Urban Political Ecology in Action: Community-Based Planning for Sustainability and Heritage in a High-Density Urban Landscape

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript Reframing Urban Planning for Community-Based Sustainability: Integrating Food, Waste, Biodiversity, and Heritage in Hong Kong’s High-Density Urban Landscape, by Edward Chung Yim Yiu, aims to examine a community-driven "Four-Zero" sustainability model—Zero Energy, Zero Water, Zero Food, and Zero Waste—implemented within a high-density urban estate. 
In the items "Community-Based Sustainability Initiatives" and "Urban Biodiversity and Eco-Heritage Conservation" found in the manuscript's Introduction, it would be necessary to present the descriptions in the form of a diagram or map, as the items for applying the model are not entirely understandable.

In the "Materials and Methods" item, there is a comprehensive description of the complex under study, and only one photograph is found, so distant that it cannot be identified as unique. The author should show other photographs that reference the site as such.

Photograph 2 only illustrates one point within the complex. I don't think this reflects the complex's population density.

Figure 4 should be much higher in the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, all of them have been incorporated in the revised manuscript, please refer to the attached for my responses. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This manuscript presents a well-articulated and richly detailed case study examining the “Four-Zero” sustainability model within a high-density private housing estate in Hong Kong. The author compellingly reframes urban planning to integrate local food production, waste management, biodiversity conservation, and cultural heritage preservation. The work is timely, methodologically grounded, and contributes meaningfully to discourses on urban sustainability, especially within the underexplored context of high-rise, high-density Asian cities.

The paper’s novelty lies in its comprehensive scope, community-led orientation, and the use of a real-world case to demonstrate feasible alternatives to technocratic sustainability paradigms. The interdisciplinary methodology and the author’s insider perspective provide rare insight into the dynamics of grassroots sustainability transformations in urban settings.

However, a few areas require clarification, strengthening, and further critical reflection. These are outlined below:

1. Although the author’s role within the community is disclosed, further critical reflection on how this positionality may have influenced data collection, interpretation, and advocacy would enhance the study’s credibility. A more robust reflexive section is recommended.
2. The paper could benefit from a clearer discussion on the limitations of the case study’s generalisability. Given the socio-economic profile of the estate (e.g. high homeownership and income), the extent to which similar interventions may succeed in less affluent or less stable communities is worth exploring.
3. Although the literature review is adequate, greater theoretical engagement—particularly with urban political ecology, environmental justice, or commoning practices—could elevate the academic rigour of the argumentation.
4. Though the paper offers many descriptive outcomes, the inclusion of more comparative or longitudinal data (e.g., before-after statistics, benchmarking with similar communities) would substantiate claims about environmental and social impacts.
5. Several figures (e.g. aquaponics system, Stone Wall Trees) are informative but require clearer captions and integration with the narrative. Consider enhancing figure resolution and providing scale/context where necessary.

Minor Issues

• The manuscript would benefit from a more thorough language edit to streamline phrasing, reduce redundancy, and ensure consistency in British spelling conventions.
• The term “Four-Zero” is occasionally hyphenated inconsistently. Please standardise usage.
• Clarify acronyms upon first use (e.g., FAR, GFA, GIC).
• Table 1’s formatting can be improved for clarity, particularly in aligning quantitative units and explaining assumptions.
• Ensure all references are fully formatted according to journal style, particularly grey literature and media sources.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, all of them have been incorporated in the revised manuscript, please refer to the attached for my responses. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been heavily revised compared to version 1, both in its wording and references. Although there are more figures, Figure 4 from the first manuscript was replaced by Figure 3 in the Materials and Methods section. Figure 4 (version 1) could be an excellent guide for all subsequent sections, which is why I indicated that it should be further up in the manuscript, such as the Introduction. When replaced by Figure 3 (version 2), the schematic is lost, since the legend only generally describes the urban layout and should indicate this with numbers or letters in the legend.

Author Response

Thanks for the comments. Figure 3 has been updated with letters indicating the discussed areas in the legends.