Urban Gardening in a Changing Climate: A Review of Effects, Responses and Adaptation Capacities for Cities
, Adriana Correa-Guimaraes 1 and Luis Manuel Navas-Gracia 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
· The article is interesting and relevant. But still some places for corrections:
I In Abstract part the research aim is not clear; even in Introduction part it should be formulated in more clearly way.
· What are the benefits of urban gardens in climate change processes?
· Whether to see more clear steps/stages of research in 2. Methods part – I would suggest drawing some logical scheme. Especially it considers PRISMA methodology.
· Usually in Results part we see results from research – but here in part 3.2.1. we see literature analysis as well – so probably it can be discussed in theory part or at the end of introduction and somehow separated from results?
· What is the benefit of this article for international audience? Is it possible to implement the same research in other countries?
Author Response
The article is interesting and relevant. But still some places for corrections:
I In Abstract part the research aim is not clear; even in Introduction part it should be formulated in more clearly way.
The aim of the research was written directly in the Abstract: “Here we systematically reviewed articles and book chapters published in the last two decades (2000-2022) with the aim of showing the relationship between climate change and urban gardening”. Also, in the Introduction section, we add that the main aim is to show the main relationships of urban gardens with climate change. From there, the research questions were asked.
What are the benefits of urban gardens in climate change processes?
The main benefits of urban gardens in the process of climate change are now described in the Introduction: “climate regulation, carbon capture, water retention, food security, educational opportunities on environmental issues”
Whether to see more clear steps/stages of research in 2. Methods part – I would suggest drawing some logical scheme. Especially it considers PRISMA methodology.
The research method (PRISMA methology) was expanded in text with more details. Each of the steps taken -a) Searching, b) Screening and c) Include to encode- were explained in detail. Although the development of each stage can be drawn, the authors prefer to leave it written as most reviews prefer this option over drawing. Through its writing, it is possible to better detail the process carried out.
The authors consider that the review process, considering the PRISMA methodology, is drawing in the Figure 1. On the left of Figure 1, each stage of the PRISMA methodology is identified.
Usually in Results part we see results from research – but here in part 3.2.1. we see literature analysis as well – so probably it can be discussed in theory part or at the end of introduction and somehow separated from results?
This comment is valid and interesting, since we have considered the same thing at the time of writing. But, given the suggestions of the other referees of the article ("to shorten the Introduction"), the authors decide to leave part 3.2.1 in the results section.
What is the benefit of this article for international audience? Is it possible to implement the same research in other countries?
In the “Discussion” section, it has been detailed that the review contributes to the international scientific community, demonstrating the main relationships of urban gardens with climate change. This, in addition to offering precise and compact information, motivates particular, specific and in-depth studies of the subject in various urban gardens around the world.
In “5. Limitations and future directions”, the capabilities of the review in being able to be replicated in other countries of the international scientific community have been explained.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is relevant and well written. Just tiny revision.
Your abstract seems well organized, but the results part in the abstract lacks data, not recommended to use text only.
General comment on the Introduction section: My main suggestion is to shorten the introduction that is a bit too long and to make a deeper analysis of the most recent literature. Besides, some knowledge and methodological backgrounds were not presented in the introduction and methodology but with results.
In addition, why is there only title 1.1, and there is no subsequent 1.2.
The research method is too simple and needs to be elaborated in detail. Specifically, statistical research methods related to the PRISMA methodology and the process need further explanation.
Conclusions: Further focus on your results/findings.
The format of the paper needs to be modified according to the template of the journal.
I have no strong plagiarism checker and you should do that.
Author Response
The paper is relevant and well written. Just tiny revision.
Your abstract seems well organized, but the results part in the abstract lacks data, not recommended to use text only.
A paragraph that describes more the results in the abstract section has been added: “From 72 documents analyzed with Nvivo Software, we found that there is an increase in academic publications. US (14) and German (9) universities are the dominant producers.”
General comment on the Introduction section: My main suggestion is to shorten the introduction that is a bit too long and to make a deeper analysis of the most recent literature. Besides, some knowledge and methodological backgrounds were not presented in the introduction and methodology but with results.
According to the arbitrations received, where some comment to shorten the Introduction and others to add more information to it, it has been decided to keep the Introduction done, with brief specific data added. Now, details of the methodology used and the results are anticipated in the Introduction section.
In addition, why is there only title 1.1, and there is no subsequent 1.2.
A new subtitle has been created in the Introduction section. Now there is a point 1.1 and 1.2.
The research method is too simple and needs to be elaborated in detail. Specifically, statistical research methods related to the PRISMA methodology and the process need further explanation.
The research method (PRISMA methology) was expanded in text with more details. Each of the steps taken -a) Searching, b) Screening and c) Include to encode- were explained in detail. The added text also explains the Figure 1
Conclusions: Further focus on your results/findings.
The main findings regarding the dominant universities of publications were added. The main results, answering the 3 research questions asked, are already identified.
The format of the paper needs to be modified according to the template of the journal.
The format of the paper has been changed to the 2023 journal format, available in https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture/instructions#biography
I have no strong plagiarism checker and you should do that.
The document has been processed in "Turnitin", which is an internet plagiarism prevention service. It has been verified that the paraphrases, typical of a literary review, are correctly cited.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
