Beyond Efficiency: The Social and Ecological Costs of Plant Factories in Urban Farming—A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In subjects and methods, the period of publications from 1990-2024 must be justified. How many years is considered an important period?

 

Is it necessary to add the theories that support the interactions between the factors analyzed

In this section 3.4.3. Societal benefits, economic aspects must also be included

 

What were the limitations of the research?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We would like to thank you for your time and expertise in reading through the manuscript and giving us suggestions to improve the quality of the publication.

Our research team has carefully read through your recommendations and upon our best knowledge we have made the corrections. Our answers are listed below.

 

1. In subjects and methods, the period of publications from 1990-2024 must be justified. How many years is considered an important period?

 Thank you for your comment, we added the aspects for identifying the period from which the relevant publications were used as sources for this review, see line 189-193.

2. Is it necessary to add the theories that support the interactions between the factors analyzed

Thank you for the suggestion, we refined the purpose of the study in the Materials and methods section. We think that the main goals and theoretical foundations create significant differences between UA and PF, and this is why we want to highlight the theories behind these different production systems. The holistic approach also leads to important differences in factor analysis, see line 196-201.

3. In this section 3.4.3. Societal benefits, economic aspects must also be included

Thank you for the suggestion, we feel that several papers based on detailed calculations, have been published in the last decade about the economic comparison of these systems. However, social benefits are a major strength of UF but are largely absent in PF, where economic aspects take priority over social ones. With this paper, we wanted to identify this gap and to shed light to these functions, which can easily be lost with the total transition from TUA to CEA.

4. What were the limitations of the research?

A section regarding the limitations of the study was added to Materials and methods part, see line 209-221. Thank you for the suggestion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Authors,

I believe that the topic of the article is relevant and timely. However, I think there are aspects that need to be improved before its publication in a scientific context.

Firstly, the introduction is not well linked to the study’s hypothesis. The hypothesis suggests that the losses caused by breaking the direct connection between urban agriculture and the uncontrolled natural environment result in significant losses in both productivity and social functions. However, the introduction focuses more on defining the two types of agriculture and making a general comparison, which does not adequately support the hypothesis. For example, I don’t see the value of the historical background presented in the article. Both the sections on The past and present of traditional urban gardens and The past and present of plant factories focus too much on the past and overlook the present. This should be the opposite: what is happening today with urban gardens and plant factories? I believe there are enough scientific studies to focus these two aspects on the current moment, which is what matters. Without this review of the present, the central statement of section 1.3, Aims of the study, hypothesis, cannot be scientifically supported.

There is another statement in the document that is not well supported: " High-tech solutions, such as plant factories, are becoming more and more popular, pushing open-field urban production into the background." Is this really the case? In all countries? In both developed and developing countries? Evidence must be provided to support this claim.

The article also states: " Open-space UA has several ways to maximize species " Yes, theoretically, but does this really happen? Don’t they also tend to maximize production? The previous statement should be backed by scientific evidence from the literature.

 

My second concern regarding the quality of the paper relates to the conclusions. The conclusion is quite definitive: " Therefore, it is impossible to equate open field UA with CEA, and TUA cannot be supplemented with plant factories in the 1063 future, as fundamental functions would be lost with it ". Does the work and the review carried out really not allow for some recommendations or open new fields of study that could improve the relationship between these two types of agriculture? Are they truly that diametrically opposed? I think some positive guidelines should be given, if possible.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We would like to thank you for your time and expertise in reading through the manuscript and giving us suggestions to improve the quality of the publication.

Our research team has carefully read through your recommendations and upon our best knowledge we have made the corrections. Our answers are listed below.

1. Firstly, the introduction is not well linked to the study’s hypothesis. The hypothesis suggests that the losses caused by breaking the direct connection between urban agriculture and the uncontrolled natural environment result in significant losses in both productivity and social functions. However, the introduction focuses more on defining the two types of agriculture and making a general comparison, which does not adequately support the hypothesis. For example, I don’t see the value of the historical background presented in the article. Both the sections on The past and present of traditional urban gardens and The past and present of plant factories focus too much on the past and overlook the present. This should be the opposite: what is happening today with urban gardens and plant factories? I believe there are enough scientific studies to focus these two aspects on the current moment, which is what matters. Without this review of the present, the central statement of section 1.3, Aims of the study, hypothesis, cannot be scientifically supported.

Thank you for pointing this out, we totally agree with the reasoning of Reviewer 1. We completely revised the part dealing with the historical background  and drastically reduced the text here, see line 73-171. We also addressed the request to focus on the present of both cultivation forms and added the most recent research directions on CEA and the ongoing trends in TUA, according the request of the Reviewers.

2. There is another statement in the document that is not well supported: " High-tech solutions, such as plant factories, are becoming more and more popular, pushing open-field urban production into the background." Is this really the case? In all countries? In both developed and developing countries? Evidence must be provided to support this claim.

Thank you for pointing this out. We reworded the statement and supported with relevant literature in its original place (1.3 Aims of the study, hypothesis). Regarding the regional differences we addressed this aspect in different parts of the article, especially in the Introduction section.

3. The article also states: " Open-space UA has several ways to maximize species " Yes, theoretically, but does this really happen? Don’t they also tend to maximize production? The previous statement should be backed by scientific evidence from the literature.

Thank you for the question, we revisited the paragraph and made some alignments                 regarding the statement, adding new sources, see lines 175-177.

4. My second concern regarding the quality of the paper relates to the conclusions. The conclusion is quite definitive: " Therefore, it is impossible to equate open field UA with CEA, and TUA cannot be supplemented with plant factories in the 1063 future, as fundamental functions would be lost with it ". Does the work and the review carried out really not allow for some recommendations or open new fields of study that could improve the relationship between these two types of agriculture? Are they truly that diametrically opposed? I think some positive guidelines should be given, if possible.

We reworded the statement and added more information about the conclusion of the paper, see line 1160-1166. We also addressed the topic of partial possible integration in section 4.2, summarizing our thoughts in Table 4.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main recommendation is to remove tables from the Introduction section, and to reorganize it.

All comments and suggestions are inserted in document attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

We would like to thank you for your time and expertise in reading through the manuscript and giving us suggestions to improve the quality of the publication.

Our research team has carefully read through your recommendations and upon our best knowledge we have made the corrections. Our answers are listed below, as well as in the attached pdf.

1. The main recommendation is to remove tables from the Introduction section, and to reorganize it.

Thank you for the suggestion, we removed both Table 1 and 2 and moved them to the Results section, starting from line 233, and 251. The suggestion regarding the heading was also edited, although the page head is closed with a consecutive line, which appears as the part of the table.  

2. All comments and suggestions are inserted in document attached. CsL

Thank you for all of your suggestions, we edited all of them and answered them in the attached pdf.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript titled "Beyond Efficiency: The Social and Ecological Costs of Plant Factories in Urban Farming." The manuscript provides a comprehensive comparison between traditional urban agriculture (TUA) and controlled environment agriculture (CEA), discussing their benefits and drawbacks, including economic, productivity, social, ecological, and community impacts.

However, I have some concerns:

1. The narrative review format may limit the inclusion of empirical data or case studies.

2. Some comparisons may be overly generalized without considering regional or contextual differences.

3. The focus on criticisms of CEA could be balanced with exploration of innovative practices to address concerns.

4. The manuscript could benefit from offering solutions or strategies for integrating TUA and CEA effectively.

5. The tone may appear biased against CEA, potentially undermining its potential benefits.

6. The critique of automation in CEA could be more nuanced to explore its coexistence with community engagement.

7. The analysis of community involvement in urban agriculture lacks depth, particularly in understanding community dynamics.

8. Recent technological innovations in CEA that enhance social and ecological benefits should be discussed.

9. The lack of quantitative metrics limits the evaluation of TUA versus CEA performance.

10. Sustainability claims of TUA should be rigorously assessed against the environmental impacts of CEA.

11. The socioeconomic implications of transitioning from TUA to CEA, especially for lower-income communities, need further exploration.

Addressing these concerns and providing more in-depth analysis and solutions could enhance the manuscript's impact on urban agriculture research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

We would like to thank you for your time and expertise in reading through the manuscript and giving us suggestions to improve the quality of the publication.

Our research team has carefully read through your recommendations and upon our best knowledge we have made the corrections. Our answers are listed below.

1. The narrative review format may limit the inclusion of empirical data or case studies.

Thank you for the suggestion, we added this aspect to the newly added 2.2 Limitations part, line 209-221. We chose this format to generate a scientific debate about the less-emphasized functions of urban farming, which are in danger if CEA totally replace the plant production functions of traditional urban farming. We also support the study with a relatively high number of studies, which are mainly original research articles and case studies.

2. Some comparisons may be overly generalized without considering regional or contextual differences.

Thank you for the suggestion, we added parts dealing with regional differences, especially in the Introduction section, see line 123-159.

3. The focus on criticisms of CEA could be balanced with exploration of innovative practices to address concerns.

Thank you for the suggestion. We supplemented the paper with innovative practices regarding the present and future of CEA and TUA in the Introduction section, see line 97-105 and 160-171. Additionally, we added more references and findings regarding innovative practices and recent research directions briefly in different sections.

4. The manuscript could benefit from offering solutions or strategies for integrating TUA and CEA effectively.

Thank you for the suggestion, we added a new section to the Discussion section called 4.2 Investigation of the possibility of integrating the advantages of TUA into CEA, see lines 1088-1117.

5. The tone may appear biased against CEA, potentially undermining its potential benefits.

Thank you for noting it. Our intention was to write a narrative review, where a totally balanced approach is not obligatory, in order to generate discussion. We feel that the vast majority of sources are similar in terms of emphasizing only the advantages of CEA, while the functions to be lost are not mentioned too often. We also addressed this finding in the discussion section, starting from line 1088, and enhanced the Materials and methods section. We hope that this approach is acceptable for the reviewers and the editorial team of the journal as well.

6. The critique of automation in CEA could be more nuanced to explore its coexistence with community engagement.

This aspect has been added and elaborated in several parts of the article, especially in 3.4.1 Agricultural knowledge, see line 937-962.

7. The analysis of community involvement in urban agriculture lacks depth, particularly in understanding community dynamics.

Thank you for the suggestion, the section 3.4.3 has been extended with two paragraphs dealing with this subtopic, see lines starting from 997, and 1021.

8. Recent technological innovations in CEA that enhance social and ecological benefits should be discussed.

We added this aspect to the paper, outlining the recent and future innovations of both systems (starting from line 97 and from 160). Additionally, scenarios dealing with this issue have been included in Table 4. in the Discussion section (line 1088-1117).

9. The lack of quantitative metrics limits the evaluation of TUA versus CEA performance.

This study is intended to be a narrative review, and for this aim, we tried to collect a relatively high number of related scientific literature (309 in the revised version). We agree that the application of a quantitative metrics can also be a good way of comparative assessment. The suggested limitation has been added to the Materials and methods section (line 210-221).

10. Sustainability claims of TUA should be rigorously assessed against the environmental impacts of CEA.

Thank you for the suggestion. According to the request of reviewers we added the limitations section to the Materials and methods part (line 210-221). We also refined the topics we aim to discuss (line 196-202). We feel that this suggestion would require an analysis from an environmental economics point of view, which is not the topic of this article. 

11. The socioeconomic implications of transitioning from TUA to CEA, especially for lower-income communities, need further exploration.

Regional differences regarding transitioning from TUA to CEA have been outlined in the Introduction section (line 123-171). Additionally, transition possibilities of the investigated factors have been outlined in Table 4. (from line 1104).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately answered all the questions raised. The article is ready to be published.