Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

·      The manuscript provides evidence-based information regarding the significance of urban planning in strengthening food systems resilience.

·      The aim and main objectives of the article are clearly stated. 

·      Exploring food system vulnerabilities through the lens of public health emergency and natural disaster event add essential practical value to the manuscript. 

·      The Methods part comprehensively addresses the research approaches utilized by the authors.

·      The Results and Discussion parts are comprehensively elaborated.

·      Including a concluding statement is recommended. 

Lines 51 – 59. More structured and detailed description of the food system of the Zhengzhou metropolitan area would be beneficial for understanding.

Lines 149 – 171. It would be advantageous to merge the subsections 1.3.1 and 1.3.3 in order to enhance the coherence of theoretical approaches description.

Lines 19 - 20 316 – 318. “…in situations where reduced agricultural land might weaken food resilience, a stable ecological environment provides an important buffer for the food system, thereby offsetting some of the negative impacts of reduced agricultural land”. I may recommend including specific practical examples that support the statement “an ecological buffer for the food system”.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Thank you very much for your insightful comments and valuable suggestions. We truly appreciate the time and effort you have taken to review our manuscript. Your feedback has significantly contributed to improving the quality of our work. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your comments，In order to provide a comprehensive view of the modifications, we have included the entire response process in the attachment：

Comments 1: Lines 51 – 59. More structured and detailed description of the food system of the Zhengzhou metropolitan area would be beneficial for understanding.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised this section of the original text, providing a more detailed and structured description of the food system in the Zhengzhou metropolitan area.

[this change can be found – page number2, paragraph1.1, and line49-84.]

Comments 2: Lines 149 – 171. It would be advantageous to merge the subsections 1.3.1 and 1.3.3 in order to enhance the coherence of theoretical approaches description.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestion,We agree with your suggestion .We have merged subsections 1.3.1 to 1.3.3 into a single description, optimizing them into one cohesive paragraph.

[this change can be found – page number3, paragraph1.3, and line118-147.]

Comments 3: Lines 19 - 20 316 – 318. “…in situations where reduced agricultural land might weaken food resilience, a stable ecological environment provides an important buffer for the food system, thereby offsetting some of the negative impacts of reduced agricultural land”. I may recommend including specific practical examples that support the statement “an ecological buffer for the food system”.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We agree with your suggestion and have made the necessary changes by adding specific case examples here to enhance the persuasiveness of the argument.

[this change can be found – page number9, paragraph3.1.1, and line317-335.]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract is clear and concise and gives good information on the aim, goals, and objectives of the paper.

The language and style of the manuscript are of good quality. 

Full stops and commas are at some points wrongly separated by a break (see e.g. line 51 or 53).

Figure 1 could include an overall map of China, showing the location of Henan Province within an overall picture of the country for a better understanding of its size.

Lines 78-80 The formulation is somewhat confusing. What do you mean by "significant urban cluster"? Do you refer to the pandemic as a significant urban cluster? If so, this does not correspond with the meaning of an urban cluster. Moreover, there is no clear definition of what you mean by urban cluster.

Paragraph 1.1 line 43 This study certainly does not "introduce" the concept of urban food resilience. There have been numerous authors and studies dealing with resilient food systems, urban food resilience, and the water-energy-food nexus in urban environments and/or urban ecosystems.

Paragraph 1.2 and/or paragraph 1.1: It would be important to set a more theoretical background for the linkage between food resilience and resilient food systems on one hand, and natural disasters (e.g. earthquakes, fires, floods, etc.), crises, and other disturbances on the other hand supported by other studies dedicated to this issue. Natural disasters, such as earthquakes have had significant impacts on food system resilience also in other regions.

Figure 2 is a bit confusing. Why is the overlap of urban planning and resilience referring to "urban resilience" and not "resilient urban planning" or "planning urban resilience" based on this logic, it would be expected to have resilient food system planning in the middle. Planning gets lost on the way somehow. Maybe a more comprehensive diagram would be needed. Moreover, there is not much about urban planning or planning in general in the review part of the paper.

You are putting urban and rural food systems on contrary to each other (lines 136-137), while not considering different urban agriculture food system models that might be complementary to options mentioned in lines 140-141, reducing the number of links and nodes on potential food system paths.

188-189 wrong division of the word "analysis"

194-199 it would be important to specify, which aspects were analysed - e.g. spatial coverage, spatial distribution, distances from urban hubs, etc.?

200-206 the same as above, what exactly was evaluated? was it the food system links, paths, or nodes? Were there any worked examples on resilient food systems conducted or calculated? If so, which method has been used?

Figure 3 is somewhat little demonstrative. Did you think about elaborating on a superimposition to highlight the changes? - The same comment to Figure 7 and Figure 9.

698-699 Is the first time when the authors mention urban agriculture to enhance urban food system resilience, supported with only one reference to a study on urban agriculture in relation to COVID-19. There is no reference to urban agriculture in relation to urban food system resilience in the introduction and literature review, even though urban agriculture plays a key role in enhancing urban food system resilience.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall English quality of the paper is good. There are some small mistakes, that can be easily improved in the review.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Thank you very much for your insightful comments and valuable suggestions. We truly appreciate the time and effort you have taken to review our manuscript. Your feedback has significantly contributed to improving the quality of our work. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your comments，In order to provide a comprehensive view of the modifications, we have included the entire response process in the attachment：

Comments 1: Full stops and commas are at some points wrongly separated by a break (see e.g. line 51 or 53).

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We agree with this comment. we have rechecked the punctuation in other paragraphs.

Comments 2: Figure 1 could include an overall map of China, showing the location of Henan Province within an overall picture of the country for a better understanding of its size.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestion,We agree with your suggestion .We have redrawn the figure, and it now includes a location map of Henan Province at the national level.

[this change can be found – page number3, paragraph1.1, and line85, figure1.]

Comments 3: Lines 78-80 The formulation is somewhat confusing. What do you mean by "significant urban cluster"? Do you refer to the pandemic as a significant urban cluster? If so, this does not correspond with the meaning of an urban cluster. Moreover, there is no clear definition of what you mean by urban cluster.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestion, we agree with your suggestion. This was a writing error. What I meant to convey was that the Zhengzhou metropolitan area, as the core area of China's Central Plains Urban Cluster, holds significant value and importance. In the Comments 5, we have revised the content of section 1.2.

[this change can be found – page number3, paragraph1.2, and line92-117.]

Comments 4: Paragraph 1.1 line 43 This study certainly does not "introduce" the concept of urban food resilience. There have been numerous authors and studies dealing with resilient food systems, urban food resilience, and the water-energy-food nexus in urban environments and/or urban ecosystems.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. It is important to note that based on current searches in databases such as Web of Science and Google Scholar, as well as book publications, there is indeed no formally named academic definition, concept, or theoretical framework for "urban food resilience." While studies related to this term do exist, such as those on food system resilience, food systems, urban resilience, food security, sustainable food, and food planning, they only intersect or overlap with the content of "urban food resilience" research and do not fully cover it. As urbanization in China enters a new phase, it is necessary to establish an academic definition and research scope for "urban food resilience," which is one of the significant academic innovations of this paper. "Food system resilience" is not synonymous with "urban food resilience"; the former has a broader definition. The definition of urban food resilience in this paper is derived from another paper of mine that is about to be published, where the concept and content of urban food resilience are delineated and described in detail. Due to space limitations, this paper only outlines the core concepts to facilitate the subsequent research content, and I ask the reviewers for their understanding.

Now, to clarify doubts about the concept of "urban food resilience" mentioned in this paper, I will restate the section "Comparison of Related Concepts" from that article on the concept and content of urban food resilience:

2.2.3 Comparison of Related Concepts

Food System Resilience: Food system resilience is a broader concept that focuses on the adaptability, recovery, and transformation of food systems at global, national, or regional levels in the face of various internal and external pressures. Distinctions include: (i) Scale of focus: Urban food resilience concentrates more on urban or metropolitan areas, whereas food system resilience usually encompasses broader areas, potentially nationwide, regional, or even global. (ii) Differences in response strategies: Urban food resilience emphasizes local-level strategies and community mobilization, while food system resilience involves more global and national-level policies and international cooperation. (iii) Differences in context and objectives: Urban food resilience focuses on ensuring food security and sustainability amid rapid urbanization, whereas food system resilience emphasizes the stability and longevity of systems in a fluctuating global environment.

Food Security: Food security means that all people, at all times, have access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. This concept emphasizes the accessibility, availability, utilization, and stability of food. Enhancing food resilience can strengthen food security, especially when facing environmental and socio-economic pressures.  Differences include: (i) Urban food resilience focuses more on the system's responsiveness and adaptability under stress, emphasizing systematic and long-term aspects; whereas food security focuses more on ensuring that people have enough and appropriate food at all times; (ii) Urban food resilience is a broader concept that includes all aspects of food security, plus preparedness and prevention for future challenges. Urban food resilience and food security share common goals, but differ in strategies, implementation, and priorities.

To ensure clearer expression, change ' Thus, this study introduces the concept of "urban food resilience," aimed at enhancing the adaptability and recovery capabilities of urban food systems under multiple pressures through systematic urban planning and management' to' Therefore, based on the expansion of research on food system resilience, this study proposed the concept of “urban food resilience”, which aims to enhance the adaptability and recovery capacity of urban food systems under multiple pressures through systematic urban planning and management.'

[this change can be found – page number 1, paragraph1.1, and line42-46.]

Comments 5: Paragraph 1.2 and/or paragraph 1.1: It would be important to set a more theoretical background for the linkage between food resilience and resilient food systems on one hand, and natural disasters (e.g. earthquakes, fires, floods, etc.), crises, and other disturbances on the other hand supported by other studies dedicated to this issue. Natural disasters, such as earthquakes have had significant impacts on food system resilience also in other regions.

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable suggestion,We agree with your suggestion .

We have revised and provided additional explanations in the text.

Due to its location in a geologically stable region, Henan Province and Central China have historically experienced virtually no earthquakes, and fires have not caused widespread regional disasters. Disaster statistics from 2000 to 2023 for the central region of China, situated in the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River, indicate that the primary causes of disasters have been extreme weather events triggered by climate change and public health emergencies .

[this change can be found – page number3, paragraph1.2, and line91-117.]

Comments 6: Figure 2 is a bit confusing. Why is the overlap of urban planning and resilience referring to "urban resilience" and not "resilient urban planning" or "planning urban resilience" based on this logic, it would be expected to have resilient food system planning in the middle. Planning gets lost on the way somehow. Maybe a more comprehensive diagram would be needed. Moreover, there is not much about urban planning or planning in general in the review part of the paper.

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. To address this question, it's important to clarify the terminology and conceptual frameworks used in urban studies and planning. The terminology such as "urban resilience," "resilient urban planning," or "planning urban resilience" reflects different emphases and approaches within the broader field of urban studies:

1.Urban Resilience: This term refers to the capacity of urban systems, communities, and environments to withstand, recover from, and adapt to external stresses and shocks, such as natural disasters or economic shifts. It focuses on the resilience of the city as a whole entity.

2.Resilient Urban Planning or Planning Urban Resilience: These phrases suggest a specific approach or methodology within urban planning aimed at enhancing the resilience of urban systems. This might involve strategies in zoning, infrastructure development, and community engagement specifically designed to make cities more resilient.

The choice between these terms depends on what aspect of resilience or planning is being emphasized:

If the focus is on the resilience characteristics of the city, particularly how it bounces back or adapts to challenges, "urban resilience" is used.

If the emphasis is on the planning processes that aim to incorporate resilience into urban systems, "resilient urban planning" or "planning urban resilience" might be more appropriate.

Thus, the reason why "urban resilience" might be used over "resilient urban planning" is due to the focus on the resilience of the city as a system rather than the processes of planning itself. However, when considering sector-specific approaches such as food systems, incorporating the term "planning" emphasizes the proactive efforts in designing systems that can endure and thrive despite potential disruptions.

Comments 7: You are putting urban and rural food systems on contrary to each other (lines 136-137), while not considering different urban agriculture food system models that might be complementary to options mentioned in lines 140-141, reducing the number of links and nodes on potential food system paths.

Response 7: Thank you for your valuable suggestion, In response to your concerns regarding the comparison of urban and rural food systems and the role of urban agriculture, we would like to provide the following clarifications:

1. Distinction between Urban and Rural Food Systems:

   We understand your concerns and wish to clarify that our intention is not to place urban and rural food systems in opposition, but rather to highlight necessary distinctions based on China’s unique context. China's unprecedented scale and pace of urbanization have resulted in significant challenges. By the end of 2022, China had 687 cities, including 7 megacities (with permanent populations exceeding 10 million) and 14 very large cities (with populations of 5 to 10 million). The urban population has reached 920 million, accounting for 65.22% of the total population. This distinct backdrop underscores the complexity and vulnerability of China’s urban food systems, which stands in stark contrast to the relative self-sufficiency of rural areas. Our study focuses on the challenges faced by these complex urban food systems and strategies for enhancing their resilience.

2. Applicability of Urban Agriculture in China:

   We fully agree that urban agriculture theoretically holds the potential to address many issues within urban food systems, such as improving self-sufficiency and reducing food miles. However, in the specific context of China, there are unique challenges to its implementation:

1. a) Institutional Constraints: China's land ownership system and strict land-use regulations significantly limit the flexibility of land function conversion, directly impacting the potential for urban agriculture to develop.
2. b) Practical Challenges: Over the past decade, most urban agriculture projects attempted in China have failed to achieve the desired results. This widespread lack of success suggests systemic obstacles under the current policy and institutional frameworks.
3. c) Regional Differences: Particularly in Central China (the focus area of this study), there is a notable absence of land functions, successful case studies, or policies comparable to those recognized in the European urban agriculture model.
4. d) Policy Limitations: Within the current top-level design framework, overly idealized urban agriculture plans often lack practical feasibility.

Given these factors, we did not discuss urban agriculture in depth as a primary solution in the manuscript. However, we acknowledge its potential value as a strategy and will mention its possibilities in the outlook section, while also highlighting the challenges that must be addressed for implementation in the Chinese context.

Our research aims to propose realistic strategies for urban food resilience based on China's specific circumstances. We believe that recognizing these local characteristics and constraints helps us formulate solutions that are more relevant to China’s conditions.

Once again, we thank you for your valuable feedback, which has encouraged us to consider this issue more comprehensively. We will make sure to clarify these points in the revised version to avoid potential misunderstandings.

Comments 8: 188-189 wrong division of the word "analysis"

Response 8: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected this error in the revised text.

[this change can be found – page number4, paragraph2.1, and line153-156.]

Comments 9: 194-199 it would be important to specify, which aspects were analysed - e.g. spatial coverage, spatial distribution, distances from urban hubs, etc.?

Response 9: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added further explanations to the content of the original text.

[this change can be found – page number4,5, paragraph2.1, and line160-183.]

Comments 10: 200-206 the same as above, what exactly was evaluated? was it the food system links, paths, or nodes? Were there any worked examples on resilient food systems conducted or calculated? If so, which method has been used?

Response 10: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised and provided additional explanations in the original text.

[this change can be found – page number5, paragraph2.1, and line184-203.]

Comments 11: Figure 3 is somewhat little demonstrative. Did you think about elaborating on a superimposition to highlight the changes? - The same comment to Figure 7 and Figure 9.

Response 11: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding Figures 3, 7, and 9. I understand your recommendation to use image superimposition to better highlight the changes, which is indeed an excellent idea. However, in this study, we faced certain technical limitations that made this method challenging to implement effectively.

The primary challenge stems from the inherent data precision limitations of the satellite remote sensing files we used. Even if we attempted to superimpose the images, we found it difficult to clearly demonstrate the differences in dynamic changes due to these inherent precision constraints. Such superimposition might not only fail to enhance the information content of the images but could potentially lead to visual confusion.

To overcome this limitation and ensure accurate data presentation, we adopted an alternative approach. Following each image in each analysis category, we provided detailed data tables. These tables contain precise numerical information, allowing readers to more accurately understand and compare changes across different periods. We believe that while this method may not be as visually intuitive as image superimposition, it offers more precise and comprehensive information.

We understand the importance of visual presentation and are continuously exploring better data visualization methods. Your suggestion is very inspiring for improving our research methods in the future.

Comments 12: 698-699 Is the first time when the authors mention urban agriculture to enhance urban food system resilience, supported with only one reference to a study on urban agriculture in relation to COVID-19. There is no reference to urban agriculture in relation to urban food system resilience in the introduction and literature review, even though urban agriculture plays a key role in enhancing urban food system resilience.

Response 12: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. On this matter, I would like to kindly refer you to my previous explanation about "why urban agriculture has not become a primary means of enhancing urban food resilience in Chinese urban clusters and metropolitan areas." In that response, I detailed the unique challenges and limitations faced in implementing urban agriculture in the specific context of China, including land use policies, urban density, lack of practical experience, and other factors.

These factors collectively led us to not focus on urban agriculture as a core solution in our study. Our research emphasis was on strategies that are more feasible within the current Chinese urban environment and policy context.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx