Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, the manuscript can be accepted for publication in Land after addressing my minor revisions, in my opinion.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide such constructive and helpful feedback on our manuscript. We have addressed all points raised and have provided a detailed, point-by-point response in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The introduction presents the three strands well, but the connection among them could be articulated more explicitly and earlier. In the final paragraph of the Introduction, summarise why LWSs with AVs are proposed as the specific form of EGI for food security—rather than broad EGI in general.

2. Section 2.3 and 2.4: The sample design is described in detail, but readers would benefit from a brief justification for how 100 survey participants statistically represent a settlement of ~40,000 residents. Suggest adding one sentence explaining that sampling was distributed spatially across three zones, and that participation rates align with similar perception studies in informal settlements.

3. Section 3.2: The correlation result (r = –0.220, p < 0.05) is important; however, the variables tested should be clarified.

4. The Conclusion is compelling but could be sharpened to emphasise what this specific case study demonstrated, rather than broad systemic aspirations.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide such constructive and helpful feedback on our manuscript. We have addressed all points raised and have provided a detailed, point-by-point response in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study explores the adoption of modular living wall systems planted with African vegetables in the Melusi informal settlement, Tshwane, South Africa. It aims to assess the socio-cultural perceptions, opportunities, and challenges associated with outdoor modular living walls as a strategy for enhancing food security and delivering ecosystem services in marginalized urban communities. Data were collected through semi-structured questionnaires, focus groups, and photo-elicitation methods, and analyzed using a mixed-methods approach. The findings highlight enthusiasm for space-saving, resilient, and culturally relevant African vegetable crops, but also document barriers including costs, maintenance, limited resources, and infrastructure challenges in this context.​ The authors argue that low‑tech, cost‑effective, modular systems made from recycled materials and planted with nutrient‑dense African vegetables could enhance food security, promote economic growth, and support climate‑resilient livelihoods in marginalized urban communities.

Major Issues

Methodological Limitations – The study relies heavily on self-reported perceptions and experiences, which introduces bias and limits objective outcome measurement. Showing participants curated images of LWSs and AVs may have influenced responses positively. There is no mention of measures to reduce interviewer bias or social desirability bias. There is little evidence of direct measurement of food security impacts, and no experimental control or comparison groups.

Sample Size – Although the sample is stated to be representative of the Melusi community, the actual numbers (100 respondents, 7 ECD sites) may not sufficiently capture variability or ensure generalizability, especially for conclusions beyond this single community. Random selection is claimed, but details on how randomness was ensured are vague.

Missing Controls – There is no clear comparison to households without living wall systems or to alternative food security interventions. Absence of controls restricts validity of claims regarding the superiority of the living wall system approach.

Unmeasured Outcomes – The positive effects of living wall systems, such as biomass yield, nutritional impact, and ecosystem services, are often mentioned but not directly measured or quantified in the study.

Statistical Rigour – Analysis relies mainly on descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations. There is no multivariate analysis to account for confounding factors (e.g., income, gender, education).

Potential Overstatement – Some conclusions, particularly regarding the scalability, resilience, and transformative potential of living wall systems, are not fully supported by robust evidence from the present data. Claims about food security impact remain speculative in the absence of quantitative data on actual food output, nutritional contribution, or cost‑benefit analysis of living wall systems,

Minor Issues

Table and Figure Clarity – Some tables and figures summarizing barriers, motivations, and demographic breakdowns are dense and may benefit from clearer formatting, simpler labelling, or additional explanation in-text to aid reader comprehension. Tables 1–3 are overly detailed with redundant ‘Valid Percent’ and ‘Cumulative Percent’ columns. These could be simplified for clarity. Income distribution table mixes hourly and monthly wages, which may confuse readers.

Explanation Needs – The manuscript could better explain the process of participant selection, rationale for the choice of African vegetable crops, and specifics of living wall system construction and maintenance. Details on the statistical tests and coding processes should also be clarified. The paper mentions ‘ECDs’ (early childhood development centres) but does not explain their role until later. A brief definition upfront would help. The socio‑cultural barriers (taste preferences, colonial displacement of native crops) are mentioned but not deeply analyzed – this section could be expanded.

Textual Redundancy – The introduction and discussion sections repeat points on the need for sustainable food systems and edible green infrastructure. These passages could be streamlined to avoid unnecessary repetition and focus more succinctly on study findings.

Recommendations

Consider stronger discussion on possible future research, including longer-term impact assessment, experimental designs, and broader site comparisons. While limited access to African vegetable recipes is presented as a barrier, there is little material on how this might be overcome or what interventions are proposed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide such constructive and helpful feedback on our manuscript. We have addressed all points raised and have provided a detailed, point-by-point response in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Land.