Urban Agriculture for Post-Disaster Food Security: Quantifying the Contributions of Community Gardens

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper aimed to assess the potential self-sufficiency capacities of urban agriculture in post-disaster scenarios in Wellington City as a case study in New Zealand. Wellington is a relevant case study and has a long-standing embedded culture of growing food locally. Three urban agriculture typologies, allotments, communal gardens and urban farms in Wellington were explored. This paper presented interesting discussion and findings, and data collection and analysis were conducted well. This is a very useful study, timely and focused on the critical aspect of building food resilience post-disaster for various populations. I enjoyed reading this paper and have the following comments. In Section 2.2, Step 1 included only one sentence that explained the survey questionnaire. ‘These questionnaires requested information on garden sizes, yields, crops, maintenance, and other relevant details’. It would be good to elaborate on this with more details of the survey questions, if an ethics approval was sought or not. It is essential to include aerial photos or garden images to give a visual representation to the readers of the nature of food-producing garden case studies in reality. Overall, this paper is well articulated and clear. The authors have conducted an in-depth research. I will be very happy to see this paper published. All the very best wishes to the authors. Thank you very much.

Author Response

The authors appreciate for the valuable comments and suggestions.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: urbansci-3681319

Title “Urban Agriculture as an Alternative for Disaster Resilience:  Quantifying the Potential Contribution of Community Gardens to Food Security in Post-disaster Wellington, New Zealand”

- This is interesting research and good work. But I suggest some revisions will be considered.

Dear authors, firstly, you can summarize the title; it seems too long, you can remove the part: “ in Post-disaster Wellington, New Zealand” and alternatively put it in the keywords. Also, please change the keywords that should not match the title.

- In the abstract, the applied methods must be highlighted,

You mentioned that “Data collection involved a mixed methodology approach of literature 17 reviews, questionnaires, on-site observations and mapping, ----------------------, but not clear what are methods of data collection or analysis?

Also, please mention the most significant study limitations at the end after recommendations.

Introduction

- In line 43, you mentioned that “ These challenges are further-----“. Which challenges do you mean? I feel this sentence is incomplete and not connected to the previous one.

- In line 62 also the sentence “It is true that maintaining self-reliance pre--------” is not complete.

- The research objective is unclear. It would be beneficial to specify the exact questions the study seeks to answer or the hypotheses it aims to test. Please correct your objectives.

- You cited many references, but in most of them, you did not mention the tools and methods applied. please rewrite this section, and try to support your lit. by the methods, approaches, etc… applied and compare it with your article method.

2. Materials and Methods

Why did you choose Wellington, New Zealand, for a case study? Why was this method chosen, and what is the significance of it in this context? What software did you use for your analysis?

- In line: 266: “2.3.2 Nutrient demand for the population surrounding the urban farm Error! Bookmark not defined.” Please correct the reference error here.

3. Findings

-The manuscript requires an extensive overhaul with proper discussion, justifying the results, with its implications on the SDGs and policy formulation.

- Also, please type the figure you get from the results inside the text (No numerical figure results)

- You can merge sections 2.2.1 Yield data and 2.2.2 land area.

4. Discussion

It is fine and well organized.

Limitations and insights

- Could you remove it after the conclusion section?

Conclusion

- Could you improve this section by adding more conclusive results? So, several results were drawn from the analysis.

- Could you please write about further study in the last part of your paper? Because you mentioned the study limitations. What are the recommended future studies that should be performed?

References

Need to be updated. Most of them are old. Please cite from 2018 and up. Now we are in 2025

General comments

There are more and more errors in the standard of English (and other typo errors/mistakes), and the authors should proofread the paper carefully.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors appreciate for the valuable comments and suggestions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines the impact of backyard agriculture on food security in urban areas, focusing specifically on New Zealand's urban region, from both production and nutritional perspectives. Since the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) began promoting urban agriculture, research in this field has increased over the past two decades. However, to my knowledge, very few previous studies have evaluated the impact of urban agriculture on food security in urban settings, making the findings of this study particularly significant within the realm of urban agriculture research. Nonetheless, the reviewer found that the discussion from the perspective of disaster preparedness somewhat contrived.
1) The idea that backyard agriculture in urban environments cannot meet the food consumption needs of the urban population is widely recognized among researchers and practitioners. The reviewer appreciates the demonstration of this "common knowledge" using the numerical data. However, given that food production is not feasible year-round, the role of urban agriculture in food supply during disasters is likely to be negligible from a production perspective.
2) As mentioned in the Discussion section, when considering disaster response, the reviewer suggests that the role of urban agriculture in building social capital is more significant than its role in production. Since the authors also addressed social capital in the Discussion section, it would have been appropriate to present qualitative analysis results on the accumulation of social capital based on interviews with participants, in addition to quantitative results on the contribution of production.
3) When discussing the contribution of backyard agriculture to food supply during disasters, the reviewer recommends conducting interviews with individuals who have experienced disasters to gather insights on the role backyard agriculture played during such events as the most appropriate approach.

Author Response

The authors appreciate for the valuable comments and suggestions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most parts of this manuscript are good. However, there are still some places for improvement.

1) How does urban agriculture compare with traditional rural agriculture?

2) What is the economic cost of these urban garden per yield (kg)?

3) How does the quality of food from these urban gardens?

4) Though urban gardens do exist in the world, Self-sufficiency rates were very low (<10%), how can they be improved?

5) What methods can improve the standards of urban gardens in the future?

 

 

Author Response

The authors appreciate for the valuable comments and suggestions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all the comments and made the necessary corrections; therefore, no further comments are observed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Appropriate revisions have been made in response to the comments, and a separate document provides detailed explanations. While the reviewer believes there is scope for further discussion based on additional survey evidence, it is standard practice to significantly narrow the focus of research within the available space. Therefore, I believe it is acceptable to publish the paper in its current form.