Drivers and Barriers for Edible Streets: A Case Study in Oxford, UK

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article attempts to explore the drivers and barriers of implementing “Edible Streets” as a community-led urban food growing initiative, particularly focusing on the integration of edible plants into street verges and footpaths in Oxford. The topic is highly relevant and timely, especially in the context of urban sustainability and community resilience. The findings could potentially contribute valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners aiming to enhance local food systems and promote community engagement. However, I have the following comments that hopefully help the authors improve the paper:

1. Introduction section

The Introduction section lacks a comprehensive review and synthesis of existing literature, and it fails to articulate the contributions and significance of the study. I suggest that the authors conduct a comparative analysis with relevant published articles to better refine the study’s innovations and clearly identify 2–3 key contributions that are unique to this paper.

2. Methodology section

(1) Sample Size and Representativeness: The data collection included 17 in person interviews and 18 online surveys with residents. While this sample size provides some insights, it may not be sufficient to fully represent the entire community. Please provide more information about the community’s size and population to help assess the representativeness of your sample. Additionally, it would be helpful to know the proportion of participants (residents, policymakers, etc.) relative to the overall community to better understand the robustness and reliability of your findings.

(2) Interview Format: It is unclear whether the in-person interviews were conducted one-on-one or in groups. This detail is important as it affects the comprehensiveness of the interview data. Please specify the interview format and address how it may influence the results. Additionally, the potential for personal bias in the transcription and interpretation of interview records should be acknowledged and mitigated. Please describe the process of interview record transcription and any steps taken to ensure objectivity. 

(3) Data Presentation: The manuscript mentions that Table 1 shows the participant numbering against the type of participant and method for data collection. However, this information is not clearly presented in the table. Please revise Table 1 to include the number of participants for each type and data collection method.

(4) Survey Design: The design and structure of the survey questionnaire are not discussed. A well-designed and validated questionnaire is essential for obtaining reliable data. Please provide the complete survey questionnaire in an appendix and explain its design and validation process.

(5) Theory of Change Model: Figure 1, which presents the Theory of Change Model, is of poor quality and difficult to read. Please improve the clarity and layout of the figure to ensure it is easily understandable. Additionally, a detailed textual description of the Theory of Change Model is necessary. Please explain the core ideas of the model, how it supports the research, and its specific application in this study.

(6) Figure and Table Placement: The order of figures and tables should follow the sequence in which they are mentioned in the text to enhance readability. Please reorganize the placement of Figure 1 and Table 1 accordingly.

(7) Workshop Dynamics: The manuscript mentions workshops with 21 participants divided into three groups. While this approach is valuable for gathering insights, it is important to acknowledge that group discussions can sometimes be influenced by the first or dominant speakers, potentially limiting the comprehensiveness of the results. Please consider addressing this potential limitation and how it might affect the identification of barriers and drivers.

3. Results section

(1) Survey Methodology: 

The study initially appeared to differentiate between residents and policymakers by employing questionnaires/interviews for the former and workshops for the latter, which seemed promising for exploring drivers and barriers from distinct perspectives. However, upon closer examination, it became evident that the analysis was ultimately conducted in a generalized, qualitative manner. There are several methodological issues that should be addressed:

Firstly, the study assigned identification numbers to residents but failed to do so for the 21 policymakers who participated in the three workshops. This omission inadvertently assigns differential weight to the two groups of respondents, which is problematic as it may skew the overall analysis. Without consistent identification and weighting, the data from these two distinct groups cannot be reliably integrated or compared.

Secondly, the conclusions drawn from one-on-one interviews and group workshops are inherently different. Group workshops, in particular, are susceptible to mutual influence among participants, which can compromise the comprehensiveness and objectivity of the findings. Given that the study combines these two types of data in a qualitative analysis, it is essential to ensure consistency in the research methods and data identification. If the authors intend to integrate the data from residents and policymakers, they should consider using the same research approach and assign identification numbers to all participants to maintain methodological rigor and comparability.

In summary, the study's current approach to data collection and analysis may undermine the validity and reliability of the findings. I suggest the authors address these methodological inconsistencies to enhance the robustness of the research.

(2) Participant Numbering: There appears to be an inconsistency between the number of participants mentioned in the methodology (17 in-person and 18 online surveys) and the 36 participant numbers mentioned later. Please clarify this discrepancy.

(3) Model Application: The use of the COM-B model is not adequately explained or demonstrated. The current presentation seems somewhat superficial and lacks coherence. Please provide a more detailed description of the model and how it was applied in your study.

(4) Quantitative Analysis: The manuscript does not rank the importance of the identified drivers and barriers, nor does it include any quantitative analysis. Incorporating demographic data (e.g., age, gender) to analyze differences in perceptions among various groups would strengthen the study. Please consider adding a quantitative component to your analysis.

4. Discussion section

(1) Section Relationship: The relationship between Part III and Part IV is unclear. The fourth part seems to reiterate some points from the third part without providing a clear distinction in their roles. Please clearly define the purpose and content of each section to improve the logical flow and readability of the manuscript.

(2) Research Significance: The discussion of research significance in Section 4.1 focuses more on the general benefits of “Edible Streets” rather than the specific contributions of this study. Please reframe this section to highlight the unique insights and implications of your research.

(3) Framework Interpretation: The application of the COM-B model in Figure 4 is not sufficiently discussed. Please provide a detailed explanation of how the model was used to analyze the data and what insights were derived from it.

5. Overall Recommendations

To enhance the logic, quality, and credibility of your manuscript, I recommend the following steps. (1) Standardize Survey Methods: Ensure consistency in data collection methods and provide clear justification for any differences. (2) Enhance Analysis and Discussion: Conduct a more detailed analysis, including quantitative assessments and demographic comparisons. Clearly explain the application of theoretical frameworks and their relevance to the study. (3) Clarify Section Content: Define the purpose and content of each section more clearly to improve the logical flow and readability of the manuscript. (4) Improve Data Presentation: Revise tables and figures to ensure clarity and accuracy. Provide detailed descriptions of theoretical models and frameworks. (5) Articulate Innovation and Significance: Clearly state the innovation points and research significance, emphasizing how this study adds value to the existing literature.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting study,which not only introduced Edible Streets as a distinct but also scalable model of community-led urban food growing, specifically investigating the drivers and barriers to the initiative. Some effective methods were used to conduct research.The overall logic of the manuscript writing is good, but some sections, especially the research methodology section, I have some questions after reading.It need further clarity.Based on the above comments, some necessary revisions prior to publication need to be made.

Methodology:

The number of residents chosen for interviews was 36, which is statistically significant, but in terms of the study itself, could the number have been expanded in order to increase the precision of the research.

What were the specific ways in which the interviews were recruited? Were participants comprehensive?What is the basic condition of the streets in the neighborhoods studied? Is there enough space to implement the program?What kind of space is suitable for implementation?

Others:

The diagram in the manuscript is not clear enough.The clear figure need to be provided. 

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please check the review in the  file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your careful revision and thoughtful response to the first-round comments. The manuscript has been improved in several respects, particularly in terms of logical structure and conceptual clarity. After reviewing the revised version, I have the following suggestions for further improvement:

1. Since the main aim of this paper is to understand the drivers and barriers within the target population, I recommend summarizing which respondents mentioned each driver and barrier in a consolidated table rather than illustrating them through examples in the text. This approach would present the findings more clearly, highlight the relative importance of each factor, and strengthen the study’s marginal contribution.
2. In the first-round review, the comment “Data Presentation: The manuscript mentions that Table 1 shows the participant numbering against the type of participant and method for data collection. However, this information is not clearly presented in the table.” appears to indicate that the numbering and references to tables and figures in the text do not align consistently with those in the tables themselves. Please carefully verify that all table and figure citations in the manuscript correspond accurately to their content and numbering.
3. The manuscript contains inconsistencies in heading formatting. For example, there are two sections labeled as 2.1. Please review the entire document carefully to ensure that all headings are correctly numbered and consistently formatted.

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviews took into account

Author Response

Thank you for your review.