Multifunctional Vertical Farming Systems as a Basis for Transforming Urban Food Systems Amid Climate Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This articles provides an overview and three case examples for vertical urban farming with three models on intensity. It in title indicates an aim of addressing urban food systems, it more accurately seems to overview circularity of vertical farms and how they are an advanced UGS type for densification and limited land to use for urban greenery. The originality of the article could be better explained, the significance of the article is quite clear. The comments do lead to suggestions for improved communication of significance. There isn’t a clear conceptual framing other than circularity which must be the conceptual approach for analysis.

The terms vertical farming, vertical agriculture, urban agriculture and ua intensity are variably used and could be defined and more consistently used.
Specific comments:

2.1. Vertical farming

Explain level 1-5 of vertical farming as is referred to in discussion.
Vertical farming could here be diagrammed a general example. Then images of the three cases studied for this article.
The articled discussion brings the findings together very well.  The methods and introduction and findings require some further explanation and figures to ensure the discussion has adequate background.

2.2 Advantages of urban vertical farms (vertical agriculture)

Indent the listed benefits with or without bulletpoints.

figure 1. 
The authors could provide images of each case area, vo, as examples of vertical farms. The farm.one example isn’t clearly vertical from the description provided, and it could more clearly explain significant aspects of each farm.

3. Research.

3.1. Vertical farming as a model: the dimension of urban agriculture intensity.

This subheading indicates vertical farming as a ua intensity which leads to an expectation in meaning. It could be Vertical farming models: dimensions of intensity.

Line 224-225: include here the names of the archetypes.

Figure 2 is a very good figure, the text just needs to be normalised for each model. It does present intensive models as most frequently established or implemented in built up rather than densely populated by square metres of built environment. Is it correct.

line 268-278: The article could clearly explain vertical farming as compared to and as part of urban farming.

line 6-314: This bio waste subsection provides some more advanced examples. The authors could emphasise this about the three vertical farms selected, and or about the subsection examples.

Line 375: should or could emphasise the land use aspect of vertical farms for densification, and where every piece of land matters.

line 382-384: This article and subsection finds and suggests vertical farms as a more sustainable by multifunction urban green space type. It could conclude with this point, or introduce as the aim or result of the article.

Line 390-391 could be followed with a sentence for recommendation, as line 400-405 does.

5. Conclusions

The article aim could more clearly state that the three advanced examples of vertical farms presented, and assessed or overviewed are to be used for SDG 11and 12, and for sustainable urban development. That is, the conclusion could provide a paragraph specific to the three examples or cases of vertical farms summarising the aim of the article.

The conclusion could specify how the three examples selected support vertical farming as a technological innovation and systemic solution. The article, in conclusion or results could also emphasise originality, and overview how commonly vf are studied, implemented as proportion of urban farms, vertical greenery, and how many are as advanced examples. It would further support the significance of results, and conclusion. It could be specific to each city example, or more of an international or global overview.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #1

 

Thank you for your valuable comments that allowed us to improve the article. According to your’s suggestion we’ve changed:

 

Comment 1

„This articles provides an overview and three case examples for vertical urban farming with three models on intensity. It in title indicates an aim of addressing urban food systems, it more accurately seems to overview circularity of vertical farms and how they are an advanced UGS type for densification and limited land to use for urban greenery. The originality of the article could be better explained, the significance of the article is quite clear. The comments do lead to suggestions for improved communication of significance. There isn’t a clear conceptual framing other than circularity which must be the conceptual approach for analysis.”

Response 1

Tt has been corrected.
The article presents three models differentiated by intensity, as well as three examples of vertical farms which, incorrectly referred to as case studies in the original version, have now been corrected. These examples merely demonstrate that a multi-scalar approach is possible within the presented model. In reality, the article focuses more on the circularity of vertical farms and their role as an advanced type of urban green infrastructure (UGS), supporting urban densification processes and optimizing the use of limited space for urban greenery. In the revised version of the article, the introduction now clearly highlights the originality of the work and presents the conceptual frameworks applied

Comment 2

„2.1. Vertical farming 

„Explain level 1-5 of vertical farming as is referred to in discussion.
Vertical farming could here be diagrammed a general example. Then images of the three cases studied for this article.
The articled discussion brings the findings together very well.  The methods and introduction and findings require some further explanation and figures to ensure the discussion has adequate background.”

Response 2

It has been corrected.
In the discussion, the levels 1–5 of vertical farming have been explained, and it has been clarified how the multifunctional model fits within this framework. However, we do not believe there is a further need to analyze the three selected examples of vertical farms in greater depth, as they were included solely to illustrate the diversity of planning scales for vertical farms and to address the issue of multifunctionality. They are not intended to represent model or exemplary solutions, which was the authors’ primary focus. The order of the article’s sections has been revised, and the current title is now: 3.2 Vertical Farm Model: The Multiscale Dimension instead of Multifunctionality of Vertical Farming – Case Studies. Additionally, the introduction has been updated to explain the sequence of the research analyses.

Comment 3

„figure 1. 
The authors could provide images of each case area, vo, as examples of vertical farms. The farm.one example isn’t clearly vertical from the description provided, and it could more clearly explain significant aspects of each farm.”

Response 3

It has been revised.
Unfortunately, the authors do not have figures that can be published; however, we have provided explanations outlining the most important features of the three examples, in addition to the diagram..

Comment 4

„ 2.2 Advantages of urban vertical farms (vertical agriculture)

Indent the listed benefits with or without bulletpoints.”

Response 4

It has been revised.

Comment 5

„3. Research.

3.1. Vertical farming as a model: the dimension of urban agriculture intensity.

This subheading indicates vertical farming as a ua intensity which leads to an expectation in meaning. It could be Vertical farming models: dimensions of intensity.

Line 224-225: include here the names of the archetypes.”

Response 5

It has been revised.

Comment 6

„Figure 2 is a very good figure, the text just needs to be normalised for each model. It does present intensive models as most frequently established or implemented in built up rather than densely populated by square metres of built environment. Is it correct”

Response 6

We did not notice it being stated this way; we believe that the diagram clearly illustrates the models of intensity for vertical farms.

Comment 7

„line 268-278: The article could clearly explain vertical farming as compared to and as part of urban farming”\

Response 7

It has been revised, and we have corrected the title of the figure.

Comment 8

„line 6-314: This bio waste subsection provides some more advanced examples. The authors could emphasise this about the three vertical farms selected, and or about the subsection examples”

Response 8

The topic of waste has been included in the diagrams presenting the models of vertical farms; however, not all solutions are shown here, as this would result in repeating parts of the article. The authors plan to further develop this topic in future papers and to present model solutions at increasingly detailed scales.

Comment 9

„Line 375: should or could emphasise the land use aspect of vertical farms for densification, and where every piece of land matters”

Response 9

It has been revised

Comment 10

„line 382-384: This article and subsection finds and suggests vertical farms as a more sustainable by multifunction urban green space type. It could conclude with this point, or introduce as the aim or result of the article.

Line 390-391 could be followed with a sentence for recommendation, as line 400-405 does”

Response 10

New sections have been added to the article.

Comment 11

„5. Conclusions

The article aim could more clearly state that the three advanced examples of vertical farms presented, and assessed or overviewed are to be used for SDG 11and 12, and for sustainable urban development. That is, the conclusion could provide a paragraph specific to the three examples or cases of vertical farms summarising the aim of the article.

The conclusion could specify how the three examples selected support vertical farming as a technological innovation and systemic solution. The article, in conclusion or results could also emphasise originality, and overview how commonly vf are studied, implemented as proportion of urban farms, vertical greenery, and how many are as advanced examples. It would further support the significance of results, and conclusion. It could be specific to each city example, or more of an international or global overview”

Response 11

It has been revised and corrected.

 

Authors

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written and meaningful paper on vertical farming, with a clear structure and informative figures. However, several issues could be addressed to improve the quality:

1. In the introduction part, please introduce the main content and methodology of this study, and it would be better to directly point out the research contributions.
2. Sections 2.2 and 2.3, which discuss the advantage es and multifunctionality of vertical farms, respectively, contain some repetition. It is recommended to consolidate and streamline these two sections into a more cohesive narrative to improve the readability.
3. The case studies in Section 2.4 provide good examples but lack depth. The analysis would be significantly strengthened by the inclusion of more specific, empirical data. Furthermore, why select these three particular cases? The reasons should be explicitly stated to clarify their comparable.
4. The discussion section does not adequately address the research findings presented earlier.
5. The paper would benefit from a more critical perspective. While the advantages of vertical farming are thoroughly analyzed, its limitations, potential risks, and challenges are not enough to be talked (e.g., high energy demands, economic viability, technological reliance, social equity issues). It is essential to address these aspects to provide a balanced analysis and offer recommendations for mitigating these challenges.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #3

 

Thank you for your valuable comments that allowed us to improve the article. According to your’s suggestion we’ve changed:

Comment 1

1. In the introduction part, please introduce the main content and methodology of this study, and it would be better to directly point out the research contributions.

Answer 1

It has been revised and an explanation has been added both in the introduction of the article and in the conclusions, where the practical potential of such analyses for spatial planning has been further emphasized. According to the reviewer’s suggestion, the introductory and methodological sections of the article have been revised to clarify what is new in this paper and to present the overall conceptual framework. It has been emphasized that the novelty lies in the model of multi-scalar integration within the framework of circularity, as well as in the proposed typology of intensive, extensive, and dispersed systems. The authors have improved the clarity of the methodological approach and ensured a better balance between the conceptual discussion and the empirical evidence. The specific contribution of the study has been explained more transparently. The authors have indicated what is new in the publication, providing a more precise explanation of the structure of the multifunctional model of vertical farms and their integration into the urban environment, focusing mainly on the conceptual framework related to circularity.

Comment 2

2. Sections 2.2 and 2.3, which discuss the advantage es and multifunctionality of vertical farms, respectively, contain some repetition. It is recommended to consolidate and streamline these two sections into a more cohesive narrative to improve the readability.

Answer 2

Subsections 2.2 and 2.3 address slightly different issues. While Section 2.3 discusses the general conditions related to the multifunctionality of vertical farms, Subsection 2.2 focuses exclusively on the environmental and social benefits associated with vertical farms.

 

Comment 3

 

• The case studies in Section 2.4 provide good examples but lack depth. The analysis would be significantly strengthened by the inclusion of more specific, empirical data. Furthermore, why select these three particular cases? The reasons should be explicitly stated to clarify their comparable.

Response 3

The authors have revised this section of the article, which now allows for a better understanding of the proposed typology.

Comment 4

4. The discussion section does not adequately address the research findings presented earlier.

It has been revised.
The article additionally now presents limitations such as high energy demand, lifecycle trade-offs, and challenges related to socio-economic feasibility.

Comment 5

5. The paper would benefit from a more critical perspective. While the advantages of vertical farming are thoroughly analyzed, its limitations, potential risks, and challenges are not enough to be talked (e.g., high energy demands, economic viability, technological reliance, social equity issues). It is essential to address these aspects to provide a balanced analysis and offer recommendations for mitigating these challenges

Response 5

 

It has been revised.
The article now presents limitations such as high energy demand, lifecycle trade-offs, and challenges related to socio-economic feasibility. Additionally, each of the diagrams includes a section addressing the challenges and barriers associated with the wider development of vertical farms. In the conclusions, a section has been added, addressing governance and policy mechanisms. It outlines how municipalities, urban planners, and private stakeholders could realistically implement these vertical farming models, taking into account financial, regulatory, and social barriers, which indicates a pathway for the future development of applied research.

 

Authors

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written and timely manuscript that addresses the role of multifunctional vertical farming systems (VFS) in transforming urban food systems within the broader context of climate change and circular economy principles. The authors provide a thorough conceptual framework, drawing on literature, case studies, and comparative models across different urban planning scales. The topic is highly relevant to Sustainability’s readership, and the manuscript offers both theoretical and applied insights.

That said, there are several issues regarding clarity, methodological transparency, and balance between conceptual discussion and empirical evidence that should be addressed before publication.
The manuscript presents a broad scope that touches on climate change, food security, circular economy, and urban planning. While this breadth is valuable, the specific contribution of the paper is not always clear. The authors should state more explicitly what is new here—whether it lies in the multi-scale integration model, the circularity framework, or the typology of intensive, extensive, and dispersed systems. This would help sharpen the paper’s positioning within the existing body of literature.

The paper refers to a “comparative analysis” of three models, yet the criteria for this classification are not fully explained. Without a clear framework, the typology risks appearing subjective. Providing a transparent description of the categories used—such as scale, technology, costs, and social impacts—would add much-needed rigor and credibility to the analysis.

The case studies from Shanghai, Singapore, and New York are relevant and interesting, but the discussion remains largely descriptive. The manuscript would benefit from clearer connections between these examples and the proposed conceptual framework. Explicitly linking each case to the intensive, extensive, or dispersed models would allow readers to better understand how these examples inform the proposed typology.

The discussion of benefits is thorough, but the treatment of limitations is rather brief. High energy demands, lifecycle trade-offs, and socio-economic feasibility challenges are only mentioned in passing. A fuller engagement with these risks would present a more balanced picture and strengthen the credibility of the argument.

The conclusion emphasizes collaboration but pays little attention to governance and policy mechanisms. The analysis would be stronger if it addressed how municipalities, planners, and private stakeholders might realistically implement these models, considering financial, regulatory, and social barriers. This addition would connect the conceptual framework more directly to practical pathways for adoption.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #2

 

Thank you for your valuable comments that allowed us to improve the article. According to your’s suggestion we’ve changed:

 

Comment 1

„That said, there are several issues regarding clarity, methodological transparency, and balance between conceptual discussion and empirical evidence that should be addressed before publication.
The manuscript presents a broad scope that touches on climate change, food security, circular economy, and urban planning. While this breadth is valuable, the specific contribution of the paper is not always clear. The authors should state more explicitly what is new here—whether it lies in the multi-scale integration model, the circularity framework, or the typology of intensive, extensive, and dispersed systems. This would help sharpen the paper’s positioning within the existing body of literature.”

Response 1

According to the reviewer’s suggestion, the introductory and methodological sections of the article have been revised to clarify what is new in this paper and to present the overall conceptual framework. It has been emphasized that the novelty lies in the model of multi-scalar integration within the framework of circularity, as well as in the proposed typology of intensive, extensive, and dispersed systems.

Comment 2

The paper refers to a “comparative analysis” of three models, yet the criteria for this classification are not fully explained. Without a clear framework, the typology risks appearing subjective. Providing a transparent description of the categories used—such as scale, technology, costs, and social impacts—would add much-needed rigor and credibility to the analysis.

Response 2

The criteria for this classification have been explained within the multifunctional model in the form of three diagrams, which include criteria such as, among others, scale, Nature-Based Solutions, technologies, and also some challenges.

Comment 3

The case studies from Shanghai, Singapore, and New York are relevant and interesting, but the discussion remains largely descriptive. The manuscript would benefit from clearer connections between these examples and the proposed conceptual framework. Explicitly linking each case to the intensive, extensive, or dispersed models would allow readers to better understand how these examples inform the proposed typology.

Response 3

The authors have revised this section of the article, which now allows for a better understanding of the proposed typology.

Comment 4

„The discussion of benefits is thorough, but the treatment of limitations is rather brief. High energy demands, lifecycle trade-offs, and socio-economic feasibility challenges are only mentioned in passing. A fuller engagement with these risks would present a more balanced picture and strengthen the credibility of the argument.”

Response 4

It has been revised.
The article now presents limitations such as high energy demand, lifecycle trade-offs, and challenges related to socio-economic feasibility. Additionally, each of the diagrams includes a section addressing the challenges and barriers associated with the wider development of vertical farms.

Comment 5

„The conclusion emphasizes collaboration but pays little attention to governance and policy mechanisms. The analysis would be stronger if it addressed how municipalities, planners, and private stakeholders might realistically implement these models, considering financial, regulatory, and social barriers. This addition would connect the conceptual framework more directly to practical pathways for adoption.”

Response 5

In the conclusions, a section suggested by the reviewer has been added, addressing governance and policy mechanisms. It outlines how municipalities, urban planners, and private stakeholders could realistically implement these vertical farming models, taking into account financial, regulatory, and social barriers, which indicates a pathway for the future development of applied research.

 

 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been carefully revised overall, and its quality has been significantly improved. I still have minor suggestions. When introducing the literature review in section 2.2 "Advantages of Urban Vertical Farms (Vertical Agriculture)", I do not recommend presenting it in a list format. Instead, it should reflect the logical connections between different pieces of literature, and the classification can be more concentrated.

Author Response

Dear Reviwer,

 

Thank you for your valuable comments that allowed us to improve the article. According to suggestion of the Revierwers and Editors, we have revised paper and change it according to the suggestions

 

Comment 1

 

The paper has been carefully revised overall, and its quality has been significantly improved. I still have minor suggestions. When introducing the literature review in section 2.2 "Advantages of Urban Vertical Farms (Vertical Agriculture)", I do not recommend presenting it in a list format. Instead, it should reflect the logical connections between different pieces of literature, and the classification can be more concentrated.

 

Answer 1

 

The authors’ intention in this chapter was to present, in a condensed form, the advantages of vertical farming, additionally divided into environmental and social benefits. In doing so, the authors aimed to introduce readers to the topic of vertical farming and emphasize its significance, in order to justify the need for developing a model for this form of agriculture at various scales and levels of spatial planning. The multidimensional benefits and technologies related to vertical farms are discussed in more detail in the article cited by the authors – Zaręba, Krzemińska, and Kozik [74].

 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your effort,

I accept the manuscript in present form.

Author Response

Dear Reviwer,

 

Thank you for your valuable comments that allowed us to improve the article.

 

Authors