Bridging the Gap: Misaligned Perceptions of Urban Agriculture and Health Between Planning and Design Experts and Urban Farmers in Greater Lomé, Togo

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

Thank you for your comments! We have taken them all into account.

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

Must be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: I appreciate the context provided in the introduction, however, there is not enough depth on the existing literature. I understand the lack of attention to Greater Lome’, but the authors do not explain what the theoretical model is that they are using or what the theoretical constructs are. If the study uses grounded theory, the authors need to explain that and still provide evidence from existing literature. For example, how were the interview and survey questions developed? They should be based in the literature.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The interview and survey questionnaires were inspired by other existing questionnaires in related literature. We thank you for the reminder and have added this information to the method section.

Comments 2: The reasoning for why they use a mixed methods approach is rather irrelevant (L135-136, it has been used very little). What about mixed methods makes the approach more rigorous than another methodological approach?

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that the reasoning for adopting a mixed methods approach should be more explicitly justified. To clarify, our systematic literature review, published in MDPI Urban Science (https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci7040117), demonstrated that mixed and qualitative methods are underutilized in studies addressing urban agriculture and health in Africa. Given the complexity of the topic and the need to capture diverse perspectives (e.g., experts, farmers, and planning documents), this study deliberately employed a mixed methods approach to fill this methodological gap and provide richer, multidimensional insights. We have updated the manuscript to include this explanation for greater clarity.

Comments 3: Did this study undergo any kind of ethics board review prior to data collection?

Response 3: Thank you. Yes, this study underwent rigorous ethics board review prior to data collection. It was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from multiple ethics committees: the EPFL Ethics Committee (approval number HREC No: 084-2021/14.10.2021), the ARDHI University Ethics Board (approval number Ref. No.: GA.297/331/01), and the Togo National Research Board (Direction Nationale de la Recherche du Togo, approval number Ref. No.: 238/MESR/SG/DRST/21). These approvals ensured that the study adhered to the highest ethical standards for research involving human participants.

Comments 4: It’s unclear how participants were selected for the questionnaire. I would encourage the authors to explain why their sample for the interviews as well as the survey meets the definition of a convenience sample and to explain why that sampling method was chosen.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the sampling methodology. For the interviews, participants were selected based on their professional affiliation with urban agriculture and health-related topics, specifically targeting experts registered with the National Order of Architects of Togo (ONAT), the National Order of Urban Planners of Togo (ONUT), as well as academics and researchers in relevant fields. For the surveys, the convenience sampling approach was chosen due to limited accessibility to the study site and logistical constraints during the COVID-19 pandemic. This method allowed us to gather valuable insights within these constraints, though we acknowledge its limitations, including the potential for over-representing more accessible groups. We have updated the manuscript to include these details.

Comments 5: Additionally, why did the authors ask about disease? This was never explained. If it’s a persistent problem with urban agriculture in African cities, that should be explored more clearly and thoroughly in the introduction.

Response 5: Thank you for this beneficial remark. Thank you for raising this important point. The focus on disease in our study stems from findings in a systematic literature review we conducted, which has been published in MDPI Urban Science (https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci7040117) and MDPI Sustainability (https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166747). These reviews highlight that while health is a critical issue in urban agriculture (UA) in African cities, it remains insufficiently explored in urban planning research. Specifically, there is limited integration of health-related challenges, such as diseases associated with UA, into planning documents and policies. To address this research gap, we incorporated questions about disease into the survey to better understand the health challenges faced by urban farmers, providing empirical evidence to inform urban planning frameworks. We will revise the introduction to make this connection clearer.

Comments 6: If the survey was only two open-ended questions, that doesn’t meet the methodological definition of a survey.

Response 6: Thank you for your comment. We would like to clarify that the manuscript does not state that the survey consisted of only two open-ended questions. The questions mentioned in the text were examples provided to illustrate the type of data collected, not the full extent of the survey. We hope this addresses the concern, and we are happy to provide additional clarification if needed.

Comments 7: I do not believe that data saturation was achieved after 11 interviews. Table 1 shows that high fertilizer prices was only mentioned by one interviewee, yet the authors reported that is an example of significant concerns.

Response 7: Thank you for your comment and for sharing your concerns. We understand. However, we noticed during the interview process that the experts began to repeat similar responses, indicating that data saturation had been reached. To address your concerns and ensure transparency, we will be happy to provide anonymized raw data, which have been securely stored on Zenodo.

Comments 8: L310 “What farmers have” – I don’t know what this means.

Response 8: Thank you for your useful comment. We have replaced the title "What farmers have" with the more formal and precise title "Urban Farmers' Reported Challenges" to better align with academic standards and improve clarity.

Comments 9: Throughout the manuscript, the text in the figures should be translated to English.

Response 9: Thank you for your observation. We would like to clarify that all text in the figures has been fully transcribed into English within the manuscript. If there are specific instances where this appears unclear, we would be happy to address them further.

Comments 10: I don’t understand what “unthought” is.

Response 10: Thank you for your feedback. We have replaced the term “unthought” with “implicit concept” throughout the manuscript for clarity and to ensure better understanding.

For these reasons, I don’t think this paper is ready for publication until the authors can provide information on the theoretical and methodological rigor of the study. As a reviewer, I cannot evaluate the points made in the Discussion until the previous issues are addressed.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 1: Thank you. We will proceed by proofreading the entire article by MDPI's English Services.

5. Additional clarifications

Additions to the manuscript relating to your comments are highlighted in green.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

Thank you for your comments! We have taken them all into account.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

Must be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Title should be improved. It is confusing how the quote is a key finding related to UA and health in this context. After reading the paper, I am further confused because this quote neither relates to the aim of the paper nor represents a rigorous qualitative key finding.

Thank you very much for your thorough and constructive feedback. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have taken to review our work in detail. We have carefully reviewed all your comments in the attached PDF and have addressed them throughout the manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in improving the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of our paper. We remain open to any further suggestions you may have and are committed to ensuring the paper meets the highest standards. Thank you once again for your thoughtful input.

Comments 2: Introductory paragraph: the broader context is not clearly set up as a social / environmental problem. It is only a statement of conditions—but what is at issue with this context (that implies what the paper will eventually address)?

Comments 3: Section 1.2 – Start with the main issue of land ownership and tenure in Lome. Then, after, describe the context and conditions of UA. This section is the critical review of the current issue, but the authors have not yet summarized it clearly and sufficiently to convince the reader of its significance and urgency.

Comments 4: Section 1.3 – The authors need to clearly link the relationship of UA to land management in general. As is, it is written as if a footnote in the management process. If this is the main topic of the paper, it needs to be clearly anchored in the existing context and problem. See my comment on line 86 (attached).

Comments 5: The authors do not adequately describe a research gap. The paper is also missing a core argument / thesis. Both are necessary for writing a journal paper. As is, the gap identified is tangential to the paper topic. It is a gap in perspective but not a research gap.

Comments 6: 1.4 – The first paragraph should move earlier in the literature review and more critically summarize the state and importance of UA in Greater Lome.

Comments 7: The term: health needs to be defined and situated in the literature.

Comments 8: Overall, the introduction and literature review require major revision. My simple suggestion is to follow this order:

1. What is the big picture context that needs to be described to set up the background for your topic (what is the big picture issue)?

2. What do we know about your topic? Critically summarize the literature (theories, methods, findings that you intend to challenge, modify or expand upon).

3. What don’t we know about your topic? What are limitations, persistent questions, gaps in the research (that you will address)?

4. Introduce core argument. Answer, ‘So what?’ How are you filling the gap, why does it matter, what is novel about your study?

Comments 9: Methods introductory paragraph requires revision including a broader summary of the research methodology. Note: just because something has not been done, does not mean it needs to be done (i.e., mixed-methods)…authors need to justify why it needs to be done.

Comments 10: What is health in this context?

I am still wondering what is the disconnect or gap between dialectic and practice?

Comments 11: 2.1 Move the description of UA in Greater Lome from 1.2 to here.

Comments 12: 2.2.1 See my comment re: convenience sampling (line 171 attached). I have a major concern about sampling from a list of architects/planners and selecting from a “pool” of teachers and researchers—how are they involved in the land tenure process? Authors need to describe and justify this group as a valid and reliable population to sample from to meet the main objective of the study. Why and how is their opinion relevant?

Comments 13: Remove findings from methods described in 2.2 – dates and participant # should be in findings.

Comments 14: Were interviews in a group or individual? Who conducted the interviews? Was any identifiable information collected? I assume authors gained IRB exemption because it is a human-subjects study about a professional (not personal) topic…?

Comments 15: What questions were asked in the semi-structure questionnaire? How were questions developed? A section/paragraph is required summarizing the survey instrument.

Comments 16: 2.2.2 What kind of questions were asked in the survey? Were they also semi-structured or structured or open-ended? Describe the sampling method for selecting farmers; discuss sampling limitations.

Comments 17: What health questions were asked? Please report IRB approval for human-subjects research.

Comments 18: Convenience sampling is a valid method; however, the authors need to describe what was convenient. Usually, convenience sampling begins with purposive selection of a site, landscape, region, location, etc. Describe.

Comments 19: It is unclear if “health” is related to human or environmental health. This needs to be clarified throughout.

Comments 20: More description of the survey process is needed. Include who conducted the surveys, the language, how they were recorded, how participants were approached, consented, any gift or token item for participation, length of time to complete the survey, how it was administered, etc.

Comments 21: 2.2.3 Is a list of the documents; this section is missing sample selection protocol, bias/limitations, and—most importantly—the method of content analysis.

Comments 22: It is unclear how the three methods: expert interview, farmer survey, and policy document content analysis are related to each other and how they relate to the research aim—how the aim was operationalized for data collection.

Comments 23: I suggestion integrating the analysis of individual methods (2.3.1-2.3.3) into each respective data collection section. Then add a data analysis section that describes how the three methods were analyzed to integrate and make sense of them collectively to answer the main research question.

Comments 24: Why were the expert interviews made anonymous? These are experts so their expertise should be considered as part of the analysis. It is better that their names be confidential (meaning, unpublished), but it doesn’t make sense to make them anonymous. Anonymity and confidentiality are two different ways of protecting privacy.

Comments 25: 2.3.1 Authors need to describe method of coding; the analysis is actually not described at all here and needs to be.

Comments 26: 2.3.2 Authors need to describe method of categorizing; the analysis is actually not described at all here and needs to be.

Comments 27: 2.3.3. The data analysis (quantitative analysis) is poorly described. Authors need to explain how the target words were derived and how they relate to the aim of the paper.

Comments 28: Content analysis is not just about finding and counting words, it’s about analyzing the meaning of those words and relating it to the research aim. How did the authors make sense of the output of the word count and sentence review?

Comments 29: How were the three methods analyzed together?

Comments 30 : Findings are very long and could be synthesized and organized more concisely.

Comments 31: Findings section, first paragraph. Rather than a lengthy description of the different findings subsections, I suggest the authors give a descriptive summarize of the three datasets / samples / participant groups: who, what, when, how many, etc.

Comments 32: Findings subheading titles are clunky; revise.

Comments 33: My main comment is that findings include too much raw data. Findings in a journal paper should report key findings that support the core argument. As is, the authors report all the data collected in simple summaries. If the aim is to compare and contrast dialectics and the reality of UA, first (e.g., 3.1), what is the same? Next, (3.2) what is different? Third, (3.3) any surprising, emergent, or other outcomes that add to complexity of the dialectic-reality context?

Comments 34: In terms of format, I find the paper is written more in the format of a report than a journal paper.

Comments 35: The summary of the Fig. 3 maps in the text is the first time I am aware of how health has been defined. It was unclear up until this point whether it was human, environmental or animal health. And it isn’t until line 381 that the authors distinguish between physical and mental health.

Comments 36: 3.1.3 Is confusing.

Comments 37: 3.1.4 Is too general—what exactly are the positive and negative sides?

Comments 38: Line 376: What are consumer health risks? How is this defined?

Comments 39: 3.2 It was not clear in the methods that experts were asked to define and discuss UA in planning documents. How does this align with the aim of the paper?

Comments 40: 3.2.1 Is very confusing—it does not relate to the rest of the paper and seems like a different research topic/question. Authors either need to revise the aim of the paper (including literature review and methods) if they want to keep this section.

Comments 41: 3.3 I don’t understand what the relevance is in counting words? The number of times a word is mentioned is irrelevant. What matters is how it is addressed in the documents. Please remove this section unless there is a reason related to the research aim that the authors can use to explain this section. In fact, the authors have not yet analyzed the documents in a useful way.

Comments 42: 3.4 I don’t understand the relevance of this section.

Comments 43: In reaching the discussion section, I realize the authors have reported much of the data analysis in this section. I suggest deleting the current findings section, revising the discussion as per my comments below and making this the findings section. Then re-drafting the discussion and conclusion.

Comments 44: Here is a suggestion on how to organize the discussion:

·      State if you confirmed your hypothesis/ how you answered your research question/ achieved the aim of the paper

·      Link results (don’t report findings—related them to each other)

·      Relate results to previous research (the literature mentioned in the introduction)

·      List implications

·      Claim significance

·      Question findings (how might the findings have been interpreted differently?)

·      Note limitations

·      Suggest future research

Comments 45: 4.2.1 Is written in such a general way that there is nothing meaningful for the reader to learn. Revise or delete.

Comments 46: I don’t quite understand the use of the term “typology” throughout the findings and discussion. How does it fit with the aim of the paper? It seems like a separate study to develop typologies…a different paper perhaps would be a better fit for this data?

Comments 47: 4.3.1-4.3.2 Seem like a different study

Comments 48: 4.3.3 – these are study limitations and should be moved to a more logical spot in the paper.

Comments 49: 4.3.4 Could be moved to a section on future research or in questioning the findings…

Comments 50: 4.5 Remove or revise the aim of the paper to make this section relevant.

Comments 51: 4.6 It is not necessary to introduce this section in this way—reduce to one sentence and remove the subsections so it is a cohesive paragraph or two.

Comments 52: 4.6.1 – It is difficult to reach saturation with 11 experts with different backgrounds. How do the authors know they have reached it?

Comments 53: 4.6.4 – I don’t think access to the survey in advance is a bias that needs to be reported here. I am more concerned about content validity of the survey itself, which is not described in enough detail in the methods section.

Comments 54: 4.7 – Many of the recommendations are tangential or speculative. Authors should focus on recommendations that are directly justified by the data analysis (the evidence in the paper) and avoid over-reach.

Comments 55: Authors have not adequately related findings back to the literature.

Comments 56: Some of the conclusion can be moved to the discussion when the authors revise that section.

Comments 57: Line 762-763 – unless the authors collected this information and analyzed it (which is unreliable with an n<30) this statement should be deleted.

Comments 58: The conclusion can be shortened: make it more concise and anchored in a broader discourse.

ILLUSTRATIONS

Comments 59: Figure 1, city map, bottom is missing a legend – what does the heatmap represent?

Comments 60: Table 1, remove and summarize in text only—too many phrases that are not clear to the reader and require more explanation. It is better to highlight the top problems experts identified—not all of them. This is somewhat achieved in lines 295-303, but the numbered list should be removed, and it should be put into paragraph form. Include the number of experts for each item (for example, 5 out of X experts said…).

Comments 61: Figure 2 maps, I find these less than useful in conveying the findings. Geographic location was not mentioned in the methods as an important or relevant variable so why does spatial analysis matter (and it isn’t described in methods at all)?

Comments 62: Authors need to find a way to present the data analysis of the farmers and the experts in a more equal and comparable way than a data summary table (expert) vs. hotspot maps (farmers).

Comments 63: Same comment with Figure 3 maps. Also note: the legend/titles are in French.

Comments 64: Fig. 4: How do the human graphics represent percentages/ ratios of farmers reporting? There are 9 per group—how does the reader interpret 6/9, etc?

Comments 65: Fig. 5 & 6 can be converted to a chart (with n; %) and translated to English.

Comments 66: Table 2: Authors need to report themes rather than raw data. More analysis is needed to elevate up this table and this section overall.

Comments 67: Table 4 is not scientific but rather opinion/speculation and needs to be removed. There are methods for such qualitative approaches to analysis and as far as I can tell, none have been applied.

Comments 68: Fig. 7; again, this is raw data. Findings should present analyzed data.

Comments 69: Table 5 should go in a planning report; it does not align with the aim of the paper.

LANGUAGE/STYLE

Comments 70: Language/style

Requires thorough edit for grammar and syntax. Narrative and editorial language requires revision.

Given that the authors mainly include raw data (with limited attempt to analyze or make sense of it), combined with (for example) table 4 with interpretive opinion, I question the reliability of the authors and the validity of their scientific rigor. As an expert in both quantitative and qualitative methodologies, it is difficult for me to trust the conclusions.

Overall, the paper is written more like the format of a report and needs to be restructured in the style of a journal paper. The easiest approach to start would be to remove third level subheadings and reduce lists.

This paper has value in the contribution to understanding the match/mismatch between expert and user group perspectives of urban agriculture particularly in under-researched geographic locations such as Togo. However, the paper is underdeveloped and requires substantial revision before it is appropriate for consideration to publish in an academic journal. I see several major issues:

(1) the paper is missing a clear argument or thesis, which should be stated in the abstract and used to organize the entire paper. While the authors state an aim of the paper, much of what is included does not align with (or goes beyond) the aim.

(2) The paper lacks a clear framework – it is written as a patchwork of topics—mainly in the format of a report. See my comments below for more detailed suggestions.

(3) Findings are primarily raw data rather than key analyzed findings—which are in the discussion; this should be corrected.

(4) Interpretation and reporting of findings is at times over-reach and at times speculative.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 1: Thank you. We will proceed by proofreading the entire article by MDPI's English Services.

5. Additional clarifications

Additions to the manuscript relating to your comments are highlighted in yellow.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

Thank you for your comments! We have taken them all into account.

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Thank you for your comment!

Must be improved

Thank you for your comments! We have considered them.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Thank you very much!

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: However, there are important issues that are apparently not so relevant in this country, for example, urban agriculture in other countries is a measure of food security because it is associated with the self-consumption of food by people who do not have the cash to buy it in the market. This is not talked about at all and it is strange.

Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. You are correct that in many countries, urban agriculture (UA) is closely linked to food security, particularly through self-consumption by individuals who lack the financial means to purchase food. In the case of Greater Lomé, UA serves a slightly different purpose, with a stronger focus on economic activity and generating income through the sale of agricultural products rather than direct self-consumption. This reflects the specific socio-economic context of the region. We will address this point in the introduction to clarify this distinction and ensure a more nuanced discussion of UA in different contexts.

Comments 2: Another element that refers to the unhealthiness of food, it is not clear whether this is a generalised problem for both rural and urban farmers due to the lack of clean drinking water from rivers.

Response 2: Thank you for your comment. The aim of the article was not to establish causality between the various health determinants but rather to highlight the knowledge that experts have regarding these determinants and to compare it with what farmers themselves identify and express in their own words. This approach was intended to shed light on the differences in perspectives and to capture the lived realities of urban farmers as they articulate them.

Comments 3: Another fundamental shortcoming is the lack of discussion of results. The issue of urban agriculture in Africa has been studied and reviewed for at least thirty years, and there is no discussion here of the commonalities and differences that other authors have addressed.

Response 3: Thank you for highlighting this important point. We recognize the need to discuss our results in the context of existing literature on urban agriculture in Africa, and we will address this in the discussion section to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the commonalities and differences identified by other authors.

Comments 4: The results of geolocation are not clear. It should be more closely linked to the socio-economic characterisation of the spaces where the different perceptions of urban agriculture are found.

Response 4: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. To avoid overcomplicating the subject, we chose not to delve into establishing causal relationships for the observed phenomena regarding geolocation. Instead, we focused on presenting the observed correlations, which we believe are essential for understanding the dynamics at play. However, in response to the comment from another reviewer, we have added relevant literature and methodological context in the State of the Art and Methods sections to position our approach within existing research better and provide a clearer understanding of the spatial aspects of urban agriculture. This foundation aims to support future researchers in exploring causality more deeply in this area.

Comments 5: Finally, the combined quantitative and qualitative methodology is important to collect the experience and perception of the main actor in urban agriculture as the consumer.

Response 5: Thank you very much for your encouraging feedback. We truly appreciate your positive remarks and are glad that you recognize the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies to capture the experiences and perceptions of key stakeholders in urban agriculture.

The article has an original combined methodology and I consider it important to be used in other similar works or in different contexts. Congratulations on the work and I think you agree that it is in everyone's interest to improve it for the benefit of all of us, you and the readers.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research.

Response 1: Thank you very much. However, we will proceed by proofreading the entire article by MDPI's English Services.

5. Additional clarifications

Additions to the manuscript relating to your comments are highlighted in blue.

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Thank you for your comments! We have taken them all into account.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Can be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: I appreciate all the revisions the authors have made thus far, however, there are still some issues.

Lines 152-155, the authors state their research question: “What is the relationship between experts' perceptions of UA and the reality experienced by farmers, and how do the theoretical framework, health associations, and socio-cultural and professional profiles of experts influence this dynamic?” However, the authors provide no theoretical framework for their investigation. If their study builds upon the findings in the systematic literature review they published, then that theoretical framework needs to be reproduced. If this study is descriptive and was not based on an existing theoretical framework, the authors must state this. If this study uses grounded theory for example, then the authors need to propose a theoretical framework in their discussion.

Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We understand the confusion caused by our initial phrasing and have reformulated the research question for clarity.

Comments 2: Section 4.1 would be the appropriate place to propose theoretical linkages. Descriptive studies that do not explore theoretical linkages or propose their own framework cannot make generalizations.

It's possible there’s a communication issue in what I mean versus the authors mean when using the term “theoretical framework.” I am using this definition according to ScienceDirect, a social science theory is “a systematic explanation that relates to a specific aspect of life, providing a viewpoint or perspective that helps understand observed facts and laws within social sciences.”

Response 2: Thank you for your insightful comment. We now understand the distinction you are making regarding the term "theoretical framework." In response, we have removed this term in Section 4.1. We hope this revision meets your expectations and provides a more coherent approach. Thank you again for pointing this out.

Comments 3: The manuscript in many places needs a more logical flow, for example:

Section 3.1.3. lines 440-443: this subsection has only one incomplete paragraph (the paragraph has two sentences). There are other sections like this as well.

Response 3: Thank you for this beneficial remark. Thank you for highlighting this issue. We have revised Section 3.1.3 and other similar sections to ensure that all subsections contain complete and substantive paragraphs. The content has been expanded and reorganized where necessary to provide a more logical flow and comprehensive discussion, avoiding overly short or fragmented subsections.

Comments 4: The manuscript in many places needs a more logical flow, for example:

Section 3.2: The short but frequent subsections make the article difficult to read. I would reconsider the organization of the Results section to make it less choppy and flow better.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. We have carefully revised the structure of Section 3.2 and the Results section overall to improve the logical flow and readability. The short subsections have been consolidated where appropriate to ensure a smoother and more cohesive narrative, making the section less fragmented and easier to follow.

Comments 5: The word “unthinking” is still in the manuscript a few times.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. The term "unthinking" has been replaced with "latent conceptualization" throughout the manuscript.

4. Quality of English Language: the quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research.

5. Additional clarifications

Additions to the manuscript relating to your comments are highlighted in green.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

Thank you for your comments! We have taken them all into account.

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

Must be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: While the paper is greatly improved, there are still issues with lack of core argument and organization. The authors have added more detail, which is useful; however, the paper lacks motivation. I am left wondering what is the point? What is the main theme? What holds all the pieces together in a cohesive way?

Response 1: Thank you very much for your insightful feedback and detailed comments in the PDF. They have been invaluable in guiding our revisions and helping us improve the manuscript. Specifically, we have worked to strengthen the core argument by clearly articulating the main theme of the paper and highlighting how all the pieces fit together cohesively. Additionally, we have refined the motivation for the study to ensure that the purpose and significance are evident throughout the manuscript. We hope these revisions address your concerns and effectively clarify the central points of our work.

Comments 2: As is, it continues to read like a report of a research project that is searching for the point it is trying to make--I still don't know how health and UA intersect?

Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We understand your concern and have revised the manuscript to more clearly articulate the intersection between health and UA. Specifically, we emphasize how UA practices directly and indirectly impact human health outcomes, such as through exposure to environmental risks (e.g., contaminated water or soil), occupational hazards, and the physical and mental health benefits of improved food security. Additionally, we explore how the disconnect between experts’ perceptions and farmers’ realities influences the integration of health considerations into UA practices and urban planning. These revisions aim to ensure the main point of the study—how health and UA intersect—is explicitly clear throughout the manuscript.

Comments 3: The findings are still poorly organized--and include too much information that should be analyzed at a higher level.

Response 3: Thank you for your feedback. In response, we have reorganized the results section to focus on key themes and central insights, reducing detailed descriptions that detract from the overarching narrative. This restructuring aims to provide a clearer and more cohesive presentation of the findings, emphasizing their relevance to the study's objectives and the intersection of health and UA. We hope these changes address your concern and improve the clarity and impact of the results.

Comments 4: Discussion is very long and broad. Please see my specific comments in the attached document.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge that the discussion was previously lengthy and broad. Based on your specific comments in the attached document, we have streamlined the discussion section to focus on the key findings and their implications. Irrelevant details and overly broad content have been removed to ensure the discussion remains concise and directly tied to the study's objectives. We appreciate your detailed suggestions, which have been instrumental in refining this section.

Comments 5: Note: I did not give detailed comments starting from mid-Findings section because there is still too much work to be done to organize and frame the paper.

Response 5: Thank you for your candid feedback. We understand that there is still work to be done in organizing and framing the paper, particularly from the mid-findings section onward. Based on your earlier comments, we have restructured the paper to strengthen its coherence and focus, ensuring that each section contributes clearly to the overarching argument. We are continuing to refine the findings and discussion sections to address these issues and will incorporate any further guidance you may have.

Comments 6: My big question that the authors have yet to answer is: what is the one big idea they are contributing to the state of the research? An academic paper is a forum to contribute one important (significant) idea even if it is small and narrow. This paper proposes many loosely connected results that have not yet been polished.

Response 6: Thank you for highlighting this very important point. We recognize the importance of clearly articulating the central idea that our paper contributes to the state of research. The key contribution of this study lies in uncovering the disconnect between experts' perceptions and farmers' lived realities regarding UA and its health implications. By demonstrating how these misalignments impact the integration of health considerations into UA practices and urban planning, we aim to provide actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners. In response to your comment, we have revised the manuscript to ensure that this central idea is consistently emphasized throughout the paper, tying all results and discussions back to this core argument.

4. Quality of English Language: the quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research.

5. Additional clarifications

Additions to the manuscript relating to your comments are highlighted in yellow.