Evaluating a Community-Based Intervention to Advance Food Equity and Climate Resilience in the South Bronx: Findings from the LEAF Program

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

The abstract is very broad and does not reflect the extensive work presented in the manuscript. More numerical results should be included to better summarize the study’s key findings.

Introduction

The introduction is very well organized and covers a substantial amount of relevant studies and literature.

Materials and Methods

• Line 129: Please indicate the date on which the study received ethical approval.
• Line 134: The authors state that the program “ran from April to November in 2023,” but then note that “surveys were administered at three timepoints each year—April, June, and August.” Please clarify this timeline.
• Line 141: This section should specify the age range of participants eligible for the interviews.
• Line 200: The sentence listing the five community partner sites is redundant and does not need to be repeated.
• Line 239: Please mention the approximate time required to complete the questionnaire.

Results

• Line 285: Please explain how the analysis was conducted for surveys 1–4 given that one family’s data was missing.
• Line 293: The demographic data only include household size and age. In my opinion, education level and occupation, important socioeconomic factors, should also be considered, as they may affect data interpretation.
• Line 345: The authors state that “Comfort with Growing Food” and “Emotional Response to Gardening” are presented in Table 2 and Figure 1. I recommend moving the referenced table and figure to the end of this section for better flow.
• Line 369: The title of Table 3 should be revised to “Financial Assistance Participation.”
• Line 413: Table 3 should be moved to appear immediately after Section 3.10, Trip to Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture.

Future Research

• Line 503: I suggest adding a part that addresses food safety in addition to food security. Including a statement on how food safety education can positively influence public health, e.g., by reducing the occurrence of foodborne illnesses, would strengthen this section.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached document and corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the resubmitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article centers on the LEAF project in the South Bronx area and, using survey data from 2023-2024, assesses household food access, gardening practices, demand satisfaction, and SNAP participation. The research topic has practical significance, but there are still the following deficiencies:
1. Research design issues: The article adopts a repetitive cross-sectional design, only tracking the changes in the project participant group from 2023 to 2024. It does not set up a control group (such as similar families that did not participate in LEAF), nor does it conduct longitudinal tracking at the individual level within the same family. Therefore, it is impossible to rule out the influence of external environmental interference factors (such as adjustments to the New York City fruit and vegetable subsidy policy, etc.) on the results. The core indicators (fruit and vegetable consumption, food affordability, and the impact of gardening sentiment) all rely on the subjective self-assessment of the Likert scale and do not incorporate some objective indicators, making them vulnerable to the influence of social expectation bias and recall bias. Furthermore, the author only mentioned the selection of five LEAF communities, but did not specify the scientific criteria for choosing the communities.
2. Theoretical framework issue: The article only provides the community background and project logic, but lacks a systematic theoretical framework. Currently, the interpretation of the results mainly remains at the level of data presentation and lacks mechanism explanations supported by theory. It is suggested to construct an analytical framework and link the results with the mechanism in the discussion section.
3. Analysis of depth issues: The article repeatedly explains data results (such as changes in the percentage of SNAP participation rate and changes in food procurement sources), but does not further explore why these changes occur.
4. Conclusion Data support issues: Some of the conclusions are beyond the scope of data support, such as the discussion that LEAF can enhance community resilience, short-chain supply can reduce carbon emissions, and the LEAF model can be extended to other regions. The article does not provide resilience indicators and carbon emission data, nor does it make cross-regional comparisons. Moreover, both the title and keywords of the article mention "climate resilience". However, the arguments in the main text mainly remain at the level of "short supply chains reducing emissions" and "regenerative agriculture benefiting the environment", lacking further exploration on how this project specifically enhances the climate resilience at the community level.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached document and corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the resubmitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Is the research question clear, well-defined and relevant to the journal’s thematic areas?

Yes. The manuscript clearly states its overarching aim: to evaluate the first two years of the LEAF program, a community-based intervention designed to improve food equity, gardening self-efficacy, and climate-aligned food system practices in the South Bronx, using household-level survey data collected at six timepoints (April 2023–August 2024).

The research questions are explicitly formulated (Section 1.4) and aligned with Sustainability’s scope, touching on food security, community-based participatory research (CBPR), and climate-resilient food systems.

2. Does the paper revise the current knowledge on the topic?

Yes. The paper adds to existing knowledge on community-based food system interventions by:

• Presenting a longitudinal, multi-year evaluation of a combined intervention (regeneratively grown produce, home-gardening kits, and culturally responsive nutrition education).
• Focusing on a historically under-resourced urban community (South Bronx, ZIP 10454) with high food insecurity and health disparities.  
• Integrating CBPR principles in both program design and evaluation, and discussing how these principles foster retention, trust, and peer-to-peer engagement.

The manuscript usefully synthesizes literature on food justice, nutrition equity, and CBPR and positions LEAF within that field.

3. Does the paper contribute to the existing literature on the subject in question?

Yes. The study contributes in at least three ways:

1. Empirical evidence on outcomes: It documents statistically significant improvements in household fruit and vegetable consumption, comfort with growing food, and positive emotional responses to gardening over multiple timepoints.  
2. Program design and implementation: It details a replicable program architecture (rotating community sites, gardening kits, bilingual materials, SNAP/WIC navigation, and a farm-based Family Day) that can inform similar initiatives in other urban settings.  
3. Systems and policy perspective: It frames LEAF as part of a short, regenerative supply chain and discusses implications for benefits access, local circularity, and multi-sector governance.

 Overall, the contribution is practical, policy-relevant, and theoretically grounded.

4. Is the methodology appropriate and well-defined?

Largely yes, with a few clarifications recommended.

Strengths:

• The use of a repeated cross-sectional survey design across six timepoints, with very high participation and retention (99–100% of enrolled families at each round), is clearly described.  
• The CBPR approach is well articulated, including partner roles in recruitment, instrument development, and feedback loops.  
• The study domains (diet, gardening, emotional well-being, SNAP/WIC enrollment, purchasing patterns, perceived affordability) are appropriate for the objectives.

 Minor issues that merit clarification (suitable for minor revision):

• Provide more detail on the sampling strategy and potential selection bias, given that community organizations pre-selected households based on perceived need and a fixed program capacity of 80 families.  
• Justify the use of parametric one-way ANOVAs on Likert-type outcomes (1–5 scales) and at least briefly comment on sensitivity to non-parametric alternatives (e.g., Kruskal–Wallis), or explain why parametric tests are adequate in this context (e.g., approximate normality, sample size).  
• Clarify how missing item-level data were handled, even if the overall household response rate per survey round was high.

5. Are the results well-reported and described?

Yes, with a few minor improvements suggested.

• The main quantitative outcomes (fruit and vegetable consumption, gardening comfort, emotional response to gardening) are clearly summarized in Table 2 and Figure 1, with ANOVA and Tukey HSD results described in the text.  
• Demographics in Table 1 and food assistance / purchasing patterns in Table 3 are informative and directly linked to the research questions.

 To strengthen clarity:

1. In Table 2, consider adding the sample size (n) per timepoint for each outcome, even if it is constant or nearly constant, to avoid any ambiguity.  
2. Ensure that the symbols used to denote statistically non-different groups (#, &, $ in Table 2) are explicitly explained in the caption (e.g., “Means sharing the same symbol do not differ significantly at p < 0.05”).
3. When describing results such as the “130% rise in SNAP participation,” consider presenting the underlying absolute numbers or percentages in the main text for transparency (these are in Table 3 but could be referenced more explicitly).
4. Are the discussion and conclusions accurate and clearly stated?

Yes.

The Discussion is coherent, well structured, and carefully linked to the data. It:

• Correctly interprets patterns such as the temporary dip in fruit and vegetable consumption during the off-season (program pause) and the subsequent increase in 2024.  
• Connects improvements in gardening comfort and emotional well-being to the literature on home gardening, self-efficacy, and psychosocial benefits.  
• Reflects thoughtfully on peer-to-peer dynamics, WhatsApp groups, and community gardens as emergent features that strengthen CBPR.

 I recommend two minor refinements:

7. Nuancing claims about “climate resilience” and “climate-aligned food systems”:
• The manuscript uses climate-resilience terminology primarily in a conceptual and supply-chain sense (short regenerative supply chain, reduced food miles, circularity of surplus). Since there are no direct environmental/climate metrics (e.g., GHG emissions, life-cycle analysis), it would be helpful to explicitly acknowledge this and frame the climate-related claims as contributions toward or potential pathways to climate resilience, rather than as demonstrated climate impacts.  
8. Clarifying generalizability:
• The paper already notes limits of causal inference and local contextual specificity, but a short paragraph on the transferability of LEAF’s design elements (e.g., what is context-specific vs. broadly replicable) would make the conclusions even more useful for practitioners and policymakers.  
9. Are the study’s limitations mentioned and discussed?

Yes, and this is a strong point of the manuscript.

The Limitations section appropriately notes:

• Self-reported data and potential recall/social desirability bias.
• Household-level rather than individual-level dataset, with implications for child-specific outcomes.
• The repeated cross-sectional design and the absence of anthropometric or cardiometabolic measures.
• The lack of qualitative interviews for deeper narrative insight.

Minor additions that could be considered:

• Explicitly highlight the self-selection of participants via community partners as a potential source of bias affecting external validity.  
• Briefly mention the seasonality of both program activities and produce availability as a factor that may shape outcome trajectories beyond the intervention itself.

8. Are the paper’s title and abstract congruent with the main text?

Yes.

• The title accurately reflects the study design (community-based intervention; evaluation of LEAF; focus on food equity and climate resilience in the South Bronx).  
• The abstract coherently summarizes the context, intervention components, evaluation design, main quantitative findings (including effect directions and significance), and broader implications.  

Only minor wording adjustments might be considered—for example, slightly softening strong claims about “sustainable food system transformation” in the abstract to better match the observational, context-specific nature of the evidence.

9. Is the style (editing norms, English language, references) accurate?

Yes, overall.

• The manuscript is well written, with clear and accessible English, consistent terminology, and good adherence to academic style.
• References are up-to-date and diverse (including classic CBPR texts and recent papers on food equity, nutrition disparities, and gardening interventions).

 Minor editorial suggestions:

1. Carefully proofread for small typographical or stylistic issues (e.g., sporadic hyphenation differences such as “cardiometabolic” vs. “cardio-metabolic”, or “biweekly” vs. “every other week”).  
2. Ensure complete and consistent formatting of URLs and access dates in the reference list, in line with Sustainability’s style.

Minor points and editorial suggestions

1. Tables and figure clarity
• Table 2:
• Add sample sizes (n) for each timepoint, at least in the caption, even if n is constant across surveys.  
• Clarify the meaning of the symbols (#, &, $) directly beneath the table (e.g., “Timepoints sharing the same symbol do not differ significantly at p < 0.05 (Tukey HSD)”).
• Table 3:
• You might add column sub-headings within each section (e.g., “Food Assistance,” “Fruit and Vegetable Purchasing,” etc.) for easier scanning, although this is optional.  
• Figure 1:
• Ensure that all axes, legends, and outcomes are fully legible and that the figure caption explicitly states which scale corresponds to which outcome.
2. Limitations – self-selection and seasonality
• In the Limitations section, you already mention self-reporting, cross-sectional design, and lack of health biomarkers.  
• I would encourage you to add:
• One sentence on self-selection via community partners as a limitation for external validity.
• One sentence on seasonality of produce and program activities as a contextual factor that might interact with outcomes (e.g., consumption or emotional response to gardening may naturally fluctuate with growing seasons).
3. Future research – more detail on children
• You rightly propose future research focusing specifically on children, including anthropometrics and cardiometabolic screening through community health fairs.  
• Consider adding a brief explanation of why children might experience distinct benefits (e.g., developmental windows for nutrition, habit formation, educational/spatial learning in gardens), to more strongly motivate this research direction.
4. Minor language and style issues
• Overall English is excellent. A final proofread could address very small inconsistencies such as:
• Occasional variances in hyphenation (e.g., “longstanding” vs. “long-standing”).
• Consistency in how the program is named (e.g., “Leading an Ecological and Accessible Food System (LEAF)” vs. “Leading an Ecological and Accessible Food System (LEAF) program”).  
• Ensure uniform referencing style, particularly for reports and web sources (placement of access dates, capitalization, and use of italics).
5. Ethical procedures and incentives (if any)

• You clearly state IRB approval and informed consent procedures.  
• If participants received any incentives beyond the program benefits themselves (e.g., specific compensation for survey completion), it would be good to briefly mention this; if not, a short statement that there were no additional incentives would close this potential question.

Conclusion

This manuscript presents a high-quality CBPR evaluation with clear relevance to food justice, nutrition equity, and sustainable food systems. The intervention is well described, the analysis is competent and transparent, and the discussion is thoughtful. After addressing the above minor points - mostly clarifications and modest reframing - the paper will be very well positioned for publication in Sustainability.

 

Author Response

 Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached document and the corresponding revisions in track changes in the resubmitted file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf