Community Participation in the Development of Sustainable, Environmentally Conscious Villages in the Cirasea Sub-Watershed, Indonesia

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Dear Reviewer

I would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to review my article entitled “Community Participation in the Development of Environmentally Sustainable Villages in the Cirasea Sub-watershed, Indonesia.” Your valuable insights and constructive feedback were very helpful in improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

I greatly appreciate your thorough evaluation of the content and your thoughtful suggestions for improvement. Your expertise in this field has been instrumental in improving the article, and I believe that your input will significantly strengthen the overall contribution of this work.

I have carefully considered all your comments and made the necessary revisions in accordance with your recommendations. Your dedication to the peer-review process is commendable, and your commitment to improving the quality of research is evident. Improvements have been made in accordance with the feedback and directions from the reviewers and the changes are in the resubmitted file.

Once again, thank you for your time, effort, and expertise. Your contributions are invaluable, and I sincerely thank you for your support in making this article more powerful and impactful. May your kindness be rewarded with an abundance of goodness. Thank you very much, and I wish you good health and success..

Warm regards,
Nur Syamsiyah

Universitas Padjadjaran

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Is the article adequately referenced??

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

3. Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

The manuscript investigates community participation in the development of environmentally-cultured villages within the Cirasea Sub-Watershed, Indonesia, using a mixed-methods approach. Framed within sustainable development and environmental conservation, the study offers critical insights into the role of community engagement in achieving ecologically and socially resilient outcomes.

From a methodological perspective, The sequential explanatory design (quantitative → qualitative) is robust, enabling a holistic understanding of participation dynamics. Cluster random sampling enhances representativeness, improving the generalizability of findings across similar contexts. Triangulation of surveys, interviews, and field observations strengthens data reliability and contextual depth.

However, there are the following drawbacks: Terminology Ambiguity: Key terms like "community participation" and "environmentally-cultured villages" lack clear operational definitions, potentially confusing readers unfamiliar with the program’s specific context. While the mixed-methods approach is noted, technical details (e.g., questionnaire design, interview protocols, coding frameworks) are insufficiently described, limiting replicability.

From the perspective of data analysis, Analyzing participation across planning, implementation, benefit-taking, and evaluation stages reveals nuanced trends, such as declining engagement in post-project evaluation. Figures (e.g., participation rates by stage) enhance clarity, though labels/legends could be more descriptive for international audiences. While socioeconomic status, program design, environmental context, and institutional support are identified as drivers, their specific interrelationships (e.g., how education levels mediate program understanding) remain underexplored. The integration of findings is somewhat disjointed; qualitative insights (e.g., quotes from villagers) could better contextualize quantitative trends (e.g., low benefit-taking scores).

In terms of conclusion validity, The call for inclusive planning and strengthened evaluation mechanisms aligns with global sustainable development goals (SDGs). The categorization of participation stages ("very good" in decision-making, "less satisfactory" in benefit-taking) provides actionable metrics for policymakers. However, the focus on Cirasea limits broader applicability. For instance, how do local cultural norms (e.g., adat traditions) shape participation compared to other regions? Meanwhile, the study’s cross-sectional design precludes insights into long-term sustainability of community engagement.

Responses:

Thank you for the opportunity and valuable feedback on our manuscript entitled "Community Participation in the Development of Environmentally-Cultured Villages in the Cirasea Sub-Watershed, Indonesia." We greatly appreciate the constructive comments and have thoroughly reviewed all points raised.

Improvements were made according to the suggestions given to the authors, the authors are very grateful to the reviewers who provided input so that the quality of the manuscript that the authors submitted can be better and more useful.

In the manuscript I also attach track changes so that reviewers can more easily see the improvements I have made. Thank you, may you always be given health and success.

Comments and Suggestions:

1.    Define "community participation" explicitly, linking it to measurable behaviors (e.g., attendance at meetings, labor contributions, financial investments).

2.    Detail quantitative instruments (e.g., Likert-scale structure, pilot testing) and qualitative coding procedures (e.g., thematic analysis steps).

3.    Use statistical techniques (e.g., regression analysis) to quantify the relative influence of factors like income or institutional support on participation stages.

4.    Strengthen theoretical connections by linking findings to community development theories (e.g., Ostrom’s governance frameworks).

5.    Acknowledge contextual limitations (e.g., reliance on government-led initiatives) and propose cross-case comparisons with decentralized programs.

6.    Recommend longitudinal follow-ups to assess whether "very good" participation in planning stages translates to sustained outcomes.

In summary, this manuscript makes a valuable contribution to the literature on participatory environmental governance. Its strengths lie in its methodological rigor and staged analysis of participation, which uncover actionable insights for practitioners. However, clarifying terminology, deepening factor analysis, and explicitly linking findings to broader theoretical frameworks would elevate its academic impact.

Responses:

1.     Thank you for the suggestion. In the manuscript, on page 3, paragraph 3, we have added a definition of community participation by linking it to measurable behaviors (such as attendance at meetings, labor contributions, and financial investments). This is based on Cohen & Uphoff (1980) as well as another reference—Pretty (1995)—as listed in the References section on page 21, entry number 73.

Thank you for the valuable suggestion. In response, we have revised the manuscript by adding a clearer operational definition of community participation in Chapter 1: Introduction, on page 3, paragraph 3.

The revised paragraph now includes the following clarification:

In this study, ‘community participation’ is defined as the active involvement of residents at various stages of the program—ranging from attendance in planning meetings to contributions of voluntary labor and financial or in-kind support. This participation is measured through quantifiable indicators such as the frequency of meeting attendance, the number of volunteer hours, and the amount of resources contributed (Pretty, 1995; Cohen & Uphoff, 1980) [73:20].

This addition aims to link the concept of participation directly to observable and measurable behaviors, as recommended, and is supported by relevant literature. We hope this addresses the concern regarding the clarity and specificity of how participation is defined and measured in our study.

Page 12, Paragraph 1 (Addition):This definition is consistent with Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation [40], which differentiates not only the frequency of community attendance but also the depth of their engagement—ranging from passive compliance to meaningful involvement in decision-making processes.

Page 6, Continued Paragraph (Second Sentence):As Cornwall (2008) [74] emphasizes, the local context plays a critical role in shaping participation indicators; at the village level, cultural norms and customary institutions—such as obligations to attend traditional meetings—should be considered when designing and adapting measurement instruments.

2.     Thank you for your input on the quantitative instruments and qualitative procedures on how the data were collected and processed.

The author added on page 7 in the materials and methods section, 2.1.1. Primary data part a Questionnaire. Added scale structure using Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree).

The questionnaire utilized a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), which is widely adopted in social science research for its ability to capture the intensity of respondents’ attitudes and perceptions (Joshi et al., 2015; Boone & Boone, 2012).

The following references have been added to the bibliography on page 21 as entries number 77 and 78 to support the explanation regarding the use and analysis of the Likert scale in this study.

[77] Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert Scale: Explored and Explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975

[78] Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing Likert Data. Journal of Extension, 50(2), Artikel 2TOT2.

Chapter 2.3 Research Methodology (Page 9)

The dimensions being measured are included in this section. Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual framework developed based on a review of relevant literature. As this study focuses on participation in government-initiated programs, the measurement of participation is structured in stages:

·       Stage 1: Planning and Decision-Making. This includes community involvement in activities such as program socialization, meetings, public consultations, or deliberations regarding planned initiatives.

·       Stage 2: Implementation. This includes participation during program implementation, the reception and utilization of program benefits, and involvement in program evaluation.

Additionally, this section incorporates the Likert scale as a tool to assess the level of participation. A visual diagram is provided to illustrate the stages of participation measurement. Where applicable, distinctions are made between quantitative and qualitative methods used in the assessment process.

The levels of participation are categorized into five levels: 1. Poor, 2. Fairly Poor, 3. Adequate, 4. Good, 5. Very Good

These categories are used to interpret and classify the intensity and quality of participation across different program stages.

An additional detail on the sample taken is included in the final paragraph of the sampling method section on page 9. The Cirasea sub-watershed area covers five districts (kecamatan). A total of 10 villages were selected, each of which is part of the environmentally cultured village program. From each village, 20 members were chosen, resulting in a total of 200 respondents.

Questionnaires were collected from these five districts, with a total of 200 respondents participating in the study. For further details, the author has included the questionnaire in the supplementary file. The questionnaires were administered both online via Google Forms and through face-to-face interviews.

3.     Thank you very much for the suggestion to apply statistical techniques—such as regression analysis—to measure the relative influence of community engagement at each stage (planning/decision-making, implementation, benefit sharing, and evaluation) of the environmentally-cultured village program. In this study, our primary goal is to describe participants’ attitudes and responses at each stage, rather than to estimate the causal effects or weight of influence of each stage independently. Therefore, we have focused our analysis on descriptive and inferential measures of participation levels, without isolating each stage’s influence through regression models.

Including a full regression analysis at this point would require additional data collection, model specification, and interpretation time—which could delay our revision timeline. Would you recommend that we proceed with regression analysis now, or would it be preferable to reserve a regression-based investigation of the relative influence of participation stages for a follow-up study?

We would greatly appreciate your guidance and suggestions.

Once again, thank you for your invaluable feedback. Wishing you continued health and success.

4.     Thank you for the suggestion to strengthen the theoretical foundation. In the revised manuscript, we have added a sub-section in Chapter 3 (Discussion), specifically on page 12, section 3.1, that links the field findings with Elinor Ostrom’s (1990) common-pool resource governance framework. For example, the mechanisms of community participation in the planning stage are connected to Principle 3 (Collective-Choice Arrangements), where community members are directly involved in rule-making processes; labor contributions and material donations are interpreted through Principle 4 (Monitoring), referring to the collective involvement of residents in program implementation oversight; and post-project evaluation dynamics are aligned with Principle 6 (Conflict-Resolution Mechanisms), emphasizing the community’s capacity to resolve internal disagreements.

To further enrich the analysis of community participation in the environmentally cultured village program, we also relate our findings to Pretty’s (1995) typology of participation, which classifies levels of engagement from passive participation to self-mobilization. Additionally, we incorporate Chambers’ (1994) participatory development theory, which highlights empowerment through inclusive and reflective processes.

Moreover, we have strengthened our argument by adding relevant supporting literature. Uphoff (1992) emphasized that the success of participatory development programs is greatly influenced by the presence of local social structures and institutional capacity. In the Indonesian context, Bebbington and Dharmawan (2008) noted that the sustainability of environmental programs tends to be stronger when there is a synergy between institutional support and grassroots initiatives. These insights are discussed to reinforce the empirical findings in section 3.1 on page 12 of the manuscript.

With these additions, we hope that the discussion becomes more comprehensive and presents a stronger theoretical contribution.

Additional references on page 21: 75. Uphoff, N. (1992). Learning from Gal Oya: Possibilities for Participatory Development and Post-Newtonian Social Science. Cornell University Press. 76. Bebbington, A., & Dharmawan, L. (2008). Environment, livelihoods and local institutions: Decentralization and rural development in Indonesia. World Development, 36(11), 2101–2117.

Thank you for this invaluable feedback. We recognize that focusing on a single government-led environmentally-cultured village program—even in regions with similar characteristics and community profiles—may limit the generalizability of our findings, as variations in program design or implementation strategies can produce different participation dynamics. To address this contextual limitation, we have added a recommendation in the Limitations and Future Research section, proposing a comparative cross-case study of government-sponsored and community-driven initiatives (or different government models) in similar settings, which will help clarify how institutional context and program structure influence community engagement.

We have updated the Conclusion on page 18 to include the following improvement:

“This study has several limitations; therefore, we recommend that future research conduct cross-case comparative analyses of government-sponsored and community-driven initiatives (or various government program models) in similar contexts to elucidate how institutional settings and program structures influence community engagement.”

Is this revised statement in the conclusion clear and sufficient, or should we add any other elements to enhance the manuscript’s clarity? Additionally, would you advise incorporating a brief review of previous studies on similar government programs?

5.     Thank you for this invaluable feedback. We recognize that focusing on a single government-led environmentally-cultured village program—even in regions with similar characteristics and community profiles—may limit the generalizability of our findings, as variations in program design or implementation strategies can produce different participation dynamics. To address this contextual limitation, we have added a recommendation in the Limitations and Future Research section, proposing a comparative cross-case study of government-sponsored and community-driven initiatives (or different government models) in similar settings, which will help clarify how institutional context and program structure influence community engagement.

We have updated the Conclusion on page 18 to include the following improvement:

“This study has several limitations; therefore, we recommend that future research conduct cross-case comparative analyses of government-sponsored and community-driven initiatives (or various government program models) in similar contexts to elucidate how institutional settings and program structures influence community engagement.”

Is this revised statement in the conclusion clear and sufficient, or should we add any other elements to enhance the manuscript’s clarity? Additionally, would you advise incorporating a brief review of previous studies on similar government programs?

6.     Thank you for the feedback and suggestions, related to Recommending long-term follow-up to assess whether “very good” participation in planning stages results in sustainable outcomes.

Page 19 in Conclusion: before the last paragraph, the statement The success and sustainability of the program highly depends on community participation has been added. And also to clarify the terminology the author has also added references from previous research conducted including:

Theoretical and Empirical Support:

Page 13 sub chapter 3.1 Planning Stage (Decision-making)

Various studies have shown that a high level of community participation, particularly during the planning and decision-making stages, significantly contributes to the long-term sustainability of programs. Pretty (1995) [73] developed a typology of participation emphasizing that interactive participation—where communities are actively involved in decision-making and program planning—is more likely to yield sustainable outcomes due to a strong sense of ownership over the program.

Furthermore, Ostrom (1990) [60], in her theory Governing the Commons, argued that the success of managing common-pool resources greatly depends on the extent to which local communities are involved in rule-making and decision processes. High levels of participation enhance legitimacy, commitment, and compliance with collectively agreed outcomes.

In the context of environmental programs, Reed (2008) [79], in his systematic review of participation in environmental management, emphasized that meaningful and inclusive participation not only improves decision quality but also strengthens the social capacity required for long-term sustainability.

Additional References: Page 22-24

·       Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management: A Literature Review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431.

Revised Text with Supporting References:

Page 15, sub-chapter 3.2. Implementation Stage, last paragraph

Figure 4 shows that community participation in the Implementation Stage of sustainable environmentally-cultured village development in the Cirasea Sub-Watershed of West Java Province is categorized as good. This is demonstrated by direct community involvement in development activities and collective action (gotong royong) to clean areas in and around the Cirasea Sub-Watershed. Participation in development-related events is also very high, with the community enthusiastically engaging in environmentally-cultured village development activities.

Community participation serves as a foundational element that continues to significantly impact development efforts, particularly because it is integral to the implementation of development activities. Village development, in particular, is a critical step where community efforts are integrated with government initiatives [51].

This finding aligns with the conclusions of Pretty (1995), who emphasized that participatory implementation, especially through interactive and self-mobilized participation, strengthens ownership and responsibility toward shared outcomes. Additionally, Chambers (1994) noted that people-centered development is most effective when communities are actively engaged in executing the programs they help plan, leading to more relevant and sustainable results. Similarly, Mansuri and Rao (2013) in their World Bank review found that effective participation during implementation phases enhances accountability and improves the efficiency and responsiveness of development initiatives.

Additional References to Include:

·       Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis of Experience. World Development, 22(9), 1253–1268. [59]

·       Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2013). Localizing Development: Does Participation Work? World Bank. [41]

·       Pretty, J. (1995). Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247–1263. [73]

Page 16, sub-chapter 3.4 Evaluation Stage, First Paragraph

The evaluation stage in community participation is a critical element for assessing the success and impact of the implemented program. Participatory evaluation not only assesses the results but also the participation process itself, which enables continuous improvements.

[80] Korten (1980), in his classic work "Community Organization and Rural Development", emphasized the importance of community-based evaluation, which involves the community in the evaluation process. This allows them to not only be beneficiaries but also agents of change who can provide feedback on the program's sustainability. Korten proposed that evaluation should not only occur at the end of the program but should be an integral part of every stage to ensure ongoing improvements.

[81] Fowler (2000), in his book "The Role of Participatory Approaches in Development Evaluation", revealed that participatory evaluation can enhance transparency and accountability in project management. By involving the community in the evaluation process, the program can be more responsive to evolving needs and challenges that arise during implementation.

Additionally, [82] Guijt (2002), in her research on "Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation", explained that participatory monitoring and evaluation allows communities to actively engage in assessing the impacts of activities they are involved in. This increases a sense of ownership and helps identify barriers that may not be visible to external parties. This type of evaluation is crucial for ensuring that the outcomes meet objectives and fulfill community expectations.

[83] Mosse (2001), in his book "The Anthropology of Development and Change", argued that participatory evaluation focuses not only on the final results but also on the process and interactions among stakeholders involved. This helps create more sustainable change in the relationships between communities and those implementing the programs.

Page 22-24, References additional:

·       [80] Korten, D. C. (1980). Community Organization and Rural Development: A Learning Process Approach. Public Administration Review, 40(5), 480-510.

·       [81] Fowler, A. (2000). The Role of Participatory Approaches in Development Evaluation. Evaluation, 6(1), 59-72.

·       [82] Guijt, I. (2002). Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation. Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex.

·       [83] Mosse, D. (2001). The Anthropology of Development and Change. In The Anthropology of Development and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Page 19,  paragraph 1.

These findings are consistent with theories and previous studies emphasizing the role of meaningful participation across all development stages. According to [69] Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969), community involvement that stops at implementation and decision-making without extending to benefit-sharing and evaluation remains incomplete and may not achieve transformative empowerment.

[73] Pretty (1995) also notes that interactive and self-mobilized participation, where communities are involved throughout the cycle—from planning to evaluation—tends to produce more sustainable outcomes. Moreover, [84] Guijt and Gaventa (1998) argue that involving communities in evaluation strengthens local accountability and leads to more adaptive, community-owned solutions.

Furthermore, a study by [41] Mansuri and Rao (2013) from the World Bank highlights that benefit-sharing is often the weakest point in participatory development, yet it is crucial for maintaining community motivation and trust. Failure to adequately address this stage may result in reduced long-term engagement and lower sustainability of development programs.

Page 23 References Additional:

·       [84] Guijt, I., & Gaventa, J. (1998). Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: Learning from Change. IDS Policy Briefing.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. 
(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement. 

Response:

Thank you for your comments regarding the quality of the English in the manuscript I sent. The author has limitations, but the author tries to present articles that have good language quality with the help of various parties who really helped the author in perfecting this manuscript. One again I truly appreciate your comments. I have revised and paraphrased the sentences according to the reviewer's suggestions. Thank You.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Dear Reviewer

I would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to review my article entitled “Community Participation in the Development of Environmentally Sustainable Villages in the Cirasea Sub-watershed, Indonesia.” Your valuable insights and constructive feedback were very helpful in improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

I greatly appreciate your thorough evaluation of the content and your thoughtful suggestions for improvement. Your expertise in this field has been instrumental in improving the article, and I believe that your input will significantly strengthen the overall contribution of this work.

I have carefully considered all your comments and made the necessary revisions in accordance with your recommendations. Your dedication to the peer-review process is commendable, and your commitment to improving the quality of research is evident. Improvements have been made in accordance with the feedback and directions from the reviewers and the changes are in the resubmitted file.

Once again, thank you for your time, effort, and expertise. Your contributions are invaluable, and I sincerely thank you for your support in making this article more powerful and impactful. May your kindness be rewarded with an abundance of goodness. Thank you very much, and I wish you good health and success..

Warm regards,
Nur Syamsiyah

Universitas Padjadjaran

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation and can be improve

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation and can be improve

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Is the article adequately referenced??

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation and must improved

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation and can be improve

3. Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

Dear authors,

The study presented in this article is highly valuable and topical, addressing a pressing issue of local participation. As global attention increasingly focuses on participation as one of the sustainability challenges or, the authors deliver timely insights that bridge academic research and real-world applicability, making their work indispensable for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers alike.

The methodological design of this study in Methods and Materials offers a rigorous framework to examine the interplay between community dynamics, environmental sustainability, and watershed management in Bandung Regency’s Cirasea Sub-watershed. The authors’ deliberate focus on this region—a critical upstream area of the Upper Citarum Watershed—reflects both ecological urgency and socio-demographic relevance, positioning the study as a microcosm for broader challenges in Indonesia and similar global contexts.

The methods are explained well.

The study really, as stated by the authors, emphasizes the significance of a holistic approach that integrates social, economic, and environmental dimensions to enhance participation at all stages of the environmentally-cultured villages program in Indonesia.

Despite the fact that there are some redundant details in the article, such as explaining the terms development and planning, the article brings vital contributions. Its findings not only advance scholarly discourse but also empower decision-makers to navigate participation with evidence-based strategies. As participation of local stakeholders remains a critical priority, this work sets a benchmark for impactful, solution-oriented research.

Room for improvement: add contemporary literature, ensuring alignment with global sustainability innovations concerning participation of local communities and local stakeholders.

Responses:

Thank you for the opportunity and valuable feedback on our manuscript entitled "Community Participation in the Development of Environmentally-Cultured Villages in the Cirasea Sub-Watershed, Indonesia." We greatly appreciate the constructive comments and have thoroughly reviewed all points raised.

Improvements were made according to the suggestions given to the authors, the authors are very grateful to the reviewers who provided input so that the quality of the manuscript that the authors submitted can be better and more useful.

In the manuscript I also attach track changes so that reviewers can more easily see the improvements I have made. Thank you, may you always be given health and success.

1.     Thank you for the suggestion. In the manuscript, on page 3, paragraph 3, we have added a definition of community participation by linking it to measurable behaviors (such as attendance at meetings, labor contributions, and financial investments). This is based on Cohen & Uphoff (1980) as well as another reference—Pretty (1995)—as listed in the References section on page 21, entry number 73.

Thank you for the valuable suggestion. In response, we have revised the manuscript by adding a clearer operational definition of community participation in Chapter 1: Introduction, on page 3, paragraph 3.

The revised paragraph now includes the following clarification:

In this study, ‘community participation’ is defined as the active involvement of residents at various stages of the program—ranging from attendance in planning meetings to contributions of voluntary labor and financial or in-kind support. This participation is measured through quantifiable indicators such as the frequency of meeting attendance, the number of volunteer hours, and the amount of resources contributed (Pretty, 1995; Cohen & Uphoff, 1980) [73:20].

This addition aims to link the concept of participation directly to observable and measurable behaviors, as recommended, and is supported by relevant literature. We hope this addresses the concern regarding the clarity and specificity of how participation is defined and measured in our study.

Page 12, Paragraph 1 (Addition):This definition is consistent with Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation [40], which differentiates not only the frequency of community attendance but also the depth of their engagement—ranging from passive compliance to meaningful involvement in decision-making processes.

Page 6, Continued Paragraph (Second Sentence):As Cornwall (2008) [74] emphasizes, the local context plays a critical role in shaping participation indicators; at the village level, cultural norms and customary institutions—such as obligations to attend traditional meetings—should be considered when designing and adapting measurement instruments.

The author added on page 7 in the materials and methods section, 2.1.1. Primary data part a Questionnaire. Added scale structure using Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree).

The questionnaire utilized a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), which is widely adopted in social science research for its ability to capture the intensity of respondents’ attitudes and perceptions (Joshi et al., 2015; Boone & Boone, 2012).

The following references have been added to the bibliography on page 21 as entries number 77 and 78 to support the explanation regarding the use and analysis of the Likert scale in this study.

[77] Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert Scale: Explored and Explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975

[78] Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing Likert Data. Journal of Extension, 50(2), Artikel 2TOT2.

Chapter 2.3 Research Methodology (Page 9)

The dimensions being measured are included in this section. Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual framework developed based on a review of relevant literature. As this study focuses on participation in government-initiated programs, the measurement of participation is structured in stages:

·       Stage 1: Planning and Decision-Making. This includes community involvement in activities such as program socialization, meetings, public consultations, or deliberations regarding planned initiatives.

·       Stage 2: Implementation. This includes participation during program implementation, the reception and utilization of program benefits, and involvement in program evaluation.

Additionally, this section incorporates the Likert scale as a tool to assess the level of participation. A visual diagram is provided to illustrate the stages of participation measurement. Where applicable, distinctions are made between quantitative and qualitative methods used in the assessment process.

The levels of participation are categorized into five levels: 1. Poor, 2. Fairly Poor, 3. Adequate, 4. Good, 5. Very Good

These categories are used to interpret and classify the intensity and quality of participation across different program stages.

An additional detail on the sample taken is included in the final paragraph of the sampling method section on page 9. The Cirasea sub-watershed area covers five districts (kecamatan). A total of 10 villages were selected, each of which is part of the environmentally cultured village program. From each village, 20 members were chosen, resulting in a total of 200 respondents.

Questionnaires were collected from these five districts, with a total of 200 respondents participating in the study. For further details, the author has included the questionnaire in the supplementary file. The questionnaires were administered both online via Google Forms and through face-to-face interviews.

Author have added a sub-section in Chapter 3 (Discussion), specifically on page 12, section 3.1, that links the field findings with Elinor Ostrom’s (1990) common-pool resource governance framework. For example, the mechanisms of community participation in the planning stage are connected to Principle 3 (Collective-Choice Arrangements), where community members are directly involved in rule-making processes; labor contributions and material donations are interpreted through Principle 4 (Monitoring), referring to the collective involvement of residents in program implementation oversight; and post-project evaluation dynamics are aligned with Principle 6 (Conflict-Resolution Mechanisms), emphasizing the community’s capacity to resolve internal disagreements.

To further enrich the analysis of community participation in the environmentally cultured village program, we also relate our findings to Pretty’s (1995) typology of participation, which classifies levels of engagement from passive participation to self-mobilization. Additionally, we incorporate Chambers’ (1994) participatory development theory, which highlights empowerment through inclusive and reflective processes.

Moreover, we have strengthened our argument by adding relevant supporting literature. Uphoff (1992) emphasized that the success of participatory development programs is greatly influenced by the presence of local social structures and institutional capacity. In the Indonesian context, Bebbington and Dharmawan (2008) noted that the sustainability of environmental programs tends to be stronger when there is a synergy between institutional support and grassroots initiatives. These insights are discussed to reinforce the empirical findings in section 3.1 on page 12 of the manuscript.

With these additions, we hope that the discussion becomes more comprehensive and presents a stronger theoretical contribution.

Additional references on page 21: 75. Uphoff, N. (1992). Learning from Gal Oya: Possibilities for Participatory Development and Post-Newtonian Social Science. Cornell University Press. 76. Bebbington, A., & Dharmawan, L. (2008). Environment, livelihoods and local institutions: Decentralization and rural development in Indonesia. World Development, 36(11), 2101–2117.

Theoretical and Empirical Support:

Page 13 sub chapter 3.1 Planning Stage (Decision-making)

Various studies have shown that a high level of community participation, particularly during the planning and decision-making stages, significantly contributes to the long-term sustainability of programs. Pretty (1995) [73] developed a typology of participation emphasizing that interactive participation—where communities are actively involved in decision-making and program planning—is more likely to yield sustainable outcomes due to a strong sense of ownership over the program.

Furthermore, Ostrom (1990) [60], in her theory Governing the Commons, argued that the success of managing common-pool resources greatly depends on the extent to which local communities are involved in rule-making and decision processes. High levels of participation enhance legitimacy, commitment, and compliance with collectively agreed outcomes.

In the context of environmental programs, Reed (2008) [79], in his systematic review of participation in environmental management, emphasized that meaningful and inclusive participation not only improves decision quality but also strengthens the social capacity required for long-term sustainability.

Additional References: Page 22

·       Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management: A Literature Review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431.

Revised Text with Supporting References:

Page 15, sub-chapter 3.2. Implementation Stage, last paragraph

Figure 4 shows that community participation in the Implementation Stage of sustainable environmentally-cultured village development in the Cirasea Sub-Watershed of West Java Province is categorized as good. This is demonstrated by direct community involvement in development activities and collective action (gotong royong) to clean areas in and around the Cirasea Sub-Watershed. Participation in development-related events is also very high, with the community enthusiastically engaging in environmentally-cultured village development activities.

Community participation serves as a foundational element that continues to significantly impact development efforts, particularly because it is integral to the implementation of development activities. Village development, in particular, is a critical step where community efforts are integrated with government initiatives [51].

This finding aligns with the conclusions of Pretty (1995), who emphasized that participatory implementation, especially through interactive and self-mobilized participation, strengthens ownership and responsibility toward shared outcomes. Additionally, Chambers (1994) noted that people-centered development is most effective when communities are actively engaged in executing the programs they help plan, leading to more relevant and sustainable results. Similarly, Mansuri and Rao (2013) in their World Bank review found that effective participation during implementation phases enhances accountability and improves the efficiency and responsiveness of development initiatives.

Additional References to Include:

·       Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis of Experience. World Development, 22(9), 1253–1268. [59]

·       Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2013). Localizing Development: Does Participation Work? World Bank. [41]

·       Pretty, J. (1995). Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247–1263. [73]

Page 16, sub-chapter 3.4 Evaluation Stage, First Paragraph

The evaluation stage in community participation is a critical element for assessing the success and impact of the implemented program. Participatory evaluation not only assesses the results but also the participation process itself, which enables continuous improvements.

[80] Korten (1980), in his classic work "Community Organization and Rural Development", emphasized the importance of community-based evaluation, which involves the community in the evaluation process. This allows them to not only be beneficiaries but also agents of change who can provide feedback on the program's sustainability. Korten proposed that evaluation should not only occur at the end of the program but should be an integral part of every stage to ensure ongoing improvements.

[81] Fowler (2000), in his book "The Role of Participatory Approaches in Development Evaluation", revealed that participatory evaluation can enhance transparency and accountability in project management. By involving the community in the evaluation process, the program can be more responsive to evolving needs and challenges that arise during implementation.

Additionally, [82] Guijt (2002), in her research on "Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation", explained that participatory monitoring and evaluation allows communities to actively engage in assessing the impacts of activities they are involved in. This increases a sense of ownership and helps identify barriers that may not be visible to external parties. This type of evaluation is crucial for ensuring that the outcomes meet objectives and fulfill community expectations.

[83] Mosse (2001), in his book "The Anthropology of Development and Change", argued that participatory evaluation focuses not only on the final results but also on the process and interactions among stakeholders involved. This helps create more sustainable change in the relationships between communities and those implementing the programs.

Page 22, References additional:

·       [80] Korten, D. C. (1980). Community Organization and Rural Development: A Learning Process Approach. Public Administration Review, 40(5), 480-510.

·       [81] Fowler, A. (2000). The Role of Participatory Approaches in Development Evaluation. Evaluation, 6(1), 59-72.

·       [82] Guijt, I. (2002). Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation. Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex.

·       [83] Mosse, D. (2001). The Anthropology of Development and Change. In The Anthropology of Development and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Page 19, third paragrafh.

These findings are consistent with theories and previous studies emphasizing the role of meaningful participation across all development stages. According to [69] Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969), community involvement that stops at implementation and decision-making without extending to benefit-sharing and evaluation remains incomplete and may not achieve transformative empowerment.

[73] Pretty (1995) also notes that interactive and self-mobilized participation, where communities are involved throughout the cycle—from planning to evaluation—tends to produce more sustainable outcomes. Moreover, [84] Guijt and Gaventa (1998) argue that involving communities in evaluation strengthens local accountability and leads to more adaptive, community-owned solutions.

Furthermore, a study by [41] Mansuri and Rao (2013) from the World Bank highlights that benefit-sharing is often the weakest point in participatory development, yet it is crucial for maintaining community motivation and trust. Failure to adequately address this stage may result in reduced long-term engagement and lower sustainability of development programs.

Page 23 References Additional:

·       [84] Guijt, I., & Gaventa, J. (1998). Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: Learning from Change. IDS Policy Briefing.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English Language

(x) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. 
( ) The English is fine and does not require any improvement. 

Response:

Thank you for your comments regarding the quality of the English in the manuscript I sent. The author has limitations, but the author tries to present articles that have good language quality with the help of various parties who really helped the author in perfecting this manuscript. One again I truly appreciate your comments. I have revised and paraphrased the sentences according to the reviewer's suggestions. For the use of language does it need to be improved again? Thank You. may you always be given health and success.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Dear Reviewer

I would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to review my article entitled “Community Participation in the Development of Environmentally Sustainable Villages in the Cirasea Sub-watershed, Indonesia.” Your valuable insights and constructive feedback were very helpful in improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

I greatly appreciate your thorough evaluation of the content and your thoughtful suggestions for improvement. Your expertise in this field has been instrumental in improving the article, and I believe that your input will significantly strengthen the overall contribution of this work.

I have carefully considered all your comments and made the necessary revisions in accordance with your recommendations. Your dedication to the peer-review process is commendable, and your commitment to improving the quality of research is evident. Improvements have been made in accordance with the feedback and directions from the reviewers and the changes are in the resubmitted file.

Once again, thank you for your time, effort, and expertise. Your contributions are invaluable, and I sincerely thank you for your support in making this article more powerful and impactful. May your kindness be rewarded with an abundance of goodness. Thank you very much, and I wish you good health and success..

Warm regards,
Nur Syamsiyah

Universitas Padjadjaran

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Is the article adequately referenced??

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

3. Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

The topic is interesting, but it has not been described well. There is too much general, well-known content, too little specific information about the research that the authors conducted. It can be assumed that the authors "talked over" the problem, and the reader did not gain any specific information from this entire argument.

1. The concept of Sustainability Environmentally-Cultured Villages should be better explained
2.  The authors argue that it is important to involve the community in development planning and decision-making. However, please be more specific. What specific development is the local community to participate in planning? What decisions are you talking about?
3. What did the bibliometric research concern?
4. What specific pro-ecological activities were implemented in the local communities in West Java province covered by the study?
5. A lot of theoretical content, repeated, but too little about specific results. In the empirical part, the description of activities, benefits, etc. is very general. The reader does not know what was actually done and what is the scale of the benefits obtained?
6.  What did the community participation in the evaluation of the activities consist of?
7.  "Participation at the stage of reaping benefits is considered less satisfactory"? I do not understand this. Is it the local population that does not see the benefits of pro-ecological activities, or are there few of these benefits?

Responses:

Thank you for the opportunity and valuable feedback on our manuscript entitled "Community Participation in the Development of Environmentally-Cultured Villages in the Cirasea Sub-Watershed, Indonesia." We greatly appreciate the constructive comments and have thoroughly reviewed all points raised.

Improvements were made according to the suggestions given to the authors, the authors are very grateful to the reviewers who provided input so that the quality of the manuscript that the authors submitted can be better and more useful.

In the manuscript I also attach track changes so that reviewers can more easily see the improvements I have made. Thank you, may you always be given health and success.

1.     Page 2 introduction chapter.

Added in the paragraph 1 “The awareness of sustainable development concerns emerged in 1987 with the publication of Our Common Future by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) [85]; [35]. This book triggered a novel agenda for economic development within the environmental context of sustainable development. The WCED defined sustainable development as an approach that seeks to fulfill the needs of the current generation while preserving the capacity of future generations to meet their own needs.

Page 2, Paragraph 2 and 3 added “An environmentally-cultured village, also known as a green village, is a community-based development approach that integrates local cultural values, environmentally friendly behavior, and active citizen participation in environmental stewardship. This concept emphasizes not only the improvement of environmental quality but also the strengthening of social capacity and long-term economic sustainability at the community level. According to UNEP (2005), green village initiatives are locally-based environmental management strategies that encourage communities to adopt environmentally responsible behaviors through activities such as water conservation, household-level waste management, reforestation, and renewable energy utilization. This aligns with the concept of ecodevelopment (Redclift, 1987), which highlights the integration of ecological, social, and economic systems within a collaboratively managed territory.”

In 2018, as a form of commitment to addressing the issues of the Citarum River, the Indonesian government issued Presidential Regulation No. 15 of 2018 on the Acceleration of Pollution and Environmental Damage Control in the Citarum River Basin (Citarum Watershed). As part of this initiative, the government launched an action plan program known as “West Java BESTARI” (Bersih-Clean, Sehat-Healthy, Indah-Beautiful, and Lestari-Sustainable). In line with this, the West Java Provincial Environmental Agency implemented activities to develop Environmentally-Cultured Villages.

Page 2, paragraph 4

The activities within the development of these environmentally-cultured villages include efforts to rehabilitate approximately 199,514 hectares of critical land, improve waste management, and address issues related to floating net cages (keramba jaring apung). The Cirasea Sub-Watershed is one of the upstream sub-watersheds of the Citarum River. The major environmental problems in this area include critical land caused by land conversion and erosion, unmanaged domestic wastewater—where many households still lack septic tanks—and inadequate solid waste management. Additionally, livestock waste is still being directly discharged into rivers. The growth of tourism and industrialization in several areas surrounding the Citarum River Basin has also led to further land conversion and environmental degradation.

Addition of references:

[86] UNEP. (2005). Empowering People for Sustainable Development: Green Village Approach.

[87] Redclift, M. (1987). Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. Methuen.

Addition of Bibliography, page 23 number 88

According to [88], the collective success of community development is heavily influenced by levels of trust, social networks, and norms of cooperation—all of which are essential elements in green village initiatives.

Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press.

Some references have been added in the manuscript, do you need to add back the references?

2.     Thanks to the advice and input given to the author, the author agrees with the opinion that the importance of community involvement in development planning and decision-making. The point is that in this environmentally cultured village program, it involves the community as one of the implementers in the development program. So that community involvement in the form of participation in every stage of the activity determines the success and sustainability of the program.

The government program in this study is the environmentally-cultured village program established by the government as one of the solutions in the Citarum watershed area in overcoming environmental pollution problems.

Page 13-14.

“Decision-making by the community in their participation is related to the stages of participation in planning or decision-making, in the stage of program preparation, who is involved and determining the development area, socialization. The communities involved are given invitations to attend every development activity. Decision-making is related to attendance at each development activity, the community receives an invitation, there is a desire to attend, and the presence of the community. In each activity there is a poll, whether the community participates in expressing opinions/ideas and also suggestions related to the implementation of the program that will be implemented or not. And after the delivery of the program implementation planning, arranging and organizing the implementation of this program will be done like what, how, etc. and other decisions in each of the other stages of participation, namely implementation, benefit taking and evaluation.”

Is the explanation added in the manuscript sufficient? Or do you need other additions? Please advise and input.

Thank you for the suggestion. In the manuscript, on page 4, paragraph 3, we have added a definition of community participation by linking it to measurable behaviors (such as attendance at meetings, labor contributions, and financial investments). This is based on Cohen & Uphoff (1980) as well as another reference—Pretty (1995)—as listed in the References section on page 21, entry number 73 Page 23

Thank you for the valuable suggestion. In response, we have revised the manuscript by adding a clearer operational definition of community participation in Chapter 1: Introduction, on page 3, paragraph 3.

The revised paragraph now includes the following clarification:

In this study, ‘community participation’ is defined as the active involvement of residents at various stages of the program—ranging from attendance in planning meetings to contributions of voluntary labor and financial or in-kind support. This participation is measured through quantifiable indicators such as the frequency of meeting attendance, the number of volunteer hours, and the amount of resources contributed (Pretty, 1995; Cohen & Uphoff, 1980) [73:20].

This addition aims to link the concept of participation directly to observable and measurable behaviors, as recommended, and is supported by relevant literature. We hope this addresses the concern regarding the clarity and specificity of how participation is defined and measured in our study.

3.     Page 4, the last paragraph added by the author aims to see the extent to which research discussing the same study has been carried out and the differences between the research conducted and other studies.

Page 5, Figure 1 is explained after the picture of the position of the research compared to previous research.

Thank you for the suggestion to strengthen the theoretical foundation. In the revised manuscript, we have added a sub-section in Chapter 3 (Discussion), specifically on page 13, section 3.1, that links the field findings with Elinor Ostrom’s (1990) common-pool resource governance framework. For example, the mechanisms of community participation in the planning stage are connected to Principle 3 (Collective-Choice Arrangements), where community members are directly involved in rule-making processes; labor contributions and material donations are interpreted through Principle 4 (Monitoring), referring to the collective involvement of residents in program implementation oversight; and post-project evaluation dynamics are aligned with Principle 6 (Conflict-Resolution Mechanisms), emphasizing the community’s capacity to resolve internal disagreements.

To further enrich the analysis of community participation in the environmentally cultured village program, we also relate our findings to Pretty’s (1995) typology of participation, which classifies levels of engagement from passive participation to self-mobilization. Additionally, we incorporate Chambers’ (1994) participatory development theory, which highlights empowerment through inclusive and reflective processes.

Moreover, we have strengthened our argument by adding relevant supporting literature. Uphoff (1992) emphasized that the success of participatory development programs is greatly influenced by the presence of local social structures and institutional capacity. In the Indonesian context, Bebbington and Dharmawan (2008) noted that the sustainability of environmental programs tends to be stronger when there is a synergy between institutional support and grassroots initiatives. These insights are discussed to reinforce the empirical findings in section 3.1 on page 12 of the manuscript.

With these additions, we hope that the discussion becomes more comprehensive and presents a stronger theoretical contribution.

Additional references on page 22-24: 75. Uphoff, N. (1992). Learning from Gal Oya: Possibilities for Participatory Development and Post-Newtonian Social Science. Cornell University Press. 76. Bebbington, A., & Dharmawan, L. (2008). Environment, livelihoods and local institutions: Decentralization and rural development in Indonesia. World Development, 36(11), 2101–2117.

4.     Thanks to the input provided, the specific pro-ecological activities implemented related to the eco-culture village in the Cirasea sub-watershed area were added to chapter 3, sub chapter 3.2. implementation stage, page 15-16.

According to [88], the collective success of community development is heavily influenced by levels of trust, social networks, and norms of cooperation—all of which are essential elements in green village initiatives.

This finding aligns with the conclusions of [73], who emphasized that participatory implementation, especially through interactive and self-mobilized participation, strengthens ownership and responsibility toward shared outcomes. Additionally, [59], noted that people-centered development is most effective when communities are actively engaged in executing the programs they help plan, leading to more relevant and sustainable results. Similarly, [41] in their World Bank review found that effective participation during implementation phases enhances accountability and improves the efficiency and responsiveness of development initiatives.

“Because some of the activities carried out are in the countermeasures related to environmentally cultured villages are as follows: 1) Socialization and education on environmentally friendly behavior (3R Campaign; Reduce, Reuse and Recycle), 2) Making biopore holes and infiltration wells for water conservation, 3). Community-based waste management including waste banks to familiarize the community to sort waste and composting, 4) Handling domestic and livestock waste with communal wastewater management installations (IPAL), in several areas, especially industrial areas, 5). Tree planting and reforestation on critical land, one of the causes of erosion is land conversion as well as the choice of commodities planted, some farmers choose horticultural products to be planted in the Cirasea sub-watershed area with the consideration that it is faster to produce, although some farmers have begun to also plant coffee plants and other annual crops, 6). Development of hijai economies such as organic farming and ecotourism so that tourism development in the development area maintains its ecological aspects so as to repair the environmental damage that occurs as a result of land conversion and other consequences arising from tourism activities. All of these activities involve all communities in the environmentally-cultured village community. Each development area may have different activities depending on the problems in each development area.”

5.     Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. The author has added more specific research objectives, in the abstract page 1 and chapter 1 page 7.

“Where this research focuses more on the importance of community participation in each government development program involving the community, the success and sustainability of the program is largely determined by the participation of the community involved either directly or indirectly in the development program.

Page 1. Abstract

The establishment of green villages has been a key initiative of the Citarum Harum program since 2015 to address pollution in the Citarum watershed, particularly in the Cirasea sub-watershed. The program's success depends largely on community involvement in planning and implementation. This study aims to identify the extent of community participation in developing environmentally cultured hamlets in Cirasea. Using a mixed-methods approach—quantitative surveys followed by qualitative interviews and observations—data were collected from 10 villages. Findings show varying participation levels, influenced by socioeconomic conditions, program characteristics, environmental issues, and institutional support. Community involvement was assessed across planning, implementation, benefit-taking, and evaluation stages. Participation was very good in decision-making and implementation, good in evaluation, but less satisfactory in benefit-taking. The research underscores the critical role of inclusive community engagement in ensuring the success and sustainability of environmental development programs.

An additional detail on the sample taken is included in the final paragraph of the sampling method section on page 8, 2.1. Data Sources. The Cirasea sub-watershed area covers five districts (Kecamatan). A total of 10 villages (Sukapura Village and Tarumajaya Village, Loa Village and Karangtunggal Village, Cikitu Village and Sukarame Village, Cibeet Village and Karyalaksana Village, Neglasari Village and Majalaya Village) were selected, each of which is part of the environmentally cultured village program. From each village, 20 members were selected, resulting in a total of 200 respondents.

The author added on page 8 in the materials and methods section, 2.1.1. Primary data part a Questionnaire. Added scale structure using Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree).

The questionnaire utilized a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), which is widely adopted in social science research for its ability to capture the intensity of respondents’ attitudes and perceptions (Joshi et al., 2015; Boone & Boone, 2012).

The following references have been added to the bibliography on page 22-24 as entries number 77 and 78 to support the explanation regarding the use and analysis of the Likert scale in this study.

[77] Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert Scale: Explored and Explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975

[78] Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing Likert Data. Journal of Extension, 50(2), Artikel 2TOT2.

6.     Thank you for the review provided. The activity evaluation stage is discussed on Page 17, Chapter 3.4. The author has also added relevant literature to strengthen the research findings.

The evaluation stage in community participation is a critical element for assessing the success and impact of the implemented program. Participatory evaluation not only assesses the results but also the participation process itself, which enables continuous improvements.

Page 19

According [80], in his classic work "Community Organization and Rural Development", emphasized the importance of community-based evaluation, which involves the community in the evaluation process. This allows them to not only be beneficiaries but also agents of change who can provide feedback on the program's sustainability. Korten proposed that evaluation should not only occur at the end of the program but should be an integral part of every stage to ensure ongoing improvements. And [81], in his book "The Role of Participatory Approaches in Development Evaluation", revealed that participatory evaluation can enhance transparency and accountability in project management. By involving the community in the evaluation process, the program can be more responsive to evolving needs and challenges that arise during implementation. Additionally, [82], in her research on "Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation", explained that participatory monitoring and evaluation allows communities to actively engage in assessing the impacts of activities they are involved in. This increases a sense of ownership and helps identify barriers that may not be visible to external parties. This type of evaluation is crucial for ensuring that the outcomes meet objectives and fulfill community expectations. According [83], in his book "The Anthropology of Development and Change", argued that participatory evaluation focuses not only on the final results but also on the process and interactions among stakeholders involved. This helps create more sustainable change in the relationships between communities and those implementing the programs.

Page 20

These findings are consistent with theories and previous studies emphasizing the role of meaningful participation across all development stages. According to [69] community involvement that stops at implementation and decision-making without extending to benefit-sharing and evaluation remains incomplete and may not achieve transformative empowerment. [73] also notes that interactive and self-mobilized participation, where communities are involved throughout the cycle—from planning to evaluation—tends to produce more sustainable outcomes. Moreover, [84] argue that involving communities in evaluation strengthens local accountability and leads to more adaptive, community-owned solutions. Furthermore, a study by [41] from the World Bank highlights that benefit-sharing is often the weakest point in participatory development, yet it is crucial for maintaining community motivation and trust. Failure to adequately address this stage may result in reduced long-term engagement and lower sustainability of development programs.

The addition of literature and discussion is expected to improve the quality of the manuscript I submitted, please provide input and suggestions if it still needs improvement. Thank you

7.     Thank you for the review, I agree that the benefit-taking stage of participation is considered unsatisfactory because it is the lowest compared to the other stages in Figure 8.

Perbaikan dan penambahan dilakukan pada:

Pages 17 – Subchapter: Benefit Capture Stage

In the benefit capture stage, the program's impact can be observed through several indicators, such as an increase in the community’s economic level, access to new employment opportunities, participation in submitting additional funding proposals (such as sponsorships) from external parties, and contributions in the form of goods, money, or regular donations. However, in the implementation of the environmentally cultured village development program in the Cirasea Sub-watershed, only a small portion of the community experienced economic improvement or obtained new jobs as a direct result of the program. This limited impact is mainly due to the fact that most participants already had stable employment before joining the development activities.

Several community members experienced a modest improvement in their economic status, particularly through involvement in waste management initiatives. Based on interview findings, a number of villages have begun managing waste, with certain types of waste being sold to generate additional income. Nevertheless, the increase in earnings remains relatively insignificant. In cases where waste management was carried out on a larger scale, additional labor was required. However, the individuals involved were not members of the environmentally cultured village community, but rather external workers temporarily assigned to assist.

Regarding efforts to secure additional funding or sponsorship from external parties, only a limited number of stakeholders were introduced to this initiative, and not all were willing to contribute as sponsors. Contributions in the form of goods, money, or routine donations were also limited to a few community members. These contributions were typically informal and seasonal. For instance, during harvest periods, some farmers donated food items such as peanuts, sweet potatoes, and corn to support community development activities. However, there was no formal mechanism for regular financial contributions within the program.

Page 12 and 13, Chapter 3 Result and discussion (Addition):

This definition is consistent with Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation [40], which differentiates not only the frequency of community attendance but also the depth of their engagement—ranging from passive compliance to meaningful involvement in decision-making processes.

Page 6, Continued Paragraph (Second Sentence):

As Cornwall (2008) [74] emphasizes, the local context plays a critical role in shaping participation indicators; at the village level, cultural norms and customary institutions—such as obligations to attend traditional meetings—should be considered when designing and adapting measurement instruments.

Thank you for this invaluable feedback. We recognize that focusing on a single government-led environmentally-cultured village program—even in regions with similar characteristics and community profiles—may limit the generalizability of our findings, as variations in program design or implementation strategies can produce different participation dynamics. To address this contextual limitation, we have added a recommendation in the Limitations and Future Research section, proposing a comparative cross-case study of government-sponsored and community-driven initiatives (or different government models) in similar settings, which will help clarify how institutional context and program structure influence community engagement.

We have updated the Conclusion on page 21 to include the following improvement:

“This study has several limitations; therefore, we recommend that future research conduct cross-case comparative analyses of government-sponsored and community-driven initiatives (or various government program models) in similar contexts to elucidate how institutional settings and program structures influence community engagement.”

Is this revised statement in the conclusion clear and sufficient, or should we add any other elements to enhance the manuscript’s clarity? Additionally, would you advise incorporating a brief review of previous studies on similar government programs?

We have updated the Conclusion on page 18 to include the following improvement:

“This study has several limitations; therefore, we recommend that future research conduct cross-case comparative analyses of government-sponsored and community-driven initiatives (or various government program models) in similar contexts to elucidate how institutional settings and program structures influence community engagement.”

Is this revised statement in the conclusion clear and sufficient, or should we add any other elements to enhance the manuscript’s clarity? Additionally, would you advise incorporating a brief review of previous studies on similar government programs?

8.     Thank you for the feedback and suggestions, related to Recommending long-term follow-up to assess whether “very good” participation in planning stages results in sustainable outcomes.

Theoretical and Empirical Support:

Page 13 sub chapter 3.1 Planning Stage (Decision-making)

Various studies have shown that a high level of community participation, particularly during the planning and decision-making stages, significantly contributes to the long-term sustainability of programs. Pretty (1995) [73] developed a typology of participation emphasizing that interactive participation—where communities are actively involved in decision-making and program planning—is more likely to yield sustainable outcomes due to a strong sense of ownership over the program.

Furthermore, Ostrom (1990) [60], in her theory Governing the Commons, argued that the success of managing common-pool resources greatly depends on the extent to which local communities are involved in rule-making and decision processes. High levels of participation enhance legitimacy, commitment, and compliance with collectively agreed outcomes.

In the context of environmental programs, Reed (2008) [79], in his systematic review of participation in environmental management, emphasized that meaningful and inclusive participation not only improves decision quality but also strengthens the social capacity.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. 
(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement. 

Response:

Thank you for your comments regarding the quality of the English in the manuscript I sent. The author has limitations, but the author tries to present articles that have good language quality with the help of various parties who really helped the author in perfecting this manuscript. One again I truly appreciate your comments. I have revised and paraphrased the sentences according to the reviewer's suggestions. Thank You.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Dear Reviewer

I would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to review my article entitled “Community Participation in the Development of Environmentally Sustainable Villages in the Cirasea Sub-watershed, Indonesia.” Your valuable insights and constructive feedback were very helpful in improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

I greatly appreciate your thorough evaluation of the content and your thoughtful suggestions for improvement. Your expertise in this field has been instrumental in improving the article, and I believe that your input will significantly strengthen the overall contribution of this work.

I have carefully considered all your comments and made the necessary revisions in accordance with your recommendations. Your dedication to the peer-review process is commendable, and your commitment to improving the quality of research is evident. Improvements have been made in accordance with the feedback and directions from the reviewers and the changes are in the resubmitted file.

Once again, thank you for your time, effort, and expertise. Your contributions are invaluable, and I sincerely thank you for your support in making this article more powerful and impactful. May your kindness be rewarded with an abundance of goodness. Thank you very much, and I wish you good health and success..

Warm regards,
Nur Syamsiyah

Universitas Padjadjaran

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Is the article adequately referenced??

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thanks for the suggestion, the manuscript has been added with references.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

3. Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

The paper is presented with clear and well-contextualized objectives. However, it is necessary to appropriately separate the methodological part from the descriptive part of the case study, which seems too confused with data processing. Knowing the reliability of the quantitative analysis and the statistical sample used is essential. It is not appropriate to use references at the regional-national level in the introductory and methodological parts of the paper. Authors are asked to reflect well on clarifying the points of originality of their contribution, especially concerning the international literature (in English) available on the subject.

Responses:

Thank you very much for your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the potential in our study, and we take your comments seriously. We understand that the current structure of the manuscript may have led to thematic confusion and a lack of smooth text flow. In response to your suggestions, we are in the process of extensively revising the manuscript to improve its clarity and coherence.

Comments:

1.   The scientific literature on the concept of 'development' is essentially exterminated. It is not appropriate to include in the introduction a text in a language other than English. The following reference should be used: SEN, A., Chapter 1, The concept of development, Handbook of Development Economics, Elsevier, Vol. 1, 1988, Pages 9-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-4471(88)01004-6. This reference is consistent with the reference n.62 and other contents of the paper.

Responses:

Thank you for the information, for the reference that previously referred to Tjokrowinoto, I have replaced it according to the main source, namely Saul M. Katz (University of Pittsburgh, 1965) with the title Guide to modernizing administration for nation development and added other supporting literature according to the feedback from the reviewer, namely SEN, A in the bibliography no. 63 instead of no.62.

Katz, S. M (1965), Guide to modernizing administration for nation development. University of Pittsburgh.

2.   The same of note to reference n1. the authors can use in this occasion reference n.62

Responses:

Thank you, I have added literature no. 63

3.   Please insert a reference here.

Responses:

References have been added in the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions

64. Mensah, J.; Enu-Kwesi, F. Implications of environmental sanitation management for sustainable livelihoods in the catchment area of Benya Lagoon in Ghana. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 2019, 16, 23–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]

65. Korten, D. C. (1984). Strategic organization for people-centered development. Public Administration Review, 44(4), 341-352.

66. Korten, D. C., & Carner, G. M. (1984). People-centered development: Contributions toward theory and planning frameworks. Kumarian Press.

67. Asian NGO Coalition. (1989). The Manila Declaration on People's Participation and Sustainable Development.

68. OECD Development Assistance Committee. (1998). DAC guidelines for gender equality and women's empowerment in development co-operation.

69. Alizadeh, H., & Sharifi, A. (2023). Toward a societal smart city: Clarifying the social justice dimension of smart cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 95, 104612.

4.   Human quality is programmed so that it can match the demands of de- velopment or the demands of society [3].

Please the authors don't use references in other languages than english. In my opinion there's the opportunity using other references languages only for indicate local information, data, context analysisi, etc.

Responses:

The authors have corrected the statement and added references that match the statement. The statement is: To ensure sustainable development, communities must actively adapt their skills and knowledge to meet evolving societal demands, thereby improving human quality through education and skill development, aligning with Smith's emphasis on societal needs and Johnson & Patel's focus on building community resilience

3.  Smith, J. (2019). Adapting to social change: Human development in dynamic societies. New York: Routledge.

70. Johnson, P., & Patel, R. (2020). Strategies for community resilience: Building human capacity for sustainable development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5.   in their region. According to [3], concludes that national development is: (1) a process of developing var- ious aspects of life, including social, economic, political, and others; (2) a process of social change, which is a process of improving various aspects of life in society towards a better, more advanced, and fairer state; (3) a process of development by, of, and for the people, meaning active community participation. Thus, development is a process that occurs gradually and sustainably to achieve better outcomes over time.

See above first note to reference n.3, or or specify that the following list refers to the context of the regional case study

Responses:

Have changed the statement according to the latest reference by reference Conyers, D. (1991). Social Planning in the Third World - An Introduction.

6.   See notes to other references above and See notes to references 1,2, 3, 4, 5, above

Responses:

The statement was revised in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions

Participation can be understood as a process in which citizens, both as individuals and social groups, are consciously involved, take part, and show solidarity, either directly or indirectly, without coercion from any party.

6. Sivesind, K. H., & Saglie, J. (2017). Promoting Active Citizenship: Markets and Choice in Scandinavian Welfare. Springer.

71. Tufte, T., & Mefalopulos, P. (2009). Participatory Communication: A Practical Guide. World Bank Publications.

7.   The article search was conducted using the following keywords: “participation*” OR ‘participations*’ OR ‘community*’ OR ‘community participation*’ OR ‘development*’ OR ‘sustainability*’ OR ‘environmentally*’ OR “environmentally cultured village develop- ment” OR ‘sustainable community’ OR ‘sustainable environmentally cultured village

The resulting search string was as fol- lows:

Key ( community and participation ) and pubyear > 2018 and pubyear < 2025 and (limit-to ( Subjarea , "soci" ) or limit-to ( Subjarea , "envi" ) or limit-to ( Subjarea , "arts" ) or limit-to ( Subjarea , "agri" ) or limit-to ( Subjarea , "busi" ) or limit-to ( Subjarea , "eart" ) or limit-to ( Subjarea , "econ" ) ) and ( limit-to ( doctype , "ar" ) ) and ( limit-to ( language , "English" ) ) and ( limit-to ( exactkeyword , "Community Participation" ) or limit-to ( ex- actkeyword , "Local Participation" ) or limit-to ( exactkeyword, "Human" ) or limit-to ( exactkeyword, "Participation" ) or limit-to ( exactkeyword , "Community" ) or limit-to ( exactkeyword , "Decision Making" ) or limit-to ( exactkeyword , "Participatory Approach" ) or limit-to ( exactkeyword , "Community Development" ) ) and ( limit-to ( OA , "all" ) ).

Please move these informations in a file separated attached to the paper

Responses:

The authors have removed it from the manuscript, in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions.

8.   There are lack of information regardind the opportunity to use the network analysis. could be opportune to insert some considerations or comments directly in the figure caption. this is a crucial point of the paper.

This topic is probably one of the points of originality of the paper: however, it is necessary to include scientific references to research that deals with the same topic.

Therefore, a com- prehensive and holistic study, both theoretically and methodologically, on sustainable environmentally-culture villages is necessary. This study discusses

Responses:

Differences from Previous References:

The key difference between this study and prior references is its holistic and interdisciplinary approach. While previous works have discussed sustainability, participatory development, or environmental conservation individually, this research combines these aspects to provide a more comprehensive framework for developing environmentally cultured villages.

For example:

Tufte & Mefalopulos (2009) focused on participatory communication but did not specifically address environmentally cultured villages.

72. Sanyal & Rao (2019) examined deliberative democracy in village assemblies but did not integrate sustainability principles.

Sivesind & Saglie (2017) discussed active citizenship in Scandinavian welfare systems but lacked a focus on environmental sustainability.

This study introduces a novel framework by integrating community participation with sustainable environmental culture in village development. Unlike prior research, which examined these components separately, this study provides a unified perspective that is essential for fostering sustainable environmentally cultured villages.

9.   The research hinges on this crucial point. In my opinion, this is an original effort in the studies in this field. Make sure to include a specific paragraph for more argumentation and remember it in the conclusions adequately.

Responses:

The author adds this statement as support in the conclusion that the writing makes based on the results of the research that has been done.

The conclusion of this study indicates that community participation in the development of environmentally-cultured villages in the Cirasea Sub-Watershed, Indonesia, is crucial for the success of environmental conservation programs and the sustainability of socio-economic benefits. The level of community participation varies at each stage, with the decision-making and implementation stages categorized as very good. However, participation in the benefit-taking stage is considered less satisfactory, while the evaluation stage falls into the good category. Human interaction with the environment is shaped by their worldview, influenced by culture, religion, and technological development. An imbalanced relationship with nature can lead to exploitation and environmental degradation, whereas a more harmonious perspective fosters balance and sustainability. As an integral part of ecosystems, human activities such as urbanization, agriculture, and industrialization significantly impact ecological cycles. Socio-economic factors, program characteristics, environmental conditions, and institutional support play a crucial role in determining the extent of community involvement in environmental preservation efforts.

Therefore, this study emphasizes the importance of a holistic approach that integrates social, economic, and environmental dimensions to enhance participation at all stages of the environmentally-cultured villages program in Indonesia. This approach not only strengthens the effectiveness of the program but also ensures that village development remains sustainable and inclusive. Furthermore, similar cases of community participation in environmental conservation efforts may also occur in other sub-watersheds in Indonesia or in regions and countries that share comparable program development strategies, community characteristics, socio-economic factors, program characteristics, environmental conditions, and institutional support. By fostering a participatory spirit, village development can more effectively accommodate community needs, ensuring that development initiatives are inclusive, reflective of local aspirations, and aligned with ecological balance.

Materials and Methods

10. The entire paper lacks an explicit narration of the case study. It should be inserted at this point, specifying also the number of inhabitants of the region, the number of users involved in the construction of the data and reporting the legislative context that concerns the object of the research.

Responses:

The author corrects this statement as a support in the conclusion that the writing makes based on the results of the research that has been done.

This research was conducted in Bandung Regency in the Cirasea Sub-watershed (DAS) as a case study. This research used a purposive sampling method. The research location was determined purposively based on the consideration that the Cirasea sub-watershed is the most upstream sub-watershed in the Upper Citarum watershed. Bandung Regency was chosen as the case study location due to its large population and its significance as part of a broader community that directly interacts with and depends on the sub-watershed for their livelihoods and environmental sustainability.

11. Please insert her some data to the knowledge of the case study and the reasons for the study selection in relation to the other parts on the nation.

Responses:

The author corrects this statement as a support in the conclusion that the writing makes based on the results of the research that has been done.

Bandung Regency, located in West Java, Indonesia, is a region with a population exceeding 3.6 million people as of 2020. This substantial population density presents unique challenges and opportunities concerning environmental sustainability and community engagement.

The selection of Bandung Regency, specifically the Cirasea Sub-watershed, for this case study is influenced by several factors:

1.      Strategic Environmental Importance: The Cirasea Sub-watershed is the most upstream part of the Upper Citarum watershed. Its condition significantly impacts the water quality and ecosystem health downstream, affecting millions who rely on the Citarum River.

2.      Community Dynamics: The dense population of Bandung Regency offers a rich context to examine community participation. Understanding how such a large community engages in environmentally cultured village development can provide insights applicable to other regions facing similar demographic pressures.

3.      Comparative Relevance: Compared to other parts of the nation, Bandung Regency's blend of urban and rural characteristics makes it an ideal microcosm for studying the balance between development and environmental conservation. The lessons learned here can inform policies and practices in other regions with comparable socio-environmental contexts.

By focusing on Bandung Regency, this study aims to explore the intricate relationship between population dynamics, community involvement, and environmental stewardship, offering valuable perspectives for broader applications across Indonesia.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. 
(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement. 

Response:

Thank you for your comments regarding the quality of the English in the manuscript I sent. The author has limitations, but the author tries to present articles that have good language quality with the help of various parties who really helped the author in perfecting this manuscript. One again I truly appreciate your comments. I have revised and paraphrased the sentences according to the reviewer's suggestions. Thank You.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Dear Reviewer

I would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to review my article entitled “Community Participation in the Development of Environmentally Sustainable Villages in the Cirasea Sub-watershed, Indonesia.” Your valuable insights and constructive feedback were very helpful in improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

I greatly appreciate your thorough evaluation of the content and your thoughtful suggestions for improvement. Your expertise in this field has been instrumental in improving the article, and I believe that your input will significantly strengthen the overall contribution of this work.

I have carefully considered all your comments and made the necessary revisions in accordance with your recommendations. Your dedication to the peer-review process is commendable, and your commitment to improving the quality of research is evident. Improvements have been made in accordance with the feedback and directions from the reviewers and the changes are in the resubmitted file.

Once again, thank you for your time, effort, and expertise. Your contributions are invaluable, and I sincerely thank you for your support in making this article more powerful and impactful. May your kindness be rewarded with an abundance of goodness. Thank you very much, and I wish you good health and success..

Warm regards,
Nur Syamsiyah

Universitas Padjadjaran

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you, must be improvedthe manuscript

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Is the article adequately referenced??

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thanks for the suggestion, the manuscript has been added with references.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

.

3. Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

1.   This is an interesting article, clearly argued so far as it goes, that contributes to our understanding of community involvement in development projects, especially in Indonesia. The data collection and analysis are generally sound but I there are significant missed opportunities worthy of further work on your data.

Responses:

Thank you for the input and suggestions that are very useful for the author. indeed, some other things in the manuscript are very interesting to be researched further, as a development that the author can do in future studies.

2.   I note you describe your respondents as "community members... involved in the development of environmentally-cultured villages": this by definition excludes those who were not so involved and therefore skews your results in favour of community engagement. I note too that you do not specify what type of community member they are. Are they owners of local businesses (who may be most likely to benefit from development) rather than more disadvantaged members of the community (who may be more likely to be exploited as sources of labour or whose property may be appropriated more the purpose of development than anything else)? Is inclusion limited to those who may be considered 'community leaders', excluding those of lower status in the community? Are women included as well as men? What is the general educational level of respondents, or knowledge of what kinds of benefits might accrue from development? We know nothing of this and yet they are crucial to fully understanding your results.

Responses:

Thank you for the input and suggestions that are very useful for the author. has added respondent criteria in chapter 2.1.

The respondents in this study were members of the environmentally cultured village community, which was formed by involving 20 people from the local population in the development area. The selection of participants was not based on gender, age, or occupation but rather on their involvement in the environmentally cultured village initiative. All individuals who participated in the program were considered respondents. However, in some areas, the number of participants was less than 20 due to factors such as relocation or the passing of some community members.

Thank you for the input and suggestions that are very useful for the author. has added respondent criteria in chapter 2.2.

“As the respondents' characteristics, such as gender, age, livelihoods, community characteristics, socio-economic factors, program characteristics, environmental conditions, and institutional support may differ from one development area to another, it is clear that the results reflect their experiences and may not be fully representative of the entire community.”

This explanation is expected to clarify the criteria for selecting respondents and show that this research aims to understand inclusive community engagement in the environmentally cultured village programs.

3.   Assuming that your respondents did include a full cross-section of the community membership (both relatively wealthy and relatively poorer, both high and lower status within the community, mixed sexes and genders, a range of ages and educational attainment, etc.) it would be useful to have a further breakdown of responses. Did the more advantaged / of higher status, older or younger, demonstrate greater involvement? How were benefits distributed across the community, etc. ? (I note that "improving the economic level of the community" ranks as 'good' but all other measures of benefit accrual ranked poorer: how does this apparent contradiction work -- and who actually benefits and how from the improving economic level?).

Responses:

Thank you for your valuable feedback and insightful questions. This article does not provide a detailed discussion of the specific benefits perceived by respondents. Instead, the focus is solely on assessing the extent of community participation at each stage of the environmentally cultured village program. The influence of factors such as gender, age, and occupation on participation levels will be explored in a future manuscript. The relationship between the level of community participation and sustainability can be analyzed from three main aspects: economic, ecological, and socio-cultural.

4.   Answers to these questions would greatly benefit readers, genuinely add to our understanding of such processes more widely, and make a fully useful contribution to the literature. It would also be useful to see some international comparison: work in other countries has also investigated patterns of community involvement in development and other programmes and it would be interesting to know how these compare to the Indonesian context.

Responses:

Thank you for your valuable input and suggestions. We greatly appreciate your interest in understanding community participation patterns and their broader implications.

In this study, our primary focus is to assess the level of community participation at each stage of the environmentally-cultured village program. While we acknowledge the importance of analyzing factors influencing participation and the distribution of benefits among different societal groups, these aspects are beyond the scope of this manuscript. However, we recognize their significance and plan to explore them further in future research.

Regarding international comparisons, we fully agree that examining similar programs in other countries would provide a broader perspective and enrich the discussion. In this article, comparisons are made solely based on a literature review of previous studies conducted at both local and international levels. We acknowledge that various studies have explored community involvement in development and environmental programs globally. This literature-based comparative analysis aims to identify common patterns, challenges, and best practices that could serve as references for policy development and program implementation in Indonesia.

Once again, we highly appreciate your constructive comments, which will help enhance the depth and relevance of our research contribution.

5.   At the very least, if further analysis along these lines is proposed, an indication in your Conclusions would be useful. 

Responses:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We appreciate your insight on the importance of providing an indication for further analysis in the Conclusions section.

In response to your suggestion, we have incorporated a generalization of our research findings in the conclusion. This generalization is presented with the understanding that similar patterns may be observed in other contexts where community characteristics, cultural and socio-economic factors, program characteristics, environmental conditions, and institutional support share commonalities.

We believe that this addition strengthens the applicability of our study and provides a foundation for future research exploring similar community participation dynamics in different settings. Once again, we sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which has contributed to improving the clarity and relevance of our study.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. 
(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement. 

Response:

Thank you for your comments regarding the quality of the English in the manuscript I sent. The author has limitations, but the author tries to present articles that have good language quality with the help of various parties who really helped the author in perfecting this manuscript. One again I truly appreciate your comments. I have revised and paraphrased the sentences according to the reviewer's suggestions. Thank You.

5. Additional clarifications