Food Security and Circular Cities: Paradigmatic Shifts, Geographical and Temporal Scales, and Participatory Governance Support to Facilitate Transitions Towards ‘Urban Sustainability’

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the potential of the circular economy in developing urban food systems. Critically analysing the current approach to the circular economy, the paper argues that the circular economy needs to be seen from the lens of regeneration and development to develop circular urban food systems that address food poverty and also support ecosystem functions.

The paper is interesting and insightful, and I read it with great enthusiasm. The paper does a good job of engaging with various issues that are neglected or partly covered in the food systems and security debates. For example, it highlights spatial planning, challenges of localised food planning, place-making, and city food-region systems. However, the paper remains at the conceptual level without laying open how might urban food systems be designed following the circular principles.

Below, I highlight some questions and areas to further strengthen the paper:

From the start, I expected to see a vision or an explanation of what a circular urban city would look like with different functions and processes. Following this, towards the end, I expected to see specifically, what an urban circular city would look like in the context of circular food systems. This is the main limitation of the paper.

What can we learn from the examples of circular food systems?

What does the discussion of inner-city space, periphery, alternative food systems and temporal scale add to the design of circular urban food systems?

Where would bottom-up approaches sit in this circular urban food system?

I am aware that the author wants to move away from technical industrial ecology and new business models to prioritise regenerative circular development. But, the paper does not expand on how this might look in practice.

Exchanging by-products, sharing resources, utilising spaces, designing growing spaces, linking different types of services and production systems and spatial planning to include food in the city development is part of a circular economy. But, these aspects are mentioned with limited focus.

Sections 2 and 3 are long and cover basics about many things so could be substantially shortened to highlight the key points.

Author Response

Reviewer 1’s comments:

This paper explores the potential of the circular economy in developing urban food systems. Critically analysing the current approach to the circular economy, the paper argues that the circular economy needs to be seen from the lens of regeneration and development to develop circular urban food systems that address food poverty and also support ecosystem functions.

The paper is interesting and insightful, and I read it with great enthusiasm. The paper does a good job of engaging with various issues that are neglected or partly covered in the food systems and security debates. For example, it highlights spatial planning, challenges of localised food planning, place-making, and city food-region systems. However, the paper remains at the conceptual level without laying open how might urban food systems be designed following the circular principles.

Author’s answer:

Thanks for your encouraging comments! Regarding the last sentence: Section 4 attempts to explain how, by involving the urban food system’s stakeholders in discussing various ‘performance criteria’ (targets, standards, ecological limits, social objectives…) on both capital, urban ecosystems functions, food systems activities and the use of waste and by products, both food systems activities and urban ecosystems functions might be improved. This ‘improvement’ results from strengthened urban ecosystems functions that ensure an overall better performance of the food system in providing goods and services whilst reducing waste of various sorts. The ‘waste’ that is considered in the framework presented in the article therefore goes beyond waste and by-products generated by food systems activities. Waste can include waste-scape (brownfield, …), pollution at the level of the city (Co2, waste-water, …), unemployed people (wasted skills, opportunities, willingness to take part in activities), lack of skilled people able to contribute to circular food systems, etc. Addressing these wastes through strategies focused on strengthening urban ecosystems functions as a form of urban regeneration will lead to, for instance, identifying ecological transformation of brownfields; growing crops (urban agriculture) that capture CO2, use grey water to water parks and some community gardens, train people to new ‘urban agriculture’ jobs and other activities of the food systems, etc. In this context, spatial planning, city-food region systems and place-making strategies all result from a negotiated participatory governance system that prioritises the good functioning of urban ecosystems functions as an underlying pillar to urban resilience.       

 

Reviewer 1’s comments:

From the start, I expected to see a vision or an explanation of what a circular urban city would look like with different functions and processes. Following this, towards the end, I expected to see specifically, what an urban circular city would look like in the context of circular food systems. This is the main limitation of the paper.

Author’s answer:

Sections 2 and 3 discuss both the general approach to circularity, food systems and a ‘sustainable resilient city’ as well as more specific critical approaches to the notion of waste and to considering urban ecosystems functions as being core to the sustainable functioning of a city. Both sections are explaining the foundation of the author’s understanding of what a circular city that builds on the  ‘circularisation’ of the urban food system, could look like.

The framework presented in the latest section of the paper is then intended to give an overall presentation of a circular urban food system that use various forms of capital to produce goods and services in order to meet citizens’ needs (related to various parts of the food system). These food systems activities are themselves contributing to the delivery of urban ecosystem functions. The framework is presented in tables (Tables 2 and 3): these look like ecosystems input-output accounts (see ref. 48), the types of aid to decision-making tools that the UNSD developed and that build on the types of accounts that decision-makers use (and that, at national levels, lead to overall indicators of success such as the – controversial from a sustainability perspective – GDP). The framework is also presented in Figures 1 and 2, which  attempt to provide a more user-friendly representation of the type of circular city builds on circular food systems and the protection and strengthening of urban ecosystems functions. In Figure 2, a set of ‘performance criteria’ (standards, targets, objectives…),  suggested by a variety of stakeholders involved in the urban food system governance system, refer to both types of capital, stages of the food system, urban ecosystem functions, and what to do with waste and by-products. These guiding ‘performance criteria’ are discussed in an iterative way, and improved through a ‘social learning’ process. The objective is to ensure that all urban ecosystems functions are performed and being protected, as a way of best managing ‘waste’ (in a broad sense – that may be forms of pollution – Co2, waste water - , waste space/ brownfields, people being unemployed, whose skills, tie, talent, willingness to contribute is not being used, etc.). Strategies focused on the protection of urban ecosystems functions will reduce the various types of waste. For instance, greening the city (growing vegetation/ crop) can reduce CO2 emissions and re-using some forms of waste-water to water parks can save fresh water. A picture of a circular city built on a circular urban food system that protects urban ecosystems functions looks like a dynamically functioning Figure 2.

 

Reviewer 1’s comments:

What can we learn from the examples of circular food systems?

Author’s answer:

Providing examples of circular food systems (Section 2.3.) first shows that such example can exist; they also show how various types of wastes can be re-used and diminished. In the context of the framework later discussed in the paper, such examples inform the discussions amongst stakeholders on what is desirable and achievable in terms of targets and standards.

 

Reviewer 1’s comments:

What does the discussion of inner-city space, periphery, alternative food systems and temporal scale add to the design of circular urban food systems?

Author’s answer:

The geographical and temporal discussion highlights the fact that, although we are including the debate on circular food system in the urban area, a) the urban food system extends to the periphery (peri-urban areas – since these are an important part of the surface of land that is usable to meet the food needs of the city) and b) the identification of ways of reducing the various types of waste and of strengthening the urban ecosystems functions take time and require a governance systems based on learning and iterations. In other words, the design of circular urban food systems suggests to reform urban planning so as to take better account of the peri-urban areas and also of the need for iterative decision-making processes.

 

Reviewer 1’s comments:

Where would bottom-up approaches sit in this circular urban food system?

Author’s answer:

Bottom-up approaches contribute to the learning taking place in the negotiations and sharing of best practice that help to identify the various standards/ targets and objectives described in the framework. They are important and reflect, like other approaches do too, approaches used by the various stakeholders of the food system.

 

Reviewer 1’s comments:

I am aware that the author wants to move away from technical industrial ecology and new business models to prioritise regenerative circular development. But, the paper does not expand on how this might look in practice.

Author’s answer:

Thank you for this comment – this is an important part of the article. I hope my additional explanation in the text helps the reader’s understanding of what is meant by ‘regenerative circular development’. The ‘regenerative’ dimension comes from ‘improving the health of the city – and its ‘metabolism’ – by restoring its (urban) ecosystem functions and ensuring that they all exist and interconnect in a balanced way. The additional ‘circular development’ dimension comes from the fact that the development of urban activities aim at meeting people’s needs by generating goods and services but also at protecting urban ecosystem functions and their ability to absorbe and deal with a variety of waste (be they CO2 emissions, waste water,  organic waste, people being unemployed - whose skills and time and willingness to contribute is wasted - brownfields, etc.). Various urban ecosystems functions address these ‘wastes’ in different way. By restoring the urban ecosystems, we ensure that various types of wastes are taken into consideration all at once while repairing the ecological basis of the urban environment.

The UFS activities (much more than other urban activities) are particularly well suited at facilitating the restoration of the four types of ecological functions and therefore of the Urban ecosystems functions. This is why the food system can be seen as a catalyst for the ecological regeneration of a city.

 

Reviewer 1’s comments:

Exchanging by-products, sharing resources, utilising spaces, designing growing spaces, linking different types of services and production systems and spatial planning to include food in the city development is part of a circular economy. But, these aspects are mentioned with limited focus.

Author’s answer:

I agree, this is a limitation. The article highlights the fact that examples exist on how to do this and that the urban governance system should facilitate a sharing of best practice and a learning process that is iterative and allow people to be provided with examples of how things could work. The article’s framework therefore shows how recommendations could be made, be tested (but does not go into detail on the how) and then iterations should be applied to improve the overall system and refine the targets/objectives/standards (performance criteria). I am sure these aspects can be explained in more detail in the space of this article… but I am open to suggestion!

 

Reviewer 1’s comments:

Sections 2 and 3 are long and cover basics about many things so could be substantially shortened to highlight the key points.

Author’s answer:

I shortened the sections (reduced by 700 words +) in order to go straight to the key points and free some space in the later section describing the framework.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting paper about food security and circular cities. The objective of the paper is to explore ‘how the principles of circularity, applied to urban food systems, could contribute to catalysing a transition towards more sustainable cities, working on the premise that food security is a key pillar of urban resilience’. The paper is well grounded and structured. As the authors mention in the objective of the paper, which contributes to current urban studies, the paper explores the relations between different concepts. While they are properly related to each other, the authors should expand the foundations of food security and urban resilience which are crucial but are not developed. They should also expand the use of recent references to support the arguments of the paper. Also, the authors should discuss limitations and opportunities of future research for European and non-European contexts.

Author Response

This is a very interesting paper about food security and circular cities. The objective of the paper is to explore ‘how the principles of circularity, applied to urban food systems, could contribute to catalysing a transition towards more sustainable cities, working on the premise that food security is a key pillar of urban resilience’. The paper is well grounded and structured. As the authors mention in the objective of the paper, which contributes to current urban studies, the paper explores the relations between different concepts. While they are properly related to each other, the authors should expand the foundations of food security and urban resilience which are crucial but are not developed. They should also expand the use of recent references to support the arguments of the paper. Also, the authors should discuss limitations and opportunities of future research for European and non-European contexts.

Comment: expand the foundations of food security and urban resilience. Answer to Reviewer 2

Thank you, I completely agree, I have expanded section 3.1.3

 

Comment: recent references to support the arguments of the paper. Answer to Reviewer 2

Thank you for your comment. This is indeed important.

Iida et al. (2024) (example of decentralised composting systems that work efficiently in commercial UA and explored benefits of having urban farms in cities where there is an abundance of under-utilised organic matters) – mentioned in section 3.1.1

Viljoen and Thapa Karki (2024) – section 4.2.2 : both bottom-up and top-down approaches can work individually but collaborative approaches between these initiatives would help the scaling of circular approaches at the city-region level. 

Horn and Proksch (2022) – section 2.1. Our research responds to addressing the need to create stronger links between symbiotic and regenerative sustainability frameworks to the operationalization of circular principles in cities highlighted by the authors.

Refs 31, 32 and 33 on new approaches to urban regeneration.

 

Comment: discuss limitations and opportunities of future research for European and non-European contexts. Answer to Reviewer 2

The framework presented here puts a very strong emphasis on stakeholders’ participation to enhance the learning process and ensure that the suggested ‘performance criteria’ – targets, standards, objectives… - are adapted to the validity of the territory and the concerns of the stakeholders. In other words, the information inputted in the decision-making process needs to be, at least in part, context specific. Since some ecological information (safe minimum standards, renewability rates, etc.) are more generalisable, it might be indeed interesting to extend the sharing of best practices and the learning process advocated in this ‘participatory governance process’ to other cities (be they European or non-European) – in a context similar to that of the Milan Urban Pact, or a type of Forum that would enable cities interested in becoming more circular by boosting a circular, regenerative food system, to share their experience, learn from each other and adapt.  The framework in itself is, in theory, applicable to European and non-European contexts. What will be most different is the way in which a participatory governance process takes place. In some places, it will be through local authorities, in some others through Alternative Food Networks working with urban planners. Ultimately, because the proposed framework presented here both looks at urban activities as ‘feeding’ urban ecosystems functions and by suggesting that a circular urban food system could boost the re-balancing of these urban ecosystems functions overall, the paper calls for a reform of urban planning if urban planning aims at creating resilient, circular cities.  I have tried to summarise these ideas in the conclusion – as an ‘opening’ - and also to quote more recent examples from around the world in the text.  I hope it works?

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revisions. The two diagrams and changes have strengthened the paper.