europe – what about China? In addition, the Authors should add reason why bibliometric analysis has been employed.

The sentence meaning is not clear: „...Based on the findings, the authors recommend considering Europe's methods and approaches to UA development, particularly their strategies for realizing social and cultural benefits, for future UA practice in China...“

Authors, throughout the whole paper, repeat the misspelling the word „population“ – it should be corrected

Part of the paper which is placed in the Introduction, starting with row 115 (paragraph) and finishing with raw 141 (paragraf), which presents the RESULTS of bibliographical analysis – so it has to be moved to the part of the paper called research results.

Before sentences that point research objective authors should add two or three sentences that provide a summary of state-of-art in this area. „...This paper's approach to analyzing European and Chinese UA projects from a sociocultural perspective is notably innovative. It facilitates extensive cross-learning and sharing in an area currently underexplored in research...“

The authors sourced bibliographic data, but the keywords used for it are not stated. Please add it.

The term „practical study“ should be replaced with „case study“.

The term „a macro-strategic strategy“ should be replaced with „macro strategy“ or „macro-strategic approach“

 

It is recommended that authors re-evaluate this statement: „... We argue that standardizing UA project types in China by integrating them within urban green space planning is paramount...“. Standardisation usually has a negative effect on multifunctionality and diversity of shapes&models within one type of urban agriculture. Standardization will narrow the space to preserve and develop China’s urban agricultural heritage, as well as its UA potential to models that can foster public engagement. Standardization can not solve a problem „...Chinese UA projects generally lack strength in socio-cultural functions...“. So, I recommend saying - we argue that development of standardized framework and criteria to support different functions and manageable diversity of forms&models.......“

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some problems with the terms used. More info about it you can find in my recommendations

Author Response

Dear reviewer.

We are very grateful for your suggestions. We have provided peer-to-peer feedback and response to the issues you raised. Please find attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to congratulate the authors for brining a nice piece of comparison on urban agriculture. Minor edits/ improvements are suggested as per below:

Abstract :well written

Introduction : In line 31 to 23, the authors defined UA as commercial activities, but UA covers recreational to commercial activities (as community garden motives is not oriented towards commercial); slight improvement in the definition of UA is needed as it includes non-commercial, commercial and hybrid production technologies.

In line 134 the referencing style is not  according to MDPI style – Rosita T et al (2022)???

This section needs justification of research in a separate paragraph at the end i.e. why such a comparison between the European region and China is needed?

 

Materials and methods:

In line 160 double full-stop noted- should be single

In line 167 Table 1 or Table I ???- I think it is table 1.

Overall, this section is well covered, and minor edits needed.

 

Theory and practice of  contemporary approaches

Is this result section or separate? Not clear from the heading if this is the result, It is better to put the result as heading 3 and then subheadings.

3.3.2 (line 447) UF ??? needs full form in the main text with the abbreviation

In the first sentence, it is better to write that UF covers LF, SF, and so on, then a description of each(as authors have done).

Discussion

Line 710-711 sentence not clear

Conclusion

 

Well covered

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing and additions are required before acceptance.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are very grateful for your suggestion.

We have provided a peer-to-peer feedback and response to the issues you raised. Please find attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main aim of this article is very broad and ambitious: to compare urban agriculture (UA) in Europe and China. Its secondary aim si to contemplate heritage conservation UA in China. While this study is interesting to read and adds new data to the understanding of the different models of urban agriculture in Europe and China, and their differences, the manuscript could be improved and partly simplified.

The comparison between the two regions is not fully addressed and the manuscript presents some gaps, notably in the presentation of the data, methods and their results. The secondary aim is poorly developed or discussed. The authors could elaborate on "its effectiveness in the cultural and social sphere" (line 323) and its relevance in the Chinese context of urban agriculture.

These are the two reasons why I think a major revision of the manuscript is necessary.

Concerning the topic of urban agriculture.

The authors should make more explicit their views on urban agriculture, which appear in section 3.1. Main theoretical overview, listing mainly authors in urban planning, architecture and landscape architecture. Given that the concepts used are rather vague, it might be useful to spell out the field(s) of research. (For example, in the abstract, the authors use the terms "development model" and "urban food gardening practices ». Such models and practices could be described with very different content by an economist, an agronomist, an urbanist, a landscape architect, etc.) The overviews on UA in Europe (3.1) and China (4.1) seem a little short, with curious historical gaps in both cases (20th century for Europe, 17th-late 1980s for China). In the former case, the concept of garden cities could be mentioned, as well as the victory gardens (UK) and their likes during WW2.

The overall approach of the study could be described more clearly (see Figures 2 and 3). Several types of data and several methods are involved. It is not easy for readers to understand why so many types of study are needed, what is expected of each one, and how they confirm, complement or nuance each other. This could also be shown in the "Results" sections and discussed in the "Discussion" section.

As far as methods are concerned, bibliometric methods and case study analysis are poorly presented.

With regard to the former, the name of the software used (CiteSpace) is not sufficient. What types of methods are selected in CiteSpace and why? Why have different methods been chosen for the two studies for comparison purposes (chronological mapping and statistical keyword mapping)? The results are expressed mainly in figures 5 and 10, which I found difficult to understand (how do you interpret a timeline like #8, which starts with "United States trend" and ends with "plant growth"?) Is it relevant to draw a timeline for a 5-year period?

With regard to the data, the periods chosen for the two bibliometric studies are not exactly similar (2018-2022 vs. 2016-2022). Could this interfere with the results? How were the publications selected in the CNKI? It seems curious that studies concerning UA in China might focus on rural areas, as stated in line 625.

As far as the European case studies are concerned, the quantitative analysis is well described in section 2. Materials and methods (lines 176-182). Nevertheless, the selection of case studies is not explained in the section (but in the Table 2 and lines 342-346), and more details should be given about the interviews (mentioned in Table 1). What was the purpose of the interviews? Were they focused solely on assessing the four aspects of urban agriculture, or were they broader in scope? What types of experts were consulted, in terms of profession, site knowledge, etc.?  Who were the people mentioned as "random selection" in Table 1 and how was the random selection implemented? What's more, the results (Figure 8 and lines 521-526) are presented too briefly and not really discussed.

The structure of the manuscript could be improved.

The abstract lacks precision in the description of data and methods. It also fails to mention the bibliometric study of 2230 CNKI publications.

The structure of the introduction is a bit wobbly and not quite symmetrical with regard to Europe and China.  It's not very clear why the authors, after commenting on the diversity of UA, should propose their own definition (lines 64-69) and what this definition adds to those presented at the beginning (lines 31-49). Their definition seems a little strange. Part of the introduction (lines 115-121 and Figure 1) is more concerned with the data analyzed and would be more relevant in the Materials and methods section. Although there is a presentation of EU policies, none are presented concerning China, although some are mentioned concerning Chinese cities in section 4.3.

The 9 case studies are presented several times (Figure 3, Table 1, Table 2, Figure 6 and lines 396 to 514) with information (country, type of UA, interviews...) scattered throughout the different appearances. It would be easier for the reader to gather all the case studies in a single figure (e.g. Figure 6/7, which I found very fine). The names of the case studies vary from one part of the manuscript to another (A to I at the beginning, then with the initial of their UA type).

The Discussion and Conclusion sections introduce new descriptions of urban agriculture in China (lines 714-728, 751-769, 816-831), which could have been presented in the section devoted to this subject (section 4. Analysis of the development of urban agriculture in China).  The title of section 5.3. « Results of the comparative study » bears no relation to its content. The Conclusion section begins with the limitations of the study (786-795), a topic more often found in the Discussion sections.

It may be necessary to adjust the text in term of vocabulary or to avoid apparent contradictions

Line 107 China's urban agriculture is said to follow non-innovative development models, whereas modern agricultural industrial parks are mentioned line 633 or agriculture focused on scientific and technological innovation line 644. Are these parks and this agriculture non-innovative?

Lines 124-126 rural tourism and rural landscapes are mentioned as the main focus of Chinese urban agriculture research. Rural revitalization is also mentioned in line 623. What is the meaning of "rural" in these cases?

 

Some parts of the text need to be edited:

Figure 1: The colors depicting Africa and South America are switched between the figure and its legend

There is a reference to « the author’s related doctoral thesis » (line 760) whereas several authors sign the manuscript.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are very grateful for your suggestion.

We have provided a peer-to-peer feedback and response to the issues you raised. Please find attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article titled “Contemporary Urban Agriculture in European and Chinese Regions: A social-cultural perspective” is a very extensive text describing the diversity of urban agriculture in developed countries and China.

The purpose of the article has been correctly formulated and the methods used are acceptable. I regret that the authors did not decide to conduct a systematic review of the literature.

Despite some advantages (a broad description of the functions and forms of urban agriculture), the manuscript also has some weaknesses.

The manuscript is a review, which in part shows elements of a systematic review. Nevertheless, due care was not taken when presenting the research results. A critical review of the literature is clearly lacking.

The authors uncritically present research results that put UA in a positive light. However, there is a large group of studies in the literature that deny the functions of urban agriculture and indicate numerous limitations of UA.

I do not agree with the statement that the presented examples of forms of urban agriculture are representative. These are only selected case studies. When analyzing (in the discussion section) the possibilities of using some UA solutions in China, various conditions and limitations of individual forms of urban agriculture should be taken into account.

The authors should also try to answer the question why there are few UA projects in city centers in China.

I believe that the article should be published, but the authors should (at least in one section) address the criticism of urban agriculture in the global north. Moreover, the authors should (at least generally) outline the different conditions for the development of UA in China and Europe (e.g. city size, population density, environmental pollution, dust emissions, and others).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are very grateful for your suggestion.

We have provided a peer-to-peer feedback and response to the issues you raised. Please find attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

R1 version of the Article Contemporary Urban Agriculture in European and Chinese Regions: A social-cultural perspective

 This new version of the article is more readable and improved (see Abstract), and the cover letter clarifies certain questions. However, in my opinion, the article still needs further work before it can be considered for publication. My main reservation still concerns the argumentation and the structure of the article. I was expecting greater simplification and clarification of the text. I have the feeling that too many different analyses are mixed together, without time being devoted to their correct presentation and interpretation.

I detail this reservation below in three points:

1/ the lack of consideration and discussion of the results. The article is based on several studies, several strategies, using several data sets concerning Europe and China. As already mentioned for the first version, it is not easy for readers to understand why so many types of study are needed, what is expected of each one, and how they confirm, complement or nuance each other. The presentation of some of the results is still too brief to explain what they add to the argumentation.

To illustrate this point:

The statistical method of the bibliometric analyses is now more precisely described. However, some results are still not presented in a comprehensive way. What does it mean that the “main research object” is “leisure agriculture”, line 660? How do you infer the “main research object” from a keyword co-occurrence analysis? (Is “leisure agriculture” the first keyword of the considered publication, along with “urban agriculture”, for instance?)  You don’t comment the difference with the analysis of the first CNKI data set where you identify (how?) the main research area as “agricultural economy (69.77%)”. 

The socio-cultural perspective does not appear in the four dimensions used to classify the cases of urban agriculture, but the text indicates that all types of urban agriculture are "relatively strong in terms of socio-cultural functions" (line 567). How are these four dimensions, or this classification, relevant to your "socio-cultural perspective"? And on what basis do you conclude that they are all "relatively strong"?

2/ The presentation of some of the data mobilized is scattered throughout the text instead of being introduced in the Material and Methods section. This section could help to present all the material analyzed or mentioned in the article, and to explain why so many data sets were needed, particularly for the bibliometric analyses.

For the authors:

Lines 138-147 of the Introduction present the results of at least 3 of your studies. Lines 330-332 present the data of one of the literature review, that is not depicted in the Material and Methods section. How did you determine the region of the WOS data set mentioned line 331? What do you mean by "from European country"? Is that the first author's place? Did you check that the published articles “from European countries” didn’t concern China (part of these articles concern “sub-Saharan Africa”)?

Lines 553-557 present the methodology carried out, in a chapter dedicated to the presentation of the results, and in a manner redundant with the lines 231-236 of the Material and methods section. The Result section 4.2 presents three data sets for the bibliometric analyses, data sets which are described in only two quick lines (241-243) in the M&M section. How many degree thesis were analyzed? Are they a subset of the 2230 CNKI publications? Do they show the same trends that the 2230 publications?

3/ In my opinion, there remains a strong imbalance between the presentation of the case study (5 illustrations (Figures 3, 4 and 5, Tables 1 and 2) spread over 5 pages + a half-page presentation in the Material and Methods section 213-237 + a description of each case in section 3.3 on nearly 3 pages) and the very short final result (lines 552-567 + figure 6). Furthemore, if we consider that this study is only one of the many presented, is it worth devoting so many pages to its presentation?

For the authors: I don’t fully agree with your response on this point in the cover letter, when you defend the logic of presenting the chronological choice of the different cases selected. My feeling is that positioning this collection of cases in the typology of UA in Europe (cf. Table 2) would be a very adequate argument, and enough to justify their selection.

 NB: The text contain a few typos and should be checked.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. 

Please find the attached document. I have provided separate answers to the concerns you have raised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

you start with 'some of these practices could be suitably adapted for China'. However, the conclusion is that UA development from a socio-cultural perspective (what does that mean?)  is worth considering. Three questions

1. you are not very concrete about UA development from a socio-cultural perspective. Can you give an example?

2. This seems to be your specialization (reference to earlier research): what goes in goes out?

3. The State Council on page 20 has already concluded that this should be prioritized, so what does your research add to this?

Secondly, 'it is plausible that some of these (EU) practices could be suitably adapted'. This is not a research question, this is a conclusion before starting the research!

three, there is no link to the eco city literature

4. there is no indication of the relative importance of urban agriculture in the EU and China( surface, turnover, self sufficiency or market?).

5. In the discussion section you do not relate your finding to the theory, but conclude that 'there are not many cases of combining agricultural activities with urban culture in terms of project practice'. What does that mean?

6. what has a surge in refugees to do with increased research on urban agriculture? (p. 6)

7. what is Research Liu??? p. 16)

8. in 5.3 you bring in new evidence about Hangzhou!?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

sentences like 'overal it should be clarified that priorities should be varied'. is not very strong

Author Response

We have responded to the reviewer's comments point by point. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First, I would like to congratulate to authors on effort to provide comprehensive comparison of UA practices and theories in EU and China. Paper offers a lot of information about UA theory and it offers discussion about ideas and approaches behind current UA development/case studies.

Second, it is necessary to give few general comments to improve this paper:

-        Method has to be improved. It is necessary to explain how semi structural interview has been realised (the research instrument – questioner, who was interviewed and when and how that sample was selected). Additionally, it has to explain general criteria/logic behind grouping cases and giving them tag A (up to I) – this should be presented as a table or scheme.

-        It is not clear why 20 century has been excluded from explanation of UA evolution/history in Europe. This has to be changed by providing explanation or by adding some statements about UA development during the 20 century.

-        When explaining evolution of UA and its theoretical background, then it has to be mentioned that UA is usually developed as social innovation platform, that is why socio-cultural approach is dominant.

-        It is necessary to discuss pollution and UA connections, or better to say some types of urban pollution have to be considered as a limitation for some functions of UA (eg food supply from open space farms). This consideration has to be included into the conclusion.

-        It is necessary to discuss UA in the light of healthy lifestyle promotion (not only food security and safety), as a tool to strengthen health status of urban population (food choice, eating habits, food waste etc). This has to be added to a conclusion.

-        Finally, the limitation of present research has to be presented in conclusions as well.

Third, there is specific comments to be considered:

Paragraph 79-80 „... WoS Core Collection database provided by the ISI, including SCIE, SSCI, AHCI, 79 CPCIS, ESCI, CCRE, and IC...“ – those abbreviations have to be explained (full name) – I suggest to use footnote for it.

Paragraph 86-87: „...These nine cases are considered by the recommenders and authors to be suitable for guiding the development of UA in China...“ It is important to add few sentences explaining why those cases are suitable for guiding the development of UA in China (maybe: such type of UA was not considered in China or case was focused on climate change adoption – UA is called as climate optimised agriculture)

Paragraph 127: It is not clear is author pointing out research done by Dünen or Thünen (mentioned in paragraph 125)

In methods semi structural interview is mentioned, but it is not clear who was interviewed, what was the research tool (questioner) and when it was done. This has to be explained clearly. In addition, cases are grouped from A to I. The criteria/logic behind grouping cases and giving them tag A (up to I) have to be explained.

In paper part 3.1. Main theoretical overview it is stated: „...Based on a literature review, several major theories generated inside Europe have 123 influenced the development of UA in Europe since the 20th century....“ and after that sentence author start to explain theories from 18 and 19 century, then exclude 20 century. So it has to be explained clearly. I suggest for example: „ In this chapter, according to bibliometric search we are dealing with contemporary dominated theories, but we connect them with first theories for 18 and 19 century“.

In Figure 4. Timeline of the main theories being proposed and the background of their generation – the 20th century is not mentioned. It is not clear why? It has to be added or to explain why UA development during the 20th century is excluded.

In Figure 5. Timeline mapping of the keyword on "urban agriculture" in the European region of the WoS core collection (2018-2022) the software used for analysis should be mentioned

Paragraph 226-229 it is stated „... Regardless of the concepts on which they are based, UA projects are, in general, launch and practiced in large numbers in Europe. From 2018 to 2022, through field research, a summary of the related literature related to some cases, and recommendations from European experts, the authors finally selected nine different types of representative and typical cases for the study...“. The types of case study have to be mentioned by explaining why they are chosen – this has to be explained in the part of paper „Method“ and here I suggest to provide visualisation.

Paragraph 352-355 : „...Taking into account the functional classification indicators related to urban (peri-urban) agricultural research issued by the European Commission for Agricultural and Rural Development in 2018 [42] (see Figures 8), as well as the authors’ research, they were assessed in a comprehensive manner according to the Likert 5-point scale method (see Figure 8)....“. It is not clear who was doing this assessment. Detailed explanation of assessment has to be provided in the paper part „Methodology“.

Paragraph 435-436:  "...... take the lead in realizing modern 435 agriculture in multifunctional agricultural areas on the outskirts of large cities". The tree points before quotation mark have to be added.

Author Response

We have responded to the reviewer's comments point by point. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. urban agriculture is defined too broad

 

2. then the paper is mainly about 8 types of farms

 

3. the relevant EU policies are also too broad ( the Horizon 200 plan???)

 

4. the suggestion is to learn from the EU experience, but the only example given is about an urban farm in Beijing and in the discussion section about a heritage garden in Hangzhou to conclude that the cultural perspective needs to be explored more

 

5. with a bibliometric analysis it is what you put in (in terms of search terms) is what you get out. In this case the reader learns very little from the exercise

 

6. i still don't understand what the refugees have to do with it (Page 6), why the trend is studying the African Sahara and why China is a large agricultural country?

 

7. Please explain the sentence: "Overall, it should be clarified that the priorities of UA development can be varied for different scales'.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

sentences like 'overal it should be clarified that priorities should be varied'. is not very strong