Review Reports - Enhancing Post-Disaster Food Security Through Urban Agriculture in the Context of Climate Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study evaluated the potential role of UA to enhance post-disaster food security in Wellington City by calculating vegetable self-sufficiency rates, based on estimates of food production and post-disaster demand scenarios. Food production were assessed using a GIS-based analysis of potential productive land scenarios and hypothetical vegetable yield scenarios. Post-disaster demand was evaluated using New Zealand's recommended food intake guidelines and targeted population scenarios. The results indicated that self-sufficient rates for all Wellingtonians could range from 3% to 75%, depending on yield assumptions and land-use patterns. If the focus is narrowed to displaced or vulnerable populations—those most likely to experience food insecurity after a disaster—higher self-sufficiency rates could be achieved. The potential pro ductive land accounts for 0.3% to 1.5% of the total Wellington area across different scenarios, with distribution primarily concentrated in the eastern part of the city. Land 2025, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 26 Although preliminary research demonstrated that self-sufficiency is currently not possible, this study highlighted the potential for significant improvement through the expansion of UA land and diversification of UA types, thereby strengthening post-disaster food security. Beyond food production, UA offers additional benefits, such as social and emotional support, as well as providing evacuation spaces during emergencies. While achieving self-sufficiency does not guarantee food security, it serves as an important cornerstone in evaluating a city’s capacity to meet its food needs. Wellington has the potential to meet its vegetable demands during disasters. However, this potential depends on effective planning and utilization. WCC has proposed developing resilient, multi-purpose open and community spaces for post-disaster use and creating a sustainable food system to ensure food availability during crises. However, integrating these proposals into a single solution-developing UA- has not yet been addressed in relevant documents. Drawing inspiration from international examples, Wellington could benefit from integrating UA policies with urban planning and disaster preparedness to fully harness UA’s role in post-disaster scenarios.

Methods are adequately described.

Conclusions are supported by results.

The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

No.

Comments from Review Report

Author Response

Amendment for Paper

Methods are adequately described.

Conclusions are supported by results.

The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

1. Thank you very much for your positive and encouraging comments.

As no revisions were suggested, no changes have been made.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

This study evaluates the potential role of urban agriculture to enhance post-disaster food security in Wellington City by calculating vegetable self-sufficiency rates, based on estimates of food production and post-disaster demand scenarios, using a GIS-based analysis of potential productive land scenarios and hypothetical vegetable yield scenarios. In addition, post-disaster demand is evaluated using New Zealand's recommended food intake guidelines and targeted population scenarios.

In my opinion, the article is well structured, argued and scientificaly soundness. The introduction is well referenciated and the method clearly explicated. The results are well presented and the discussion is consistent with the results and the introduction that contained the literature revision. Mover, in the discussion the results are compare with other cities such as Tokyo, Berlin, among others.

It would have been interesting to discuss in the discussion section what happens with the competition that would arise over land use if it were to be transformed into agricultural land. For example, urban land is used for petting parks, sports zones, recreational parks, etc. The authors briefly mention this in footnote 4 on page 6, but it is not clear whether there is information, for example, on the square meters used for pets in private yards. However, the authors mention this as a limitation of the article in the limitation section.

The only comments that I have to be revised are:

1) In footnote 4 on page 6 it would be a good idea if the authors defined the meaning of single unit (S), multiunit (M), etc. for clarity.

2) In section 2.4. please explain the acronyms W, NW, N, NE, E.

Kind regards,

Reviewer.

Author Response

*No.*	*Comments from Review Report*	*Author Response*	*Amendment for Paper*
1	It would have been interesting to discuss in the discussion section what happens with the competition that would arise over land use if it were to be transformed into agricultural land. For example, urban land is used for petting parks, sports zones, recreational parks, etc. The authors briefly mention this in footnote 4 on page 6, but it is not clear whether there is information, for example, on the square meters used for pets in private yards. However, the authors mention this as a limitation of the article in the limitation section.	1. Thank you for your insightful comment. We acknowledge that, in practice, competition for land use would arise between UA and other purposes, particularly leisure and recreational activities. 2. Detailed data on the specific allocation and proportion of land use between UA and other functions, such as pet areas in private yards, is currently unavailable. We recognize this as a limitation and believe it presents a valuable direction for future research, offering deeper insights into the practical implementation of UA.	Explanations have been added for clarity in Paragraph 3 in Section 4.5. Please see the highlighted part on *page 19 line 594 to 596.*
2	In footnote 4 on page 6 it would be a good idea if the authors defined the meaning of single unit (S), multiunit (M), etc. for clarity.	1. Thank you for the suggestion. We agree with the reviewer’s comments.	Explanations of related terms have been added for clarity. Please see the highlighted part in Footnote 4 on page 6.

3	In section 2.4. please explain the acronyms W, NW, N, NE, E.	1. Thank you for the helpful comment. We agree with the reviewer’s comments.	The acronyms W, NW, N, NE, and E have been explained in Section 2.4. Please see the highlighted part on *page10 line 265 to 266.*

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Instead of relying heavily on literature data to estimate vegetable yields, conduct more surveys and interviews with local farmers in Wellington.

Include more scenarios that take into account other factors affecting post-disaster demand, such as the type of disaster (earthquake, flood, etc.), duration of disruption, and availability of infrastructure.

Include pregnant and lactating women in the analysis of vulnerable populations, as they have special nutritional needs after disasters.

Add an economic analysis to assess the costs and benefits of urban agriculture in Wellington, including establishment and operational costs, and economic, social, and environmental benefits.

With these adjustments, the research paper will be more robust and comprehensive and will further contribute to understanding the potential of urban agriculture to enhance food security after disasters.

Best regards,

Author Response

No.

Comments from Review Report

Author Response

Amendment for Paper

Instead of relying heavily on literature data to estimate vegetable yields, conduct more surveys and interviews with local farmers in Wellington.

1. Thank you for your constructive comment. We agree with the reviewer that using local survey data is preferable to relying on literature data whenever possible.

2. The authors initially prioritized the collection of local yield data. During the preliminary research phase, a survey targeting local gardeners was conducted, but only two participants provided usable data, mainly because most gardeners do not keep formal harvest records. The authors also explored the possibility of conducting a long-term survey to collect local yield data, but this was not feasible due to low participation rates and the difficulty of capturing year-round yield data, which would limit the reliability and validity of the dataset. Given these practical constraints, the study had to rely on literature-based yield data, as explained in Sections 2.2 and 4.5. However, a comparison between the literature data and the limited local data collected showed consistency (Table 1), supporting the reliability of this study’s findings.

To address this concern more clearly, we have added further clarification regarding these limitations in Section 2.2 paragraph 1.

Please see the highlighted part on page 8 line 229.

1. Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that incorporating more detailed scenarios, such as disaster type, duration of disruption, and infrastructure availability, would enhance the analysis.

2. This study primarily focuses on the general potential of urban agriculture in addressing post-disaster vegetable demand in Wellington, considering it on an annual basis. While the factors mentioned are indeed important, they fall outside the scope of this study. Future studies could explore these aspects in more detail, such as by considering specific disaster types or disruption durations.

Explanations have been added as a future research direction in Section 4.5 paragraph 6.

Please see the highlighted part on Page 19 line 602 to 608.

Include pregnant and lactating women in the analysis of vulnerable populations, as they have special nutritional needs after disasters.

1. Thank you for the valuable comment. We agree with the reviewer’s comment that pregnant and lactating women are important in the analysis of vulnerable populations.

2. The authors attempted to include pregnant and lactating women in the study; however, relevant census data for this group were not available. This limitation has been explained in Section 2.3 line 257.

Explanations have been added in Section 4.5 paragraph 3.

Please see the highlighted part on Page 19 line 588 to 591.

Add an economic analysis to assess the costs and benefits of urban agriculture in Wellington, including establishment and operational costs, and economic, social, and environmental benefits.

1. Thank you for this valuable comment. We agree that an economic analysis of urban agriculture, including establishment and operational costs as well as potential benefits, would provide useful insights.

2. The primary focus of this study is to examine the potential of UA to contribute to food supply in the aftermath of disasters, rather than evaluating its economic feasibility. Considering the scope and data availability, a detailed economic analysis was beyond the objectives of this study.

Explanations have been added as a recommended direction for future research in Section 4.5 paragraph 3.

Please see the highlighted part on Page 19 line 602 to 608.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides new insights into the study of the potential role of UA to enhance post-disaster food security in Wellington City by calculating vegetable self-sufficiency rates, based on estimates of food production and post-disaster demand scenarios. Results indicate that potential productive land is primarily evenly distributed in the eastern part within city boundary. However, the paper is written professionally.

Introduction

The paragraph “Introduction” is very easy and fluent to read and understandable.

Materials and Methods

They are explained and presented in accordance with the research topic.

Results

The presentation of the results is clear and understandable.

Discussion and Conclusions

The discussion is in line with the results and previous research. The conclusion is brief and clearly written.

Author Response

No.

Comments from Review Report

Author Response

Amendment for Paper

Introduction: The paragraph “Introduction” is very easy and fluent to read and understandable.

Materials and Methods: They are explained and presented in accordance with the research topic.

Results: The presentation of the results is clear and understandable.

Discussion and Conclusions: The discussion is in line with the results and previous research. The conclusion is brief and clearly written.

1. Thank you very much for your positive and encouraging comments.

As no revisions were suggested, no changes have been made.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx