Strategies for Mainstreaming Edible Cities with Focus on the City of Lincoln: A Critical Cross-Case Study Analysis of Community Growing Groups in the UK

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the interesting article 'Strategies for mainstreaming Edible Cities with focus on the City of Lincoln: A critical cross-case study analysis of community growing groups in the UK', which certainly fits the theme of the journal Urban Science. The authors' theme of the tangible links between Edible Cities mechanisms and their alignment with local, cultural and geographical perspectives is timely and important, so I recommend its publication, subject to the necessary minor revisions, as I believe it will find a wide readership.

 

Introduction

One of the aims of the study was to show the geographical perspectives of the issue addressed; however, the review focuses heavily on local initiatives. It would have been worthwhile to show that the problem and the need for change are more universal, not just local. It would have been worth pointing out the urgent need to use different urban spaces to create edible cities in public spaces, both outdoors and indoors. An example of this is the project to integrate block communities around the initiative to create food gardens in the corridors of blocks of flats, described in the MDPI article https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16101533.

 

Methods

This section lacks important information about how the survey was conducted, for example, who conducted the interviews, how long they lasted, how the garden leaders were selected (a garden does not always have only one leader), etc. Filling in the missing data is important for the analysis of the results.  Filling in the missing data is particularly important because the analysis of the results was based on the most frequently mentioned words, which are also influenced by the length of each interview.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

On behalf of my co-author and myself, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the time and effort you devoted to reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful and constructive comments have been invaluable in helping us improve the quality, clarity, and depth of our study.

We have carefully addressed all of your feedback and provided detailed responses to each comment in the attached “Response to Reviewers” document. Additionally, we have revised the manuscript accordingly, and all changes have been highlighted in red to ensure transparency.

Your suggestions, including clarifications to the methods section, enhancing the discussion of findings in a broader global context, and providing further detail on figures, have significantly strengthened our paper. Specifically, we have:

• Enhanced the global significance of our findings and referenced global urban initiatives, highlighting the universal applicability of the Edible Cities strategies.
• Expanded the methods section to provide clarity on participant selection, data collection processes, and the mixed-methods approach.
• Updated and improved key figures (e.g., Figures 1 and 3) and refined their explanations to ensure accuracy and readability.
• Improved the discussion section by connecting our findings to existing literature and emphasizing their contribution to advancing knowledge in this field.
• Outlined study limitations and offered future research directions to address aspects beyond the scope of our current study.

We believe these revisions successfully fulfill your recommendations 'the reviewers’ recommendations and significantly enhance the manuscript’s quality and contribution to the field of urban sustainability.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful reviews and support in strengthening our paper. We hope the revised manuscript now meets your expectations.

Sincerely,

Amira Elnokaly, PhD

I attach:

• Revised Manuscript with changes highlighted in red.
• Response to Reviewers detailing our replies to each comment and where revisions were made.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The abstract is very well-structured and accurately reflects the content of the paper.

I would suggest separating the introduction from the literature review and creating two distinct sections. At the end of the introduction, the authors should present how their own results contribute to advancing the specialized literature.

From Figure 3, it is not clear what research method and instrument were used for the quantitative component of the study. Just as you mentioned the interview as a qualitative research instrument, you should also specify the instrument used for the quantitative research. Please provide more details regarding the methodology used for analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data.

The authors should improve the discussion section by comparing their own results with those of previous studies referenced in the literature review.

I suggest avoiding bullet points in a scientific article.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers

I am not able to attach the manuscript after revision with my table of changes so attaching it here. 

Many thanks

Amira 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores food security and sustainability in the context of climate change and urbanization, which are highly relevant to global challenges. The development of a culturally and geographically appropriate 'edible city' (EC) framework for Lincoln is a significant contribution to urban sustainability. However, the focus of this study on four community growing groups in the UK may limit the generalization of the findings to other areas with different socio-cultural and environmental contexts. In particular, the qualitative data in the study relied heavily on the perspectives of community growing group leaders, which may introduce bias and limit the objectivity of the findings. In addition, the study did not include longitudinal data, which would be useful for understanding the long-term sustainability and impact of the EC initiative. Some specific suggestions are as follows:

1. It is recommended that the authors supplement the quantitative data with indicators that measure the economic impact of the Edible Cities Initiative (e.g., cost savings, job creation, and stimulation of the local economy). A longitudinal study design was also considered to assess the long-term impact of the Edible Cities Initiative on community resilience, food security and urban revitalization.

2. It is recommended that the findings be discussed in the context of the existing literature, emphasizing how this study contributes new insights or challenges existing knowledge. At the same time, the limitations of the study are articulated and specific future research directions that could address these limitations are suggested.

3. It is recommended that Figure 1 be modified to improve its readability, for example by considering the possibility of increasing the weighting of the consequences triggered by the different factors (food insecurity and decline in human wellbeing), and also that the meaning of the figure should be made as clear as possible, for example by explaining the meaning of the NHS either in the figure or in the notes to the figure.

4. The description of Quantitative in Figure 3 is obviously much less than that of Qualitative, which is somewhat unbalanced, and it is recommended to supplement the important content of Quantitative.

5. As shown in Figure 4, there were four study sites with different locations at different times, and it is recommended that the authors detail what statistical analysis methods were used in order to conduct the analysis accordingly, and how the effects of other potential variables and differences in study sites were avoided. It is recommended that the methodology used in this study, including sample selection, data collection and analytical techniques, be described in detail to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf