Benefits and Support of Urban Horticulture, Its Relationship with the Environment, and Needs and Trends in Studies in Cities of Šibenik and Split (Croatia), Mostar (Bosnia and Herzegovina), and Skopje (North Macedonia)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your paper is highly interesting from the perspective of the scientific community concerned with Urban horticulture which is a part of urban agriculture and includes various forms such as home gardens, community gardens, allotment farming, community-supported agriculture, and vertical farming. The applied methods and overall research approach are relevant, and the presentation of the results is appropriate. However, I would like to offer several suggestions for improving the overall quality of the manuscript, which I will provide in the following text.

 

Detailed comments:

 - The abstract is written in great detail, yet it concisely describes the research, methods, and obtained results. However, what is missing from the abstract, and should be included in a shortened version of the paper, is the objectives, which can be divided into general and specific aims. For this reason, I kindly ask you to supplement the abstract with the objectives of your work. This way, that part of the manuscript would be clarified and gain significance, providing readers with an opportunity to understand the essence of the research through the abstract..

- Please replace the keywords, or the terms that constitute them, which overlap with the terms in the title of the paper, with different ones. It is not common practice for keywords to match words used in the title, so they should be substituted with words of the same or similar meaning. These are the following words: urban horticulture, benefits, environment and Croatia

-The introduction is rather scattered and disconnected. I encourage you to expand the segments, or the short paragraphs, that you have written in the introduction with additional explanations and to link them into a coherent whole. To do this effectively, it is necessary to define the objectives of the paper, which should be highlighted at the end of the introduction chapter.

- In lines 76–78, you refer to different categories of green spaces. This section of the text is rather brief and poorly written, so I kindly ask you to rephrase, expand, and connect it with the rest of the introduction. Additionally, it is necessary to link the mentioned categories of greenery to their significance in the perception of the surveyed citizens.

 - In lines 107 to 115, you describe the current situation regarding urban horticulture in Croatia, North Macedonia, and Mostar, which is located in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The way these comments are presented is not appropriate, as they do not sufficiently illuminate the state and perception of horticulture in these countries. Additionally, in lines 113–115, you state the aim of the study in a very simplistic manner, which is not suitable for a scientific research paper as it is overly simplified. Please revise, expand, and rephrase the section corresponding to these lines to complete the introductory chapter and clearly highlight the main objectives of the study.

 -Figure 1 is not adequate for the Materials and Methods chapter. Please, in subsection 2.1.1. Urban Horticulture in the Area of City Šibenik, present the research area, that is, the city of Šibenik and its suburban settlements where your study was conducted, in the form of a map with coordinates. This comment also applies to all other research areas and Figures 2, 3 and 4. Photographs currently included in the text can also remain within the folders.

-In lines 2017 to 222, you provide information with local street names. Therefore, if you wish to keep this text as it is, please support it with a map that includes the exact locations of the sites you mention, as well as the broader and narrower context.

-Please correct the capitalization in Table 1 to comply with the guidelines for writing the paper, specifically the table within the text.

 -I suggest that Table 2 be included in the appendix or the supplementary materials.

-Please add a section in the conclusions addressing the limitations of the research, as well as a part on the practical applications of your results.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we thank you for your extremely useful comments and recommendations for improving the work. In this letter, we provide you with additional explanations and instructions. The corrected and newly added text and figures in the work are marked in red. Below, we provide responses to your inquiries.

Comments 1: The abstract is written in great detail, yet it concisely describes the research, methods, and obtained results. However, what is missing from the abstract, and should be included in a shortened version of the paper, is the objectives, which can be divided into general and specific aims. For this reason, I kindly ask you to supplement the abstract with the objectives of your work. This way, that part of the manuscript would be clarified and gain significance, providing readers with an opportunity to understand the essence of the research through the abstract.

Response 1: The abstract is supplemented with general and specific objectives.

Comments 2: Please replace the keywords, or the terms that constitute them, which overlap with the terms in the title of the paper, with different ones. It is not common practice for keywords to match words used in the title, so they should be substituted with words of the same or similar meaning. These are the following words: urban horticulture, benefits, environment and Croatia.

Response 3: The keywords you suggested have been added. Instead of the last word Croatia, we considered it more acceptable to include the names of the cities from the research.

Comments 3: The introduction is rather scattered and disconnected. I encourage you to expand the segments, or the short paragraphs, that you have written in the introduction with additional explanations and to link them into a coherent whole. To do this effectively, it is necessary to define the objectives of the paper, which should be highlighted at the end of the introduction chapter.   Response 3: The requested information has been added and marked in red in the Introduction. A brief overview of the state of urban horticulture in all three countries is provided. Comments 4: In lines 76–78, you refer to different categories of green spaces. This section of the text is rather brief and poorly written, so I kindly ask you to rephrase, expand, and connect it with the rest of the introduction. Additionally, it is necessary to link the mentioned categories of greenery to their significance in the perception of the surveyed citizens.   Response 4: This section has been removed so as not to confuse readers, as the paper deals exclusively with urban agriculture without any impact on landscape design and the typology of landscape areas.   Comments 5: In lines 107 to 115, you describe the current situation regarding urban horticulture in Croatia, North Macedonia, and Mostar, which is located in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The way these comments are presented is not appropriate, as they do not sufficiently illuminate the state and perception of horticulture in these countries. Additionally, in lines 113–115, you state the aim of the study in a very simplistic manner, which is not suitable for a scientific research paper as it is overly simplified. Please revise, expand, and rephrase the section corresponding to these lines to complete the introductory chapter and clearly highlight the main objectives of the study.   Response 5: This section is expanded in the introductory part, but I must note that this is a fairly new scientific discipline in our country, and the area of ​​research in our countries is bulky, unexplored and heterogeneous, so works with an analytical approach on the subject are still insufficient.   Comments 6: Figure 1 is not adequate for the Materials and Methods chapter. Please, in subsection 2.1.1. Urban Horticulture in the Area of City Šibenik, present the research area, that is, the city of Šibenik and its suburban settlements where your study was conducted, in the form of a map with coordinates. This comment also applies to all other research areas and Figures 2, 3 and 4. Photographs currently included in the text can also remain within the folders. -In lines 2017 to 222, you provide information with local street names. Therefore, if you wish to keep this text as it is, please support it with a map that includes the exact locations of the sites you mention, as well as the broader and narrower context.   Response 6: We have added maps for all cities with urban horticulture sites.   Comments 7: Please correct the capitalization in Table 1 to comply with the guidelines for writing the paper, specifically the table within the text.   Response 7: Corrected.   Comments 8: I suggest that Table 2 be included in the appendix or the supplementary materials.   Response 8: We have left Table 2 in the text because we believe that it still does not burden the paper, and the cited papers within the table serve as an additional comparison of the results. The second reviewer did not request the above.   Comments 9: Please add a section in the conclusions addressing the limitations of the research, as well as a part on the practical applications of your results.   Response 9: We have added what was requested at the end of the Results with discussion and in the Conclusion and marked it in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comment:

The paper addresses a very interesting research topic, that is, benefits and support of urban horticulture. Although it has a coherent structure, it is not based on a solid literature review, as well as it fails to identify the gap found in the literature and to reveal how this same gap is addressed in the scope of the current research. Moreover, it is considered fundamental to introduce a discussion about the costs efficiency concerning smart irrigation systems and circularity. Adding to previous, there is room for further improvement and refinement of a new section on literature review and research hypotheses, and for expanding the concluding remarks section by adding implications, limitations and guidelines for future research.

 

Specific comments:

In order to increase the global quality of the manuscript, it is recommended to consider the following recommendations:

1. In the introductory item, it is recommended to include a final paragraph with the rationale and structure of the research article.
2. There is a need for creating a new section: ‘2. Theoretical framework and research hypotheses’.
3. The literature review should address the importance od adopting smart irrigation solutions, for efficiency purposes. For one example of application, please refer to: DOI: 10.3390/su15086875.
4. A clear justification about the criteria used for selecting these case studies, should be made available.
5. The layout of Table 1 needs to be improved.
6. The sources of Tables need to be provided.
7. There is a need for creating a new section promoting the discussion of the findings, in light of the research hypotheses, taking into consideration the previous evidence.
8. In the concluding remarks, it is required to provide policy and managerial implications, as well as the limitations of the analysis and guidelines for future research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Author(s)

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Kind regards,

Author Response

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors The paper addresses a very interesting research topic, that is, benefits and support of urban horticulture. Although it has a coherent structure, it is not based on a solid literature review, as well as it fails to identify the gap found in the literature and to reveal how this same gap is addressed in the scope of the current research. Moreover, it is considered fundamental to introduce a discussion about the costs efficiency concerning smart irrigation systems and circularity. Adding to previous, there is room for further improvement and refinement of a new section on literature review and research hypotheses, and for expanding the concluding remarks section by adding implications, limitations and guidelines for future research.     Specific comments:   In order to increase the global quality of the manuscript, it is recommended to consider the following recommendations:

Comments 1: In the introductory item, it is recommended to include a final paragraph with the rationale and structure of the research article.

Response 1: Corrected

Comments 2: There is a need for creating a new section: ‘2. Theoretical framework and research hypotheses’.

Response 2: We created the work in a slightly different methodological way. It has a theoretical-empirical character and is divided into three segments: Theoretical part, Methodological part which includes methods, techniques, hypothesis instruments (that you mention) and selection of statistical procedures and Analysis, interpretation and discussion of research results.

Comments 3: The literature review should address the importance od adopting smart irrigation solutions, for efficiency purposes. For one example of application, please refer to: DOI: 10.3390/su15086875.   Response 3: Thank you for this suggestion. The work is based more on examining citizens' attitudes about urban horticulture, but in our future works, which would be strictly related to strategies, we would also include this suggestion of yours. Comments 4: A clear justification about the criteria used for selecting these case studies, should be made available.   Response 4: Thank you for this suggestion. Since this topic is poorly researched in the Balkans, the sources that were available were used. There are very few papers that include a statistical or empirical approach, so for this reason we can write that this particular paper could in the future be a criterion for selecting studies in the Balkans, and of course also in other parts if future authors use the comparative method.   Comments 5: The layout of Table 1 needs to be improved.   Response 5: Corrected.   Comments 6: The sources of Tables need to be provided.   Response 6: The tables were created by the authors of our paper. Comments 7: There is a need for creating a new section promoting the discussion of the findings, in light of the research hypotheses, taking into consideration the previous evidence.   Response 7: As we wrote, this work is a novelty in this field in this research area of ​​the Balkans, so we put suggestions for future research in the discussion at the conclusion.   Comments 8: In the concluding remarks, it is required to provide policy and managerial implications, as well as the limitations of the analysis and guidelines for future research.   Response 8: Corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting article that addresses urban horticulture in four Balkan cities, highlighting its ecological and social relevance in the post-pandemic context, with a valuable and probably underexplored contribution in the literature - the regional comparative approach and the integration of empirical data into a historical context. However, the contribution is more descriptive than analytical, and the image presented is predominantly local/regional, limited in terms of generalization.

In the following paragraphs, I would like to offer several observations and suggestions for improving the quality of the manuscript:

Regarding content:

The literature is extensive but somewhat uneven, combining international sources with local references, sometimes anecdotal (more ethnographic, cultural-anthropological, local observations - rather than rigorous quantitative analyses). This may also stem from a rich representation of literature in the languages of the countries in the analyzed region (reasonable, to a certain extent), but difficult to access or understand for an international readers.

The authors mention the objectives but do not formulate them rigorously.

The hypotheses (H1–H5) are repetitive and weakly grounded theoretically, as follows:

• All five hypotheses (H1 to H5) have the same structure and core content, in a redundant formulation - each hypothesis repeats the same five dimensions, changing only the independent variable: gender (H1), age (H2), place of residence (H3), type of urban area (H4), education level (H5). Although convenient and seemingly suggestive, this approach may raise interpretation issues - for example, how would the authors interpret a situation where one or two of the five dimensions behave differently from the others?

A more rigorous approach would have been to formulate specific hypotheses for each relevant dimension.

• The hypotheses are not supported (or are superficially supported) by a critical literature review that would justify why gender, age, education, etc., might influence attitudes toward urban horticulture. More precisely, the authors should analyzed (cited) previous relevant studies that have clearly identified gender, age, or education-based differences in perceptions of urban horticulture, attitudes toward plant protection, horticultural trends, community support, or pollution perception.

We recommend revisiting the theoretical section so that the hypotheses move beyond generic formulations and are better anchored in relevant prior research.

Moreover, the results seem not to confirm the hypotheses – i.e. H1, H2, H3 are partially confirmed, while H4 and H5 are not confirmed (no significant differences). We recommend that the authors revisit the analysis and verify whether the hypotheses were formulated too broadly or were not calibrated according to empirical reality or the specialized literature (or both).

The research gap is suggested (lack of regional data), but it would have been useful if it were explicitly and scientifically formulated. We therefore recommend a clearer structuring of the theoretical framework and a more critical and precise selection/formulation of hypotheses.

Methodology, analysis, discussion, conclusions

The research method is appropriate, but the interpretation of results lacks depth. Although the sample is diverse and consistent, the authors should discuss the potential bias introduced by online data collection. We also recommend that the statistical significance of the results be correlated with relevant implications.

The Discussions are predominantly descriptive, but a critical approach would enhance the relevance of the research. Additionally, the Conclusions section, although it correctly summarizes the results, does not develop theoretical or practical implications, and the implications for urban policy or education are mentioned vaguely, without argumentative support. We also recommend inserting a section (or at least paragraphs) dedicated to the study’s limitations and future directions.

General overview

The text is rich in local details but fragmented and redundant. The historical sections (e.g., Mostar, p.5) are interesting and picturesque but narrative; much of the information is contextual and likely difficult to retain and process by international readers (who may find it of limited relevance in the research context).

Similarly, the presentation of questionnaire items is excessive (Table 2, pp.8–10) and difficult to follow.

The language is generally correct, but there are also awkward expressions and writing errors (e.g., “distinguised” instead of “distinguished”, p.4; “an sample” instead of “a sample”, p.1; “develop an empirical approach” … should be “develops”? p.1, rows 41–42; or “Respondents is in the form of a Likert scale…” (p.7, row 251) - unclear, perhaps “Responses were in the form…” or “Respondents were asked…”)

Final references – recommendations

• Standardize citation style and verify completeness of reference information
• Where possible, titles of articles in languages other than English should be accompanied by a translation

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Several observations and suggestions regarding the quality of English language have been made in the review text

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we thank you for your extremely useful comments and recommendations for improving the work. In this letter, we provide you with additional explanations and instructions. The corrected and newly added text and figures in the work are marked in red. Below, we provide responses to your inquiries.

Comments 1: The literature is extensive but somewhat uneven, combining international sources with local references, sometimes anecdotal (more ethnographic, cultural-anthropological, local observations - rather than rigorous quantitative analyses). This may also stem from a rich representation of literature in the languages of the countries in the analyzed region (reasonable, to a certain extent), but difficult to access or understand for an international readers.

Response 1: Urban agriculture is a fairly new scientific discipline in our country, and the research area is bulky, unexplored and heterogeneous, so works with an analytical approach on the subject in our countries are still insufficient. The work provides a good foundation for the continuation of various specialized, interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary research on this issue. Throughout the entire work, and especially the introduction. Results and discussions and conclusion, we have provided new paragraphs to clarify the context, foreign sources and sources for correlating the results, and marked them in red.

Comments 2: The authors mention the objectives but do not formulate them rigorously.

Response 2: We have added general and specific objectives to the Summary.

Comments 3: The hypotheses (H1–H5) are repetitive and weakly grounded theoretically, as follows: All five hypotheses (H1 to H5) have the same structure and core content, in a redundant formulation - each hypothesis repeats the same five dimensions, changing only the independent variable: gender (H1), age (H2), place of residence (H3), type of urban area (H4), education level (H5). Although convenient and seemingly suggestive, this approach may raise interpretation issues - for example, how would the authors interpret a situation where one or two of the five dimensions behave differently from the others? A more rigorous approach would have been to formulate specific hypotheses for each relevant dimension. The hypotheses are not supported (or are superficially supported) by a critical literature review that would justify why gender, age, education, etc., might influence attitudes toward urban horticulture. More precisely, the authors should analyzed (cited) previous relevant studies that have clearly identified gender, age, or education-based differences in perceptions of urban horticulture, attitudes toward plant protection, horticultural trends, community support, or pollution perception. We recommend revisiting the theoretical section so that the hypotheses move beyond generic formulations and are better anchored in relevant prior research. Moreover, the results seem not to confirm the hypotheses – i.e. H1, H2, H3 are partially confirmed, while H4 and H5 are not confirmed (no significant differences). We recommend that the authors revisit the analysis and verify whether the hypotheses were formulated too broadly or were not calibrated according to empirical reality or the specialized literature (or both). The research gap is suggested (lack of regional data), but it would have been useful if it were explicitly and scientifically formulated. We therefore recommend a clearer structuring of the theoretical framework and a more critical and precise selection/formulation of hypotheses. Response 3: We agree with the proposed suggestion, but since the urban horticulture questionnaire is composed of five dimensions, there would be too many hypotheses and tables and it might create confusion for the readers of this paper. The hypotheses were defined according to the basic sociodemographic data of the citizens who were involved in the research, and for this reason the hypotheses were defined in this way, in order to check the attitudes of the groups in relation to the questions posed to them through these five dimensions. There are very few regional works of this type, especially those involving several countries, and for this reason a detailed analysis of previous research cannot be done. As stated in the paper, we can use sources from other countries.   Comments 4: The research method is appropriate, but the interpretation of results lacks depth. Although the sample is diverse and consistent, the authors should discuss the potential bias introduced by online data collection. We also recommend that the statistical significance of the results be correlated with relevant implications.   Response 4: In the results and discussion chapter, we have added additional relevant sources for correlation and indicated the required limitations.   Comments 5: The Discussions are predominantly descriptive, but a critical approach would enhance the relevance of the research. Additionally, the Conclusions section, although it correctly summarizes the results, does not develop theoretical or practical implications, and the implications for urban policy or education are mentioned vaguely, without argumentative support. We also recommend inserting a section (or at least paragraphs) dedicated to the study’s limitations and future directions.   Response 5: We have expanded the discussions, and in the Conclusion we have added theoretical and practical implications and implications for urban policy and education, and added paragraphs dedicated to the limitations of the study and future directions.   Comments 6: The language is generally correct, but there are also awkward expressions and writing errors (e.g., “distinguised” instead of “distinguished”, p.4; “an sample” instead of “a sample”, p.1; “develop an empirical approach” … should be “develops”? p.1, rows 41–42; or “Respondents is in the form of a Likert scale…” (p.7, row 251) - unclear, perhaps “Responses were in the form…” or “Respondents were asked…”)   Response 6: We have refined the work linguistically.   Comments 7: Please correct the capitalization in Table 1 to comply with the guidelines for writing the paper, specifically the table within the text.   Response 7: Corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your responses and the applied comments in the revised version of the paper. I would like to add a few more comments and suggestions for correction:

-In the abstract, you added a sentence between lines 33 and 39 that describes the research objectives. However, this sentence is extremely confusing and difficult to understand, so I kindly ask you to rephrase it to improve its clarity.

Additionally, the year when Figure 8 was photographed is missing.

I kindly ask you to make the necessary corrections as indicated.

Kind regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we thank you for your comments, which we have taken into account in the paper and marked in red in the text.

Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s)

Congratulations on the revised version of the article.

Good luck with your research.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewers, we thank you for your positive review of our work after the corrections. We are sending you the final version of our work after the second round of reviews.

 

Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Following the recommendations and suggestions made, the authors conducted a consistent and thorough revision of the manuscript, improving its clarity and relevance.

Author Response

Dear reviewers, we thank you for your positive review of our work after the corrections. We are sending you the final version of our work after the second round of reviews.

 

Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf