The Impact of COVID-19 on Urban Agriculture in São Paulo, Brazil
, Angélica Campos Nakamura 2, Gustavo Nagib 1, Vitória Oliveira Pereira de Souza Leão 3, Giulia Giacchè 4 and Thais Mauad 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for the Authors
The paper is quite interesting and helpful; indeed, it is very readable and slim. However, I have some suggestions in order to improve the manuscript.
Literature Review
This section is well structured and not verbose at all. However, the authors left out some crucial insights regarding the consequences and drivers of urban agriculture. It could enrich the paper by supporting the social impact of this practice. For example, on lines 59-61, the authors mentioned this topic, but it could be enriched. For references, I can suggest:
- Zasada, I., 2011. Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture – a review of societal demand and the provision of goods and services by farming. Land Use Policy 28(4): 639-64
- Calisti, R., Proietti, P., & Marchini, A. (2019). Promoting sustainable food consumption: an agent-based model about outcomes of small shop openings. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 22(1).
- Bryld, E. (2003). Potentials, problems, and policy implications for urban agriculture in developing countries. Agriculture and human values, 20(1), 79-86.
- Orsini, F., Kahane, R., Nono-Womdim, R., & Gianquinto, G. (2013). Urban agriculture in the developing world: a review. Agronomy for sustainable development, 33(4), 695-720.
Moreover, there is a typo on lines 127 (the “th” symbol is different).
Material and Methods
This section is well structured but unclear on some points. On lines 69-70, the authors stated that "the analysed data was available from government surveys", my question is: in what sense? How is it analysed? Did the authors have access to data already analysed? Furthermore, the authors do not explain how they analysed the data quantitatively, nor qualitatively. For example, how did they analyse the interviews? Did they use a specific qualitative methodology? Did they use specific software? I think the authors should improve this section by addressing some of these points.
Discussion and Conclusions
These two sections are well done but the conclusions are a bit poor. Probably, by enriching the introduction with some references and insights, they could also improve it.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract
Line 27…. “No municipal support was provided to UA in….”
- Since this is the first time the authors state the acronym ‘UA’, the authors have to provide the full meaning/name of UA for clarity.
Line 30 and 31… “Governmental efforts should be implemented to increase the role of UA in combating food security”
- Based on which of the reported findings are the authors making this final recommendation?
Introduction
Line 40…. “This pandemic heightened the problem of food security in large Brazilian cities…”
- Food security is never a problem, but rather food insecurity is …so kindly replace ‘food security’ with ‘food insecurity’
Lines 41 to 44…. “A recent United Nations Children’s Fund survey showed that during the pandemic, approximately one in five Brazilians aged 18 or over experienced having no money to buy food and the perception of consuming more ultra-processed foods, especially those who lived with children or adolescents [3]”
- This statement is unclear….kindly reformulate especially placing more emphasis on the section with the phrase … “…experienced having no money to buy food and the perception of consuming more ultra-processed foods”
Line 56 to 58…. “Data have indicated that food security has worsened in vulnerable populations in this city since March 2020 [ ]”
- Food security is not a problem, but rather food insecurity is….so consider replacing the above statement with “Data have indicated that food insecurity has worsened in vulnerable populations in this city since March 2020 [ *].
Lines 67 to 69… “In this paper, we present qualitative and quantitative data on the impact of COVID-19 on both commercial and noncommercial UA in Sao Paulo state and city from the beginning of the pandemic in Brazil (March 2020) until August 2020.
- From Lines 21 and 22 of the abstract, the authors state that “…Here, we describe the impacts of COVID-19 on UA in Sao Paulo from April to June 2020. Which then is the most appropriate scope of the study “March to August 2020” or “April to June 2020”. Kindly address this inconsistency
General comments on the introduction
The section must be improved/revised – concisely state the issue(s) being addressed, gaps to be bridged and value to be added by this study
- Materials and Methods
Lines 86 and 87…. “The southern part of the city contains most of the rural properties that are important participants in the production of vegetables and ornamental plants for the city”.
- This section is very unclear. Kindly reformulate.
- What do the authors mean by ‘…contains most of the rural properties that are important participants’
Qualitative surveys on commercial UA
Lines 128 to 131… “The sample was determined by convenience, considering the farmers that were already received the technical assistance provided by the Connect the Dots Project and by the Ecological Agriculture Houses [16]”.
- Kindly reformulate the sentence to enhance clarity
- Provide some information on the data gathered under the quantitative surveys. (Which data sets were gathered and for what?)
Qualitative surveys on commercial and community UA
Commercial UA
- Reporting only the number of farmers interviewed under this section is not enough. Kindly, provide some information on the data gathered from the interview.
Community UA
Lines 154 and 155…. “Volunteers who worked for a long period in each garden were asked to answer a semistructured Google Forms questionnaire.”
- What were some of the issues/areas covered by the questionnaire?
General comments on section 2 (Materials and Methods)
- The section needs major revision (the section lacks coherence, is somewhat vague, needs more explanation and detailing)
- Results
Commercial UA
- It would be more appropriate for the authors to display/present the results reported in lines 158 to 172 in a Table for clarity
- Where in the results presentation do the authors make reference to ‘Figure 1”?
Line 187…. “Farmers were impacted differently by the pandemic, depending on the type of production on their properties and the access to sale channels. When asked about the impacts of the pandemic on their work, 34% reported no impact…….”
- Are these farmers different from the farmers in line 158? If so, state precisely who they are!
- For clarity, the authors should present a Table to reflect the results presented in lines 202 to 212
- One can hardly read the labels on the Y-axis in Figure 2.
- Where precisely in the manuscript do the authors make reference to Figure 2? You don’t just place a figure in a manuscript. It must be linked to at least a statement!
Qualitative surveys
Commercial UA
Lines 239 to 241…. “One of the farmers had sold his products on an informal basis in the streets of the northern part of the city was dramatically affected by the pandemic”
- This statement is meaningly!
Noncommercial UA
Lines 252 and 253…. “In 6/10 of the gardens, there were at least two volunteers working daily, and in 2/10 of them, there were five or more people.”
- Can’t the latter statement be merged with the first and the entire sentence simplified?
General comments on the results
The results are poorly presented and in a confusing manner!
- Conclusion
A poor conclusion to a poorly conducted study
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is purely informative, just the results of surveys. The clarity of presentation can be improved. There is a mistake in line 124 – not “forty eight” but “one hundred and forty eight”
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have appropriately revised the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
We are once again thankful for your suggestions that helped us improve the quality of the revised version of the paper. We reviewed the English language once again and hope to have enhanced the clarity and cohesion of the sentences.
