Review Reports

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

Oxford commas are missing in lines: 13, 17, 28, 34, 42, 43, 47, 57, 77, 91, 129, 137, 163, 169, 170, 188, 199, 200, 214, 245, 267, 270, 280, 282, 308, 309, 321, 344, 391, 394, 401, 406, 418, 436, 440, 441, 458, 460, 474, 478, 481, 485

(oxford comma used on line 206, 229, 314, 333, 378, 380, 382, 384, )

 Introduction

Line 29: change “urging” to “needs”

Materials and Methods

Line 62: change “conceptional” to “conceptual”

Line 71: I think “compiles” is the wrong word to use here, “include” would be better

Line 82: switch “includes also” to “also includes”

Line 89: The sentence should be changed to say “…represent opportunities for significant improvements to food supply, zero-km food, and local economy.”

Line 96: change “…deriving from the desire of being active…” I think this is a case of translation error.  Desire might be one meaning of the original word, but is not what you want here. This phase is also grammatically incorrect.

Lines 100-101: this sentence is also clumsy and needs some English language editing.

Line 112: there is an “and” or and “or” missing “social sciences, psychology, health, or economic”

Lines 114-115: this phrase needs editing.  I’m also not sure if it necessary.  It seems that it could be addressed by stating that only articles, “that reviewers were sure were not related to our topic” were eliminated.

Line 120: “-being” seems to be an error.  I think it should be “well-being”

Line 121-122: how many papers were included from the cross-references?

Line 124: change to “not included in the Web of Science database.”  In your line web of science is not capitalized, but you do elsewhere in the paper.

Line 137: change “barriers of” to “barriers to”

Results

Line 166: I am not sure what is meant by an “intensified phenomenon.  This may be another case of using a not quote right word.

Line 198: change to “on weekends or during vacations”

Line 243: “are” should be changed to “are”

Line 245-246: sentence should read “….production has already taken place for decades at the gate…”

Line 260: change “self –sustainment” to “self-sufficiency”

Line 267: take “as much” out of this sentence, its unnecessary and currently grammatically incorrect.

Line 274: are public kitchtens separate from children’s homes?   If so it should read “public kitchens, children’s homes, and refugee camps”.  If not then is should read “public kitchens in children’s homes and refugee camps”

Line 287: change “rate” to “rates”

Line 292: change “accommodation” to “housing”

Line 294: change “builds” to “build”, delete “an” fro “…up an ECS as…”

Line 297-298: change “ a agricultural park” to “an agricultural park”, change “stakeholder” to “stakeholders”, change “to open access” to “with open access” missing a ( by Fig. 4b

Line 301: add a comma after 1994, change “ by now to the” to “one of the”

Line 306: I think there is a typo in the units, 20 kg per qm, is that supposed to be kg per square meter or something else?

Line 315: change “aims on innovate” to “aims to innovate”

Line 318: I would change “capter 3.1” to “section 3.1”

Line 342: change to “in the literature/science”

Line 327-328: change “meeting points without and triggering their users…” to “meeting points that do no cause their users..”

Line 329-330: here you use the term community supported agriculture for the first time. From the sentences that follow it looks like you are using the standard definition of community supported agriculture, but this part seems awkward.  I think it needs a little more to bridge the gap between Nature-based systems and community supported agriculture, maybe using Edible city solutions.  

Line 330-331: change “evidence, how to close the gap” to “examples of how to close the gap”

Line 346: change “Our case study Havana shows exemplarily that…” to “Our case study of Havana illustrates that…”

Line 364: change “A main weakness is furthermore…” the “Another main weakness is”

Discussion

Line 378: change “set” at the end of the line to “setting”

Line 381: change “and change legal” to “and changing legal”

Line 385-386: missing a ) somewhere

Line 389: delete “the” in “such as the water infrastructure”

Line 407: something seems to be missing before “64)”

Line 421: the abbreviation “IT” is not explained.

Line 427: change “above construction” to “from construction”

Line 434: add “and” after “cooperatives,”

Line 453: change “thoroughly” to “thorough”

Line 461: I don’t think “entrepreneur” is the right word in this context.  There may also be a verb missing from the sentence.

Line 462: change “business effort” to “business efforts”

 Conclusions

Line 473: change “react on” to “react to”, and “and on” and “and to”

 Table 1:  The placement of table 1 is awkward.  It is currently split onto two pages mid row and should not be.

Figure 4: this is an interesting figure, but it is not clear what the different green symbols in each hexagon are supposed to represent.

Figure 5: The placement of this figure is also off.  The caption appears on the next page and would be easier to read and interpret if it was all on one page.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We found the reviews very helpful, and we have made a number of changes to the manuscript. In the attached file we respond in detail to the points addressed by the reviewers. 

Thank you again for considering our manuscript and we look forward to hearing from you at your convenience.

 Thomas Wachtel, Suhana Reddy & Ina Säumel 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 The paper is good and it can attract the widest audience of readers. It has scientific rigor. Very minor corrections of English language can be made especially during proofreading.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We found the reviews very helpful, and we have made a number of changes to the manuscript. In the attached file we respond in detail to the points addressed by the reviewers. 

Thank you again for considering our manuscript and we look forward to hearing from you at your convenience.

 Thomas Wachtel, Suhana Reddy & Ina Säumel 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the possibility review interesting paper. My suggestions are summarized in points below:

- plase re-write abstract (3rd sentence should not be so long to be easily understood); please add some of your results to abstact

- It seems to me unusual to read about the conceptual framework and literature review in part Material and Methods. I suggest creation of independent theoretical chapter.

- Fig. 1. Source is lacking.

- Please add more arguments why Rotterdam, Andernach, Oslo, Heidelberg, Havana were selected as case studies. I´m not sure about the selection of Havana as the city is really different as for tis socio-cultural context in comparison to other cities that were selected. Please, give more arguments for using Havanaseems to me quite. Maybe a table with basic information about each case study could be useful (part 2.3).

- Fig. 5 is divided into two pages, please correct.

- Results and Discussion are well done. Please develop more your recommendations in Conclusion.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We found the reviews very helpful, and we have made a number of changes to the manuscript. In the attached file we respond in detail to the points addressed by the reviewers. 

Thank you again for considering our manuscript and we look forward to hearing from you at your convenience.

 Thomas Wachtel, Suhana Reddy & Ina Säumel 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf