Care About Well-Being in the Urban Habitat—Family Allotment Gardens in Warsaw

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses an interesting issue in urban areas - allotment gardens. It discusses different aspects related to them and their social-benefits. The paper could be improved if the authors use more the research finding to base their arguments. This is sporadically done - so their arguments/results remain too general.

I am providing some suggestions to improve the text.

 

Thank you for the interesting paper and the research on FAGs. The paper is well-prepared and well-argued. I would like to suggest to the authors to consider the following issues: these will make the paper more straightforward.

- Avoid use of imprecise terms and replace vague words and phrases with specific and concrete language. For example, “quality of urban space for over a century” - greenspaces is a much longer concern; or “for improving the quality of housing” - the limitation to housing diminishes the benefits of greenspaces

- The authors also use different terms to indicate the residential area - place of residence, place of living, residential environment, residential neighbourhood, etc. Maybe it will be more consistent if the same term is always used when referring to the same place.

- Page 2 - Why to restrict the interest in well-being to sociologists and researchers. Greenspaces have long been recognised for their key role in urban environments, contributing to the well-being of residents and the overall health of cities. Different disciplines have tackled such issues, such as public health, landscape architecture, environmental psychology, and urban planning, to name a few.

- Maybe the authors should switch to the term “green infrastructure” - which encompass also allotment gardens or clarify the scope of “greenery”.

- “Researchers of the residential environment” seems a very imprecise, vague term. Also, it is not clear why this sentence starts with “In contrast” - in  contrast to what?

- Authors should review the use of the word “things.” In most of the cases, it seems to be not the appropriate term, at least on page 2 - among other things— and could be exchanged with “issues” - which is much more precise and used in literature.

- Pages 4 - 5 Stage 2 - it seems that some paragraphs are not formatted correctly. This makes difficult to follow the argumentation. Or maybe set the paragraphs under a heading.

- Maybe set the information about the sampling numbers (i.e. interviews, time, plots inventoried, etc.), in a table? It would be useful to have such information together at a glance.

- Page 6 there is the need of a better “bridge” between the first and second paragraphs. Paragraph 1 ends with the statement that it is difficult to define well-being at the place of residence—this discussion ends abruptly. Also, for 3.1 Features influencing the sense of well-being at the place of residence, it would be interesting to better know how the study in Warsaw defines this issue and how it is justified. As it could be a good “red ribbon” through the results.

- Figure 2 - is interesting and provides a good overview of features, but these are based on literature review. The study has captured some very interesting data in Warsaw; cannot these data be used to provide foundation/evidence for this issue?

- Page 15 - fruiting green is not a usual technical term - maybe fruit plants?

- In the section 3. Results and discussion a reader would expect more “facts” from the field research. The statements remain vague, and for statements such as “The analysis of the collected data revealed, ”…it would be good that “facts” are used to underpin the findings. They are in the appendices, but they are also needed to base the arguments. They should be short - such as in page 15 - [… turf element is the most prevalent (74% of plots in total) …] or more often from page 17 onwards.

- Page 16 - maybe “production of available food” is not the correct term? Should it not rather be organic or homegrown food?

- It would be good if something could be added about planning law in Poland regarding allotment gardens. Are FAG a kind of land use that can be ensured by planning frameworks and land use laws? This could clarify if the FAGs are a permanent land use and thus are secured in the future.

Author Response

Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for the insightful review. We have agreed with your comments and for this, there are multiple changes in the article to satisfy our ambition to improve the presentation of our research. 

Comment 1: “Avoid use of imprecise terms and replace vague words and phrases with specific and concrete language. For example, “quality of urban space for over a century” - greenspaces is a much longer concern; or “for improving the quality of housing” - the limitation to housing diminishes the benefits of greenspaces.”

Response 1: We have changed these expressions to be more appropriate.

Comment 2: “The authors also use different terms to indicate the residential area - place of residence, place of living, residential environment, residential neighbourhood, etc. Maybe it will be more consistent if the same term is always used when referring to the same place.”

Response 2: We have reviewed the article according to this issue. To be more consistent we have corrected the text with following principles: “place of living” is used when we write about any living space including e.g. leisure space in which allotment gardens may be included; “place of residence” is used only if we write about exact place of gardener’s home in relation to the distance to allotment garden; “residential environment” is a different term to describe general space of housing areas and it is used with reference to external research. 

Comment 3: “Page 2 - Why to restrict the interest in well-being to sociologists and researchers. Greenspaces have long been recognised for their key role in urban environments, contributing to the well-being of residents and the overall health of cities. Different disciplines have tackled such issues, such as public health, landscape architecture, environmental psychology, and urban planning, to name a few.”

Response 3: We agree and this is what we meant by using the phrase “researchers in the field of housing” which may encompass a lot of disciplines. As we give references to articles on the topic, disciplines of these researchers may be easily traced. 

Comment 4: “Maybe the authors should switch to the term “green infrastructure” - which encompass also allotment gardens or clarify the scope of “greenery”.”

Response 4: Thank you for this comment. We want to explain that the word “greenery” in the text is used several times in different contexts, and hardly ever in the meaning of “green infrastructure” which applies to systemic description of urban systems.

Comment 5: ““Researchers of the residential environment” seems a very imprecise, vague term. Also, it is not clear why this sentence starts with “In contrast” - in  contrast to what?”

Response 5: Saying “in contrast” we meant the contrast to a sociological perspective that is mentioned before in the same paragraph. We have rephrased the sentence for greater clarity. See also please response 3 for the issue of researchers’ disciplines.

Comment 6: “Authors should review the use of the word “things.” In most of the cases, it seems to be not the appropriate term, at least on page 2 - among other things— and could be exchanged with “issues” - which is much more precise and used in literature.”

Response 6: The word “things” was overused by us in fact. Thank You for pointing it out. We have changed the word “issues” where appropriate, e. g. page 2 lines 14, 20, page 20 lines 3, 24.

Comment 7: “Pages 4 - 5 Stage 2 - it seems that some paragraphs are not formatted correctly. This makes difficult to follow the argumentation. Or maybe set the paragraphs under a heading.”

Response 7: Formatting has been corrected.

Comment 8: “Maybe set the information about the sampling numbers (i.e. interviews, time, plots inventoried, etc.), in a table? It would be useful to have such information together at a glance.”

Response 8: We have condensed the information in the text in one place according to suggestions of two other Reviewers. A table would not be a more convenient way of presenting such diverse data.

Comment 9: “Page 6 there is the need of a better “bridge” between the first and second paragraphs. Paragraph 1 ends with the statement that it is difficult to define well-being at the place of residence—this discussion ends abruptly. Also, for 3.1 Features influencing the sense of well-being at the place of residence, it would be interesting to better know how the study in Warsaw defines this issue and how it is justified. As it could be a good “red ribbon” through the results.”

Comment 10: “Figure 2 - is interesting and provides a good overview of features, but these are based on literature review. The study has captured some very interesting data in Warsaw; cannot these data be used to provide foundation/evidence for this issue?”

Response 9 and 10:
- We have not found the quoted statement in the first paragraph on page 6.  Can we please be more specific as to which sentence you are referring to?

- Concerning Warsaw - the stage 1 of our research was designed to collect an objective set of features that describes the phenomenon of well-being as it is envisioned in literature. We wanted to avoid subjectivity that could arise out of the local perspective of Warsaw. The research in Warsaw was based on these findings, so we could not use later outcomes for the definition of the scope of research in stage 2.

Comment 11: “Page 15 - fruiting green is not a usual technical term - maybe fruit plants?”

Response 11: We have corrected the term.

Comment 12: “In the section 3. Results and discussion a reader would expect more “facts” from the field research. The statements remain vague, and for statements such as “The analysis of the collected data revealed, ”…it would be good that “facts” are used to underpin the findings. They are in the appendices, but they are also needed to base the arguments. They should be short - such as in page 15 - [… turf element is the most prevalent (74% of plots in total) …] or more often from page 17 onwards.”

Response 12: According to recommendations of two other Reviewers, we have splitted Section 3 into separated sections of Results and Discussion, so the text has been deeply elaborated. In general, we cannot expect similar data in sociological survey and technical inventory. Though, presented results are based on data. We have excluded selection of such data to Appendix, to keep the text of the article more compact. 

Comment 13: “Page 16 - maybe “production of available food” is not the correct term? Should it not rather be organic or homegrown food?”

Response 13: We have changed the term “production” to “self-production” to avoid misunderstandings and indicate that the food is produced for the individual need of gardeners.

Comment 14: “It would be good if something could be added about planning law in Poland regarding allotment gardens. Are FAG a kind of land use that can be ensured by planning frameworks and land use laws? This could clarify if the FAGs are a permanent land use and thus are secured in the future.”

Response 14: In the introduction we have introduced explanation about the complicated situation of legal reform, which may change the situation of FAGs. However we believe that it was just a background for our research so we should not include here a detailed description of a really complicated issue.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a comprehensive and in-depth study on the role of Family Allotment Gardens (FAGs) in enhancing the well-being of urban residents in Warsaw. The authors employ a mixed-methods approach, combining a systematic review of literature, large-scale qualitative interviews (in-depth interviews and focus group interviews), a site inventory, and advanced cluster analysis, making it methodologically very rigorous. The research is clearly structured with a strong line of argumentation, and its conclusions have significant theoretical and practical implications for the fields of urban planning, public health, and sustainable community development. The topic is novel and particularly timely, exploring the contemporary value of allotment gardens in the post-pandemic era and under pressures from urban development. Overall, this is a high-quality research paper with significant contributions. I recommend it for publication after minor revisions.

1. In the "Materials and Methods" section, the description of the interview sample could be clearer. The paper states that 149 IDIs were conducted, comprising 122 allotment holders and 27 experts. The subsequent description of the expert sample is somewhat dispersed. It is recommended to state directly and concisely who the "27 experts" consist of (e.g., "The 27-expert sample included 11 city gardeners, 2 employees of cultural institutions, 11 NGO activists, and 3 city officials" ) to avoid potential confusion for the reader.
2. The subjects of the Focus Group Interviews (FGIs) are a specific group (university students in the humanities and social sciences). This is an interesting design that can provide a unique perspective. It is suggested that the authors add a sentence in the Methods section to briefly justify the choice of this specific group and acknowledge that their views may not be representative of all non-gardeners in Warsaw. This would enhance the transparency of the research.
3. The "production of extraordinary food" is a very interesting and novel finding. The well-being matrix (Figure 4) already indicates that FAGs support this by providing opportunities to learn new, rare plants and gain skills, as well as offering freedom to choose the types of crops. It is recommended to expand on this concept in the main text of the discussion (e.g., in section 3.2 or 3.4), detailing its meaning and unique contribution to residents' well-being, as it reveals a less-obvious value of allotment gardens.
4. The conclusion section robustly summarizes the research findings. Consider adding a sentence or two to briefly elaborate on the policy implications of these findings for the Warsaw city authorities, especially in the context of the debate over pressures from urban development and the future planning of FAGs, and on how these research results can guide decision-making. This would further enhance the practical impact of the paper.

Author Response

General comment: “This paper presents a comprehensive and in-depth study on the role of Family Allotment Gardens (FAGs) in enhancing the well-being of urban residents in Warsaw. The authors employ a mixed-methods approach, combining a systematic review of literature, large-scale qualitative interviews (in-depth interviews and focus group interviews), a site inventory, and advanced cluster analysis, making it methodologically very rigorous. The research is clearly structured with a strong line of argumentation, and its conclusions have significant theoretical and practical implications for the fields of urban planning, public health, and sustainable community development. The topic is novel and particularly timely, exploring the contemporary value of allotment gardens in the post-pandemic era and under pressures from urban development. Overall, this is a high-quality research paper with significant contributions. I recommend it for publication after minor revisions.”

Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for the insightful review. We have agreed with all your comments and for this, there are multiple changes in the article to satisfy our ambition to improve the presentation of our research. According to recommendations of two other Reviewers, we have also splitted Section 3 into separated sections of Results and Discussion, so the text has been deeply elaborated.

Comment 1: “In the "Materials and Methods" section, the description of the interview sample could be clearer. The paper states that 149 IDIs were conducted, comprising 122 allotment holders and 27 experts. The subsequent description of the expert sample is somewhat dispersed. It is recommended to state directly and concisely who the "27 experts" consist of (e.g., "The 27-expert sample included 11 city gardeners, 2 employees of cultural institutions, 11 NGO activists, and 3 city officials" ) to avoid potential confusion for the reader.”

Response 1: We have simplified the list of respondents to avoid confusion we had done in the first place. The description has been also compacted in one place to avoid repetitions.

Comment 2: “The subjects of the Focus Group Interviews (FGIs) are a specific group (university students in the humanities and social sciences). This is an interesting design that can provide a unique perspective. It is suggested that the authors add a sentence in the Methods section to briefly justify the choice of this specific group and acknowledge that their views may not be representative of all non-gardeners in Warsaw. This would enhance the transparency of the research.”

Response 2: We have added information along with the response 1. We believe that the sociological background of students provided valuable input into results, because they professionally focus on the social side of the issue according to their speciality.

Comment 3: “The "production of extraordinary food" is a very interesting and novel finding. The well-being matrix (Figure 4) already indicates that FAGs support this by providing opportunities to learn new, rare plants and gain skills, as well as offering freedom to choose the types of crops. It is recommended to expand on this concept in the main text of the discussion (e.g., in section 3.2 or 3.4), detailing its meaning and unique contribution to residents' well-being, as it reveals a less-obvious value of allotment gardens.”

Response 3: We have expanded information on the topic of extraordinary food at the end of section 3.2.

Comment 4: “The conclusion section robustly summarizes the research findings. Consider adding a sentence or two to briefly elaborate on the policy implications of these findings for the Warsaw city authorities, especially in the context of the debate over pressures from urban development and the future planning of FAGs, and on how these research results can guide decision-making. This would further enhance the practical impact of the paper.”

Response 4: We have added some conclusions on the applied outcomes of the study at the end of the article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Definition of key concepts, such as well-being and sustainable cities, is necessary, as framing the context in which this research views them will greatly help outline the general viewpoints and research outcomes.

Comment on the feasibility of converting FAGs into land for residential development. Due to their relatively small footprint (2.6% of the city area), in the urban scale of Warsaw, would this change be at all doable? Conversely, how are FAGs currently designated in the city’s urban development plan?

What are the current mechanisms of care and maintenance of FAGs? Who is their owner?

When mentioning opinions of ‘gardeners’, what is their formal education? Horticultural engineers? Forestry engineers? Other related areas of study?

The same comment applies for ‘experts’: what fields are they in, and what qualifications do they possess to make relevant commentary about the research study in question?

Comment on the applicability of literature on the principles and standards of well-being in the residential environment in different cities, for vastly different global contexts.

What is the exact focus of researching FAGs’ potential? Social? Environmental? Urban?

A more comprehensive background on the development and change of FAG perception and legal status through the years, up to the point when this research was conducted, is necessary in order to have a clear picture of the developmental stages, issues, and potential of this particular space in the urban and social context of Warsaw.

Introducing the variable of ‘food production’ in its current form of elaboration fails to integrate meaningfully into the other presented points of interest of this research. If urban gardening and/or food production or food safety is the key argument, then it is necessary to prove that FAGs, in their current form, can sustain at least the population that has access to those spaces—some 1.7% of the total population of Warsaw, as noted. If this is proven to be a valid point of argument, the question remains: is this line of research and questioning feasible?

It is unclear whether the implementation of urban agriculture and production of various foodstuffs is intended as a supplementary or primary form of nutrition for residents who have access to FAGs.

Discussion on land ownership (Section 3.3.1. Accessibility) must be introduced much earlier in the manuscript, as it significantly reframes its legal status, development potential, and production ownership.

Section 4 is missing from the manuscript, and it is recommended that it becomes the Discussion section, as for this particular research, the structure would benefit greatly if the discussion is a standalone section. Restructure the narrative flow to critically address all the issues noted, as well as possible paths of their development and further academic research in this section.

Provide clear answers to the previously postulated research questions and hypothesis.

The entire manuscript would benefit greatly from an extensive editing process to ensure the uniformity of information and complexity of presented data, as currently, some sections are information-heavy (e.g., Section 3), while others lack precision and otherwise concise presentation.

Author Response

Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for the insightful review. We have agreed with almost all of your comments and for this, there are multiple changes in the article to satisfy our ambition to improve the presentation of our research.

 

Comment 1: “Definition of key concepts, such as well-being and sustainable cities, is necessary, as framing the context in which this research views them will greatly help outline the general viewpoints and research outcomes.”

Response 1: We have provided the definition of well-being at the beginning of the article. We decided not to mention the sustainability concept there anymore, as it is not the main topic of our article.

Comment 2: “Comment on the feasibility of converting FAGs into land for residential development. Due to their relatively small footprint (2.6% of the city area), in the urban scale of Warsaw, would this change be at all doable? Conversely, how are FAGs currently designated in the city’s urban development plan?”

Response 2: The situation has been described in the same paragraph just following the information about the extension of FAGs area in the city. The area is not huge but usually located close to the city center and equipped with infrastructure necessary for housing development. So yes, the change is highly probable and awaited by developers. The structure plan and local plans still protect land designation for FAGs. However the change of planning system and shortages of new legal regulations (limited content of the master plan) may lead to the loss of protection.

Comment 3: “What are the current mechanisms of care and maintenance of FAGs? Who is their owner?

Response 3: We have provided additional explanation in the Introduciton: FAGs operate on land belonging mainly to the State Treasury, local governments or the Polish Allotment Gardeners' Association (PZD), while allotment holders have the right to use the plots but do not own the land. The maintenance of the gardens is handled by the FAG management board, elected by the allotment holders, which takes care of the infrastructure, finance and order. Allotment holders are required to pay annual fees for the maintenance of the garden and to comply with the regulations.

Comment 4: “When mentioning opinions of ‘gardeners’, what is their formal education? Horticultural engineers? Forestry engineers? Other related areas of study?”

Response 4: When we write about the gardeners we refer to allotment gardeners - owners of allotment gardens, who usually are not agricultural experts but average citizens, gardening hobbyists. To satisfy your comment now we use the term “allotment gardeners” more consistently.

Comment 5: “The same comment applies for ‘experts’: what fields are they in, and what qualifications do they possess to make relevant commentary about the research study in question?”

Response 5: We have provided additional information in the Materials and Methods section, within the IDI and FGI methods description.

Comment 6: “Comment on the applicability of literature on the principles and standards of well-being in the residential environment in different cities, for vastly different global contexts.”

Response 6: The comment has been added in the Materials and Methods section, at the end of Stage 1 / READ approach description. We believe that it is always necessary to have a broader view on the topic and prepare a general framework for assessment of specific local situations that was the subject of our further investigation in Warsaw’s FAGs.

Comment 7: “What is the exact focus of researching FAGs’ potential? Social? Environmental? Urban?”

Response 7: Definitely we had a social focus in our research. We have added a sentence on this in the Introduction.

Comment 8: “A more comprehensive background on the development and change of FAG perception and legal status through the years, up to the point when this research was conducted, is necessary in order to have a clear picture of the developmental stages, issues, and potential of this particular space in the urban and social context of Warsaw.”

Response 8: The paragraph on the historical background has been expanded in the Introduction section.

Comment 9: “Introducing the variable of ‘food production’ in its current form of elaboration fails to integrate meaningfully into the other presented points of interest of this research. If urban gardening and/or food production or food safety is the key argument, then it is necessary to prove that FAGs, in their current form, can sustain at least the population that has access to those spaces—some 1.7% of the total population of Warsaw, as noted. If this is proven to be a valid point of argument, the question remains: is this line of research and questioning feasible? It is unclear whether the implementation of urban agriculture and production of various foodstuffs is intended as a supplementary or primary form of nutrition for residents who have access to FAGs.”

Response 9: We have changed the term “production” to “self-production” to avoid misunderstandings and indicate that the food is produced for the individual need of gardeners. This self-production was always seen as a supplementary source of food: reducing household expenditures, providing better quality and more sophisticated crops. However with no ambition to sustain the population of the city or even solely the community of gardeners.

Comment 10: “Discussion on land ownership (Section 3.3.1. Accessibility) must be introduced much earlier in the manuscript, as it significantly reframes its legal status, development potential, and production ownership.”

Response 10: We present results as these were collected during interviews - the way these issues are perceived by allotment gardeners and experts. Therefore we think it is appropriate to leave this information where it was presented.

Comment 11: “Section 4 is missing from the manuscript, and it is recommended that it becomes the Discussion section, as for this particular research, the structure would benefit greatly if the discussion is a standalone section. Restructure the narrative flow to critically address all the issues noted, as well as possible paths of their development and further academic research in this section.”

Response 11: According to your recommendation, we have splitted section 3 into separated sections of Results and Discussion, so the text has been deeply elaborated.

Comment 12: “Provide clear answers to the previously postulated research questions and hypothesis.”

Response 12: We have reviewed the article and, while we have elaborated Results and Discussion sections, to make the answers to research questions clearly presented.

Comment 13: “The entire manuscript would benefit greatly from an extensive editing process to ensure the uniformity of information and complexity of presented data, as currently, some sections are information-heavy (e.g., Section 3), while others lack precision and otherwise concise presentation.”

Response 13: We believe that after major revision and extensive change, we have achieved a proper balance between sections and more uniform narratives.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article deals with the greenery could influence the care and well-being in built environment making emphasis in a case study in Warsow. The article is well written and well structured which is really appreciated by busy reviewers like me. I have a few suggestions to improve your article:

1. keywords are highly specific and difficult to be founded in Google Scholar, this could undermine the visibility of this article. Please use a Thesaurus (UNESCO, etc.) or use the SEO guides https://www.carnegiehighered.com/blog/seo-basics-for-colleges-and-universities-how-to-perform-keyword-research/
2. Personally, I do not like the use of first person (we) in scientific articles. I prefer third person. However, I'll leave to the authors and the editor this minor issue.
3. Overall the abstract is ok, however the lines referring to the methodology are strange. In my understanding, the cluster analysis is part of the data processing which should be at the end of that paragraph. Please rewrite that paragraph following the timeline of your methodology: Qualitative analysis >> based on data collected from in-depth interviews, focus group interviews, the wellbeing matrix, and the Inventory of garden equipment >> data processing through cluster analysis, among others.
4. At the end of the abstract the authors mentioned the wellbeing matrix and an Inventory of garden equipment in FAG. That is part of the methodology and it should be better explained in the correspondent section and not in the end. See the comment above.
5. In the results of the abstract you mention "extraordinary food". What is that?
6. Introduction section is ok.
7. materials and methods are ok.
8. in the results the section 3.1 is part of the results of the literature review that gave the researchers the pathway to do the rest of the methods. However, judging in on how it was written it looks more like a part of the introduction (theoretical framework). I suggest to move this section as a new section of the introduction or move it to the methodology as being a step to prepare the instruments of the qualitative analysis. Nevertheless, if the authors want to keep it as a result, they must rewrite it as a result: more concise reducing paragraphs and more directly pointed to be independently considered as a product. Also, that literature review it could be an independent paper by itself because of its quality.
9. The following subsections in the results are way too long and they ate the space for the discussion. These subsections needed to be rewritten to be concise and being straight to the point to response the research questions. It is not a problem of the research quality, is a problem of the article's sections balance. However, the overall quality of the results is so good, that maybe authors should consider write this version as a shorter article showing some results and leaving the rest for another article.
10. I need a discussion section.
11. conclusions are ok

Author Response

Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for the insightful review. We have agreed with all your comments and for this, there are multiple changes in the article to satisfy our ambition to improve the presentation of our research. 

Comment 1: ‘keywords are highly specific and difficult to be founded in Google Scholar, this could undermine the visibility of this article. Please use a Thesaurus (UNESCO, etc.) or use the SEO guides”

Response 1: We have revised the list of keywords and made some adjustments which provide more search opportunities.

 

Comment 2: “Personally, I do not like the use of first person (we) in scientific articles. I prefer third person. However, I'll leave to the authors and the editor this minor issue.”

Response 2: We agree that the first person is less official and typically avoided in scientific articles. Nonetheless, we have decided not to change the narratives. As we have a lot of references to opinions and research of external authors we would like to avoid misunderstanding by calling ourselves also the authors.

Comment 3: “Overall the abstract is ok, however the lines referring to the methodology are strange. In my understanding, the cluster analysis is part of the data processing which should be at the end of that paragraph. Please rewrite that paragraph following the timeline of your methodology: Qualitative analysis >> based on data collected from in-depth interviews, focus group interviews, the wellbeing matrix, and the Inventory of garden equipment >> data processing through cluster analysis, among others.”

Comment 4: “At the end of the abstract the authors mentioned the wellbeing matrix and an Inventory of garden equipment in FAG. That is part of the methodology and it should be better explained in the correspondent section and not in the end. See the comment above.”

Response 3 and 4: The abstract has been reordered according to suggestions.

Comment 5: “In the results of the abstract you mention "extraordinary food". What is that?”

Response 5: By extraordinary food we understand unusual varieties and species of crops, which cannot be bought in the shops because they are not very popular, in the past cultivated by their great-grandparents, thus preserving tradition and a sense of connection with previous generations (parsnips, rutabagas, Jerusalem artichokes, rare apple tree varieties, etc.). There are also interesting new and unusual varieties such as multicolored carrots, stem lettuce and various herbs. We have added this explanation at the end of section 3.2.

Comment 8: “in the results the section 3.1 is part of the results of the literature review that gave the researchers the pathway to do the rest of the methods. However, judging in on how it was written it looks more like a part of the introduction (theoretical framework). I suggest to move this section as a new section of the introduction or move it to the methodology as being a step to prepare the instruments of the qualitative analysis. Nevertheless, if the authors want to keep it as a result, they must rewrite it as a result: more concise reducing paragraphs and more directly pointed to be independently considered as a product. Also, that literature review it could be an independent paper by itself because of its quality.”

Response 8: As we have explained in the Materials and Methods section, literature review was our first stage of research. Thus we have decided to present the outcome in the Results section and we would like to keep it here. However we made the effort to limit our presentation to direct results without literature review.

Comment 9: “The following subsections in the results are way too long and they ate the space for the discussion. These subsections needed to be rewritten to be concise and being straight to the point to response the research questions. It is not a problem of the research quality, is a problem of the article's sections balance. However, the overall quality of the results is so good, that maybe authors should consider write this version as a shorter article showing some results and leaving the rest for another article.”

Response 9: The Results section has been significantly shortened. However we do not want to compromise on the article content, so we have decided not to divide it in two separate presentations.

Comment 10: “I need a discussion section.”

Response 10: According to your recommendation, we have splitted section 3 into separated sections of Results and Discussion, so the text has been deeply elaborated.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors have made a major step towards improving their manuscript and ought to be commended for their efforts.

In order for this text to be considered for publication, an additional round of revisions is necessary to provide further clarity and a more coherent presentation of the theoretical aspects, arguments, research findings, and discussion.

The Abstract must be reworked to clearly and concisely explain the main research focus, questions, and findings. The keywords must reflect key aspects of the paper. For example, “community building,” as a concept, has not been sufficiently explored, yet it is currently presented as the lynchpin of the research.

Explicitly defining the research questions and hypotheses, and providing clear answers to these inquiries, will greatly help the Authors achieve clarity in argumentation and in the presentation of findings. At present, the narration and introduction of various terms relevant to the research meanders without providing a clear line of inquiry.

A well-defined line of inquiry will be highly beneficial, as it will give the reader a clear understanding of the investigation and will help the Authors be more selective in how and which concepts are introduced, thereby strengthening their arguments.

Rethinking the following will give the Authors clarity in their revisions: What is the main identified line of inquiry, and how was it developed? What are the expected research outcomes and hypotheses? What are the concrete answers to the posed inquiries i.e. have the hypotheses been confirmed or refuted? Finally, what recommendations for further inquiries (critical overview) can be drawn?

Providing a more structured approach to building the manuscript, with supporting argumentation, will greatly improve the overall quality, readability, and coherence of the presentation.

Lastly, the manuscript draft must be presented adequately for review, meaning that only the revised text should be submitted. A file containing all discarded material (e.g., with strikethroughs) makes the manuscript difficult to review effectively.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Utilizing professional proofreading and editing services for an academic publication is highly encouraged, as the text currently requires improvement in grammar, syntax, vocabulary, and idiomatic expression in order to fully reflect the complexity of the topics presented.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: The Authors have made a major step towards improving their manuscript and ought to be commended for their efforts. In order for this text to be considered for publication, an additional round of revisions is necessary to provide further clarity and a more coherent presentation of the theoretical aspects, arguments, research findings, and discussion.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing this out. Indeed, during the editing process, the text lost some of its clarity. The text has been shortened, corrected, and unnecessary threads have been removed.

Comment 2: The Abstract must be reworked to clearly and concisely explain the main research focus, questions, and findings. The keywords must reflect key aspects of the paper. For example, “community building,” as a concept, has not been sufficiently explored, yet it is currently presented as the lynchpin of the research.

Response 2:The abstract and keywords have been thoroughly revised and amended.

Comment 3: Explicitly defining the research questions and hypotheses, and providing clear answers to these inquiries, will greatly help the Authors achieve clarity in argumentation and in the presentation of findings. At present, the narration and introduction of various terms relevant to the research meanders without providing a clear line of inquiry. A well-defined line of inquiry will be highly beneficial, as it will give the reader a clear understanding of the investigation and will help the Authors be more selective in how and which concepts are introduced, thereby strengthening their arguments. Rethinking the following will give the Authors clarity in their revisions: What is the main identified line of inquiry, and how was it developed? What are the expected research outcomes and hypotheses? What are the concrete answers to the posed inquiries i.e. have the hypotheses been confirmed or refuted? Finally, what recommendations for further inquiries (critical overview) can be drawn? Providing a more structured approach to building the manuscript, with supporting argumentation, will greatly improve the overall quality, readability, and coherence of the presentation.

Response 3: The introductory text has been corrected, and we have also made corrections in other parts of the manuscript. Recommendations for further inquiries have been included in the conclusions. The research design scheme in Figure 1 has been corrected to provide greater clarity.

Comment 4: Lastly, the manuscript draft must be presented adequately for review, meaning that only the revised text should be submitted. A file containing all discarded material (e.g., with strikethroughs) makes the manuscript difficult to review effectively.

Response 4: We apologise for the inconvenience. We have uploaded two files to the MDPI system: a .docx file with visible changes and a .pdf file with the revised version only. There must have been a mistake. This time, we are only uploading the revised version, and the version with corrections is available from us upon request from reviewers. The current versions of the figures are in the text.

            The English was also improved to convey the research more clearly.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for taking my comments to improve your article that deals with the well-being in the urban habitat in Warsaw. The article is scientifically robust. Also, it has a good methodology that it was well explained to the readers, specially to international readers, which I appreciated.

However there are still issues to be tackled before publication. 

Now that the authors have moving sections of the article and incorporated a discussion section, they need to synthesise the text and reduce the pages (34). It was a long text to read and keeping the attention was too hard sometimes. Authors need to focus on the main objetive of the article which is "to determine the contemporary needs of allotment gardeners and the benefits they achieve from city allotment gardens, in light of scientific knowledge and expert opinions". The rest needs to be removed mercilessly with the help of an editor or any IA. They use as many concepts and theories as they wanted and that is confusing for the readers sometimes.

The references in the text and the bibliography changed and need to be formatted following this Journal standards.

The figures changed and some were deleted so that need to be reviewed carefully to keep the coherence in the text.

There are some typos over the text, that needs to be fixed.

Thanks for explaining me the meaning of extraordinary food!

Author Response

Comment 1:Thanks for taking my comments to improve your article that deals with the well-being in the urban habitat in Warsaw. The article is scientifically robust. Also, it has a good methodology that it was well explained to the readers, specially to international readers, which I appreciated.

Response 1: Thank you very much, we have made every effort to ensure that the article is easy to read.

However there are still issues to be tackled before publication.

Comment 2: Now that the authors have moving sections of the article and incorporated a discussion section, they need to synthesise the text and reduce the pages (34). It was a long text to read and keeping the attention was too hard sometimes. Authors need to focus on the main objetive of the article which is "to determine the contemporary needs of allotment gardeners and the benefits they achieve from city allotment gardens, in light of scientific knowledge and expert opinions". The rest needs to be removed mercilessly with the help of an editor or any IA. They use as many concepts and theories as they wanted and that is confusing for the readers sometimes.

Response 2: Thank you very much for pointing this out. The aim of the research was emphasised in the Introduction. Whole the text has been shortened, corrected, and unnecessary threads have been removed.

Comment 3:The references in the text and the bibliography changed and need to be formatted following this Journal standards. The figures changed and some were deleted so that need to be reviewed carefully to keep the coherence in the text. There are some typos in the text that need to be fixed.

Response 3: The references in the text and the bibliography were checked and corrected, as well as the position and citation of the figures..

Comment 4:Thanks for explaining me the meaning of extraordinary food!

Response 4: Thank you for giving us information on the necessity of correction.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors ought to be commended for their efforts, as their manuscript, after two rounds of refinements, presents compelling research that will doubtlessly add value to the ongoing interdisciplinary discussion on the interplay of well-being and its supporting spatial and social structures.