Visceral Encounters: A Political Ecology of Urban Land, Food, and Housing in Dubuque, Iowa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thanks for giving me the possibility to review this manuscript. I have enjoyed reading it and I think that the goals of the paper are interesting and useful.

I have to admit that I found it difficult to review this paper, due to its ‘different’ structure and way of presenting. I feel that there are some good elements about your original approach to this work, but also some elements that need improvement.

Let me start by saying that I agree that ‘scientific’ knowledge is nog necessarily of higher value than other knowledges. Society needs different knowledges for different goals and they all have their merits. Thus, indeed, we need to acknowledge the value of ‘local’ knowledge. (Moreover, it is also nice to read a paper that is different in structure and set-up, simply because originality is refreshing!) However, I feel that this does not mean that scientists shouldn’t do anything with local knowledge when they present it to a scientific audience. Because that is what the scientific standard is – we analyse things and reflect upon those. This is not to say that someone not a scientist could not do that, but I think that you do not have to defend yourself when you state that you have worked with the local knowledge (on page 4). In other words, if you didn’t work with the material it could still be valuable, but maybe it should be presented elsewhere. I do therefore think that the last part of the paper is absolutely necessary.

Having said that, considering the way in which you have presented the material, I am not sure whether it works completely to have these long stories of authors 2 and 3. I especially do not really see the value of the extensive interview quotes used in these parts. Usually we use quotes to present how our interviewees put something into words, how they phrased it, as that illustrates a viewpoint or finding. However, these parts are already the words of authors 2 and 3, so why would they have to use their own quotes? Couldn’t they just write the whole part in their own words? To state it differently, how are the interview quotes different than the stories that these authors wrote? Reading the text I wasn’t sure why some parts were quotes and others were ‘just written’. I feel that the stories of authors 2 and 3 could be much nicer phrased without these quotes because they seem to make the story unnecessarily long and more difficult to read, as spoken language is sometimes more difficult to understand when it is in writing. Some examples:

Page 6, lines 291-294: the part about the Convivium Urban Farm: I don’t understand this

Page 7, last quote: I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. (Also: what is ‘Author 1s’--> is this a find and replace mistake? Also see same page line 311: Author 1d decent foods)

So, again, I would argue that the quotes make the story more difficult to understand rather than work explanatory. I would suggest removing them and using the space to create stories of authors 2 and 3 that are clearer (and in which the point to be made is also clearer). It would then still be their own words, but more easy to follow and more pleasant to read. Moreover, it would also make more clear why you use the voice of these authors if they would write it in their own words: if you use so many quotes, someone else could have written their stories (isn’t the benefit of these co-authors that they can write their own stories?).

Also, it wasn’t completely clear to me who authors 2 and 3 were, especially at the beginning of the paper – of course this becomes more clear when reaching their stories in the text, but it would be very helpful at the beginning of the paper to already make clear who they are, for example, to what extent they are part of the communities they describe, or whether they are (also) outsiders. Also, I am not sure whether these authors 2 and 3 have written their stories themselves (I think so) or whether someone else did this for them.

Besides this major point, a second major point I have is that I think that parts 4, the discussion and the conclusion need some more work. It was often not completely clear to me what the point was that you are trying to make, and many points also remain implicit. I think that the Political Ecology of the Body theory could work very well for your paper, but I also feel that you need to apply it more thoroughly:

You argue, for example, that there are ontological and knowledge boundaries (line 628): but where did you really describe these?

You also state that you have shown how power dynamics are excluding residents from having a say (line 654): this remains implicit; although it does become somewhat clear in the stories of the authors, it is not as such highlighted. As a reader I would like some more guidance. So, you are talking about gardening, and housing, and gentrification, but having read the paper I can’t really say what the final point is that you are trying to make. Also, in part 3, I think you could strengthen the theoretical basis of how housing, gardening and food relate.

Similarly, regarding the third paragraph of page 14 (lines 690-696), I don’t really get what it is you are telling me. What is the point you are trying to make?

Also, on the same page, lines 700-704: ‘Applying... give the tools.. roles for outside organisations...’: which tools, what roles? Please be more explicit.

Lines 715-720: I don’t understand what you are saying here.

Lines 728-729: ‘In each instance, the encounter of garden, body, and communities forms s relational assemblage that contributes to the diversity of community food practices’. In my opinion, you haven’t really described this. Perhaps you have described the ‘evidence’ of this, but you have not as such pointed that out it writing, or, again, it is not as such made explicit.

So, to make a long story shorter, I feel that you are making interesting points, but I don’t always feel that they are clearly reflected in the material you presented. Much of it remains implicit. I would like to see the analysis much more explicit, really guiding me through the arguments you are making. You could do that by reflecting back to the stories of authors 2 and 3, and mentioning the examples you refer to. Another option would be to be more explicit about where you are heading to in the stories of authors 2 and 3.

Perhaps you could then also be more explicit about how gardening, housing etc relate. I thought the goals of your paper are really interesting, but you do not fully live up to expectations as the argument that you aim to make does not become fully clear (and I think the material to make that argument is there!).

A third point is that, not living in the USA, I could not understand everything you were referring to. I sometimes felt it was written ‘too locally’. For example:

Page 2, line 60: ‘that are difficult to represent at ’10,000’ foot level’: what does that mean?

Page 2, line 92: ‘the colonizing history of Extension continues’: what colonizing history are you talking about? This may need some explanation, to me this is not self-evident

Page 3, line 99: ‘the facilitative shift’: what is that?

Page 5, line 231: ‘the Des Moines Register’: what is that?

Page 8, line 354: ‘who even travel to Madison’: I don’t know where Madison is and how far this is, so I have no idea what it means to ‘even’ travel there

Other (minor) points:

Line 97, ‘their role’: whose role?

The last two paragraphs of page 3: I understand why you take so much space to explain how the paper came into being and how the authors met, I also think that you can shorten this.

Line 280 and the previous paragraph: I agree, but to what extent or how is this in tension with what the city is doing?

To sum up, I think that the entry-point of this paper and the use of the voices of non-academics is very interesting and insightful, but some work may be needed to make the strong points of this paper more clear and evident.

Hope this is of any use, and lots of luck with the paper

Author Response

We thank you for reviewing our article. We appreciate your attentive comments and proposed revisions. We have revised our article, taking both reviewer comments into account, and believe it is much improved. We summarize the revisions in the enclosed response letter and have made them using track changes in the original document. The report references line numbers in the revised document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I enjoyed reading this article and find it to be extremely significant and valuable for both academic and activist readers, which is one of the objectives of the overall project. I am recommending an "accept after minor revisions" because it is strong as is, but I will clarify that the revisions that I recommend, while not requiring a major restructuring of the article, are crucial for clarifying and strengthening the methods, context, and findings of the project.

Expanding on PEB and methods- The authors do a good job of explaining PEB as a theoretical framework and analyzing the overall research findings and topics in relation to it. However, this component of the article is missing important information around the actual methods through which the community gardening activists learned about PEB and came to find it useful for their work and for scholar-activist engagement. The authors note that "relational frameworks like PEB can open up possibilities to co-construct knowledge" and that PEB is "a framework that community-engaged researchers and partners can actively use to contest hierarchical categories..." (12) but the only information given was about author 1 learning about it during their coursework. It might be the case that the framework itself wasn't explicitly introduced to or discussed by gardener activists, but rather served as a useful tool for author 1 to approach the project and analyze the findings, but if so, this needs to be clarified.

Clarification of neighborhood diversity- Overall, the section on racial relations and inequities is strong. However, the authors describe the two neighborhoods as "the city's most racially and ethnically diverse" (4) but then focus only on the neighborhoods' Black population and history and anti-Black racism. This is fine, but it would be helpful to explain the overall demographics that make these neighborhoods diverse (so for this, simply moving the information given in Notes into the main body of the article), how these demographics relate to the rest of the city, and, briefly, the rationale for why the analysis focuses on the neighborhoods' Black population.

Introduction of Cooperative Extension- Since it figures significantly into the discussion of the article and community gardening in Dubuque more broadly, the Cooperative Extension should be introduced early on and in detail. A brief history, and most importantly, its "colonizing history" (2) should be more explicitly told. If possible, I think this could fit well toward the end of the section on racial relations. Getting a sense of the historical and "colonizing" context in which the Extension emerged in Dubuque will also allow readers to understand the process by which the Extension went from being more of a colonizing force to one that is more recently "framing food, land, and housing insecurity as political ecological struggle" (15), as well as future opportunities for improvement that the authors seem somewhat optimistic about.

Strengthening title and section titles- If possible, I think the article title and several of the section titles should provide a bit more detail. "Visceral Encounters in Community Gardens" is very broad and could benefit from some more specific geographic, methodological, and/or conceptual information. The Authors 2 and 3 section titles could be improved by including one or more specific details that reflect a theme that stands out in the sections themselves.

More minor points- 

Once the abbreviation PEB is introduced for Political Ecology of the Body, you no longer need to spell out the whole term. 

It is mentioned that author 2 is a neighborhood resident who moved to the Washington neighborhood in order to "disrupt the stereotypes and stigmas about certain areas of town" (9) and noticed problematic dynamics between outside organizations and the neighbors. It appears, then, that this person has a sort of an insider-outsider role within the neighborhood. If this is true and the authors feel it is relevant, it might be worth adding a few sentences about this particular positionality. 

I generally enjoyed the conclusion but was surprised that it ended with a somewhat jargoned and vague academic quote. Is there a way to express the idea of community gardening activism in Dubuque and its visceral components as being a "pre-figurative moment" in the authors' own words?

Author Response

We thank you for reviewing our article. We appreciate your attentive comments and proposed revisions. We have revised our article, taking both reviewer comments into account, and believe it is much improved. We summarize the revisions in the enclosed response letter and have made them using track changes in the original document. The report references line numbers in the revised document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thanks for this revised manuscript. I enjoyed reading it and I think the paper has been greatly improved.

It is much clearer now how the parts have come together and how they have been written. I my humble opinion you could reduce the knowledge on how the authors met (lines 165-175 in my version – I have another numbering then what you refer to in your letter, perhaps this is related to the view of track changes that you used) because I am not sure how relevant it is - in case you need space for more words somewhere else for example. I am missing, however, a short explanation on Growing Together, because you do not seem to introduce this (a footnote would suffice). Anyway, it is clear now who the authors are and how the work got together, and what each one’s role was. I think this cooperation also works really well – I see the value of the three accounts (or, two accounts and one linking perspective).

I also think that it works how you have now worked with the words of authors 2 and 3. I also see clearly how authors 2 and 3 are different and the use of having both their stories in. In some cases perhaps author 3 could be somewhat shorter, for example when she talks about okras. That she put a picture on FB seems less relevant to understand the point of what she is saying (although it does make the text more lively of course). I do really like the addition starting from line 584 (my numbering). The study or author 2 is also much clearer.

I think that it is wise that you added section 3.1, as I think you need this as something to come back to in the conclusions. In some way, perhaps, you can tighten it a little. I was sometimes wondering a bit where the paper is about – housing, having a voice, using open space for gardens... Of course I realise that this all goes together and is interrelated, but by mentioning all these different processes the story is a little ‘messy’ here and there. Lots of what you are saying is linked to gentrification, but also to racism – how does this all tie up? I guess what I am trying to say here as well is that some points are still somewhat implicit and it could be useful to be more explicit. I have read the work twice now in its new form, and the second time the links were much clearer to me, because I already knew where it was going in the conclusions. The first time round I was sometimes a little lost in all the concepts and terms, not knowing where I was heading. For instance also, gentrification is not in the title or the key words, but isn’t it also about this? See lines 909-911: “The changes of Author 2 and Author 3’s neighborhoods, over time and through complex social relations within and throughout Dubuque, reflect the negotiations over what counts as revitalization and whose definition of the city comes to dominate polices and action”. And a few lines down: “demonstrate an elite land politics in which ontological understandings of economy and development leave little room for large permanent garden and green spaces in the neighborhoods”. Isn’t this what the paper is about? Again, I see how it all interrelates, but it also seem like there are many ideas, which hinders a certain streamlining of the argument.

I like the additions you made in the final parts of the paper, especially the ones in the discussion. They are really clear and they make explicit what you are trying to say. For example the large additions on page 20 are very insightful and was exactly what I was missing in the previous version.

I am not sure what you mean with this: “As a significant example of these injustices in the area of housing, in 2013, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a finding that the city of Dubuque had failed to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other various federal regulations” (lines 343-345) --> what are these regulations, and what does it mean that they did not meet them?

I also didn’t get: “Secondly, in the development of social service programs, including those seeking to address food insecurity and access, we see outside organizations re-marginalize already marginalized communities by failing to first listen to people actually living in the neighborhood and take into account their knowledges and visions” (lines 876-878) --> you mention this as an example you had mentioned earlier, but I did not recall anything about social service programmes?

Hope this helps!

 

Author Response

We thank you for reviewing our article a second time and appreciate your proposed minor revisions. We have addressed these revisions, which are summarized in the enclosed response letter. We have made them using track changes in the document. The report references line numbers in the revised document, although it seems like the line numbers may display differently in your document. Again, thank you for the time and effort you've taken toward improving our article!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx