Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores a relevant and timely topic of international importance. It presents a study aimed at developing a “GIS-based methodology to map and assess the potential distribution of urban agriculture in Bogotá, thereby providing a comprehensive geographic analysis to support evidence-based policy and planning” (lines 64-65). Overall, the paper follows a clear and coherent structure. However, it would benefit from substantial revision to improve alignment between sections and the overall articulation of its main contribution.

 

Title:

The title is generally clear, but its emphasis on the ‘methodological framework’ does not fully reflect the paper’s content. The proposed methodological approach is not compared with, nor discussed in relation to, other similar approaches. The authors are encouraged to revise the title so that it more accurately represents the actual focus and scope of the study.

 

Abstract:

The abstract could be strengthened, particularly in the introductory paragraph (lines 11-15). Also, the research objectives are not explicitly stated, and the main findings are not adequately summarized (lines 24-27).

 

Keywords:

The keywords could be better aligned with the article’s content (e.g. ‘informal urban agriculture’ is listed, bur does not appear in or is explained within the text).

 

Methodology / 3.2. Typology of food gardens and primary data collection:

Some inconsistencies appear in this section (lines 264-267). The typology of food gardens seems largely derived from the classification used by the Botanical Garden (line 266), rather than being a direct outcome of the author’s research. The criteria for merging the two types (line 269) should be stated and explained. Likewise, lines 271-276 would benefit from a more precise description of which data were collected and how they were used in the subsequent analysis.

 

Results:

The results section should be expanded and more directly connected to the research objectives presented in the Introduction (lines 98-102). Additional explanation and interpretation of the findings would further strengthen this section.

 

Discussion:

This section predominantly contains detailed descriptions of urban foodscape garden types and these parts should be relocated to the Results section. The Discussion should be further developed by comparing the applied methodology and/or findings with those of other studies, both nationally and internationally. Lines 433-443 would be more appropriate if placed under Limitations of the study.

 

Conclusions:

The conclusions could be more concise and should directly relate the key findings to the research objectives stated in the Introduction.

 

References:

The reference style and formatting should be revised to conform to the journal’s author guidelines.

 

The main ambiguity concerns the manuscript’s focus: it remains unclear whether the primary contribution lies in proposing a new methodology (as the title suggests) or in the results themselves. Clarifying the focus would significantly enhance the coherence and contribution of the paper.

 

Author Response

Please see table attached for responses

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: land-3906075-peer-review-v1

Setting the field: a methodological framework to plan for urban productive foodscapes in Bogotá, Colombia

My comments are as follows to improve the article further:

Title: The title is too long; the authors can shorten it. Also, please remove “Bogotá, Colombia.” It can be written as: Setting the Field: A Methodological Framework to Plan for Urban Productive Foodscapes. You can put Colombia in the keywords.

Abstract:

In abstract: There is a growing number of studies that estimate the potential crop productivity of urban agriculture, but findings from these are contradictory. A lack of primary data and the….. This is a study problem. Please start with the few introduction

Introduction:

In line 36: (cit. Artman & Sartison 2018; Zhu et al. 2024; Wild et al., 2024) . What do you mean by “cit.”? Also, please update these references, as they appear outdated.

In line 37: The phrase “Milan Urban Food Policy Pact” appears repeated — please revise to avoid redundancy. Also, what do you mean by “n.d.”? You mean for “no date,” indicating that the publication year is not available, but it should be clarified or replaced if the date can be found.

• Same in line 47?
• Why did you use “cit.” in the references? Please remove it throughout the entire article. Please ensure that all references follow the journal’s specified reference style.
• - Please rewrite the objectives of the article (lines 94–101), as they are confusing and sometimes read like a description of the methods used.
• There is no need to include the heading “Context.” You can move this part to the methodology section and add a subtitle “Study Area,” describing Bogotá and including its map. (Fig.1).
• The map also needs modification, as its keys are unclear and unreadable.
• What are the innovative points of your paper?

Methodology:

• In line 200, please remove the links and cite the references properly. You can mention the web platform in the text, and include the full web information in the reference list.
• In Fig. 2, the text is not clear. You can lighten the color of the figure or bold the text inside it to improve readability.
• In 297: We performed a spatial Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) , please justify why this method was used.
• Results
• Your results need to be justified. For example, in lines 394–395: “Data gathered across the sample of 15 gardens suggest that home gardens are the most productive (1.27 kg/m²), followed by commercial gardens (0.84 kg/m²), educational gardens (0.78 kg/m²), and community gardens (0.44 kg/m²).” Please provide an explanation or interpretation of why these differences occur.

 

 Discussion

• It is too long; please summarize it, focus on your main results, and compare them with findings from other studies.
• Please move the “Limitations of the Study” to the Conclusions section and add the policy implications of your study also here.

References:

  Need to be updated to include sources from the last five years.

- There are more and more errors in the standard of English (and other typo errors/mistakes), and the authors should proofread the paper carefully.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are more and more errors in the standard of English (and other typo errors/mistakes), and the authors should proofread the paper carefully. 

Author Response

Please see attached table for all responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Research significance and originality

The paper combines GIS spatial analysis with field data to assess the suitability and production potential of urban agriculture, which is methodologically innovative.

However, the current research relies on a relatively small sample of only 15 gardens, which may limit the representativeness and robustness of the results. I suggest emphasizing this limitation more explicitly in the discussion and proposing plans to expand the sample size in future research.

2. Methodological details

The weighting process in the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) introduces a certain degree of subjectivity. The authors should clarify the basis for the chosen weights (e.g., expert judgment, literature review) and ideally conduct a sensitivity analysis to strengthen the credibility of the results.

The explanation of the MaxEnt model is relatively brief. Please provide additional details regarding parameter settings and model validation (e.g., AUC values, cross-validation).

3. Data and results

The discussion of water use and compost balance requires more clarity. For example, the fact that community gardens produce far more compost than they consume should be analyzed more thoroughly, as it may give the impression of inconsistent data.

It is recommended to unify units across tables (e.g., m², kg, L) and include explanatory notes beneath figures/tables to facilitate cross-comparison.

4. Discussion and policy implications

While the discussion touches upon dietary contributions, it could be expanded. For instance, could policy interventions (such as subsidies or educational programs) improve the productivity of less efficient gardens?

It would strengthen the paper to include comparisons with similar cases in other cities in the Global South (e.g., African or Asian cities), highlighting the broader applicability of the Bogotá case study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the English is clear, but some sentences are overly long, which affects readability. Splitting long sentences would improve clarity.

 

Author Response

Please see attached table for all responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I appreciate the considerable effort you have made in improving the manuscript, which is now largely acceptable. However, I think that the Discussion section could benefit from further refinement. Since the focus is on developing an "analytical framework", the discussion should extend beyond the results and include a comparison of this framework with methodologies used in similar domestic and international studies.

 

Author Response

COMMENT: the Discussion section could benefit from further refinement. Since the focus is on developing an "analytical framework", the discussion should extend beyond the results and include a comparison of this framework with methodologies used in similar domestic and international studies

RESPONSE: We have added two paragraphs at the end of the Discussion section (lines 668 - 684) to address this comment. We hope that the Reviewer finds this latest addition satisfactory.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed and response to all comments i suggested.

Author Response

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

RESPONSE: We reveiwed the English and we think it expresses sufficiently well the contents of the study. We found minor errors that we amended (see track changes). We are prepared to revies the English once more if the Reviewer still believes that this should be improved.