Cultivating Bonds: On Urban Allotment Gardens and Their Relationship with Social Capital

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was a clear presentation of some interesting research.  I enjoyed reading it and it was easy to follow.  It describes how community gardens can influence social capital, with a strong emphasis on the administrative and governance  aspects (results A and C) but also facets of social benefits (results B).  The results are likely to be relevant to many urban/outer urban, semi-rural communities in Spain and other developed economies

I think this subject should be of interest to readers of the journal, as more rural populations can be prone to more or different social and health challenges (compared to urban populations) often driven by loneliness and social isolation.

The research aims were stated; however I expected this manuscript be a “grass roots” qualitative study using “participants” – i.e. those tilling the soil.  Rather, it seemed to focus on administrators, coordinators, and academics.  That’s fine, but maybe the title (or abstract, or “aims” statement) should better reflect the data source.

A qualitative approach was appropriate (lines 305-309).  There is acknowledgment of data sampling, collection and saturation issues.  Location of participants was given (Valencia area).  Details of participants, interview length, data handling, use of ATLAS, ethics (line 1137-1140), consent gained (line 1141), relevant to communities (worldwide?) where loneliness, aging, and low social capital are present.

• Could you clarify and simplify the inclusion criteria (lines 248-253) for readers? Maybe a table? 
• Were there any exclusion criteria?
• Can you clarify what the designation “activist” means? Sounds militant!  Might mean something different outside your country.  Also for “public administration technicians”.
• The readers of Agriculture might understand “Sex”, “male”, and “female” better (vs gender, man, woman) in Table 1.
• Clarify your philosophical starting point?
• Did you use a grounded theory approach? Just thematic analysis?
• Is there an interview guide describing the semi-structured questions used? This may be covered at lines 320-324 but used some flexibility (lines 315-317).
• Who did the interview? Known to participants? Interviewer/analysist bias considered?
• Good breakdown of the analysis and major themes. Opposing (i.e. negative effects of social capital processes) were mentioned, but was “exclusion” the only thing? Are the benefits of community gardens NOT likely to be seen in X, Y Z groups?
• Maybe you could give a table summarising the resultant themes you developed.
• In the Results section, sub-headings are not numbered as in the other two results sections.
• Line 754: should be “win-win”.  Delete “to”.
• May be a layout issue, or some other reporting convention, but what does “[# Urban garden → social capital]” mean at the end of quotations in the results section? Explain, or delete?
• Make sure the limitations of generalisability are stated, as for all qualitative studies. But also mention that this is not “the worker’s” voice being presented, rather academics, administrators etc viewpoints.
• I assume your theoretical model (e.g. line 1109) refers to Figure 1. I don’t know a lot about “directed acyclic graphs”, but Figure 1 looks like a cycle.  I thought a DAG was unidirectional, with no chance of a loop.  Maybe this should be reviewed and/or described differently.  The figure itself looks ok.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comment 1: The manuscript was a clear presentation of some interesting research.  I enjoyed reading it and it was easy to follow.  It describes how community gardens can influence social capital, with a strong emphasis on the administrative and governance aspects (results A and C) but also facets of social benefits (results B).  The results are likely to be relevant to many urban/outer urban, semi-rural communities in Spain and other developed economies.

Response: we would like to thank you very much for your comments and for taking the time to review this manuscript in detail. As you rightly point out, we did not only want to reflect on the factors that can promote or hinder the generation of social capital through urban gardens, taking into account the objectives that unite people in the creation and maintenance of these initiatives, the elements of social capital that reside in these spaces, and the governance models applied, but also, to emphasize how the generation of social capital in these green spaces can provide a platform for inclusion for vulnerable groups, such as migrants, people with disabilities and the elderly. Although it is not the main objective of this article, we found it relevant to use one of the groups most affected by the benefits generated by the construction of social capital in gardens as an example of how these spaces can greatly benefit a large part of the vulnerable population, in this case, older people.

Comment 2: I believe this topic should be of interest to the magazine's readers, as more rural populations may be more prone to different social and health challenges (compared to urban populations), often driven by loneliness and social isolation.

Response: We really appreciate your comment and thank you for your observation, as we fully agree that issues such as unwanted loneliness caused by social isolation have important specificities in rural contexts. Although our study focuses on urban gardens and is therefore set in the city, this article may be an opportunity to develop comparative research in the future. Thanks to your observation, we consider it relevant to include a brief reflection on this issue at the end of the discussion section, on page 31 (lines 1373-1384), which will broaden the scope of the study and encourage future comparative research.

Comment 3: The research aims were stated; however, I expected this manuscript be a “grass roots” qualitative study using “participants” – i.e. those tilling the soil.  Rather, it seemed to focus on administrators, coordinators, and academics.  That’s fine, but maybe the title (or abstract, or “aims” statement) should better reflect the data source.

Response: we appreciate your comment and understand perfectly what you mean, so we have included a brief clarification about key informants on page 1, in the summary section (lines 13 and 14) and in the introduction section on page 5 (lines 216-218).

Comment 4: A qualitative approach was appropriate (lines 305-309).  There is acknowledgment of data sampling, collection and saturation issues.  Location of participants was given (Valencia area).  Details of participants, interview length, data handling, use of ATLAS, ethics (line 1137-1140), consent gained (line 1141), relevant to communities (worldwide?) where loneliness, aging, and low social capital are present.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your positive comments on the appropriateness of the qualitative approach and methodological aspects of the study, including the description of the sample, the data collection process, saturation, the use of specialized software, and ethical considerations. With regard to your implicit suggestion about the relevance of the study for other communities beyond the Valencia area, we consider this observation to be very pertinent. Although our analysis focuses on a specific local context, many of the social dynamics observed, such as loneliness, population ageing and low social capital density in an era marked by individualism, are indeed shared by communities around the world. We appreciate this suggestion and have therefore decided to modify the information in the conclusion section where it appears, on page 32 (lines 1423-1434).

Comment 5 and 6: Could you clarify and simplify the inclusion criteria (lines 248-253) for readers? Maybe a table? Were there any exclusion criteria?

Response: Thank you very much for highlighting the lack of clarification regarding the inclusion and exclusion criteria in this article. In response to your observation, we have decided to clarify what these criteria were and to introduce a table to avoid any confusion (table 1). You can find the modified information on page 8 in the sample section (lines 346-361).

Comment 7: Can you clarify what the designation “activist” means? Sounds militant!  Might mean something different outside your country.  Also, for “public administration technicians”.

Response: We greatly appreciate your comment on the terminology used to describe the roles of participants, particularly the terms ‘activist’ and ‘public administration technician,’ as you rightly point out, these could raise some questions. In our context, ‘activist’ refers to individuals who demonstrate a high level of civic engagement, often rooted in community or grassroots initiatives related to urban gardening, environmental sustainability, or social justice. Far from implying militancy in a confrontational or political sense, the term is used to describe a proactive and committed stance aimed at fostering collective participation, defending public green spaces and promoting values such as agroecology, food sovereignty or inclusive governance. These individuals often advocate for horizontal decision-making structures, environmental education and access to urban gardens for marginalized groups. Therefore, although some of the interviewees refer to militancy, this ‘militant’ stance reflects their dedication to these causes, not a radical political alignment. This clarifies what we mean by the term’s ‘activist’ and ‘public administration technician’ in the sample section, page 9 (lines 377-384).

Comment 8: The readers of Agriculture might understand “Sex”, “male”, and “female” better (vs gender, man, woman) in Table 2, page 9.

Response: we greatly appreciate your comment and have modified it accordingly. You can see it in Table 2, page 9.

Comment 9: Clarify your philosophical starting point?

Response: Thank you very much for your question. In this case, we believe you are referring to the paradigm on which this study is based. In this sense, the philosophical basis of this study is founded on an interpretive paradigm, which starts from the premise that reality is a social construct and that human behavior can only be understood by interpreting the meanings that individuals assign to their experiences. This approach, rooted in the work of Max Weber (1978 [1922]), is particularly suited to research that seeks to explore subjective perspectives, such as the experiences of interviewees in the promotion, maintenance and management of urban gardens. In this sense, we consider the interpretive approach to be particularly suitable for exploring the experiences of people involved in urban gardens, as it prioritizes understanding subjective meanings, situated interpretations and the relational processes through which social capital is (re)constructed in these green spaces. This methodological stance allows us to capture the voices of participants and reveal the underlying social dynamics that are not always evident through quantitative methods. Thanks to your comment, we have decided to include a few words about the paradigm used in this study at the beginning of subsection 2.3, ‘Qualitative study’, on page 10 (lines 411-425).

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. 1). University of California press.

Comment 10: Did you use a grounded theory approach? Just thematic analysis?

Response: Thank you for this pertinent question regarding our analytical approach.We did not apply a full Grounded Theory methodology in this study. While some techniques—such as open coding and constant comparison—were used during the data analysis phase, our objective was not to generate new theoretical constructs from the data alone. Instead, we conducted a theory-informed thematic analysis, combining inductive coding with a deductive framework grounded in established social capital theory (e.g., Bourdieu, Coleman, Putnam).This hybrid approach allowed us to remain open to themes emerging from participants’ narratives while also organizing the data around key analytical dimensions identified in the literature: organizational objectives, elements of social capital (such as trust, reciprocity, and belonging), and governance models. Our aim was to deepen empirical understanding of how urban gardens function as relational infrastructures, rather than to build a grounded theory from scratch. Due to your comment, we have deemed it appropriate to include a small clarifying paragraph in subsection 2.4 Analysis on page 11 (lines 464-470).

Comment 11: Is there an interview guide describing the semi-structured questions used? This may be covered at lines 320-324 but used some flexibility (lines 315-317).

Response: we greatly appreciate your question about the use of an interview guide. We can confirm that a semi-structured interview guide was developed and used throughout the fieldwork. This guide was designed to explore five key thematic areas: (1) social capital; (2) values; (3) behaviours; (4) organisational culture; and (5) good practices and recommendations. Each block included open-ended questions designed to elicit in-depth narratives, along with prompts and ranking activities (e.g., value ranking) to facilitate reflection and comparison. The guide allowed for flexibility in execution, as noted in lines 417-425 and 451-455 of the manuscript, enabling interviewers to adapt the flow and follow up on emerging themes relevant to each participant's experience. However, all interviews followed the same thematic structure, ensuring consistency and coherence across the entire data set. Subsequently, for the analysis, we decided to reduce the five thematic blocks into three broad categories, as there was too much content in the results that was not likely to appear in the article, so we extracted and regrouped the information according to the most relevant aspects of social capital.

Comment 12: Who did the interview? Known to participants? Interviewer/analysist bias considered?

Response: Thank you very much for your questions. In response, we would like to inform you that the interviews were conducted by a team of three researchers with experience in qualitative research and the analysis of community initiatives. There was no prior relationship with the interviewees, which helped to reduce any potential bias related to familiarity or preconceived expectations. To ensure the consistency of the process and the quality of the data, as mentioned in the previous answers, a common semi-structured script was used, and an attitude of active listening and neutrality was adopted. We have added a clarifying paragraph to address your questions. You can find it in subsection 2.3, qualitative study, page 10 (lines 417-425).

Comment 13: Good breakdown of the analysis and major themes. Opposing (i.e. negative effects of social capital processes) were mentioned, but was “exclusion” the only thing? Are the benefits of community gardens NOT likely to be seen in X, Y Z groups?

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful observation. We agree that it is important to critically examine not only the positive aspects, but also the ambivalent or exclusionary dimensions of social capital processes in community gardens. While ‘exclusion’ was the most prominent theme in our data, especially on the part of older people towards migrants, we recognise that other constraints may also affect the distribution of benefits. In particular, our analysis suggests that certain groups may be less likely to experience all the benefits of community gardens, including:

• People with time constraints or precarious employment, who may find it difficult to participate on a sustained basis, as in the case of the migrant community. As one interviewee told us, this group often has language problems, has to work harder to help their children with school, and is less likely to find well-paid work, often needing two jobs. All of this means that they cannot devote as much time to caring for the garden, putting its survival at risk.
• People with disabilities or limited mobility, in cases where gardens are not designed with accessibility in mind.
• Newcomers or migrants, who may face informal cultural or language barriers despite formal openness.
• Younger participants, whose voices are sometimes underrepresented in decision-making structures.

Although participants did not always explicitly describe these dynamics as ‘exclusion,’ they pointed to structural and organisational barriers that can determine who benefits most from participation. Given the relevance of their comments, we have decided to expand on this point in the ‘Discussion’ section to better reflect the nuances of unequal access and the potential limitations of urban gardens as inclusive spaces, page 27 (lines 1175-1194), page 28 (lines 1198-1223) and page 31 (lines 1343-1359).

Comment 14: Maybe you could give a table summarising the resultant themes you developed.

Response: Thank you very much for your helpful suggestion regarding the inclusion of a summary table of the main topics. We fully understand the value of such visual aids in improving the clarity and accessibility of qualitative findings. However, in this case, we have chosen not to include a table summarising the themes, as we believe that the structure and richness of the findings are best conveyed through the narrative format already used in the manuscript. The thematic axes—organisational objectives, elements of social capital, and governance models—are explored in depth, and our aim was to preserve the complexity and contextual nuances of the participants' views through a more detailed textual presentation. We have also taken into account the need to maintain a balance between analytical synthesis and interpretative depth. Furthermore, thanks to your comment, we have decided to include a table at the beginning of the results section on ‘Analytical dimensions, emerging categories and operational definitions of the study’. Table 3 on page 12.

Comment 15: In the Results section, sub-headings are not numbered as in the other two results sections.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing this out, and we apologise for the error. We have now corrected the numbering.

Comment 16: Line 754: should be “win-win”.  Delete “to”.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing out this error. You can find it corrected on page 22 (line 922).

Comment 17: May be a layout issue, or some other reporting convention, but what does “[# Urban garden → social capital]” mean at the end of quotations in the results section? Explain, or delete?

Response: thank you very much for this observation. The notation format “[# Urban garden → social capital]” used at the end of certain quotations in the results section is not a layout error, but rather a deliberate analytical device. These labels are intended to make explicit the directionality of the relationship between urban gardens and social capital as expressed by participants. Specifically:

• The label “Urban garden → social capital” indicates that the quotation illustrates how participation in urban gardens fosters the creation or strengthening of social capital (e.g., trust, reciprocity, community ties).
• Conversely, “Social capital → urban garden” is used when the participant’s account suggests that pre-existing community bonds or forms of social capital are what enable or sustain urban gardening initiatives in a given context.

We have decided to include these labels to help the reader distinguish between two distinct, albeit interrelated, dynamics identified during the analysis. Rather than interrupting the narrative thread to insert lengthy clarifications each time, this compact notation provides a useful interpretative cue without altering the original quote. We have decided to include these labels to help readers distinguish between two distinct, albeit interrelated, dynamics identified during the analysis. Thanks to your helpful comment, we have decided to include an explanation of these labels at the end of the introduction to the results section, on page 11 (lines 496–512).

Comment 18: Make sure the limitations of generalisability are stated, as for all qualitative studies. But also mention that this is not “the worker’s” voice being presented, rather academics, administrators etc viewpoints.

Response 18: We greatly appreciate your comment and have decided to include a sub-section at the end of section 4, Discussion, entitled 4.1 ‘Limitations of the study’, following your instructions, page 32 (lines 1386-1412).

Comment 19: I assume your theoretical model (e.g. line 1109) refers to Figure 1. I don’t know a lot about “directed acyclic graphs”, but Figure 1 looks like a cycle.  I thought a DAG was unidirectional, with no chance of a loop.  Maybe this should be reviewed and/or described differently.  The figure itself looks ok.

Response: we appreciate your precise and insightful observation. You are absolutely right, the figure does not strictly conform to the definition of a directed acyclic graph (DAG), as it includes circular relationships and feedback loops between urban gardens and social capital dimensions. We appreciate your clarification and agree that the current terminology can lead to confusion. To address this, we have revised the description in the text to avoid any reference to DAGs and have also updated the title of the figure. Instead of presenting it as a DAG, we now describe it as a conceptual model of dynamic interrelationships, which better reflects the mutual and interactive nature of the relationships illustrated.

The updated title of Figure 1 is: Conceptual model of the reciprocal relationships between urban gardens and social capital, page 5.

We believe that this revised wording more accurately represents the purpose and structure of the figure, while avoiding technical inaccuracies.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The article submitted for review is promising and undoubtedly worth publishing, but with some prior corrections, which I list below:

• The introduction lacks a broader context related to Spanish urban allotment gardens. The literature on the subject is more up-to-date and richer than the bibliography provided by the authors would suggest. It includes authors such as Raul Puente-Asuero, Espinosa Seguí et al., and others available in Spanish and English.
• In the introductory part of the article, perhaps even in a separate subsection, it would also be appropriate to describe in detail the specificity of Valencia and the past, present and future of Huerta Valenciana, both in the spatial and social context.
• The division of the results section is also bad, it should only start from page 11 line 485. The entire results section requires reformulation. The results of this particular study must also be clear to the reader, i.e. what research questions they answer.
• In the article, all the analysed allotment gardens were treated equally, i.e. as one group, which significantly generalises and lowers the quality of the study. It seems that it would be better to divide them according to the governance model and try to answer how each of these models contributes to the generation and reproduction of social capital. An interesting approach could also be to consider the same in individual age and social groups, e.g. migrants, and not only to single out the elderly.
• It is commendable that the Authors addressed conflicts and institutional problems; however, these issues could be more thoroughly explored and discussed in a separate section.

• It is important to note that some studies suggest garden users often value the opportunity to spend time alone in the garden more than social interactions with others. This may indicate that the social benefits of gardens are somewhat "overrated."

• Taking into account the above issues, the discussion section should also be changed.
• There are no study limitations 
• In references, the literature should be in the original language of the publication, which is not always the case.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comment 1: The introduction lacks a broader context related to Spanish urban allotment gardens. The literature on the subject is more up-to-date and richer than the bibliography provided by the authors would suggest. It includes authors such as Raul Puente-Asuero, Espinosa Seguí et al., and others available in Spanish and English.

Response: thank you very much for your comment, which we greatly appreciate for its contribution to improving the contextual focus of the manuscript. We fully agree that the recent literature on urban gardens in Spain is broader and richer than was reflected in the initial version of the article, and we especially appreciate the suggestion of key authors such as Raúl Puente-Asuero, Espinosa Seguí and collaborators. Following your recommendation, we have expanded the introduction section to incorporate relevant and current references that place the case of the FUA in Valencia within the broader framework of the development of urban gardens in Spain. In particular, we have included the work of Maćkiewicz and Asuero (2021), which analyses the multifunctional role of allotment gardens as nature-based solutions in Seville; the study by Maćkiewicz, Asuero and Almonacid (2019), which focuses on the role of urban agriculture in Andalusia as a path towards urban sustainability; and the research by Espinosa Seguí, Maćkiewicz and Rosol (2017), which shows how urban gardens in the province of Alicante were transformed into spaces for subsistence and mutual support in contexts of crisis. These additions not only enrich the theoretical framework, but also improve the territorial contextualisation of the article by demonstrating that the phenomenon studied in Valencia is part of a broader national dynamic. Furthermore, they allow us to empirically connect the discussion on social capital, governance and urban transformation with established research that addresses similar issues in different parts of Spain.  We trust that this bibliographical and contextual expansion, which you will find in the introduction, page 1 (lines 35-51), will satisfactorily respond to your comment.

• Maćkiewicz, B.; Asuero, R. Public versus private: Juxtaposing urban allotment gardens as multifunctional Nature-based Solutions. Insights from Seville. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 65, 127309.
• Maćkiewicz, B.; Asuero, R.; Almonacid, A. Urban agriculture as the path to sustainable city development. Insights into allotment gardens in Andalusia. Geogr. 2019, 38, 121–136.
• Espinosa Seguí, A.; Maćkiewicz, B.; Rosol, M. From leisure to necessity: Urban allotments in Alicante province, Spain, in times of crisis. ACME Int. J. Crit. Geogr. 2017, 16(2), 332–361.

Comment 2: In the introductory part of the article, perhaps even in a separate subsection, it would also be appropriate to describe in detail the specificity of Valencia and the past, present and future of Huerta Valenciana, both in the spatial and social context.

Response: We really appreciate this comment and fully agree on the importance of contextualising this study in relation to the territorial, historical and social specificity of the Valencia huerta. That is why, in subsection 2. 1 of the manuscript, ‘Socio-spatial context’, we have summarised the heritage, ecological and agro-urban value of the Huerta, as well as its recent evolution, current challenges and the protection policies promoted by public and international organisations. This inclusion allows the urban gardens analysed to be properly placed within their territorial context without the need to create a separate section. You can find it on page 6 (lines 283-307).

 

• El Tribunal de las Aguas de la Vega de Valencia, Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial de la Humanidad; UNESCO: París, Francia, 2009.
• Spain – Historical Irrigation System at l’Horta de València. Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS); FAO: Roma, Italia, 2019.
• Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación (MAPA). La FAO declara el regadío histórico de L’Horta de València como Sistema Importante del Patrimonio Agrícola Mundial (SIPAM); MAPA: Madrid, España, 2019.
• Generalitat Valenciana. Ley 5/2018, de 6 de marzo, de la Huerta de Valencia; Diario Oficial de la Generalitat Valenciana: Valencia, España, 2018.
• Generalitat Valenciana. Plan de Acción Territorial de Ordenación y Dinamización de la Huerta de Valencia (PATODHV); Generalitat Valenciana: Valencia, España, 2018.

La división de la sección de resultados también es deficiente, ya que solo debería comenzar en la página 11, línea 485. Toda la sección de resultados debe reformularse. Los resultados de este estudio en particular también deben quedar claros para el lector, es decir, qué preguntas de investigación responden.

Comment 3: The division of the results section is also bad, it should only start from page 11 line 485. The entire results section requires reformulation. The results of this particular study must also be clear to the reader, i.e. what research questions they answer.

Response: We appreciate your comment, which we value as an opportunity to enhance the clarity of the results section. Although we did not consider it necessary to completely reformulate this section, we have made substantial improvements to facilitate understanding of the findings and their link to the study objectives. In particular, we have added a new Table 3, page 12, at the beginning of the results section. This table clearly and visually summarises the analytical dimensions, emerging categories, subcategories and operational definitions, allowing the reader to follow the logic of the qualitative analysis in a structured manner. This systematisation makes the relationship between the results presented and the thematic axes that structure the analysis more explicit: (1) organisational objectives, (2) components of social capital, and (3) governance models. We trust that these improvements adequately address your comment, maintaining the overall coherence of the manuscript and reinforcing interpretative clarity without the need to completely restructure the section.

Comment 4: In the article, all the analysed allotment gardens were treated equally, i.e. as one group, which significantly generalises and lowers the quality of the study. It seems that it would be better to divide them according to the governance model and try to answer how each of these models contributes to the generation and reproduction of social capital. An interesting approach could also be to consider the same in individual age and social groups, e.g. migrants, and not only to single out the elderly.

Response: we would like to thank you very much for your comment, which we consider very relevant for further analysis. We share your concern about the importance of not homogenising the experiences of urban gardens, as both governance models and social profiles are significantly affected in the generation and reproduction of social capital. However, we have not completely restructured the analysis by formally dividing the results by type of garden, since although we have analysed different governance models in this study, we are referring throughout to urban gardens understood as community gardens. To make this specificity clear, we have added in subsection 2.1 socio-spatial context, to which type of urban gardens we refer, page 7 (lines 309-322). Furthermore, in relation to the relevance of your comment regarding the ease or difficulty of generating social capital depending on the governance model practised in the garden, we have incorporated important nuances throughout the discussion section, page 31 (lines 1343-1359). In fact, the current manuscript clearly distinguishes between institutionally managed gardens, self-managed gardens and hybrid governance models, analysing how each of them conditions the mechanisms of participation, decision-making and the quality of social relations, also taking into account the points on which the other reviewers agreed with you. With regard to social groups, we have decided to include in the discussion section an in-depth analysis of the dynamics of social capital in urban gardens in relation to migrants, newcomers, people with disabilities and young people, page 27 (lines 1175-1194) and page 28 (lines 1198-1223).

Comment 5: It is commendable that the Authors addressed conflicts and institutional problems; however, these issues could be more thoroughly explored and discussed in a separate section.

Response: we appreciate your acknowledgement of the institutional conflicts and tensions present in the urban gardens analysed. We agree that these aspects are fundamental to understanding the limits, contradictions and challenges facing this type of initiative. Although we have chosen not to create a separate section devoted exclusively to these conflicts, we have reinforced their presence and analytical depth in the discussion section, where the tensions arising from different governance models, conflicts over control of space, regulatory barriers and inequalities in access to participation are addressed more explicitly, page 27 and 28 (lines 1175-1223).

In addition, the analysis of the ambivalent effects of social capital has been expanded to include aspects such as symbolic exclusion, internal fragmentation and power asymmetries, following your valuable observation and in line with other comments from reviewers. We believe that this integrated approach promotes a critical and contextualised understanding of the phenomenon, without the need to fragment the text into an additional section, page 28 (lines 1210-1223). We really appreciate this comment and hope that these adjustments adequately respond to your suggestion and contribute to a richer and more nuanced reading of the manuscript.

Comment 5: It is important to note that some studies suggest garden users often value the opportunity to spend time alone in the garden more than social interactions with others. This may indicate that the social benefits of gardens are somewhat "overrated."

Response: we appreciate your observation, which introduces a valuable reflection on the diversity of motivations and uses that urban gardens can have. We agree that, in some cases, users may particularly value time alone, tranquillity or individual contact with nature over social interactions. However, given that the central objective of this work is to analyse social capital from a relational and community perspective, we have chosen not to include in the discussion a specific analysis of individual motivations focused on solitary enjoyment of the space, also because we have not found any reference to this in the analysis of the results. We consider that this line of research, although highly relevant, falls outside the analytical framework and methodological design of this study. In this sense, we maintain an interpretative approach focused on how urban gardens, as community spaces, contribute, directly or indirectly, as platforms that host, maintain or (re)produce social capital. On the other hand, we have not found any literature on this subject, although we would like to know more. Nevertheless, we value your suggestion as a possible complementary line of research for future studies that address more specifically the introspective, emotional or individual dimension of the use of these spaces.

Comment 6: Taking into account the above issues, the discussion section should also be changed.

Response: we would really like to thank you for your comment, which has been very useful in improving the clarity, depth and interpretative rigour of the discussion section. In line with your observations—and also with comments made by other reviewers—this section has been substantially rewritten, becoming one of the sections that has undergone the most changes and additions during the review process. In particular, the analysis of the implications of social capital in relation to different models of governance has been enriched, nuances regarding internal tensions, institutional conflicts and social exclusion have been incorporated, and the discussion on specific social groups, such as migrants, young people and vulnerable groups, has been expanded. For this reason, we cordially invite you to read the new discussion section in its entirety, as we believe that its reformulation substantially improves the quality of the article. We especially appreciate your comments, which have directly contributed to strengthening the critical approach and interpretative richness of the manuscript.

Comment 7: There are no study limitations 

Response: we appreciate your comment regarding the need to include a specific section addressing the limitations of the study. We are pleased to inform you that this issue has been incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript, on page 32 (lines 1385-1412).

Comment 8: In references, the literature should be in the original language of the publication, which is not always the case.

Response: we appreciate your observation regarding the need to respect the original language of the cited publications. In response to your comment, we have carefully reviewed the bibliography and corrected those titles that had been translated or adapted into Spanish, ensuring that all titles of books, articles, and documents are presented in their original language of publication, as established by good editorial practices. We trust that this correction improves the formal accuracy of the references section and appreciate your attention to detail, which undoubtedly contributes to enhancing the quality of the manuscript.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Based only on the in-depth interviews of 15 respondents in Valencia's urban functional area, the author tries to draw a general conclusion about "urban vegetable gardens promoting social capital formation," but the sample size is too small and the coverage is single. The samples include school teachers, local civil servants, and community activists, whose views are significantly identity-oriented and socially biased, while the lack of front-line voices from "ordinary park residents," "new immigrants," and "marginalized groups" significantly weakens the diversity and representability of the research.
2. The author proposes to explore "how urban vegetable gardens generate and reproduce social capital," but the paper does not clearly define the research hypothesis nor explain the specific mechanism of "reproduction." For example, the paper does not distinguish between "the initial existence condition of social capital" and "the increment generated through the garden," nor does it explain how "the existing social capital acts on the garden construction in turn." The theoretical chain presents an obvious break, and there is a disconnection between research objectives and analytical logic.
3. The interview contents listed by the author in the "results" section, such as "sense of belonging, reciprocity, and mutual trust," are almost all the defining characteristics of "social capital." In other words, the article essentially uses the constituent elements of social capital as the interview topic and then returns to these elements themselves, lacking independent causal or correlation evidence.
4. Although the author mentions issues such as "exclusivism" and "governance fragmentation" at the end of the article, the whole article still focuses on "the positive effect of urban vegetable gardens" and does not deeply analyze the potential negative mechanisms, such as space competition, community power exclusion, class segregation, and green gentrification. For example, several interviewees clearly pointed out the existence of trust barriers between the elderly and immigrants, but the paper did not discuss how they evolve under different governance structures, which weakened the complexity of the results and the depth of criticism.
5. Although this paper emphasizes theoretical saturation, it does not introduce any quantitative methods of social capital (such as the Putnam social network questionnaire, Coleman reciprocity index, etc.), nor does it use social network maps or density analysis for cross-validation. Therefore, all conclusions are based on interview statements, which cannot provide independent verification, and it is difficult to avoid the influence of subjective interpretation and researcher bias.
6. The inconsistent use of terms appeared many times in the paper, such as the mixed use of terms such as "urban allotments," "community gardens," and "peri-urban gardens," without clearly defining whether there are differences in spatial scope, function, and policy attributes. In addition, the expression of the relationship between "citizen governance," "participatory system," and "mixed mode" in the governance model is vague, and there is a lack of charts or mechanism sorting, which reduces the clarity of academic expression.
7. Figure 1 (causal diagram) and Figure 2 (map) are mentioned in the paper, but they are highly simplified schemas and do not effectively support the analysis content. In particular, when describing the generation mechanism of social capital, there is a lack of structural diagrams or matrices to support its classification logic and reasoning framework, which reduces readability and persuasion. It is recommended to introduce topic maps, content coding matrices, or social relationship maps to enhance the visual analysis dimension.
8. Although the paper points out the positive effects of urban vegetable gardens on the elderly, migrants, and other vulnerable groups, it does not effectively connect the governance model with spatial management strategies in the section of "Conclusions and policy implications." For example, facing the problem of governance fragmentation, the author does not specifically propose "how to divide the labor between local governments and residents' organizations" and "how to alleviate the exclusivity through institutional design," which results in the lack of operability of the suggestions and cannot effectively support the optimization of urban governance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Author Response

Comment 1: Based only on the in-depth interviews of 15 respondents in Valencia's urban functional area, the author tries to draw a general conclusion about "urban vegetable gardens promoting social capital formation," but the sample size is too small and the coverage is single. The samples include school teachers, local civil servants, and community activists, whose views are significantly identity-oriented and socially biased, while the lack of front-line voices from "ordinary park residents," "new immigrants," and "marginalized groups" significantly weakens the diversity and representability of the research.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your observation, which allows us to clarify and better contextualise the scope of the study. We are fully aware that the results derived from in-depth interviews with 15 informants are not statistically representative, as is the case with all qualitative research. However, the purpose of this study was not to generalise conclusions to the entire population, but rather to gain an in-depth understanding of the social and relational processes through which urban gardens are established as spaces for hosting, generating and reproducing social capital in a specific territorial context such as the city of Valencia. In terms of the composition of the sample, priority was given to key informants with structural or strategic knowledge of urban gardens in Valencia: people involved in the management, promotion and design of projects related to these initiatives, coordination or research. In the example of school teachers, they manage the school's urban garden and are the promoters of these initiatives in these academic spaces, ultimately making school gardens a green space that can be used by other neighbourhood groups or associations. This choice of key actors reflects the intention to explore the organisational logic, regulatory frameworks and participatory dynamics that operate in these spaces, dimensions that are difficult to access through a sample based exclusively on everyday users. However, we agree that future qualitative studies could expand the sample to include in greater depth the voices of underrepresented groups such as migrants, older people, new users, or residents not linked to formal organisational structures. In fact, some of the testimonies collected already reflect the experiences of migrants, people over 65, public school teachers who work with people with disabilities, and leaders of associations that integrate different groups at risk of exclusion and vulnerability. We recognise, however, that these voices appear indirectly and could be the subject of more specific analysis in subsequent work. On the other hand, it should be noted that the interview process was interrupted in its final phase by the DANA that affected the Valencian Community from October onwards, which limited the possibility of continuing to expand the sample, despite having reached theoretical saturation point. This extraordinary circumstance also directly affected some urban gardens, reducing their operability and hindering access to potential additional informants. Overall, we believe that this study offers a valuable and well-founded initial contribution to understanding urban gardens not only as physical spaces, but also as social infrastructures capable of activating or sustaining social capital, and we trust that this reflection can be expanded in future research that incorporates other voices and complementary methodological approaches. For our part, we will continue to work, taking your comments into account, so that this research is only the prelude to a series of scientific contributions on urban gardens and social capital. Once again, we appreciate your dedication in conducting this analysis, and for this reason, in section 4, Discussion, we have added a subsection entitled 4.1 Limitations of the study, so that future international readers of the article can understand our priority of interviewing these key actors first, page 32 (lines 1391-1403).

Comment 2: The author proposes to explore "how urban vegetable gardens generate and reproduce social capital," but the paper does not clearly define the research hypothesis nor explain the specific mechanism of "reproduction." For example, the paper does not distinguish between "the initial existence condition of social capital" and "the increment generated through the garden," nor does it explain how "the existing social capital acts on the garden construction in turn." The theoretical chain presents an obvious break, and there is a disconnection between research objectives and analytical logic.

Response: We greatly appreciate your comment, as it is very relevant to improving the theoretical clarity of the article. Indeed, our main objective was to explore qualitatively how urban gardens participate in the generation and reproduction of social capital, understanding these processes not as linear or mechanical, but as complex relational dynamics, framed within specific socio-territorial contexts. We agree with you that the distinction between pre-existing social capital (initial condition) and social capital generated through participation in urban gardens is not sufficiently explicit in the current version of the manuscript. For this reason, we have introduced a clarification in the theoretical framework, on page 4 (lines 161-173 and lines 175-184), on what we mean by the term ‘reproduction of social capital’ and ‘dynamic relationships’ so that a common thread can be followed in Figure 1. With these modifications made thanks to the relevance of your comment, we trust that the manuscript will gain in conceptual precision and argumentative strength.

Comment 3: The interview contents listed by the author in the "results" section, such as "sense of belonging, reciprocity, and mutual trust," are almost all the defining characteristics of "social capital." In other words, the article essentially uses the constituent elements of social capital as the interview topic and then returns to these elements themselves, lacking independent causal or correlation evidence.

Response: we sincerely appreciate your observation and indeed recognise that trust, reciprocity and a sense of belonging are some of the elements that constitute social capital. However, we would like to clarify that our objective was not to empirically validate a closed definition of social capital, nor to establish causal relationships in the strict sense, but rather to explore how these elements manifest themselves, are activated or transformed in specific contexts, in this case, urban gardens in the metropolitan area of Valencia. The selection of these dimensions as categories of analysis does not respond to analytical circularity, but rather to a qualitative approach that seeks to understand, from the perspective of the actors themselves, how urban gardens function (or do not function) as spaces that produce social capital. With the analysis carried out, we seek to delve deeper into how these elements are constructed, negotiated or even strained in practice. For example, trust is not treated as a given, but as a relational process that may be present, absent or even eroded within the dynamics of the gardens, depending on factors such as the governance model. Likewise, as we have stated in the discussion section and in the conceptual improvement introduced following your previous comment, the study distinguishes between pre-existing social capital and social capital generated or reconfigured through the garden, taking into account the direction and nature of these links. We are aware that future research could advance the triangulation of data or the combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches to contrast these findings with other types of evidence, but we believe that this study offers a relevant contribution to understanding the ways in which social capital is constructed, maintained or transformed in urban community spaces. We really appreciate your comment and hope that this explanation shows you that our aim is to avoid a tautological approach and move towards a more situated and processual reading of social capital, consistent with the interpretative logic that guides this research. Given the major changes made to the discussion section, we would appreciate it if you could give it a general read so that you can understand our efforts to respond to your comment.

Comment 4: Although the author mentions issues such as "exclusivism" and "governance fragmentation" at the end of the article, the whole article still focuses on "the positive effect of urban vegetable gardens" and does not deeply analyze the potential negative mechanisms, such as space competition, community power exclusion, class segregation, and green gentrification. For example, several interviewees clearly pointed out the existence of trust barriers between the elderly and immigrants, but the paper did not discuss how they evolve under different governance structures, which weakened the complexity of the results and the depth of criticism.

Response: we would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful and constructive comment. We fully agree that the initial version of the manuscript placed a stronger emphasis on the positive contributions of urban gardens to social capital, while underdeveloping the discussion of potential limitations and exclusionary dynamics. As rightly noted, this lack of analytical depth risked undermining the credibility and complexity of the article. In response, we have substantially revised the discussion section (lines 1175-1194 and lines 1198-1223) to directly address the concerns raised. Specifically, we now integrate a more critical reflection on the following dimensions:

• Trust barriers between older users and migrants, situating them within broader generational and cultural tensions. Drawing on interview material that highlights exclusionary attitudes and cultural misunderstandings, we reflect on how such barriers may persist or diminish depending on governance models. While we are cautious not to infer direct causality, we point to plausible mechanisms through which horizontal or self-managed structures—through formalised assemblies and inclusive routines—may help reduce social distance over time.
• Community power exclusion, as manifested in informal hierarchies and long-established associations that may concentrate decision-making power. These were identified through narratives where some voices (e.g., younger participants or newcomers) were marginalised in processes of governance or participation.
• Space competition, which although not described in terms of open conflict, is evidenced through concerns about long waiting lists, reassignment of abandoned plots, and the risk of urban development encroaching on green space. These elements were analysed as indirect indicators of space being a socially contested resource, reinforcing the need for transparent and equitable governance practices.
• Structural inequalities, such as precarious working conditions or limited accessibility, which limit the capacity of certain groups to consistently participate in garden life. We analyse these barriers not as individual deficits, but as systemic factors that constrain access to the benefits of social capital.

Regarding green gentrification, we very much appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. We fully recognise that this process—where green amenities such as community gardens contribute to rising property values and the displacement of lower-income residents—is a documented risk in urban contexts. However, as our data do not provide empirical evidence of this phenomenon in the case studied (not even through indirect references in the interview material), we have opted not to include it in the main discussion of results to avoid overextending our findings. Nevertheless, we agree it is an important structural risk that deserves acknowledgment. We have therefore included a paragraph in the limitations section, where we recognise the absence of empirical data on green gentrification and situate it as a potential consequence of urban garden institutionalisation without safeguards, page 32 (lines 1404-1412).

Comment 5: Although this paper emphasizes theoretical saturation, it does not introduce any quantitative methods of social capital (such as the Putnam social network questionnaire, Coleman reciprocity index, etc.), nor does it use social network maps or density analysis for cross-validation. Therefore, all conclusions are based on interview statements, which cannot provide independent verification, and it is difficult to avoid the influence of subjective interpretation and researcher bias.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your comment, which gives us the opportunity to clarify the methodological approach of the study. This work falls within the field of interpretive qualitative research, which does not aim to quantify social capital or validate hypotheses using numerical indicators, but rather to understand how social capital is experienced, constructed and negotiated—from the voices of actors involved in specific community contexts—in this case, the urban gardens of the functional urban area of Valencia. We are fully aware that there are widely recognised quantitative tools, but we consider that these instruments, although useful for other purposes, are not suited to the logic of this study, which is based on in-depth interviews, thematic analysis and a situated approach to the practices and discourses of the participants. This methodological strategy responds to the relational, subjective and contextual nature of social capital, as conceived in the theoretical frameworks of Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam, but also from contemporary approaches that address social capital as an emerging, processual and territorialised phenomenon. In terms of analytical rigour, it should be noted that the coding and analysis process was carried out collaboratively and triangulated among the researchers, using specialised software (ATLAS.ti) and maintaining a constant reflective attitude on the role of the researcher. In addition, theoretical saturation was achieved after 15 interviews, at which point the new narratives no longer contributed analytical elements different from those already coded, which supports the robustness of the empirical corpus. We recognise, however, that future research could enrich this qualitative approach with mixed techniques, incorporating structural measurements of social capital or community network maps, especially to broaden the comparative scope and empirically validate certain emerging hypotheses. We believe, however, that the interpretative nature of our study is consistent with its objectives and that it provides in-depth, situated knowledge that has been little explored in the Spanish context to date. Given that your comment has shown us that it may lead to misunderstanding for other future readers regarding the rigour of the qualitative methodology used for this article, as well as the possible biases or limitations of the study, we have decided to introduce a clarifying paragraph in section 2.3 Qualitative study, page 10 (lines 411-425), and in section 4 Discussion, a subsection entitled 4.1 Limitations of the study, page 32 (lines 1386-1412), in the hope that this will address any possible inconsistencies in the study.

Comment 6: The inconsistent use of terms appeared many times in the paper, such as the mixed use of terms such as "urban allotments," "community gardens," and "peri-urban gardens," without clearly defining whether there are differences in spatial scope, function, and policy attributes. In addition, the expression of the relationship between "citizen governance," "participatory system," and "mixed mode" in the governance model is vague, and there is a lack of charts or mechanism sorting, which reduces the clarity of academic expression.

Response: Thank you very much for your observation, which we particularly appreciate for its contribution to improving the conceptual accuracy and clarity of the manuscript. We fully agree on the importance of using consistent terminology, which is why we have included a specific clarification on the terms ‘urban garden,’ ‘community garden,’ and ‘peri-urban garden’ in the revised version of the manuscript, in section 2.1 Socio-spatial context, page 7 (lines 309-322). Furthermore, with regard to governance models, you will find the concept of public governance referred to in the results section, section C, page 23 (lines 974-979). In the same vein (lines 1000-1008), you will find the definition of hybrid governance model, as we understand from your comment that the expression ‘mixed governance model’ is unclear. Finally, you can find the definition of ‘self-managed governance’ in point 2 of section C of the results (lines 1045-1051). Likewise, in the discussion section, we have considered it relevant to introduce a paragraph devoted exclusively to reflecting how these different models converge in the generation or obstruction of social capital (lines 1109-1127). We thank you again for your comment and understand that this better reflects the classification to which you refer.

Comment 7: Figure 1 (causal diagram) and Figure 2 (map) are mentioned in the paper, but they are highly simplified schemas and do not effectively support the analysis content. In particular, when describing the generation mechanism of social capital, there is a lack of structural diagrams or matrices to support its classification logic and reasoning framework, which reduces readability and persuasion. It is recommended to introduce topic maps, content coding matrices, or social relationship maps to enhance the visual analysis dimension.

Response: We are deeply grateful to the reviewer for their careful reading and suggestions aimed at strengthening the visual dimension of the manuscript. Our considerations are set out below.

With regard to Figure 1, it has indeed been deliberately designed as a simplified diagram. Its purpose is not so much to directly support the empirical content of the analysis as to provide a concise overview of the theoretical framework and causal assumptions that guide the research. As indicated in the manuscript itself, the figure seeks to represent the reciprocal relationships between urban gardens and social capital, offering an overview of the flows of influence in a format that is accessible to the reader. We believe that a more complex diagram would have made it difficult to understand this initial conceptual framework.

With regard to Figure 2, we confirm that it is indeed a geographical map, whose sole function is to provide spatial context for an international audience that may not be familiar with the territorial structure of the FUA in Valencia. It has no analytical purpose in the strict sense, but is simply intended to provide context.

We appreciate the suggestion to incorporate a topic map, although, after careful consideration, we believe that it does not adequately fit the methodological objectives of our study. Our qualitative analysis is structured around clear conceptual categories (organisational objectives, social capital elements, governance models) derived from both the theoretical framework and empirical coding, and we have therefore not identified any substantive added value in integrating a topic map at this stage.

Furthermore, we have not found a widely recognised definition of ‘social relationship maps’ as a standard tool in qualitative studies of this type in the literature. We understand that this could refer to social network analysis techniques. However, this methodological approach, usually based on quantitative analyses of interpersonal or associative relationships, does not fit the design and objectives of our study, which focuses on understanding the dynamics of social capital generation and reproduction from an interpretative qualitative perspective, rather than mapping formal or informal social networks in a technical sense.

Finally, in response to the need to provide more structured representations of the results, we have included Table 3 in the Results section on page 12. This table systematises the emerging categories, specific subcategories and representative examples of quotations, providing a clear visual tool for following the classificatory and argumentative logic of our analysis. We believe that this table adequately responds to the recommendation to improve the clarity and visual dimension of the qualitative analysis presented. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's concern for strengthening the visual presentation of the study. At the same time, we believe that the choices made regarding the figures and the development of the analysis are consistent with the methodological design and epistemological objectives of the work. We hope that these clarifications will contribute to a better understanding of our editorial decisions.

Comment 8: Although the paper points out the positive effects of urban vegetable gardens on the elderly, migrants, and other vulnerable groups, it does not effectively connect the governance model with spatial management strategies in the section of "Conclusions and policy implications." For example, facing the problem of governance fragmentation, the author does not specifically propose "how to divide the labor between local governments and residents' organizations" and "how to alleviate the exclusivity through institutional design," which results in the lack of operability of the suggestions and cannot effectively support the optimization of urban governance.

Response: We would like to thank you for this valuable comment. We appreciate your suggestion to establish a clearer link between governance models and spatial management strategies in the conclusions. We would like to clarify that the article does address this relationship throughout the results and discussion, albeit from a qualitative and interpretative perspective rather than a prescriptive or technical one. The study identifies two main governance models—public-institutional and self-managed—as well as various hybrid experiences. These models are analysed in detail through participants' accounts (see section C, paragraph 1), which illustrate how different forms of governance affect social inclusion, autonomy, the continuity of garden initiatives and the symbolic appropriation of space.

For example, interviewees highlight that institutional models, while providing legal stability and technical resources, can sometimes create dependency or limit community autonomy in decision-making (I2, I14, I15). In the case of a public management model in which there is shared responsibility with citizen entities, understood as hybrid models, such as those supported by European projects or those that emerge through citizen participation forums via local councils, these are considered promising spaces for negotiation and shared responsibility (I3, I5, I11). In contrast, self-managed gardens promote strong interpersonal ties, participatory culture and adaptability (I1, I3, I5), although they can also face challenges in terms of sustainability or coordination. Although the study does not propose fixed recipes on ‘how to divide responsibilities between local governments and citizens’, it offers a rich empirical perspective on how such coordination is managed in practice, often through informal agreements, civic forums and negotiated norms. These results suggest that flexible and negotiated governance structures, rather than rigid institutional models, are better suited to addressing fragmentation and promoting inclusive spatial management. Although our work does not aim to offer closed normative formulas on how to divide functions between local governments and citizen organisations, it does provide empirical evidence showing how these articulations occur in practice, through deliberative forums, imposed or negotiated norms, or informal agreements. We thank you again for your comment and inform you that, thanks to this observation and your previous comment 6, we have considered it relevant, as mentioned above, to introduce a specific reflection on the governance models analysed in this study, on page 31 (lines 1343-1359).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The article has been significantly improved. At this stage, I would only recommend an even broader presentation of the Spanish context of urban gardens. A certain shortcut is still visible here. Apart from that, the previous comments have been taken into account or reasonably rejected. So I have no more comments.  Congratulations and best of luck!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I do not have any comments more.